Commento su 'Eruvin 10:19

המוצא תפילין – in a field in a place where they (i.e., the Tefillin) are not guarded.

Introduction The final chapter of Eruvin is a sort of appendix to all of tractates Shabbat and Eruvin. It contains assorted rules which deal with both topics. Today’s and tomorrow’s mishnah deals with a person who finds a pair of tefillin in the public domain and wishes to bring them into the private domain to protect them.

זוג זוג – one for the head and another for the arm, in the manner that one dons them on weekdays, and that is as a pair, and then he always returns them and brings them in pair by pair until he brings in all of them, as he (i.e., the anonymous Tanna of our Mishnah) holds that Shabbat is a time for Tefillin, but the Sages made a decree upon them lest a strap breaks and he brings them with his hand, and if he were to don more than one pair, there is [the problem] of “not adding [to the commandment]” and this prohibition of “not adding” compares them upon him as a burden. But Rabban Gamaliel holds that Shabbat is not a time for Tefillin and that is the reason why the Rabbis permit saving them because it is adornment; hence, we bring them in two pairs at a time. For two pairs are an adornment since we taught that where there is on the head a place to wear two Tefillin, and all the while that they are an adornment, it is permitted, but because of [the prohibition of]“not adding” doesn’t apply here, for there is no commandment of Tefillin here at all, other than the rest of mere clothing. But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Gamaliel.

One who finds tefillin should bring them in one pair at a time. Rabban Gamaliel says: two pairs at a time. One who finds tefillin in a place where they may come to be damaged should not just leave them there. However, on Shabbat he cannot just carry them to safety because of the prohibition against carrying. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, he should put on a pair at a time and wear them until he can get them to a safe place. Then he should remove the pair he is wearing and go out and bring in another pair. The reason that this is allowed is that he is considered to be “wearing” the tefillin and not to be carrying them. A “pair” refers to a set one box for the head and one for the arm. Rabban Gamaliel holds that he can put two pairs on at the same time, because there is room on one’s head for two boxes and on one’s arm for two as well.

בישנות – where the knot is recognized (i.e., in old Tefillin) that they are definitely Tefillin and they have sanctity, and it is prohibited to place them in a contemptable location, but new Tefillin, we do not desecrate the Sabbath for them to bring them in for perhaps there are a mere amulet, and there is no sanctity other when they are made according to Jewish law for their purpose [of being Tefillin].

To what does this apply? To old ones but in the case of new ones he is exempt. The previous halakhah refers only to old sets of tefillin, tefillin which we know were made properly and are valid. However, new pairs of tefillin may not even actually be tefillin (they could be amulets), and even if they are tefillin, they may have been made improperly. Therefore, he is neither mandated to carry them in nor even allowed to do so.

צבותים – each pair of Tefillin is tied to itself.

If he found them arranged in a set or in bundles he shall wait by them until it is dark and then bring them in. If he finds many sets of tefillin in one place, he can’t bring them in because there are just too many to carry in one (or two) sets at a time. Neither should he just leave them there because they could be damaged. His only option is to sit and guard them until Shabbat is over.

כרוכים – many pairs [of Tefillin are tied] together.

In a time of danger, he should cover them and walk away. Guarding or wearing lost tefillin in a time of danger is not mandated. One shouldn’t endanger one’s life to protect a pair of tefillin. Therefore, if it is dangerous to either wear or guard them, the mishnah gives one permission to first cover them up so that they will not be noticed, and then to walk away and leave them there. The “danger” referred to in our mishnah refers to a time when the Roman authorities forbade the observance of commandments. This is probably the Hadrianic persecutions which preceded and followed the Bar-Kokhba revolt in 135 C.E. We should note that the Talmud ties the debate in section one to the issue of whether or not one is commanded to wear tefillin on Shabbat. Some tannaim hold that one does not wear tefillin on Shabbat and some hold that they are worn. The accepted halakhah is that they are not worn.

מחשיך עליהן – he sits and guards them until it becomes dark, and once it becomes dark, he brings all of them in together as in the case when they are many. For if he were to bring them pair by pair, he would not complete his bringing them in prior to the night, and if they are in a manner that he would complete bringing them in to the house before the night, he brings them in pair by pair as we stated.

ובסכנה – when they decreed religious persecution [against the Jewish religion] to not wear Tefillin, and our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: when is this said, in the danger of religious persecution, but if he fears to delay there because of robbers, he carries them less than four cubits.

ר"ש אומר נותנן לחבירו – and he doesn’t bring them in less [less] than four cupids for he fears from robbers, it was made a decree lest he cause them to pass from the beginning of four [cubits] to the end of four [cubits], and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, in which we discussed carrying tefillin in from the public domain.

וכן בנו – that his mother gave birth to in the field on Shabbat.

Rabbi Shimon says: he should pass them [the tefillin] to his fellow and his fellow should pass them to his fellow, and so on, until they reach the outermost courtyard. Rabbi Shimon is more lenient than the sages in the previous mishnah concerning bringing tefillin in from the public domain. While he also obviously cannot just allow a person to carry them in himself since this would be a toraitic prohibition, he does allow one to pass them in from person to person. Since no single person carries the tefillin more than four cubits in the public domain (which would be a toraitic transgression) this is allowed in order to protect the tefillin. Once the tefillin get to the outermost courtyard, where they will be protected, they shouldn’t pass them any further.

נותנו לחבירו –one gives him to his fellow, for this is preferable than to carry him a bit less than four cubits.

