Talmud sobre Eruvin 1:11

MISHNAH: Lulav and willow six and seven¹The entire Chapter only refers to the service in the Temple. The willow twigs referred to here are not those tied to the lulav; these are subsumed under the name of lulav and are not mentioned further, just as the myrtle branches are not mentioned. The willow twigs are large ones used around the altar, as described in Mishnah 4. The numbers mentioned refer to the number of days the corresponding action is required. If the Sabbath of the holiday week was not the first day, the willow twigs to surround the altar were not brought on the Sabbath.; Hallel and joy eight²These apply both on the seven days of Tabernacles and on the additional final holiday (Num. 29:35) which is separate from Tabernacles.. Sukkah and water libation seven³Since no Sabbath violation is possibly connected with these, they are obligatory all seven days of Tabernacles., and the fife five and six⁴The fife accompanying the nightly festivities of drawing the water for next day’s libation, impossible both on the full holiday and on the Sabbath.. When is the lulav seven? If the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, the lulav is taken seven times; on all other days six⁵If the first day of the holiday is a Sabbath, the use of the lulav in the Temple is prescribed by Lev. 23:40 and therefore supersedes any possible Sabbath violation. But the Sabbath on any other day of the holiday week has precedence and prevents the taking of the lulav. Similarly, the willows to surround the altar were carried on the seventh day even if it was a Sabbath since one holds that on that day it is a biblical command, as explained in the Halakhah..
How the willow seven? If the seventh day of willow falls on a Sabbath, the willow is seven {days}, on all other days six⁵If the first day of the holiday is a Sabbath, the use of the lulav in the Temple is prescribed by Lev. 23:40 and therefore supersedes any possible Sabbath violation. But the Sabbath on any other day of the holiday week has precedence and prevents the taking of the lulav. Similarly, the willows to surround the altar were carried on the seventh day even if it was a Sabbath since one holds that on that day it is a biblical command, as explained in the Halakhah..

Now is a house which is very high not obligated to have a parapet, or to have a mezuzah¹²Since a sukkah is a temporary house, one has to understand why the rules for a sukkah should be different from those for a house; in particular why a sukkah can be called by this name only up to a height of 20 cubits (11m). Naturally, a sukkah needs no parapet (Deut. 22:8) since nobody can walk on its roof, and it needs no mezuzah(Deut. 6:9) since it is used only for 7 days and the obligation of mezuzah starts only with 30 days’ use.? But a house is roofed, a sukkah is not roofed¹³A house must be a permanent shelter which also protects against winter rains; this does not apply to the thin thatching covering a sukkah.. We find that thatching is like roofing, as we have stated there¹⁴Mishnah 1:10. Everywhere an empty space up to 3 hand-breadths width is disregarded (cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 248). This also applies to houses., “if the thatching was three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” But a house is completely enclosed, a sukkah is not completely enclosed. If a porch¹⁵Greek ’εξέδρα ‘η, a covered walkway. Cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 88. was totally open to the public domain, do not Rebbi Ila [in the name of]¹⁶Corrector’s addition. A comparison with the text in Eruvin(Chapter 1, Note 92) shows that it is unnecessary, and could have been replaced by a comma. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, one may carry in its entirety¹⁷While this is a well-defined space, it has no walls. In order to treat it by the rules of an alley one has to hold that the beams which form the frame for the roofing (which may be either a complete roof or simply lattice work) define virtual walls around the walkway. For the rules of the Sabbath, one should compare the porch to an enclosed alley, whose entry beam also cannot be higher than 20 cubits. The rule is waved for the porch.? What about it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell¹⁸Lev. 23:42.. Up to twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the thatching; from twenty cubits and higher he sits in the shade of the walls. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if you are saying, if it¹⁹The thatching. For him a low thatching in very high walls creates a qualified sukkah. is put higher than twenty cubits on the walls. But if it was put lower than twenty cubits inside the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said to him, in your opinion, since you are saying that it is depending on the walls, it should state that “a sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits on the walls is disqualified.²⁰R. Jonah’s explanation is rejected; the thatching must be on top of the walls.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, if it only holds a person’s head, most of his body, and his table²¹A minimal sukkah has space for one person. Since they were taking dinner lying on couches, there must be room inside for that part ot the couch on which his head and body rest; the legs may be outside. In addition there must be a small table for the food. For any sukkah larger than this, the restriction in height is not valid. Accepted in the Babli, 2b.. But if it holds more it is qualified. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia, only if its walls do not reach up all the way, but if its walls reach up all the way it is qualified. But does not a baraita disagree²²Tosephta 1:1, Babli 2b.? “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sukkah of Queen Helena²³Of Adiabene, who moved to Jerusalem as a widow. in Lydda was higher than twenty cubits and the Sages were coming and going there and nobody was saying a word. They said to him, because she was a woman, and a woman is not obligated²⁴As a positive commandment tied to a specified time it does not apply to women, Mishnah Qiddušin1:7.. He said to them, is that a proof? Did she not have seven learned sons²⁵It is spelled out in the Tosephta that they were sitting with their mother in her sukkah.?” Could you say that the sukkah of Queen Helena only held a person’s head, most of his body, and his table? But it must be that the walls do not reach up all the way. What Rebbi Josia said is reasonable and the baraita does not disagree, since it is the way of rich people to make their walls airy so that cool air may enter²⁶Therefore it is accepted practice that the height restriction does not apply to a sukkah which is not minimal and whose thatching rests on the walls..

