Full text of "New edition of the Babylonian Talmud"

See other formats

NEW EDITION

OF THE

BABYLONIAN TALMUD

Original Uejt, JEfcfteo, Corrected, jformulatefc, an&
Uranslateo into Englisb

MICHAEL L. RODKINSON

SECTION MOED (FESTIVALS)
TRACT ERUBIN

Volume III.

BOSTON

THE TALMUD SOCIETY
1918

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

In our translation we adopted these principles:

».. Tenan of the original — We have learned in a Mishna; Tania— We have
learned in a Boraitha; Itemar — It was taught.

2. Questions are indicated by the interrogation point, and are immediately
followed by the answers, without being so marked.

3. When in the original there occur two statements separated by the phrase,
Lishna achrena or Watbayith Aetna or Ikha d'amri (literally, "otherwise interpreted "),
we translate only the second.

4. As the pages of the original are indicated in our new Hebrew edition, it is not
deemed necessary to mark them in the English edition, this being only a translation
from the latter.

5. Words or passages enclosed in round parentheses ( ) denote the explanation
rendered by Rashi to the foregoing sentence or word. Square parentheses [ ] contain
commentaries by authorities of the last period of construction of the Gemara.

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

10 EUWCLEY PLACE
TO ft U« TO 5, C£.rtADA.

FEB101932

CONTENTS.

PAGE

INTRODUCTION TO TRACT ERUBIN, v

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS OF VOLUME III. — TRACT ERUBIN, . ix

CHAPTER I.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE WIDTH AND HEIGHT OF AN
ERUB CONSTRUCTED IN STREETS INHABITED SOLELY BY
ISRAELITES, AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE CON-
STRUCTION OF AN ERUB BY A CARAVAN, . b i

CHAPTER II.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF A WELL AND A GAR-
DEN ON THE SABBATH, 40

CHAPTER III.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING WHEREWITH AND WHERE AN ERUB
MAY BE MADE. WHEREBY AN ERUB BECOMES INVALID.
THE ERUB OF LIMITS, WITH ITS CONDITIONS. WHEN A
FESTIVAL OR NEW-YEAR PRECEDES THE SABBATH, . . 62

CHAPTER IV.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE OVERSTEPPING OF THE LEGAL
LIMITS ON THE SABBATH, AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE
SABBATH-DISTANCE, » -93

CHAPTER V.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE BOUNDARIES OF A TOWN AND

THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE LEGAL LIMITS, . . .119

ill

iv CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VI.

PAGE

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE ERUBIN OF COURTS AND PART-
NERSHIPS, .......... 145

CHAPTER VII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PREPARATION OF ERUBIN FOR
COURTS SEPARATED BY APERTURES, WALLS, DlTCHES, AND
STRAW-RICKS. COMBINATION OF ERUBIN IN ALLEYS, . 179

CHAPTER VIII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE ERUBIN OF LIMITS. THE
QUANTITY OF FOOD REQUIRED FOR SUCH ERUBIN, AND
FURTHER REGULATIONS CONCERNING ERUBIN OF COURTS, 198

CHAPTER IX.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE COMBINING OF ROOFS ON

SABBATH, 214

CHAPTER X.

SUNDRY REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SABBATH, . . 227

INTRODUCTION TO TRACT ERUBIN.

THIS Tract, virtually the third of the Sabbath series, treats
of subjects similar to those discussed in the first two. The main
point of difference is, that most of the laws laid down in the
preceding two volumes are founded on biblical behests, while
those instituted in the present volume are of purely rabbinical
origin, notwithstanding the assertion of a solitary individual who
appears in the course of a debate and declares that the legal-limit
branch of the Erub is a biblical enactment.

A remarkable feature of the Tract is the exposition of the
manner in which the shrewd sages circumvene the rigorous pro-
hibitions contained in the Tract Sabbath and how they take
advantage of every loophole afforded them through imperfec-
tions in the law, at the same time avoiding any palpable infrac-
tion of the law itself.

As already explained in the introduction to Volume I., the
restrictions with which the Sabbath was surrounded had their
unquestionable political import, but their very rigor made the
sages, than whom none knew the people better, doubt whether
enforcement and still less voluntary observance could ever be
possible. It became necessary, therefore, to find some way of
modifying the law, not directly, but by the institution of other
in a measure counteracting laws. The solution for this problem
presented itself in the "Erub" (literally "commixture")
ordinances, the first results of which were to bring about a dis-
tinction between the different kinds of ground inhabited by man.
Lines of demarcation between public, unclaimed, and private
ground and ground which was under no particular jurisdiction
were strictly drawn. Whatever ground, however, could be made
by hook or crook to come under the category of private ground
was eagerly included, as in the latter things could be carried
about at will. In order, therefore, to have as much private
ground as possible, each man having an interest in public ground
would relinquish or transfer his right to his neighbor and thus
make it communal or private property. Of course, this could be

vi INTRODUCTION TO TRACT ERUBIN.

done only among Israelites, and where a Gentile had an interest
in a piece of coveted ground, his share had to be bought out-
right.

It was this desire to be in the same neighborhood, yea, even
on the same grounds, that laid the foundation of the subsequent
Ghettos, still flourishing in most of the large cities of the world.
How this communal living was fostered may be readily under-
stood, when it is stated that the sages permitted the execution
of a written instrument in Palestine on the Sabbath, under ordi-
nary circumstances a grave offence, where a piece of property
had to be purchased from a Gentile for communal purposes.
(See Gitin, 8b, and Schulchan Aruch Orach Chaym, 306, §n.)

The name of this Tract may be said to have a certain signifi-
cance. The Hebrew word " Erub " has a variety of meanings,
among them " commixture," as stated, " agreeable," " secure,"
and ' ' safeguard. ' ' As the discussions in the Tract will demon-
strate, either one of these meanings may be applied to the appel-
lation of the Tract and still express the purpose of the laws
ordained. By those laws the observance of the Sabbath was
made " secure," they proved a " safeguard " against " amalga-
mation " or " mingling " with other nations, and by virtue of the
modification to the laws of Sabbath which was brought about,
the observance of the Sabbath was made more ' ' agreeable. ' '
Several other meanings might be utilized in the same manner,
but lest they seem far-fetched they are omitted.

Another peculiarity of this Tract is that under no circum-
stances and on no occasion is the derivation of a law enacted in
this particular Tract inquired into, and unlike other tracts there
will not be found a single query as to where the Mishna derives
the law. For want of other sources the institution of the Erub
has been attributed to King Solomon, vide page 51.

The main subjects of discussion in the following pages will
be how this Erub shall be effected, what materials shall be used
to bring about a commixture, how entries (by which is meant
the entry to a court or a yard where an aggregation of families
reside) are to be arranged, and the like.

Altogether there are four kinds of Erubin, only three of which
will be discussed in this treatise. They are : The combining of
courts, the combining of limits, and the combining of streets,
also known as junction. The other commixture is called com-
bining of cookery, which will be treated at length in Tract Yom
Tob.

INTRODUCTION TO TRACT ERUBIN. vii

The combining of courts deals with the regulations by the
observance of which various houses standing in one court are
joined together into one common ground, thus enabling the
householders to carry and convey articles to and from one
another. The combining of limits treats of the regulations
through which the distance of two thousand ells, beyond which
no Israelite is allowed to travel on the Sabbath, may be legally
extended.

The combining of streets treats of the rules to be observed
in the case of narrow streets and public places which can be
turned into private ground under certain conditions.

Finally, it may be well to add that, of all the difficult and
complicated treatises in the Talmud, the Tract Erubin is by far
the most difficult, and in a great many places almost incompre-
hensible to other than the most careful students.

THE EDITOR.

NEW YORK, September, 1897,

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS

VOLUME III.— TRACT ERUBIN*

CHAPTER I.

MISHNA I. treats : If an entry be higher than twenty ells. The size ot
the height is based upon the door and the porch of the pillars of the temple,
or palaces of kings. If the cross-beam was partly above twenty ells, and
partly below. The ell used at a booth and an entry measures five spans, but
the ell used at Kilaim is six spans. The several prescribed quantities,
the intervention of articles, and the ordinances concerning the walls of
entries and booths were given by Moses at the Mount Sinai, and also Gud,
Lavud, and crooked walls. About Kal Vochomer (d fortiori), which comes
very often in the Talmud. The people there were ignorant, and had to be
given a liberal interpretation of the ordinance. How must entries facing
public ground be combined by an Erub ? May the rigorous ordinances of
two Tanaim be applied to one case ? What was decided about a village of
a shepherd, where was an entry which opened into a vacant yard. May the
space underneath the cross-beam be used ? The law about an entry which
was provided with a number of side-beams (with the illustration). The law
about a missing portion of the wall, perceptible from the inside or from the
outside (with their illustrations). Whether an entry measuring twenty ells
could be reduced to thirteen and a third if built as illustrated ? What R.
Jehudah taught to R. Hyya, the son of Rabh, and how Rabh corrected.
How an apparent door is to be made, 1-22

MISHNA II. What is required to legalize the carrying within an entry.
How the sages were very lenient with all things pertaining to water.
Whether water may be taken from an arm of the sea which enters a court-
yard. There is a tradition about an entry that can be legalized by a side or
cross beam. Why was Rabbi, or Rabh, more sagacious than his colleagues ?
Why were the school of Hillel favored ? Because modest. Two years the
schools of Shammai and Hillel disputed whether it were better that man had
not been created as he was, 22-28

* See introduction to synopsis in Tract Sabbath, Vol. I., p. xxix.

x SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

MlSHNA III. The cross-beam must be wide enough to hold a half of a
brick. About a cross-beam put up over an entry but not reaching the oppo-
site wall. Anything measuring three spans in circumference is one hand
in width, 28-31

MlSHNAS IV., V., VI., and VII. The height and thickness of the side-
beam. How much is meant by thickness " whatever it may " ? About a
side-beam standing of itself. There was a pillar about which Abayi and
Rabha differed all their lives. Side-beams may be made out of anything.
Every open space ten spans wide may be used as an entry. The open space
must not exceed in extent the fence proper. How can it be that there should
be a contradiction and still the Halakha should prevail according to it ? A
fence may also be constructed with three ropes, or with cane-laths. Any
partition not constructed on the principle of warp and shoot, whether it is a
partition ? I swear by the law of Moses, and by the prophets, and by the
Hagiographa, that Rabh said this. It makes absolutely no difference, be it
a caravan or an individual, in an inhabited place or in the desert. The
four privileges granted to warriors in the camp, .... 31-39

CHAPTER II.

MlSHNA I. How enclosures are to be made around wells (and illustra-
tions.) To make an enclosure around a well of rain-water is permitted only
to the pilgrims to Jerusalem. Adam, the first man, had a dual face. The
Lord was sponsor to him. The fires of hell cannot gain access to the bodies
of the sinners of Israel ; Abraham the patriarch, seeing that they are cir-
cumcised, rescues them. How much in size must the larger part of a cow
be reckoned ? May things be carried from a courtyard opening into the
enclosure around a well, and vice -versa f I have heard that ye go to the
Synagogue of Daniel on the Sabbath ; upon what grounds do ye do this ?
In the time that Solomon the king ordained the law of Erubin, a heavenly
voice was heard. Solomon said three thousand proverbs for every one of
the biblical commandments. The commandments are to be fulfilled to-day,
and the rewards will be in the world to come. If a public thoroughfare
passes through an enclosure. The paths by which the mountains of Pales-
tine are ascended do not come under the head of public ground, . 40-55

MISHNAS II. and III. An enclosure of boards must be made only for a
public well. The difference in the opinions of R. Jehudah b. Babah, R.
Aqiba, R. Eliezer, and R. Jose, about a garden or woodshed over seventy
ells square. How can one hundred ells in length by fifty by fifty in breadth
(Ex. xxvii. 1 8) be understood ? If a woodshed of more than two saahs'
capacity was fenced in for a dwelling. In a bleaching-ground (behind a
house) things must not be carried except for a distance of four ells. What
was done by R. Huna bar Hinana, R. Papa, and R. Huna, the son of R.
Joshua in reference to a garden on the estate of the Exilarch containing a
pavilion, 55-61

CHAPTER III.

MISHNA I. With what kind of victuals may the Erub be effected ? " The
man who will explain to me the dictum of Ben Bagbag concerning the oxen,

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xi

I will carry his clothes after him to the bath-house." The prescribed quanti-
ties of victuals for an Erub. R. Jeremiah went out into the villages and was
asked whether an Erub may be made with bean-pods. " May the lord forgive
R. Menashiah bar Shegublick. I said this to him in reference to a Mishna,
and he said this in reference to a Boraitha." Abayi said : My mother told me
that roasted ears are good for the heart, and drive away care, etc. An Erub
must not be made with consecrated things. There are sages who hold that
the prescribed quantities which are dependent upon the size of man should
be measured accordingly, 62-70

MISHNAS II., III., IV., and V. Whether an Erub may be made of things
consecrated, or from which heave-offering, etc., has not been separated.
When a man sends his Erub by the hand of a deaf and dumb person, an
idiot, or a minor. The difference of opinion between R. Na'hman and R.
Shesheth, whether the established rule that a messenger will perform his
errand holds good in rabbinical things only, or also in biblical. If he had
put it into a pit, where is the pit supposed to be situated ? If the man should
put the Erub on top of a cane or pole, into a cupboard which he locked and
then lost the key, the Erub is nevertheless valid, providing it was a festival.
On Sabbath, however, it is not valid. If the Erub rolls (or is moved) out of
the limit of the Sabbath distance ? If the time when it took place is doubt-
ful ? If a clean and unclean loaf were before a man, and he was told to
make an Erub with the clean one, but did not know which was which ?
Said R. Na'hman to Rabha : If thou wilt measure a whole kur of salt and
present me with it, I shall tell thee the answer. A man may make his Erub
conditional. If one of the two sages had been the man's teacher, he must
go to meet his teacher. It frequently happens that a man has a greater
fondness for his colleague than for his teacher. Why can he not make it
conditional upon the arrival of sages from opposite directions ? R. Jehudah
does not admit of the theory of premeditated choice. Who is the Tana
who holds that the sages also discountenance the theory of premeditated
choice ? 71-82

MISHNAS VI., VII., VIII. If a festival precedes or succeeds a Sabbath,
how must it be done ? Have two days of the festival each a separate de-
gree of sanctification ? The opinion of the four old sages is in accordance
with or contrary to Eliezer's decision. Is an Erub of the first day valid for
the east, and of the second for the west ? My Erub shall be valid for the
first day and on the second I am like my townsmen. What was said to the
men who prepared baldachins for marriages. How is it with the benedic-
tion of the time on the days of New Year and the Day of Atonement ? How
the rabbis sent a man to R. Hisda to see his custom about the benediction
of time. Must a fast be completed on a Friday ? ... 82-92

CHAPTER IV.

MISHNA I. What Rabbon Gamaliel, R. Eliezer b. Azariah, R. Joshua,
and R. Aqiba discussed when they were on board the ship from Parendisim.
Three persons will never come to Gehenna. Three classes of human beings
die in the possession of their power of speech. If foes or an evil spirit have
carried a man into another town ? The Halakha about which R. Gamaliel

xii SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

and R. Aqiba disputed the whole day on board the ship. The supposition
that the seven Halakhas related on the same Sabbath in the morning in
Sura, and in the evening in Pumbaditha, were through Elijah the prophet.
How a partition with men can be made. It once happened that flasks of
wine were thrown out of Rabba's house on the road in the city of Mehuzza,
and what was done with them, 93-100

MJSHNA II. All those who go forth on an errand of safety are permitted
to return to their homes on Sabbath. Besieged cities and those near a
boundary. The difference of opinions between R. Meir and R. Jehudah
about the entering a town at dusk before Sabbath. According to whom the
Halakha prevails when R. Aqiba, R. Jose, and R. Meir, R. Jehudah, Rabbi,
etc., differ. Notes about our omissions in the Talmud, about the abbrevi-
ation of undecided questions, and about the rule laid down by R. Meshar-
shia. It once happened that rams were brought into the city of Mabrakhta
on a festival. Whence do we derive the four ells ? If we were to learn the
Talmud in this manner, we would never be able to learn anything. An
Erub divided by a man in two parts or deposited in two separate ves-
sels IOO-III

MlSHNAS III., IV. Should a man overtaken by dusk on the road single
out a tree or hedge ? What is meant by " legally he has said nothing"?
If a man made an error and deposited his Erub in two directions. What
Rabba said in the name of R. Jose, that it should he accepted, though he
had not said so. What is the principal way to make an Erub, bread or the
feet ? One who can prepare an Erub and does not do so, is like one driving-
an ass and leading a camel. R. Jehudah bar Isht'tha brought a basket of
fruit to R. Nathan bar Oshiya on the eve of Sabbath. If one went beyond
the legal limit even a single ell. Opinions of R. Simeon and the sages about
one overtaken by dusk, 111-118.

CHAPTER V.

MISHNA I. How can the boundaries of a town be extended ? The dif-
ference between the hearts of the previous sages and those of the later. Why
the Judeans retained what they had learned, and the Galileans, not. Whence
is it known that the Lord forgave Saul for his sin ? When Joshua b. Ha-
naniah was disconcerted by a woman, a girl, and a boy. What Brurih, the
wife of R. Meir, told to R. Jose, the Galilean, and also to a young scholar.
The explanation of Netzach, Selah, and Voed mentioned in the Bible. If
the tables had not been broken the first time the law would not have been
forgotten by Israel. How to retain one's knowledge. How the method of
teaching the law was in the times of Moses. R. Preida would teach a dis-
ciple a thing four hundred times, and once twice four hundred times : his.
reward for this from heaven. If a town is in the form of an arch. If one
comes to make a town square. The equinoxes. Note about the seven
planets of ancient astronomy 119-131

MISHNAS II., III., IV., V. An allowance of seventy and two-thirds ells of
space must be made to the town. The difference of opinions whether to-
each town, or between. What must the distance between the outer villages

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xiii

be ? One must not measure the legal distance except with a line exactly fifty
ells long. The three kinds of cord. What is meant by cutting straight
through the mountain. The measurement must be undertaken only by an
expert. If a town belonging to an individual becomes public property. If
a town that is public property becomes the property of an individual. The
inhabitants of Kakunai came before R. Joseph and asked him to give them a
man to effect an Erub for them in their city, .... 131-140

MISHNA VI., VII. A man who is at the east of his domicile, telling his
son to place his Erub towards the west, or vice -versa. What is meant by
" toward the east " ? (and illustrations). If a town stands on the steep banks
of a lake. The discussions about the right of the inhabitants of Hamtan
and Gadar to carry or go. The inhabitants of a large town may traverse the
whole of a small town (but not vice versa). Mar Jehudah observed that the
inhabitants of Mabrakhta placed their Erub in the synagogue of the city of
Agubar, 140-144

CHAPTER VI.

MISHNA I. One who dwells in the same court with a Gentile, or with
one who does not acknowledge the laws of Erub. The dwelling of a Gentile,
as far as the laws of Erubin are concerned. May a disciple decide a
Halakha in the place where his master resides ? If a slaughtering knife is
brought to a young scholar for examination. Who sends his gifts to one
priest to the exclusion of all others brings famine into the world. If several
Israelites rented apartments from a Gentile, and one of them forgot to make
an Erub. One who is tipsy should not pray. Prayer of one intoxicated
considered as blasphemy. A quarter of a lug of Italian wine inebriates.
Three miles' walk required to destroy the effects of wine. The night made
only for sleep, according to one. The moon made only to facilitate study
at night, according to another. The cases in which R. Samuel's father,
R. Samuel, and R. Papa would not pray. Wine made only for mourners
and to reward for good deeds the wicked in this world. A house where
wine flows not like water cannot be classed among those that are blessed.
What R. Hanina bar Joseph, R. Hyya bar Abba, and R. Assi discussed in
an inn, the proprietor of which was a Gentile. R. Hisda's lips would trem-
ble when he met R. Shesheth, because the latter was versed in Mishnaioth
and Boraithoth, while the whole body of R. Shesheth trembled when he met
R. Hisda, because of his sagacity. The discussion about warm water for a
new-born child. How is it possible that two such great men made no Erub.
Whether a Sadducee is considered the same as a Gentile, R. Gamaliel and
the sages differ. There are two kinds of Sadducees, . . 145-162

MlSHNAS II., III., and IV. If one of the householders of a court forgets,
and does not join in the Erub. From what time is the right to be conferred ?
If five men inhabited one court, one must resign his right, if he had forgot-
ten to join in the Erub. May an heir resign his right or not ? The reason
of the difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel about the meaning
of resigning the right to a place. The difference of opinion between the
sages and R. Simeon about partnership in wine or oil. In courts an Erub
must be made with bread, but it is not allowed to do so with wine. Differ-

xiv SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

ence between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel about five companies occupy-
ing during Sabbath one hall. Brothers or associates taking 'their meals at
one table but sleeping in separate houses. One who has a vestibule, a gal-
lery, or balcony in the court of another, without an Erub. It happened that
an inhabitant of Naph'ha, who had five courts in Uqba, did not join in the
Erub with the inmates of the courts. What about the disciples of the col-
lege, eating in the inns of the valley and passing the night at the
college? . . . . . * . . . . 162-169

MlSHNAS V., VI., and VII. If five courts open into each other and an
alley, if they combined both the courts and the alley, or only one of these.
How Samuel was asked a question and answered with silence. Does the
silence signify acquiescence ? If two courts were one within the other, and
all the inmates or one forgot to make an Erub ; if the courts were the prop-
erty of an individual. If an Erub was placed in the outer court and one of
the inmates either of the outer or inner forgot to join in an Erub, carrying is
prohibited ; and how if it was placed in one of the inner courts ? If there
was a third court between the two, also belonging to an individual, is it per-
mitted to carry in any of the three ? 170-178

CHAPTER VII.

MISHNAS I., II., III., and IV. If there be an aperture, four spans square,
ttc., between two courts. If in the attic of a house there was a hole for the
purpose of fastening a ladder therein, should the house be considered solid ?
If there be a wall ten spans high and four spans wide between two courts.
If a man comes to diminish the size of the wall referred to in the Mishna.
An Egyptian ladder does not diminish a wall, but a ladder of Tyre does. If
one erected two benches, one above the other, at the foot of a wall. What
is the law if several pegs be placed on the pillar in question ? I have a tra-
dition that a ladder standing straight against a wall also diminishes its size.
What is the law if a man used a tree, which grew right at the wall, for a
ladder ? If two courts are separated by a ditch, ten spans deep and four
wide. " Thou wouldst prove a contradiction from a law pertaining to unclean-
ness to a Sabbath-law ? " If there be between two courts a straw-rick, ten
spans high. If a house which was filled with straw stand between two
tourts? 179-189

MISHNAS V., VI., VII., and VIII. How are alleys to be combined ? If
alleys or legal limits are combined. Whether a transfer of ownership is
necessary in case of Erubin of cooked articles. R. Zera was asked whether
it may be rented from the man's wife. Note about a misprint that has
existed since the Talmud has been published and reprinted. If the quan-
tity of food required for the combination becomes diminished. How much
is this legal quantity. Eighteen dried figs are sufficient for two meals. The
Erub of courts or combination of alleys may be effected with all kinds of
nutriment except water and salt. Is it permitted to make an Erub with
bread made of rice or millet ? A man may give money to the wine-seller
or baker in order to acquire the right to join in the Erub. About a Meshikha
to a sale and its explanation. If additional inhabitants came into the alley,
the right of possession must be transferred to them, . . 189-197

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xv

CHAPTER VIII.

MlSHNAS I., II., and III. How are the legal limits to be combined ? A
child that is only six years old may go out in the legal limits which have
been combined by its mother. How much is the legal quantity of food
required to effect the combination of limits ? Note about coins and meas-
ures mentioned in the Tract. If the inhabitants of a court and balcony
should have forgotten to combine an Erub. If there were three ruins be-
tween two houses, each house may use the adjoining ruin by throwing
therein, except the middle one (with illustrations), . . . 198-204.

MISHNAS IV., V., VI., and VII. If a man deposit his Erub for the com-
bination of courts in a vestibule, gallery, or balcony. If a company was
seated at table on the eve of Sabbath, the bread on the table may be
depended upon to serve as an Erub. If a man leaves his house and goes to
take his Sabbath-rest in another town (without previously joining in the
Erub). If there be a well between two courts it is not lawful to draw water.
If a canal runs through a court it is not lawful to draw water, unless there
be a partition. If a canal flows between two walls which contain aper-
tures, 204-209

MISHNAS VIII. and IX. If there be a balcony above the water. The
law concerning robbery is applicable also on Sabbath. If the court be less
than four ells square it is not permitted to pour water therein on Sabbath,
unless a sewer is made. All these regulations concerning the pouring of
water apply only to summer, 209-213

CHAPTER IX.

MISHNAS I. and II. All the roofs of a town are considered one private
ground, provided there be not one roof ten hands higher than the rest. If a
man erected an attic on top of his house and provided it with a small door
four spans wide, he may carry things in all the roofs. All roofs are con-
sidered as one private ground in their own right. " It happened in a time
of danger that we brought up the sacred scrolls from a court to a roof." If a
large roof adjoins a small one. If there are three woodsheds opening into
each other, of which the two outer are enclosed while the middle one is not
(with illustrations), 214-223

MISHNAS III., IV., and V. If a court (through an incavation of its walls)
is laid open to public ground. In a court (the corner walls of which had
fallen in on Sabbath so) that it has been laid open to public ground on two
sides. If an attic be built over two houses, also if bridges are open at both
ends 223-226

CHAPTER X.

MISHNAS I., II., and III. If a man finds tephilin on the road he should
watch them and bring them into the nearest town or village ; likewise his
child he should hand to his companion, etc. If one buys tephilin of a man who
is not an expert, he must examine two tephilin. How came his child on the
field or on the road ? This refers to a child that was born there. If a man
reads in a scroll (of sacred scriptures) on the threshold of the house and it

xvi SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

slips out of his hand. On a ledge outside a window it is permitted to place
vessels, 227-235

MISHNAS IV., V., VI., VII., VIII., and IX. A man may stand in private
ground and move things that are in public ground. A man must not,
standing in private ground, drink in public ground. A man may catch
water dropping from a spout on the roof. If a well, standing in public
ground, have an enclosure ten spans high. Beneath a tree, the branches of
which droop and cover the ground. The shutters of a bleaching ground or
thorn bushes, 235-240

MISHNAS X. to XVIII. A man must not, standing in private ground,
unlock with a key something in public ground. A loose bolt, with a knob
to it, is prohibited to use on Sabbath. A loose bolt that is fastened to a
rope may be used in the Temple only. In the Temple the lower hinge of a
cupboard door may be refitted into its place. Priests who minister may
replace a plaster in the Temple. The Levites performing on musical instru-
ments may tie a string. The priests who minister may remove a wart from
an animal on Sabbath. A ministering priest who hurts his finger may bind
it up with reeds in the Temple. Should the carcass of a dead reptile be
found in the Temple on the Sabbath the priest shall move it out with his
belt. From which parts of the Temple should it be removed ? It is per-
mitted for anyone to enter the Temple for the purpose of building, 240-251

TRACT ERUBIN.

CHAPTER I.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE WIDTH AND HEIGHT OF AN ERUB
CONSTRUCTED IN STREETS INHABITED SOLELY BY ISRAELITES,
AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ERUB
BY A CARAVAN.

MISHNA: If an entry* be higher than twenty ells, it should
be lowered. R. Jehudah said: " This is not necessary." If it
be wider than ten ells, it should be made narrower, but if it have
the appearance of a door, even though it be wider than ten ells,
it need not be made narrower.

GEMARA : We have learned in a Mishna [Sukkah, I. a] that
a booth which is higher than twenty ells is unfit for use, and R.
Jehudah said, that it maybe used. Why does the Mishna in the
case of an entry decree, that it should be remedied by lowering,
while in the case of a booth it declares it unfit for use ? Because
in the case of a booth a number of other defects are mentioned
in connection with the excessive height and each of those would
require a special explanation as to how they were to be remedied,
whereas in the case of an entry only two things are to be cor-
rected, and the remedy for them is taught.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: The difference of
opinion between the sages and R. Jehudah is based upon the
door and the porch of pillars in the temple. We have learned in
a Mishna, that the door of the Temple was twenty ells in height
and ten ells in width and that the porch was forty ells in height
and twenty ells in width. The sages compare the entry with the
door and R. Jehudah compares it with the porch of the Temple,
which was also more or less a door ; and why does R. Jehudah
say, that the porch is also a door, because it is written [Ezekiel

* For explanation of this term, see Introduction.

VOL. III.

2 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

xv. 48], " the porch of the house," and that is equivalent to the
door of a house. Why do not the sages hold the porch to be a
door ? Because, were it written, " the door of the porch," the
porch might also be considered a door ; but as it is written, ' ' the
porch of the house," it means the porch which opens towards
the house, but not a door to the house.

How can it be that R. Jehudah bases his dictum on the porch
of the house ? The porch was twenty ells in width, and when
the Mishna decrees that if the entry be wider than ten ells it
must be made narrower, he does not dissent ? (Why did he not
say, that it was not necessary to lessen its width ?) Said Abayi :
In the following Boraitha he does dissent as we have learned :
" If the width of the entry exceed ten ells it should be made
narrower, but R. Jehudah says, it is not necessary." Why is
this omitted in the Mishna ? He disputes with the sages con-
cerning the height, hence it is evident that he also disputes as to
the width.

Again: How can it be that R. Jehudah bases his dictum upon
the porch of the house ? Have we not learned in a Boraitha,
that if an entry exceed twenty ells in height, it must be low-
ered ? R. Jehudah, however, says, that it may be made even
forty or fifty ells in height, and Bar Kappara taught, that it may
be even one hundred ells high. As for Bar Kappara, it is
assumed to be an exaggeration ; but as for R. Jehudah it cannot
be considered merely an exaggeration, because he bases his
dictum upon the porch of the house, and that was only forty ells
in height. Why does he say " or fifty " ? Whence his basis for
such an assertion? Said R. Hisda: Rabh erred on account of
.the following Boraitha: "We have learned, an entry which is
higher than twenty ells, thus exceeding the height of the door
of the Temple, should be lowered." Now Rabh assumed, that
if the sages base their teaching upon the door of the Temple, R.
Jehudah bases his dictum upon the porch of the Temple, but this
is not so ! R. Jehudah does not consider the Temple at all, but
uses as a basis the palaces of kings, the doors of which attain
excessive heights.

What is the law concerning an entry, the cross-beam of which
was partly above twenty ells in height and partly below, and also
concerning the covering of a booth, part of which was over
twenty ells in height and the other part lower than twenty ?
Said Rabba: " An entry is made invalid by it but a booth is not
affected." Why does he say that a booth is not affected by it ?

TRACT ERUBIN. 3

Because we assume that part of the covering of a booth, which
is above twenty ells, to be so frail that it does not matter.
Cannot the same thing be said concerning the cross-beam of an
entry ? If this were said with reference to a cross-beam, then it
will seem as if there is no foundation for the cross-beam, and it is
suspended in mid-air. Is this not the same with a booth ? If it
be said, that that part of the covering of the booth is so frail
that it amounts to nothing, it cannot serve as protection against
the sun and there will be more sunshine than shade, and this
would make the booth invalid ? But, as such is not the case and
the frailty of the covering is as a matter of fact only imaginary,
it does cause more shade than sunshine, and the booth is not
made invalid, why should it not also be the same with the
cross-beam, the frailty of which is also only imaginary while in
reality it is as firm as if fastened with nails ? Said Rabha of
Parzekaia: " If such a defect occur in a booth, which is intended
for the personal use (of a man), it will be remedied through
the thoughtfulness of the man (who is bound to keep the
commandment properly), but a cross-beam of an entry which
is intended for public use will be neglected, because one man
will rely upon another to remedy the defect, as the proverb goes,
that a pot used in common is never warm nor cold ' ' (one relies
upon another to keep it in its proper condition). Rabhina said :
The booth being a fulfilment of a biblical commandment needs
no further safeguard, for it will be kept under any circumstances ;
but the entry being a purely rabbinical institution must not leave
any loopholes, by which the entire law may eventually be cir-
cumvened.

What is the law, finally ? Rabba bar R. Ula said, " Both are
invalid," and Rabha said, "Both are valid," why ? Because the
twenty ells refer to the space between the ground and the cross-
beam or covering, respectively, and even if part of either be
above twenty ells, the space is not changed in volume. Said R.
Papa to Rabha : I know of a Boraitha confirming this statement :
" An entry which is more than twenty ells high and thus is higher
than the door of the Temple should be lowered, and the space
between the ground and the ceiling in the Temple itself was
twenty ells high." R. Shimi bar R. Ashi objected to this:
' We have learned further on, how should we remedy the defect
in the entry ? The cross-beam should be laid below the limit of
the twenty ells! " Do not learn in the Boraitha, " below " but
" above " the limit of the twenty ells. The Boraitha, however^

4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

distinctly teaches ' ' below ' ' ? This ' ' below ' ' refers to a booth
which was less than ten spans high and which must be made
higher so that the space between the ground 'and the ceiling
should be no less than ten spans, in the same manner as it must
not be higher than twenty ells.

Abayi said in the name of R. Na'hman : " The ell used at a
booth and at an entry measures five spans, but the ell used at
Kilaim is six spans." For what legal purpose does R. Na'hman
relate this ? This is taught for the purpose of determining the
height of an entry and for measuring a breach in the wall of an
entry. (If the breach be over ten ells wide, the entry is invalid,
and the ell used for measurement is the one of five spans only.)
Why is the width of a breach and the height of the entry only
mentioned ? There is also width to be considered in an entry,
for did not R. Na'hman state, that an entry must not be less
than four ells wide ? What ells are these ? If they are four ells
of the lesser standard, R. Na'hman makes the ordinance more
lenient ? The ells in an entry, as a rule, are those of the lesser
standard, but as for the width, those of the greater standard are
used. Further, R. Na'hman said, that the ell used at a booth
also measures five spans. For what purpose did he state this ?
For the measurement of the height of the booth and the crooked
walls * of the booth. There is also the width of the booth to
be considered, however, and that should be four ells ? Will not
the ordinance regarding the width be made more lenient thereby
of twenty spans only ? The ells of a booth generally are of five
spans, but as for width the ells measuring six spans are used.
What does R. Na'hman intend to specify, by stating that the
ells used at Kilaim measure six spans ? He refers to seeds
planted in the superficies of a vineyard and to a barren spot in
a vineyard (as explained in Tract Kilaim). But there is a vine-
yard in which the vines are planted at less intervals than four
ells and the opinions of the sages differ as to whether such a vine-
yard is called a vineyard in a legal sense (and if the ells be
measured according to the statement of Na'hman it is made
more lenient ? Because if the four ells be of the lesser standard
the commandment of Kilaim is not applied.) The statement of
R. Na'hman is made for a rule but did not include the above
vineyard. The ells of a vineyard are generally used of six spans,
but not for the width. But Rabha said in the name of R.

* The crooked walls will be explained in Tract Sukkah.

TRACT ERUBIN. 5

Na'hman : AH ells measure six spans, but in Kilaim are measured
with long spans and in entry and booth with short spans to
make it more rigorously.

R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh said : The several
prescribed quantities (as mentioned in Tract Sabbath), the
Chatzitzah (intervention of articles at bathing), and the ordinance
concerning the walls of an entry and of a booth are ordinances
given by Moses at the Mount Sinai. How can it be said, that
these are Sinaic laws, they are biblical laws ? For it is written
[Deutr. viii. 8]: "A land of wheat and barley, and of the vine,
and the fig-tree and the pomegranate ; a land of the oil-olive and
of honey." And R. Hanan said, that the whole verse refers to
prescribed quantities: " By wheat is meant, what we have
learned elsewhere in a Mishna [Negaim xiii. 9] : If a man clad
in garments and shoes entered a house where leprosy was preva-
lent, he immediately becomes unclean, but his garments, shoes,
etc., do not become unclean, until he remains there a length of
time sufficient for the consumption of bread of the quantity of
two eggs, wheaten bread but not barley-bread, and when eaten in
a reclining position with some other dish. By barley is meant,
what we have learned elsewhere [Ohaloth ii. 3] : If a bone of a
corpse is the size of a (grain of) barley, it makes a body unclean,
when touched or carried, but it does not make unclean the con-
tents of a tent, if found therein. By vine is meant : If a Naza-
rite drink a quarter of a lug of wine he ceases to be a Nazarite
and must bring a sin-offering. By fig-tree is meant, that one is
guilty of carrying on the Sabbath, if he carries anything of the
size or quantity of a dried fig. By pomegranate is meant, what
we have learned elsewhere [Khelim xvii. i] : Any vessel belong-
ing to a household, if it have a hole as large as a pomegranate, is
not subject to defilement any more. By a land of the oil-olive
is meant a land where all prescribed quantities are of the size of
an olive. [All prescribed quantities ? What about those just
mentioned ? Say, a land where the majority of the prescribed
quantities are of the size of an olive.] By honey is meant, that
if a man ate anything the size of a fresh date on the Day of
Atonement, he is guilty."

How can the passage be understood in this manner ? No
prescribed quantities are mentioned in the passage ? We must
say, therefore, that those laws are Sinaic, but the passage is
merely a mnemotechnical basis for them. And Chatzitzah, is
that not also biblical law ? It (as) is written [Leviticus xv.

6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

16] : " Then shall he bathe all his flesh in water." By all his
flesh is meant, that nothing should intervene between his flesh
and the water ? The Sinaic law was necessary in order to
stipulate, that there should even be no intervention between
the hair and the water (not only between the flesh and the water).
As was said by Rabba bar R. Huna: " If there was a knot in a
single hair, there was certainly an intervention ; but if three hairs
were tied in a knot, there was certainly no intervention ; but if
two were tied together, the matter is doubtful to me." But
even the ordinance concerning the hair is also biblical ? For we
have learned in a Boraitha, that by " all his flesh " is meant all
attached to the flesh, and that includes the hair. The Sinaic
law was necessary in order to stipulate the ordinances con-
cerning the greater and lesser part of the hair, one who is par-
ticular with his hair and one who is not, as was said by the
dictum of R. Itz'hak: " According to biblical law Chatzitzah is
constituted only if the greater part of his hair was encrusted
with loam or blood, etc., and the man is particular about his hair,
but if he is not, it does not constitute intervention." The
rabbinical laws, however, ordained as a precautionary measure,
that if the larger part of his hair be encrusted even though he
be not particular, it would constitute Chatzitzah, lest one who is
particular would not consider it so, and they also ordained, that
if the smaller part of his hair was encrusted and he is particular
about his hair, it would constitute Chatzitzah, as a precautionary
measure, for the sake of the one who has the larger part of his
hair encrusted and is also particular about his hair.

The ordinances concerning the walls of a booth and an entry
are also biblical ? For the master said : " It is written, that the
ark was nine spans high and the cover was one span thick, so the
ark and cover combined were ten spans high, and this serves as
a prescribed height for all walls. " The Sinaic laws are necessary
for the stipulation of the ordinances concerning Gud,* Lavud,f
and crooked walls.

If the entry was higher than twenty ells and is to be lowered,

* In many places of the Talmud the expression Gud is used to signify, that where
a wall or a curtain is supposed to reach the ground or to reach the ceiling, and comes
within three spans of doing so in either case, they are considered as if they were on a
level with the ground or with the ceiling, the expression for the former being Gud
Achith and for the latter Gud Assik ; literally, " consider it bound down " and " con-
sider it bound up," respectively.

f Lavud, attached. See note §, page 12, Vol. I.

TRACT ERUBIN: 7

how much lower should it be made ? How much lower ? As
much as is necessary. The question here is, how much of the
space below the cross-beam must be diminished in order to make
the space only twenty ells high. R. Joseph said: " One span
underneath the cross-beam is sufficient"; but Abayi said, four
spans, and they differ merely as to the precautionary measure
involved; the latter claiming, that one span may be impaired
through stepping upon it, while the former holds that there is no
danger of such a thing happening.

How is it if the entry was less than ten spans high and suffi-
cient ground had to be excavated in order to make it the pre-
scribed height ? H ow much ground should be excavated ? How
much ? As much as is necessary ? The question, therefore, is
not as to how much must be excavated in height, but in the
width of the entry. R. Joseph said: " For the width of four
spans," and Abayi said, " For four ells. " (The reason R. Joseph
says four spans in this case, while only requiring one span in the
above case, is because in the first instance a wall for the entry
already existed, and merely the space had to be diminished, but
in this instance, if the wall is less than ten spans high, it cannot
be considered a wall and by excavating the ground the wall will
be made ; hence four spans at least must be excavated in order
to constitute such a wall, the wall of an entry. Abayi, however,
holds that in this case four spans would be insufficient, and at
least four ells are necessary, because an entry is not considered
such, unless it is four ells wide.)

Said Abayi : " Whence do I know that four ells are required ?
From the statement of Rami bar Hama in the name of R. Huna,
that if a beam protrude from one of the walls of the entry for a
distance of less than four ells, it may serve as the side-beam of
such entry and be valid, although it was not intended to serve
for that purpose. ' If such a beam protrude for a distance of four
ells or more, it is considered as part of the wall and cannot serve
as a side-beam, but a new side-beam must be made in or.der to
make the entry valid." (If a beam protrude from a wall of an
entry and was even not intended to serve as a side-beam, it may
be ever so small, it is considered as a side-beam for the entry and
is valid. If it protrude, however, for a distance of four ells or
more, and was not originally intended for a side-beam, it cannot
serve the purpose, because the entire width of the entry is only
supposed to be four ells and for that reason the protruding beam
is considered part of the wall. Hence in order to make the entry

8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

valid, another side-beam must be constructed. From this it may
be seen, that Abayi bases his opinion concerning the width of
the entry upon the dictum of Kami bar Hama, that an entry
must be four ells wide.) R. Joseph, however, declares, that the
decree of Rami bar Hama does not conflict with his own deci-
sion ; for it is true that a beam, if it be four ells wide is not con-
sidered a side-beam, because it has not the appearance of a side-
beam ; still the reason for this is not because the width of the
entry itself should be four ells, but because the side-beam is too
large, and, as for the entry itself, it is sufficient, if it be only
four spans wide.

Again, Rami bar Hama said, that if the beam be four ells
wide, another side-beam is necessary. Where should the latter
be put ? Should he add the side-beam to the original beam, the
size will be increased (and it will not look anything like a side-
beam) ? Said R. Papa: " It can be put on the other side of the
entry." R. Huna bar R. Jehoshua, however, said, that the side-
beam may be added to the original beam, but it should be made
either higher or lower than the original beam (in order that it
may appear as if it were added). The same R. Huna said also :
" All this is said in a case of where the entry was eight ells in
width (so that the protruding beam and the entry are of equal
width), but if the entry was only seven ells wide and thus the width
of the entry is less than the protruding beam, even according to
Rami bar Hama, the entry is valid without the addition of another
beam, because the entry being narrower than the beam is con-
sidered the same as a door. ' ' This ordinance is made lenient from
an inference of a rigorous ordinance,* viz. : the ordinance con-
cerning a court: If in a court one of the walls is entirely
destroyed, nothing may be carried therein on the Sabbath, and
neither a cross-beam nor a side-beam placed at the remaining
walls alters its character. However, if the wall destroyed was
only partially ruined and the remaining portion is larger than the
breach, things may be carried therein. Hence in the case of an
entry where a side or cross beam suffices for the entire wall, if
the wall is wider than the space of the entry proper, in so much

* This is a case of where the peculiar Talmudical expression of Kal Vochomer
appears in the text. The literal translation is " light and heavy," i.e., from the
lighter to the heavier or from minor to major. In the " Introduction to the Tal-
mud " by Prof. Dr. Mielziner an entire chapter is devoted to the explanation of this
term (pp. 130-141). However, no general term can be found to express its meaning,
and the expression must be varied according to the demand of the text.

TRACT ERUBIN. 9

greater a degree is the entry valid for all purposes. R. Ashi,
however, says, that even if the entry was eight ells wide, no
additional side-beam is necessary, no matter in which way the
case is assumed : If it be assumed that the closed part of the
entry is wider than the entry itself (through some inaccuracy in
construction), then the entry is valid because of that fact, and if
it be assumed that the space of the entry is wider, then the
closed part which is constituted by the beam may be regarded as
a legal side-beam and then the entry is certainly valid ; but it
might be assumed, that both the closed part and the space were
exactly equal; in that event it would constitute a doubtful case
based on a rabbinical law, and such a case is always decided with
leniency.

Said R. Hanin bar Rabha in the name of Rabh : " If the
wall of an entry was broken for a distance of less than ten ells
at the side the entry is valid ; but if the front of the wall was
broken for four ells (assuming that the entry was originally
twenty ells wide and in order to make it valid, ten ells had been
closed up, and of the ten ells of the new wall, four had been
broken) the entry is not valid." Why is the entry valid if the
wall was broken for a distance of ten ells on the side, because
the breach can be regarded as a door ? Why should not the
same case apply to the breach in the front ? Say that can also be
regarded as a door ? Said R. Huna bar R. Jehoshua: " In this
case the breach is supposed to be in the corner, and a door is not
generally made in the corner." R. Huna, however, said, that
the same distance applies to both the side and the front of wall.
In either case if the breach exceeds four ells, the entry is not
valid. And thus said R. Huna to R. Hanan bar Rabha: " Do
not dispute with me, for it happened that Rabh came to the city
of Damharia and he acted there in accordance with my decree. ' '
R. Hanan bar Rabha answered : " This is not sufficient evidence
for me, because in that case Rabh acted in a manner that pre-
cluded the possibility of doing wrong (i.e., the people there
were ignorant and had he given them a liberal interpretation of
the ordinance, they would have taken advantage of it and disre-
garded the law in the future)."

Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: " It seems to me that R.
Huna was correct in his opinion from the following: It was
taught : An entry made in the form of a right angle should,
according to Rabh, be considered as an ordinary entry which is
open on both sides and requires an apparent door on one side and

io THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

a cross or side beam on the other side, but according to Samuel
it must be considered as a closed entry (and at both sides needs
only a side-beam). Now, let us see ! Shall we assume, that
even if the entry was wider than ten ells, Samuel still regards it
as a closed entry, and only requires a side-beam at each side ;
(and this being impossible, therefore we must rather assume,
that the entry was only ten ells wide, and still Rabh regards it
as an open entry and declares, that it requires an apparent door;
hence we see that the breach on the side of the wall must also
not exceed four ells in order that it may be regarded as a door.
(According to Rabh then, not even ten ells in front can be
regarded as a door until an apparent door is added. How can it
be said that if a breach measure ten ells at the side it is regarded
as a door ?) What rejoinder will R. Hanan bar Rabha make ?
R. Hanan will claim, that an entry made in the form of a right
angle is used so much, that it appears like public ground (hence
an apparent door must be made, but as for a court, which is not
used as a thoroughfare, even ten ells may appear like a door).