The same is true in the case of his child: he passes him to his fellow and his fellow passes him to his fellow, and so on, even if there are a hundred. This refers to a child who is born out on the field on Shabbat. The father (or anyone else) may not just carry him, since carrying a child who cannot walk on his own is a violation of carrying on Shabbat. Rather what he should do, according to Rabbi Shimon, is pass him from person to person until the child reaches the city. According to the Talmud, the other sages disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that in cases such as this, it would be better for one person to carry the child all the way back, as long as he stops to rest before he walks four cubits at one time. In such a way, he does not commit a toraitic transgression of Shabbat. This is preferred because this involves far less people than does Rabbi Shimon’s suggestion. In contrast, Rabbi Shimon reasons that advising someone to carry for a distance of less than four cubits at a time is dangerous because he may easily walk too far and thereby commit a toraitic transgression. We see here that there is a debate over what is worse the appearance of many people together carrying something on Shabbat, or the possibility that one person may commit an actual toraitic transgression.

אפילו חוץ לתחום – it speaks of an ownerless earthen wine jug, for if it has owners we surely hold that the animals and utensils are like legs of the animals, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that ownerless possessions do not acquire a place to be the center of Sabbath movements.

Rabbi Judah says: one may pass a jar to his fellow and his fellow may pass it to his fellow even beyond the Shabbat limit. They said to him: this must not go further than the feet of its owner. Rabbi Judah extends the halakhah stated by Rabbi Shimon above to include a situation where someone is stuck outside of the Shabbat border and need food or water on Shabbat. People from within the city may pass food or water out to him, even if it goes beyond the Shabbat limit. The sages partially disagree and hold that one may not pass something beyond the place to which the object’s owner may himself go. If the owner was dwelling in the city when Shabbat began, then just as he may not go beyond the Shabbat limit, so too his belongings may not be passed beyond that limit.

אמרו לו – Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri (see Talmud Eruvin 97b) is the one who states this for we understand from him that ownerless possessions do acquire a place to be the center of Sabbath movements in their place.

לא תהלך זה יותר מרגלי בעליה – that is to say, if they had owners and they did not create a symbolical community of residence by an Eruv, he would not walk more than two-thousand cubits; here too, he should not walk other than two-thousand cubits from the place where he appointed a place to be the center of Sabbath movements.

הקורא בספר – all of their books were rolled like our Torah scrolls.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who was reading a scroll while in one domain and the end of the scroll rolled out of his hand and went into another domain. He is left holding only one end of the scroll. The question is: can he roll it back to himself?

האסקופה – a kind of balcony/portico that is in front of the entrance of the house and it is a marked off plot in a public thoroughfare (which cannot be classified as either private property or as a public thoroughfare).

If one was reading a scroll on a threshold and the scroll rolled out of his hand, he may roll it back to himself. This person is not in the house but on the threshold of the house. The threshold is considered a “karmelit” a place that is neither a public nor a private domain. The scroll’s end rolls out of his hand and goes into the public domain. The mishnah allows him to roll it back to himself due to two factors: 1) he still holds one end of the scroll. Therefore, the scroll has not totally gone into the public domain. 2) The threshold is a karmelit and not a private domain.

גוללו אצלו – since for one head is in his hand.

If he was reading on the top of a roof and the scroll rolled out of his hand: Before it reached ten handbreadths from the ground, he may roll it back to himself; But after it had reached ten handbreadths from the ground he must turn it over with its writing downwards. In this case he is on the roof which is considered a private domain, and the scroll’s end falls down toward the ground. According to the first opinion, if the scroll gets to within ten handbreadths of the ground he may not roll it back. The area within ten handbreadths of the ground is considered to be part of the public domain, and it is forbidden to roll something back from the public domain into a private domain. What he should do in such a situation is turn the scroll over on its face in order to protect the side which has the writing. As we shall see below, this isn’t just any scroll, it’s a biblical scroll (a Scroll!) whose writing must be protected. If the scroll did not reach ten handbreadths within the ground then he may roll it back because it has not yet reached the public domain.

לעשרה טפחים – the lower parts that are near the ground of the public domain, for if the tie/knot is not in his hand, it is prohibited, according to the Torah (to roll it back), and we make the decree that the tie in his hand is on account of when the tie is not in his hand. But in the Gemara (Talmud Eruvin 98a), an object is raised for it does not rest, that is to say, even though it arrived at the ten lower handbreadths, there is no Torah prohibition here, even if he did not have the knot/tie in his hand, since it did not rest in the public domain, and we answer, such as case that there was there a slanting wall, and the scroll came to rest on the protruding part of the wall of the ten lower handbreadths, which is as if it came to rest in the public domain, but if the the knot was not in his hand, it would be a Torah obligation [that is violated] if he brings hit near him. But our Mishnah is taught deficiently and this is how it should be taught: if it arrived to the ten handbreadths from the ground, they turn over upon the written side. When is this said? With a slanting wall that rests, but with a wall that it not slanted, roll it back to himself, according to Rabbi Yehuda, for Rabbi Yehuda states that even if it is removed above the ground only a needle’s thickness, he may roll it back to himself, for we require resting upon something.

Rabbi Judah says: even if it was removed from the ground by no more than a thread's thickness he may roll it back to himself. According to Rabbi Judah, even if the scroll has reached ten handbreadths of the ground, it is still permissible to roll it back, as long as it has not touched the ground itself. Rabbi Judah seems to disagree with the previous opinion concerning whether or not the area ten handbreadths from the ground has the same status as the ground itself.

הופכו על הכתב – that the letters will be towards the wall in order that it not lie so much in disrepute, and we leave it there until it becomes dark [on Saturday night].

Rabbi Shimon says: even if it touched the actual ground he may roll it back to himself, since no prohibition that is due to “Shabbat rest” stands before the Holy Writings. Rabbi Shimon holds that in all cases this is permitted since this is a prohibition that is not “deoraita” from the Torah, but rather due to “Shabbat rest” (shevut). This term denotes an prohibition that the rabbis added to those of the Torah, the point of which is to preserve the character of Shabbat as a day of rest. In this case, rolling the scroll back is only a violation of “Shabbat rest” and not a deoraita violation. The reason for this is that he holds one end of the scroll in his hand when he rolls it back he is not taking something that is completely in the public domain and bringing it into the public domain. According to Rabbi Shimon, the respect and concern for the Holy Writings outweighs the rabbinic prohibition, and therefore he may roll it back.