And it was stated thus¹⁰Tosephta Sukkah1:13.: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. Rav Hoshaia asked, what if the one hand-breadth one is put in the middle⁷⁴Normally one would expect that the two large walls form a right angle Γ with the third (rabbinic) rudimentary wall parallel to one of the larger ones. He asks whether the two large ones may be parallel and the third at right angles to them: ׀ _ ׀. Since up to three hand-breadths open space are disregarded, the distance between the two parallel walls can be up to 7 hand-breadths, qualified according to everybody. Therefore the answer has to be positive.? He came back and asked, if one of the four hand-breadths ones was put in the middle⁷⁵That the shape is ׀ _׀. In this case there are three walls of 4 cubits each but the missing part is larger than 3 hand-breadths., how is it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Such a case came before Rebbi Yasa and he qualified it. And it was stated thus⁷⁶Tosephta 1:8. Since later the rule is compared to those for eruvin and kilaim, one has to assume that on each side the total length of the open space is less than the sum of the diameters of the columns (cf. Eruvin Chapter 1, Note 246.): “If a courtyard is enclosed by pillars, the pillars are like walls.” Does not a baraita disagree? If they are made according to the rules they are qualified, not according to the rules disqualified. They wanted to say, in the middle⁷⁷That “not according to the rules” means the small (rabbinic) wall in the middle.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if these are not opposite those⁷⁸A configuration like^׀ _ _׀ is disqualified.. Rav said, that one of one hand-breadth must be removed from the wall by one hand-breadth⁷⁹As explained in Note 74, with the permitted empty spaces the theoretical space covered by the one hand-breadth wall must be 7 hand-breadths.. Samuel said, even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant⁸⁰It is enough if one has one hand-breadth and adjacent three empty ones.. Rebbi Abba, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: even if it is arbitrarily close, one considers it as if distant. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one follows this one, the other one the other. Cahana and Assi came and asked before Rav following that of Samuel⁸¹Since the answer is not given, we do not know Rav’s real position.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if it is within three hand-breadths like a lathe⁸²In order to be able to carry in a dead-end street (bordered by the walls of houses) with an eruv, the dead-end street must be separated from the public domain by a visible entrance. This can be effected either by making a symbolic door by putting a horizontal beam over the entrance (Note 6) or creating a symbolic entrance post by putting up a vertical lathe. As door-post it has to be on the wall bordering the street. According to our rules, “on” always means “within three hand-breadths.”.

MISHNAH: One does not take wood from a hut⁵Any hut, not necessarily the sukkah of Tabernacles. A hut is a building and removing logs from it is wrecking it, a biblical violation both on the Sabbath and a holiday. but only from what is leaning on it⁶Logs not permanently attached to the hut are not part of it and may be removed if needed.. One brings wood from the field from what was collected⁷Logs arranged in orderly heaps are arranged by humans for use by humans and therefore prepared for use on a holiday. Logs strewn around in disorderly fashion on meadows or in forests are not arranged by humans and therefore may not be collected on the holiday., but from a corral even what is strewn about. What is a corral⁸From which wood may be taken even if strewn around.? Any close to the village, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, any into which one enters with a key⁹Everything in such a space is there for some use and may be used on the holiday without restriction., even inside the Sabbath domain¹⁰Even if the corral is close to 2’000 cubits from the village and few people would venture so far on a holiday..