The Rabbis taught : How are entries facing public ground
combined by an Erub ? On one side an apparent door should be
made and on the other a cross and side beam should be put up.
Said Hananiah : The school of Shamai said, that doors should be
made at both entries where they face the street, and when going
out or entering, the man should close the door. The school of
Hillel, however, said, that at one side a side and a cross beam
should be made and at the other a door should be made. Com-
menting upon this, Rabh said, that the Halakha prevails accord-
ing to the first Tana, and Samuel said, that it prevails according
to Hananiah.

The schoolmen propounded a question: " Is a man, accord-
ing to the opinion of Hananiah, quoting the school of Hillel,
obliged to close the door or not ?" Come and hear. R. Jehudah

said in the name of Samuel, that he is not

obliged to close the door. R. Mathna added :
I was placed in that position at one time and
Samuel said to me, that it must not be closed.
There was an entry (as shown in the illus-
tration) at the city of Neherdai, to which the
_ rigorous ordinances of both Samuel and Rabh

were applied and doors were ordered to be made.
The rigorous ordinance of Rabh is the one pertaining to an
entry which was made in the form of a right angle, and was

TRACT ERUBIN. n

declared by him to be regarded as an open entry and in this case
there were two openings towards the street. [Did not Rabh say
above that the Halakha prevails as the first Tana ? In this case
the rigorous ordinance of Samuel was applied, who said, that
the Halakha prevails according to Hananiah. But did not Samuel
say, that an entry made in the form of a right angle is to be con-
sidered as a closed entry, and requires only side-beams ? In this
instance again the rigorous ordinance of Rabh was applied and
it was regarded as an open entry, and at an open entry, accord-
ing to Hananiah, quoting the school of Hillel, doors are also
required.]

May, then, the rigorous ordinances of two Tanaim be applied
to one case ? Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that at all
times the Halakha prevails according to the school of Hillel, but
he who wishes to act in accordance with the school of Shamai,
may follow that school exclusively both in the lenient and the
rigorous ordinances, and he who wishes to act in accordance with
the school of Hillel may follow that school exclusively in both
lenient and rigorous ordinances. He who only follows the more
lenient ordinances of both schools is a sinner, and he who fol-
lows only the more rigorous ordinances of both schools is referred
to by the passage [Ecclesiastes ii. 14] as " the fool walketh in
darkness."

Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: The entry made in Neherdai
was made in accordance with the decision of Rabh solely, but
did not Rabh say, that the Halakha prevails according to the first
Tana ? R. Huna said in the name of Rabh, that the Halakha in
theory remains according to the first Tana, but it should not be
carried out in practice. But according to R. Ada bar Ahabha,
who said in the name of Rabh, that the Halakha prevails accord-
ing to the first Tana and should be carried out accordingly, was
not the entry in Neherdai made according to the more rigorous
decisions of both schools of Shamai and Hillel ? Said R.
Shezbi : It is not allowed to act in accordance with too rigorous
ordinances of two schools only when they conflict with one
another (e.g., the ordinances concerning the back and the head
as will be explained in Chulin). Wherever they do not conflict,
however, they may be applied in one and the same case.

R. Joseph was sitting in the presence of R. Huna, and said:
" R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh, that the first Tana and
R. Hananiah differed only when the entry faced a market on
both sides ; but if on one side there was public ground and on

iz THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

the other was a valley which was considered unclaimed ground,
all agree that an apparent door should be made on one side and
a cross or side beam on the other side." R. Joseph then con-
tinued in the name of R. Jehudah alone and stated, that if the
entry opened on one side into a vacant yard which in turn opened
into public ground, nothing need be made at either end of the
entry.

Said Abayi to R. Joseph : What R. Jehudah is supposed to
have said himself, was in reality a decree of Samuel, because
were it a decree of Rabh, he would contradict himself in either
of two instances ; for R. Jeremiah bar Abba said in the name of
Rabh: " If the wall of an entry opening into a courtyard be
entirely destroyed, and the wall between the courtyard and the
street was broken only for a distance of less than ten ells, the
courtyard is not invalidated but the entry is." Why! Say
rather that the entry in this case is equal to one that faces a
vacant yard, and, according to R. Jehudah, needs nothing at
either end. (Where the contradiction in either of the two
instances occurs is as follows: If R. Jehudah means to state,
that the entry needs nothing at either end because it is an open
entry, that would contradict Rabh in one instance, as R. Jeremiah
bar Abba relates, that the entry is invalidated because it is made
an open entry. If we assume, however, that R. Jehudah holds
an entry, opening into a vacant place, to be valid even if nothing
is made at either end, because the place was vacant and there
were no inhabitants who could invalidate the entry by refusing
to combine in an Erub, but, if there were inhabitants in that
place, the entry would have been invalid unless provided with
the necessary appliances. Here, however, Rabh, according to
R. Jeremiah bar Abba, invalidates the entry because it is an
open entry and not because of the inhabitants, and hence there
would be contradiction in the other instance.)

Said R. Joseph to Abayi: " I know not whose decree R.
Jehudah cited, but it happened in the village of a shepherd, that
there was an entry which opened into a vacant yard and R.
Jehudah was asked whether it was necessary to provide the
entry with an apparent door or beams, and R. Jehudah answered
that it was not. If this is contradictory to the opinion of Rabh,
then let it be attributed not to him but to Samuel, and there
will be no contradiction." Now what R. Shesheth said to R.
Samuel bar Abba or, according to another version, to R. Joseph
bar Abba, namely: I will explain to you, that the decree of

TRACT ERUBIN. 13

Rabh is not permanent. There are times when Rabh himself
holds that the entry is valid, and this occurs, if the inhabitants
of the courtyard and the entry made a joint Erub (common
•cause) ; but when such was not the case, he holds the entry to be
invalidated, which proves to us, that the decree of R. Jehudah
concerning the entry in the village of the shepherd may have
also been in conformity with the opinion of Rabh, because the
vacant yard had no inhabitants with whom the inhabitants of the
«ntry could have made an Erub ; for the decree of R. Jeremiah
bar Abba in the name of Rabh does not invalidate the entry
because it is made an open entry, but because there were no
inhabitants in the vacant place with whom the inhabitants of the
-entry could combine in an Erub.

R. Joseph said: " When R. Jehudah declared, that an entry
which opens into a vacant yard is valid even when nothing had
been made at either end, he intended to state, that such was the
•case if the entry opened into the centre of the vacant yard, but
if it opened into one side of the yard it is not valid." Said
Rabba: " Even if the entry opened into the centre of the vacant
yard, it is only then valid, provided it is not exactly opposite the
opening of the yard into the street ; if it is directly opposite,
however, the entry is invalid. Said R. Mesharshia: " Even if
the entry is not opposite the opening of the vacant place into the
street, it is valid only if the vacant place was public property,
but, if belonging to an individual (who might build on it and
rent it to others), it will become equal to an entry which faces
the sides of a vacant place and is not valid. Whence do you
know, that there is a difference between public property and
individual property ? This is known from the narrative of
Rabhin bar Ada concerning an entry which faced the sea (see
Chapter X., Mishna 4).

There was another entry made in the form of a right angle
and a mat was placed at the angle. R. Hisda said in reference
to this: "This is neither in accordance with Rabh nor with
Samuel. According to Rabh, who considers an entry of this
kind as an open entry, an apparent door would be necessary, and
according to Samuel, who considers it as an entry closed at one
«nd, a side-beam would be necessary ; and this mat is neither
one nor the other, because it might be blown away by the
wind and would leave nothing behind." If, however, the mat
-was fastened with a nail so that it could not be blown away, it is
sufficient.

i4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

It was taught : An entry made in the form of a centipede
(i.e., an entry containing a number of smaller entries which on
one side faced a street and the principal entry also faced a street)
should, according to Abayi, be provided with an apparent door,
and the smaller ones should be provided with a side and cross
beam where they face the street. Said Rabha to Abayi: " Ac-
cording to whose opinion is this ? According to Samuel's, who
holds, that such an entry is to be regarded as a closed entry;
then why is an apparent door necessary ? Secondly, we know
that in the case of the entry made in the form of a right angle
at Neherdai, the decision of Rabh was also respected." There-
fore the decree of Rabha is, that apparent doors should be made
at the smaller entries where they face the large entry, and the
sides facing the street only need a side or cross beam.*

Said R. Kahana bar Tachlipha in the name of R. Kahana
bar Minyumi in the name of R. Kahana bar Malchiyu, quoting
R. Kahana the master of Rabh [according to others, R. Kahana
bar Malchiyu himself was the master of Rabh] : " An entry, one
side of which was wide and the other narrow, should, if the
wider side be less than four ells, be provided with a cross-beam
laid obliquely, but if it measured fully four ells, the cross-beam
should be laid on the narrow side." Rabha, however, said, that
in either case, the cross-beam should be placed on the narrow
side. "And," he continues, " I will state the reason for my
opinion, and the reason for the previous opinion: In my opinion
a cross-beam is necessary merely to serve as a sign, and if laid
obliquely it cannot be seen and thus would not be a sign.
According to the opinion of the previous teachers, the cross-
beam serves as a wall, and if such is the case, a wall can be a
wall even if placed obliquely." Said R. Kahana: " This being
a decree by Kahanim, being myself a Kahan I will also venture
to say something : The cross-beam must be placed obliquely if
the oblique part does not measure more than ten ells." If it was.
more than ten ells, however, all agree that it must be placed on
the narrow side only.

The schoolmen propounded a question: "May the space-
underneath the cross-beam be used ? " Rabh, R. Hyya, and R.
Johanan said, that it may be used. Samuel, R. Simeon ben
Rabbi, and Resh Lakish said, that it must not be used. Said

* According to another version the apparent doors should be made where the-
entries face the street, but we cite the opinion of Rashi as usual.

TRACT ERUBIN. 15

R. Hisda: All agree that if a side-beam is used, the space
opposite* the side-beam must on no account be used.

Kami bar Hama asked R. Hisda: " If one drove two posts
on the outside of an entry and placed a cross-beam on top of
them, how is the law concerning the entry?" He answered:
According to those who hold that the space underneath the
cross-beam may be used, the entry is invalid, but according to
those who hold, that the space underneath the cross-beam must
not be used, the entry is valid (i.e., those who hold that the
space underneath the cross-beam must not be used regard the
inside edge of the cross-beam as if it made a solid wall to the
entry ; hence the entry is valid because it is considered a closed
entry, and if the posts and cross-beams are on the outside, the
entry is nevertheless closed and valid ; but those who hold that
the space underneath the cross-beam must not be used, regard
the outside edge of the cross-beam as the closing wall of the
entry; hence there will be an open space between the entry
and the outside posts and cross-beam, and the entry is made
invalid). Rabha, however, said that even according to the
opinion of those who hold that the space underneath the cross-
beam must not be used, the entry is invalid because the cross-
beam must be recumbent upon the entry proper and not upon
the outside.

R. Zakai taught in the presence of R. Johanan : The space
underneath the cross-beams and alongside of the side-beams is
considered unclaimed ground (i.e., that one must not carry
things in that space on Sabbath). Said R. Johanan to him :
" Go and teach such things outside of the college." Said
Abayi: " It seems to me that R. Johanan's opposition to R.
Zakai was only as far as the space underneath the cross-beam is
concerned, but alongside of the side-beams it is prohibited to
carry." Rabha, however, said: Even alongside of the side-
beams it is also allowed to carry.

Said R. Huna bar R. Jehoshua to Rabha: " Thou dost not
think, that it is prohibited to carry things alongside of the side-
beams ? " Did not Rabba bar bar Hana say in the name of R.

* In the text is written "Bain," "between" the side-beams. Rashi, however,
declares that here it does not mean between the side-beams, but opposite, as between
the side-beams cannot be possible, because every entry must have only one side-beam,
and Rashi says the reason that the text states " between " is, that the text mentions
the side-beams in plural, meaning many entries, and the word Neged in Hebrew,
which means "opposite," cannot be said in plural.

16 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Johanan, that an entry which was provided with a number of
side-beams the space between each of which did not measure
four spans, causes a difference of opinion between R.
Simeon ben Gamaliel and the sages. According to
R. Simeon, an object becomes "lavud" (attached)
to another object even when the distance between
them is four spans, but according to the sages, the
distance must not exceed three spans. Hence in the case just
mentioned (see illustration) according to R. Simeon all the
beams are regarded as one by virtue of their being "lavud"
to each other, and a man must not carry anything beyond the
space alongside of the inside edge of the beam farthest from the
opening of the entry, while, according to the sages, who regard
only the beam nearest the opening of the entry essential and
the others unnecessary, a man may carry things as far as the
space alongside of the inside edge of the beam nearest the open-
ing of the entry. In the space between the side-beams all agree
that it is prohibited to carry. Now, if R. Johanan permitted
the carrying of things alongside of the side-beams, how could he
state the difference of opinion between R. Simeon and the sages
in this case ? For whether all the beams were considered as one
or each separately, what difference would it make as long as
things may be carried in the space between them ? Hence we
must say, that R. Johanan does not permit the carrying of
things alongside of the beams ? In this instance, Rabha might
declare, that the entry is presumed to be one that opens into
unclaimed ground. How would the case be if the entry opened
into public ground ? Would it be allowed according to R.
Johanan to carry things between the side-beams ? Shall the
native remain on earth and the stranger be lifted up to the high-
est heaven?* Yea; objects of like character assimilate, i.e.,
the space between the side-beams being unclaimed ground and
the entry opening into unclaimed ground, the two are virtually
combined, and as carrying in unclaimed ground is not allowed to
commence with, it is also not allowed in the space between the
beams.

R. Ashi said, however: The case referred to, viz., the entry
containing many side-beams, is assumed to be one where the
side-beams were erected for a distance of four ells and were less

* An expression used to signify astonishment at an unnecessary or superfluous
question, the answer to which is self-evident.

TRACT ERUBIN. 17

than four spans apart. If, according to R. Simeon, the beams
are all " lavud " to each other, they would constitute a separate
entry in the principal entry, and in order to carry things in the
space between the beams another side-beam would have to be
erected for the newly made entry ; but according to the sages,
who do not consider the beams " lavud " to each other, another
side-beam is not necessary. (This means to say: R. Johanan
holds, that under any circumstances the space between the side-
beams may be utilized (for carrying) and the difference caused
by such an entry between R. Simeon ben Gamaliel and the
sages is not as to whether things may be carried in the space be-
tween the beams or not, as stated before, but whether another
side-beam is required in addition to those already erected or
not.)

It was taught : If a side-beam was made to an entry which
on the inside of the entry could be plainly seen but on the out-
side seemed to be on a par with the wall and hence not recogniz-
able, it is regarded as a proper side-beam, but if it could be
plainly seen on the outside, but on the inside it seemed to be
part of the wall and could not be distinguished from the wall, it
gives rise to a difference of opinion between R. Hyya and R.
Simeon the son of Rabbi. One holds, that it may be regarded as
a proper side-beam, and the other, that it cannot be so regarded.
It is correctly ascertained that R. Hyya is the one who holds
that it may be regarded as a proper side-beam, from his decision
as follows: " If one of the walls of an entry was partially removed
(see illustration a), so that the lack-
ing portion could be perceived from
the inside of the entry but not from
the outside of same, or if part of the
wall was missing (see illustration
b}, so that it could be readily per-
ceived on the outside of the entry but not on the inside, in
either case the impaired wall is regarded as a side-beam."

Rabba bar R. Huna taught the same: " If a side-beam was
recognized on the outside of an entry but could not be distin-
guished on the inside it is nevertheless regarded as aside-beam."
Said R. Joseph to him: " I never heard such an ordinance pro-
claimed by thy father." Said Abayi to R. Joseph: "Didst
thou not thyself teach this ordinance when we learned the fol-
lowing: Rami bar Abba said in the name of R. Huna, that a
.side-beam, which was affixed to the end of a wall so that it could

VOL. III. — 2

i* THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

be seen from the outside but seemed to be a continuation of the
wall from the inside, is regarded as a side-beam, if measuring
less than four ells and the entry may be used from the inside
edge of such beam, but if the side-beam measured four ells, it is
regarded as a separate entry, and thus the entry proper, not hav-
ing any side-beam, is made invalid. Thou didst comment upon
this and say, that from this teaching we may adduce three things.
Firstly, that the space alongside of a side-beam must not be
used ; secondly, that four ells is the minimum measure of an
entry; and, thirdly, that if a side-beam can be recognized on the
outside but not on the inside of the entry, it is a proper side-
beam." Finally, the Halakha concerning a side-beam recogniz-
able from without but not within the entry prevails : that the
side-beam is valid because such was the decision of R. Hyya, as
is mentioned above.

" Should it be wider than ten ells, it must be made narrower."
Said Abayi : We have learned in a Boraitha concerning this teach-
ing, that R. Jehudah regarded this as unnecessary.

How much narrower should it be made ? R. A'ha wished to
state, in the presence of R. Joseph, that if the entry measured
twenty ells, it should be reduced to thirteen and a third ells.
He wished to infer this lenient measure from the more rigorous
in the case of a well. The wells were built as
I/ \j illustrated, and the distance between the two

©enclosures on the same side was thirteen and a
third ells; i.e., large enough to permit of the
k A entrance and exit at the same time of two teams

of oxen and was larger than the space occupied
by the enclosures on the same side. Now, if in that case it was
permitted to have the space larger than the space occupied by
the enclosures, and thirteen and a third ells only were allotted to
such space, an entry where the space must not be more than the
enclosure should certainly not be over thirteen and a third ells
wide ? How can the two be compared ? Perhaps the reason,
that no more than thirteen and a third ells were allowed for the
space of the wells was because a concession had already been
made in permitting the space to be larger than the walled part
and no further leniency was expedient. In the case of the entry,
however, where no concession had as yet been made, let it be
allowed to increase the width of the space beyond thirteen and
a third ells (because it serves the purpose of a door) ? Or on
the contrary ! A concession having been made in the case of the

TRACT ERUBIN. 19

well, but no concession having been made concerning an entry,
let the law of the entry be enforced without any concession and
make the prescribed width ten ells only. (Thus the question
remains undecided.)

Levi taught a Boraitha as follows: "In an entry which is
twenty ells wide it is sufficient if a stick be placed in the centre
of such entry." He himself however decreed, that the Halakha
does not prevail according to the Boraitha. What then should
be done ? Samuel said in the name of Levi: " A pole should
be erected in the centre of the entry ten spans high and four
ells wide, and a cross-beam placed on top of it parallel with the
walls of the entry, which would then serve as a partition in the
centre. " Or it should be done as R. Jehudah declared : In an
entry fifteen ells wide a pole should be erected two ells from
one of the walls and a cross-beam extending three ells into the
centre of the entry should be placed on top of the pole. (Thus
the width will be lessened five ells, the two between the wall
and the pole being regarded as a closed door. In the case of
an entry twenty ells wide this may be done on both sides of the
entry, or the pole maybe erected four ells from the wall and the
cross-beam extended six ells.) If the people who make use of
the entry, however, should use the space of two ells between the
wall and the pole in preference to the wider opening of the
entry, will not the principal entry be invalidated by the lack of
a side-beam ? Said R. Ada bar Mattue : It is an established fact
that people will not use the smaller entrance in preference to the
larger. Why is this case different from the one taught by R.
Ami and R. Assi, for we have learned in a Boraitha: If there was
a breach in the side of a wall close to the entry, it was taught in
the name of R. Ami and R. Assi (page $a in the original text),
that if the strip of wall left was four ells wide, it matters not if
the breach was ten ells ; but if the strip is less than four ells, the
breach must not exceed three ells, otherwise the entry is invalid.
(Now if the strip is four ells, and the breach ten, the breach is
regarded as a door, and it might be used in preference to the
main entrance. In the former case, only such as will be nearer
the side entrance will use it, but in this case, the main entrance
will be used exclusively, because one will not unnecessarily go
in a roundabout way.)

But if it have the appearance of a door, even though it be
wider than ten ells it need not be made narrower. ' '

Now we see that an apparent door may be used where the

20 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

entry is too wide and a cross-beam if it be too high, what
would be the law if the reverse were made ? Come and hear :
We have learned: " If an entry be higher than twenty ells, it
should be reduced, but if it have the appearance of a door, this
is not necessary." What is the law concerning a cross-beam
when the width of the entry was excessive ? Come and hear :
We have learned: "If an entry be higher than twenty ells it
should be lowered and if it be wider than ten ells it should be
reduced, but if it have an appearance of a door it is not neces-
sary and if it have a cross-beam it is also not necessary." Could
we not assume, that the cross-beam refers to the latter clause of
that teaching (the excessive width of the entry) ? Nay ; it refers
to the first clause of the teaching (the height).

R. Jehudah taught Hyya the son of Rabh in the presence
of Rabh: " It is not necessary to reduce (the width of an entry
if it have a cross-beam). " Said Rabh to R. Jehudah: "Teach
him, that it should be reduced." Said R. Joseph: From this
teaching of our Master we can learn, that a courtyard, of which
the greater part of the walls consists of doors and windows and
one of the walls contained a breach of over ten ells, the appear-
ance of a door would not make it valid (i.e., things could not be
carried in the courtyard on Sabbath). Why so ? Because we
see, that width exceeding ten ells makes an entry invalid, and
space in excess of that occupied by the walls makes a courtyard
invalid ; now, we compare an entry which is wider than ten ells
and is held by our Master to be invalid even if it have the
appearance of a door, to a court which has a breach exceeding
ten ells, and is also not made valid by an apparent door.

R. Johanan also holds in accordance with the teaching of
Rabh, for Rabhin bar R. Ada in the name of R. Itz'hak said:
It happened that a man of the valley of Beth Hurtan placed
four piles in the four corners of his field and connected the four
piles with branches at the top for the purpose of circumvening
the law of Kilaim. When this was told to the sages, they
allowed him to do so for the purpose intimated (i.e., the field
was regarded as if surrounded by a wall, and he could sow other
seeds on the outside of the seeming wall), and Resh Lakish said:
" In the same manner as the sages permitted the man to do this
for the purpose of circumvening the law of Kilaim, so also did
they allow him to do it for the purpose of the Sabbath law. R.
Johanan, however, said, that this was allowed only for Kilaim
purposes but not for Sabbath." (Whence we see that R.

TRACT ERUBIN. 21

Johanan holds with Rabh that an entry over ten ells in width is
not remedied by a seeming door.)

R. Hisda said: " If a man made a seeming door in the side
of a wall, it counts for nothing. " And he said again : " A seem-
ing door must be firm enough to be able to contain an actual
door, even though it be only a door of straw."

Resh Lakish said in the name of R. Janai, that an apparent
door must have a place fit for the attachment of hinges. What
is meant by a place fit for the attachment of hinges ? Said R.
Ivia : A receptacle for same.

R. A'ha the son of R. Ivia found once the disciples of R.
Ashi, and he asked them: " Did the master say anything about
apparent doors?" and they answered him: "Nay; he said
nothing."

A Boraitha stated : " By an apparent door is meant simply two
poles set up perpendicularly one on each side and a pole across
the top of the two." Must the pole above be attached to the
two perpendicular poles, or is it sufficient if it is suspended above
them ? R. Na'hman said, they need not be attached, but R.
Shesheth said they must be. R. Na'hman did in accordance
with his own decision at the house of the Exilarch (R. Na'hman
was a son-in-law of the Exilarch). Said R. Shesheth to his ser-
vant, R. Gada: " Go, take it down and put it away." He went,
took it down, and put it away. The servants of the Exilarch
found him doing so and arrested him for it. Then R. Shesheth
went and stood on the outside of the prison and called out:
" Gada, come out! " Gada came out and went with R. Shesheth.

R. Shesheth met Rabba the son of Samuel on the street ; and
he asked him: " Did the master teach anything concerning an
apparent door ? " Rabba answered: " Yea! We have learned
concerning an arch, R. Meir decreed, that a Mezuzah (sign on
the door-post) must be fastened to it, but the sages say, that it
is not necessary." (The reason the sages say, that a Mezuzah is
not necessary is because the zenith of the arch is not four spans
wide, and no door is properly a door that is not at least four spans
wide.) All agree, however, that if the arch is ten spans wide at
its base (i.e., before the curve commences, then it is certain that
for at least ten spans upwards the arch has a width of four spans),
a Mezuzah is necessary, and Abayi said: " All agree, that if the
arch is ten spans high and the base is less than three spans wide,
or if the base is three spans wide but the arch is less than ten
spans high, no Mezuzah is necessary (because a door cannot be

22 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

less than ten spans high), but wherein do they differ ? In a case
where the base of the arch was less than four spans wide, and
the arch itself ten spans high, but at the top of the arch the
width could, by hollowing out the wall, be increased to four
spans' width, R. Meir holds that a Mezuzah is necessary,
because the possibility of increasing its width renders it equiva-
lent to having been increased, but the sages hold that a Mezu-
zah is not necessary, because it had not yet been increased in
width." (Thence we see that R. Meir holds that the possibility
of accomplishing an act renders it equivalent to having been per-
formed, and, in consequence, he holds that if a pole was merely
suspended above two poles it is the same as if it were placed on
top of the poles.) Said R. Shesheth to him: " If thou shouldst
meet the members of the house of the Exilarch, tell them
nothing of the Boraitha concerning the arch."

MISHNA: To legalize (the carrying within) an entry, Beth
Shammai hold that a side and cross beam are required, but Beth
Hillel hold, that either a post or a beam is sufficient. R. Eliezer
said, " Two side-beams are necessary." In the name of R.
Ishmael, a disciple stated before R. Aqiba: " Beth Shammai
and Beth Hillel do not differ as to an entry less than four ells
in width, for both agree, that such an entry becomes legalized
either through a cross-beam or a side-beam." Wherein do they
differ ? Concerning entries of more than four and up to ten ells
in width. Regarding these, Beth Shammai hold, that both a
side and cross beam are necessary, and Beth Hillel hold, that
either a side or a cross beam is sufficient. R. Aqiba, however,
said: " They (the two schools) differ in both instances."

GEM ARA : According to whose opinion is the Mishna ? It
is neither according to the opinion of the first Tana nor to that
of Hananiah (see page 10). Said R. Jehudah: The Mishna
means to state the following: " To legalize a closed entry (one
enclosed on three sides) Beth Shammai hold that a side and
cross beam are necessary, while Beth Hillel hold, that either one
is sufficient." Shall we assume that in order to constitute a
private ground from a biblical point of view, according to Beth
Shammai, four walls are necessary (because the entry by the
addition of a side and cross beam would be turned into a seem-
ing wall) ? Nay ; throwing to or from public ground in ground
enclosed by three walls, makes one culpable from a biblical point
of view, but carrying is permitted only in ground enclosed by
four walls by the rabbinical law, according to Beth Shammai.

TRACT ERUBIN. 23

Shall we assume that Beth Hillel hold, that three walls, according
to biblical law, are necessary ? Nay ; from a biblical point of
view, throwing to or from public ground in ground enclosed by
two walls makes one culpable, but carrying is not permitted in
ground unless enclosed by three walls by rabbinical law, accord-
ing to Beth Hillel.

" R, Eliezer said, ' Two side-beams are necessary.' ' The
schoolmen propounded a question: " Did R. Eliezer mean to
state, that two side-beams and a cross-beam are necessary or two
side-beams alone ?" Come and hear: It happened that R. Eli-
ezer was going to R. Jose ben Preida, his disciple, in the city of
Ublin, and he found him sitting in an entry provided with only
one side-beam. Said R. Eliezer to him : ' My son, erect another
side-beam.' Said his disciple to him: ' Must I then close the
entry ? ' and he answered : ' Close it ; what matters it if it be
closed ?' Now, from the words of the disciple, " Must I then
close it?" we can infer, that it was already provided with a
cross-beam, and, therefore, the disciple asked what more he must
do, close it entirely ? Then, if we assume that there was only
a side-beam, why should the disciple have said, " Must I close it
entirely?" Nay; the disciple may have simply meant to ask,
must he close it up entirely with side-beams; and it maybe,
that there was no cross-beam there at all.

(In the same Tosephta) we are taught so : R. Simeon ben
Gamaliel said: " Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ as
to an entry that was less than four ells in width." According to
both schools, for such an entry nothing at all need be provided.
Wherein they do differ is an entry that is more than four ells
wide and up to ten ; Beth Shammai hold, that a side and cross
beam both are necessary, and Beth Hillel hold, that either is
sufficient. Did not our Mishna state that a disciple in the name
of R. Ishmael stated before R. Aqiba: " Beth Shammai and
Beth Hillel do not differ as to an entry less than four ells in
width, for both agree, that such an entry becomes legalized either
through a cross-beam or a side-beam " ? Said R. Ashi: " R.
Simeon ben Gamaliel means to state, that a side and cross beam
are not necessary according to the opinion of Beth Shammai, nor
two side-beams according to the opinion of R. Eliezer, but one
of the two, either a side or cross beam according to the opinion
of Beth Hillel" (i.e., by saying that for such an entry nothing
need be provided, R. Simeon ben Gamaliel means to state, that
nothing added by Beth Shammai or R. Eliezer need be provided).

24 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

An entry of how much less than four ells in width ? Said R.
A'hlai, according to another version R. Ye'hiel: " An entry of
less than four spans need have nothing (and from four spans up
to four ells, the side or cross beam is necessary)."

Said R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan : " A courtyard must
have two enclosures." Said R. Zera to R. Assi: "Did R.
Johanan indeed say so. Didst thou not thyself state in the
name of R. Johanan, that the enclosures of a courtyard must
measure at least four ells ? And if thou wouldst explain R.
Johanan's dictum to signify, that the enclosures would have to
be four ells on each side of the angle, did not R. Ada bar
Abhimi state before R. Hanina or before R. Hanina bar Papa,
that a small courtyard need only have enclosures to the extent of
ten ells all around and a large courtyard to the extent of eleven
ells." (Now, if eleven ells are divided by four, that would make
each of the four enclosures only two and three-quarter ells ?)
When R. Zera came from his sea-voyage he explained this in
the following manner: If an enclosure was made straight on one
side it must be four ells wide, but if made at an angle in the
corner it is sufficient if ever so small a part be on each side. As
for Ada's bar Abhimi statement above, it is in accordance with
the decree of Rabbi (and not R. Johanan), who holds in
accordance with R. Jose (that every side-beam must be three
spans wide), as will be seen further on.

R. Joseph said in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel:
"A courtyard need have but one enclosure." Said Abayi to
him: "Did Samuel indeed say this? We know that Samuel
said to R. Hananiah bar Shila : ' Thou shalt not perform any
work in a courtyard that has not the larger part of a wall or two
enclosures ! ' Said R. Joseph : " I do not know whether Samuel
said so or not, but I do know, that it happened in the village of
the shepherds, that an arm of the sea flowed into a courtyard,
and when R. Jehudah was asked what the law was concerning
that courtyard, he replied : ' Only one enclosure is necessary. ' '
Then Abayi rejoined: " Thou speakest of an arm of the sea;
that is altogether different ! The sages were very lenient with
all things pertaining to water, as R. Tabla asked Rabh : ' What
is the law concerning a ruin that had one suspended partition ?
May things be carried within it on Sabbath or not ? ' and Rabh
answered : ' A hanging partition legalizes a place only where
water reaches, because the sages were very lenient with all things
pertaining to water.' "

TRACT ERUBIN. 25

In any event this would be a contradiction to R. Jehudah's
statement in the name of Samuel, and to Samuel's statement to
Hananiah. When R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua
came from college, they explained Samuel's decree thus: " On
one side the enclosure must be at least four ells, but when made
on a corner, ever so small a part of the enclosures on each side
of the angle is sufficient." (Thus both statements may be cor-
rect. R. Jehudah's one enclosure refers to a straight enclosure
and Samuel's two refer to an enclosure at each corner.)

The Rabbis taught : From an arm of the sea, which enters a
courtyard, water must not be taken on Sabbath unless a parti-
tion has been made at the entrance at least ten spans in height.
This is the case if the breach in the wall (where the sea entered)
is more than ten ells in width, but if it was only ten ells, no par-
tition is necessary.

Thus, you say, that water must not be taken from the arm
of the sea, but things may be carried within the courtyard ? Did
not the breach in the wall open into ground that would invalidate
the courtyard (i.e., unclaimed ground) ? In this case fragments
of the wall were left beyond the breach and they were inundated
by the sea (but were originally ten spans high).

It was taught: R. Jehudah said: " An open entry which is
not suitable for the purpose of combining in an Erub, if it was
provided with a side-beam, anyone throwing a thing into it from
public ground is culpable, but if the entry was provided at one
end with a cross-beam, one who throws a thing into it from pub-
lic ground is not culpable." (R. Jehudah holds, that from a
biblical point of view three partitions are necessary to enclose a
private ground, and a side-beam at the end of an entry is equiva-
lent to a partition.) Hence R. Jehudah holds, that a side-beam
is equivalent to a partition, and a cross-beam is only put up for
appearance's sake. So is also the opinion of Rabba; but Rabha
said that both are erected only for appearance's sake.

R. Jacob bar Abba made an objection to Rabha based on the
following Boraitha: " If one throw a thing into an entry he is
culpable, if the entry is provided with a side-beam, but if it is
not provided with a side-beam, he is not culpable." This is
explained thus : If the entry (was a closed one and) needs only a
side-beam (for appearance's sake) one is culpable if he throws a
thing into it ; but if a side-beam alone would not legalize the
entry, and something more is necessary, the thrower is not cul-
pable.

26 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: " An entry that was
equal in length and width cannot be legalized by a side-beam of
small proportions," and R. Hyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabh
said, that an entry as wide as it is long cannot be legalized with
a cross-beam measuring only one span. Said R. Zera: " How
well the decisions of the old sages agree ! The reason for the
above decision is, that an entry of equal length and breadth is
not regarded as- an entry at all, but is in reality a courtyard, and
a courtyard cannot be legalized by a side or cross beam but
must have a partition of at least four ells." Said R. Zera again:
" If there is a difficulty in this decision the following would be
the difficulty: Why do they not consider a side-beam a partition
of some extent, and thus make it a medium of legalization ? ' '
It evidently slipped the memory of R. Zera, that R. Assi said in
the name of R. Johanan: " The enclosures of a court must not
be less than four ells."

Said R. Na'hman: "There is a tradition to the following
effect : Which is the entry that can be legalized by a side or
cross beam ? One, the length of which exceeds its width, and
houses and courts open into it. Which is the court that cannot
be legalized with a side or cross beam, but must have an enclosure
which is not less than four ells ? One that is square. ' ' Only if
it be square, but if round is it not a court ? He means to state
this: If the length exceeded the width, although it be a court,
it should not be considered such but must be regarded as an
entry, and as such may be legalized with a side or cross beam.
If the length, however, did not exceed the width ? Then, no
matter what its appearance was, it must be considered as a court.
By how much must the length exceed the width ? Samuel
intended to state, that the length should be double the widtli.
Said Rabh to him: " So said my uncle, ' Even if the length
exceeded the width by a trifle.' '

R. Aqiba said : " They differ in both."

What does R. Aqiba teach us hereby ? Is it not the same
as the teaching of the first Tana ? The difference between them
is as stated by R. A'hli, according to another version R. Yekhiel,
viz. : An entry of less than four spans need have nothing. But
they did not specify who was of R. A'hli's opinion and who was
not.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Aqiba said: " R. Ishmael
never made such a statement, but the disciple said this upon his
own authority and the Halakha prevails according to the disciple."

TRACT ERUBIN. 27

Is this not a contradictory assertion ? First, he says, that R.
Ishmael could not have made such a statement, i.e., that the
Halakha is not so, and then that the Halakha prevails according
to the disciple ? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: " R.
Aqiba said this only in order to encourage his disciples, that
they may pronounce decrees upon their own authority." R.
Na'hman bar Itz'hak said: " R. Aqiba really said that R. Ish-
mael made no such statement, but the decree of the disciple
was correct and should stand."

It was taught: R. Jehoshua ben Levi said: " In every case,
where it is stated that a disciple said in the name of R. Ishmael
before R. Aqiba, that disciple is R. Meir, who was a disciple of
both R. Ishmael and R. Aqiba."

R. A'ha bar Hanina said: It is known to Him, Who said
one word and the world was created, that in the generation of
R. Meir there was not one who was his equal ; but why do not
the Halakhas prevail according to his decisions ? Because his col-
leagues could never arrive at the conclusion of his decrees. If
he decided that a thing which was unclean was clean, he proved
it to them by a reason, and vice versa. We have learned in a
Boraitha, that his name was not Meir but Neherai. Why was
he called Meir ? Because he enlightened * the eyes of his col-
leagues in Halakhas. Where the name R. Neherai is mentioned,
it refers to R. Nehemiah or to R. Eliezer ben Arach. Why do
they call them Neherai ? Because they clarified the vision of
their colleagues in the Law.

Rabbi (according to some it was Rabh) said : Why am I more
sagacious than my colleagues ? Because I once saw the back of
R. Meir, and if I could look upon his face I would be more saga-
cious still, as it is written [Isaiah xxx. 20] : " But thy eyes shall
see thy teachers. ' '

Said R. Abbahu in the name of R. Johanan: " R. Meir had
one disciple, and his name was Symmachos, who could give
forty-eight reasons for the uncleanness of unclean things and
the same number of reasons for the cleanness of clean things."

Said R. Abba in the name of Samuel: Three years the
school of Shammai and the school of Hillel disputed. One
school said that the Halakhas prevail according to their opinion,

* Meir in Hebrew means, He makes light. Nehorah in Chaldaic is the same as
our (light) in Hebrew ; consequently Neherai in Chaldaic is the same as Meir in
Hebrew.

28 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

and the other claimed that their decrees should stand. Finally
a heavenly voice was heard to the effect that both schools dis-
puted as to the words of the living God, but the Halakhas pre-
vail according to the school of Hillel.

Now if it be true that both schools dispute as to the words
of the living God, why should the school of Hillel be thus
favored ? Because the members of the school of Hillel were
modest and patient, and would always repeat the words of the
school of Shammai. Not alone this ; but they also always gave
the school of Shammai precedence when citing their teachings,
as we have learned (in Tract Sukkah) : Said Beth Hillel to Beth
Shammai: " Did it not happen, that the eldest of the school of
Shammai and of the school of Hillel went together to visit R.
Johanan the son of Hachoranis, etc. (whence we see that the
eldest of the school of Shammai were given precedence over
those of the school of Hillel)." Thence thou canst learn, that
everyone who maketh himself humble is raised up by the Holy
One, blessed be He, and one who is arrogant is humbled by the
Holy One, blessed be He. He who pursueth greatness, the
greatness escapeth him, and he who avoideth greatness is sought
by greatness. He who forceth time (i.e., he who perforce
would become rich though fortune be against him), time oppress-
eth him, while he, who awaiteth his time, is assisted by time.

The Rabbis taught : Two years and a half Beth Shammai
and Beth Hillel disputed amongst themselves. One school
declared, it were better that man had not been created as he
was, while the other declared it was better that man had been
created as he was, than not to be created at all. Finally they
came to the conclusion, that it were better had man not been
created, but since that had happened, a man should always
examine his actions, and according to another version, a man
should always consider the deeds he is about to perform.

MISHNA: The cross-beam in question must be wide enough
to hold a half of a brick, three spans in length and in width.
It is, however, sufficient, if the cross-beam be only one span
wide, so as to hold the half of a brick lengthwise. The cross-
beam must be wide enough to hold a half of a brick and sound
enough to bear it. R. Jehudah saith : It must be wide enough,
even if it be not sound enough.

If the cross-beam be of straw or reed, it is (legally) regarded
as if it were of metal ; if it be crooked, it is (legally) regarded as
straight ; if it be cylindrical, it is (legally) regarded as square.

TRACT ERUBIN. 29

Anything (measuring) three spans in circumference, is one hand
in width.

GEMARA : Why does the Mishna say, that it is sufficient if
the cross-beam be only one span wide ; it should be one and a
half, which is the width of a half brick ? Because if the cross-
beam be one span wide the other half span which it should
measure, can be added by the addition of a little loam on each
side.

Said Rabba bar R. Huna : The cross-beam alone must be
sound enough to bear a half brick, but the supports upon which
it rests need not be sound enough to bear both the cross-beam
and the half brick (i.e., if the cross-beam was put up on sticks,
the sticks need not be sound enough to support both the cross-
beam and a half brick ; for the cross-beam being the sign of the
entry, it is only essential that it be sound enough to support a
half brick, although in reality it never serves the purpose, while
the sticks are not part of the sign and need not be put to such a
test). R. Hisda, however, states, that the cross-beam must be
sound enough to bear half a brick, and its supports must be sound
enough to bear both the cross-beam and the half brick.

R. Shesheth said: If one put up a cross-beam over an entry,
and hung a mat upon it, and this mat was distant from the
ground three spans or more, it is considered, that there is neither
a cross-beam nor a partition at the entry; no cross-beam, because
it is covered up, and no partition, because goats can go through it.

The Rabbis taught : If a cross-beam was put up over an entry,
but did not reach the opposite wall, or if two cross-beams were
put opposite each other, but did not meet, should the distance
between the cross-beam and the wall in the first instance, or
between the two cross-beams in the second instance, be three
spans or over, another cross-beam must be erected. If it be less
than three spans no other cross-beam is necessary. R. Simeon
ben Gamaliel, however, said, " If the distance be less than four
spans, another cross-beam is not necessary, but if it be four
spans or more, another cross-beam must be erected."

The same is the case with two cross-beams that were laid
parallel, neither one of which was sound enough to bear a half
brick : If both together measured one span in width, which is
sufficient to bear a half brick, another cross-beam is not neces-
sary, but if the two together measured less, another cross-beam
must be erected. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, however, said, that
if the two cross-beams were sound enough for the length of

3o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

three spans to bear a half brick, another cross-beam is not neces-
sary; otherwise, it is necessary.

" If two cross-beams were put up across an entry, one of
which was higher than the other, they are regarded as being on
a level, provided the higher beam is not over twenty ells above
ground and the lower one not less than ten spans above
ground." Thus said R. Jose bar R. Jehudah. Said Abayi:
" R. Jose bar R. Jehudah holds with his father in one instance
only, that the two beams are regarded as being on a level, but he
differs with him in the other, namely : that the higher beam must
not be over twenty ells above the ground; for R. Jehudah
declared in a previous Mishna, that even if it were over twenty
ells in height, the entry is valid."

' ' R. Jehudah saith : It must be wide enough, even if it be not
sound enough." R. Jehudah taught Hyya bar Rabh in the pres-
ence of Rabh: "It is sufficient, if the cross-beam be wide
enough even if it be not sound enough." Said Rabh to him:
' Teach him : ' It should be wide and strong enough. ' ' Did
not, however, R. Ilai say in the name of Rabh: " It is sufficient,
if it was four spans wide, even if it be not sound enough" ?
Four spans' width makes a difference.

" If the cross-beam be of straw or reed," etc. What does the
Mishna mean to teach us by this decree ? That we regard cer-
tain things in a different light ? This has already been taught
us previously. In the former teachings, however, one certain
kind of cross-beams was dealt with, namely, of wood ; hence we
might assume, that with straw or reed it might be different.
For this reason we are given to understand that straw or reed
may be regarded as metal.

" If it be crooked, it is regarded as straight." Is this not
self-evident ? The Mishna wishes to impart to us the teaching
of R. Zera as follows: " If the cross-beam was crooked only out-
side of the entry across which it was laid, or was crooked above
twenty ells from the ground ; or again, if the cross-beam was ten
spans above the ground and the crooked part of it below the
ten spans, the validity of the entry depends upon whether, if
the crooked part of the cross-beam were removed, the straight
part left would be distant three spans from the wall. If the dis-
tance is less than three spans the entry is valid, but if it be
over three spans another cross-beam must be erected. " Is this
teaching also not self-evident ? Nay ; it is necessary that we
be instructed to this effect, lest we presume that the crooked

TRACT ERUBIN. 31

part on the outside of the entry carry with it the straight part on
the inside and thus the entry is invalidated ; hence we are given
to understand, that such is not the case.

" If it be cylindrical, it is regarded as square. ' ' For what
purpose was it necessary to add this ? This was taught us on
account of the last clause in the Mishna, which states, that any-
thing measuring three spans in circumference is one hand in
width.

MISHNA: The side-beams in question must be ten spans
high, be their breadth and thickness whatever they may. R.
Jose saith: " They must be three spans wide."

GEMARA : Shall we assume that the Mishna, which is ren-
dered anonymously, is in accordance with the opinion of R. Eli-
ezer, who holds that two side-beams are necessary ? Nay ; the
side-beams in question refer to side-beams necessary for all entries.
If this be the case, why did not the previous Mishna state cross-
beams instead of " the cross-beam " ? The above Mishna means
to state, that the side-beams concerning which there is a differ-
ence of opinion between the sages and R. Eliezer should be ten
spans high, be their breadth and thickness whatever it may.
How much is meant by " whatever it may " ? R. Hyya taught :
" Even the breadth and thickness of a thread of a Saraball." *

A Boraitha states: " If one made a side-beam in one half of
an entry, he has only a half of an entry." Is this not self-evi-
dent ? We might presume that because one must not use the
whole entry, hence the half must also not be used, and we are
taught, that the half may be used.

Rabha said: " If one made a side-beam for an entry and it
was three spans distant from the ground or three spans away
from the wall, it does not count ; and even according to R. Sim-
eon ben Gamaliel who holds an object to be ' lavud ' (attached)
although four spans distant, the side-beam is of no use, because
R. Simeon ben Gamaliel's opinion applies to an object which is
four spans distant at the top ; but at the bottom, where goats can
pass through, a trifle less than three spans is the maximum dis-
tance. ' '

4 ' R. Jose saith : ' They must be three spans wide. ' ' Said R.

Jehudah the son of R. Samuel bar Shila in the name of Rabh :

' The Halakha does not prevail according to R. Jose either

where brine is concerned t or where a side- beam is in question."

* A Saraball was an article of apparel similar to the modem Turkish trousers.
I See Tract Sabbath, Chapter XIV., Mishna 2.