דבר משום שבות – such as the case when the knot/tie is in his hand, and if it is not, this is the rest/abstention from any pursuit forbidden on Shabbat or a Jewish holy day/festival by the Rabbis as being out of keeping with the importance and sanctity of this day, if he comes to roll it up towards himself, for he is not liable from the Torah other than if the scroll left his hand completely and came to rest in the public domain, and he came to uproot it from the public domain and to place it in the private domain, but the Halakah is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

זיז – a stone or wood that protrudes from the wall on the airspace of the public domain, ten handbreadths above the ground of the public domain.

Introduction This mishnah contains two independent mishnayot. The first deals with a ledge in front of a window and the second deals with a person standing in one domain and moving objects in another.

נותנין עליו – those who live above and take them from him, for the airspace of the public domain does not extend other than up to ten [handbreadths] , and specifically for utensils that break like cups and glass which we place on it. But we do not do so for utensils that do not break, lest they fall into the public domain and they will go and carry them.

If there was a ledge in front of a window it is permitted to put objects on it or to remove objects from it on Shabbat. The ledge in front of the window of a house is assumedly more than ten handbreadths above the public domain. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, the air more than ten handbreadths above the public domain is not considered to be part of the public domain. Therefore, it is permitted to move objects from the house onto the ledge and vice versa. Some commentaries add that the ledge must be four handbreadths wide and long so that it can be considered a private domain.

עומד אדם ברה"י – in the house or on the roof and he takes an object here and places it there in the public domain, and even though his head and most of his body stands in the public domain in the place of the object, we do not decree that perhaps he will bring it near him.

A man may stand in a private domain and move objects in a public domain or he may stand in a public domain and move objects in a private domain, provided he does not take them beyond four cubits. The mishnah teaches that a man may stand in one domain and move objects within another domain and that we are not concerned lest he come to bring something from one domain into the other. Had we had that concern we would not have allowed him to stand in one domain and even touch an object in another domain. The only thing that he is not allowed to do is stand in the private domain and move an object four cubits in the public domain, since this is always prohibited.

ובלבד שלא יוציאוהו – from four cubits from where it was placed.

וישתין ברה"ר – for it goes forth from the private domain to the public domain, an d if he urinated, he is liable for a sin-offering, and even though we require uprooting from a place that has four cubits by four cubits, and urination and the spittle were as if they were lying in a place which has four cubits by four cubits.

Introduction This mishnah deals with moving body fluids, urine and spit, from one domain to the other.

שנתלש רוקו – and it formed globules and rolled around in his mouth, but the Halakha Is not according to Rabbi Yehudah.

A man may not stand in a private domain and urinate in a public domain or in a public domain and urinate in a private domain, and similarly he may not spit. It is forbidden to stand on Shabbat in one domain and urinate or spit into another domain. The Talmud adds that one who does so is liable to bring a sin offering, which means that this is considered a toraitic violation. We might have thought that since the urine and spit come from his own body that he is not liable, therefore the mishnah comes to teach us that he is liable.

Rabbi Judah says: even when a person’s spit accumulated in his mouth, he must not walk four cubits before he spat out. Rabbi Judah adds that one is liable even for carrying accumulated spit in one’s mouth. Note that this is only true once the spit has accumulated otherwise he would be obligated to spit (or swallow) every four cubits.

וישתה ברה"ר – and these words regard with utensils that require him, for we make the decree as perhaps a person will carry it, but with utensils that don’t require him, it is permissible, even if he didn’t bring in his head and the majority of his body into the public domain.

Introduction This mishnah deals with standing in one domain and drinking from another.

וכן בגת – regarding tithing, that if he brought his head and the majority of his body into the wine-pressing vat, he can drink without tithing, for it is considered a ‘chance’/incidental drinking but outside the wine-pressing vat, he is not allowed to drink without tithing for that would be regular drinking.

A man may not stand in a private domain and drink in the public domain or stand in a public domain and drink in a private domain unless he puts his head and the greater part of his body into the domain in which he drinks. If one stands in one domain and drinks from another, he is considered to be bringing water from one domain to the other. This is the opposite of the case of urinating in the previous mishnah. However, this is permitted if his head and most of his body are in the domain in which he is drinking. Even though his legs are in the other domain, since the water won’t really go directly down to his legs this is permitted.

קולט – catch, that is to say, receive from the running waters and drink.

And similarly concerning a winepress. The same rule as above also applies to standing outside of a winepress and drinking directly from the winepress. This is prohibited unless his head and most of his body is in the area of the winepress. The Talmud explains that this is prohibited even if the winepress is only a karmelit and not a private domain.

המזחלה – like a kind of sloping building made next to a wall where water is running or on top of the ground which is called “flowing”/זוחל as it is written (Deuteronomy 32:24): “[with venomous] creepers in dust.”

A man may intercept water from a gutter at a level below ten handbreadths, This refers to someone standing in the public domain who wishes to collect the runoff rainwater overflowing from the gutters on a roof. He may not collect this water directly from the gutter because the gutter is in the private domain and he is in the public domain. What he should do is put his vessel ten handbreadths within the ground of the public domain and catch the water there. Once the water is within the ten handbreadths mark it is already in the public domain and he is therefore not taking water from one domain to another.

למטה מעשרה טפחים – is our reading, and this is how it should be understood: A person stands in the public domain and catches [liquid] in a vessel that is ten handbreadths lower from the water that is coming down from the gutter/spout and he catches it explicitly as it explains in the Gemara (Talmud Eruvin 99b) but he does not combine/join and attach to the mouth or the utensil to the spout which is less than three [handbreadths] nearest the roof, even though it is less than ten [handbreadths], nevertheless, for since it is lying on the length of the wall and within three [handbreadths] of the roof, it is like the roof and it is like removing from the roof which is the private domain to the public domain.

