Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 55

weight attached to one end, will not, when dropped, reach bot- tom. If, however, the line will reach bottom, the actual meas- urement of the cleft must be counted." What must the depth of the cleft be in order that it may be passed over ? Said R. Joseph: " Even if it be more than two thousand ells deep." According to whose opinion is this teaching of R. Joseph ? Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that if the cleft is one hun- dred ells deep and fifty wide it may be passed over but not if it be more ? while the anonymous teachers hold, even if it be two thousand ells deep. Then R. Joseph's teaching coincides neither with that of the first Tana nor with that of the anony- mous teachers ? The Boraitha refers to a case where the depth of the cleft cannot be sounded with the sounding line, while R. Joseph refers to a case where the sounding line can be dropped straight down. If the sounding line cannot be used, what dis- tance may he go to find another location for measuring ? Said Abimi and also Rami bar Ezekiel: " Four ells." '' If a hillock is encountered," etc. Said Rabha: "This refer to a hillock with a base of five ells and a peak of ten spans; but a hillock with a base of four ells and a peak of ten spans should be merely estimated and the measurement resumed." ' ' Providing the legal limit is not overstepped, ' ' etc. What is the reason therefor ? Said R. Kahana : In order that it may not be said, that the legal limit commences at the spot where the hillock had already been passed over {i.e., if the hillock was too wide to be passed over in the line of the legal limit and another place had to be selected for passage, it serves as a pre- cautionary measure, in order not to appear as if the legal limit commenced at the point on the other side of the hillock, which, by virtue of its accessibility, had been selected for passage). " If the line cannot be passed over the hillock,'' etc. The Rab- 136 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. bis taught: "What is meant by cutting straight through the mountain ? " The man at the foot of the mountain should hold the line to his breast and the man at the summit should hold it to his feet. Said Abayi : There is a tradition to the effect, that the mountain must not be cut through (measured) except with a hne measuring four ells. Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba bar Abbahu : " The law of cutting through the mountains does not apply in the case of the heifer, which must have its neck broken (see Deut. xxi. 1-9), and not to the cities of refuge (see Deut. xix. 2-10 ; and Numbers xxxv. 6). MISHNA: The measurement must be undertaken only by one who is an expert (in measuring land). If the legal limit was carried farther to one place than to another, the farther limit is held to. If one surveyor carried the limit farther than another, the farther measurement is abided by. Even a bond-man or bond-woman must be credited if testifying, that " Until here is the Sabbath-limit " ; for the sages do not intend to enforce a more rigorous observance (of the law) but to make it more lenient. GEMARA: What is meant by, "the farther limit is held to " ? What about the shorter limit ? Is that not within the limit ? The Mishna must be read : Even the farther limit is also held to. ' ' If one surveyor carried the limit farther than another, ' ' etc. Said Abayi: " Provided the difference in the distance does not exceed the diagonal measurement of the town." MISHNA: If a town (originally the property) of a single individual, becomes (property) of the public, all the household- ers residing therein may combine in preparing the Erub. If the town originally was public property and becomes the property of an individual, all the householders must not join in the Erub, unless a number of dwellings outside of the city was not included in the Erub made by the town proper, which number was equal to the new town in Judaea; i.e., containing fifty dwell- ings. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah; R. Simeon, however, holds, that it is sufficient if three courts each containing two houses were not included. GEMARA : The Rabbis taught : What is meant by originally the property of a single individual, and become property of the public? Said R. Jehudah: "For instance, the district of the Exilarch." Rejoined R. Na'hman: "Why dost thou mention the district of the Exilarch, because many people come there TRACT ERUBIN. 137 and it thus becomes like public ground ; but the seat of govern- ment being there, it will serve as a reminder, that there is a law against carrying on the Sabbath ? Still even in a place where many Israelites congregate on the Sabbath, even if the seat of government is not there, they will remind each other of the law ? Therefore," continued R. Na'hman, " (it is not necessary that the district be the property of the Exilarch) it may be like the district of Nathazai, who owned a whole town." The Rabbis taught : In a town, originally the property of an individual, which had become public property, containing a wide street, how should an Erub be made ? Either a side-beam or a cross-beam must be erected at each end of the street (providing the town was not surrounded by walls) and it is permitted to carry throughout the street. It is not permitted, however, for one half of the town to combine in an Erub (because the city, having at one time been the property of an individual, the other half will prove a bar to those who have combined in the Erub). Either the whole town must combine an Erub, or each entry must make an Erub for itself. If, however, the entire town was at all times public property, and have but one exit, an Erub may be combined for the whole town. Who is the Tana who holds, that even for the wide street an Erub may be effected ? Said R. Huna the son of R. Je- hoshua: This is according to R. Jehudah, as we have learned in a Boraitha: " Moreover, R. Jehudah said: ' A man having two houses, one at each end of a wide street, may make a cross or a side beam at each end of the street and is allowed to carry throughout the street,' and the sages rejoined: ' Such an Erub is not sufficient for a wide street.* " The Master said: "It is not permitted for one half the town to combine an Erub." Said R. Papa: This prohibition refers to an Erub made lengthwise in half the town but in the breadth of half the town (which contained one of the two exits of the whole town) it is allowed. The Master said : " Either the whole town must combine an Erub or each entry must make an Erub for itself." Why should an Erub not be effected in one half of the town, because the other half might prove a bar ? Why should one entry then not prove a bar to another ? Each entry may erect a door for itself, which will signify that there is no connection with the others.