32 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Said the schoolmen to him: " Dost thou confidently assert
this?" and R. Jehudah answered: "Nay." Said Rabha:
" By the Lord! He said this of a certainty, and we accepted it
from him." Why then did he say " nay " ? Because, we have
learned elsewhere, that wherever R. Jose made an assertion, he
always had good reason for it (and R. Jehudah did not wish to
dispute with R. Jose).

Said Rabha bar R. Hana to Abayi: "According to whom,
however, does the Halakha prevail concerning the side-beams ? "
He answered: "Go and observe the custom of the people"
(which is as much as saying, that the breadth and thickness of
a side-beam can be whatever it may).

It was taught: A side-beam, that was standing of itself, i.e.,
that had not been especially erected, is, according to Abayi,
valid, and, according to Rabha, not valid. If the side-beam
was not depended upon to serve the purpose on the preceding
day (before Sabbath), all agree, that it is not valid ; but if it was
depended upon for that purpose, Abayi declares, that it may
be utilized, because it was depended upon on the preceding day,
while Rabha holds that not having been erected for that purpose
it must not be used. As for a partition, standing of itself, there
is no difference of opinion, and all agree that even if it was not
intended to serve as a partition, it may be used, and the reason
they differ in the case of a side-beam is because each holds to
his own theory: Abayi regards a side-beam as a partition, and a
partition may be utilized under any circumstances, while Rabha
regards a side-beam merely as a sign, and as such it must be
especially prepared for the purpose before it may be used.

An objection was made: "Come and hear: If stones pro-
truded from the fence around an entry and they were less than
three spans apart, another side-beam for the entry is not neces-
sary; but if they were three spans apart, another side-beam
must be erected." Here the case is also, if the stones were so
arranged purposely to commence with. If such be the case, is
this not self-evident ? We might assume that the stones were
arranged in that manner with the intention of adding more
to them, hence we are given to understand that this may be done.

Another objection was made: Come and hear: Rabh was
sitting in a certain entry and R. Huna was sitting before him.
Said Rabh to his servant: "Go and bring me a pitcher of
water." Before his servant returned, the side-beam at the entry
fell, and Rabh motioned to his servant to remain where he was.

TRACT ERUBIN. 33

Said R. Huna to him: " Did not Master hold, that the tree
standing in the entry may be regarded as a side-beam ?" and
Rabh answered : ' ' That scholar is as a man who never under-
stood a Halakha. Did we depend upon that tree to serve as a
side-beam yesterday ? ' ' Now, we see, that according to Rabh,
had the tree been depended upon on the preceding day to serve
as a side-beam, it would have been valid. Shall we assume, that
Abayi and Rabha differ concerning a side-beam standing of itself
even if it was not depended upon on the preceding day, but if
depended upon, both agree that it may be used. Nay; we
cannot say this ; because there was a pillar in the house of Bar
Habo concerning which Abayi and Rabha differed all of their
lives. (This is one of the six Halakhas that prevail according to
Abayi, for generally Rabha is given precedence, as will be seen
in the maxims of the Talmud.)

MISHNA: Side-beams may be made out of anything, even
of such as are possessed of life. The latter, however, is pro-
hibited by R. Meir. A living animal tied to the mouth of a
grave in order to close it up communicates uncleanness (even
after it has been removed). R. Meir, however, declares the
animal clean. A letter of divorce for a woman may be written
on a living animal, but R. Jose, the Galilean, pronounces the
letter of divorce null and void (not legal).*

If a caravan encamp in a valley and a fence be made around
the camp out of the cattle's gear, it is permitted to carry things
inside of the fence (on Sabbath), providing the fence be ten
spans high and the open spaces therein do not exceed in extent
the fence proper. Every open space which is ten spans wide is
permitted (to be used as an entry), for it is considered as a door,
but such open spaces as are more than ten spans wide must not
be used.

GEMARA : It was taught : If the open spaces of the fence
equalled in extent the fence proper, R. Papa said: " The fence
is valid." R. Huna bar R. Jehoshua however said, "It is not
valid." R. Papa held it to be valid because so was Moses taught
by the Merciful One: "The larger part (of a partition) must
not be broken." R. Huna bar R. Jehoshua held ft not to be
valid because the Merciful One taught Moses thus: " The larger
part must be fenced in. "

* The Gemara pertaining to this Mishna will be found in Tract Gittin. as it
does not belong to or treat of Erubin.
VOL. in. — 3

34 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

An objection was made: Our Mishna states that " the open
spaces must not exceed in extent the fence proper " ; but if the
space was equal in extent to the fence it should be valid. This
question remains.

Another objection was made. Come and hear: " If a cara-
van encamped in a valley and a fence was made with camels,
with saddles, with the baggage, or with sticks, or with bundles
of herbs, things may be carried inside the fence, providing the
space between each camel does not exceed the size of another
camel or the space between each saddle does not exceed the size
of another saddle, etc." (Whence we see that if the space
equals in extent the actual fence, the fence is not valid.) Here
the case is, that the space between two camels should be large
enough for a camel to go in and out, but not the exact size of a
camel.

Another objection was made: " Walls of which the greater
part consists of windows and doors are valid, providing the wall
proper is larger in extent than the space." If, however, the
space and walls are equal, the walls are not valid ; this would be
contradictory to R. Papa's opinion. It is contradictory, but
the Halakha remains according to R. Papa. How can it be, that
there should be a contradiction and still the Halakha should pre-
vail according to R. Papa ? It is possible, because our Mishna
states, that the open space should not exceed the fence proper,
hence if space and fence are equal, the fence is valid. Conse-
quently the Halakha prevails according to R. Papa.

MISHNA: A fence may also be constructed with three ropes,
one above the other ; providing the space between each rope be
less than three spans, and the measure (width or thickness) of
the three ropes together exceed one span, so that the entire
(fence) attain (the height of) ten spans.

A fence may also be made of cane-laths, providing the space
between the canes be less than three spans. All these regula-
tions apply to a caravan only. So saith R. Jehudah, but the
sages maintain, that the caravan (in the preceding Mishna) is par-
ticularly spoken of in order to adduce therefrom that which is
generally done. Any partition which is not constructed on the
principle of warp and shoot is not a (lawful) partition. Such is
the dictum of R. Jose bar Jehudah; but the sages hold, that
constructing it according to either one of the two principles is
sufficient.

GEMARA: Said R. Hamnuna in the name of Rabh: " It

TRACT ERUBIN. 35

was said, that the solid part of the partition must exceed the
space of the partition when constructed on the principle of the
shoot in order to make it valid ; the question, however, arises by
me concerning a partition constructed on the principle of the
warp. What is the law?" Said Abayi to him: " Come and
hear: Our Mishna states, that the width or thickness of the
three ropes together must exceed one span in order to make the
entire fence ten spans. If it were the same with a fence con-
structed on the principle of the warp as with one constructed on
the order of the shoot, why does the Mishna specify one which,
including all the ropes, will bring the total up to ten spans."
How can such an assertion be made ? Where should the space
of four spans be placed ? Should it be placed at the bottom,
i.e., between the ground and the first rope, then the space will be
large enough to permit of goats passing through and the fence
will be of no use. Should it be placed at the top, i.e., be-
tween the second and third rope, then the space between the
two ropes, together with the space above the third rope, will
nullify the third rope entirely, because the third rope will have
no connection whatever with the two lower. Should it be
placed in the center, i.e., between the first and second rope,
then there will be only a quasi-solid partition at the bottom and
the same at the top, but between the two there will be virtually
an empty space of four spans ; should it be assumed that such a
partition can also be accounted lawful where the solid parts are
disconnected, and an empty space exists between them ? (This
question is not decided.)

" Cane-laths." How can R. Jehudah say, that all these
regulations apply to a caravan only, and not to individuals ?
Have we not learned elsewhere, that R. Jehudah said: "It is
not allowed for an individual to construct a partition for the
Sabbath around a piece of ground, wherein more than two saahs
of grain could be planted." Hence if the piece of ground is
only so large that two saahs of grain can be planted therein, he
may make the partition. (How then can he say in the Mishna,
that these regulations apply only to a caravan ?) This can be
explained in the same manner as R. Na'hman, and according to
others R. Bibhi bar Abayi, explained the last clause of our
Mishna, viz. : " Any partition, which is not constructed on the
principle of warp and shoot, is not a (lawful) partition. Such is
the dictum of R. Jose bar Jehudah." The question was made,
whether such could be the dictum of R. Jose bar Jehudah.

36 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Did we not learn in a Boraitha, that " no difference is made as
far as a fence constructed with ropes is concerned between a
caravan and an individual except that the space enclosed by the
fence must not for one man or even for two exceed that in which
two saahs of grain could be planted. For three men, however,
who are regarded as a caravan, a space in which six saahs of
grain can be planted is allowed. So said R. Jose bar Jehudah ;
but the sages maintain, that there is absolutely no difference
made between a caravan and an individual, and that they may
enclose all the space they require, providing they do not enclose
superfluous ground to the extent that two saahs of grain could
be planted in such an empty space. " How can R. Jose bar
Jehudah state that a fence must be constructed according to the
principles of warp and shoot ; does he not allow a fence made
with ropes, which is only on the principle of the warp ? And R.
Na'hman, according to others R. Bibhi bar Abayi, answered and
said, that R. Jose bar Jehudah requires a partition to be con-
structed on both principles only in order to allow even an indi-
vidual all the space necessary. Now, the same can be said in
answer to the question made concerning the contradictory state-
ments of R. Jehudah.

R. Na'hman related in the name of our master Samuel:
" An individual or even two men are allowed to enclose as
much space as would permit of the planting of two saahs of
grain therein, but three men, who are regarded as a caravan,
may have all the space necessary." How is this? The first
part of this teaching is in accordance with R. Jose bar R.
Jehudah, and the last according to the sages ? Yea; Abbahu is
also of the same opinion.

R. Gidel in the name of Rabh said: " There are instances
when three men must not occupy space so large that five
saahs of grain can be planted therein, and again, there are
instances when they may occupy space in which even seven
saahs of grain may be planted. ' ' (The instances were not quoted,
however.) " Is it possible that Rabh should have said this ?"
queried the sages, and R. Gidel answered: " I swear by the Law
of Moses and by the prophets, and by the Hagiographa, that
Rabh said this." Said R. Ashi: " What difficulty is there in
this ? Let us suppose, that the three men needed a space of six
saahs' capacity, and enclosed one so large, that seven saahs could
be accommodated. (Then only a space is empty where one saah
of grain could be planted.) Hence they may use the entire

TRACT ERUBIN. 37

space. But supposing, that they needed only a space large
enough to accommodate but five saahs of grain, and enclosed
one large enough for seven, (then a space large enough for the
planting of two saahs is vacant) and they must not use even the
space large enough for five saahs." Did not the same Boraitha
teach us, however, that a space large enough for the planting of
two saahs must not be vacant, and thereby meant to state, that
each man should be allowed a space large enough for two saahs,
and then if a space for two saahs is vacant the entire space must
not be used ; hence, when there are three men, they should not
be allowed the use of a space large enough for the planting of
eight saahs, but one accommodating only seven should be
allowed them ? Nay; the Boraitha meant to state, that the
space allowed to the men should be only as much as they need
for the accommodation of all their belongings.

' ' But the sages hold that constructing it according to either one
of the two principles is sufficient." Is this not a repetition of
what the first Tana stated in opposition to R. Jose's bar R.
Jehudah dictum ? There is a difference of opinion concerning
an individual between the first and second sages as regards an
inhabited place (and not the desert). According to the first
sages who maintain that the regulations apply not only to a car-
avan but to all individuals in general, this refers to individuals
who are on the road, but when in inhabited places the regula-
tions do not apply to them, while the second sages who oppose
R. Jose bar Jehudah hold, that it makes absolutely no difference,
be it caravan or an individual, in an inhabited place or in the
desert.

MISHNA: Four privileges have been granted to warriors in
camp : They may bring wood from any place (without respecting
the rights of ownership) ; they need not wash their hands before
meals ; they may eat of Damai (grain of which it is not certain
that the legal dues, tithes, etc., have been set aside); and they
are exempt from the obligation of making an Erub.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If an ordinary war* is in
progress, it is permitted for the warriors to appropriate dry
wood without respecting the rights of ownership. R. Jehudah
ben Thima said: " They may also encamp wherever they choose,

* By an ordinary war is meant a war carried on by the people without the direct
commandment of God as distinct from the wars carried on by Joshua by divine com-
mandment.

38 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

and wherever one is killed there may he also be buried, although
the ground does not belong to him."

' ' They are permitted to appropriate dry wood. ' ' This has
also been ordained even by Joshua! Joshua ordained, that
wood may be cut and appropriated by the warriors, but later
even cut and dry wood was allowed to be taken.

" Where one is killed, there may he also be buried." Is this not
self-evident ? The killed were strangers and had no one to secure
a burying ground for them. The law also states, that whenever
a man dies without leaving sufficient means for the acquirement
of a place of burial, he may be interred in the place where he
dies. This case refers to warriors who even left sufficient means
to secure a burying ground.

" They need not wash their hands before meals." Said
Abayi : " This refers only to washing the hands before meals, but
after meals it is even then necessary, because R. Hyya bar
Ashi said : ' Why did the sages ordain the washing of hands
after meals ? Because among the salt used at the table there
may be salt of Sodom, and when a hand which had touched salt
of Sodom comes in contact with the eyes it blinds them.' There
is only one grain of salt of Sodom in a whole kur of ordinary
salt, ' ' said Abayi.

Said R. A'ha the son of Rabba to R. Ashi: " How is the
law, concerning one who had measured salt ? " and he answered :
" So much the more must he wash his hands."

' TJiey may eat of Damai." As we have learned in another
Mishna: " Beth Hillel said, that a poor man and a warrior may
partake of Damai."

' ' They are exempt from the obligation of making an Erub. ' '
The disciples of R. Janai said : They are exempt from the oblu
gation of making an Erub as far as courts and entries are con-
cerned, but not where the limit of the distance of two thousand
ells (techoom) is concerned, because R. Hyya taught: "One
who is guilty of transgressing the law of techoom should be
punished with stripes as for any other biblical negative com-
mandment." R. Jonathan opposed this: " Can a man be pun-
ished with stripes for a negative commandment which com-
mences with the word Al ? " * This was again opposed by R.

* Al and Lo both mean " not " in Hebrew, and R. Jonathan means to say, that
only such negative commandments as commence with " Lo " involve, if transgressed,
the punishment of stripes, but not such as commence with " Al."

TRACT ERUBIN. 39

A'ha bar Jacob: " According to thy theory then the man who
transgresses the commandment in [Leviticus xix. 31], ' Turn
not unto them that have familiar spirits and unto wizards '
(which also commences with ' Al '), should also not be punished
with stripes ? " R. Jonathan puts his question in the following
sense: The violation of a commandment which involves the
death penalty when committed intentionally cannot be punished
with stripes at all, and the violation of the Sabbath is certainly
a capital -off ence (how then can R. Hyyahold that it can be pun-
ished with stripes ?). Answered R. Ashi : It is written [Exod.
xvi. 29], " Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day,"
but it does not state, that a man should not carry things on that
day. (Consequently the transgressing of the law of techoom is
not a capital offence, and is on a par with all other negative
commandments.)

CHAPTER II.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF A WELL AND A GARDEN ON

THE SABBATH.

MISHNA: Enclosures (partitions) must be made around
wells. They must be made of four boards, placed at an angle
(of forty-five degrees) at the corners of the well, so that the
four boards appear like eight (see illustration). Such is the dic-
tum of R. Jehudah ; but R. Meir saith : Eight boards must be
used which will appear as twelve, namely, four boards placed at
an angle at the corners which appear as eight, and four boards
. __ __ placed between the corner boards. The

\S ^Si height of the boards must be ten spans, the

x->. width six spans, and the thickness whatever

M* V^y it may be. The space between the two

l\. «~» /| corner boards on the same side must not be
:=, UL-. wider than to permit of the passing through

of two teams of cattle, each team of three animals abreast. Such
is the decree of R. Meir. R. Jehudah, however, maintains, that
each team may be of four animals abreast, meaning of cattle
yoked together in a team, but not walking unyoked, so that one
enters as the other passes out.

It is permitted to bring the enclosure quite close to the well,
providing, that the head and greater part of the body of the
animal be within the enclosure while it drinks. It may also be
placed at some distance from the well, providing that more
boards be used.

R. Jehudah said: The maximum distance from the well at
which the enclosure may be placed is a space large enough for
the planting of two saah of grain, but the sages said to him :
' This size (sufficient for the planting of two saah of grain) is
only applicable to a garden or a wood-shed, but as regards a
cattle-pen, a fold, a bleaching-ground (behind the house), or a
courtyard (in front of the house), even though it be large
enough to permit of the planting of five kur of grain therein,
yea, or even of ten kur, it is lawful (to carry things therein on

TRACT ERUBIN. 41

the Sabbath)." It is also permitted to place the enclosure at
any convenient distance from the well, provided more boards
be used.

GEMARA : Shall we assume, that our Mishna is not accord-
ing to Hananiah, as we have learned in a Boraitha, viz. : " Boards
may be put up at a well and ropes for a fence of a caravan, but
Hananiah said, that ropes for a well are permitted but not
boards ' ' ? Nay ; we may say, that our Mishna agrees with Hana-
niah ; but a well containing rain-water is one thing and one con-
taining spring-water is another. Our Mishna treats of spring-
water and Hananiah refers to rain-water. To make an enclosure
around a well of rain-water is permitted only during the time
of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

" R. Jehudah said: The maximum distance," etc. We have
learned in a Mishna (Damai i. i): R. Jehudah also said: "All
bad (inferior) dates are not suspected of being Damai, with the
exception of the fruit known as double-fruit (Si-GOTtopci)." Said
Ula : The tree bearing this fruit bears twice a year (and the igno-
rant people might object to acquit the legal dues thereof).

R. Jeremiah ben Elazar said : Adam the first (man) had a
dual face, as it is written [Psalms cxxxix. 5]: "Behind and
before hast thou hedged me in, and thou placest upon me thy
hand."

It is written [Genesis ii. 22]: " And the Lord God formed
the rib which he had taken from the man into a woman." Rabh
and Samuel both comment upon this. One declares, that the
Lord simply divided Adam, who had a dual head, while the
other holds, that Adam had a tail and the Lord made the woman
out of that tail. So according to the one the passage " Behind
and before," etc., is correct, but, according to the other, how
should it be explained ? It may be explained as R. Ami said :
" By ' behind ' is meant that last of (behind) all was man cre-
ated, and by ' before,' that before (first of) all others did he
receive his punishment." The first part of this explanation is
correct because man was created last of all on the eve of
Sabbath, but the second part is not true ; for was not the ser-
pent cursed before Eve, and Eve before Adam ? The punish-
ment refers to the flood, concerning which it is written [Genesis
vii. 23]: "And it swept off every living substance which was
upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, etc.," and
man is mentioned before all else. Further, it is written, that
the Lord brought Eve to Adam, i.e., that the Lord was sponsor

42 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

to them. Whence we learn, that a man, be he ever so great,
should not refuse to be sponsor to a lesser man.

R. Meir said : Adam the First was very pious, for when he
saw, that on his account the human race was made mortal, he
fasted one hundred and thirty years, separated himself from
woman, and wore leaves of a fig-tree on his body for the same
length of time.

R. Jeremiah ben Elazar said : If a man is to be praised to his
face only a small part of the praise due him should be given
him, but his entire share may be bestowed upon him in his
absence, as it is written [Genesis vii. i] : " For thee I have seen
righteous before me in this generation," and [ibid. vi. 9] : " Noah
was a just, perfect man in his generations." Thus we see that
to his face the Lord merely called Noah righteous, whereas
in his absence the verse called him " a just, perfect man."

The same said again : A house, where the words of the Law
are also heard at night, shall never more be destroyed, as it is
written [Job xxxv. 10] : " But man saith not, ' Where is God
my maker, who bestoweth joyful songs even in the night,' " and
the verse is explained thus: If man would have sung joyful
songs even in the night, he would not have been compelled to
ask : ' ' Where is God my maker ? ' '

The same said again : Since the destruction of the temple it
is sufficient for man to use only two letters in place of the four
forming the name of the Lord (i.e., Yod and Heh instead of
Yod, Heh, Vav, and Heh), as it is written [Psalms cl. 6] : " Let
everything that hath breath praise Jah (the Lord). Hallelujah."

He said again : When Babylon was cursed, it was a curse to
the neighbors also; but when Samaria was cursed, the neighbors
rejoiced. Speaking of Babylon, it is written [Isaiah xiv. 23] :
" I will also make it a possession for the hedgehog and pools of
water," and speaking of Samaria, it is written [Micah i. 6]:
" Therefore will I change Samaria into stone-heaps on the field,
into vineyard plantations."

He said again : Come and see how the custom of the Holy
One, blessed be He, differs from that of mortal man : When a
man is about to be executed, a gag is placed in his mouth in
order that he may not curse the king; but if a man transgresses
against the Lord, the man is silenced, as it is written [Psalms
Ixv. 2] : " For thee praise is waiting, O God, in Zion." Not
only is the man who transgresses against the Lord silent (wait-
ing) but he also praises him, and the punishment given man for

TRACT ERUBIN. 43

the transgression is regarded by him as a sacrifice unto the Lord,
as it is written, " and unto thee shall vows be paid " [ibid.].

This is similar to the saying of R. Jehoshua ben Levi as fol-
lows: It is written [Psalms Ixxxiv. 7]: " Passing through tbe
valley of weeping, they will change it into a spring ; also the
early rain covereth it with blessings." " Passing " refers to the
man who has trespassed against the will of the Holy One, blessed
be He, "the valley" refers to hell which is made deeper,
" weeping" signifies that they are weeping and shedding tears
equal to the spring of Shitin, and " the early rain covereth it
with blessings " denotes that the trespassers themselves bless the
Lord, saying: " Creator of the Universe, Thou hast judged
rightly, finding the righteous just and the wicked full of iniquity,
(and blessed be Thou) that Thou hast ordained hell for the
wicked and paradise for the righteous."

Is this statement not contradictory to the saying of Resh
Lakish to the effect that the fires of hell cannot gain access to
the "bodies of the sinners in Israel, which is derived from the a
fortiori conclusion that inasmuch as the gold which was only
of the thickness of. one golden dinar covering the ark of the
covenant, was not touched by the perpetual light, although but
one commandment was being fulfilled, so much more will the
sinner in Israel who has fufilled as many commandments as a
pomegranate has seeds escape the fires of hell (as it is written
[Solomon's Song vi. 7]: " Like the half of the pomegranate is
the upper part of thy cheek," etc. And Resh Lakish said: Do
not read " the upper part of thy cheek," but read " thy vain,
wicked men " *). Nay; even Resh Lakish admits that the sin-
ners descend into hell; but our father Abraham, seeing that
they are circumcised, rescues them.

R. Jeremiah ben Elazar said again: " Hell has three gates:
One in the desert, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem." " In
the desert," as it is written [Numbers xvi. 33] : " And they went
down, they, and all they that appertained to them, alive into
the pit (Sheol-Gehenna). " " In the sea," as it is written [Jonah
ii. 3] : " Out of the depth of the grave have I cried, and thou
hast heard my voice." "And one in Jerusalem," as it is written
[Isaiah xxxi. 9] : " Who hath a fire in Zion, and a furnace in
Jerusalem." And the disciples of R. Ishmael taught, that by a

* " The upper part of thy cheek " Is expressed in Hebrew by " Rakothech," and
Resh Lakish reads instead " Rikothech," which signifies " thy vain or wicked men."

44 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

fire in Zion is meant Gehenna, and by the furnace in Jerusalem
is meant the gate of Gehenna.

R. Jehoshua ben Levi said, that hell has seven names, viz. :
Sheol, Abadon, Baar Shachath, Bor Sheon, Tit Hayavon, Tzal-
moveth, and Eretz Hathachthith.*

Where is the gate of Paradise? Said Resh Lakish: " If
the gate of Paradise is in the land of Israel it is in the city of
Beth Sheon. If it is in Araby it is in the city of Beth Gerem,
and if it is between the rivers it is in Damaskanun."

In Babylon, Abayi would praise the fruit growing on the
other side of the Euphrates and Rabha would praise the fruit
of the city of Harphania (so it may be that the gate of Para-
dise is situated in one of these two places).

' ' Cattle yoked together in a team, but not walking unyoked. ' '
Why does the Mishna say " yoked together but not unyoked " ?
It is self-evident, that if they must be yoked they cannot be un-
yoked ? We might assume, that if it said only " yoked to-
gether" we might think that apparently yoked would be suffi-
cient, so it is repeated in order to make it more emphatic.

' ' So that one enters as the other passes out. ' ' That means,
that one team can enter while another passes out. This was
taught in a Boraitha.

The Rabbis taught : How much (in size) must the larger part
of a cow be reckoned ? Two ells. What is the breadth of a
cow ? One and two-thirds of an ell. Thus six cows abreast
will measure about ten ells. So said R. Meir, but R. Jehudah
said: "About thirteen or fourteen ells." Why does R. Meir
say " about ten ells " ? It is exactly ten ells ? Because he must
teach later " about thirteen ells," so he also approximates it in
this case, and says " about ten ells." Now, why does R. Jehu-
dah say "about thirteen ells"? According to his opinion it
should be more ? Because he wishes to say " about fourteen "
he generalizes it and says " about thirteen or fourteen." How
can he say about fourteen ? It is less than fourteen ? Said R.
Papa: " He means to say more than thirteen and less than four-
teen " (i.e., the measure of two teams of four cows each abreast
is more than thirteen and less than fourteen ells).

R. Papa said : For a well that measures not more than eight

* These names can be found in the following passages : Jonah ii. 3 ; Psalms
Ixxxviii. 12 ; ibid. xvi. 10 ; ibid. xl. 2 ; ibid. cvii. 10 ; the last name is traditional
and not mentioned in the Scriptures.

TRACT ERUBIN. 45

ells in circumference, all agree, that no centre-boards are neces-
sary. For a well of twelve ells in circumference, all agree that
they are necessary. Where they differ is concerning a well that
is between eight and twelve ells in circumference. According to
R. Meir centre-boards are necessary, and according to R. Jehu-
dah they are not. What would R. Papa inform us ? We have
learned this in our Mishna; for R. Jehudah says two teams of
four animals each and R. Meir two teams of three each, so the
difference is the size of two animals but not the size of one. R.
Papa did not know of the Boraitha stating the size of a cow, so
he came to teach us the measure.

Abayi asked Rabba: " What is the law if a man make the
enclosures wider ; must, according to R. Meir, centre-boards be
put up nevertheless or not ? " and Rabba answered: " This was
taught us in the Mishna, ' providing that more boards be used. '
Can we not assume that centre-boards are necessary?" Re-
joined Abayi: " Nay! it may mean that the corner-boards should
be increased in length." It seems to us that the opinion of the
latter is the intention of the Mishna. This decides the argu-
ment.

Abayi asked Rabba again: " What is the law according to
R. Jehudah if the space between the corner-boards on the same
side exceeded thirteen and one-third ells ? What should a man
do then ? Should he increase the length of the corner-boards
or put up centre-boards? " Answered Rabba: This was taught
us in a Boraitha as follows: What is meant by " they are near
each other" ? If they are only apart a space as large as the
greater part of a cow. What would be called " they are far
away from each other " ? If the space between them is so large
that a kur or even two kurs of grain can be planted therein. R.
Jehudah, however, said, that only a space large enough to per-
mit of the planting of two saahs of grain is permitted, but no
more. The sages said to R. Jehudah: " Dost thou not admit
that a cattle-pen or a fold, a bleaching-ground or a courtyard,
even though they be large enough to accommodate five or even
ten kurs of grain, are permitted ? " R. Jehudah answered : " Here
the case is different ; for here we have partitions, while in the
case of a well we have only enclosures." Now, if the length of
the corner-boards should be increased, then R. Jehudah would
say that the boards around a well also constitute a partition.
Rejoined Abayi: Around a cattle-pen or a fold, a bleaching-
ground or a courtyard, according to R. Jehudah, the law of a

46 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

partition is applied and that must not contain a space larger
than ten ells, and it matters not whether that space have a capac-
ity large enough to permit of planting one or five kur of grain ;
but the space between the corner-boards was fixed at thirteen
and one-third ells because the law of enclosures is applied, hence
it should not have a capacity larger than would permit of the
planting of two saahs of grain, even if the length of the boards
be increased.

Abayi asked Rabba again: "Can a sandheap four ells wide
and sloping up to a height of ten spans take the place of the
corner-boards at a well ?" Answered Rabba: " This is taught
in a Tosephta: ' R. Simeon ben Elazar said: If there was a
square rock standing at the corner of a well, which if divided
would form an angle, each side of which would be one ell, it
may take the place of corner-boards, otherwise it cannot. ' ' R.
Ishmael the son of R. Johanan ben Berokah said: " Even if the
rock was round and when made square and divided would form
an angle each side of which would be one ell, it may also take
the place of the corner-boards." On what point do they differ ?
According to the former Tana there is only one supposition
allowed regarding the rock, whereas according to the latter, even
two suppositions concerning the rock are permitted.

He asked him again: " Maya bush take the place of cor-
ner-boards ? " and Rabba answered : " We have learned this in a
Boraitha: If there was a fence, a tree, or a number of cane-laths
on the spot, they may serve as corner-boards." What is meant
by cane-laths ? In all probability a bush. Nay ; we might
assume, that they were really cane-laths and less than three spans
apart ? Then, by application of the law of " lavud " it would
be a fence, and the Boraitha mentions a fence in the first place;
why should the repetition be made ? If it is a bush, it is the
same as a tree ; why the repetition in this instance ? It might
be said, then, that two kinds of a tree are mentioned; why
should not two kinds of fences be mentioned ?

Abayi asked him again : May things be carried from a court-
yard opening into the enclosure around a well and vice versa ?
Rabba answered: " They may." " How is it if there were two
adjoining courtyards opening into the enclosure ? " " Then one
must not carry from the courtyards into the enclosure." Said
R. Huna: " If there were two courtyards, even an Erub will
not make it lawful to carry things from the courtyards into the
enclosure as a precaution, lest it be said, that the law of Erub

TRACT ERUBIN. 47

applies also to enclosures." Rabha, however, said : " If an Erub
was made, it is lawful. ' ' Said Abayi : ' ' I know of a Boraitha,
which supporteth thy opinion, viz. : If a courtyard opened into
an enclosure around a well, things may be carried to and from
the courtyard and the enclosure, but if two courtyards opened
into the enclosure, this is not allowed, provided an Erub was not
made. If an Erub was made, it is lawful."

Abayi asked Rabba again: " What is the law concerning the
enclosures of a well which had gone dry on Sabbath ?" and he
answered : ' ' Were not the enclosures made merely for the sake
of the water ? If the water gave out, the enclosures are void."
Now asked Rabin of Abayi: " What is the law if the well went
dry on the Sabbath and was filled again on the same day?"
Answered Abayi : Concerning the law of a well that had gone
dry I asked Master and he told me that the enclosures were
void ; hence if the well filled up again on the same day the
enclosure must be regarded as one constructed on the Sabbath
and it was decided that [in Tract Sabbath, page 200] a partition
constructed on the Sabbath is valid.

R. Elazar said: "If one throw something (from public
ground) within the enclosures around a well, he is culpable."
Is this not self-evident ? If the enclosures were not regarded as
a partition, how would it be allowed to draw water from the well
on Sabbath ? R. Elazar means to tell us, that if such enclos-
ures were erected in public ground without having a well, it also
makes one culpable to throw a thing within the enclosures. Is
this not self-evident ? If such enclosures were not regarded as
a partition elsewhere, how could they be thus considered when
erected around a well ? He lets us know, that even if the space
surrounded by the enclosures is used as a public thoroughfare,
it is nevertheless regarded as private ground. Then he means
to tell us, that the public who pass through the enclosures do
not nullify the validity of the enclosures ? This we have also
been taught [in Tract Sabbath, page 10]. The ordinance there
is derived from his dictum above.

' ' // is permitted to place the enclosures quite close to the well. ' '
We have learned in a Mishna [Sabbath, xi.] : A man must not,
standing in private ground, drink in public ground, nor, stand-
ing in public ground, drink in private ground, unless he place his
head and the greater part of his body within the place in which
he drinks. Such is likewise the law regarding a vine-press. Shall
we assume, that it is sufficient for a man to have his head and

48 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

the greater part of his body in the place in which he drinks, but
does this also apply to cattle or not ? If the man hold the ves-
sel from which the cattle drink and holds also the cattle (so that
they cannot turn around), there is no question but that it is suf-
ficient if they have their heads and the larger part of their bodies
within the enclosures ; but if the man hold the vessel only, and
not the cattle, what is the law ? Replied one of the schoolmen
to the questioner: We have learned this in our Mishna, viz.:
" Providing the head and the greater part of the body of the
animal be within the enclosure while it drinks." Must we not
assume, that in this case the man holds only the vessel and not
the animal ? Nay ; he holds both the vessel and the animal and
the law seems to apply to the latter instances ; for had he not held
the animal also, how could this be allowed ? Did we not learn
in a Boraitha: A man must not fill a vessel with water to give
to his cattle, but he may fill up the vessel and let his cattle drink
of their own accord. (This was taught concerning the enclosures
around the well.) Now, then, if we should say, that this Boraitha
applies to a man who holds both the vessel and the cattle, why
should he not water the cattle out of the vessel? We must there-
fore assume, that he did not hold the cattle, and consequently
it is obvious that one must hold both the vessel and the cattle.

Have we not learned, that Abayi explains the mentioned
Boraitha as follows : The case was, where a crib, ten spans high
and four spans wide (forming in itself a private ground), and
opening into the enclosures surrounding the well, stood in pub-
lic ground and the animal stood in private ground ? The Borai-
tha ordains, that the man should not fill a vessel with water and
carry it to the animal, but pour it into the crib, i.e., he should
not lift the vessel with water over the crib and carry it through
public ground to the animal, lest he notice that the crib is
broken and he will carry the crib into the place where the animal
stands to mend it, thus carrying a thing from public into private
ground ?

Even if he did so, can the man be held culpable ? Did not
R. Saphra say, in the name of R. Ami, quoting R. Johanan ;
" If one moved a certain thing from one corner into another in
private ground and then carried it into public ground, he is not
culpable, because his original intention was not to carry it into
public ground?" Abayi means to state, that the man might
mend the crib where it was standing and then carry it into pri-
vate ground.

TRACT ERUBIN. 49

Come and hear (another objection): " A camel, whose head
and greater part of the body was within the enclosures around a
well, may be crammed." Now, in such a case, the man certainly
holds the animal and the vessel, and still it is necessary that the
head and larger part of the body of the animal be within the
enclosures ? Said R. A'ha bar R. Huna in the name of R.
Shesheth: " With a camel it is different; the neck of a camel
being very long, if the camel turned its head around it would be
in public ground."

We have learned also in a Boraitha, that R. Eliezer also
prohibits this to be done with a camel, because its neck is
very long.

R. Itz'hak bar Ada said: " The enclosures around wells are
not permitted to be used by any but the pilgrims while going to
Jerusalem for the festivals." Did we not learn in a Boraitha
that the enclosures are allowed only for cattle ? By cattle is
meant the cattle of the pilgrims, but what should a man who
wishes to drink do ? He should hold on to the walls of the well
and drink there. [This is not so! Did not R. Itz'hak in the
name of R. Jehudah quoting Samuel say, that the enclosures are
permitted to be made only around wells containing spring-water
but not rain-water ? If the wells were only allowed for cattle,
why should this distinction be made ? The water must be fit for
human use also (because the enclosures are erected for the sake
of the water, the latter should be good water).] If the walls of
the well were very wide and a man could not climb over them,
he may draw water from the well and drink it.

R. Jeremiah bar Abba said in the name of Rabh : The laws
of a road that had huts built on it at seventy ells apart and of
enclosures around wells do not hold good in Babylon or any-
where outside of Palestine. The first law does not apply to
Babylon on account of the frequent floods and to other lands on
account of thieves who would steal the huts, and the second law
does not apply to Babylon because of the abundance of water
and to other lands because there are no colleges of learning.

Said R. Hisda to Mari the son of R. Huna the son of Jere-
miah bar Abba: " I have heard, that ye, men of Barnash, go to
the synagogue of Daniel on the Sabbath, a distance of three
miles. Upon what grounds do ye do this ? Do yc depend upon
the law of huts ? Was it not said by thy grandrather in the
name of Rabh, that this law does not apply to Babylon ?" R.
Hisda was shown by Mari demolished buildings scattered over

VOL. III. — 4

So THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

the entire road, at about seventy ells apart, which at one time
formed part of the city itself.

Said R. Hisda: Mari bar Mar' related: It is written [Jeremiah
xxiv. i] : " The Lord caused me to see, and, behold, there were
two baskets of figs placed before the temple of the Lord," etc.,
and [ibid. 2] : " The one basket had very good figs, like the figs
that are first ripe ; and the other basket had very bad figs, which
could not be eaten, from being so bad." The good figs repre-
sent the strictly righteous and the bad figs the grossly wicked,
but if you mean to say, that for the grossly wicked there is no
more hope, therefore it is written [Solomon's Song vii. 14] :
" The mandrakes* give forth their smell."

Rabha preached: "By the passage 'The mandrakes give
forth their smell ' is meant the young men of Israel who have not
yet tasted of the fruit of sin, and by ' at our doors are all man-
ners of precious fruits ' is meant the virgins of Israel who are
modest before their marriage, and by the passage ' new and also
old, O my friend ! these have I laid up for thee ' is meant what
the congregation of Israel said to the Holy One, blessed be He,
namely : ' Creator of the Universe ! Even more than thou hast
ordained for us, have we ordained for ourselves and have faith-
fully observed. ' '

Said R. Hisda to one of the scholars who read legendary
matter before him: " Hast thou not heard what is meant by
' new and also old ' (in the passage quoted) ?" He answered:
" ' The old ' refers to biblical ordinances and the ' new ' to rab-
binical."

Rabha preached: " It is written [Ecclesiastes xii. 12]: ' But
more than all these, my son, take warning for thyself: the
making of many books would have no end ; and much preaching
is a weariness of the flesh. ' This means : ' My son, be careful
in the observance of the rabbinical commandments (even more
than in the biblical); for while the biblical commandments are
for the most part positive and negative (i.e., not always involv-
ing the death-penalty if violated), the rabbinical commandments,
if infracted, would involve capital punishment. Lest one might
say, that if such be the case, why were not the rabbinical com-
mandments written down, the answer is provided, ' The making
of many books would have no end.' The end of the passage

* The Hebrew term used for baskets and for mandrakes in both passages is
" Dudaim," hence the inference by analogy.

TRACT ERUBIN. 51

' Much preaching is a weariness of the flesh,' signifies, that one
who devotes much thought and reflection to the rabbinical com-
mandments, acquires a taste as if he had eaten an excess of
meat."

The Rabbis taught: It happened that when R. Aqiba was in
prison R. Jehoshua of Garsi served him every day. Water was
given R. Aqiba in a measure. One day the warden of the prison
said to R. Jehoshua: " To-day thy measure of water is too
large. Perhaps it is thy intention to undermine the prison."
So he poured out half the water and returned the remainder.
When R. Jehoshua came to R. Aqiba the latter said to him :
" Dost thou not know, that I am an old man and that my life is
dependent upon thee ?" R. Jehoshua then related what had
happened. Said R. Aqiba: " Give me the water and I will wash
my hands prior to eating," and he answered: " There is hardly
enough water to drink, and thou wouldst use it to wash thy
hands ?" Rejoined R. Aqiba: " What can I do ? I must fol-
low the rabbinical commandment, which if violated would
involve capital punishment. It were better for me that I die of
hunger, than to act contrary to the opinion of my colleagues."
And it was said that R. Aqiba would not taste anything until
water was brought to him to wash his hands. When the sages
heard of this, they said : If he was so careful in his old age how
was he in his youth, and if he was so particular in prison how
was he when at liberty !

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: In the time that
Solomon the king ordained the law of Erubin and that of wash-
ing the hands (before meals) a heavenly voice was heard, which
said [Proverbs xxiii. 15]: " My son, if thy heart be wise, my
heart shall rejoice, even mine," and [ibid, xxvii. n]: " Become
wise, my son, and cause my heart to rejoice, that I may give an
answer to him that reproacheth me."

Rabha preached again: It is written [Solomon's Song vii.
12-13] : " Come, my friend! let us go forth into the field; let us
spend the night in the villages ; let us get up early to the vine-
yards ; let us see if the vine have blossomed, whether the young
grape have opened to the view, whether the pomegranates have
budded : there will I give my caresses unto thee." " Come, my
friend! let us go into the field." Thus said the community of
Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He: "Creator of the
Universe! Judge us not by the inhabitants of the large cities;
for there is robbery, rapine, false-swearing, and swearing in vain

52 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

among them. Come into the field and we will show Thee many
scholars who study the Law although they are in poor circum-
stances." "Let us spend the night in the villages. "* This
means : Come with us and we will show Thee so many, to whom
Thou hast shown so much mercy and still they deny Thee. " Let
us go up early into the vineyards," refers to the synagogues
and the houses of learning. " Let us see if the vine have
blossomed, ' ' refers to those who study the Holy Writ. ' ' Whether
the young grape have opened to the view," refers to those who
study the Mishna. " Whether the pomegranates have budded,"
refers to those who study the Gemara. ' There will I give my
caresses unto thee," signifies: We will show Thee our children
who honor and revere us by studying the Law and walking in
Thy ways.

Said R. Hamnuna: It is written [I Kings v. 12] : " And he
spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs were a thousand
and five." From this it is inferred, that Solomon said three
thousand proverbs for every one of the biblical commandments
and gave one thousand and five reasons for each of the rabbin-
ical commandments.

Rabha preached: It is written [Ecclesiastes xii. 9]: "And
in addition to this that Koheleth was wise, he continually also
taught the people knowledge, and he probed, and searched out,
and composed many proverbs." " He continually also taught
the people knowledge" signifies, that he supplied the Holy
Writ with the Massoretic text and explained the different pas-
sages with parables and proverbs. ' ' And composed many pro-
verbs." Ula said in the name of R. Eliezer, that prior to the
time of Solomon the Scriptures were like a basket without
handles, that could not be grasped, and when Solomon came, he
provided the Holy Writ with all the precautionary measures
necessary for its preservation.

R. Hisda said in the name of Mar Uqba: " It is written:
' His head is bright as the finest gold, his locks are like waving
foliage, and black as a raven.' ' (Locks are expressed by the
Hebrew word " Taltalim," also meaning heaps.) The inference
can be made from this passage, that upon every letter contained
in the Scriptures a heap of ordinances can be based, and further,
that the one wishing to find all the beauties contained in the

* The Hebrew term for " in the villages " is " bakphorim," and if read " bako-
phrim " through transposition of the vowel would signify : " Among the infidels."

TRACT ERUBIN. 53

Holy Writ must devote himself to its study until he becomes
" black as a raven." Rabha said not " until he becomes black
as a raven," but until he becomes as hard-hearted towards his
family as a raven is towards its young.

As it happened that R. Ada bar Mattna wished to go and
seclude himself in the house of learning and his wife said to
him : " What shall I do with thy little ones ? " and he answered :
" There are still herbs in the field."

It is written [Deuteronomy vii. 10] : "And repayeth those
that hate him to their face, to destroy them. He will not delay,
to him that hateth him he will repay him to his face." Said
R. Jehoshua ben Levi: " Were it not for this passage, it would
be impossible to make such an assertion ; for this is like a mortal
who would rid himself of a burden which had become too heavy
to carry."* The last part of the passage implies, that while
punishment is not delayed to the wicked, the reward to the
strictly righteous is delayed. So said R. Aila and it is similar
to the dictum of R. Jehoshua ben Levi: " It is written [ibid, ii.]:
' The ordinances which I command thee this day, to do them,' '
and signifies, that the commandments are to be fulfilled this day,
but the reward for so doing is put off for a future day, i.e., will
be given in the world to come."

" R. Jehudah said : ' The maximum distance, " etc. The
schoolmen propounded a question : Does R. Jehudah mean to
exclude the space occupied by the well in the maximum distance
or does it refer to the enclosures plus the space between the
enclosures and the well ? Come and hear : We have learned:
What is meant by " the enclosure may be quite close to the
well " ? That the head and greater part of the body of the ani-
mal be within the enclosures, and what is meant by " it may be
placed at some distance from the well" ? That the space be-
tween the well and the enclosure may be of sufficient size to
permit of the planting of one or even two kurs of grain therein.
R. Jehudah, however, says, that it may be only of two saahs'
capacity, but not more. The sages said to him : Wilt thou not
grant us that as regards a cattle-pen, fold, bleaching-ground, or
a courtyard, a capacity of five or even ten kur is permissible ?
He answered them: " Yea; but in the latter cases we have a

* This expression is rendered in Hebrew by the term ?^3'22, a literal translation
for which cannot be found. The implied meaning of the term, however, is : When
speaking of God, the assumption is made, that if He were a concrete body, this or
that could be said of Him.

54 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

partition whereas in the case of a well there are only enclosures."
R. Simeon ben Elazar, however, said, that in the case of a well,
the square of a space sufficient for the planting of two saahs of
grain is allowed, and by " it (the enclosure) may be placed at
some distance from the well" is meant such a square plus the
two ells necessary for the accommodation of the head and larger
part of the body of the animal. Now, then, if R. Simeon ben
Elazar means to permit the two ells in addition to the square
space permitted, it is evident, that R. Jehudah, who differs with
him, means to include them in that space.

Nay; this is not so, after all! R. Jehudah also means to
allow the two ells in addition to the permitted space, but he
differs with R. Simeon ben Elazar in the measurement of the
space. The latter holds, that the space should be square, i.e., if
it be one hundred ells long it must be one hundred ells wide,
whereas according to R. Jehudah it may be one hundred ells
long and only fifty ells wide (for such was the measure of the
court of the tabernacle). [The end of the Boraitha is:] A rule
was laid down by R. Simeon ben Elazar : Every space used for
a dwelling of any description, e.g., a pen, a fold, a bleaching-
ground, or a courtyard, may be of a size large enough to permit
even of the planting of ten kurs of grain therein ; but a roofed
dwelling such as the huts in a field must not exceed two saahs'
capacity.

MISHNA: R. Jehudah said: If a public thoroughfare
passes through the enclosure, it must be closed up with boards
at the sides facing the thoroughfare; but the sages hold, that
it is not necessary.