And from a water-spout he may drink in any manner. Whereas the gutter goes all the way around the wall, the water spout goes straight from the wall emptying out in the public domain. It does not have the status of a private domain and therefore he may drink directly from it.

ומן הצנור מ"מ – that is to say, whether it catches or whether it attaches because the spout always protrudes and goes out to the public domain, and in the Gemara (Talmud Eruvin 99b) it establishes that when the spout lacks four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] it doesn’t divide a domain to itself.

וחולייתו י' חלון שעל גבה ממלאין ממנה – because its surrounding bank which is the rim that is around it is ten handbreadths high, and we hold that the public domain is not higher than ten handbreadths, other than in an exempt place, therefore, we fill up from the window that is over it (into the house) on the Sabbath, that entails removing from the private domain to the public domain through an exempt place, and even if a pit is removed from the wall of the window four handbreadths, we fill from it, for there is no public domain forming a partition from the pit to the window at the time when we are filling water other than the exempt place alone.

Introduction This mishnah deals with drawing water from a nearby cistern into a house or pouring water out from a house into a nearby garbage heap. In both cases this is allowed so long as both areas are private domains.

וכן אשפה ברשות הרבים גבוהה י' טפחים – it is the private domain and we don’t suspect lest [someone] takes garbage and stands less than ten [handbreadths], and one comes to throw it, as at first, and specifically the garbage of the public, which is not made to be removed but garbage of the individual which is made to be removed we don’t throw it on the Sabbath for we are concerned that perhaps he vacates it/eases oneself on it, and it is like the public domain.

If a cistern in a public domain had an embankment ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to draw water from it on the sabbath through a window above it. Around a cistern they would make a rim of earth. If this rim was higher than ten handbreadths, then it and all of the area from the ground and above is considered to be a private domain. The window is also a private domain and therefore, one could draw water from the cistern through the window.

If a garbage heap in a public domain was ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to pour water on it on Shabbat from a window above it. This is basically the same situation as in the previous section. If the garbage heap is ten handbreadths high then it is a private domain, and again he is taking something (the water) from one private domain and pouring it into another private domain.

המיסך – that its branches hang over downwards from all of its sides around.

Introduction The first part of this mishnah deals with carrying below the branches of a tree and sitting on a tree’s roots. The second part of the mishnah deals with setting up a make-shift door.

מטלטלין תחתיו – for since its branches are not three handbreadths or higher from the ground, they are like the legal fiction of considering separated parts as united and they are seen as partitions. Therefore, it is permitted to carry underneath it, but nevertheless, it is necessary to fill the airspace that is between the branches and the land with straw, stubble and similar things, and to tie up the branches so that the wind doesn’t move them for a partition that is unable to withstand a wind that is present is not a partition. But we don’t carry in it other than in a field requiring one Se’ah of seed (a square measure) which is seventy cubits and a balance (less than eighty) for every partition whose usage is for the airspace, that is to say, to protect the airspace of the fields and vineyards and not to dwell there, we don’t carry there other than with a field requiring one Se’ah of seed/בית סאתים.

If a tree overshadows the ground: if its branches are not higher than three handbreadths from the ground it is permitted to carry underneath it. If a tree’s branches lie within three handbreadths from the ground it is as if they are attached to the ground. This is a special rule that is applied in certain circumstances according to which anything that is three handbreadths from the ground it is as if it is attached to the ground. Assumedly the branches are at least ten handbreadths high and therefore they act as partitions. The area in between the branches is therefore considered a private domain and it is permitted to carry there.

לא ישב עליהן – for it is prohibited to use a tree lest one detaches something, but if it is not higher than three [handbreadths], it is permitted to sit upon it.

If its roots are three handbreadths high above the ground, one may not sit on them. On Shabbat it is forbidden to climb on or make any use of a tree, lest by doing so one comes to break off a branch, an activity which is forbidden. The mishnah teaches that if the roots are higher than three handbreadths one may not sit on them, since they are part of the tree. However, if they are less than three handbreadths than they are part of the ground and it is permitted to sit on them.

הדלת שבמוקצה – it is wide, that is behind the house, and its door is not affixed with a hinge like other doors but stands upright against the opening and when he opens it, the door attaches to the ground.

With the door in the “muktzeh”, and the thorns in the breach [of a wall] and reed mats, one may not close an opening, unless they are high off the ground. In this context “muktzeh” refers to a backyard separate from the courtyard which was used usually for storage. Since people didn’t regularly go in and out of the muktzeh and it was only used to store items which were not particularly valuable (like produce and wood) it did not have a regular door, with a hinge and lock. Rather the door was just propped up against the opening in the wall and when people went in, they would take the door down and lay it on the ground. The thorns referred to here were used to fill up holes in a wall. The mishnah says that it is forbidden to use these three things (the muktzeh door, the thorns and the reed mats) to make a door. The reason is that these are not actually doors (which have hinges and locks) and therefore one who puts them into the opening of the wall looks like he is building, and not just putting a door in its place. In other words, this is prohibited because it looks too much like building. However, if when placing them he raised them from the ground, then it is clearer that he is not building and it is permitted. Others explain differently. They explain that these three things will make furrows in the ground when the door is opened and it is forbidden on Shabbat to make furrows. Therefore, if he wishes to use them as a door, he must lift them a little off the ground so that they won’t make furrows.

חדקים – thorns that they set up to close with them a breach.

וכן מחלצות – [matting] of reeds – all of these are not attached and are not affixed in their places but when we come too open, we cast them on the ground; therefore, we don’t lock with them for it appears like “building,” other than if they are above the ground, for then, they do not appear like “building” and one can lock things with them.

לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד – and take a key that is placed in the public domain and open with it the door to the store that is placed in the public domain and even though there isn’t from the place of the key to the opening four cubits, as decree lest he would bring in the key near him.