“On a cow’s horn.” The Mishnah⁷⁷Which requires that the cow be delivered to the wife as bill of divorce. in case he says to her, here is your bill of divorce. But if he says to her, here is your bill of divorce and the remainder is for your ketubah, her bill of divorce and the payment of her ketubah were received together⁷⁸The moment she accepts the horns carrying the bill of divorce, she acquires the animal as part payment of the ketubah. There is a small problem here which is not mentioned in either Talmud: A bill of divorce can be given to a wife against her will but the ketubah can be delivered in merchandise, instead of coin, only with her consent. Since transfer of property of an animal always requires an act of acquisition, the husband who writes the bill of divorce on the horns of a cow gives up his right to unilateral divorce.. If he said to her, here is your bill of divorce and the payment of your ketubah together⁷⁹In the first case, the payment of the ketubah was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b, the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi.? Rebbi Ezra⁸⁰Reading of the Geniza. The reading of the Leiden ms., R. Ze‘ira, cannot refer to R. Ze‘ira, the head of the Academy of Tiberias, who lived in the second generation after R. Mana I and two generations before R. Mana II. A R. זְעוּרָה, student of R. Mana I, is quoted a few times in other places in the Yerushalmi. asked before Rebbi Mana: If he delivered the halter to her, what⁸¹A bridled animal can be acquired by the buyer by taking the halter in his hand and causing the animal to walk one step at his command.? In commercial law, the buy is acquired, do you say so here⁷⁹In the first case, the payment of the ketubah was a consequence of the delivery of the bill of divorce. As it is explained at the end of the paragraph, one may interpret the verse as meaning that the bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand unconditionally, not as part of an acquisition of anything else. In this opinion, the requirement that the payment of the ketubah be simultaneous with the divorce, not a consequence of the divorce, invalidates the proceedings. In the Babli, 20b, the example is a bill of divorce engraved on a plate of gold and Rav Naḥman states that the simultaneous delivery of divorce document and ketubah is valid, in contrast to the conclusion of the Yerushalmi.? Or is it a difference since it is written: “he shall deliver into her hand,” until it is completely in her hand⁸²The bill of divorce has to come into the wife’s hand by being delivered by the husband, not by an active act of acquisition on her part. The formulation of this paragraph implies that this delivery of a bill of divorce is classified as invalid.!

⁹¹A Hebrew version of most of the story is in Midrash Samuel (ed. Buber) 25. This Nabal⁹²“Scoundrel”. But the name seems to be Arabic نبل “possessed of superior qualities, generous, noble.” was a descendant of Kelubai. Nabal said, nobody in Israel comes from a better family than I. That is what is written⁹³1S. 25:2.: A man from Maˋon had his business in Karmel; the man was exceedingly rich, a Kalebite, a descendant of Kelubai. David heard in the prairie that Nabal was shearing⁹⁴1S. 25:4.. Tell him, to life⁹⁵1S. 25:6.! For long life. Peace be with you, etc. Rebbi Justus from Sunem said, they formed a camp⁹⁶This is a side remark; it is more explicit in Erubin 1, 19c l. 75. In v. 4, it is stated that David sent 10 men to Nabal; in v. 6 it is stated they encamped. He concludes that the legal definition of a camp (for the religious obligations in wartime) refers to a minimum of 10 men.. Nabal answered David’s servants⁹⁷1S. 25:10., etc. From where that in criminal trials the voting starts from the side? Samuel the Elder stated before Rebbi Aḥa: David told his men⁹⁸1S. 25:13. The argument is quoted in the Babli, 36a, in the name of R. Johanan. The verse explains that David told his men to gird their swords; he girded his sword last. This is read to mean that he first polled his men whether Nabal should be executed for the crime of lèse-majesty; he gave his vote last., etc. He flew at them⁹⁹1S. 25:14.. What means he flew at them? He made them fly with words¹⁰⁰Rashi quotes this in his Commentary to the verse.. Now know this and consider what to do¹⁰¹1S. 25:17.. She fell in with them¹⁰²1S. 25:20., she bared her thigh and they walked by its light¹⁰³Since in v. 3 she is described as a radiant beauty.. She fell in with them, they all were recognizable¹⁰⁴In the dark of the night.. [David] said, was it in vain that I watched¹⁰⁵1S. 25:21., etc.? Pissing on a wall¹⁰⁶1S. 25:22.; why does he refer to the dog pissing on a wall? Even with the dog I shall not have mercy. Abigail saw David¹⁰⁷1S. 25:23., etc. She told him, my lord David, what did I do, what did my children do, what did my animals do? He answered her, because he insulted the kingdom of David. She asked him, are you a king? He told her, did not Samuel anoint me as king? She answered him, our Lord’s Saul‘s coin¹⁰⁸Latin moneta. is still circulating. And I am your servant¹⁰⁹1S. 25:25.; this proves that he asked her for sex¹¹⁰Since in each sentence she repeats that she only is his servant, she has to emphasize that she is not going to be his companion.. Immediately, she brought out her stains¹¹¹Indicating that she was not available since she was menstruating, and treating him as a rabbi, competent to decide whether blood was menstrual or not (cf. Introduction to Tractate Niddah.) and showed him. He said, does one investigate stains in the night? She retorted, may your ears hear what your lips say! Stains one does not investigate in the night, does one judge capital cases in the night? He answered, his sentence was already passed in daytime. She retorted, may this not be פוּקָה for you¹¹²1S. 25:31..