GEMARA: Said R. Itz'hak bar Joseph in the name of R.
Johanan: " There is no such a thing as public ground in Pales-
tine."* R. Dimi sitting in his college repeated this Halakha.
Said Abayi to him: ''What is the reason of this assertion?
Shall I assume, that it is because the rocks of the mount Tyre
surround Palestine on one side and a canal on another side ?
Does not the river Euphrates on the one side and the river Dig-
lat on the other side surround Babylon and in like manner the
ocean surrounds the world, then there should be no public
ground at all. Perhaps R. Johanan meant to say, that the path
ascending the mountain and the other descending from the

mountain is not public ground?" Answered R. Dimi: I see

« ^

* Vide Introduction to Vol. I., p. xxviii, § iv.

TRACT ERUBIN. 55

thou hast a wise head, and it seems to me as if thou wert among
the pillars of R. Johanan's college, when he pronounced this
Halakha.

When Rabhin came from Palestine, he said in the name of R.
Johanan, and according to another version in the name of R.
Abbahu quoting R. Johanan : The paths by which the mountains
in Palestine are ascended and descended do not come under the
head of public ground, because they were not encountered on
the journey through the wilderness (the pillar of cloud removing
all hills and mountains from the path of the children of Israel).

MISHNA: Be it a public cistern, a public well, or a private
well, such an enclosure of boards must be made for it ; to a pri-
vate cistern, however, a partition ten hands high must be made.
Such is the dictum of R. Aqiba; but R. Jehudah ben Babah said :
An enclosure of boards must be made only for a public well;
for all others it is sufficient to make a rope fence ten hands high.

GEMARA: Said R. Joseph in the name of R. Jehudah
quoting Samuel: " The Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah
ben Babah." And he said again in the name of the same
authority: "It is allowed only to make an enclosure around a
well containing spring- water. " The reason this latter saying of
R. Jehudah ben Babah is quoted is, because in the Mishna he
states, that an enclosure must be made only for a public well and
we might assume that even if the well contained rain-water, pro-
viding it be only a public well, an enclosure may be made around
it: therefore we are taught, that even though it be a public well
it must contain spring-water.

MISHNA: Furthermore, R. Jehudah ben Babah said: " In
a garden or wood-shed over seventy ells square and encompassed
by a wall ten hands high, it is lawful to carry things, provided
there is a watch-box or dwelling of some kind (within the garden
or shed), or they are close to town." R. Jehudah, however, said :
Even though there be nothing else within them than a cistern, a
reservoir, or a cave, it is lawful to carry things (in the garden or
shed). R. Aqiba said: Even if the garden or wood-shed con-
tain none of these objects mentioned, one may carry things
within them (on Sabbath), provided they do not measure much
over seventy ells square. R. Eliezer said: " If the length of
such a garden or wood-shed exceed its width by even one ell, it
is not permitted to carry things therein." R. Jose, however,
said: Even if its length be twice its width, it is lawful to carry
things therein.

56 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

R. Ilai said: I heard from R. Eliezer, that even though
the garden or wood-shed be large enough to permit of a whole
kur of grain being planted within it, it is permitted to carry
things therein on Sabbath. I also heard from him, that if one
of the householders of a court had forgotten and not combined
in the erub, he must not carry anything out of or into his house,
but the other inmates of the court may do so. Furthermore, I
heard from him, that a man can fully acquit himself of the duty
(of eating bitter herbs) on the Passover by using hart's-tongue
(scolopendrium). I inquired among all his disciples seeking a
colleague who had also heard him pronounce these opinions,
but I could not find one.

GEMARA: " R. Aqiba said: Even if the garden ," etc. Is
this not the same as was said by the first Tana ? There is a
difference in a trifling matter between the two, as we have
learned in the following Boraitha: "There is a trifle over the
seventy ells and something, which the sages failed to specify,
and that is the difference between the space of two saahs' capac-
ity (which is 100 by 50 ells) and the square of seventy ells and
something (two saahs' capacity is equal to 100 by 50 ells, or
5,000 square ells, and /of by /of ells is equal to 4,994$ square
ells, hence the difference, 5-| square ells). Whence do we
adduce this ? Said R. Jehudah: " It is written [Exodus xxvii.
1 8]: ' The length of the court shall be one hundred cubits and
the breadth fifty by fifty.' This means to say, that the fifty
cubits of length exceeding the breadth should be apportioned
to the breadth, so as to make the whole seventy cubits and
four spans square."* What is the correct interpretation of
the passage ? How can one hundred ells in length by fifty by
fifty in breadth be understood? Said Abayi: "The passage
implies that the tabernacle must be placed immediately beyond
where the court is fifty ells in length, and being itself thirty ells
long and ten wide, it will have a frontage of fifty ells and
twenty ells on each remaining side."

" R. Eliezer said : ' If the length,' " etc. Did we not learn
in a Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: " If the length exceeded double
the width of the garden or wood-shed by one ell, things must
not be carried in them" ? Said R. Bibhi bar Abayi: Our
Mishna must also be read not " if the length exceed the width,"

* These figures are approximate and the correct figures depend upon whether
the cubit measured 5 or 6 spans.

TRACT ERUBIN. 57

but " if the length exceed double the width." If such be the
case, then is this not the same as said by R. Jose ? The differ-
ence between them is the one square ell which R. Eliezer adds
as a proviso but which R. Jose does not incorporate in his dic-
tum, for the former says (according to the above Boraitha):
" Even if the length exceed double the width by one ell," while
the latter says, " even if the length be double the width
(exactly). ' '

" R. Jose, however, said,'1 etc. It was taught: R. Joseph in
the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel, said: The Halakha
prevails according to R. Jose's dictum in that a square is not
essential. R. Bibhi, also, in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting
Samuel, said: "The Halakha prevails according to R. Aqiba,
who says, that the garden or wood-shed need not contain any of
those objects." Samuel found it necessary to make both state-
ments in order to make the ordinance more lenient, i.e., that
neither was it essential that the garden or wood-shed be square
nor that it contain a watch-box, dwelling, etc.

If a wood-shed of more than two saahs' capacity was fenced
in for a dwelling, and the larger part of it was used to sow grain
therein, it is like a garden and things must not be moved therein,
because the fact that it was used for the purpose of sowing
grain nullifies the original intention to use it for a dwelling. If,
however, trees were planted in the greater part of it, things may
be carried therein, because it is considered as a yard or court
adjacent to a house. What is the law, however, if only in the
smaller part of such a wood-shed grain was sown ? Said R.
Huna the son of R. Jehoshua: If the wood-shed was of two-
saahs' capacity, it is allowed to carry things therein under those
circumstances, but if it was of a larger capacity, it is not allowed
(to carry things therein). This will be in accordance with R. Si-
meon, whose opinion will be cited later (Chapter IX., Mishna i.).
If trees were planted in the wood-shed: according to R. Jehu-
dah in the name of Abhimi, things may be carried only if
benches were made between the trees, but according to R.
Na'hman, this is not necessary, and R. Huna the son of Jehudah
is of the same opinion as R. Na'hman.

Said R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel: A wood-shed of
over two saahs' capacity, which was not fenced in for a dwelling,
stood near a house which was subsequently built adjoining it.
What is to be done in order to make it lawful for the occupants
of the house to carry things to and from the wood-shed and the

58 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

house on the Sabbath ? First, a breach of more than ten ells
should be made in the wall of the wood-shed (thereby render-
ing the walls useless) ; then the breach should be filled up so as
to make it ten ells only. This will be regarded as a door, and
will make it lawful to carry things between the house and the
wood-shed.

The schoolmen asked: "How is it, if the man tore down
and rebuilt the walls of the wood-shed piecemeal, i.e., ell by ell
until more than ten ells were torn down and then by rebuilding
just ten ells of the breach were left. (Must over ten ells be
demolished at once in order to render the wall useless or does
it suffice if eventually such a breach was made even if it was
done ell by ell) " ? The answer was: Is this not the same as
we have learned in a Mishna (in Tract Kelim), that the vessels
of householders which contain a hole larger than a pomegranate
are not subject to defilement; and Hezkyah asked, what the law
was if a hole the size of an olive was made in the vessel and
stopped up and this was repeated until the hole became the size
of a pomegranate. R. Johanan answered him and related that
Rabbi taught this in another Mishna concerning a sandal, one
ear of which had become torn and was mended when the other
became torn and was also mended, the sandal after the second
mending is not subject to defilement. Rabbi was asked why
he had ordained thus, for after the second mending, the same
condition existed in the sandal as after the first. He answered:
Nay ; when the other ear was broken off the sandal was virtu-
ally destroyed and after it had been mended it assumed a differ-
ent appearance. This statement can also be applied to the
wall, which with each successive breach of one ell assumed a
different appearance. The answer was: Such explanations are
superhuman (and can only be made by an angel). According to
another version, the answer was: "This is a man (who has
knowledge)." *

Said R. Kahana: " In a bleaching-ground (behind a house)
things must not be carried except for a distance of four ells."
Said R. Na'hman: " If a door was erected in the bleaching-
ground, things may be carried over its entire extent ; because
the door renders this lawful."

If a wood-shed of over two saahs' capacity which had been

* The Gemara has evidently omitted the names of the different sages who car-
ried on the above argument.

TRACT ERUBIN. 59

intended for a dwelling was filled with water it is considered as
if planted with trees, and things may be carried over its entire
extent. Said Ameimar: Provided the water was fit to drink;
but if not fit for drinking purposes, things must not be carried
within the wood-shed.

There was a bleaching-ground in the city of Pumnahara, one
side of which opened into the city and the other side into a
path leading to a vineyard, which in turn opened into the banks
of a lake. Said Rabha : A side-beam should be erected on the
side of the bleaching-ground facing the city, and if this is of use
as an entry to the city, it will also be a valid entry for the bleach-
ing-ground. This makes it lawful to carry things both in the
entry and in the bleaching-ground ; but as for carrying from the
entry into the bleaching-ground or vice versa, there is a differ-
ence of opinion between R. Aha and Rabhina. One permits
this because the bleaching-ground is uninhabited. The other
prohibits this, lest the bleaching-ground become at some time
inhabited and things will be carried to and fro nevertheless.

A wood-shed of over two saahs' capacity which was not fenced
in for a dwelling and was made smaller by planting trees therein,
is not considered diminished in size. If, however, a pillar was
erected within it, ten spans high and four wide, it is considered
diminished. If the pillar was less than three spans wide, all
agree, that it is of no account ; but if it be over three spans and
less than four, Rabha said, that the wood-shed is thereby dimin-
ished because a thing which is over three spans wide does not
come within the law of "lavud" (attachment), and is hence
considered an independent subject ; Rabha, however, maintains,
that it is not diminished, for a subject which is less than four
spans is of no account.

If a partition was made in the wood-shed four spans distant
from the wall, things may be carried over the entire wood-shed.
If the partition was less than three spans from the wall, all agree
that this would be unlawful. If over three and less than four,
Rabba said it is lawful, and Rabha said it is not. R. Shimi,
however, taught this ordinance in a more lenient form, namely:
If the partition was over three and less than four spans from the
wall, all agree, that it is lawful; but if it was less than three
then there is a difference of opinion.

Rabba bar bar Hana propounded a question : " If the bot-
tom part of a partition was swallowed up by the earth and the
top part remained, can it be accounted a lawful partition or

60 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

not? " What was the object of this question ? If it refers to a
partition which was erected on the estate of a deceased proselyte,
then this question is identical with that of Jeremiah of Bira,
which is decided in Tract Baba Bathra ; and if it refers to the Sab-
bath-law, i.e., if a partition was made on Sabbath, then the
question has already been decided previously (page 47).

Concerning a wood-shed of three saahs' capacity which was
provided with a roof of only one saah capacity Rabha said :
The atmosphere of the unroofed portion of the wood-shed
nullifies the roof which has been erected and things must not be
carries within it. R. Zera, however, said : The atmosphere of
the unroofed portion does not interfere with the roof which is
considered as attached to the part of one saah's capacity and
things may be carried within the roofed part with impunity. I
admit, however, that if a wall of the wood-shed facing a court-
yard was entirely demolished, the atmosphere of the adjoining
courtyard renders the remaining walls void and makes the wood-
shed one of over two saahs' capacity.

There was a garden on the estate of the Exilarch containing
a pavilion. On a Friday R. Huna bar Hinana was told to go out
there and make the pavilion suitable so that things could be
carried and meals taken within it on the morrow. He went and
placed some sticks of less than three spans in height in the ground
around the pavilion. Rabha then went out and tore down the
sticks. R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua even
went and hid the sticks so that R. Huna bar Hinana could not
obtain them again (because all three held, that the sticks would
have been of no account whatever). So the Exilarch applied to
them the verse [Jeremiah iv. 22] : " Wise are they to do evil, but
how to do good they do not know."

" R. Ilai said : I have heard from R. Eliezer, that even though
a garden or wood-shed be large enough to permit of the planting of
a whole kur" etc. This Mishna is not in accordance with the
opinion of Hananiah, who said, that even if they have a capacity
of forty saahs, as a parade ground for soldiers in front of the
king's palace, things may be carried within them, so it was
taught in a Boraitha. Said R. Johanan : Both R. Eliezer and
Hananiah adduced their opinions from the same passage, viz. [II
Kings xx. 4] : " And it came to pass, before Isaiah was gone out
into the middle court," etc., while subsequently city is men-
tioned and hence the inference that a parade ground be it even
as large as a medium-sized town is still called a court provided

TRACT ERUBIN. 61

it be in front of the king's palace. Their point of difference is,
that one holds a medium-sized town to have a capacity of one
kur while the other holds that it has a capacity of forty saahs.

" I also heard from him," etc. Did we not learn in another
Mishna, that neither the householder himself nor the other
inmates of the court (yard) may carry anything to and from his
house ? Said R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua in the name of
R. Shesheth : This presents no difficulty. The Mishna is in
accordance with R. Eliezer, who holds, that if one had resigned
his right to the use of the court he also resigned his privilege of
the use of his house, but according to the opinion of the rabbis
it may be said that, if he had resigned his right to the court, he
did not thereby resign his privilege of the use of his house. Is
this not self-evident ? (Why should we say, it may be said ?)
They cannot differ on any other point. Said Rahabha (Rabha) :
I and R. Huna bar Hinana have explained this as follows:
The case was, where there were five inmates of one court, and
one of them forgot to combine in the erub; according to R.
Eliezer, at the time that he resigns his right to the use of the
court in favor of all the other inmates he need not do so to each
one individually also, and he at the same time resigns the privi-
lege of using his house to the other inmates, while according to
the Rabbis, he must do so to each one of the inmates individu-
ally and must also bear in mind to resign his privilege of using
his house.

CHAPTER III.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING WHEREWITH AND WHERE AN ERUB MAY
BE MADE. WHEREBY AN ERUB BECOMES INVALID. THE ERUB
OF LIMITS, WITH ITS CONDITIONS. WHEN A FESTIVAL OR NEW-
YEAR PRECEDES THE SABBATH.

MISHNA: The Erub may be effected with all kinds of vic-
tuals excepting water and salt. All kinds of victuals may be
bought with the proceeds of the second tithe except water and
salt. One who has vowed to abstain from food, may partake of
water and salt. The Erub may be made for a Nazarite with
wine and for an ordinary Israelite with heave-offering. Sym-
machus said : Unconsecrated things only may be used for the
Erub of an ordinary Israelite. The Erub of a priest may be
placed on a spot which had formerly been used as a cemetery.
R. Jehudah said : It may even be placed in an actual burying-
ground, since the priest may make a partition between himself
and the burying-ground and then eat the Erub.

GEMARA : R. Johanan said : " We must not accept all the
Mishnaoth that commence with a general rule as final, even such
as are supplemented with an exception." Said Rabhina, accord-
ing to another version R. Na'hman : We can infer this from our
Mishna above. It is stated therein, that with all kinds of victuals
an Erub may be effected, excepting water and salt, and there are
certain mushrooms with which an Erub cannot be effected also.
Consequently we may assume from this Mishna, that all those
commencing with a general rule, even such as are supplemented
with exceptions, need not be accepted as final.

"All kinds of victuals," etc. One of the two sages, R.
Eliezer or R. Jose bar R. Hanina, taught as follows: The
Mishna means to state, that an Erub must not be made with
either water or salt, but with the two together it is allowed,"
and one of them taught the same with reference to second tithes,
viz. : With the proceeds of the second tithes salt or water must not
be bought ; but the two together may be bought. The one who
applies this opinion to second tithes does so even to a greater

TRACT ERUBIN. 63

degree in the case of the Erub; but the one who applies this to
an Erub does not do so in the case of the second tithes ; because
some fruit must be bought therewith. When R. Itz'hak came
from Palestine, he taught this to apply to second tithes also.

An objection was made: R. Jehudah ben Gadish testified in
the presence of R. Eliezer, that his father's house used to buy
fish-brine with the proceeds of the second tithes. Said R.
Eliezer to him: " Perhaps thou didst hot observe, that there
were pieces of fish in the brine." Now, R. Jehudah ben Gadish
himself testifies that fish-brine was bought and that is at least an
article of food ; but he certainly would not permit salt and water.
Said R. Joseph: " R. Itz'hak in permitting water and salt to be
bought with the proceeds of second tithes refers to a case where
the water also contained some oil." Said Abayi: " If such be
the case, why does he say water and salt, it would be virtually
buying the oil ?" The answer is: "If the money was paid for
the oil and incidentally also for the water and salt." Is it
allowed to buy it indirectly ? Yea ; it is allowed, as we have
learned : Ben Bagbag said : It is written [Deut. xiv. 26] :
" And thou shalt lay out that money for whatsoever thy soul
longeth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong
drink, or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee." " For oxen "
signifies for oxen together with the hide, " for sheep " with the
wool, "for wine" together with the barrel, "or for strong
drink " even if it turned sour.

R. Johanan said : ' ' The man who will explain to me the
dictum of Ben Bagbag concerning the oxen, I will carry his
clothes after him to the bath-house." Why is this so ? Wherein
does he find a difference between the oxen and the sheep ?
Because if we infer from the verse, that the sheep may be bought
together with their wool, which can be shorn, it is self-evident
that an ox must be bought with the hide, for how can it be
bought otherwise ? Hence the inference taken by Ben Bagbag
from the oxen is superfluous.

Wherein do R. Jehudah ben Gadish, R. Eliezer, and the fol-
lowing Tanaim differ ? R. Jehudah ben Gadish and R. Eliezer
interpret an extension and a limitation thus: " Thou shalt lay
out that money for whatsoever thy soul longeth "is an exten-
sion then ; " for oxen, or for sheep, for wine or for strong drink "
is a -limitation ; " or for whatever thy soul asketh of thee" is
again an extension. Thus we have an extension, a limitation
and another extension. What is the extension ? " For every-

<54 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

thing." But what is the limitation ? According to R. Eliezer,
it is fish-brine, and according to R. Jehudah ben Gadish it is water
.and salt, and the other Tanaim do not refer to extension and
limitation but to the effect of general and particular terms, as
we have learned in a Boraitha: " Thou shalt lay out that money
for whatsoever thy soul desireth is a general term, " for oxen,
for sheep, etc.," is a particular term, .and again " or for whatso-
ever thy soul asketh of thee " is a general term; hence we have
a general term, a particular term and another general term, and
wherever there is a particular term in the midst of two general
terms the particular term determines the rule. Thus the par-
ticular thing to be bought with the proceeds of second tithes is
fruit of fruit (i.e., a calf born of a cow or oil of olives) and every-
thing generated above the ground ; but salt and water or fish-
brine is not included.

In another Boraitha however we were taught, that as the par-
ticular term refers to something born on or growing out of the
ground, so does also the general term refer to subjects of this
kind. What is the point of difference between the two Borai-
thas ? Said Abayi: "Concerning fish." According to the
Boraitha which holds, that the particular term refers to fruit of
fruit and everything generated above the ground, fish is also
included as it derives its sustenance from the earth ; but accord-
ing to the Boraitha which holds, that only something born on or
growing out of the ground is meant, fish is excluded because it
is generated in the waters.

Said R. Jehudah in the name of R. Samuel bar Shilas quoting
Rabh: "An Erub may be made with lettuce, Halaglugoth (a
certain edible plant) and clover but not with green rye-stalks and
bad figs." How can he say that clover may be used ? Have
we not learned, that clover may be eaten only by those who have
many children but not by such as have none ? Have we not
ilearned that for a Nazarite an Erub may be made with wine and
for an ordinary Israelite with heave-offering ? Although neither
of these two are allowed to partake of those things, there are
others who may do so and the same case can be applied to clover,
while there are some who are not allowed to eat it, there are
others who may; hence all may use it for the purpose of making
an Erub.

With green rye-stalks it is not allowed ? Did not R. Jehudah
say in the name of Rabh, that hops and green rye-stalks may be
used to make an Erub and the benediction to be pronounced

TRACT ERUBIN. 65

over these is " Blessed be He, etc., who hath created the fruits
of the earth " ? This presents no difficulty; for Rabh said, that
rye-stalks were not permitted to be used, before he came to Baby-
lon, not knowing that it was used for food, but when he learned
that such was the case, he allowed its use.

With bad figs it is not allowed ? Have we not learned, that
palm-tops may be bought with the proceeds of second tithes and
that they are not subject to defilement incidental to eatables, and
bad figs may also be bought with the proceeds of second tithes but
they are subject to the defilement ? R. Jehudah, however, said
that palm-tops were considered the same as trees under all cir-
cumstances with the exception that they may be bought with
the proceeds of second tithes and that bad figs are considered
the same as other fruit except that they are not subject to tith-
ing ? Thou sayest, they are subject to defilement ? That is a
different matter. The reason of that is, as R. Johanan stated
in another case, that they can be made good through cooking
over a fire and therefore they are subject to defilement, but they
must not be used for making an Erub.

The text states, that hops and green rye-stalks may be used
for making an Erub, etc. What quantity of hops should be
used? As R. Yechiel said elsewhere, that a handful is sufficient,
so it is also in this case ; a handful will suffice for two meals.
What quantity of green rye-stalks must be used ? Said Rabba
bar Tuvia bar Itz'hak in the name of Rabh: A bundle of the
same size as that made by the peasants.

R. Helkyah bar Tuvia said : An Erub may be made with a
Kalia (a certain root as hard as a piece of dry wood). How is
that possible ? Can it be eaten ? He means to say when the
root is young and tender. What quantity should be used ?
Said R. Yechiel: " A handful."

R. Jeremiah went out into the villages and was asked whether
an Erub may be made with bean-pods. He did not know what
to answer. When he came back to the college, he was told, that
R. Janai said, " It was allowed," and as to the quantity R.
Yechiel said, " A handful."

R. Hamnuna said: " An Erub must not be made with raw
mangold. Because R. Hisda said that raw mangold can kill a
man." But we see, that some people do eat it and it does not
harm them ? Yea; but they eat mangold which is partially
cooked and is not quite raw.

R. Hisda said: " Cooked mangold is good for the heart, for

VOL. III. — 5

66 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

the eyes and above all for the stomach." Said Abayi: Such is
the case if the mangold was cooked over the centre of a big fire
so long that it sizzled.

Rabha said at one time: I feel, that I am at present in the
same condition as Ben Azai was in the markets of Tiberias.
[Ben Azai used to lecture in the markets of Tiberias and in his
time was the most sagacious among all the sages, so that he once
said : All the sages of Israel are as the peel of garlic compared
to me except the bald-head (meaning R. Aqiba).] So one of
the scholars came to Rabha and asked him, how many apples it
would take to make an Erub ? He answered: " Art thou then
certain that an Erub may be made with apples ? " With apples
it is not allowed ? Have we not learned in a Mishna, that a
quantity of mixed eatables equal to two eggs is sufficient to make
the body of a man incapable of touching heave-offerings ?* If
there is sufficient of those mixed eatables for two meals they
maybe used for making an Erub. If there is a quantity of those
mixed eatables equal to one egg, they are subject to the defile-
ment incidental to eatables. Why this question ? 'Tis true
that the Mishna mentions all eatables, but have we not learned,
that wherever a general rule is laid down, even when supplemented
with exceptions, it need not be accepted as final ? Consequently
apples may be excluded ? This question is not based upon the
statement that all eatables may be used, but upon the fact that
a quantity of mixed eatables equal to two eggs may be used for
an Erub, and if equal to one egg it is subject to defilement inci-
dental to eatables. And if apples are subject to defilement, why
should they not be used for an Erub ? What should be the quan-
tity of apples used ? Said R. Na'hman : " A Kabh."

An objection was raised: R. Simeon b. Elazar said: A
measure of spices, a litter of herbs, ten nuts, five persicum (apri-
cots), two pomegranates, one citron. (This was a prescribed
quantity for giving charity by the owner of a vineyard.) And
Ghurseck bar Dori in the name of R. Menashiah bar Shegublick
quoting Rabh said : The same quantity is sufficient for an Erub.
Now why shall not apples also be equal to apricots and only five
should be sufficient for an Erub ? The persicums are more valu-
able, hence five are sufficient, but apples not being so valuable,
therefore a Kabh is required.

Said R. Joseph : May the Lord forgive R. Menashiah bar She-

* Vide appendix to Tract Sabbath, Part II.

TRACT ERUBIN. 67

gublick. I said this to him in reference to the following Mishna
and he said this in reference to the above Boraitha. This is the
Mishna (mentioned above). Nothing less than a half a Kabh of
wheat and a Kabh of barley should be given to a poor man by
the owner of a barn. R. Meir, however, says a half a Kabh of
barley and one Kabh and a half of Kusmin,* a Kabh of three
or the weight of a maneh f of pressed figs ; R. Aqiba said a half
of a maneh ; and a half a lug of wine ; R. Aqiba said a quar-
ter of a lug; and a quarter of a lug of oil; R. Aqiba said an
eighth of a lug. Concerning other fruits, however, said Abba
Saul: A measure of fruit, the sale of which would realize suffi-
cient for the purchase of two meals ; and to this Mishna I added
in the name of Rabh that the same quantities are needed for an
Erub.

The text said : If there is sufficient of mixed eatables for
two meals they may be used for an Erub. R. Joseph meant to
say: " If there is enough of each kind for one meal." Said
Rabba to him: " Nay; it is sufficient if there was enough of each
kind for a half, a third or even a quarter of a meal."

Rabh said : " One may make an Erub with wine of the quan-
tity of two quarters of a lug. " Must we have so much? Did
we not learn that R. Simon ben Elazar said: " With sufficient
wine necessary for the eating of two meals," and by that he
means boiled wine in which bread sufficient for two meals is
soaked.

Rabh said again : " One may make an Erub with vinegar suf-
ficient for the soaking of food for two meals." R. Gidel said
in the name of Rabh: " By that is meant enough vinegar to
soak herbs sufficient for two meals"; and according to others
R. Gidel said in the name of Rabh (not two meals of herbs only
but) sufficient wine to soak the herbs which are usually eaten in
two meals.

R. Zera said in the name of Samuel: " It is allowed to make
an Erub with beer, but if three lugs of it be poured into a Mik-
vah, the Mikvah becomes invalid." How much beer is neces-
sary for an Erub ? R. Ahu the son of R. Joseph wished to

* There is a difference of opinion between the commentators of the Mishnas.
Some maintain that it is a species of pease and is used as fodder for cattle, and some
maintain that it is a species of grain. See Maimonides' commentary on the Mishna
Sabbath, Chap. XX. See also Hamashbir, Vol. V., Note cxxiii.

f Weight mentioned in Bible, I Kings, chap. x. 17, and is equal to 100
drachms.

68 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

state in the presence of his father, that two lugs were necessary,
i.e., one lug for each meal. Said R. Joseph: This is not so.
There are men who drink only one goblet-full in the morning
and another in the evening (a goblet'-full is supposed to be a
quarter of a lug) ; hence two goblets-full are sufficient for an
Erub.

What is the quantity of dates sufficient for an Erub ? Said R.
Joseph: " One Kabh." What is the quantity of Sheshitha (a
dish made of parched corn and honey) ? Said R. A'ha bar Pin-
has: Two spoons-full. What is the quantity of roasted ears (of
corn) ? Said Abaja: Two bunis (measures used in the city of
Pumbaditha).

Abayi said again: " My mother told me, that roasted ears are
good for the heart and drive away care." He said again: My
mother told me, that one who has heart-disease should take the
meat from the right shoulder of a ram, bring some willow
branches, burn them, and roast the meat on the coals. Then
he should eat the meat and drink wine thinned with water.

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: " Of all things that
are eaten with bread it is sufficient to use a quantity eaten with
bread at two meals ; but of such things as are eaten by them-
selves sufficient for two meals must be used for an Erub. Of
raw meat sufficient for two meals if eaten by itself must be used,
but of cooked meat Rabba said it is sufficient to use as much as
is eaten with bread at two meals, and R. Joseph said as much as
is eaten at two meals by itself should be used, and he said:
' Whence do I adduce this ? Because I saw that the Persians
eat roasted meat without bread." Rejoined Abayi: Are the
Persians the majority of the whole world ?

R. Hyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rabh: "An Erub
maybe made with raw meat. " R. Simi bar Hyya said: "An
Erub may be made with raw eggs." And how many should be
used ? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: " Sinai* said, two eggs
should be used."

R. Huna in the name of Rabh said: If one vowed, that he
would not eat this loaf of bread, an Erub may nevertheless be
made for him with that loaf; because though he must not eat it,
others may. If he says, however, that this loaf is on him, t.e.t
he devotes this loaf of bread (in honor of the Lord), it must not
be used for an Erub.

* Sinai is another name for R. Joseph, who was well versed in Mishnas and
Boraithas.

TRACT ERUBIN. 69

An objection was made : If one vowed concerning a certain
loaf of bread, an Erub may nevertheless be made with it. Shall
we not assume that he said: " This loaf of bread is on me" ?
(i.e., he devoted that loaf of bread in honor of the Lord). Nay;
he said: " I vow not to eat this loaf of bread," and such seems
to be the case; because the latter part of the Boraitha states dis-
tinctly, that he said: " I vow not to taste any part of this loaf."
What is the law, however, if the man said that the loaf is on
him ? It must not be used for an Erub ? If that is so, why was
it taught in the latter part of the Boraitha: " If he said the loaf
is consecrated, an Erub must not be made with it, because it is
not allowed to make an Erub with consecrated things." Why
should this whole argument be repeated? Could it not be simply
stated, that if the man vows not to eat the loaf an Erub may be
made with it ; but if he declares the loaf to be on him, an Erub
must not be made with it ? But as it does not say, that the loaf
is on him in the first part of the Boraitha, there is a contradic-
tion to R. Huna ? R. Huna said the same thing as R. Eliezer
said elsewhere. Did R. Eliezer indeed say so ? Did we not
learn, that R. Eliezer said: " If a man said: ' This loaf of bread
is on me,' an Erub may be made with it, but if he said, ' This
loaf is consecrated,' it must not be used for an Erub, because an
Erub must not be made with consecrated things " ? There are
two Tanaim who report the dictum of R. Eliezer in different
ways.

" An Erub may be made for a Nazarite with wine." This
Mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Beth Shammai,
as we have learned in the following Boraitha: An Erub must
not be made for a Nazarite with wine, nor for an ordinary Israel-
ite with heave-offering. So said Beth Shammai ; Beth Hillel,
however, said: " This may be done." Said Beth Hillel to Beth
Shammai: " Will ye not admit, that an Erub may be made for
a man who is obliged to fast on the Day of Atonement, although
he must not eat it?" They answered: "Yea." "Then,"
rejoined Beth Hillel, " as we are permitted to make an Erub for
a man fasting on the Day of Atonement, so may we also make
an Erub for a Nazarite with wine, and for an ordinary Israelite
with heave-offering." What reason have Beth Shammai for
prohibiting this ? They give as their reason the fact, that a man
may eat the Erub while it is yet day (before the eve of the Day
of Atonement) ; but a Nazarite must not at any time drink wine
nor an ordinary Israelite eat heave-offering.

70 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

This whole Boraitha is not in accordance with the teachings
of Hananiah, as we have learned in the following Boraitha:
" Beth Shammai do not recognize an Erub unless a man carries
out his bed and all the utensils he intends to use to the place
where he proposes to make the Erub, so taught Hananiah."

According to whose opinion is the Boraitha which states, that
a man who deposits his Erub while wearing a black garment
must not go out on the morrow dressed in a white garment, and
vice versa ? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: This is in accordance
with the opinion of Beth Shammai as interpreted by Hananiah.

' ' Symmachus said : ' Unconsecrated things only may be used, ' '
etc. Consequently Symmachus does not dissent as regards
making an Erub for a Nazarite with wine, but does dissent as
regards heave-offering for the Erub of an ordinary Israelite. Why
is this so ? Because a Nazarite may go to a sage and be declared
free from his vows as a Nazarite. As regards heave-offering for
the Erub of an ordinary Israelite, he holds with the Rabbis, who
decreed, that all things which are prohibited by rabbinical law
on account of the Sabbath-rest are also prohibited for the time of
twilight, and as regards heave-offering, an ordinary Israelite must
not handle it on Sabbath on account of Sabbath-rest.

According to whose opinion is the following Mishna? There
are sages who hold, that the prescribed quantities which are
dependent upon the size of a man, should be measured accord-
ingly. And the two meals which must be constituted by the
Erub, should be two meals sufficient for the man who deposits
the Erub ? Said R. Zera: " This is according to Symmachus,
who holds, that an Erub must be according to the requirements
of the man for whom it is made."

' The Erub of a priest may be placed on a spot which had
formerly been used as a cemetery." R. Jehudah bar Ami said in
the name of R. Jehudah, that a spot which had formerly been
used as a cemetery becomes clean of itself if trodden down by
people.

" R. Jehudah said: ' // may be placed in an actual burying-
ground' ' It was taught : Because the priest can go there in a
wagon; for R. Jehudah holds, that a temporary tent is sufficient
to intervene between a man and uncleanness. Furthermore we
have learned that for a ritually clean priest, clean heave-offering
may be placed as an Erub even in a grave and for the same rea-
son as above, in spite of the fact that the heave-offering becomes
unclean and the priest is at no time allowed to eat it.

TRACT ERUBIN. 71

MISHNA: For the Erub doubtful grain (Damai) (of which it
is not known whether the legal dues like tithes, etc., have been
acquitted) may be used ; first tithes, from which the heave-offer-
ings have been taken ; and second tithes and consecrated things
that have been redeemed. For priests, the first of the dough
and heave-offerings may be used. It is not lawful however to
use unseparated grain (from which it is certain that the legal
dues have not been separated), or first tithes from which the
heave-offering had not been taken, or second tithes and conse-
crated things which had not been redeemed.

GEMARA: [The reasons for the above Mishna and the
discussions appear several times throughout the Talmud. We
shall render them, however, but once and that in Tract Berachoth
(benedictions), which contains the complete and identical version.]

MISHNA: Should a man send his Erub by the hand of a
deaf and dumb person, an idiot, a minor or one who does not
acknowledge the legal necessity of an Erub, it is not a valid Erub ;
if, however, he had commissioned another proper person to
receive it from his messenger, it is a valid Erub.

If a man puts the Erub in a tree higher than ten spans above
ground, it is not valid ; but if he puts it lower than ten spans,
it is. If he had put it into a pit, even though it be a hundred
ells deep, the Erub is valid.

GEMARA : By the hand of a minor it would not be a valid
Erub ? Did not R. Huna say, that a minor may collect the
Erub ? This presents no difficulty. R. Huna's dictum refers
to an Erub of courts (where only the meal is to be gathered in
order to make common cause), but our Mishna refers to an Erub
of limits (where a man must go and declare his intention of mak-
ing that his resting-place for the Sabbath).

' ' One who does not acknowledge the legal necessity of an Erub. ' '
Who is meant thereby ? Said R. Hisda, a Samaritan.

" If, however, he had commissioned another person" etc.
Why ! Perhaps the above messenger will not deliver it ! As R.
Hisda said elsewhere, that he should stand and see the messen-
ger depart, so must he also do in this case. Still there is fear
that the person commissioned to receive it from the messenger
will not receive it ? As R. Yechiel said elsewhere, that it is an
•established rule, that if a messenger has been intrusted with an
errand, it is presumed that he will perform the errand and this
must also be assumed in the case under consideration. Where
did R. Hisda and R. Yechiel make these statements ? Concern-

72 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD

ing the following Boraitha, which teaches, that if a man sent his
Erub through a trained elephant or a trained monkey and they
deposited the Erub, it is not valid, but if he had commissioned
a person to receive it from them and deposit it, it is valid. The
same question arose here which led to the statements of R. Hisda
and R. Yechiel as stated above.

R. Na'hman said: The established rule, that a messenger
will perform his errand, holds good where rabbinical laws are con-
cerned, but not where biblical commandments are to be exe-
cuted.

R. Shesheth, however, said: There is no difference. This
rule holds good even where biblical commandments are concerned.

" If a man put his Erub in a tree," etc. R. Hyya bar Abba,
R. Assi and Rabha bar Nathan sat together, and R. Na'hman sat
near them. They were deliberating upon the question of where
the tree spoken of in the Mishna was situated. Should we as-
sume that it was standing in private ground, what difference does
it make whether the Erub was put lower or higher ; for private
ground reaches even to the sky ? Should we assume, that the
tree was in public ground, where was the man's intention to rest
on this tree ; if on the top, why was the Erub which was placed
above ten spans not valid ? The man and the Erub would be in
one place ? We must say, that the man's intention was to rest
at the foot of the tree (and if the Erub was placed above ten
spans from the ground it is not valid, because at that height the
tree becomes private ground by virtue of its being over four
spans wide, while the foot of the tree is still public ground and
consequently, the man would have to carry his food from private
into public ground on Sabbath and that is prohibited). Still,
will he not make use of a tree on the Sabbath and that is also
prohibited ? We must therefore assume, that the Mishna means
that the tree was standing in public ground and it is according
to Rabbi, who holds, that all rabbinical ordinances enacted on
account of the Sabbth-rest (Shvuth) have no significance during
twilight (before or after the Sabbath). Said R. Na'hman: " I
thank ye, for so also did Samuel say." And they rejoined:
' Was it so difficult for you to understand the Mishna, that you
thank us for our opinion. [Did they not themselves argue and
discuss the matter? Nay; they spoke thus to R. Na'hman.]
Would you insert our opinion in the Gemara explaining this
Mishna ? " He answered : ' ' Yea. ' '

Rabha said: All this refers to a tree, which was standing out-

TRACT ERUBIN. 73

side of the addition (of 701 ells square) to a town ; but if the tree
was standing inside of the addition to the town, it makes no differ-
ence where the Erub was placed on it, even at a height of over
ten spans, because the atmosphere of a town pervades all the
trees and it makes no difference where the man takes his rest.

Where is the opinion of Rabbi and the sages to be found
concerning the twilight as mentioned above ? In the following
Boraitha: If a man placed his Erub on a tree ten spans above
the ground, the Erub is not valid. If placed lower than ten
spans it is valid, but must not be taken down ; if it was placed
within three spans from the ground it is valid and may also be
taken down. If the Erub, however, was placed in a basket and
then hung on the tree even at a height of over ten spans it is
valid ; such is the dictum of Rabbi ; the sages however say, that
where an Erub must not be taken down, it is also not valid.
(Hence the difference of opinion between Rabbi and the sages.)
Concerning what part do they differ ? Shall we say, that they
differ concerning the last part (i.e., where the Erub was placed
in a basket and hung up on a tree at a height of over ten spans,
and the sages say therefore, that such an Erub is invalid because
the tree will have to be used on Sabbath and that is prohibited),
can we say, that incidental use of the tree is also prohibited ?
(We know that is not so.) Shall we say, that they differ con-
cerning the first part (i.e., where the Erub was placed at a
height of over ten spans and must not be taken down), we must
first see what kind of a tree is under consideration. If it be a
tree of less than four spans' width, it is a free place (not subject to
jurisdiction), then why should the Erub not be taken down ? If
it be a tree that was four spans wide, it is regarded as private
ground, then of what benefit is the basket which contains the
Erub (it must also be taken down from private into public
ground); said R. Jeremiah: " With a basket it is different. It
need not be taken down at all, but can be bent over and the
Erub may be removed." (Although the tree is private ground,
when the basket is bent over so that it is below ten spans it is no
longer in private ground.)

R. Papa sat in the college and repeated the above Halakha.
Rabh bar Shva raised an objection: " We have learned in a fol-
lowing Mishna: " But how must this be done ? One carries out
the Erub, where he means to deposit it on the eve of the first
day of rest and remains with it until dusk, when he carries it
back with him." If thou sayest then, that it is sufficient if he

74 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

hangs up a basket on the tree, because he can bend over the
basket and bring it lower than ten spans, why should the Mishna
quoted order, that the man must carry out the Erub, etc., and
remain with it until dusk; it may just as well say, that as he can
remain until dusk and carry it back, that it is sufficient, if he
deposits it and carries it back with him at once.

Said R. Zera: This is only a precautionary measure fora case
where a festival follows a Sabbath. (If it were said, that the
man need not go out and deposit his Erub, wait until dusk and
carry it back, then go out again on the next day and wait until
dusk and eat the Erub, but that he may leave it there because
he could have done as the Mishna states and the capability of
performing an act is equivalent to its performance, — it would be
wrong; for the day being Sabbath he would not have been per-
mitted to carry it out again. Hence the precautionary measure
was made to apply to all similar cases.)

" If 'he had put it into a pit, ' ' etc. Where is the pit supposed to
be situated ? If in private ground it is self-evident ? For in the
same manner as private ground has no limit as to height it also
has none as to depth. If in public ground, the question arises,
where the man intended to take his Sabbath-rest? If he intended
to take it outside of the pit, he would be in one place and his
Erub in another, and if he intended to take his rest inside of
the pit, it is self-evident that he may deposit his Erub therein.
We must say then, that the pit was situated in unclaimed ground
(in a valley) where he intended to rest. The pit however being
over ten spans deep is private ground, and as for carrying from
private into unclaimed ground the opinion of Rabbi again pre-
vails, that such acts as are prohibited on the Sabbath are not pro-
hibited for twilight on account of the Sabbath-rest.

MISHNA: If the man should put the Erub on top of a cane
or pole, that does not actually grow out of the ground, but is
merely stuck in the ground, even though it be a hundred ells
high, it is a valid Erub.

If one put it into a cupboard which he locked and then lost
the key, the Erub is nevertheless valid. R. Eliezer said: If he
does not know where the key is, the Erub is not valid.

GEMARA: R. Ada bar Massne propounded a contradictory
question to Rabha: If the man should put his Erub on top of
a cane, that does not actually grow out of the ground, it is valid ;
but if the cane were a growing one, the Erub would not be valid,
because the tree would be handled thereby and that is not per-

TRACT ERUBIN. 75

mitted; then this would be in accordance with the opinion of the
sages; while the previous Mishnaoth were according to Rabbi's
opinion ? This was already asked by Kami bar Kama of R.
Hisda and the latter answered, that the previous two Mishnaoth
were in accordance with Rabbi's opinion, while this Mishna is in
accordance with the opinion of the sages.

Rabhina, however, said, that this Mishna is also in accordance
with Rabbi's opinion, but here the precautionary measure is
enacted, lest the man might break down the cane if it grew out
of the ground, while a tree is too stout to be broken down, and
in this case Rabbi concurs with the sages.

One Friday, a military garrison came to Neherdai and occu-
pied the city, so that there was no room for the college of R.
Na'hman. Said R. Na'hman to his disciples: " Go out into the
field and incline the growing bushes towards each other, so that
we have room enough to study in to-morrow." So Rami bar
Hama, according to another version, Uqba bar Ada objected:
" Did we not learn in this Mishna, that an Erub must not be put
on growing stalks or cane?" Answered R. Na'hman: The
Mishna refers to brittle (withered) cane, but as for healthy
(moist) bushes it is not prohibited.

" If one put it into a cupboard, etc., and lost the key." Why
should the Erub be valid ? The man is in one place and the
Erub in another ? He cannot even obtain it without a key.
Rabh and Samuel both said, that the Erub is valid only when
the cupboard is not firmly immured but is loosely built, so that
the bricks may be removed and the Erub taken out, and that the
Mishna is according to R. Meir's opinion, who holds, that this
may be done on a festival to commence with and that the Mishna
refers to a festival only, and not on a Sabbath. If this be so,
how will the following clause of the Mishna be explained: " R.
Eliezer said : If the key be lost in the city, the Erub is valid,
but if lost in the field, it is not valid. " If the Mishna refers
to a festival, what difference does it make where the key was lost.
Carrying is not prohibited on a festival ? The Mishna is not
complete and should read thus: If one put it into a cupboard,
which he locked and then lost the key, the Erub is nevertheless
valid, providing it was a festival. On Sabbath, however, it is
not valid. If the key was subsequently found, whether in the
city or in the field, the Erub is nevertheless not valid. R.
Eliezer, however, said: If it was found in the city, the Erub is
valid, because he holds to R. Simeon's opinion, who said, that

76 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

all the courts and wood-sheds in the city are as one ground and
the key could be brought through them ; but if found in the field
it could not be carried.

Rabba and R. Joseph both said: " Our Mishna treats of a
wooden cupboard and the Tana who holds that if the key was
lost, the Erub was valid, considers the cupboard the same as a
vessel which may be taken apart on the Sabbath and the Erub
taken out, while R. Eliezer considers the cupboard the same as
a tent which must not be taken apart on the Sabbath." How
can they differ as to its being a vessel or a tent ? If it was large
all agree, that it is a tent, and if it was small all agree, that it is
a vessel? Therefore Abayi and Rabha both say, that the Mishna
treats of a case where the key was tied to the lock by a string,
which could not be undone by hand. The first Tana holds
according to R. Jose, that all vessels may be handled on the Sab-
bath for any purposes whatever (hence a knife used for cutting
bread may be used to cut the string), whereas R. Eliezer holds
according to the opinion of R. Nehemiah, who decrees, that all
vessels may be handled on Sabbath only for the purposes for
which they are intended.

MISHNA: Should the Erub roll (or be moved) out of the
limit of the Sabbath distance, should a heap of mould fall on it,
or should it be burned, or if the heave-offering (used for the
Erub) became unclean, and any or all of this take place while it
is yet day (i.e., before the Sabbath set in) the Erub is not valid.
If it take place, however, after dusk (when it is already Sabbath)
the Erub is valid. If the time when it took place is doubtful,
R. Meir and R. Jehudah both say: This is (like driving) an ass
and (leading) a camel (meaning, that a man is hemmed in on all
sides). R. Jose and R. Simeon say: A doubtful Erub is valid ?
R. Jose further said: Abtolymus attested upon the authority
of five elders, that a doubtful Erub is valid.