A man may not stand in a private domain and open a door in the public domain, or in the public domain and open a door in a private domain, unless he has made a partition ten handbreadths high, the words of Rabbi Meir.
They said to him: it happened at the [oxen and chicken] fatteners’ market in Jerusalem that they would lock their shops and leave the key in a window above a shop door.
Rabbi Yose says: it was the wool-dealers’ market.
This mishnah deals with standing in one domain and opening a door in another domain.
Section one: The person in this mishnah is standing in one domain and wants to open a door with a lock in another domain. The key is already in the other domain, the one in which the door is located, for if it were not, it would be obviously prohibited to move the key from one domain to the other. Rabbi Meir rules that this is prohibited lest after he is done unlocking the door, he pulls the key back into the domain in which he is in, thereby moving it from one domain to another. The only way that this is permitted is if he makes a partition ten handbreadths high. For instance, if he is in the private domain and the door is in the public domain, he could make a partition ten handbreadths high in the public domain, in the area where the key is, so that he and the key would both be in private domains. Alternatively, if he is in the public domain, he could make a ten handbreadth high partition where he is and then he may open the door which is also in a private domain.
Section two: The people who worked in a certain type of market in Jerusalem would stand in the public domain and lock their shops and leave the key in the window (the key must never have been in the public domain). From here we can see that it is permitted to stand in one domain and lock a door in another.
There is a debate in the mishnah over what type of market it was. According to the first opinion it was a “fattener’s market” where they would fatten up fowl and cattle before slaughtering them. According to Rabbi Yose it was a wool market. However, the actual content of the halakhah is not debated.

אא"כ עשו לו מחיצה – and stand in it and open it and/or lock it.

אמרו לו ולהא מעשה בשוק של פטמים – the Rabbis heard Rabbi Meir for just as when he said that a person should not stand in the private domain and open [a door] that is in the public domain, this is how it should also be understood: a person should not stand in a Karmelit and open [a door] in the private domain and/or stand in the private domain and open in the Karmelit, and because of this when he gives him from the crammers’ market (where animals are fattened for sale or who deals in such) that was in Jerusalem which is a Karmelit, since its doors are locked at night, it is not a called a public domain, and the window where they place the key was in the private domain, they would stand in the Karmelit and open it the private domain.

פטמין – butchers who fatten animals to slaughter, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir, neither in the public domain nor in the Karmelit.

של צמרים – sellers of wool.

נגר – a kind of door-bolt that they insert in the walls or in the lintel to lock the door.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a bolt or type of peg that they would use to lock a door. The bolt has a knob on one end of it, which makes it possible to do other types of work (for instance grinding) with the contraption.

גלוסטרא – that its top is wide and round like a pomegranate and is made like a club (with a handle used as a door-bar – see Talmud Eruvin 102a) that one uses to pound with it peppers, and even though it has the status of a utensil, Rabbi Eliezer forbids it other than it if is attached and hanging on the door. But Rabbi Yosi permits it and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi.

A bolt which has a knob at one end: Rabbi Eliezer forbids it [to be moved]; But Rabbi Yose permits it. Rabbi Eliezer forbids using this type of bolt on Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Joshua permits it. There are several explanations for this debate. One is that Rabbi Eliezer holds that the bolt is not considered to be a “vessel” and hence it is muktzeh. The knob, which is a vessel, is secondary to the bolt and hence it is not considered. Rabbi Judah holds that the knob is primary and hence the entire contraption is considered to be a vessel. Another explanation is that according to Rabbi Eliezer when he puts the bolt into the door, it looks as if he is building, because the bolt is not a “vessel.” In contrast, Rabbi Joshua holds that since the bolt is a vessel, it does not look as if he is building.

Rabbi Eliezer said: It happened in a synagogue in Tiberias that they were customary to permit it, until Rabban Gamaliel and the elders came and forbade it to them. Rabbi Yose said: they treated it as forbidden, Rabban Gamaliel and the elders came and permitted it to them. In this section both rabbis bring precedents for there rulings. Both precedents are really opposite versions of the same event. According to Rabbi Eliezer the people used to permit its use until Rabban Gamaliel and the other elders came and prohibited. According to Rabbi Joshua, the people used to prohibit until Rabban Gamaliel came and permitted it. One thing I find interesting in this story (in either version) is the relationship of the rabbi to the synagogue and its customs. In the beginning, the synagogue operates separately from the realm of the rabbis and in halakhic contradistinction to them. There certainly is no “synagogue rabbi”, an invention which is rather modern. However, according to the story, the rabbis seem to be periodically visiting the synagogues and when they get there they issue a halakhic ruling which is followed. The relationship of the rabbis to the synagogue in antiquity is a complex subject, one about which much has been written. This mishnah demonstrates how complex the subject can be.

נגר הנגרר – a bolt that is attached to the door, but it is not suspended from it, as the rope that is tied to it is long and the bolt drags on the ground, and we are dealing with a bolt that lacks at its head a knob/club. But if it has a club/knob, Rabbi Yosi permits it even though it is not attached, and the Halakha is according to him.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with bolts, this time referring to a bolt that does not have a knob on it.

נועלים בו במקדש – for this is merely something forbidden by the Rabbis as being out of harmony with the celebration of the Sabbath (and Yom Tov), and it is not actually “building” for since it is fastened, but rather because it drags, it appears like building, but there is no Sh’vut in the Temple.

A bolt that drags along the ground: it is permitted to lock [a door] with it in the Temple but not in the country; The bolts were usually attached to the door with a rope and put into their place when one wanted to lock the door. The first section deals with a bolt attached to the door by a rope, but a rope long enough to let one end of the bolt drag on the ground. The first opinion holds that use of this bolt is prohibited, but its prohibition is only “derabannan” of rabbinic origin. Rabbinic prohibitions do not generally apply within the Temple and hence this type of bolt may be used to lock a door in the Temple. However, it is forbidden in the rest of the country, because it looks as if he is building. Since it is attached to the door already, it is not actually building and hence the prohibition is only of rabbinic origin. If it were attached to the door and not dragging it would have been completely permitted but since it is dragging one who looks at it may not notice that it is actually attached to the door and therefore it is prohibited.