GEMARA: Said Rabha: (If the Erub rolled outside of the
limit of the Sabbath distance) for a distance of over four ells it
is not valid ; but if it rolled for less than four ells, the man who
deposited the Erub is allowed four ells to move in, outside of
the limits, consequently the Erub is valid.

" Should a heap of mould fall on it" etc. At a casual glance
it was assumed, that the Erub could have been extracted from
under the heap of mould by hand, and accordingly the Mishna
was in conformity with the opinion of Rabbi, that at twilight
such acts as are prohibited by rabbinical law on account of the

TRACT ERUBIN. 77

Sabbath-rest may be performed; subsequently, however, the
conclusion was arrived at, that the Mishna is in accordance with
Rabbi's opinion, and that the Erub in this instance could not be
extracted by hand but by means of a hoe.

It was necessary to insert both clauses (concerning the rolling
of the Erub and its being buried beneath a heap of mould) in
the Mishna and for the reason ; that, were the first clause only
inserted, one might say: " If the Erub rolled out beyond the
limits, it was no more in its place and hence it is invalid ; but if
it was simply buried beneath a heap of mould it is still in its
proper place and why should it not be valid?" If the latter
clause only had been inserted, one might say: " In this case the
Erub was buried and could not be seen, hence it is invalid, but
if it merely rolled out and can be seen, the same wind might
bring it back, why should it not be valid ? " For this reason it
was necessary to mention both cases.

' ' Or should it be burned, or if the heave-offering (used as an
Erub} became unclean" etc. The ordinance referring to an Erub
which was burned up is taught in order to show the firmness of
R. Jose, who declares, that (if a doubt existed whether the Erub
was burned before or after dusk) although the Erub is no longer
in existence, it is still valid, and the ordinance referring to heave-
offering which became unclean was taught to show the firmness
of R. Meir, who maintains that although the heave-offering was
still there and only a doubt existed as to whether it became unclean
before or after dusk, the Erub is nevertheless invalid. Is it pos-
sible, that R. Meir holds a doubtful case based upon rabbinical
law to necessitate the more rigorous decision ? R. Meir holds,
that the law pertaining to Sabbath-limits is biblical. Does R.
Meir indeed hold thus ? Have we not learned in a Mishna fur-
ther on (Chapter V., Mishna 3), that R. Meir maintains, when
measurements are made to determine the Sabbath-limit and
mountains are encountered that it is permitted to cut straight
through the mountains (in an imaginary sense or figuratively
speaking), and such subterfuges are certainly not allowed where
biblical laws are concerned ?

The latter opinion while credited to R. Meir is not in reality
his own, but the opinion of his teacher, while the former is his
own conviction and the proof is, that the Mishna quoted states
distinctly : R. Dostai ben Janai said : I have upon the authority
of R. Meir, etc.

We have learned in a Boraitha : How should the dictum of

78 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

R. Jose to the effect, that "a doubtful Erub is valid" be
explained? Thus: If an Erub was made with heave-offering
concerning which there was a doubt whether it became unclean
while it was yet day, or after dusk, or with fruit concerning
which there was a doubt whether the tithes had been acquitted
while it was yet day or after dusk, it constitutes a doubtful Erub,
which is nevertheless valid ; if, however, the Erub was effected
with heave-offering concerning which there was a doubt whether
it was clean or unclean to commence with, or with fruit concern-
ing which there was a doubt whether tithes had been acquitted
at all, it does not constitute a doubtful Erub, which is valid.

Let us see ! Why is it said, that heave-offering, concerning
which there was a doubt whether it became unclean before or
after dusk, would constitute a doubtful Erub which was neverthe-
less valid, because the heave-offering is presumed to be in its
original condition and that was certainly clean, why should not
the same case apply to the fruit concerning which there was a
doubt, whether tithes had been acquitted thereof or not, let the
fruit also be presumed to be in its original condition and that is
unseparated (of which tithes had not been acquitted)? Do not
say, therefore, that the fruit was doubtful as to its having been
separated but say : there was a doubt whether it had not subse-
quently been mixed with other (unseparated) fruit before or after
dusk.

R. Samuel bar R. Itz'hak asked of R. Huna: If there were
two loaves of bread before a man, one of which was clean and the
other unclean and he said: " Make an Erub for me with the
clean loaf wherever it may be " ; but did not know which was
which. [If both loaves which were heave-offerings, were used
in making the Erub ; for if they were ordinary and even (ritually)
unclean they may be eaten by an ordinary Israelite], what is
the law according to the diverse opinions ? According to R.
Meir, who pronounced a doubtful Erub invalid in a case where
the entire Erub would have been unclean, it may be said, that
in this case, where one of the loaves was positively clean, he may
hold the Erub to be valid ; or according to R. Jose, who pro-
nounces a doubtful Erub valid in a case where if it is clean, he
can distinguish it, it may be said, that in this case the Erub
would in his opinion be invalid because although part of it is
clean, he cannot distinguish it from the unclean ?

R. Huna answered : According to both R. Meir and R.
Jose, when the Erub is deposited (while it is yet day) it must be

TRACT ERUBIN. 79

fit to eat and in this case it could not be eaten to commence
with, because, the clean could not be distinguished from the
unclean, how then could an Erub be made therewith ?

Rabha asked of R. Na'hman: If a man say: " This loaf of
bread is to-day ordinary but to-morrow it shall be consecrated.
Nevertheless make me an Erub therewith." What is the law ?
(Does it become consecrated at twilight and, as it is not per-
mitted to make an Erub with consecrated things, it is not valid
as an Erub, or does it become consecrated after twilight ?)
' The Erub is valid," was the answer. What is the law, how-
ever, if the man say: " To-day this loaf is consecrated, but to-
morrow it shall be ordinary (i.e., it shall be redeemed by a sum
of money representing its value) ; nevertheless make me an Erub
therewith ?" ' The Erub is not valid," was the answer. What
is the difference between the two cases ? Said R. Na'hman to
Rabha: " If thou wilt measure a whole Kur of salt and present
me with it,* I shall tell thee the answer: If the loaf of bread
was ordinary when it was deposited as an Erub, the fact, that at
twilight it becomes doubtful, whether it is consecrated or not,
does not destroy its validity as a legal Erub, but if the loaf of
bread was deposited while yet consecrated, the doubt existing at
twilight whether it had already become ordinary does not nul-
lify its sanctity as a consecrated object, and as a consecrated
object cannot be deposited as an Erub, the validity of the Erub
is impaired."

MISHNA: A man may make his Erub conditional and say:
If foes come from the east, my Erub shall be valid for the west;
should they come from the west, my Erub shall be good for the
east ; should they come from both sides, I am at liberty to go in
what direction I please ; should they not come from either side,
I am like the rest of my townsmen. Should a sage come from
the east, my Erub shall be valid for the east ; should one come
from the west, my Erub shall be valid for the west ; should one
come from each side, I am at liberty to go in which direction I
please ; should none come from either side, I am like the rest of
my townsmen. R. Jehudah said: If one of the two sages
(should they come at the same time) had been the man's teacher,
he must go to meet his teacher; if both had been his teachers,
he may go in which direction he pleases.

* This expression is generally used in a joking sense when the question is a dif-
ficult one to answer.

8o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

GEMARA: "R. Jehudah said: ' If one of the two sages?"
etc. What is the reason of the dissension of the sages from R.
Jehudah's opinion ? Because it frequently happens, that a man
has a greater fondness for his colleague than for his teacher.

Rabh said : This part of the Mishna (wherein R. Jehudah
states, that " if both sages had been the man's teachers, he may
go in whichever direction he pleases ' ') does not hold good, because
Ayo taught: R. Jehudah said: "A man cannot make an object
conditional upon two contingencies and in this case of the Erub
he may make it conditional upon the arrival of a sage from either
the west or the east, but not upon sages arriving from opposite
directions." Why can he not make it conditional upon the
arrival of sages from opposite directions ? Because R. Jehudah
does not admit of the theory of premeditated choice (i.e., he
does not consent to a man deciding upon a certain thing on
one day and declaring that it had been his intention to decide in
that manner since the day before), hence if two sages come from
opposite directions, the man cannot say, that he had intended to
meet the sage towards whom he went at the time he deposited
the Erub, t.e., on the day before.

If R. Jehudah does not hold to the theory of premeditated
choice why does he consent to a man making an Erub and say-
ing: " If the sage come from the east, my Erub shall be good
for the east, and if from the west, for the west." His choice is
certainly dependent upon two conditions; first the condition,
that the sage will come from either one of two directions, and
second, that he may not come at all, in which case his Erub is
of no account. If the sage arrived on the morrow, and the man
will go forward to meet him, he (the man) will be compelled to
claim a premeditated choice saying, that he had intended when
depositing his Erub to go in that direction and that would be
incorrect ; for it may be, that at the time the Erub was made,
the sage himself 6\d not know from which direction he would
come.

Said R. Johanan : The statement of Ayo in the name of R.
Jehudah, that a man may make his Erub conditional upon the
arrival of a sage from the east or west holds good, only if the
sage had already started on his way and was no more than four
thousand ells away from the man [i.e., if he or his Erub was at
the time when the man deposited his Erub already within the
legal limit established through the deposition of his (the sage's)
own Erub]. Hence it was not a premeditated choice on the

TRACT ERUBIN. 81

part of the man dependent upon the two conditions cited, for the
sage was already on his way and his coming from a certain
direction was an accomplished fact.

Why does Rabh say, that the Mishna does not hold good
because of Ayo's statement ? Let him say on the contrary, that
Ayo's statement does not hold good, because the Mishna opposes
it ? Nay ; it would not be proper ; for we have learned else-
where, that R. Jehudah does not hold to the theory of premedi-
tated choice. Ula, however, declares, that Ayo's statement
should be discountenanced on account of the Mishna (and as for
the report, that R. Jehudah discards the theory of premeditated
choice, Ula declares, that on the contrary, he holds it to be
good).

Said Rabha to R. Na'hman : Who is the Tana, who holds,
that the sages also discountenance the theory of premeditated
choice ? For we have learned as follows : If one man said to
five others: " I will make an Erub for any one of you whom I
may choose, and if I desire, he shall be permitted to go within
its limits, and if not, he must not do so." If he made his deci-
sion, while it was yet day (before the Sabbath set in) his Erub
is valid ; but if he made his decision after dark, his Erub is not
valid, (because it was not known at twilight which man he had
chosen). R. Na'hman was silent and did not answer.

Should he have said, that this was according to the school of
Ayo ? He had not heard of Ayo's decree. Said R. Joseph:
Wouldst thou ignore the other Tanaim ? There are other
Tanaim who dispute the above decision, as we have learned : If
a man said: " I will make an Erub for all the Sabbaths of the
ensuing year. If I then choose to go, I shall do so, and if not, I
shall not." If he made his decision while it was yet day on the
day preceding Sabbath, he may go, but if he made his decision
after dusk, R. Simeon says, his Erub is still valid, and the sages
say, it is not. (Hence there are sages who do not hold to the
theory of premeditated choice.)

Have we not heard elsewhere, that R. Simeon does not hold
to the theory of premeditated choice ? This would be a contra-
diction made by R. Simeon to himself ? Therefore learn to the
contrary : (R. Simeon says, the Erub is not valid, and the sages
say it is.) Why this question ? Can it not be, that R. Simeon
does not hold the theory of premeditated choice to be good
where biblical laws are concerned but does hold the theory good
for rabbinical laws ? R. Joseph maintains, that one who admits

VOL. III. — 6

82 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

of the theory of premeditated choice does so for both biblical
and rabbinical laws, and one who discountenances the theory
does so for both kinds of laws.

MISHNA: R. Eliezer said: When a festival precedes or suc-
ceeds a Sabbath (by one day), a man should prepare two Erubin
and say : My first Erub is to be valid for the east and my second
for the west ; or my first for the west and the second for the
east. My Erub is valid for the first day and the second day I
am like the rest of my townsmen, or my Erub is good for the
second day and the first day I am like my townsmen. The sages
however hold, that one may prepare his Erub for one direction
only ; otherwise it is not valid at all ; also that he must prepare
his Erub for both days, or it is not valid at all. But how must
this be done ? One carries out the Erub to the place, where he
means to deposit it on the eve of the first day of rest and remains
with it until dusk, when he carries it back with him. He then
brings the Erub out again on the second day, remains with it
till dark and then eats it and goes away. It is obvious, that in
this manner he gains his walk beyond the Sabbatical limit and
he gains by eating his Erub. Should his Erub have been eaten
on the first day, it is a legal Erub for the first day only; but not
for the second day. R. Eliezer said to them: "Thus ye
acknowledge to me that they are two distinct holidays (i.e., that
the sanctification of one day is not equal to that of the other)."

GEMARA : What do the sages mean to tell us : If a man
prepares his Erub for one direction, it is good for both days and
if he prepares it for both days it is good for one direction ?
What need is there of this repetition, is it not one and the same
thing ? Nay; the sages mean to say to R. Eliezer: " Wilt thou
not acknowledge, that it is not permitted to make two Erubin
for one day, one of which shall be good for the South for one
half of the day and the other be good for the North for the other
half of the day? " and he answered : "Yea." ' Then," rejoined
the sages, " in the sar^e manner as this is not permitted, it is
also not allowed to make Erubin good for both days, which
should in addition be also good on one day for the east and on the
other for the west." [What answer could R. Eliezer make to
this ? He might say, that in the case of the two Erubin for one
day, the sanctification of that one day continues throughout the
entire time of the validity of the Erub, whereas in the case of
the Erubin for both days, the sanctification of the one day (Sab-
bath) is not the same as that of the other day (the festival) ;

TRACT ERUBIN. 83

therefore a separate Erub may be made for each sanctification in
a different direction.] Said R. Eliezer to the sages again: " Let
us suppose now, that a man did not make an Erub, but on the
eve of the first day went to the place, where he should have
made it, personally and declared that he would take his Sabbath-
rest there. Would this hold good also for the second day ?
Nay, he would have to return on the following day and again
declare his intention of resting there the next day, and then it
would be lawful ? The same theory applies to an Erub. If he
deposited it on the eve of the first day, and it had been eaten
when deposited, he would have to make another Erub for the
second day ? " and they answered, " Yea." " Now, will ye not
acknowledge that the two days have each a separate degree of
sanctification ? "

[What reply can the sages make to this ? They may declare
that the fact of there being a distinct degree of sanctification for
each day is rather doubtful to them and for that reason they
desire to enforce the more rigorous interpretation of the ordi-
nance both ways, namely, that an Erub must not be made for
each of the two directions, lest there be but one degree of sanc-
tification for both days and that one Erub cannot serve for both
days, lest there be a different degree of sanctification for each
day.]

Again the sages said to R. Eliezer: " How is it, if no Erub
at all was made on the eve of the first day ? Thou wilt acknowl-
edge that a man cannot go and make an Erub on the eve of the
second day?" and he answered, "Yea." "Then," rejoined
the sages, " thou thereby dost admit, that there is but one
degree of sanctification for both days." [What will R. Eliezer
say to this ? He will say, on the contrary, that there are two
degrees of sanctification and just for that reason one must not
make the Erub on the eve of the second day, because one must
not prepare for a festival on the Sabbath or vice •versa.']

The Rabbis taught : "If one made an Erub on the eve of the
first day by means of his feet (i.e., by standing at the place where
he intends to rest) he must do so again on the eve of the second
day. If he made an Erub (of victuals) on the eve of the first
day and the Erub was consumed, it does not hold good for the
second day. Such is the dictum of Rabbi. R. Jehudah, how-
ever, said: "This is like driving an ass and leading a camel "
(i.e., R. Jehudah means to say this: If the two days have but
one degree of sanctification and the Erub was made for both days,

84 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

the maker loses the two thousand ells in the opposite direction
from that towards which his Erub was made, and merely gains
two thousand ells in the one direction towards which his Erub
was made. If the two days have different degrees of sanctifica-
tion and hence the Erub is valid only for one day, the maker of
the Erub should on the second day be on a par with the rest of
his townsmen, but in reality he only has two thousand ells on
the way back to the town and no more). R. Simeon ben
Gamaliel and R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan ben Berokah,
however, both say, that if a man made an Erub with his feet on
the eve of the first day it suffices for the second day and if he
made an Erub (of victuals) on the eve of the first day and it was
consumed, he is exempt from making it on the eve of the second
day. Said Rabh : " The Halakha prevails according to the opin-
ion of the four old sages and in conformity with R. Eliezer, who
says, that the two days have different degrees of sanctification ;
and the four old sages are i R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, R. Ishmael
the son of R. Johanan ben Berokah, R. Elazar ben R. Simeon
and R. Jose ben R. Jehudah. The last of these is generally
quoted by Rabbi anonymousy wherever his opinion seems to be
justifiable and according to another version, one of the four sages
is R. Elazar ben Samua instead of R. Jose ben R. Jehudah.
Rabh's information on this point was derived from a tradition,
which was to the effect, that those four sages held in accordance
with R. Eliezer concerning the two degrees of sanctification for
both days.

R. Jehudah said : If one made an Erub on the eve of the first
day with his feet, he must do likewise on the eve of the second
day, and if he made an Erub on the eve of the first day with
bread, he must make it in like manner on the eve of the second
day. If he made an Erub on the eve of the first day with bread
which was lost, he may make it on the eve of the second day
with his feet, but if he made it with his feet in the first instance
he must not make it with bread in the second instance, because
making an Erub with bread to commence with on Sabbath or on a
festival would be an infraction of the law prohibiting the prepar-
ing on a Sabbath for a festival or vice versa. If a man made an
Erub with bread on the eve of the first day, he must make it
with bread on the eve of the second day also and, according to
Samuel, he should use the same bread in both cases (for if he
uses new bread in the second instance it will be a case of prepar-
ing on a Sabbath for a festival). Said R. Ashi : We can adduce

TRACT ERUBIN. 85

this also from our Mishna, which teaches: " But how must this
be done ? One carries out the Erub to the place, where he
means to deposit it on the eve of the first day of rest and remains
with it until dusk, when he carries it back with him ; he then
brings the Erub out again on the second day, remains with it
until dusk, then eats it and goes away." (The fact that it says,
" he carries it back with him and then brings it out again," is
proof that it must be the same Erub.) The sages that differ
with Samuel and assert that new bread may be used on the eve
of the second day maintain, that the Mishna merely administers
good advice and tells us, that we need not trouble ourselves to
make a new Erub in case the first one is lost.

MISHNA: R. Jehudah said: " If a man apprehend that the
new year will be celebrated two days, he must prepare two
Erubin." He then says : My Erub of the first day shall be valid
for the east and of the second day for the west ; or of the first
day for the west and of the second day for the east. My Erub
shall be valid for the first day, and on the second I am like my
townsmen ; or my Erub shall be valid for the second day and on
the first I am like my townsmen. The sages however did not
coincide with him.

R. Jehudah further said: " A man may conditionally separate
(the heave-offering from) a basket of fruit on the first day of the
new year and eat it on the second day ; likewise an egg which is
laid on the first day of the festival may be eaten on the second."
The sages however do not coincide with him.

R. Dosa ben Harchinas said: He who stands before the
pulpit to pray on the first day of the new year must say:
Strengthen us, O Lord our God, on this day of the new moon,
whether to-day or to-morrow (be the true day). And on the
morrow he says the same prayer with the variation " whether
this day or yesterday be the true one." The sages, however,
do not agree with him.

GEMARA: Who are the sages, that do not coincide with
R. Jehudah ? Said Rabh : That is R. Jose, as we have learned
in a Boraitha: The sages agree with R. Eliezer that " if a man
apprehend that the new year will be celebrated two days,* he

* The Israelites living in exile were dependent for their information concerning
the date of the New Year entirely upon the messengers sent out by the high court in
Palestine, which in turn fixed the date upon the testimony of witnesses who would
announce when the new moon appeared (as explained in Tract Rosh Hashana). Thus
the exiled people did not know whether the soth or 3ist day from the first day of

86 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

should prepare two Erubin. He then says: My Erub of the
first day shall be valid for the east and of the second day for the
west ; or of the first day for the west and of the second day for
the east. My Erub shall be valid for the first day and on the
second I am like my townsmen ; or my Erub shall be valid for
the second day and on the first I am like my townsmen." R.
Jose, however, does not consent to this. (He holds that if the
witnesses come before the high court in the afternoon of the first
day that had been kept holy and declare that the next day is
New Year, both days are nevertheless holy and are of one degree
of sanctification.)

We have learned in a Boraitha: How does R. Jehudah
explain his dictum, that " a man may conditionally separate (the
heave-offering from) a basket of fruit on the first day of the New
Year and eat it on the second ? ' ' Thus : If there were two baskets
of unseparated fruit before a man on the first day of the New
Year he may say: " If to-day is the ordinary day and to-morrow
is the holy day, let the heave-offering separated from this basket
of fruit also serve for the other, and if to-day is the holy day and
to-morrow the ordinary, then I have said nothing." He then
designates the fruit which he calls heave-offering and lets it
remain. On the morrow again he may say: If to-day is an ordi-
nary day, let the heave-offering of this basket also serve for the
other, but if to-day be a holy day I have said nothing. He may
then designate part of the fruit in the one basket and call it
heave-offering and eat the remainder in both baskets. R. Jose
however prohibits this not only for the two days of the new year
but for the two days of every other festival, which is celebrated
in exile.*

It happened that a stag was caught on the first day of a holi-
day (in exile) at the house of the Exilarch and on the second day
it was slaughtered. R. Na'hman and R. Hisda partook of the
stag, but R. Shesheth would not do so. Said R. Na'hman :
" What shall we do with R. Shesheth who does not eat venison? "
Rejoined R. Shesheth: " How can I eat this venison; for did
not Issi teach in a Boraitha [or a Boraitha taught, that Issi said],

Elul would be proclaimed the first day of Tishri (the New Year), and both were kept
holy in consequence. For this reason the Mishna cites the ordinances referring to
such as apprehend that the New Year will last two days.

* In exile the Israelites celebrated two days each for the holidays of Passover,
Tabernacles, and Pentecost, besides the New Year, and these are called the holidays
in exile.

TRACT ERUBIN. 87

that R. Jose would not permit this to be done even during the
two days of a holiday in exile ? "

Once R. Shesheth met Rabba bar Samuel and asked him:
" Did master teach anything regarding the sanctification of the
holidays ?" Answered Rabba: " Yea, I taught in a Boraitha,
that R. Jose coincides with the sages, as far as the two days of
a holiday in exile are concerned." Rejoined R. Shesheth: " If
thou shouldst meet any of the Exilarch's household, say nothing
to them about this Boraitha."

It once happened that herbs were brought to the city of
Mehuzza on a festival. Rabha went out and noticed, that the
herbs were somewhat withered. He permitted the herbs to be
bought, saying: " It is obvious, that these herbs were not gath-
ered on this day, and the only objection that might be made to
their being purchased can be, that they were brought from
beyond the techoom (legal limits)." The law, however, ordains,
that if things are brought for one Israelite from without the
techoom, another Israelite may use them, and in this case, where
the herbs were brought even for the Gentile inhabitants they can
in so much greater a degree be used by Israelites. Subsequently,
however, he observed, that herbs were brought in large quanti-
ties, so he prohibited the purchase of them on a festival.

The men whose occupation was to prepare baldachins for
marriages once cut off branches of myrtle on the second day of
a holiday in exile. The moment it became dark, Rabhina per-
mitted the people to smell the myrtle. Said Rabha bar
Tachlipha to Rabhina: Master should have prohibited this, for
these people are ignorant (and if thou wilt permit this, they may
ignore the second day of the festival entirely). R. Shmaya
opposed this: " Thou sayest, because they are ignorant, and
even were they intelligent men, would it be allowed ? Is it
not necessary to allow sufficient time after the Sabbath to
expire until the branches can be cut off afresh ?" They finally
went and asked Rabha and he decided that it was necessary
to allow sufficient time to expire until the branches could be
cut anew.

" R. Dosa ben Harchinas said" etc. Said Rabba: When we
were in the college of R. Huna, a question was propounded by us
as follows: " Must the reference to the day of the new moon be
added to the prayers recited on the day of the New Year ? " Shall
we assume, that because there are separate additional sacrifices
for each, that the reference to the day of the new moon shall be

88 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

added to the prayers of the New Year, or because the New Year
is mentioned in the prayer as the " day of Remembrance " such
mention will suffice for both occasions ? R. Huna answered us
by quoting the Mishna: R. Dosa ben Harchinas said: He who
stands before the pulpit to pray on the first day of the New
Year must say: " Strengthen us, O Lord our God, on this day of
the new moon, etc." Does not R. Dosa state this in order to
demonstrate that the day of the new moon must be explicitly
mentioned ? Nay, he simply means to make the prayer condi-
tional but not because special mention must be made of the day
of the new moon. It seems to us, that such is truly the case,
because further on the Boraitha states, that so did R. Dosa act
on all the days of the new moon throughout the year; but the
sages did not coincide with him.

Now, if it be said, that the prayer was made conditional it is
correct, (because there was a doubt concerning the exact day at
each recurring new moon) but if it be said, that the new moon
must be mentioned in the prayer especially, why should the sages
not agree with him ?

An objection was made: When New Year falls on a Sabbath,
Beth Shammai say, ten benedictions are to be recited during
the prayer and Beth Hillel say " only nine." [The first three
are benedictions of praise, the last three benedictions of thanks ;
the Sabbath benediction, and the three pertaining to New Year,
viz., the one in which God is proclaimed King (Malkhioth), the
one referring to God's remembrance of his creatures (Zikhronoth)
and the one referring to the sounding of the cornet (Shoph-
roth), but according to Beth Hillel the Sabbath benediction is
included in those pertaining to the New Year, hence there are
only nine.] Now if we say, that the benediction for the new
moon must be especially mentioned in the Musaph (additional
prayer) then according to Beth Shammai, there should be eleven
benedictions in all.

Said R. Zera: " With the benediction of the new moon it is
different ; because if the new moon fall on a Sabbath no separate
benediction is made, but it is included in the Sabbath benedic-
tion at the morning and evening prayer; the benediction of the
new moon is also mentioned in the Musaph-prayer in conjunction
with the new year benediction." Do Beth Shammai indeed
maintain, that if the new moon fall on a Sabbath the benedic-
tion pertaining to it is included in that of Sabbath ? Have we
not learned, that if the new moon fall on Sabbath, Beth Shammai

TRACT ERUBIN. 89

hold, that eight benedictions must be recited in the prayer and
Beth Hillel only seven ? This question is not decided.

Rabba said: " When I was at the college of R. Huna the
question arose, whether the benediction of the time * should be
recited in the New Year and Day of Atonement prayers. Shall
we say, that because these holy days only come from time to
time, the benediction of time should be made, or, because the
Bible does not classify them as festivals, no such benediction
need be made ? R. Huna could not answer the question but
when I subsequently came to R. Jehudah's college, the latter
said he made such a benediction even over a new pumpkin. I
then said to him, that I did not question the right to pronounce
this benediction over anything whatever, but I wished to know
whether it was compulsory to do this on the New Year and the
Day of Atonement. He then answered : Rabh and Samuel both
said, that the benediction of time must be recited only for each
of the three festivals."

An objection was made : It is written [Ecclesiastes xi. 2] :
" Give a portion to seven, and also to eight." R. Eliezer said
that by " seven " is meant the seven days of the creation and by
"eight" is meant the eight days of the circumcision. R.
Jehoshua said: " By ' seven ' is meant the seven days of Pass-
over, by ' eight ' is meant the eight days of the feast of Taber-
nacles and by ' also ' is meant Pentecost, New Year and the
Day of Atonement. ' ' May we not assume, that by this is meant,
that the benediction of time must be pronounced on all these
festivals ? Nay ; this simply means to state, that benedictions
should be recited but no special benedictions are specified. It
seems to us, that this is the correct explanation ; for the benedic-
tion of time is certainly not recited on every one of the days of the
festivals but only the first day. This is not the question, because
the benediction of time must be recited in the course of the fes-
tival; if not on the first day, on the second and so on. At any
event this benediction must be made over a goblet (of wine) ?
Shall we assume, however, that the above is in support of the
dictum of R. Na'hman, who holds that the benediction of time
may be recited even in the market and without a goblet ? This
is not the question either; for if a man does not recite this bene-

* The full text of this benediction reads : " Blessed art Thou, Lord our God,
King of the Universe, who hast allowed us to live and hast preserved us and hast
allowed us to reach this time."

9o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

diction on one day, he may do so on the next when he might
come across a goblet. This would be feasible where the three
(main) festivals and New Year are concerned, but how would it
be with the Day of Atonement ? What should the man do ?
Should he pronounce the benediction over the goblet on the day
preceding the Day of Atonement before dusk, he would then
and there usher in the Day of Atonement, and as is well known,
he must not eat or drink on that day. Should he pronounce the
benediction and let the goblet stand until after the Day of Atone-
ment ? Have we not learned that one must drink the contents
of the goblet immediately after pronouncing the benediction;
otherwise he must not make the benediction at all ? Should he
pronounce the benediction and then give the goblet to a child ?
In that case, there would be fear, lest the child be accustomed
to drinking on that day, and will continue to do so when grown
and therefore the Halakha according to R. A'hadoes not prevail.
How, then, does the Halakha concerning the benediction of time
on the New Year and the Day of Atonement prevail ? The
Rabbis sent the elder R. Yeimar to R. Hisda with instructions
to observe how the latter proceeded on the eve of the New Year,
and then to return and report what he had seen. When R.
Hisda saw R. Yeimar (and upon questioning him as to his mis-
sion was told that he just called to see him) he said: If a wet
piece of wood is lifted, it is obvious, that either the wood or its
space is needed. (If thou earnest thou certainly didst so with
an object.) At about that time a goblet of wine was brought to
R. Hisda and he pronounced the benediction of the day and also
that of the time over it.

The Halakha prevails, that the benediction of time must be
recited on the New Year and on the Day of Atonement and the
Halakha also prevails that if a man forgot to recite it and was
reminded of his negligence even in the market, he may recite it
then and there.

Rabba said again: " When I was at the college of R. Huna,
the question arose whether a young scholar, who fasted on the
day preceding Sabbath must fast until night or in honor of the
Sabbath break his fast earlier. R. Huna could not answer the
question. I went to R. Jehudah and he could not answer this
either." Said Rabha: " Let us see if we cannot decide this
question ourselves from what we have learned in the following
Boraitha: If the fast-day of the ninth of Abh fall on a Friday,
bread may be brought to a man just before twilight of the size

TRACT ERUBIN. gi

of an egg, and he should eat it, in order that he may not enter
upon the observance of the Sabbath while still in pain."

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: It once
happened that we were sitting before R. Aqiba on the fast of the
ninth of Abh, which fell on a Friday, and just before dusk a soft-
boiled egg was brought to him which he swallowed without even
salting it, and not because he desired to eat it in that manner;
but because he wished to show his disciples how the Halakha was
carried out. R. Jose, however, said, that a man must fast
through the entire day until dusk.

R. Jose said to the sages: " Will ye not admit, that if the
ninth of Abh fall on the day after Sabbath, a man must stop
•eating while it is yet day on Sabbath?" and they answered
"' Yea." ' What difference is there then between entering in
upon the observance of the Sabbath while still in pain and fin-
ishing the Sabbath under the same conditions ?" asked R. Jose.
They answered: " In the first instance he fasted all day; but in
this instance he had been eating and drinking all day and was
surely not in pain. " Finally, however, Ula said that the Halakha
prevailed according to R. Jose.

Do we then act according to the opinion of R. Jose ? Have
we not learned, (concerning the Boraitha in Tract Taanith which
teaches) that Rabbon Gamaliel said: " On a Friday the fast need
not be completed," that upon the death of Rabbon Gamaliel,
R. Jehoshua came and sought to nullify his decree and R.
Johanan ben Nouri arose and declared: " We see that the body
always follows the head. As long as Rabbon Gamaliel lived, we
abided by his decisions. Now that he is dead, thou wouldst
abolish them. Jehoshua! We will not listen to thee. The
Halakha prevailed according to R. Gamaliel and so must it
remain," and there was none to contradict R. Johanan ben
Nouri. (Thus we see, that the decree of R. Gamaliel was
accepted and not that of R. Jose.) (This is no question!) In
the generation of R. Gamaliel his decree was followed and in the
generation of R. Jose, R. Jose's opinion prevailed.

And did they really act in accordance with R. Gamaliel's
opinion during his generation ? Have we not learned that R.
Elazar ben Zadoc (who was certainly of R. Gamaliel's day) said:
I am a descendant of Sanab of the tribe of Benjamin and it once
happened that the ninth of Abh fell on a Sabbath, so we post-
poned it until the following day and we did not complete the fast
because it was our holiday. Thus we see, that the fast was not

92 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

completed because the tenth of Abh was a holiday and besides
the fast-day was a postponed one. Had the ninth of Abh how-
ever fallen on a week-day, which for them would have been the
eve of a festival, they would have completed the fast neverthe-
less and this is not in conformity with the decree of R. Gamaliel ?
Said Rabhina : How can ye compare that festival to our festivals.
Their festival was not biblical and on a festival which is not bib-
lical one may fast for three or four hours if he chooses. On a
biblical festival, however, it is not allowed to complete the fast.
R. Joseph said: " I did not hear of this Halakha." Said
Abayi : Thou didst relate this to us thyself, in reference to the
Boraitha, that a fast-day must not be ordered on the days of the
first of the month. (The occasion when R. Joseph related this
is mentioned in Tract Taanith.) Mar Zutra related in the name
of R. Huna: The Halakha prevails, that one may complete the
fast until dusk.

CHAPTER IV.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE OVERSTEPPING OF THE LEGAL LIMITS
ON THE SABBATH, AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE SABBATH-
DISTANCE.

MISHNA : If foes, or an evil spirit (a fit of insanity ?), caused
one to go beyond the Sabbath limit, he after recovering his free-
dom must not move further than four ells ; if the foes or the fit
have carried him back within the limit, it is as if he had not gone
beyond it. If they have carried him into another town, or into
a pen or a fold for cattle, he according to Rabbon Gamaliel and
R. Eliezer ben Azariah, may go about throughout the entire
extent (of the town, pen or fold). R. Joshua and R. Aqiba main-
tain, that he must not move further than four ells. It once hap-
pened that these four sages came together from Parendisim
(Brundusium or Brindisi) and their vessel was still at sea on the
Sabbath. Rabbon Gamaliel and R. Eliezer ben Azariah walked
about throughout the whole vessel; but R. Joshua and R. Aqiba
did not move beyond four ells, as they wished to take upon
themselves the rigid observance. Once these four sages were on
board a vessel and did not enter the harbor until after dark (on
the eve of Sabbath); so they inquired of Rabbon Gamaliel:
"" What are we to do as to descending from the vessel ? " He
answered them : Ye may descend ; for I observed, that we had
already entered the limits of the Sabbath-distance before dusk.

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught: "There are three things,
which cause a man to commit deeds against his own will and
against the will of his Creator, viz. : Idolatry, and evil spirits
and stress of poverty." [For what purpose do the Rabbis tell
us this ? In order, that we may pray God to deliver us from
those evils.]

Three persons will never come to Gehenna: He who suffers
from extreme poverty, he who suffers with a diseased stomach
and one who is oppressed by the government, and others add
also the man who is afflicted with a bad wife. [Why was the

94 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

latter not mentioned in the first place ? Because if one has a bad
wife he should divorce her. Those however who declare that
one who has a bad wife will not see Gehenna refer to those,
who cannot afford to make a settlement upon their wives, or to
those, who have children and cannot divorce their wives. For
what purpose did the Rabbis tell us this ? In order, that a man,
who is subject to these misfortunes, should accept them with
resignation.]

Three classes of human beings die in the possession of their
power of speech, viz. : " A man who is suffering from a diseased
stomach, a woman lying in and a man suffering with dropsy."
[For what purpose are we taught to this effect ? In order that
shrouds may be prepared for such people.]

R. Na'hman said in the name of Samuel: If one went out
beyond the Sabbath-limit and foes or an evil spirit brought him
back within the limit, he must not move more than four ells
from where he stands. Have we not learned this in our Mishna,
which says, if foes or evil spirits carried him out and then
brought him back it is as if he had never gone out at all ; now is
it not self-evident that if he went out of his own accord, he has
only four ells of space in which to move ? We might assume
that the Mishna teaches us, if foes or evil spirits carried him out
and he returned of his own accord, he has no more than four
ells of space, but if he went out of his own accord and foes or
evil spirits brought him back it would be as if he never went out
at all, hence this teaching of Samuel.

Rabba was asked : " How is the law regarding one, who only
had four ells to move in and was compelled to go out to obey
nature's call ?" and he answered: " Great is the honor of man,
which supersedes even a biblical negative commandment."

The men of Neherdai said : If the man in question is pru-
dent, he will enter the legal limits, perform his necessities and
then go on.

Said R. Papa: " If fruit was carried beyond the legal limits
and then even purposely brought back, the right to move it
within the limits is not forfeited, because the fruit certainly did
not go out beyond the limits of their own accord." R. Joseph
bar Shmaya objected to this statement: " R. Nehemiah and R<
Eliezer ben Jacob both said : The fruit which was carried out
must not be handled when brought back unless this was dorte
unintentionally, but if intentionally, they must not be handled? "
Concerning this, there is a difference of opinion between Tanaim

TRACT ERUBIN. 95

in a Boraitha elsewhere (and R. Papa holds with the Tana, who
permits it).

Said R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel: " If one went out
and did not know the legal distance he could traverse, he may
walk on for a distance of two thousand medium steps. This will
constitute the lawful limit of the Sabbath." He said again
quoting the same authority : If one took his Sabbath-rest in a
valley, and Gentiles made an enclosure around the valley on the
Sabbath, he may go two thousand ells, but he may throw things
over the entire extent of the valley." R. Huna said: " He may
go two thousand ells, but may carry only for a distance of four
ells." The reason R. Huna prohibits throwing is in precaution,
lest the man throw a thing outside of his two thousand ells and
go after it.

Hyya bar Rabh, however, said: He may go two thousand
ells and may carry things inside of that limit.

Said R. Na'hman to R. Huna: " Do not refute the dictum
of Samuel; for we have learned in a Boraitha in support of
Samuel."

R. Huna said: " If one measured the legal distance on a
Sabbath and his measurement came to an end in one half of a
court, he may avail himself of that half of the court only." Is
this not self-evident ? If he ended his measurement in one half
of a court, why should he not avail himself of that half ? We
might assume, that if the one half is permitted he might be
tempted to use the other half also, so we are told that this pre-
caution is not necessary.

R. Na'hman said: " Huna agrees with me, that if in measur-
ing the Sabbath-distance, the measurement end in the edge of a
house, one may throw things into the house although he must
not go into it himself, for the edge of the house is a fixed sign
for him and will remind him, that he must not enter the
house." Said R. Huna the son of R. Nathan: " The necessity
for a precautionary measure to prevent the man from entering
the house forms the subject of a discussion between Tanaim as
follows: If foes or an evil spirit have carried the man into
another town, or into a pen or a fold for cattle, he may, accord-
ing to Rabbon Gamaliel and R. Elazar ben Azariah, go about
throughout the entire extent (of such a place) ; R. Joshua and
R. Aqiba, however, maintain, that he must not move further
than four ells." Now, we must assume that those who permit
the traversing of the entire extent of such places do so because

96 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

they do not fear that the man will traverse the whole valley
where those places are situated, and those who only allow four
ells, do so, because they regard this precautionary measure neces-
sary. The same argument applies also to throwing, viz. : Those
who have no fear that the man will traverse the entire valley,
permit throwing throughout the pen or fold where the man is
•ensconced and those who allow him only four ells hold the same
precautionary measure necessary where throwing and going after
it is concerned.

Rabh said : " The Halakha prevails according to R. Gamaliel,
where a pen, fold or ship is concerned," but Samuel said:
" Only as far as a ship is concerned, but not as regards a pen or
a fold." Thus we see that, as to a ship, all agree the Halakha
prevails according to R. Gamaliel. What is the reason there-
for ? Said Rabba : ' ' Because already before the Sabbath set
in, the man is within the confines of the ship and although the
ship was involuntarily carried out beyond the legal limits, the
man had prepared his Sabbath-rest there." R. Zera said, how-
ever: " The reason is: that the man on board of the ship did not
have four ells to move in, for the ship moves more than four ells
-every time it lurches foward, consequently he does not come
under the law of four ells and may go throughout the entire
•extent of the ship." Rabba rejoined : " Thou referrest to a man
who entered the ship while in motion. Concerning this, there
is no difference between any of the Tanaim ; even R. Aqiba per-
mits the traversing of the entire ship, but they differ concerning
a man who entered the ship while it was anchored."

Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: From the Mishna itself we may
infer, that there was no difference concerning a ship while in
motion, because it states, that R. Joshua and R. Aqiba did not
move beyond four ells, as they wished to take upon themselves
the rigid observance. Were it not permitted at all, why should
it say, that they wished to take upon themselves the rigid obser-
vance, they would have to obey the law ?

Said R. A'ha the son of Rabha to R. Ashi: " The Halakha
prevails according to R. Gamaliel where a ship is concerned."
Then, there must be some who maintain that the Halakha does
not prevail according to R. Gamaliel. Yea, there are, as we have
learned in the following Boraitha : Hananiah the son of R.
Jehoshua's brother said: " The whole day that R. Gamaliel and
R. Aqiba were on board the ship they disputed concerning this
Halakha, and yesterday my uncle affirmed the Halakha to the

TRACT ERUBIN. 97

effect, that as regards a ship at anchor it prevails according to
R. Gamaliel and as for a pen or a fold it prevails according to R.
Aqiba."

R. Hananiah propounded a question : Is there such a thing
as a legal limit above ten spans from the ground or not ? Con-
cerning a pillar ten spans high and four spans wide one side of
which was outside of the legal limit there is no question ; for it
is equal to the ground itself, but concerning a pillar, that was
ten spans high and less than four spans wide or a man who went
on board of a ship, does the law of legal limits apply or not ?
R. Hosea answered: " Come and hear! It once happened that
four sages came together from Parendisim, etc. (see Mishna). If
we say, that the law of legal limits applies to objects higher
than ten spans, then it can be understood why R. Joshua and
R. Aqiba took upon themselves the rigid observance (for con-
cerning a ship in motion they do not disagree with the other
sages), viz. : on account of the law of legal limits, but if this law
does not apply to a ship, what rigid observance could they have
taken upon themselves ?" Rejoined R. Hananiah: " It may be
that their ship was passing through shallow water, as related
elsewhere by Rabha, and was not over ten spans from the
ground."

Come and hear! The seven Halakhas related on a Sabbath
morn in the presence of R. Hisda at Sura were related on the
same evening in the presence of Rabha at Pumbaditha. Who
could have decreed them ? No one, but Elijah? Hence we see,
that there is no such thing as legal limits above ten spans from
the ground ? Nay. It may be that those Halakhas were trans-
mitted from one school to the other by Joseph the evil One, who
did not observe the Sabbath.

Come and hear! If one say: I wish to be a Nazarite at the
coming of the Messiah, he may drink wine on a Sabbath or on a
festival but must not do so during the week-days. (For Messiah
is liable to come at any time.) The Boraitha would be correct
if we assume, that there is a legal limit above ten spans from the
ground, because Messiah will then not come on the Sabbath or
on a festival, but if there is no legal limit above ten spans, the
man should not drink wine even on those days, because the
Messiah might come. In that case it is different : for it is writ-
ten [Malachi iii. 23]: " Behold, I send unto you Elijah the pro-
phet before the coming of the day of the Lord, the great and the
dreadful." Hence, if Elijah did not come on the day preceding

VOL. III. — 7

98 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Sabbath, he may drink on the Sabbath. If this is so, then he
may drink on a week-day also providing Elijah did not come on
the preceding day. It might be assumed, however, that Elijah
had already come and appeared before the high court and for
that reason the man should not drink on any day, lest Elijah
had already come, then this would apply also to the Sabbath ?
There is a tradition among Israelites that it is an assured fact,
that Elijah will not come on the eve of a Sabbath or a festival.
If that is so, why should the man not be permitted to drink wine
on the eve of Sabbath ? Because although Elijah will not come,
the Messiah himself might come.

Thus it must be assumed, that if there is a legal limit above
ten spans, a man who wishes to be a Nazarite on the day of the
coming of the Messiah should be permitted to drink wine not
only on Sabbath and the festivals but also on the day following
Sabbath, because Elijah cannot come on the Sabbath ? The
sages who prohibited a man of that kind to drink wine on a week-
day were themselves in doubt as to the validity of a legal limit
above ten spans and only made it more rigid for the man on
general principles.

" And did not enter the harbor until after dark" etc. It was
taught in a Boraitha, that R. Gamaliel had a telescope, through
which he could see for a distance of two thousand ells on land
and on sea. If a man wishes to measure the depth of a valley,
he should use one of those telescopes and if he should wish to
measure a tree, he should observe his shadow, measure himself
and his shadow and the shadow of the tree and calculate the
proportion.

Nehemiah the son of R. Hanilayi was engrossed in thinking
about a Halakha and inadvertently stepped out beyond the legal
limits. Said R. Hisda to R. Na'hman : " Thy disciple Nehemiah
is in trouble," and R. Na'hman answered: " Make him a parti-
tion with men and let him come back."

R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak sat behind Rabha who sat in the pres-
ence of R. Na'hman. Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak to Rabha:
" How was the case when R. Hisda asked R. Na'hman concern-
ing Nehemiah who had overstepped the legal limits ? Shall we
say, that there were sufficient men on hand who had made an
Erub at the limits and could therefore go out to Nehemiah then
the question was merely whether the Halakha prevailed according
to R. Gamaliel, who said, that where there is a partition, even if
a man had not declared his intention to rest there on the Sab-

TRACT ERUBIN. 99

bath, he may avail himself of it and traverse its entire extent, or
that there were not sufficient men who had made an Erub who
could reach Nehemiah and the question presented itself, whether
the Halakha prevailed according to R. Eliezer, that if a man went
out two ells beyond the limits he may return, and Nehemiah did
not go out further than that." Is this not self-evident ? For if
there were sufficient men to reach Nehemiah, why did R. Hisda
ask R. Na'hman ? Rabh had already decided that the Halakha
mentioned prevailed according to R. Gamaliel and for R. Hisda
Rabh was the final authority ? The* question was merely then,
whether R. Hisda could make a partition with men who had not
made an Erub, at the end of two ells beyond the limit, which
according to R. Eliezer was free to everybody, so that Nehemiah
who had gone further than two ells beyond the limit could avail
himself of that partition and return.

R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak objected to the above, addressing
Rabha: " Have we not learned in a Boraitha: ' If the wall of a
booth fell in on a festival, one must not use a man, or an animal
or vessels or put up a bed and cover it with a sheet in order to
fill in the gap, because a temporary tent must not be erected on
a festival to commence with and so much less on a Sabbath. ? ' '
Answered Rabha : Thou quotest this Boraitha but I can quote
another which states: " A man can make a wall of his comrade,
that he may be able to eat a meal or drink or sleep in a booth
(the wall of which had fallen in); he may also put up a bed and
cover it with a sheet to keep the sun off from a corpse or from
food."

These two Boraithas are contradictory to each other ? This
presents no difficulty. One of them is according to the opinion
of R. Eliezer and the other according to the opinion of the sages.

It happened once, that some baldachin-makers brought in
water through a partition formed by men. Samuel punished
them, saying: "This was done in an emergency where a man
had overstepped the legal limits accidentally but ye do this ' pur-
posely.' '

It once happened that flasks of wine were thrown out of Rab-
ha's house on the road in the city of Mehuzza. When Rabha
came from his college, a number of men followed him as usual,
and thus relying upon the partition formed by them, someone
carried the flasks back into the house. Next Sabbath, the same
thing happened, but Rabha would not permit the flasks to be
carried back to the house, saying, that this time it might seem as

loo THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

if it were done on purpose. In like manner straw was brought
into the house of Levi, hay to the house of Zera, and water
into the house of R. Shimi bar Hyya.

MISHNA: One who is authorized to go beyond the pre-
scribed limit on important business pertaining to public or private
safety and is told, that "it is already done," is at liberty to go
two thousand ells in any direction. If he was still within the
prescribed limit, it is as if he had not gone out at all, for all those
who go forth on an errand of safety, are permitted to return to
their homes on Sabbath.

GEMARA: What is meant by "if he was still within the
prescribed limit " ? Said Rabha: " This means to impart to us,
that if he had not gone out beyond the limit, it was as if he had
not left his house. Is this not self-evident ? I would say, that
if he had gone out of his house he forfeits his right to go two
thousand ells in any direction he chooses, and we are told, that
such is not the case." R. Shimi bar Hyya however said: " This
means to state, that if the man had already gone beyond the
usual limit but had not yet gone out of the additional limit
allowed him by the sages for the errand, it is regarded as if he
had not overstepped his own ordinary limit." Upon what point
do they differ ? Upon the permissibility of one end of a limit
including another established limited distance adjoining it. The
latter holds, that this point may be depended upon, while the
former holds that it cannot.

"For all those who go forth on an errand of safety" etc. Even
such as go beyond four thousand ells ? In the first part of the
Mishna it is stated that they only have two thousand ells in each
direction ? What question is this ? This is a case of where a
man goes forth on an errand of safety, and on such an errand it
may be permitted to go beyond four thousand ells. If there is a
question it can be made upon the following Mishna: " Those
who go to assist others in case of conflagration, or of an attack
of robbers, or of flood, or of rescuing people from the ruins of a
falling building are considered for the time being as inhabitants
of that place, and may go thence on the Sabbath, two thousand
ells in every direction." Thus here it is stated, that they may
go only two thousand ells and our Mishna does not limit the dis-
tance ? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: Our Mishna
means to imply, that they may even return to their homes with
all their implements of war, as we have learned in a Boraitha: In
former times, they used to deposit their arms in a house nearest

TRACT ERUBIN. 101

to the fortifications of the city. Once it happened, however,
that the enemy was informed of the fact, that the Israelites had
stored their arms, so they pursued them and in endeavoring to
enter the house to gain possession of their arms, the Israelites
trampled more of their own to death than were killed by the
enemy. Since that time it was ordered to carry their arms back
to their homes.

R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak however said: This presents no diffi-
culty: If the Israelites are victorious, they have only two thou-
sand ells in which they may go in every direction, but if they are
defeated, they may escape as far as possible.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: If enemies besieged
cities inhabited by Israelites, the latter must not go outside of
the cities with their arms and must not violate the Sabbath, pro-
viding the enemies were there on account of money-matters ; but
if they were there for the purpose of slaughter, the Sabbath may
be violated and arms be carried on Sabbath. If a city near the
boundary of the country is besieged even on account of a trivial
business matter such as straw or hay, arms may be carried and
the Sabbath may be violated. Said R. Joseph bar Minyumi
in the name of R. Na'hman: " Babylon is considered as a city
near the boundary," and this dictum was explained to mean the
city of Neherdai (which was surrounded on one side by Gentile
neighbors and on the other side by Israelites).

MISHNA: If a man sit down by the road-side (towards dark
on the eve of Sabbath), then gets up and observes, that he is
near a town, he must not enter the town ; for it had not been his
intention to do this. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but R.
Jehudah permits him to enter. R. Jehudah said: " It once
happened that R. Tarphon entered a town although it was not
his intention to do so."

One who falls asleep on the eve of Sabbath while on the road
and thus knows not that night has set in, is permitted (upon
awaking) to go two thousand ells in any direction. Such is
the decree of R. Johanan ben Nouri ; but the sages hold, that he
has only the right to move four ells. R. Eliezer said: " And he
himself forms the centre of the four ells." R. Jehudah however
said: He can go four ells in whichever direction he pleases. Still
R. Jehudah admitted, that if the man had made his choice (which
direction to take) he must not afterwards (change his mind and)
go in another direction. Should there be two persons so situ-
ated (i.e., form the centre of the four ells they are allowed to

102 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

move in), and part of the four ells permitted to one is within the
limits of the other, they may meet and take their meals together
in the centre of their joint space, provided that neither exceed
his own limits by going into those of his neighbor. If there
are three persons so situated and part of the four ells occupied
by the middle one forms part of the space belonging to each of
the other two, the one situated in the middle is at liberty to
meet each of the others, or each of the others may meet him ;
but the two on each side of him must not meet each other. Said
R. Simeon: What can this be compared to ? Three courts
opening into each other and also opening into public ground.
If the two outer courts have combined in an Erub with the middle
one, one is at liberty to carry things between the middle court
and each of the outer ones, but between the two outer courts
one must not carry or convey anything.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah
said: It once happened that R. Tarphon while on the road was
overtaken by dusk on the eve of Sabbath and stayed outside of
the town over night. In the morning the cattle-herders met him
and said: " Rabbi, the town is not far distant. Enter." So
he entered the town, went into the college and lectured all day.
Said R. Aqiba to R. Jehudah : Wouldst thou cite this as an
example ? Perhaps it had been the intention, of R. Tarphon to
enter the town previously (i.e., he was within two thousand ells
of it) or the college was included with the legal limits allowed
R. Tarphon.

' ' Such is the decree of R. Johanan ben Nouri" Rabba pro-
pounded a question : What is the intent of R. Johanan's decree ?
Does he hold that things having no particular owner, if situated
at a certain place on the Sabbath, acquire the right to their rest-
ing-place (i.e., may be carried for a distance of two thousand
ells in any direction) ? And the Mishna should have com-
menced by citing an instance of this kind. Why does it give the
instance of a man who had fallen asleep, whom the sages con-
sider the same as a thing having no particular owner ? In order
to show the firmness of the sages, who, though agreeing that the
man when awake, is entitled to two thousand ells in each direc-
tion, whence we might assume that he is entitled to the same
privilege when asleep, we are told that such is not the case ; or,
in order to show that R. Johanan ben Nouri does not hold, that
a thing having no particular owner acquires the right to be
carried for a distance of two thousand ells in every direction, but

TRACT ERUBIN. 103

that a man when asleep is entitled to this privilege, merely
because he is entitled to it when awake.

Said R. Joseph: " Come and hear: We have learned that if
rain had fallen on the eve of a festival, the rain-water acquires
the right of (being carried) two thousand ells in every direction ;
but if rain had fallen on a biblical festival, the rain-water has the
same right (of being carried for the same distance) as the inhabi-
tants of the place where it had fallen (have the right of walk-
ing)." Now, if we say, that R. Johanan holds, that a thing
having no particular owner, if situated at a certain place on
Sabbath, acquires the right of (being carried) two thousand ells
in every direction, then the Boraitha is in conformity with his
opinion; but if we say, that he does not hold to that effect,
according to whose opinion is the Boraitha, certainly not accord-
ing to that of the sages ?

Said R. Jacob bar Idi in the name of R. Jehoshua ben Levi:
"The Halakha prevails according to R. Johanan ben Nouri."
Said R. Zera to R. Jacob: " Didst thou hear R. Jehoshua him-
self declare this, or dost thou merely infer this from another
ruling made by him?" And he answered: "I heard him
declare it." What ruling could R. Zera have referred to, which
R. Jehoshua ben Levi had made ? The ruling made by R.
Jehoshua ben Levi elsewhere, that the Halakha always prevails
according to the Tana, who makes the laws regarding Erubin
more lenient. Why was it necessary for R. Jehoshua to make
both statements ? Said R. Zera : It was necessary ; for had he
said merely, that the Halakha prevails according to R. Johanan
ben Nouri, we might assume that it always prevails thus,
whether it be more lenient or more rigorous than another; hence
we are told, that the Halakha prevails according to the one who
is the more lenient regarding the laws of Erubin.

Let him say then, that the Halakha prevails according to the
one who is the more lenient with the laws of Erubin, and that
will cover the case of R. Johanan who is more lenient. Nay; it
was also necessary to make the statement regarding R. Johanan
exclusively; because it might be assumed that the Halakha pre-
vails according to the more lenient interpretation where one
opinion is opposed by the opinion of another individual, or where
the opinion of a number (of sages) is opposed by the opinion of
another number (of sages), but if the opinion of one is opposed
by that of a number, the latter opinion prevails whether it be
lenient or rigorous; hence we are told that the opinion of R.

io4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Johanan ben Nouri prevailed although opposed by a number of
sages, and from this the rule is adduced that as far as the laws
of Erubin are concerned the more lenient Halakha prevails even
if the opinion of one is opposed by a number (of sages).

R. Papa, however, said: "Both statements made by R.
Jehoshua ben Levi are necessary, because, had he simply stated,
that the Halakha of the more lenient Tana only prevails, we
might have assumed that he referred only to Erubin of courts
and not to Erubin of legal limits; therefore he also stated the
case of R. Johanan ben Nouri in order to demonstrate that he
referred also to Erubin of legal limits."

R. Ashi said: " Both statements made by R. Jehoshua ben
Levi are necessary because, had he only made the statement
concerning the Halakha of the more lenient Tana, it might have
been assumed that he referred to an Erub that had been made
for a number of Sabbaths and had gradually dwindled, but not
to such Erubin as had been made afresh ; hence he also made
the statement concerning R. Johanan ben Nouri in order to
emphasize the fact that the more lenient Halakhoth prevail even
in the instances of newly made Erubin." *

R. Jacob and R. Zreiqa both said: " In all instances where
R. Aqiba differs with an individual the Halakha prevails accord-
ing to R. Aqiba. In all instances where R. Jose differs even
with a number of sages the Halakha prevails according to R.
Jose, and in all instances where Rabbi differs with an individual,
the Halakha prevails according to Rabbi." For what purpose is
this statement made ? Shall we act accordingly or is this
merely a vague statement ? R. Assi said: " Yea; we must act
accordingly. Where R. Aqiba differs with an individual we
must act in accordance with R. Aqiba's opinion ; where R. Jose
differs with a number of sages we must act in conformity with
R. Jose's opinion." R. Hyya bar Abba, however, said: R.
Jacob and R. Zreiqa did not mean to establish the rule, that the
Halakha prevails according to the opinions of R. Aqiba, R. Jose
and Rabbi, but that they should be given preference wherever
possible over their opponents (i.e., if, for instance, a man asks

* The following paragraphs in the original Gemara are devoted to arguments of
R. Papa and R. Ashi concerning the adduction of the differences quoted by the two
Rabbis in the preceding paragraphs and quote the Boraithoth further on. Hence we
have omitted them, and the reader will understand this from what follows. This
rule is made by us for the benefit of the Hebrew scholar and will apply to all such
omissions later.

TRACT ERUBIN. 105

concerning a decree of R. Jose, it may be declared valid, but it
should not be taught as a rule in the colleges that when a num-
ber of sages decide against R. Jose the Halakha nevertheless
prevails according to his opinion). R. Jose bar R. Hanina,
however, said : (Not even this should be done.) R. Jacob and
R. Zreiqa merely assert, that it seems to them that the Halakhas
should prevail as stated, but not that this should be maintained
as a general rule (and if one inclined to their opinion, he cannot
be accounted wrong).

In the same manner as there is a divergence of opinions
concerning the statement of R. Jacob and R. Zreiqa, so is there
also a dispute concerning the following statement of R. Jacob
bar Idi in the name of R. Johanan : In all instances where R.
Meir and R. Jehudah differ, the Halakha prevails according to
R. Jehudah, wherever R. Jehudah and R. Jose differ the Hala-
kha prevails according to R. Jose, and so much more when
R. Meir and R. Jose differ the Halakha prevails according to R.
Jose, for if R. Jehudah is given preference over R. Meir, and R.
Jose over R. Jehudah, then certainly R. Jose has preference
over R. Meir.

Said R. Assi : " From this I can infer, that where R. Jose
and R. Simeon differ, the Halakha prevails according to R. Jose,
for R. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, that wherever R.
Simeon and R. Jehudah differ, the opinion of R. Jehudah pre-
vails." As a matter of course if R. Jehudah is given preference
over R. Simeon, R. Jose is certainly more competent authority
than R. Simeon.

The schoolmen propounded a question: " How is it, when
R. Meir and R. Simeon differ ? " This question is not decided.*

R. Mesharshia said: All these rules are of no account (i.e.,
decisions should be made according to the dictates of one's own
understanding); for Rabh never acted according to such rules, f

* Wherever a question remains undecided in the Talmud, the letters Taph, lod,
Quph, Vav, are inserted, and some scholars maintain, that this means " Theiqu,"
i.e., "So shall it remain." Others, however, maintain that the letters stand for:
" Tishbi = Elijah the prophet, letharetz = will answer, Qushiuth = contradictions,
Veabaioth = and questions.

f This statement of R. Mesharshia applies to the whole Talmud from the fact
that, although the authorities quoted above are among the greatest of the Mishna and
the Gemara, the interpretation of all Halakoth should be based upon common sense,
and in connection with this we would wish to call the attention of the reader to the
assertion made in our article, " What is the Talmud ?" contained in our " The Pen-
tateuch, Its Languages, Character, etc.," and in our article entitled " Two Questions

I06 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: " Things belonging to
non-Israelites, if situated at a certain place on the Sabbath, do
not acquire the right to their resting-place." According to
whose opinion is this statement ? Shall we say, according to the
opinion of the sages ? This is self-evident ; for they hold, that
even things having no particular owner do not acquire the right
to their resting-place, and so much more things belonging to a
Gentile, which accordingly possess an owner. Hence we must
say, that this is even in accordance with the opinion of R.
Johanan ben Nouri, who says, that things having no particular
owner do acquire the right to their resting-place (but those,
which have an owner, unless he be an Israelite, do not).

An objection was made: R. Simeon ben Elazar said: " Ves-
sels which an Israelite borrows from a Gentile on a festival, or
which he has lent to a Gentile and receives in return on a festi-
val, also vessels and treasures which were within the legal limits
on the eve of Sabbath, may be carried two thousand ells in
every direction ; but if a Gentile brought fruit on a Sabbath from
beyond the legal limits, it must not be moved from its place."
Now if it be said, that R. Johanan ben Nouri holds, that things
belonging to a Gentile acquire a right to their resting-place, then
R. Simeon ben Elazar's statement is in accordance with the
opinion of this R. Johanan ; but if the latter holds, that things
belonging to a Gentile do not acquire a right to their resting-
place, according to whose opinion is the statement of R. Simeon ;
not according to that of R. Johanan nor to that of the sages ?
Nay; R. Johanan may hold, that things belonging to a Gentile
do acquire the right to their resting-place and still Samuel quoted
the opinion of the sages ; but as for this being self-evident, it is
not so, for it might be assumed that a precautionary measure
should be made in the case of a Gentile owner in order to put
them on a par with vessels of an Israelite owner; therefore we
are told that such a precautionary measure is not necessary. R.
Hyya bar Abhin, however, said in the name of R. Johanan, that
things belonging to Gentiles do acquire the right to their resting-
place, as a precautionary measure for things belonging to Israel-
ites.

It once happened that rams were brought into the city of

concerning the Talmud and Schulchau Aruch," published in the American Israelite,
1894, that " no one has any right to establish a code based upon Halakhoth of the
Talmud."

TRACT ERUBIN. 107

Mabrakhta on a festival. Rabha allowed the inhabitants of the
city of Mehuzza (which adjoined the other city) to buy them and
take them home. Said Rabhina to Rabha: " Why didst thou
permit this ; because thou holdest to the opinion of Samuel,
that things belonging to Gentiles do not acquire the right to
their resting-place, but the rule is, that where Samuel and R.
Johanan differ, the opinion of R. Johanan prevails and R.
Johanan holds, that things belonging to Gentiles do acquire the
right to their resting-place on Sabbath ?"

Thereupon Rabha said: " Let the rams be sold to the inhab-
itants of Mabrakhta; for that city is to the rams as four ells
(being equal to the case of where a man was brought into a pen
or a fold against his will and may in consequence traverse the
entire extent of the pen or fold, as if they were only four ells)."

R. Hyya taught: " If the legal limits of two cities termi-
nated in the water and a partition was made to denote the place
where they met, by means of a fishing-net, it is not sufficient ;
for an iron partition is necessary in order that the water of both
limits should not mingle." R. Jose bar Hanina laughed at this
teaching. Why did he laugh at it ? Because Rabh decreed,
that the sages were very lenient with all things pertaining to
water (see page 24).

' ' But the sages hold, that he has only the right to move four
ells." Is R. Jehudah not of the same opinion as the first Tana ?
Said Rabha : Nay ; they differ to the extent of eight square ells.
The sages hold that he may go four ells in every direction, that
is, in all, eight square ells; but R. Jehudah says, that he may go
only four ells in one direction. We have also learned to this
effect in aBoraitha: " He may move in eight square ells, so saith
R. Meir. " Said Rabha: " They differ as to the extent that the
man may traverse, but as for carrying things all agree, that he
may do so only for a distance of four ells."

The questions seem to be centred in four ells. Whence do
we derive these four ells ? As we have learned in a Boraitha :
From the passage [Exodus xvi. 29]: " Remain ye, every man
in his place," etc. By " his place" is meant the size of his
body. What is the size ? Three ells, and one ell additional in
case he wishes to stretch his limbs. So said R. Meir. R. Jehu-
dah, however, said: " Three ells are allowed for the size of the
body and an additional ell in case he wishes to take a thing at
his feet and place it underneath his head." What is the point
of variance between the two ? According to one, the four ells

io8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

must be exactly measured, and according to the other, an approx-
imate distance only is necessary.

R. Mesharshia said to his son: " When thou goest to see R.
Papa, ask him whether the four ells are measured proportionately
to the size of the man concerned or whether they are the holy
ells (i.e., ells measuring six spans). If he should tell thee, that
the holy ells are meant, what should a man do who is as tall as
Og, King of Bashan, and if he should tell thee, that the propor-
tionate ells are meant, why were the four ells not included in the
Boraitha, which teaches, that all things should be reckoned
according to the proportionate ells."

When the son of R. Mesharshia came to R. Papa he was
told: "If we were to learn the Talmud in this manner (i.e., if
we were so particular as to details) we would never be able to
learn anything. Certainly proportionate ells are meant, and the
reason the Boraitha does not mention them, is because it was
not quite certain, and there may chance to be a dwarf, whose
legal four ells the Boraitha did not feel justified in diminishing."

4 ' But between the two outer courts one must not carry anything. ' '
Why should this not be permitted ? If both of the outer courts
and the middle one have combined in one Erub, they are re-
garded as one court ? Said R. Jehudah: " In this instance a
case is referred to, where the middle court deposited an Erub in
each of the outer courts ; hence the two outer courts have no
connection with each other." R. Shesheth, however, said:
" Even if the two outer courts had deposited their Erubin in the
middle court but had each done so in a separate house, they
have no connection with each other. Had they deposited their
Erubin in the same house, they would have been regarded as
one court." According to whose opinion would this be ? Shall
we assume, that it was according to the Beth Shammai as we have
learned in the following Boraitha: " If five persons conjoined
their Erubin and deposited them in two vessels the school of
Shammai hold them to be of no value, but the school of Hillel
say they are of value." Nay; this latter opinion is even in con-
formity with the school of Hillel who, while maintaining, that
if the Erubin had been deposited in separate vessels the connec-
tion would be consummated, may hold, that if this was done in
separate houses the connection is not valid.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: " All the foregoing is
according to the dictum of R. Simeon ; the sages, however, hold,
that from the two outer courts things may be carried into the

TRACT ERUBIN. 109

middle court, but from the middle court, things must not be car-
ried into the outer courts; provided no Erub had been made, for
one court may serve for two others, but two must not be utilized
by one." And R. Jehudah goes on to state: " When I made
this statement before Samuel, he said : ' Even this is in accord-
ance with the dictum of R. Simeon ; but the sages hold, that
neither of the three courts may be made use of.' '

The following Boraitha is in support of the dictum of Samuel
as quoted by R. Jehudah: R. Simeon said, " What can this be
compared to ? Three courts opening into each other and also
opening into public ground. If the two outer courts had com-
bined in an Erub with the middle one, a man is at liberty to
carry victuals from either of the outer courts into the middle
court and eat them, then remove the remainder (but a man of
the middle court must not carry things into the outer courts); "
the sages however said: " No connection is permitted between
the three courts."

Samuel in making this statement holds to his theory advanced
elsewhere : If there is a court between two entries, and an Erub
was made by the court with both entries, connection between
the court and both entries is nevertheless prohibited (but in each
entry separately things may be carried) ; if, however, no Erub
was made by the court with either of the two entries, the court
acts as a bar so that carrying in either entry is prohibited even
by the inhabitants of the entries. If the court, however, made
more frequent use of one entry to the neglect of the other, it
acts as a bar only to the one frequently used, but the inhabitants
of the neglected entry may carry therein.

Said Rabba bar R. Huna: If the court made an Erub with
the entry used only on rare occasions (it is evident, that hence-
forth, the court intends to make more frequent use of this entry
and to abandon the other entry) then the other entry becomes
separated and the inhabitants thereof may carry therein.

Rabba bar R. Huna said again in the name of Samuel : If the
entry more frequently used by the court made an Erub for its
own use, and the court itself as well as the neglected entry did
not make any Erubin for their own use, the court is relegated to
the neglected entry, but cannot prove a bar to the entry having
an Erub, because that were otherwise as the manner of the
Sodomites, i.e., if an act is perpetrated which is neither benefi-
cial nor injurious to the perpetrator but solely in order to injure
another, the perpetrator is compelled to desist. (The compari-

no THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

son is made to the case in question as follows: Neither the
inhabitants of the court itself nor of the entry may carry within
their precincts nor even within the entry provided with an Erub,
and hence it would not be just, if, because they were not per-
mitted to carry, they should prove a bar to those who by virtue
of their Erub are allowed to do so.)

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: " The Erub of a.
man who is particular about it that his fellow (with whom he
had joined in the Erub) should not eat it, is of no account.
Why so ? Because the word Erub signifies commixture, i.e.,
those who make the Erub can individually do with it as they
see fit, and if one man is particular about it, its intent is abol-
ished. ' ' R. Hanina however said : The Erub is valid ; but a man
of that kind is like the men of Vardina (who were notoriously
penurious).

R. Jehudah said again in the name of Samuel: " An Erub
which is divided by a man in two parts or deposited by him in,
two separate vessels is of no account." Then Samuel's dictum
is in accordance with Beth Shammai, as stated in the Boraitha
(page 108) : We may assume that Samuel's teaching may be
also according to Beth Hillel ; for the latter hold, that the Erub
is valid only then, if one vessel was filled with it and the remain-
der had to be put into another vessel, but if it was originally
divided and then deposited, it is not valid.

Samuel said: " The virtual intent of the Erub is, that by
mutual interchange of articles, the right to the ground is bought
and sold." Why then are eatables necessary; could it not have
been permitted to make an Erub with money ? Because, as a
usual thing on the eve of Sabbath money is scarce. (If that
is so, then why should an Erub that had been made with money
not be valid ? This is merely a precautionary measure, lest it
should be said that the main principle of an Erub is money, and
in the case of a lack of money, eatables will not be used in its
stead, and thus the law of Erubin will sink into oblivion.)
Rabba, however, said, that the Erub signifies, that wherever the
victuals have been deposited, there the man resides, i.e., wher-
ever a man's bread is, there is also his domicile. What is the
point of difference between Samuel and Rabba ? The points of
difference are as follows : A vessel of any value, victuals worth
less than a Prutah (a coin of minimum value) and a minor.
(According to Samuel a vessel having a market value may be
used, but according to Rabba it does not follow that if it is

TRACT ERUBIN. in

deposited in a certain place the owner resides there, hence it
must not be used. Victuals worth less than a Prutah, accord-
ing to Samuel, not having a market value, must not be used,
but according to Rabba, being eatables, may be deposited. A
minor, according to Samuel, cannot be commissioned to act
because no money consideration can be intrusted to him, and
according to Rabba where he only gathers the material for the
Erub, he may be commissioned to act.)

Said Rabba in the name of R. Kama bar Guria, quoting
Rabh : The Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon.

MISHNA: Should a man, when overtaken by dusk on the
road (on the eve of Sabbath), single out a tree or a hedge and
say: "I will take my Sabbath-rest underneath it," (legally) he
has said nothing, but if he says: " I will take my Sabbath-
rest at its base," he may go from the spot on which he stands to
the base of the tree or hedge two thousand ells and thence to
his domicile two thousand ells more; thus it may be seen, that a
man may go four thousand ells after dark (on Sabbath). If he
cannot single out a tree or a hedge or is not conversant with the
Halakha (covering his case) and says: " I will take my Sabbath-
rest on the place where I stand," the spot upon which he stands
(virtually) gives him two thousand ells in any direction ; in a
circle, according to the dictum of R. Hanina ben Antignous;
but the sages hold, that he has two thousand ells in a square,
so as to enable him to take advantage of the angles. This rule
is explanatory to the saying (of the sages): " The poor prepare
their Erubs with their feet. ' ' R. Meir said : 4 ' This rule is applied
only to the poor," but R. Jehudah replied : It applies to poor
and rich both ; inasmuch as the Erub to be made with bread was
only decreed in order to render its observance easier for the
wealthy, so that they should not be compelled to go out and
prepare the Erub with their own feet.

GEMARA: What is meant by "legally he has said
nothing" ? Said Rabh: " It means literally that he has said
nothing and must not move from his place ; (because where he
stands, he did not acquire the right to rest on Sabbath, his
intention having been to rest underneath the tree. Underneath
the tree he acquired no right, not having specified the spot where
he would rest, and although the space underneath the tree is
within two thousand ells from his position at the time, as long
as he did not specify the exact spot he must not go there)."
Samuel, however, said: It means, that he said nothing con-

ii2 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

cerning the distance from the tree to his domicile but he may
traverse the distance from where he stands to the tree (because
the entire space underneath the tree is within two thousand ells
of his position at the time, and the distance from his domicile is
only two thousand ells to the base of the tree, but to the entire
space underneath the tree it is more than two thousand ells);
hence this entire space is like driving an ass and leading a camel,
for it is not known from which side the distance to his domicile is
two thousand ells. If it be measured from the north, chances
are that it should be measured from the south, and vice versa.

Said Rabba: (Samuel's opinion is feasible, for he says, that
the man acquired the right to two thousand ells from where he
stands ; but not having determined the exact spot underneath the
tree, he loses the further two thousand ells to his domicile) but
what grounds has Rabh for his opinion ? Rabh holds, that if
two intentions, one consequent upon the other, are expressed in
one assertion, the inability to carry out one intention destroys
the other also (and in this case as the man cannot proceed from
the tree to the domicile it invalidates his right to go from his
place to the tree). What is the difference between the two
opinions ? The difference is if one says, " I will take my rest
in the four ells of the eight ells underneath the tree," according
to those who hold that the place of rest must be exactly deter-
mined, it is of no value, but he who holds that if two intentions,
one consequent upon the other, are expressed in one assertion,
the inability to carry out one intention destroys the other also,
in this case when he determines four ells it may be called the
exact spot, and is valid.

Said R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua: The case in the
Mishna mentioned " he legally said nothing " applies only if the
space underneath the tree is eight ells or more ; but if it meas-
ures only seven ells the man may proceed to the tree and from
the tree to his domicile (because he is entitled at any rate to
four ells and no matter from which side the distance to his
domicile is measured, part of his domicile will be within two
thousand ells).

We have learned one Boraitha in support of Rabh and
another supporting Samuel: The one upholding Rabh is as fol-
lows : If one, while on the road, was overtaken by dusk, and,
singling out a tree, said: " I will take my Sabbath-rest under-
neath it," he has said nothing. If he said, however, that he
would rest in a certain place, he can proceed to that place and,

TRACT ERUBIN. 113

arriving there, may traverse the entire extent of that place and
two thousand ells outside of it. When may he do so ? If he
designated a particular place, i.e., if he designated a sand-heap
ten spans high, or a valley ten spans deep, and from four ells to
two saahs' capacity wide ; but if he did not previously designate
the place or there was no such place in existence, he may only
move four ells from where he is situated at the time. If there
were two men, one of whom could designate the place and the
other could not, the latter may invest the former with the right
to select the place for him and he (the former) may act accord-
ingly. This is the case only if the man designates the four ells
where he desires to rest, but if he does not, he must not move
from his place.

The Boraitha upholding Samuel is as follows : If a man made
an error and deposited his Erub in two directions, or if a man
thought that it was allowed to make two Erubin and go in one
direction in the morning and in another in the afternoon, or if a
man said to his servants: " Make an Erub for me," without
specifying the place for it, and one of them made the Erub in
the north and the other in the south, the man may go south for
a distance of two thousand ells minus the distance from his
house to the Erub on the north or may go north for a distance
of two thousand ells minus the distance from his house to the
Erub on the south. If the house was midway between the two
Erubin, however, i.e., the two Erubin were placed equidistant
from the house two thousand ells, he must not move beyond his
house.

" If he says, ' / will take my Sabbath-rest at its base, ' ' ' etc.
Said Rabha: " Being overtaken by dusk" signifies, that if the
man walked slowly he could not reach the tree before dusk, but
if he ran speedily he could reach the base of the tree.

Rabba and R. Joseph were on the road: Said Rabba to R.
Joseph: " We will rest underneath the tree that tolerates good
fellowship." And according to another version he said : "We
will rest underneath the tree, that honorably acquits itself of its
dues (i.e., that bears quantities of fruit and thus pays its dues)."
Said R. Joseph: " I know not of such a tree." Answered
Rabha : Depend upon me, as a Boraitha stated, R. Jose said :
If there be two men, one of whom could designate the place
and the other could not, the latter may invest the former with
the right to select the place for him and he (the former) may
say: " There shall we rest." In truth this is not so. R. Jose

VOL. III. — 8

ii4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

never said this; but Rabba asserted this in the name of R. Jose
so that R. Joseph should listen to him ; for it was known that
R. Jose was final authority and that the Halakhas prevailed
according to his opinion.

" If he cannot single out a tree or is not conversant with tlie
Halakha" From what biblical passage is all this talk about two
thousand ells adduced ? We have learned in a Boraitha : It is
written [Exod. xvi. 29]: " Remain ye every man in his spot, let
no man go out of his place on the seventh day." " On his
spot" means four ells, and " out of his place" refers to two
thousand ells. Whence does the Boraitha adduce this assertion ?
Said R. Hisda: " Because it is written [Numbers xxxv. 5]:
' And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side
two thousand ells,' etc. (Thus from the verse it is seen, that
the city was in the centre and they measured two thousand ells
on every side and from this the legal limits were derived.)

' ' Two thousand ells in any direction in a circle, ' ' etc. What
grounds has R. Hanina ben Antignous for the statement ? If
he agrees to the interpretation of the passage quoted, he should
have said in a square, for so the passage determines, and if he
does not hold to the passage at all, whence does he adduce two
thousand ells in general ? He holds to the interpretation of the
passage quoted, but the end of the same verse reads, " This shall
be to them the open spaces of cities," and he declares, that for
the purpose of the verse it should be in a square, but for Sab-
bath it should not be in a square. Whence do the sages adduce
that the two thousand ells should be in a square ? The sages
hold with Hananiah, who taught, that " this shall be to them,"
should read ' ' as this, ' ' and as this should be all the legal limits
of the Sabbath.

Said R. A'ha bar Jacob. One who carries four ells in public
ground is not culpable unless he carries in a diagonal of four ells.*

Said R. Papa: " Rabha wished to examine us and asked the
following question: ' Is it necessary that a pillar ten spans high
and four wide standing in public ground, should contain a square
so that a diagonal can be drawn ?' We answered: Is this not
the same as the teaching of R. Hananiah which states ' as this
should be all the legal limits of Sabbath.' "

" R. Meir said: ' This rule is applied only to the poor,'' " etc.

* Rashi explains this to mean 4 ells and f or if of an ell additionally. It is
difficult to understand just how this is meant or how the diagonal can be derived with-
out the square.

TRACT ERUBIN. 115

Said R. Na'hman: " The point of difference between R. Meir
and R. Jehudah is where a man says: ' I will rest in my place '
(where I am standing). R. Meir holds, that the principal thing
to be used for an Erub is bread ; and for the poor man, who has
no bread with him, it is made easier; the rich man, however, has
no right to do so ; but R. Jehudah holds, that the principal way
to make an Erub is to make it with one's feet, whether the man
be poor or rich, but concerning the designation of a tree or a cer-
tain place for a Sabbath-rest while travelling, all agree, that it is
allowed for a poor man but not for a rich man." The statement
in the Mishna " This rule is explanatory to the saying," means
to say that the saying is that of R. Meir, and what does it refer
to ? To the previous clause in the Mishna, "If he cannot single
out a tree or is not conversant with the Halakha. " The teach-
ing " for the poor man who has no bread with him, it is made
easier," is that of R. Jehudah.

R. Hisda, however, said: On the contrary. R. Meir and
R. Jehudah differ only as to the designation of a certain place
for the Sabbath-rest, the former holding, that for a poor man
this is allowed, but not for a rich man, and the latter holding
that it is permitted for both ; but all agree that as for resting in
one's place where he stands it is allowed to both rich and poor,
because the principal way of effecting an Erub is with one's feet.
The statement of the Mishna, " This rule is explanatory to the
saying," refers to a man who was overtaken by dusk, while the
teaching " for the poor man who has no bread, it is made easier,"
is according to the opinion of all.

We have learned a Boraitha in support of R. Na'hman: Be
it a poor man or a rich man an Erub should be effected with
bread. A rich man should not go out to the legal limits and say:
" Here will I take my Sabbath-rest " because this is allowed only
to one who was overtaken by dusk on the road, so saith R. Meir.
R. Jehudah, however, said: Be it a poor man or a rich man
the Erub should be effected with the feet and a rich man may
go out to the legal limits and take his Sabbath-rest there, because
the principal manner of effecting an Erub is with the feet. To
the householder, however, the sages allowed to send a servant, a
son, or any other messenger, to make the Erub in his stead, in
order to make it easier for him, and R. Jehudah said again:
It happened to the men of the house of Mamel and of the
house of Gurion in the city of Aruma who would distribute figs
and raisins during years of famine, that the poor of the villages

n6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

of Shihin and Hananiah would come on the eve of Sabbath to
the legal limits, remain there over night, and on the morrow
would enter the city of Aruma and receive their share.

R. Hyya bar Ashi taught Hyya the son of Rabh in the pres-
ence of Rabh: " Be he a rich man or a poor man." Said Rabh
to him: " Add to this teaching, that the Halakha prevails accord-
ing to R. Jehudah."

Rabba bar R. Hanan generally went on the Sabbath from
Artibna to Pumbaditha. Once, while on the way he said: " I
will take my Sabbath-rest in Tzintha (a small hamlet between
the two towns)." Said Abayi to him: Why dost thou say this,
because thou knowest, that where R. Meir differs with R. Jehu-
dah the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah and besides,
thou art of the opinion of R. Hisda, who holds, that they differ
only concerning the designation of a certain place for the Sab-
bath-rest ; but did not R. Na'hman explain to the contrary and
have we not a Boraitha in support of R. Na'hman ?

Answered Rabba bar R. Hanan, " Henceforth I shall not do
this again."

Rami bar Hama asked: " It was said, that one who made an
Erub by means of his feet, has four ells for himself besides the
two thousand allowed him. What is the law concerning one who
had sent bread to make the Erub ? Has he the extra four ells
or not ? " Said Rabha: "Come and hear: The Mishna states
that the Erub was to be made with bread only to make it easier
for the wealthy. If we should say, that he has not the four ells,
it will not be made easier for the wealthy, but on the contrary
stricter?" It will not be stricter ? For he would rather lose
the four ells and be enabled to send a messenger in his stead than
to go himself.

MISHNA: If a man (on the eve of Sabbath) had been
despatched by his townsmen to combine by an Erub a town (or
village in the vicinity) and was subsequently induced by a neigh-
bor to go back (before completing his errand) he is permitted to
go to the place in question (nevertheless); all his townsmen,
however, are forbidden (to go thither). Such is the dictum of
R. Jehudah; but R. Meir said: One who can prepare an Erub
and does not prepare it, is (like one driving) an ass and (leading)
a camel (at the same time).

GEMARA: What difference is there between the man and
his townsmen ? Said R. Huna: " This is a case of where a man
possessed two houses which had two legal limits between them,

TRACT ERUBIN. 117

i.e., they were four thousand ells apart and the man went out
on the road without taking bread along. He is then considered
as a poor man ; (and in consequence made his Erub wherever
he was with his feet) but his townsmen who sent him to make
the Erub are regarded as wealthy and their Erub not having
been effected are not allowed to go out."

We learned a Boraitha supporting this teaching: " One who
has two houses between which there are two legal limits makes
the Erub valid as soon as he starts out on the way from one to
the other, such is the dictum of R. Jehudah. Moreover, said
R. Jose the son of R. Jehudah, even if his comrades meet him
and tell him to stay over night where he is, because it is too hot
or too cold, he may arise in the morning and continue on his way
(for his intention was originally to make his Erub at the end of
his journey)."

Said Rabba: " All agree that a man may continue his journey
after remaining at a certain place over night, if he had been
persuaded to interrupt his journey by another, but if he did so
of his own accord, he must not continue on his way, because he
may have changed his original intention. Wherein they differ
is, if the man was persuaded to remain at a certain place before
commencing his journey. According to one, his Erub is invalid
as long as he had not yet started, and according to the other, it
is valid because the intention originally existed."

R. Joseph, however, said: " All agree that one must start on
the journey, otherwise his Erub is not valid; but they differ in
a case of a man having been persuaded to stop over at a certain
place or doing so of his own accord. One holds, that if he
stopped over of his own accord, he may have changed his orig-
inal intention and hence his Erub is not valid, while the other
maintains, that as long as he had started, it does not matter.

R. Jehudah bar Isht'tha brought a basket of fruit to R.
Nathan bar Oshiya on the eve of Sabbath (and the distance
from his house to that of R. Nathan was four thousand ells).
He started to return and R. Nathan let him go as far as the first
step and then said to him: " Remain here over night." On the
morrow, he arose and returned to his home.

" But R. Meir said : ' One who can prepare an Erub,' " etc.
Have we not learned already in a Mishna (of the third chapter)
that R. Meir and R. Jehudah both said: " If (an Erub) is doubt-
ful, this is (like driving) an ass (and leading a) camel." Said R.
Shesheth: It might be assumed that the reason of R. Meir's

n8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

opinion is that only in the case of a doubtful Erub, it is a case
of an ass and a camel, but if it is known to a certainty that no
Erub was made, such is not the case (but it is positively forbid-
den); hence we are given to understand that even where it is
certain that the Erub was not made it is also a case of an ass
and a camel ; because the Mishna cites a case where it is certain
that no Erub was made.

MISHNA: If one went beyond the legal limit even a single
ell, he must not go back the entire distance. R. Eliezer said:
If he went two ells beyond the limit he may go back; but if
three ells, he must not.

GEMARA: Said R. Hanina: " If a man had one foot within
the limit and the other foot outside he may enter, because it is
written [Isaiah Iviii. 13]: 'If thou restrain thy feet for the sake
of the Sabbath ' and we read ' thy feet ' and as one foot was
still within the limit, it cannot be said, that he had restrained his
feet." We have learned, however, in another Boraitha, that he
must not enter ? R. Hanina holds according to the opinion of
the anonymous teachers, who maintain in still another Boraitha,
that wherever the greater part of the body of a man is situated,
there is his place.

" R. Eliezer said : ' If he went two ells,' " etc. Did we not
learn in a Boraitha, that R. Eliezer said: If he went one ell
beyond the limit he may go back; but if he went two ells, he
must not ? This presents no difficulty; our Mishna refers to a
case where he had overstepped one ell and remained exactly two
ells beyond, while the Boraitha refers to one who had over-
stepped two ells and was already in the third. Did we not learn
in another Boraitha, that R. Eliezer said : " Even if he had
stepped out one ell, he must not reenter ? " This Boraitha refers
to the one who measured the legal distance (as is stated in the
last Mishna of the next chapter, which will be explained then
and there).

MISHNA: One who was overtaken by dusk one ell outside
of the legal limit must not reenter the town ; R. Simeon, how-
ever, said: Even if one was fifteen ells beyond the limit, he may
go back, as the land-surveyors who establish the limits, are not
very exact in their measurements and allowance is made for
those who might err.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: " It sometimes
happens that the land-surveyors forget their mark and go
beyond the distance."

CHAPTER V.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE BOUNDARIES OF A TOWN AND THE
MEASUREMENTS OF THE LEGAL LIMITS.

MISHNA: How can the boundaries of a town be extended ?
If one house recede from the city wall and another project, or if
a ruin recede or project, or if fragments of a wall ten spans high
lie beyond the walls, or if there be any bridges or cemeteries,
with dwelling-houses thereon, the measurement of a town is
commenced on a level with them ; and the whole is formed into
a (quasi) square, in order to gain the angles.

GEMARA : R. Johanan said : For eighteen days I lived with
Oshiya the Great and did not learn but one thing concerning this
Mishna, namely: The Mishna should not read " How can the
boundaries of a town be extended, but how can they be dis-
tricted."* This is not so! Did not R. Johanan once assert,
that during his stay with Oshiya the Great for eighteen days he
learned to know the heart and wisdom of each one of Oshiya's
twelve disciples ? He says only that he learned but one thing
concerning this Mishna, but aside from that, he learned many
other things.

R. Johanan said again: " When we were studying the Law
at Oshiya's we sate four men to one ell." Rabbi said: " When
we studied at R. Elazar ben Shamua's college we sate six men
to one ell."

R. Johanan said once more : As R. Meir was in his generation
so was R. Oshiya the Great in his day. As with R. Meir, the
colleagues of his day, could never arrive at his final decisions,
so was it also with Oshiya. His colleagues could also never
fathom his ultimate conclusions.

R. Johanan said again : The hearts of the first sages were
as broad as the porch of the Temple and those of the later sages
were as broad as the gates of the Temple, but our hearts are as

* The question here arises whether the Hebrew term " Meabrin," which we
render with " extended," is spelled with an Aleph or an Ayin. If with an Aleph it
signifies extended, and if with an Ayin it means districted.

119

i2o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

narrow as the eye of a sewing-needle. Whom does he refer
to as the first sages ? R. Aqiba. Whom as the later sages ?
R. Elazar bar Shamua, and according to another version he refers
to R. Elazar ben Shamua and Oshiya the Great respectively.

Said Abayi : We are as a nail driven in a hard wall as far as
explanations are concerned (i.e., we understand but little of
what we hear, and that with difficulty). Said Rabha : We are
also like a finger pushed into a cake of wax (meaning we are so
dull of comprehension where comparisons are concerned, that
but as little remains with us as with the finger that has been
pulled out from the wax). Said R. Ashi: " And we may say,
that it is as easy for us to forget what we have learned as it is to
put our finger in the hole of a well."

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: The children of
Judaea who paid strict attention to the words of their masters and
propounded many questions retained all they learned. The
Galileans, however, who did not pay strict attention to the lan-
guage of their masters, and did not question them, did not
retain anything. The Judaeans learned from one master, hence
they remembered what they learned ; but the Galileans had
many teachers and in consequence they did not retain anything.

Rabhina said: The Judaeans taught every tract they had
themselves mastered to others ; hence they retained their knowl-
edge; because teaching others improves one's own learning; the
Galileans, however, did not do this and in consequence their
knowledge forsook them. Of David who taught others it is said
[Psalms cxix. 74] : " Those that fear thee will see me and be
rejoiced," but of Saul, who did not teach others, it is said [I
Samuel xiv. 47]: "And whithersoever he turned himself, he
caused terror."

Said R. Johanan: " Whence do I know, that the Lord for-
gave Saul for the sin of massacring the priests of the city of
Nev?" Because Samuel's spirit said unto him: "On the
morrow, thou and thy children shall be with me." What is
meant by " with me " ? (That means in the same place as Sam-
uel and as Samuel was a righteous man and certainly in Para-
dise, so Saul must have been forgiven in order to share Samuel's
abode.)