והמונח – it is not attached at all, it is really “building.” And Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is not really “building,” but rather looks like “building.” But in the Temple, they (i.e., the Rabbis) did not decree because of Sh’vut. But even one who drags in the country (i.e., outside of Jerusalem/the Temple), is permitted, since it is attached, and even though it is not suspended. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

But one that rests on the ground is forbidden both here and there. In this case the bolt is totally detached from the door and it is resting on the ground. Since it is not attached to the door at all, he is considered to be building and the prohibition is deoraita, or toraitic origin. Toraitic prohibitions are still prohibited even in the Temple.

Rabbi Judah says: one that rests on the ground is permitted in the Temple but one that drags on the ground is permitted [even] in the country. Rabbi Judah is more lenient than the first opinion. He holds that a bolt that rests in the ground is also only prohibited derabanan (from the rabbis) and hence it is only prohibited outside of the Temple. The bolt that drags on the ground and is attached to the door is not prohibited at all since everyone can see that this is not actually building.

מחזירין ציר התחתון – of the door for all the time that the upper hinge/pivot had not gone out, it is easy to restore it, and there is no “building” involved.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a hinge that has fallen off a door and whether or not one may reinsert it on Shabbat. The language and structure of this mishnah closely follows yesterday’s mishnah.

אבל לא במדינה – a decree lest he fasten it which is work.

A lower hinge [of a door] may be reinserted in the Temple but not in the country. The upper one is forbidden in both. According to the first opinion, it is forbidden to reinsert the lower hinge in the country [anywhere outside the Temple], lest while doing so he puts in a nail and strikes it, which would be an act forbidden according to the Torah. In the Temple this is permitted since in the Temple certain rabbinic prohibitions do not apply. As we shall see, outside of the Temple it is all the more so forbidden to reinsert the upper hinge. It is forbidden to reinsert the upper hinge in all regions even in the Temple. The upper hinge is more essential towards holding the door in its place and without it, the entire door would fall. The prohibition is still only of rabbinic origin, lest he come to strike a nail, but since it is more likely that he might violate a toraitic prohibition, the act is prohibited in the Temple as well.

העליון כאן וכאן אסור – for since the top [hinge] came out, all of it falls and it would be to him like “building.”

Rabbi Judah says: the upper one may be re-inserted in the Temple and the lower one in the country. Rabbi Judah is again more lenient, as he was in yesterday’s mishnah,. In the Temple, reinserting the upper hinge is permitted, and all the more so reinserting the lower one is permitted. According to Rabbi Judah, we need not be strict inside the Temple for fear that someone will violate a toraitic law, since those observing in the Temple will ensure that this does not happen. Outside of the Temple reinserting the upper hinge is still prohibited lest he come to strike a nail, but reinserting the lower one is permitted, and we are not concerned that by permitting this he might come to violate the toraitic prohibition of striking a nail.

רבי יהודה אומר כו' – there is no building with utensils and there isn’t anything other than [the issue of] doing something forbidden by the Rabbis as being out of harmony with the celebration of the day. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

מחזירין רטיה – a Kohen that needed to perform the Temple service on Shabbat and took off an emollient that had been on his hand in order that there wouldn’t be an intervening object between his flesh and his Temple service, restores it on top of his wound after the Temple service performed, for if you did not permit him to restore it, he would be prevented and would not perform the Temple service.

Introduction There are three independent sections to this mishnah. What is common to all three is that they mention actions which are permitted on Shabbat in the Temple but not permitted outside of it. As we learned in the previous two mishnayot, in the Temple certain rabbinic prohibitions are waved, under the assumption that even if one performs the activity, one will not come to violate a toraitic prohibition. Another similarity is that in all three cases, under certain circumstances the activity would be prohibited even in the Temple.

אבל לא במדינה – a decree lest he would rub off the emollient and be liable because of rubbing/blotting out.

One may replace a plaster bandage on a wound in the Temple but not in the country. At the outset, it is prohibited in both. This section refers to a priest who has a wound and enters the Temple with a bandage over the wound. Under the bandage is a poultice. If the bandage falls off he may replace it, because the prohibition of putting on a bandage on Shabbat is only of rabbinic origin (shevut), and rabbinic prohibitions are permitted in the Temple. It is prohibited outside the Temple lest one come to prepare a poultice, which is a toraitic prohibition. Finally, the mishnah notes that to put on a new bandage is prohibited in either place because when making a new bandage it is very likely that he will come to prepare a poultice.

ואם בתחלה – it was not attached while it was still daylight and this Kohen did not go up for the needs of the Temple service.

A harp string may be tied up in the Temple but not in the country. At the outset, it is prohibited in both. If a harp string breaks on one of the harps (or other string instruments) in the Temple, it may be tied. Since this prohibition is only of rabbinic origin, it is permitted in the Temple. Outside the Temple it is prohibited. Both in and outside of the Temple, it is forbidden to tie a new harp string to the harp. The commentators explain that this string is tied in a place where it will not remain permanently, for if it was tied permanently it would be a toraitic violation, and hence prohibited in the Temple as well. Finally, if the harp string was not there before Shabbat, he may not tie it there on Shabbat even in the Temple because he should have tied it there before Shabbat.

כאן וכאן אסור – and we don’t say here that there is no issue of doing something forbidden by the Rabbis as being out of harmony with the celebration of the day in the Temple, for it is not for the need of the Most High (i.e., God), but his own need hat the Rabbis forbade restoring the emollient for it is not anything other than spreading it out on the ground, but if he took it in his hand, all the time that it is in his hand or even placed upon a utensil and he didn’t spread it on the ground, it is permissible to restore it, in every case.

One may remove a wart in the Temple but not in the country. If [the operation must be performed] with an instrument it is forbidden in both. A priest who has a wart (a yabelet) may not serve in the Temple (Leviticus 22:22). However, this wart may be removed in the Temple on Shabbat either by picking it off with his hand or biting it off with his teeth, since this is not the normal means by which to remove a wart (sounds quite painful). We have noted on several occasions that if an activity that would normally be prohibited by the Torah is done in an unusual manner, it is only prohibited by rabbinic decree. Since the prohibition is only rabbinic, it is permitted in the Temple. Outside the Temple it remains prohibited. Finally, the wart may not be removed using an instrument in either place, since this would be a toraitic violation.

They may tie up a string - the string of a ‘kinor’ played by the Levites [in the Temple] which snapped on the Sabbath.

ואם בתחלה – he had never been there that he couldn’t have done it from the day before, it is prohibited.

יבלת – it is a blemish on holy things, as it states (Leviticus 22:22): “[Anything blind, or injured, or maimed,] or with a wen, [boil-scar or scurvy – such you shall not offer to the LORD; you shall not put any of them on the altar as offerings by fire to the LORD],” and we cut it off in the Temple by hand for [this act] is nothing other than doing something forbidden by the Rabbis as being out of the harmony of the Sabbath day, and it is done in with the back of the hand/indirectly but not with a utensil, since that is complete work which is how it is accomplished on weekdays, and when you cut it off from a living being, that is a derivative of shearing the wool.

כורך עליה גמי – even though the reed heals the wound for since now, however, it is the need of the Temple service that is not the custom that his wound should be seen with the Temple service and he covers it with reed/bulrushes.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with things which may be done on Shabbat in the Temple but not outside of it.

אבל לא במדינה – for healing on the Sabbath is something forbidden by the Rabbis as being out of harmony of the Sabbath day and is prohibited.

A priest who was wounded in his finger may wrap some reed-grass round it in the Temple but not in the country. But if he intended to draw out blood it is forbidden in both cases. The reed-grass mentioned in this mishnah was a type of bandage that also had medicinal properties. As we have learned previously, it is forbidden to heal on Shabbat; therefore it is forbidden to use this reed-grass on Shabbat outside of the Temple. However, the rabbis allowed it to be used in the Temple since it was necessary to cover the wound while the priest performed his service in the Temple. Drawing blood from a wound on Shabbat is a toraitic violation it is derived from the prohibited labor of “squeezing.” Therefore, if the reed-grass was put on the wound with the intention to draw out blood, it is prohibited even within the Temple. As we have stressed many times, only rabbinic violations are waived in the Temple, not toraitic ones.

ואם להוציא דם – that he fastens it with red/bulrushes in order to remove its blood.

They scatter salt on the altar’s ramp so that the priests shall not slip. In the Temple it was permitted for them to scatter salt on the altar’s ramp so that the priests would not slip while going up and down to offer sacrifices. Outside of the Temple this is prohibited because it is considered “fixing.”

כאן וכאן אסור – for it is wounding a person and is one of the chief labors forbidden on the Sabbath and would not be permitted in the Temple.

They draw water by means of a wheel on Shabbat from the cistern of the exiles and from the great cistern, and on a festival day from the Hakar cistern. The mishnah mentions two cisterns that were situated within the Temple confines from which it was permitted to draw water using a wheel. However, outside of the Temple the rabbis forbade drawing water by means of a wheel, since this might lead to large quantities of water being drawn and a person might use the water to irrigate his field, an activity prohibited on Shabbat. Unlike the previous two cisterns, the “Hakar” cistern was not in the Temple. Nevertheless, in contrast to all other cisterns outside of the Temple it was permitted to draw from it using a wheel on festivals. The Hakar cistern was used by the pilgrims during the Second Temple period that came for the festivals. The prophets and Jewish leaders at the time allowed the Jews to draw from it by means of a wheel on the festival because of the necessity for large quantity of waters for the many pilgrims. Since it was justifiably permitted in the past the rabbis allowed Jews to continue to use it even after the destruction.

בוזקים מלח – crush and scatter salt on the ramp that they (i.e., the Kohanim) ascend on it to the altar because it is smooth and sometimes, they fall from it and their feet slip on it. בוזקים is the language of crushing.

אבל לא במדינה – because it is repairing.

ממלאים מים מבור הגולה ומבור הגדול – this is their names and both of them are in the chamber of the Temple courtyard.

בגלגל – that is made to lift up the bucket by it through cables and from these two wells alone, they (i.e., the Rabbis) permitted to fill water with the wheel on Shabbat, but the other wells were forbidden as a decree lest he fill up his garden and his ruins because he fills it without a trouble, and he would end up watering with his garden and ruins on Shabbat, and in a place where there one doesn’t make a decree lest he provide water to his garden and his ruins, it is permitted to fill them on the wheel. But we don’t suspect because a public announcement is made as they only prohibited the sound of the song alone. And that is so that they permitted knocking at the door or striking the gate on Shabbat and there is nothing in this.

ומבור הקר – on account of the fact that it was a well of living waters, they called it the Welling/Outpouring Well, from the language of “source”/מקור. And this well was needed for the people from the Diaspora on the Jewish holy day and the prophets that were among them, Zechariah and Malachi permitted them to fill from it with a wheel on the Jewish holy day and it remained when they permitted that they could fill from it with a wheel on the Jewish holy day even in the countryside (i.e., outside of Jerusalem in the land of Israel), which was not the case with the other wells that flow.

Introduction The final mishnah deals with removing a dead creeping thing, which is a primary source of impurity, from the Temple.

בהמיינו – with his belt and even though it ritually defiles his belt which is holy, this is preferable so that the defilement is not detained in the Temple courtyard to go to search after a pair of wooden tongs and that his hands didn’t come in contact with it so that the Kohen himself would not be defiled. Therefore, with his girdle he grabs it that he didn’t touch it and the unclean reptile does not defile through carrying and the belt which is ritually defiled by the unclean reptile does not defile the Kohen when he holds it for the belt is first level of Levitical defilement, but a person and utensils do not receive defilement other than from the original or direct causes of Levitical defilement.