R. Jehoshua ben Hananiah said: " I was never disconcerted
in my life except by a woman, a boy, and a little girl. The
instance of the woman occurred in this wise: I at one time
resided at the house of a widow. At table she set before me a

TRACT ERUBIN. 121

plate of beans and I ate it up leaving nothing. On the second
day she gave me the same dish which I also consumed entirely.
On the third day she made the dish too salt and after tasting it
I naturally stopped and left it alone. Said she to me : ' Rabbi,
why dost thou not eat ? ' and I answered, that I had already
eaten during the day; she then rejoined: 'Thou shouldst have
eaten less bread,' and continued: ' Perhaps because thou didst
not leave any Peah* on the first two days, thou dost leave it
now to serve for all three; for have not our sages decreed, that
no Peah need be left in the cooking pot, but some should be left
in the plate on which the dish is served ? ' '

The instance of the little girl happened as follows : Once I
was travelling on a road and seeing a beaten path leading across
a meadow I took that path. Said a little girl to me: " Rabbi!
is this not a meadow that thou art crossing ? " and I answered:
" Is this not a beaten path ?" and she answered: " Yea; such
robbers as thou art have made it a beaten path." As for the
affair with the little boy it happened thus : Once while on the
road I noticed a child sitting at a cross-road. I asked him, which
road led to the city, and he answered: "This road is the shorter
but at the same time the longer, and this one is long but never-
theless short." I took the shorter road that was at the same
time the longer. When I came to the city I saw the entrance
to the city at that point was surrounded by gardens and vine-
yards, so that I had to retrace my steps. Said I to the child at
the cross-road : ' ' Didst thou not say that this was the short
route ? " and he answered: " Did I not also tell thee that it was
a long route ? " I then kissed him on the forehead and remarked:
' Well is thee, Israel, that all thy children are wise, both great
and small."

R. Jose the Galilean was travelling on the road. He met
Brurih (the wife of R. Meir) and asked her: " Which way must
we take to the city of Lud ?" She answered: " Thou Galilean
fool ! Did not our sages say, that thou shouldst not converse
much with a woman ? Thou shouldst have asked, which way
to Lud ?"

The same Brurih once found a young scholar learning quietly
to himself. She scolded him and said : " It is written [II Samuel
xxiii. 5] : ' Firm in all and sure,' which signifies, that if the Law

* Peah signifies the corners of the field, the crops of which must be left over for
the widows, orphans, etc.

122 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

is firmly imbedded in all the two hundred and forty-eight mem-
bers of the body it can remain with the man, otherwise it can-
not." We have learned that there was a disciple of R. Eliezer,
who learned quietly to himself and in the course of three years
he forgot all he had learned.

Said Samuel to R. Jehudah: Thou sagacious one. Open
thy mouth, when thou readest and also when thou learnest and
then may it come to pass, that thou shalt live long, as it is writ-
ten [Proverbs iv. 22]: "For they are life unto every one of
those that find them, and to all his body a healing." Do not
read " that find them," but" that make them a find for others,"
that is by pronouncing them with the mouth others will hear
them and be benefited.

Samuel said again to R. Jehudah: Thou sagacious one! As
long as thou hast any money, eat and drink; for the world
which we leave behind is like a wedding-feast, it is soon over
(and in the next world, thou wilt not be able to do this).

Rabh said to R. Hamnana: My son! If thou hast the
wherewith to do thyself good, do so, for in the grave there is no
pleasure and there is no fixed time for death, and if thou shouldst
wish to say: " I will leave my children sufficient to live on when
I am in my grave," who can assure thee, that they will keep it;
for men are like grass in the field — some spring up and have
everything prepared for them while others fade and have nothing.

R. Jehoshua ben Levi said : One who travels on the road and
has no companion, should study the Law, as it is written [Prov-
erbs i. 9] : " For a wreath of grace are they unto thy head, and
chains for thy throat." If a man have a headache, he should
study the Law for it is " a wreath of grace " unto his head. If
his throat be sore, he should study the Law for it is " a chain "
for his throat. If thy stomach hurt thee, do likewise, for it is
written [ibid. iii. 8] : "It will be healing to thy travel " (body),
and also if thy bones ache, for it says further [ibid.], " and mar-
row to thy bones." Likewise one who has pains in any part of
his body should study the Law, for it is written [ibid. iv. 22] :
" And to all his body a healing."

Said R. Jehudah ben R. Hyya : Come and observe how the
custom of the Lord differs from that of man ! If a man pre-
scribes a remedy, it may benefit one and injure another, but the
Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Law to all Israel as a rem-
edy for all and for the whole body as it is written : " And to all
his body a healing."

TRACT ERUBIN. 123

R. Ama said: It is written [Proverbs xxii. 1 8] : " For it is a
pleasant thing if thou keep them within thy bosom, if they be
altogether firmly seated upon thy lips. ' ' Which signifies : ' ' When
are the words of the Law a pleasant thing ? If thou canst keep
them within thy bosom, and when canst thou keep them in thy
bosom ? If thou canst pronounce them well with thy lips."

R. Zera said: It is written [ibid. xv. 23]: " A man hath joy
by the answer of his mouth ; and a word spoken at the proper
time, how good is it." Which signifies: When hath a man joy
by the answer of his mouth, if at any time that he is asked con-
cerning the Law, he can make proper reply.

R. Itz'hak said: It is written [Deut. xxx. 14]: " But the
word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart,
that thou mayest do it." When is the word nigh unto thee ?
If it is in thy mouth, and in thy heart thou meanest to do it.

Rabha said: It is written [Psalms xxi. 3] : " The longing of
his heart hast thou given him, and the request of his lips hast
thou not withholden. Selah." Which means: When was the
longing of his heart given him ? If the request of his lips was
in accordance with the Law.

Rabha inferred a contradiction from the verse just quoted :
It says, " The longing of his heart hast thou given him," and
immediately afterwards, " and the request of his lips hast thou
not withholden." If the longing of his heart was given him,
what need was there of the request of his lips? And explained
this seeming contradiction thus : If the man had merited it, the
longing of his heart was granted him without request, but if he
did not, he first had to make a request for it, before it was
granted.

The disciples of R. Eliezer ben Jacob taught : In every
instance, where the words " Netzach," " Selah," or" Voed"
form the conclusion of the passage it signifies, that it will be
forever without interruption. As for the word " Netzach " it is
written [Isaiah Ivii. 16] : " For not to eternity will I contend,
neither will I be forever wroth " ; " forever" is here expressed
by" Netzach." As for the word " Selah " it is written [Psalms
xlviii. 9] : " As we have heard, so have we seen it in the city of
the Lord of Hosts, in the city of our God : God will establish it
forever. Selah." Concerning" Voed " it is written [Exod. xv.
1 8]: " The Lord will reign for ever and ever" and the expres-
sion used is " Voed."

R. Elazar said : The term quoted in the verse [Proverbs i. 9] :

i24 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

"Chains for thy throat " means to signify, that as a chain Is
loose around the neck and is not seen when a man bows his head,
so it is with a scholar. If he is not seen constantly in the mar-
kets, or oppresses not his neighbor, but sits quietly and studies
the Law, he retains his knowledge; otherwise he does not.

R. Elazar said again: The verse [Solomon's Song v. 13]:
" His cheeks are as a bed of spices " means " If a man makes
himself as a bed (of plants) upon which everyone treads (i.e., is
extremely modest) and also conducts himself as a man who held
spices in his hand, which even after leaving the hands, still make
them fragrant, he retains the knowledge he has acquired, other-
wise he does not."

He said again: It is written [Exod. xxxi. 18]: " Tables of
stone " (tables are in this verse expressed by the Hebrew term
" Luchoth " and Lechi also means cheek). This refers to a man
who hardens his cheeks until they are like stone and when trod-
den upon are not defaced, meaning a man who constantly studies
and in the same manner as the stone is not impaired by wear,
the constant study does not injure the man: such a man retains
knowledge, otherwise he does not.

Again R. Elazar said: It is written [Exod. xxxii. 16] : "En-
graved upon the tables," which means, that if the tables had not
been broken the first time, the Law would never have been for-
gotten by Israel, for a thing that is engraved cannot be obliter-
ated, and R. Aha bar Jacob added, " that no nation on earth
could have got them in their power," because: do not read
" Charuth " (engraved) but " Cheiruth " (liberty).

R. Mathna said: It is written [Numbers xxi. 18] : "And
from the wilderness to Mattanah," * which signifies, that if the
man makes himself as a wilderness, upon which everybody
treads, and does not mind it, the knowledge he gains remains
with him as a present.

R. Huna said: It is written [Psalms Ixviii. u] Thy assem-
bly dwelt therein : thou didst prepare it with thy goodness for
the afflicted people, O God ! (" Thy assembly " is expressed in
the Hebrew by " Chaiothcha " and Chaiah means a wild beast.)
If a scholar is in the manner of learning as a wild beast which
devours its prey immediately after killing it, i.e., as soon as he
learns a thing he repeats it again and again until he knows it
thoroughly, he retains his knowledge, otherwise he does not. If

* Mattanah is the Hebrew term for a present.

TRACT ERUBIN. 125

he does this, however, the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself,
prepares a meal for him, as may be seen from the end of the
passage quoted.

R. Hyya bar Abba said in the name of R. Johanan : It is
written [Proverbs xxvii. 18] : " Whoso guardeth the fig-tree will
eat its fruit." Why are the words of the Law compared to a
fig-tree ? As a fig-tree yields its fruit whenever it is shaken, so
does the Law always yield new teachings whenever it is repeated.

R. Samuel ben Na'hmeni said: It is written [Proverbs v.
19]: "Let her bosom satisfy thee abundantly at all times."
Why is the Law compared to a bosom ? Because as at all times
when the child desires to suck, the bosom yields its milk, so does
the Law yield its teachings every time it is perused. Further, it is
written [ibid.] : " With her love be thou ravished* continually."
This means to imply as was said of R. Elazar ben P'dath,
that when he was studying the Law in the lower market of Sep-
phoris, his clothes were frequently found in the upper market ;
so engrossed was he in his studies, that he did not even miss his
clothes. Said R. Itz'hak ben Eliezer: " Once a man attempted
to steal the clothes of this R. Eliezer and found an adder lying
on top of them."

The disciples of R. Anan taught: It is written [Judges v.
10] : " Ye that ride on white asses, ye that sit in judgment, and
ye who walk on the way, utter praise! " " That ride on white
asses" refers to scholars who go from town to town and from
country to country to teach the Law and who make it clear as
daylight. ' That sit in judgment " refers to those who give a
just verdict which is truly just. 'Who walk " refers to those
who study the Bible, " on the way" refers to the students of
the Mishna, and " utter praise " refers to the students of the
Talmud, whose every utterance is concerning the Law.

R. Shezbi said in the name of R. Elazar ben Azariah : It is
written [Proverbs xii. 27]: "The indolent roasteth not that
which he hath caught in hunting." This signifies, that one
who studies the Law superficially merely to delude people but
does not study it thoroughly and repeat it often, will not retain
the knowledge nor will he live long. R. Shesheth, however,
said: " A man of that kind is not wicked, but merely foolish;
on the other hand a prudent man, who studies many things and

* The Hebrew term for " ravished " in the verse is Tishgeh, which means also
" thou shall err."

126 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

makes marks, so that he will not forget what he had learned,
retains his knowledge and will have long life."

When R. Dimi came from Palestine he said : The verse
quoted is a simile to a man who catches birds. If he pinions
the wings of those he catches, he can proceed and catch more,
otherwise they will escape. The same applies to a man who
studies the Law. If he reviews his learning constantly, he
retains it and can proceed ; if he does not, however, he cannot
retain it.

Rabha in the name of Sechorah quoting R. Huna said: " It
is written [Proverbs xiii. 1 1] : " Wealth gotten by vain deeds will
be diminished ; but he that gathereth by close labor will increase
it." Which means: If a man groups the ordinances he has
learned, he cannot retain them ; but if he gathers them slowly
and deliberately, he will constantly increase them." And
Rabha said: " The Rabbis know of this and yet they pay no
attention to it." Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: " I have acted
accordingly and in consequence I have retained my knowledge."

The Rabbis taught: " How was the method of teaching the
Law in the days of Moses ? " Moses learned the Law from the
might of God. Then Aaron entered and Moses taught him a
chapter. When Aaron had finished he sat down to the left of
Moses and his children came in, when Moses would teach them
the chapter again. When they had finished, Elazar would sit
down to the right of Moses and Ithamar to the left of Aaron.
R. Jehudah, however, said, that Aaron would always sit to the
right of Moses after his children had finished. Following the
sons of Aaron would come the elders of Israel and Moses would
repeat the chapter to them. After the elders had finished, the
rest of the Israelites who wished to learn would enter and would
learn the same chapter. Thus we see, that Aaron heard the
same chapter four times, his sons three times, the elders twice,
and the rest of the people once. After the last reading Moses
would depart and Aaron would again repeat the chapter to the
others ; then he would depart and his children would teach the
chapter ; after them the elders would do so, so that no one heard
it less than four times. From this R. Eliezer deduced, that
every teacher should recite his teaching to his disciples four
times, holding that as Aaron who learned from Moses, who in
turn learned from the might of God, had to learn one thing four
times so much more ought an ordinary man to do so when learn-
ing from another.

TRACT ERUBIN. 127

R. Aqiba, however, said: Whence do we adduce, that a
teacher should teach his disciple until the latter knows the lesson
thoroughly? From the verse [Deut. xxxi. 19]: " Now there-
fore write ye for yourselves this song, and teach it the children
of Israel," and whence do we infer, that a disciple must be
taught until he can impart the teaching to others ? From what
is written further [ibid.]: " put it in their mouth," and whence
do we know, that if the reasons for the teaching can be given,
this must be done ? From the verse [Exod. xxi. i] : "And
these are the laws of justice which thou shalt set before them,"
and by setting before them is meant that they must be thor-
oughly explained.

Why did not all learn directly from Moses ? In order to
show honor to Aaron, his children and the elders. If that be
so, let Aaron learn it from Moses, Aaron's children from Aaron,
and the elders from the children, then the people from the elders ?
, Because Moses learned from the might of God, all wished to
hear it from him.

R. Preida had a disciple, whom he would teach a thing four
hundred times and then the disciple would understand it. One
day R. Preida was invited to attend the celebration of a circum-
cision and as he was just teaching his disciple, he finished the
teaching for the four hundredth time but still the disciple did
not understand. So he asked him: " What is the difficulty ?"
and the disciple replied, that from the moment the master was
invited to the celebration, he could not pay proper attention,
thinking that every moment he would be going away. So R.
Preida said: "Pay proper attention and I will teach thee
again," and he accordingly repeated the teaching another four
hundred times. A heavenly voice was heard at that time which
said: " What wouldst thou rather, that thou live another four
hundred years, or that thou and the entire generation in which
thou livest should be given a share in the world to come." R.
Preida answered: " I would rather accept the latter proposition."
Said the Holy One, blessed be He: " Give him both."

R. Hisda said: The law cannot be retained except through
signs, as it is written (as quoted previously): " Put it in their
mouth." Read: " Put it with signs in their mouth.". R.
Tachlipha of Palestine heard this and on his arrival home
repeated it in the presence of R. Abbahu. Said R. Abbahu:
Ye learn this from that verse, but we derive the same from the
verse [Jeremiah xxxi. 21]: " Set thyself up way-marks," mean-

128 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

ing, set up way-marks to the Law ; this is in accordance with the
dictum of Abhdimi bar Hama bar Dosa, viz.: It is written
[Deut. xxx. 12], " It is not in heaven," meaning if it were even
in heaven, one would have to get it from there, and [ibid. 13]:
" Neither is it beyond the sea " implies that even were it
beyond the sea, one would have to go after it there. Rabha.
however, said: "It is not in heaven" means, that knowledge
cannot be found in a man who holds himself as high as heaven ;
and " Neither is it beyond the sea " means, that knowledge can-
not be found in a man who considers his opinions as vast as the
sea. R. Johanan said the first statement refers to those who are
great in their own estimation, and the last statement to those
who ply the seas and are constantly engaged in traffic.

The Rabbis taught : How are the boundaries of a town ex-
tended ? A town that is oblong remains as it is. A town in the
form of a circle is provided with corners. One that is in the
form of a square need not be made equiangular. If it was nar-
row on one side and wide on another it must be made even all
around (through the formation of a parallelogram). . If a house
or row of buildings protruded from one of the walls of the
town, a straight line is drawn from the extreme end of such
protruding buildings parallel to the wall and thence two thou-
sand ells are measured. If the town was in the form of an arch
or a right angle it should be considered as if the entire space
enclosed by the arch or right angle were filled with houses and
two thousand ells should be measured from the extreme ends.

R. Huna said: If a town was in the form of an arch and the
distance between the two ends of the arch was less than four
thousand ells, the enclosed space is considered as filled with
houses and two thousand ells may be measured from the extreme
ends. If the distance was more than four thousand ells, the two
thousand ells must be measured from the centre of the arch.
What distance should a man have from his house to the end
whence the two thousand ells are measured. Rabba bar R.
Huna said: " Two thousand ells " and Rabha the son of Rabba
bar R. Huna said: " Even more than two thousand ells." Said
Abayi: " It seems to me that the latter opinion is correct,
because, if the man chose, he could go through all the houses
in the arch to that end, then why should he not be permitted
to cross over the space between his house and the end of the
arch ? "

Or if fragments of a wall ten spans high, etc. What is

TRACT ERUBIN. 129

meant by this ? R. Jehudah said: " This means, if there were
three partitions without a roof." A question was propounded:
How was it if there were two partitions with a roof ? Come
and hear: These are the things that are counted in together
with the town : A monument covering four square ells, a bridge,
a mausoleum, a synagogue that has a dwelling for an attendant,
a church with a vestry, stables, and barns that have a dwelling
attached for the keeper, huts in the field and houses built on
islands of a lake, which are not more than seventy and two-thirds
ells away from the town. All these are counted in together with
the town, and following are the things that must not be counted
in with the town : A monument partly demolished on both sides,
a bridge, a burying ground without a dwelling on it, a synagogue
or church that has no dwelling for the sextons, a stable or
barn that has no dwelling for the keeper, a pit, a cavern, a
fence, a dove-cot, and a boathouse; all these are not counted
in with the town." We see then, that a monument which had
been partially destroyed on both sides, must, not be counted in
with the town ? Must we not assume that it still retained its
roof ? Nay, this refers to a monument that did not retain its
roof. Of what use is a house built on an island ? Said R.
Papa: " Those houses are used to unload the utensils of a ship."
It is said " a cavern is not to be counted in with the town " ?
Did not R. Hyya teach that it should? Said Abayi: " R,
Hyya refers to a cavern, that has a building above it." If that
is the case, why mention the cavern ? The building itself must
be counted in ? Here the meaning is, if a building was above
the cavern, no matter how far the cavern extended, it is regarded
as a foundation for the house and should be counted in.

R. Huna said: Those who live in huts made of twigs may
measure the limit only from their doors (even if there are a
number of those that extend for over one hundred ells). Said
Hinana the son of R. Kahana in the name of R. Ashi: If in the
street where the huts stood there were three courts each contain-
ing two ordinary buildings, the huts are given the privileges of a
town.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: Those who dwell in
huts and those who travel in the deserts do not enjoy life and
their wives and children are not their own. We have also
learned the same in a Boraitha: Eliezer the man of Biria said:
Those who live in huts are the same as those in a grave and con-
cerning their daughters it is said [Deut. xxvii. 21]: " Cursed be
VOL. in. — 9

i3o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

he that lieth with any manner of beast." Why is this so?
Said Ula: Because they have no bathhouses (and when the
men go away to some distant bathhouse no one is left to take
care of the women). R. Johanan said: " Because, when the
women go to take their ritual bath, they are afraid to go alone
so long a distance ; hence they go in company with other women
and are followed by evil men who lead them astray." What
is the point of difference between Ula and R. Johanan ? If
there is a lake in the vicinity, the statement of R. Johanan falls
to the ground, but according to Ula even then, the women, if
left alone by their husbands, are led to sin.

R. Huna said: " In a town where there are no herbs, a scholar
should not live (because herbs are cheap and good food and a
scholar can thus live economically)." Shall we assume, that
herbs are such a good thing ? Have we not learned in a Borai-
tha, that three things cause much waste, cause a man's body
to stoop, and deprive a man of one five-hundredth of his eye-
sight ? Those three things are: coarse bread, newly brewed
beer, and herbs ? This presents no difficulty: R. Huna refers to
onions, garlic, and fine herbs, which are necessary, while the
Boraitha refers to bad herbs.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: In a town that is hilly
and where there are many steps to ascend and descend, both
man and beast become prematurely aged. Said R. Huna bar
R. Jehoshua: " The towns of Bebiri and Benaresh, two adjoin-
ing cities, that had may hills between them caused their inhabi-
tants to become prematurely aged."

The Rabbis taught: " If one comes to make a town square,
he must make it as the square of the earth, i.e., the north must
be towards the north of the earth, the south towards the south,
and his signs shall be: the zodiac of the Capricorn in the north
and that of the scorpion in the south." Said R. Jose: If he
does not understand how to make it as the square of the earth,
he should be guided by the equinox. How so ? Where the
sun rises during the long days and sets during the long days, it is
north of the equator, and during the short days, where it rises
and sets it is south of the equator, but during the Nissan and
the Tishri equinox, it rises half (i.e., directly) east and sets half
(i.e., directly) west, as it is written [Ecclesiastes i. 7]: " Going
toward the south " during the day, " and turning around toward
the north " during the night " the wind moveth round about con-
tinually," meaning east and west; at times it goes through them

TRACT ERUBIN. 131

and at other times it passes them. Said R. Mesharshia : All
these rules are of no account, for we have learned in a Boraitha
that the sun never rose in the northeast nor set in the northwest
and the sun never rose in the southeast nor set in the south-
west.

Samuel said : The equinox of Nissan can only take place dur-
ing one of the four quarters of a day, either at sunrise, sunset,
noon, or midnight, and the equinox of Tamuz cannot take place
except at one and one-half hours after sunrise or sunset or seven
and one-half hours after either. The equinox of Tishri takes
place only at three or at nine hours after either sunrise or sunset,
and the equinox of Tebeth takes place only four and one-half
hours or ten and one-half hours after either sunrise or sunset.
There is not more than ninety-one days seven and one-half
hours between each equinox, and they occur in the first and
second half of the same hour respectively.*

The Rabbis taught : One who comes to measure the city
should first make it square in the form of a board. Afterwards
he makes another square of the legal distance of two thousand
ells also in the form of a board. When he comes to measure
the legal limits from the town, he should not commence at the
centre of a side because then he would lose the corner, for, if the
diagonal distance from one corner to another is two thousand
ells the distance from the one side to the opposite will be 1,428
ells. Hence he should make the square two thousand ells from
one opposite side to the other, and in that event he will gain
four hundred ells on each side. Then the two legal limits
together will gain eight hundred ells on each side, and, in conse-
quence, the town together with the limits will gain twelve hun-
dred ells on each side. Said Abayi: " This can be proven by
calculating on a city exactly two thousands ells square."

MISHNA: An allowance of seventy and two-thirds ells of
space must be made to the town. Such is the dictum of R.
Meir; but the sages hold, that such an allowance is to be made

* This is calculated by the ancient astronomers as follows : There are seven
planets, which change with every hour ; e.g. , in the first hour we have the planet Mer-
cury, in the second the Moon, in the third Saturn, in the fourth Jupiter, in the fifth
Mars, in the sixth the Sun, and in the seventh Venus. Thus at the end of the 91
days and 7-J- hours of the first equinox (of Nissan), if Mercury is in the ascendant the
second equinox (that of Tamuz) will fall in the second half-hour of the planet Mer-
cury, the third equinox (of Tishri) will occur in the first half-hour of the Moon, and
the last equinox (of Tebeth) will fall in the second half-hour of the Moon, etc.

132 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

only if two towns be so close to each other, that each only
requires seventy and two-thirds ells to bring them within the
legal limits ; in that case an allowance is made to both, so that
they become as one. Thus also, if three villages form a trian-
gle, and the two outer ones require 141^ ells, a double allowance
to bring them within legal distance of each other, the middle
one between the two makes all one, so that the three villages
become as one.

GEMARA : Whence do we adduce, that an allowance should
be made to the town ? Said Rabha : Because it is written
[Numbers xxxv. 4] : " From the wall of the city and outward,"
which implies, first leave a part outward and then commence
to measure.

" But the sages hold" etc. It was taught: R. Huna said:
An allowance should be made to each of the two cities, and R.
Hyya bar Rabh said: " Only one allowance is made for both."
We have learned in the Mishna, however, that the sages hold,
such an allowance is to be made only, etc., whence we see that
only one allowance is spoken of and this would be contradic-
tory to R. Huna ? R. Huna may say, that by the allowance is
meant the law of the allowance, and if the law of allowance is
given at all, it should be given to each of the two cities. It
seems to us, that the explanation of R. Huna is correct, because
further on the Mishna states, that each only requires seventy
and two-thirds, i.e., one town requires seventy and two-thirds
ells and the other requires seventy and two-thirds ells, hence
the law of allowance applies to each of the two.

An objection was made based upon the last clause of the
Mishna : If three villages form a triangle and the two outer ones
require 141$ ells, the middle one between the two makes all
one; thus if there were no middle one the allowance for the two
outer ones would not hold good, and this would be contradictory
to R. Huna, who says, that the law of the allowance should be
applied ? R. Huna might reply: It was taught, however, that
Rabba in the name of R. Idi quoting R. Hanina said: The
Mishna does not mean to state that there must absolutely be
three villages in a triangle, but even if the third is some distance
off and between the two there is sufficient space which would
permit of the third village being placed there, and the distance
from that third village to one of the outer ones be 141-Jells, i.e.,
the quantity of two allowances of seventy and two-thirds ells
each, this third village makes the other two as one. Then

TRACT ERUBIN. 133

Rabha asked of Abayi: " How far must the third village be
from the other two, that it may be counted in with them ? " and
he answered: "Two thousand ells." Said Rabha to Abayi:
" Didst thou not say previously, that thou art of the opinion of
Rabha bar R. Huna, who said that it may be even more than
two thousand ells distant?" Rejoined Abayi: " How canst
thou compare the two ? In the former instance there were
inhabited houses, while here there is only empty space."

Rabha asked Abayi again : " What must the distance between
the two outer villages be?" and he answered: "What is the
difference? Thou hast heard, that if the village standing at a
distance is placed between the two there would be a distance of
141$ ells to each of the outer ones." " According to that,"
rejoined Rabha, " it would not matter if there were four thou-
sand ells between the two outer ones?" "Yea," answered
Abayi, " so it is."

MISHNA: One must not measure the legal distance except
with a line exactly fifty ells long, no more and no less; and one
must not measure in any manner except from the breast. If
during the measurement a deep dale (cleft) or heap of stones is
encountered, the line is passed over it and the measurement
resumed ; if a hillock is encountered, the line is passed over it
(also) and the measurement resumed, provided the legal limit is
not overstepped while this is being done. If the line cannot be
passed over the hillock on account of its height, R. Dostai bar
Janai said: I have heard on the authority of R. Meir, that
those who make the measurement cut straight through the
mountain (in an imaginary sense).

GEMARA: Whence do we adduce that the line must be
exactly fifty ells long ? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh :
It is written [Exod. xxvii. 18]: " The length of the court shall
be one hundred ells, and the breadth fifty by fifty," and thus the
verse means to say, that the line should be fifty ells. Is this
verse not necessary in order to teach us that the excess of fifty
ells of length over the breadth should be apportioned so as to
make the court seventy ells and four spans square ? (See page
73.) If such were the case, the verse could read "fifty and fifty,"
but from the fact that it reads " fifty by fifty" we assume that
both teachings may be adduced.

" No more and no less." It was taught in a Boraitha: " No
less," because when the line is taken up (by the surveyor) it may
be stretched a trifle (and it should be only fifty); and" no

i34 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

more," for should it be longer, it might become entangled and
be shortened accordingly.

Said R. Assi (according to another version R. Ami): " The
line must be made only of Apaskima. " What is an Apaskima ?
Said R. Abba: " A Nargila," and what is a Nargila? Said R.
Jacob: " The fibre of walnut-trees."

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehoshua ben Hananiah
said: There is nothing better to measure with than an iron
chain; but what can be done, when it is written [Zechariah ii. 5]:
"There was a man with a measure-^w*/ in his hand." It is
written, however [Ezekiel xl. 3] : " There was a man, etc., and a
measuring rod." The verse quoted refers to the measurement
of the gates of the Temple.

R. Joseph taught: "There are three kinds of cord: One
made of rushes, one made of willows, and one made of flax.
The first kind of cord was used to tie the red heifer (because it
was not subject to defilement and all things used in connection
with the red heifer had to be not subject to defilement) as we
have learned (in Tract Parah) : " She was tied with cord made
of rushes and was laid on the spot where she was to be burned."
The second kind was used for tying a woman who was to stand
the bitter water test as we have learned in a Mishna (Tract
Sotah) : Then an Egyptian rope was tied above her breast (an
Egyptian rope was made of willows). The third kind was used
for measuring.

' ' If during the measurement a deep dale, etc., was encountered, ' '
etc. From the statement of the Mishna that after passing over
it the measurement is resumed, we must assume, that if the sur-
veyor cannot pass over it with a line fifty ells long, he must go
to a place where it is possible for him to do so, and after passing
over it, should resume the measurement at the original place as
nearly as possible on a level with the place where he had left off
at the other location.

This is identical with the teaching of the Rabbis as follows :
" If during the measurement the surveyor come to a cleft, and
can pass over it with a line fifty ells long, he should do so. If,
however, he cannot do this, he should go to another place where
this would be possible and resume his measurement at the orig-
inal place as nearly as possible on a level with the place where
he had left off at the other location. Should, however, the cleft
be sloping so that he can cross over it without difficulty he
should measure it by drawing an imaginary line straight across

TRACT ERUBIN. 135

the cleft and do this successively both up hill and down. If he
come to a wall, he must not cut through the wall but must esti-
mate its thickness, and after allowing sufficient distance for it, he
should resume his measurement." We have learned, however,
that he should cut through it (in an imaginary sense), why do
they say that he should estimate its thickness ? In the former
instance the case referred to is where the wall was impassable,
while in this instance the surveyor can circumvene it.

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: " Under what cir-
cumstances are these rules concerning passing over (a cleft) or
cutting straight through to be applied ? If the line with a
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 line 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.
This is identical with the statement of R. Idi bar Abin in the
name of R. Hisda, viz. : If one of the inhabitants of an entry

138 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

made a door to his court, he demonstrates thereby that he has
no connection with the other inhabitants and consequently does
not make the Erub of the others invalid.

' ' If the town was originally public property and became the
property of an individual, ' ' etc. R. Zera made an Erub in the city
where lived R. Hyya, that included the whole city and did not
leave out any part thereof. Asked Abayi : " Why did Master do
this ? Why did he not leave out a part of it ? " Answered R.
Zera: " The elders of the city told me, that R. Hyya bar Assi
once combined an Erub for the entire city, so I thought that at
one time the city was individual property and then became the
property of the public." Rejoined Abayi: "The same elders
told me, that at one time a pile of dirt blocked one of the
entrances so that only one remained ; hence R. Hyya bar Ashi
made the Erub for the entire city. Now, however, the dirt has
been removed and the city never was individual property " ; and
R. Zera answered : I did not know this.

R. Ami bar Ada of Harphan asked Rabba: " What is the
law concerning a town that had one entrance by means of a door
and another by means of a ladder?" He answered: " Rabh
said, that a ladder is in law accounted the same as a door."
Said R. Na'hman to them : " Do not heed him; for thus said R.
Ada in the name of Rabh : ' A ladder combines within itself the
two uses, that of a door and that of a partition.' The latter if
it is on the outside of the city and is hence not accounted as a
door and when it stands between two courts it can be accounted
as a partition, thus enabling the courts to make separate Erubin,
or it can be accounted as a door and both courts may combine
in effecting one Erub."

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: "If an entire wall
was made of ladders even though it be wider than ten ells, it is
nevertheless a lawful partition." R. Brona contradicted R.
Jehudah, standing at the wine-cellar of R. Hanina's house:
How canst thou say, that Samuel held the ladders to constitute
a partition, did not R. Na'hman say in the name of Samuel : " If
the people living in attics of courts, which contain balconies, and
who are obliged to descend by means of ladders to the court,
had forgotten to combine an Erub with the people below, they
do not render the Erub of the people below invalid, providing
their ladders have apertures at least four spans high ? " This is
the case if the balconies were not over ten spans high. If the
balconies were not over ten spans of what use are the apertures ?

TRACT ERUBIN. 139

If the balconies were provided with railing and ten ells were left
vacant and a small door was erected in that vacant space, it sig-
nifies, that there is no connection between the inhabitants of the
attics and those of the court ; hence they do not prove a bar to
each other.

The inhabitants of Kakunai came before R. Joseph and
asked him to give them a man to effect an Erub for them in their
city. He accordingly said to Abayi: " Go and make an Erub
for them, but see that it provoke no comment from the college."
He went and saw that some houses of the city faced a lake and
had no other entrance. " I will make an Erub, but will exclude
these houses," said he. Subsequently it occurred to him, that
an Erub must not be made for the entire city, at the same time
it was possible to do this; with these houses, however (that
faced the lake), it was an impossibility. Consequently he desired
that apertures be made in those houses facing the streets, thereby
making it possible for them to make an Erub and then to
exclude them, in which event the Erub for the entire city would
be valid. Then he concluded that even those apertures were
unnecessary, because Rabba bar Abbahu made an Erub for the
entire city of Mehuzza, which was composed of several rows of
entries and between each row there was a ditch used for the
storing of kernels of dates to be used as fodder. He made an
Erub for each row and permitted the carrying of things in each
entry and from one entry into another without erecting either
cross or side beams. He did this on account of the ditches
between the rows, which ditches prevented crossing over from
one row to the other and the town having been originally public
property and subsequently having become the property of an
individual, in which case part of the town must be excluded from
participation in the Erub, he held that by virtue of the inacces-
sibility of one row to the other on account of the intervening
ditches, one row became the excluded part to the other, and vice
versa.

Suddenly it occurred to him again, that the rows of entries
might have had protruding roofs, which would make communica-
tion with each other possible, hence they were enabled to make
an Erub ; but in the case of those houses that could not make an
independent Erub, he again concluded that apertures were nec-
essary. Finally, however, he recollected, that Mar the son of
Pipidatha of Pumbaditha made an Erub for the entire city of
Pumbaditha and merely excluded his straw-shed underneath the

i4o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

city. Hence he again concluded, that no apertures for the
houses were necessary. In conclusion he said : " I see now, after
all this trouble, why my master cautioned me against provoking
the comment of the colleges."

' ' R. Simeon, however, holds, that it is sufficient, if three
courts," etc. Said R. Hama bar Guria in the name of Rabh:
" The Halakha prevails according to R.Simeon." R. Itz'hak,
however, said, that one house in one court is sufficient.

Asked Abayi of R. Joseph: "Whence does R. Itz'hak
adduce his statement? From a tradition or an opinion?"
Answered R. Joseph : What is the difference ? (The Halakha
prevails according to R. Simeon ?) Rejoined Abayi : Shall we
learn the Gemara as we do a song ?

MISHNA: Should a man (on the eve of Sabbath) be at the
east of his domicile and say to his son: " Place my Erub towards
the west," or being at the west of his domicile say to his son:
" Place my Erub towards the east " : if the distance from the
place where he stands to his domicile be within two thousand
ells and to his Erub farther than that, he must take his Sabbath-
rest at his domicile, but must not take it where his Erub is depos-
ited ; if the distance to his Erub, however, be within two thou-
sand ells, and to his domicile farther than that, he must take his
Sabbath-rest where his Erub is placed and not at his domicile.
If a man has deposited his Erub within the limits (allowance of
seventy and two-thirds ells) of a town, he has (legally) accom-
plished nothing and it counts for nothing; if he, however,
deposited the Erub outside of the legal limit, be it but a single
ell, whatever ground he gains in one direction, he loses in the
opposite direction.

GEMARA: What is meant by "towards the east"?
" Towards the east of his son " said R. Itz'hak, " and towards
the west also of his son." Rabba bar R. Shila,
however, says, that both " towards the east"
and " towards the west" refer to the house,
{ but the question will arise how will it be pos-
sible for the house to be farther than the Erub,
because if he told his son to make an Erub
there, the son must have stood between the house and the
Erub ? In this case, the house was diagonally opposite the place
where the son stood while the Erub was directly opposite (as
shown in illustration).

" If he, however, deposited the Erub outside of the legal limit, ' '

TRACT ERUBIN. 141

•etc. Is it possible to assume, that he really overstepped the
legal limit ? Read: "If he placed the Erub outside of the
seventy and two-thirds ells allowed the town."

Whatever ground he gains in one direction, he loses in the
opposite." He loses only what he gains, no more? Have we
not learned in a Boraitha: "If he placed his Erub within the
allowance (of seventy and two-thirds ells) of the city, he has
accomplished nothing and it counts for naught ; if, however, he
placed his Erub outside of such allowance even one ell, he loses
(his right to) the whole city, because the measure of the city will
be counted to him in the legal limit effected by the Erub " ?

This presents no difficulty. According to the Boraitha, he
loses the whole city only when the two thousand ells of his limit
terminate in the centre of the city ; but if they terminate at the
«nd of the city, which is the case in our Mishna, he loses nothing,
.as R. Idi said in the name of R. Jehoshua ben Levi: If he
measured the limit and it terminated in the centre of a town, he
lias only half the town ; but if it terminated at the end of the
town, the whole town becomes as four ells and he may complete
his entire limit of two thousand ells outside of the town." R.
Idi said, however: " This is merely a prophetic assertion! For
•what is the difference whether it terminate in the centre of the
•city or at the end! " Said Rabha: " This is by no means a
prophetic assertion. Thou wilt learn this in the succeeding
Mishna."

R. Joseph said in the name of Rami bar Abba quoting R.
Huna: " If a town was standing on the steep banks of a lake
and there was a partition made on the brink of the banks four
•ells high, the measurement of the legal limits may be com-
menced from that partition. If there was no partition, how-
ever, the measurement must be commenced from the entrance of
the house (nearest the lake). " Said Abayi: "Why dost thou
require in this case a partition four ells high ? Generally four
spans are sufficient!" Because usually, no fear is entertained
as to the use of the place, while in this case there is constant
fear of falling over the banks (hence that place cannot be taken
into consideration and the measurement must be made from the
liouses).

Said R. Joseph : Whence do I adduce this teaching ? From
the following Boraitha: " Rabbi permitted the inhabitants of
*Gadar to descend to Hamtan but forbade the people of Hamtan
tto ascend to Gadar. " Why did Rabbi decree thus ? We must

i42 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

assume, because the inhabitants of Gadar (who lived above the
people of Hamtan on the slope of a mountain) made a partition
at the foot of their city while the inhabitants of the city of
Hamtan did not make a partition at the foot of their city ; hence
Gadar which had a partition was safe from falling, and the legal
limit, which was measured from any part of the city
included Hamtan, but the people of Hamtan, which had
no partition and was consequently not safe, could measure
their legal limits only from their houses and thus it did
not include the city of Gadar.

When R. Dimi came from Palestine, however, he
assigned a different reason for the above Boraitha, saying:
" Rabbi decreed thus, because the Gadarites would maltreat the
Hamtanites ; hence he prohibited the latter to ascend to Gadar
on a Sabbath." Why on Sabbath, why not also on a week-day!
Because on Sabbath there is more drunkenness (and in conse-
quence more brutality). Why did he then permit the Gadarites
to descend to Hamtan ? Cannot they maltreat the Hamtanites
even there ? Because a dog that has no home will not bark
even in seven years (meaning that in their own homes the Ham-
tanites could better protect themselves). Is there not danger,
however, that the Hamtanites will maltreat the Gadarites ? The
Hamtanites would not dare do this (because they were in the
minority).

R. Safra said : There is a different reason for the Boraitha,
viz. : The city of Gadar was built in the form of an arch and the
two ends of the arch were more than four thousand ells apart.
We have learned in connection with this that the legal limits
must be measured from the houses of the individuals; hence
when the inhabitants of Gadar measured their limit, it included
the city of Hamtan, but when the people of Hamtan, who were
opposite the space of the arch, measured their limit, it termi-
nated in the empty space between the two sides of the arch, and
that space being over four thousand ells, could not be counted as
part of the city.

R. Dimi bar Hinana said: (There is another reason for the
Boraitha.) The city of Gadar was a large city whereas Ham-
tan was a small town and the laws concerning this will be
explained in the following Mishna.

MISHNA: The inhabitants of a large town may traverse
the whole of a small town (within or adjoining their legal limits) ;
but the inhabitants of the small town must (not) traverse the

TRACT ERUBIN. 143

whole extent of the large town. How then ? If an inhabitant
of the large town place his Erub in the small town, or an inhab-
itant of the small town place his Erub in the large town, each
may traverse either town and proceed two thousand ells beyond
its boundaries. R. Aqiba said : " One has only the right to pro-
ceed two thousand ells from the place where he deposited his
Erub." Said R. Aqiba to the sages: " Will ye not admit, that in
the case of one who deposits his Erub in a cavern, that he has
not the right to proceed further than two thousand ells from the
place where he has deposited his Erub ? ' ' They replied : ' ' True ;
but when is this the case ? If there are no dwellings in the
cavern ; but if there are dwellings within it, he may not only
traverse the whole extent of the cavern, but also proceed two
thousand ells outside of it." (Hence, it may be seen) that the
ordinance is less rigid as to the interior of a cavern, than to the
space above it.

Concerning one who measures (previously mentioned) he is
only allowed to carry the legal limits two thousand ells from the
place whence he started, even though the end of his measure-
ment terminate in a cavern.

GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If
one took his Sabbath-rest in an abandoned city, he may traverse
the entire extent of the city and two thousand ells besides ; but
if he deposited his Erub in that city, he only has two thousand
ells from that Erub. R. Elazar, however, said, whether he
merely took his rest there or deposited his Erub, he may traverse
the entire extent of the city and two thousand ells outside
of it.

An objection was made based upon the statement of R.
Aqiba addressed to the sages: " Will ye not admit, that in the
case of one who deposits his Erub in a cavern, that he has not
the right to proceed further than two thousand ells from the
place where he has deposited his Erub ? ' ' and their reply : ' ' True ;
but when is this the case ? If there are no dwellings in the
cavern." Thus we see, that if there are no dwellings within it,
the sages agree with R. Aqiba ? (How then can R. Elazar say,
that one may traverse the whole extent of the city and two thou-
sand ells beyond ?) By the statement " if there are no dwellings
in the cavern " the sages mean to say, if there is no room for
dwellings in the cavern.

Mar Jehudah observed that the inhabitants of Mabrachta
placed their Erub in the synagogue of the city of Agubar, so he

144 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

said to them : " Why do ye not place the Erub a little further ?
Ye will have more space to the two thousand ells ? ' ' Said
Rabha to him: Thou quarreller! (Thou disputest the opinion
of the sages!) Concerning the law of Erubin no attention is
paid to R. Aqiba (because it had been decided long ago, that
the more lenient decrees concerning Erubin prevail).

CHAPTER VI.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE ERUBIN OF COURTS AND PARTNER-
SHIPS.

MISHNA: To one who dwells in the same court with a
Gentile, or with one who does not acknowledge the laws of
Erub, the latter prove a bar (to his carrying in the court). R.
Eliezer ben Jacob, however, said: " At no time can such a pro-
hibition be caused, unless there be two Israelites, who prevent
each other."

R. Gamaliel related: " It happened that a Sadducee dwelt
with us in one alley (entry) in Jerusalem, and my father said to
us (on the eve of Sabbath) : ' Make haste and bring all the ves-
sels into the alley, lest the Sadducee bring out his, and thus
make it unlawful for you to carry out yours.' ' R. Jehudah
related the same circumstance with a variation in the language,
viz. : " Make haste and do what you require done in the alley, lest
he come out and make it unlawful for you to do so."

GEMARA: Abayi and R. Hinana, both sons of Abin, were
sitting along with Abayi. The two brothers said : " The Mishna
would be correct according to the opinion of R. Meir, who holds
that the dwelling of a Gentile as far as the laws of Erubin are
concerned is regarded as a dwelling; but what about R. Eliezer
ben Jacob ? If he regards the dwelling of a Gentile as a dwell-
ing, then it should prove a bar even to one Israelite, and if he
holds that it is not regarded as a dwelling, then it should not
interfere even with two Israelites." Said Abayi to them : " Does
then R. Meir hold, that the dwelling of a Gentile is regarded as
a dwelling where the laws of Erubin are concerned ? Have we
not learned in a Boraitha, that R. Meir holds the dwelling of a
Gentile to be like a vacant house, where things may be moved
at will ? Therefore I say, All agree that the dwelling of a
Gentile is not considered as a dwelling as far as Erubin are con-
cerned and that the intent of the Mishna is simply to prevent
the Israelite from falling into the ways of the Gentile and disre-
gard the Sabbath entirely, and to this end R. Meir holds, that a
VOL. in. — 10 145

146 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Gentile proves a bar even to one Israelite, but R. Eliezer ben
Jacob maintains, that it is so rare an occurrence for one Israelite
and one Gentile to live in one court, that such a precaution is
in that case superfluous."

The text of the above Boraitha is as follows: " The dwelling
of a Gentile is, as far as the laws of Erubin are concerned, to be
regarded as a vacant house and things may be moved and carried
to and from his house and the court ; but if an Israelite also dwelt
in the same court, the Gentile proves a bar to the Israelite."
Such is the dictum of R. Meir; R. Eliezer ben Jacob, however,
said, that the Gentile does not interfere, unless there are two
Israelites who prevent each other." — Have we not learned in
our Mishna that if one dwells in the same court with a Gentile, the
Gentile proves a bar ? This presents no difficulty : The Mishna
refers to the Gentile who is on the spot, while R. Eliezer ben
Jacob refers to one who is not at home.

What does R. Eliezer mean to express ? Does he hold, that
a dwelling without the occupant is also a dwelling, then he should
state, that even one Israelite is prevented by it ; if he holds, that
a dwelling without its occupant is not considered a dwelling,
then why does he mention a Gentile, he could say, if there be
two Israelites and one is absent from home, he does not prove a
bar to the other ? Nay; a dwelling without its occupant is not
considered a dwelling ; but in the case of the Israelite who was
absent, if he had proved a bar when at home, the precaution is
also enforced when he is not at home, but in the case of a Gen-
tile, no such precaution is necessary for the reason, that he him-
self does not prove a bar to the Israelite and his interference is
merely due to the fact that the Israelite might fall into his ways
and disregard the Sabbath. When the Gentile is absent, how-
ever, such apprehension does not exist.