If a [dead] creeping thing was found in the Temple, a priest should carry it out in his girdle in order not to keep the impurity there any longer than is necessary, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka. Rabbi Judah says: [it should be removed] with wooden tongs in order that uncleanness shall not increase. In this section we see two different strategies concerning how to respond to a dead creeping thing that found its way into the Temple. According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka the priest should pick it up with his girdle in order to remove it as fast as possible. However, he should not pick it up with his hands because that would cause him to become impure. Even though when he picks it up with the girdle the girdle will become impure, the girdle will not in turn cause him to become impure because clothes don’t impurify people. The main goal is to get the creeping thing out of the Temple as quickly as possible. Rabbi Judah says that he should pick it up with wooden tongs which cannot become impure. The problem with this is that it will be harder to catch the creeping thing with wooden tongs than with his girdle. Nevertheless, according to Rabbi Judah it is preferable not to increase the things which it causes to be impure.

From where must it be removed? From the sanctuary, from the hall, and from between the hall and the altar, the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas. Rabbi Akiva says: from any place where karet is incurred for entering intentionally and a sin-offering for entering in error from there it must be removed, and from any other place they cover it with a large pot. Rabbi Shimon says: wherever the sages have permitted you anything they have only given you what is really yours, since they have only permitted you that which is forbidden as shevut. The second section of the mishnah deals with the question of from where must the creeping thing be removed if it is found in the Temple on Shabbat. The problem is that by removing the creeping thing he is moving something from one domain to another, which is a violation of carrying on Shabbat, although as we shall see below, it is only a rabbinic violation. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas, it must be found from within the sanctuary and inwards. However, if it is found in the courtyard they cover it with a pot and leave it there until after Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva expands this area to include any area which makes a person liable for karet if he intentionally enters it impure and for a sin-offering if he unwittingly enters it impure. Practically speaking, this means that Rabbi Akiva includes the entire courtyard, from within the Nikanor Gate. According to both sages, if the creeping thing is found in another area, one from which it may not be removed, they cover it with a pot so that nothing comes into contact with it. Rabbi Shimon’s comment does not directly relate to this topic but is really a remark meant to complete all of tractate Shabbat and Eruvin, two tractates which are really only one. Rabbi Shimon explains that all of the leniencies which we have found strewn throughout the two tractates, cases where we thought something would be prohibited but the rabbis allowed one to do the action because there was some necessity, are only cases of the sages giving to the people what is really theirs. This means that the prohibition was only of rabbinic origin in the first place under certain circumstances the rabbis allow what they would otherwise prohibit. However, Rabbi Shimon is adamant that one not construe these leniencies as rabbis allowing one to abrogate or even circumnavigate toraitic law. It seems to me likely that Rabbi Shimon’s comment is directed at those who doubt the entire validity of eruvin what gives the rabbis the right to allow a person to carry from domain to domain on Shabbat, they ask. Rabbi Shimon responds that an eruv allows one to carry only in cases where the prohibition is only “derabanan” of rabbinic origin, and not cases which would be prohibited by toraitic law. Congratulations! We have finished Eruvin. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Eruvin is known as one of the most difficult of tractates, its laws and rules are intricate and very precise. Perhaps in a more “midrashic” interpretation of the tractate, we saw how one builds a community by sharing a common meal and by sharing Shabbat together. While the Mishnah Yomit community does not eat together nor spend Shabbat together, I hope that our common Torah learning will serve us all as “spiritual food” (I hope I’m not surprising you all too much by becoming so “mushy”.) In any case, for those of you who stuck with it and made it through this difficult material, a hearty Yasher Koach. May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more Mishnah! Tomorrow we begin Pesahim.

שלא לרבות את הטומאה – to ritually defile a pure belt and it is appropriate for him to detain it there and to go after a pair of tongs rather than increase the defilement. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

מהיכן מוציאין אותו – on the Sabbath.

מן ההיכל ומן האולם – but if it is found in the Temple courtyard, cover it with a large pot and leave it there until it gets dark.

כל מקום שחייבין על זדונו כרת – if he would enter it in a state of ritual defilement into the Temple courtyard, they remove him from there and all the other places they cover it with a large pot, a copper pot.

ושאר כל המקומות כופין עליו פסכתר – The Aramaic translation of his pots is his pots to cover it until it gets dark, and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

ר"ש אומר מקום שהתירו – Rabbi Shimon disputes the first Tanna/teacher of above (i.e., Mishnah 13) who said that we tie a string in the Temple and he holds that we do not tie a chord of harp that broke other than fastening with a loop (i.e., not making a knot) which is forbidden because only because of being an activity that the Rabbis forbade as not being in harmony with the observances of the day/Sh’vut. But it is impossible that it would come through it to an obligation from the Torah, but we don’t tie with a knot, for it is possible that it would come through it to an obligation from the Torah, and Rabbi Shimon says to the first Tanna/teacher: do not be amazed at me that I am stringent here and regarding Sabbath limits, I am more lenient. For I saw, that even if he went fifteen cubits outside the Sabbath limit, he can enter. For concerning Sabbath limits, they (i.e., the Sages) gave to you what is yours because they knew that those fifteen cubits are not outside of the Sabbath limits for those who measure the Sabbath limits establish fixed markers at the end of the limit, it is established regarding them that they don’t fix the limit at the end of two-thousand exactly, but rather enter into the limit because of those who err who don’t recognize the sign/symbol and sometimes they go out further than it a little bit and then return. For that reason, I am lenient with the Sabbath limits. But to tie a cord in the Temple which they did not permit in the Temple, other than a prohibition of Sh’vut/forbidding something as not being in harmony with the observance of the day of Shabbat which is not a Torah obligation I am strict and say that specifically fastening with a loop (i.e., not making a knot) which has the prohibition of not being in harmony with the observance of the day of Shabbat, but not to make an actual [permanent] knot, for sometimes there is an obligation from the Torah. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.