If the Gentile is absent he does not prevent the Israelite ?
Have we not learned in a Mishna, that " if a person quits his
house, and he goes to take his Sabbath-rest in another town,
whether he be a Gentile or an Israelite, he proves a bar to the
other inmates of the court, such is the decree of R. Meir" ?
This refers to a case of where there is fear that the person will
return on the same day.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: "The Halakha
prevails according to R. Eliezer ben Jacob." R. Huna, how-
ever, said: " It is customary to hold to the opinion of R. Elie-
zer, i.e., it is not taught in the colleges that the Halakha prevails

TRACT ERUBIN. 147

according to R. Eliezer ben Jacob, but when a man asks con-
cerning this law, he maybe told to follow that dictum." R.
Johanan however said: " The people act in accordance with R.
Eliezer's decree, but it should not be decided so when the ques-
tion arises."

Abayi asked R. Joseph: "It is known to us, that all the
Mishnaoth taught by R. Eliezer ben Jacob are clean and thor-
ough. Here also R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel, that
the Halakha prevails according to R. Eliezer ben Jacob. Now
then, if a disciple of a certain master live in the same town as
his master and is asked concerning a Halakha established by R.
Eliezer ben Jacob (which is therefore correct) may he decide it
himself or must he as usual refer the case to his master ? " R.
Joseph answered: " R. Hisda (who was a disciple of R. Huna)
would not even decide the question whether eggs may be eaten
with kutach (a dish made principally of milk) as long as R.
Huna was living."

R. Jacob bar Abba asked Abayi: " May a disciple decide in
the place where his master resides a Halakha, contained in the
scrolls of Fast-days?" Abayi replied : R. Joseph decided this
question as stated above.

R. Hisda did decide legal questions, during the lifetime of R.
Huna, in Khafri.*

R. Hamnuna f decided questions in the city of Hartha, which
belonged to Argaz in the days when R. Hisda lived. (Hartha
was not far from Pumbaditha, the residence of R. Hisda.)

Rabhina would examine the slaughtering-knives in Babylon
during the lifetime of R. Ashi (who was the head of the college).
R. Ashi asked him: " Why does Master do this?" Rabhina
answered: " Did not R. Hamnuna decide questions in Hartha
during the lifetime of R. Hisda ? " Said R. Ashi to him: " On
the contrary ! We have learned, that R. Hamnuna did not do
this." Rejoined Rabhina: " We have learned both, that he
did and that he did not, and the case seems to be thus: As long
as R. Huna the master of R. Hisda lived, R. Hamnuna did not
decide any questions, but upon the death of R. Huna when R.

* Rashi states, that Khafri was a town near Pumbaditha, but in our opinion
Khafri is the plural of Khfar — Hebrew for village — and it seems that R. Hisda
decided legal questions in the villages where the inhabitants could not reach R. Huna
(Tosphath).

f This R. Hamnuna is not to be confounded with the disciple of Rabh previously
mentioned.

148 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Hisda became the head of the college, R. Hamnuna began to
decide questions also, because he was virtually a disciple (and)
comrade of R. Hisda and I am also a disciple comrade of Mas-
ter."

Rabha said: " If a slaughtering-knife is brought to a young
scholar for examination, he may examine it, providing he intends
to use some of the meat himself."

Rabhina * came to the city of Mehuzza (and stopped at an
inn). The inn-keeper brought a slaughtering-knife to him for
examination, and Rabhina told him to take it to Rabha. Said
the inn-keeper: " Dost thou not hold with Rabha, that a young
scholar may examine a slaughtering-knife if he intends to use
the meat himself ?" Rejoined Rabhina: " Yea; but the meat
is thine and I merely buy the meat of thee as others do."

R. Elazar of the city of Hagronia and R. Abba bar Tachlipha
(R. Aha) were the guests of R. Aha the son of R. Iqua in the
city presided over by R. Aha bar Jacob. A calf, which was the
third of its mother, was to be prepared and the slaughtering-
knife was brought to them for inspection. Said R. Aha bar
Tachlipha: " Must we not respect the elder (meaning R. Aha bar
Jacob)?" Said R. Elazar to him: "Thus decided Rabha: A
young scholar may examine the slaughtering-knife if he intends
to use the meat himself." Accordingly R. Elazar examined the
knife but was afterwards punished for it.

Why was R. Elazar punished for it ? Rabha had really
allowed it ? Because R. Aha bar Jacob was an exceptionally
wise and extremely old sage.

Rabha said: A disciple has no right to decide questions of
law. If, however, he sees a person committing a prohibited act,
he may even in the presence of his master correct such a person.

Rabhina while in the presence of R. Ashi (his master) observed
a man tying an ass to a tree on Sabbath. He admonished him
and told him that it was not allowed ; but the man paid no atten-
tion to him, whereupon Rabhina said to him: " Thou art under
a ban for this." Then he (Rabhina) said to R. Ashi: " Can this
action of mine be construed as disrespectful to thee because it
was done in thy presence ? " R. Ashi answered: " It is written
[Proverbs xxi. 30] : ' There is no wisdom nor understanding nor
counsel against the Lord,' and that means, where the honor of

* This Rabhina is also not to be confounded with the Rabhina previously men-
tioned.

TRACT ERUBIN. 149

the Lord is concerned, the respect due a teacher is not to be
considered."

Rabha said: " If a disciple decide a point of law in the pres-
ence of his master, it is considered as a capital offence ; but if
he does this in the absence of his master while the master is
still in the same city, it is not a capital offence, but is neverthe-
less prohibited." Zera said in the name of R. Hanina: It is
not a capital offence, but he is nevertheless called a sinner, as it
is written [Psalms cxix. 11]: "In my heart have I treasured up
thy saying, in order that I may not sin against thee." (This
signifies that if one did not treasure up his knowledge but
uttered it in the presence of his master, he commits sin.)

R. Hamnuna propounded a contradictory question to the
above verse, viz.: It is written [Psalms xl. 10]: "I announce
thy righteousness in the great assembly," and himself explained
it by saying: " The former verse was proclaimed by David when
Ira the Yairite, who was his master, was still living and the latter
when Ira was dead."

R. Abba bar Zabhda said: " He who sends his gifts to one
particular priest to the exclusion of all others brings famine into
the world, as it is written [II Samuel xx. 26]: "And Ira the
Yairite was a priest unto David. ' ' Why a priest unto David ?
Was he not also a priest to the rest of Israel? The inference
then is, that David presented him with all his gifts and immedi-
ately following this verse, it is written [ibid. xxi. i] : " And there
was a famine in the days of David three years."

R. Elazar said: A disciple who decides a point of law in the
place of his master, if intrusted with a position of importance,
is eventually deposed, as it is written [Numbers xxxi. .21-24]
that Elazar the priest quoted a law and although he quoted it in
the name of Moses, still he was deposed from office on that
account ; for although Joshua was ordered to stand before Elazar
[Numbers xxvii. 21], we do not find one instance where Joshua
ever availed himself of Elazar 's services.

R. Levi said: He who decides a point of law in the pres-
ence of his master will die childless, for it is written [Numbers
xi. 28], that Joshua, the son of Nun said, " My lord Moses,
forbid them," and [Chronicles vii. 27] it merely states, " Now
his son, Jehoshua his son," whence we see that Joshua had no
children.

There was an entry in which a man by the name of Lachman
bar Risthak resided. He was asked to rent his right to the

150 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

ground occupied by him to the other inmates ; but he would not
do this. So the matter was brought to Abayi for decision and
he told them as follows: " All of you, resign your rights to your
grounds to one man in the entry and thus it will constitute a
case of where one Israelite and one Gentile occupy the same
entry; when one Gentile occupies the same grounds with one
Israelite he does not interfere with the Israelite." How can
this remedy us ? Why was it decreed, that one Gentile does not
interfere with an Israelite, because it is of rare occurrence, that
they should occupy the same court, but in our case it is different.
We all live there ? Said Abayi: " In your case there is also an
unusual occurrence ; for it seldom happens, that all the inmates
of one entry should resign their rights to one man."

Subsequently R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua related this
statement of Abayi to Rabha. Said Rabha: " If so, then the
entire law of Erubin was made void in that entry." Nay; they
made an Erub between themselves also. Rejoined Rabha: " This
is still worse. In that case it will be said that an Erub may be
made where a Gentile lives." Answered R. Huna: " It will be
proclaimed, that the carrying is not done on account of the
Erub, but because every inmate has resigned his right to the
ground to one man and hence it is private ground." "To
whom will ye proclaim this? To the children?" continued
Rabha. " I have a better plan. Let one man go and ask Lach-
man bar Risthak to permit him to deposit something in his
(Lachman's) yard, which will then be considered as rented for an
entire year, and R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel, that if
ground had been rented by an Israelite from a Gentile or vice
versa for one year or even for one season when the crops are
harvested, in fact if any dealings at all have been had on this
order with the Gentile, an Erub may be placed in the entry
where he lives with impunity."

Abayi asked of R. Joseph: " How is it, if there are several
who had rented apartments from a Gentile and one of them for-
got to make an Erub. Would he prove a bar to the others or
not ?" Answered R. Joseph: " The statement of R. Jehudah
in the name of Samuel was made in order to make the law more
lenient and not to make it more rigid."

When R. Na'hman heard the dictum of R. Jehudah in the
name of Samuel quoted above, he said: " How fine is this Ha-
lakha! " Then he heard another dictum of R. Jehudah in the
name of Camuel stating, that one who had imbibed a quarter of

TRACT ERUBIN. 151

a lug of wine, must not decide any legal questions. Said R.
Na'hman: "This Halakha is preposterous! I know that my
head is not quite clear until I drink a quarter of a lug of wine."
Said Rabha to him: " Why should master say this ? Has he
not heard the dictum of R. A'ha bar Hanina, viz. : it is written
[Proverbs xxix. 3]: 'He that keepeth company with harlots
wasteth his wealth,' and this means, that one who declares
one Halakha to be fine and another to be bad loses the beauty
(wealth) of the Thorah." Answered R. Na'hman: "Thou art
right. I shall do this no more."

Rabba bar R. Huna said: One who is tipsy should not pray;
but if he had done so his prayer is nevertheless acceptable.
One who is intoxicated, however, and prayed, his prayer is con-
sidered as a blasphemy. What is meant by tipsy ? If a man
were compelled to speak to the king and had still sense enough
to do so, he is merely tipsy ; but one who would not be able to
do this is considered intoxicated.

Said Rami bar Abba: " One who after drinking had walked
a mile or slept a little is again considered sober." Said R.
Na'hman in the name of Rabba bar Abbahu : This is the case if
he had drunk only a quarter of a lug of wine ; but if he drank
more, then the walk tires him still more, and the interrupted
doze inebriates him still more.

Will a walk of one mile then neutralize the effects of the
wine ? Have we not learned, that Rabbon Gamaliel while trav-
elling at one time rode upon an ass from the city Akhu to Kha-
zib and was followed by R. Ilayi. R. Gamaliel noticed some
loaves lying on the road, so he said to Ilayi: " Take the loaves
up," and meeting a Gentile later said to him: " Mabgai, take
the loaves away from Ilayi." Ilayi then asked the Gentile:
" Whence art thou ?" and he answered: " From the cities of
Burganin." " What is thy name ?" asked Ilayi again. " I am
called Mabgai," was the answer. " Dost thou know R. Gama-
liel ? " was the next question, " or does R. Gamaliel know thee ? "
" Nay," answered the Gentile. Thus it is obvious, that R.
Gamaliel knew the name of the Gentile by inspiration [and three
things may be deduced from his actions, viz.: " Firstly, that
bread must not be passed by (but should be gathered up) ; sec-
ondly, that we must be guided by the majority of wayfarers (i.e.,
on account of the majority of wayfarers being Gentiles, the
bread is presumed to belong to them and hence R. Ilayi was
told to give it to the Gentile) ; and thirdly, that leavened bread

i52 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

belonging to a Gentile, even if remaining over from the Passover,
may be made use of by Israelites after the Passover."]

Upon his arrival at Khazib, R. Gamaliel was asked by a man
to nullify a vow. Said R. Gamaliel to his companions: " Have
we drunk a quarter of a lug of Italian wine ?" and they an-
swered: " Yea, we did." " Then," quoth R. Gamaliel, " let us
walk on, the man following us until the effects of the wine wear
off, ' ' and they walked on for three miles. When they came to
the steps leading up to the city of Tyre, R. Gamaliel dismounted,
wrapped himself in a robe, sat down and nullified the man's vow,
and from these actions we have learned many things; namely:
" A quarter of a lug of Italian wine inebriates a man; when a
man is inebriated, he must not decide any legal questions; a
walk neutralizes the effects of wine ; and a vow must not be nul-
lified while riding, standing, or walking, but in a sitting posi-
tion."

Thus we see, that a three miles' walk is required to destroy
the effects of wine, how can it be said, that one mile is suffi-
cient ? In a case of inebriation through Italian wine it is differ-
ent, because that wine is very strong, but for ordinary wine a
walk of one mile is all that is necessary.

The master said: " One must not pass by bread." Said R.
Johanan in the name of R. Simeon ben Jochai: This was said
in the earlier generations when the daughters of Israel had not
yet resorted to witchcraft, but in the latter generations when
they began to practise it, bread may be passed by, lest it be
bewitched.

We have learned in a Boraitha: Whole loaves of bread may
be passed by, because they may be bewitched, but pieces of
bread should not, as there is no fear of their being bewitched.

R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Elazar ben Azariah: " I
could exempt the entire world from divine judgment since the
destruction of the Temple to the present day ; for it is written
[Isaiah li. 21]: "Therefore, hear now this, O thou afflicted,
and drunken, but not with wine." (Hence if all the world is
drunken, they should not be judged.)

An objection was made: " We have learned, that a drunken
man's purchase is a valid purchase, his sale is a valid sale; if he
has committed a capital offence, he should be executed ; if he
committed a crime involving the punishment of stripes, he must
be given the stripes. The rule is, that he is in all respects con-
sidered as a sober man with the exception that he is absolved

TRACT ERUBIN. 153

from prayer." R. Shesheth means to say by stating that he
can absolve the entire world from divine judgment, that he can
exempt the world from the judgment concerning their prayers.
Said R. Hanina: All this is said concerning a man whose drunk-
enness does not equal that of Lot's, but if it is of the degree of
Lot's drunkenness, he is exempt from all judgment.

R. Hyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rabh: " One whose
mind is not thoroughly at ease must not pray, as it is written :
" In his affliction shall he not judge." *

It was the custom of R. Hanina to omit saying his prayers
on a day when he was in a bad humor, and Mar Uqba would not
take his seat on the judge's bench on a day when a hot south
wind would blow, saying, that it was too hot to judge with a
clear mind. R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said: When a Halakha is
to be decided by a man, his head should be as clear as it is on a
day when a north wind which drives away all dark clouds is
blowing and the sky is clear and the weather fine.

Abayi said: " When my mother would tell me to hand her
some kutach, it so confused me, that I could not study that
whole day." Rabha said: " If a flea bit me, I could no longer
learn."

The mother of Mar, the son of Rabhina, made her son seven
suits of clothes, one for each day of the week.

R. Jehudah said: " The night was made only for sleep."
R. Simeon ben Lakish, however, said: " The moon was made
only in order to facilitate study at night."

R. Zera was told that all his conclusions were very sagacious,
and he replied, that they were all studied during the day.

The daughter of R. Hisda said to her father: " Why does
Master not sleep a while ? " and he answered: " Very long days
will yet come, when study will be impossible" (meaning the
days in the grave).

R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said: " We are all day-laborers."
R. A' ha bar Jacob would borrow hours from the day and repay
them at night.

R. Eliezer said: One who travelled on the road should,

* This verse is not to be found in the entire Bible. Rashi, however, says that it
may be found in the part of the Apocrypha called Ben Sira, but to our knowledge it
cannot be found even there. Tosphath says, that a number of verses cited in the
Talmud are to be found in Ben Sira, while quite a number cannot be found anywhere
in the Scriptures or in the Apocrypha. Concerning the above verse, Tosphath states,
that it should read as quoted in Job. xxxvi. 19.

154 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

upon his return, not recite his prayers for three days, as it is
written [Ezra viii. 15]: " And I gathered them together to the
river that runneth into the Ahava, and we encamped there three
days: and I looked about among the people." (Which signifies,
that one should deliberate for three days and then pray.)

The father of Samuel when on the road would not pray for
three days. Samuel himself would not pray in a room where
there was any beer, saying, that the odor of the beer confused
him. R. Papa would not pray in a house where there was
Harsena (a dish made of fish and vinegar) saying, that the odor
disturbed him.

R. Hanina said: A man who is angry with another and when
under the influence of liquor can be persuaded to a reconcilia-
tion possesses one of the qualities of his Creator, as it is written
[Genesis viii. 21]: "And the Lord smelled the sweet savor,"
etc.

R. Hyya said: " One who drinks wine and is not excited
thereby, has some of the qualities of the seventy sages in the
days of Moses." The inference of R. Hyya is based upon the
word Yai'n (wine), which according to the Hebrew method of
counting, namely, Yod = 10 and another Yod = 10 and Nun = 50,
altogether 70; and also upon the word Sod (secret) Samach = 60,
Vav = 6 and Daled = 4, altogether 70; hence when the wine
enters, the secrets escape and the man who does not become
excited through wine and can retain his secrets, possesses the
wisdom of the seventy sages.

R. Hanan said: " Wine was created only to comfort the
mourners and to pay the wicked their reward for any good they
may have done, on this earth, as it is written [Proverbs xxxi.
6] : " Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine
unto those who have an embittered soul." (By " one that is
ready to perish," is meant the wicked and by " those who have
an embittered soul," are meant the mourners.)

R. Hanin bar Papa said: A house where wine does not
flow like water cannot be classed among those that are blessed,
as it is written [Exod. xxiii. 25]: " And he will bless thy bread
and thy water." The bread referred to is that which can be
bought with the proceeds of the second tithes and the water
which cannot be bought with such money really means wine. If,
then, wine is so plentiful in the house, that it flows like water,
the house is counted among the blessed.

R. Ilayi said: By means of three things a man's character

TRACT ERUBIN. 155

may be ascertained : " By his wine-cup, by his purse, and by his
anger, ' ' and others say also by his play (for money).

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh : There was a case,
where an Israelite and a Gentile occupied an inner court and
another Israelite occupied the outer court and it was referred to
Rabbi for decision. He decided that the outer court must not
be used to carry therein. It was then referred to R. Hyya and
he decided likewise.

Rabba and R. Joseph both sat in the presence of R. She-
sheth, when he finished his lecture, and R. Shesheth concluded
by saying, that Rabh decided the above Halakha in accordance
with the opinion of R. Meir. Rabba shook his head. Said R.
Joseph : Is it possible, that two such great men (as R. Shesheth
and Rabba) should be mistaken ? If Rabh's dictum were accord-
ing to R. Meir, why was it necessary to state, that the outer
court was occupied by an Israelite ? (R. Meir holds, that even
one Gentile and one Israelite are sufficient to make it unlawful
to carry in one court.) If we assume, that Rabh merely related
the circumstance as it occurred, without making a decision, is
it not a fact that when Rabh was asked whether, if the Gentile
was at his home, the Israelite may carry from the inner court
to the outer, he answered that he may, hence we see that
the Gentile does not prevent the Israelite occupying the same
court from carrying therein ; but that the two Israelites prevent
each other. Shall we then assume, that Rabh held in accord-
ance with R. Eliezer ben Jacob ? Why should it be prohibited
for the Israelite to carry from one court to the other ? Further
on we shall learn, that, according to R. Aqiba, a foot (mean-
ing a man) which is allowed to carry in its place cannot inter-
fere with the right of another place (and in this case each
Israelite may carry in his own court, for one of them has the
court to himself and the other has but one Gentile in his court,
who, according to R. Eliezer ben Jacob, does not interfere with
his right to carry), why then should it be prohibited for them to
carry between the courts ? It might be then, that Rabh holds
with R. Aqiba, who says, that a foot which is allowed to carry
in its own place nevertheless interferes with the right of another
place, then why should the Gentile be mentioned ? Each Israel-
ite will prevent the other ?

Said R. Huna, the son of R. Jehoshua : It may be assumed
that Rabh agrees either with R. Eliezer ben Jacob or with R.
Aqiba; but in this case the two Israelites combined in an Erub,

156 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

and on account of the interference of the Gentile, he prohibited
both.

Resh Lakish and the disciples of R. Hanina met in an inn
where lived two Israelites and a Gentile, who rented his place
from another Gentile. The tenant was not at home but the
owner was. The question then arose whether the place of the
tenant could be rented from the owner for the Sabbath. Where
the tenant had a perfect lease and could not be dispossessed for
that day, it is entirely out of the question. If, however, the
tenant's lease was conditional, i.e., if the owner could at any
time dispossess him, the question arises whether, because of the
fact, that he had not yet been dispossessed the tenant retains his
right to the place and it cannot be rented, or from the fact, that
it is optional with the owner to dispossess the tenant at any time,
the place may be rented.

Resh Lakish said : In the meantime, let us rent the place,
and afterwards, when we come to our sages in the South, we will
ask their opinion. Subsequently, when they came to R. Ephes
and asked him, he told them that they had done rightly.

R. Hanina bar Joseph, R. Hyya bar Abba, and R. Assi met
at an inn, the proprietor of which was a Gentile and who arrived
on the Sabbath. The question then arose, whether his place
could be rented from him for the Sabbath or not. If renting a
place is equal to making an Erub, then, of course, it would not
be permitted on Sabbath, but if renting a place was merely the
resigning of it by one man to another, then it may be done,
because that is allowed on Sabbath. R. Hanina advised renting
it but R. Assi objected. Said R. Hyya bar Abba to them : Let
us depend upon this elder (meaning R. Hanina) and rent it and
then we will ask R. Johanan. When they asked R. Johanan he
told them, they had done what was right.

The men of Neherdai when hearing of this were surprised,
saying: " Did not R. Johanan say at another time, that ' rent-
ing a place for the Sabbath was equivalent to making an Erub,'
hence, as the Erub must be effected on the preceding day, the
renting must be done likewise." Nay; R. Johanan means to
state that as an Erub may be effected with anything, no matter
how little in value, a place may also be rented for any amount,
be it ever so small ; and as one man may combine an Erub for
five others occupying the same court, so may one rent also for
others.

Samuel said: " There is no such thing as resigning the right

TRACT ERUBIN. 157

of one court to another court, nor resigning the right to the
space of a ruin. (This signifies, that if two courts opened into
an entry or into the street and besides had a door between them,
there is no necessity for them to combine an Erub, and, in con-
sequence, they are not benefited if the right of one court is
resigned to the other.) And as for a ruin, it means, that if there
were two houses opening into a ruin between them, neither can
use the ruin, unless they combine an Erub; but the space
enjoyed by each cannot be resigned by one to the other. R.
Johanan, however, said that both in the case of the court and of
the ruin the right to the space may be resigned by one to the
other.

It was necessary for us to be told of both instances wherein
they differ; for if we had been told, that Samuel only prohib-
ited the resigning of the space by one court to the other, we
might have assumed, that he did so because each court had a
right in itself without combining a joint Erub, but as for a ruin,
he might have held, that as an Erub must be effected by the two
houses on each side, if the use of the ruin is desired, the resign-
ing of the space was permitted. If the difference concerning
the ruin only were related, it might be said, that R. Johanan
permits the resigning of the space of the ruin only; because an
Erub must be effected by the houses desiring its use, whereas
in the case of the court, he agrees with Samuel. Hence both
instances are quoted.

Abayi said: The prohibition of Samuel regarding the resign-
ing of the space by one court to another refers only to two
courts that had a door between them. If, however, one court
was contained within the other and did not have a separate
entrance to the street, they may mutually resign their space,
because they are bound to combine an Erub. Rabha said : In
such a case, they at certain times may do so and at other times
they must not (and this will be explained at the end of this
chapter).

When R. Hisda met R. Shesheth his lips would tremble;
for knowing that R. Shesheth was so well versed in Mishnaoth
and Boraithoth, he was afraid to render a decision lest R. She-
sheth would contradict him with another Mishna or Boraitha.
On the other hand R. Shesheth's whole body would tremble
when he met R. Hisda, for knowing that the latter was very
shrewd, he was afraid of R. Hisda's sagacity.

R. Hisda propounded the following question to R. Shesheth:

158 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

" If there were two houses on each side of a wide street (public
ground) and some Gentiles made a partition around the street on
the Sabbath, what is the law ? According to those who main-
tain, that it is not allowed for one court to resign its space to
another, there is no question ; because if the two courts had
desired to make an Erub on the preceding day they could have
done so and still they are not allowed to resign their spaces to
each other; so much the more in our case, where the two houses
could not have combined an Erub on the preceding day on
account of the intervening public ground which had not yet had
a partition, they are not allowed to resign their space to each
other. I am asking, however, considering the Tana who main-
tains, that the two courts may resign their space to each other.
Shall I assume, that it is permitted in the case of the two courts
because they could have made an Erub on the preceding day, but
in the case of our two houses which could not have made an
Erub on the preceding day, it is not permitted or, as there is a
partition around the intervening public ground, they may do so ? "

R. Shesheth answered: "Nay, it is not permitted." R.
Hisda queried again: " How is it, if two Israelites living in the
same court with a Gentile and not having made an Erub or
rented the place of the Gentile, the latter died on the Sabbath ?
May they mutually resign their space to each other ? According
to the Tana who holds, that one may rent a place on the Sab-
bath, there is no question, because if they did not make an
Erub they may rent the place from the Gentile and then resign
their places to each other ; thus if two things may be done on
the Sabbath, one certainly may be done. I ask thee according
to the Tana who prohibits renting on the Sabbath. May the
two Israelites in this case where the Gentile is dead and they
need not rent his place resign their places to each other or
not ?" Rejoined R. Shesheth: " I say that they may; because
if they had chosen to rent the place yesterday and then effect
an Erub they could have done so, but Hamnuna does not allow
them to do this."

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: " If a Gentile have
in his court a door, four spans wide and four ells high, opening
into a valley, even should he lead cattle, camels, and wagons
through the entry to the court all day long, he does not interfere
with the Israelites inhabiting the court, because his door is of
more use to him than the common entry, and serves to separate
him from the others."

TRACT ERUBIN. 159

The schoolmen asked: " How is the law, if the door of the
Gentile opened into a woodshed ? " R. Na'hman bar Ami said
in the name of some learned men: " Even if the door of the
Gentile open into a woodshed and the common entry into the
street, he also does not interfere with the Israelites inhabiting
the court." Rabba and R. Joseph both say: " If the woodshed
was not more than of two saahs' capacity, the Gentile does
interfere with the Israelites, because he cannot derive as much
comfort from the woodshed as he can from the street, but if the
woodshed was larger than that the Gentile does not interfere.
With Israelites it is the reverse: if the woodshed, into which
the separate door opens, be no more than of two saahs' capacity
and the Israelite had not combined in the Erub with the others,
he does not interfere with them, because a woodshed of that
size may be used by him on the Sabbath ; but if the woodshed
be larger, he does interfere with the other Israelites."

Rabha bar Haklayi asked of R. Huna: " How is the law if a
Gentile have a door opening into a woodshed ?" and R. Huna
answered: " The sages have already decided this. If the wood-
shed be of two saahs' capacity, he interferes with the Israelites,
but if of more than two saahs' capacity he does not."

It happened that some warm water was spilled and more was
needed for a child on the Sabbath. So Rabba said : " Let some
warm water be brought from my house." Said Abayi to him:
' Why! no Erub has been made! " Rejoined Rabba: " Let us
depend upon the combine made in the entry (of this court),"
but Abayi persisted: " We have no part even in the entry."
Finally Rabba said: " Let a Gentile be told to bring it." Sub-
sequently Abayi said: " I had a mind to dispute even this last
order of my master, but R. Joseph would not permit me to do
this; for R. Joseph said in the name of R. Kahana: ' Where a
biblical ordinance is in question the case should be discussed
before the act is committed, but in the matter of rabbinical
ordinances the deed may be accomplished and then the decision
may be asked for.' '

Then R. Joseph asked Abayi: " Upon what grounds dost
thou desire to dispute this last order of the master?" and he
answered : Upon the teaching we have learned in a Boraitha, viz. :
While the sprinkling of an unclean man (with the ashes of
the red heifer) by a clean man is only a rabbinical ordinance,
the Sabbath should not be violated by the performance of this
rite even if it be necessary for the fulfilment of a command-

160 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

ment, and in the same manner requesting a Gentile to per-
form an act on the Sabbath being also against the rabbinical
ordinance, it should not be done on the Sabbath. Rejoined
R. Joseph: " Canst thou discriminate between the performance
of an act which is against the rabbinical ordinance and a case
where no act at all was committed ? The Gentile was not told
by Rabba to warm the water but merely to bring it from his
house through the entry, and this is certainly not prohibited."

Said Rabba bar R. Hanan to Abayi: " How is it possible,
that in a court where two such great men as Rabba and thou
reside, no Erub was made either in the court or in the entry ? "
Answered Abayi: " How can I help it ? The master does not
usually pay attention to such trifles; I am engaged all the week
long in study, while the inmates of the court do not trouble
themselves about it. Should I make up my mind to present
them with the bread in my basket, it would be merely a sham,
for if they were to demand it, I could not in reality part with it
as I cannot spare it ; hence even if I should have this in mind,
it would be useless; for we have learned in a Boraitha, that if
one of the inhabitants of the entry demanded wine or oil and
was refused, the combine is made invalid." Rejoined Rabba
bar R. Hanan: " Then thou couldst have in mind to give them a
quarter of a lug of vinegar from the cask thou hast in the house,
and thou surely wouldst not use up that on the Sabbath."
Abayi replied: " We have learned in another Boraitha, that it
is not allowed to combine an Erub with material which is in bulk
because it might be, that the very part which was intended for
the Erub may be used." " But," insisted Rabba bar R. Hanan,
"' we have learned in another Boraitha that this may be done."
Said R. Oshiya: " Concerning this, there is a difference of opin-
ion between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel." It happened
again that some warm water needed for a child was spilled. Said
Rabha: " Let the mother be asked whether she is in need of
warm water, and, if so, a Gentile may be told to warm it and
bring it to her and it will serve for the child also." R. Me-
sharshia remarked: " The mother has been eating dry dates for
some time (then she certainly does not need any warm water)."
Rejoined Rabba: " She is not quite herself and knows not what
she eats."

Another case of this kind happened with a child. So Rabba
said: Let the belongings of the men be taken from the men's
room into the women's apartment; I shall then resign my place

TRACT ERUBIN. 161

for the benefit of others and the warm water may be brought
from my house.

Said Rabhina to Rabba: " Did not Samuel say, that it is not
allowed to resign the space of one court to another?" and
Rabba answered: " I hold with R. Johanan who permits this to
be done." Rejoined Rabhina: " If thou dost not hold with
Samuel, why then didst thou order the belongings of the men to
be transferred to the women's apartments ? Thou shouldst have
resigned thy place to them and they their place to thee, then all
of you will be enabled to carry, which according to Rabh is also
permissible." Rabba replied: " In this respect I hold with
Samuel in order that it should not appear as a farce if I resign
my place to the others and they their place to me."

The text states, that Rabh permits the mutual resigning of
places and Samuel prohibits it. Said R. Ashi: Rabh and
Samuel differ in the same point as R. Eliezer and the sages (in
Chapter II., last Mishna, where R. Eliezer forbids the inmate of
a court who had forgotten to join in the Erub to carry and per-
mits the other inmates to do so).

' ' R. Gamaliel related : It happened that a Sadducee, ' ' etc.
Whence this reference to a Sadducee ? The Mishna is not com-
plete and should read thus: A Sadducee is considered the
same as a Gentile, and R. Gamaliel said: " He is not considered
as a Gentile," and then relates the incident: " It happened, that
a Sadducee dwelt with us in one alley in Jerusalem, and my
father said to us : ' Make haste and bring out all your vessels
into the alley, before the Sadducee can do this and thus prevent
you from doing so.' ' We have also learned to this effect in a
Boraitha, viz. : " An Israelite who lives in the same court with a
Gentile, a Sadducee, or a Bathusee, is prevented by them (from
carrying therein). R. Gamaliel, however, said this does not
apply to a Sadducee or a Bathusee, and it happened that a Sad-
ducee lived in the same alley with him in Jerusalem, so he said
to his children: " Make haste and carry out all your vessels into
the alley, before that unworthy one can come out and prevent
you from doing so ; for so far he has resigned his place to you
(but later he may change his mind)." So said R. Meir. R.
Jehudah, however, gave another version of the affair, viz. : Make
haste and do what is necessary for you in the alley, before it
becomes dark; for after dark the Sadducee will prevent you
from doing so (meaning that the Sadducee, like a Gentile, can-
not resign his place to the Israelites). Shall we assume then,

VOL. III. — II

162 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

therefrom, that if the Israelites do a thing before the Sadducee
that he cannot prevent them later ? Have we not learned in a
Mishna ? " One who, after resigning his place, carries out inten-
tionally or inadvertently into the court, prevents the others
from doing so. So said R. Meir?" Said R. Joseph: "Say,
that he does not prevent the others." Abayi says: There is no
difficulty. The Mishna by stating that he prevents the others
means to say, if he had previously carried out things (before
the others did so) as we have learned in a Boraitha: If after
resigning his place, a man carried out things into the court,
either intentionally or inadvertently, he prevents the others from
doing so, so said R. Meir. R. Jehudah said " only if he did so
intentionally." All agree, however, that such is only the case,
if the other inmates of the court had not carried out things
before he did, but if they had done so, he does not prevent them
at all, whether he had carried out things intentionally or unin-
tentionally.

The master said: " R. Jehudah, however, gave another ver-
sion of the affair. Then R. Jehudah holds, that the Sadducee
is considered as a Gentile, and in the Mishna we have learned,
that R. Gamaliel said: " Lest the Sadducee bring out his ves-
sels," etc. This presents no difficulty. There are two kinds of
Sadducees. One who publicly violates the Sabbath is consid-
ered as a Gentile, and one who does so secretly, is not considered
as a Gentile. According to whose opinion will the following
Boraitha be: " One who publicly violates the Sabbath, cannot
resign his place ?" According to the opinion of R. Jehudah.

Once a man went out on the Sabbath with a bundle of spices
in his hand, and seeing the approach of R. Jehudah the Third,
he concealed it. Said R. Jehudah the Third : According to R.
Jehudah a man of this kind may resign his place, as we have
learned in another Boraitha : An apostate who does not violate
the Sabbath in the markets may resign his place, but one who
does violate the Sabbath in the markets cannot do so ; for it was
said, that only an Israelite may resign his place or accept ground
resigned to him by another, but from a Gentile the place must
be rented. How may a place be resigned by Israelites ? One
says to the other : My place is sold to thee or my place is resigned
to thee, and no token of acceptance is necessary.

MISHNA: Should one of the householders of a court forget,
and not join in the Erub, neither he nor the other inmates of the
court are allowed to carry anything into or out of his house,

TRACT ERUBIN. 163

but he and they may carry into or out of their houses. If the
other inmates have resigned to him their common right to the
court, he is permitted to carry therein, but they must not do so.
Should there be two persons who have neglected to combine in
an Erub, they mutually prevent each other; for one individual
can resign his right to the court or can acquire that right ; but
two persons, though permitted to jointly resign their right,
cannot jointly acquire the right to the exclusive use of the
court.

From what time is the right to be conferred ? Beth Sham-
mai hold, " While it is yet daylight," but Beth Hillel maintains
' ' even from dusk (on the eve of Sabbath). ' ' Whoever resigns his
right (to the court) and afterwards either intentionally or inad-
vertently carries within it, prevents (renders it unlawful for) the
others from doing so. Such is the dictum of R. Meir. R.
Jehudah, however, said : If he carries (within the court) inten-
tionally, he prevents them, but if inadvertently, he does not.

GEMARA: Is it unlawful only to carry into and out of his
house, but carrying into and out of the court it is lawful ? How
was the case ? If he resigned his right to the house why should
it be unlawful (to carry into) the house; if he did not resign his
right to the house, why should they all have a right to the court ?
In this case, the man had resigned his right to the court alone
but not to his house, and the sages maintain, that by resigning
his right to the court he did not also resign his right to his
house, and there are men who live in houses that have no court.
Why then is it lawful for him to carry in and out of their houses ?
Because he is considered as a guest.

4 ' If the other inmates have resigned to him, ' ' etc. Will they
then be considered as his guests ? One man can be the guest of
five, but five men cannot be considered the guests of one. Can
we adduce from this clause in the Mishna that this resigning of
the right (to a place) can be repeated mutually several times ?
The Mishna may mean to state that the other inmates had
already previously resigned their rights to the one man, in which
case it becomes lawful for him, but not for them.

" Should there be two persons," etc. Is this not self-evident ?
The case is, if after having forgotten to join in the Erub, one of
the two persons resigned his right to his house and also the right
to the part of the court renounced to him by the others. We
might assume that this could be lawfully done. We are there-
fore told that the other inmates having resigned their rights to

164 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

the two persons jointly, one of them individually cannot resign
his right, because he had not an individual right at that time.

' ' For one individual can resign his right, ' ' etc. This was just
stated in the Mishna, what need is there of the repetition ? We
have learned both concerning resigning and acquiring a right ?
The latter part of the clause, which teaches that two persons
may resign their right, but must not acquire it, is essential.
This, however, is also self-evident ? We might assume, that a
precautionary measure is necessary prohibiting two to resign
their right, lest one resign his to two ; therefore we are told, that
such a precaution is not necessary.

" Two persons cannot jointly acquire the right." Why this
repetition again ? Here we are told, that two persons must not
acquire the right even when presented with the ground in ques-
tion outright, so that they have the privilege of transferring it to
others.

Abayi asked of Rabba: " If five men inhabited one court and
one of them had forgotten to join in the Erub, must he resign
his right to each of the others individually or can he do so col-
lectively?" Rabba answered: " He must do so to each indi-
vidually. " Rejoined Abayi: " We have learned, that one who
had not joined in an Erub, may resign his right to another that
had, and two persons who had joined in an Erub may resign their
right to one who had not ; two who had not joined in an Erub
may also resign their right to two others who had not, but one
who had not joined in an Erub must not resign his right to
another in the same condition nor may two who had not joined
in an Erub resign their right to two others, who were similarly
situated. It says, then, that one who had not joined in an
Erub, may resign his right to one who had. The one who had,
certainly must have had another person to combine an Erub with
him, then it seems to be sufficient if he (who had not joined)
resigned his right to the one man only and not to the other
also ? " Rabba replied : " Yea, he certainly had a companion in
the Erub, but it may be the case, that the companion died and
he was left alone. ' '

Rabha asked R. Na'hman: " May an heir (whose father died
on the Sabbath) resign his right or not ? Shall I say, that
because he could not prepare the Erub on the preceding day,
not having his own property, he cannot resign his right on the
Sabbath ; or that he, being a descendant of his father, has also
inherited his father's right?" Answered R. Na'hman: "I

TRACT ERUBIN. 165

hold, that he may, but the disciples of Samuel maintain, that he
must not." Rabha objected: We have learned: This is the
rule : A thing that had been permissible on part of the Sabbath is
permissible for the entire Sabbath, and that which was prohibited
for part of the Sabbath was also prohibited for the entire Sab-
bath. What is meant by " had been permissible on part of the
Sabbath ? " e.g., a door which was used for making the Erub and
had become closed up during the Sabbath, and " by prohibited
for part of the Sabbath " is meant, e.g., two houses, each one of
which stood on the opposite sides of a wide street and a parti-
tion was made by Gentiles on the Sabbath. The exception is as
regards one who resigned his right, i.e., although a man had
forgotten to join in an Erub before the Sabbath, he was not
permitted to carry on part of Sabbath, still he may on the Sab-
bath resign his right to the place and carry. It says, however,
that only the man may carry but not his heir ? Replied R.
Na'hman: " Learn: instead of ' the exception is as regards one
who resigns his right,' the exception is the law pertaining to the
resigning of a right."

Rabha raised another objection: We have learned: "If
one of the householders of a court died and left his right to the
ground to one living in the market, if the death took place while
it was yet day before the Sabbath, the man living in the market
impedes the inmates of the court ; but if the death took place
after dusk, he does not. If a man, however, living in the mar-
ket, was possessed of a house and having died left his right to
his place to one of the inmates of the court, then the reverse is
the case, i.e., if he died before Sabbath set in, the inmate of the
court does not impede the others, (because he could have joined
in an Erub); but if the man died on the Sabbath, he does
impede the others." Now if thou sayest, that the heir may
resign the right, let him do so, why should he impede the
others ? Answered R. Na'hman : ' ' This means, that he impedes
the others only until he resigns his right."

R. Johanan said : The above Boraitha is according to Beth
Shammai, who hold, that it is not allowed to resign a right on
Sabbath as we have learned in our Mishna: From what time may
the right be resigned ? Beth Shammai hold " while it is yet
daylight," and Beth Hillel maintain: " From dusk."

Said Ula: Why do Beth Hillel hold, that it may be done
on Sabbath ? The reason of Beth Hillel is based upon an in-
stance where a man was about to separate heave-offerings for

i66 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

another without being told to do so. In the meantime this
other man came along and saw that the heave-offerings were
being separated for him, whereupon he said to the man : ' ' Sep-
arate it from the finer grain." In that case the heave-offering is
valid. Why ? Because by the statement " separate it from the
finer grain " he demonstrated his approval of the man's action
and his intention to have done this at all events. The same is
the case with a man who resigns his right on the Sabbath ; for
he demonstrates that his intention had been to join in the Erub
on the preceding day, but he had forgotten.

Said Abayi to him : If this be the reason of Beth Hillel,
what about the case of a Gentile who lived in the same court
with two Israelites and happened to die on the Sabbath ? The
Israelites are permitted in that event to resign their rights to
each other, but can it be said that their intention dated from the
preceding day ? Hence the reason of Beth Hillel is simply this:
While Beth Shammai prohibit the resigning of the right to a
place because they hold, that it is equal to selling the place and
selling or buying is prohibited on the Sabbath, Beth Hillel how-
ever hold, that resigning the right to a place is simply abandon-
ing the place, and that is permissible on the Sabbath.

MISHNA: Should a householder be in partnership in wine
with two of his neighbors (residing in the same alley), they do
not require an Erub ; if he be in partnership with one in wine
and with another in oil, they do require an Erub. R. Simeon
said: Neither in one case nor in the other do they require an
Erub.

GEMARA: Said Rabh: " Such is the case if the wine was
contained in one vessel." And Rabha said: "This may be
inferred from the Mishna itself; for the latter clause of the
Mishna states, that if the householder be in partnership with
one in wine and with another in oil, they require an Erub. It
would therefore be correct if in the first clause the wine is con-
tained in one vessel and in the second clause there are two sep-
arate vessels; but were there two vessels in the first clause also,
what difference would it make whether one vessel was filled with
oil and the other with wine, or both with wine ?" Rejoined
Abayi : This is no argument. Wine can be mixed with wine
(hence, even if it be in two vessels it can be mixed and an Erub
made with it is valid), but oil and wine cannot be mixed, and
even though there are two separate vessels the Erub cannot be
made therewith.

TRACT ERUBIN. 167

R. Simeon said: " Neither in one case nor in the other do they
require an Erub" Is it possible that R. Simeon holds, that
even where one vessel contains wine and the other oil, no further
Erub is necessary ? Said Rabba: " The case referred to applies
to a court between two entries (alleys) and R. Simeon holds to
his theory, as we have learned in the case of the three courts
opening into each other and also into the street, that communi-
cation between the middle court and the two outer or between
the two outer ones and the middle one is permissible ; thus in this
case R. Simeon means to imply, that the court made an Erub
with one of the entries by means of wine and with the other by
means of oil, hence no additional Erub is necessary, and com-
munication between the court and both entries is permissible."

Abayi objected: " How canst thou compare the two
instances ? In the case of the three courts communication
between the two outer is prohibited, whereas here it is said
that no additional Erub whatever is necessary?" Learn also
here, that no additional Erub is necessary to allow of communi-
cation between the court and the entries, but if the inmates of
either of the entries desire to carry in the other they must make
an additional Erub.

R. Joseph, however, said: " R. Simeon and the sages differ
in the same point as R. Johanan ben Nouri and the sages in
another Mishna as follows : ' If oil floated on wine and a man
who had bathed before sunset (and hence was not yet ritually
clean) touched the oil, the sages hold, that the oil becomes
unclean, but the wine is not affected. R. Johanan ben Nouri,
however, maintains, that the wine and the oil are attached to
each other and therefore both become unclean. ' " In our Mishna,
the sages hold with the sages of the Mishna quoted, and R.
Simeon holds with R. Johanan ben Nouri.

We have learned in a Boraitha : R. Elazar ben Tadai said :
" In either case they require an additional Erub." Even if
both vessels contain wine an additional Erub is necessary ?
Answered Rabba: The case is thus: If two men each bring a
jug of wine and pour the wine together, there is no question but
what that constitutes a legal Erub, but in this instance R. Elazar
ben Tadai means to state that if two men bought a cask of wine
jointly and had not yet separated their shares, the Erub is not
valid because it cannot be made with anything owned in part-
nership, and he holds thus for the reason that he does not
accept the theory of premeditated choice. The sages, however,

168 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

permit this mode of procedure, because they accept the theory
of premeditated choice.

R. Joseph said: " R. Elazar ben Tadai and the sages differ
on another point, namely : The question whether the inmates of
the court can depend upon the combine made in the entries."
All agree that carrying in the entries is permissible if the Erub
has been made there, but R. Elazar ben Tadai holds, that this
is not permitted in the court because the combine made in the
entries cannot be depended upon, while the sages hold that it
may be depended upon.

R. Joseph continued: " Whence do I know, that this is the
point of difference ? From the statement of R. Jehudah in the
name of Rabh, to the effect that the Halakha prevails accord-
ing to R. Meir, and the subsequent statement of R. Brona in the
name of Rabh, that the Halakha prevails according to R.
Elazar ben Tadai. Therefore, we must assume, that R. Meir
and R. Elazar have one and the same reason." Said Abayi:
" This may be so; but why did Rabh say at one time that the
Halakha prevails according to R. Meir and at another time
according to R. Elazar ben Tadai ? Would it not be sufficient
to state, that the Halakha prevails according to one of the two ? "
(And R. Joseph answered:) " Rabh desires to inform us that
wherever the laws of Erub are concerned and two Tanaim
differ as to the details, but agree as to the main issue of the
Halakha, and we say that the Halakha prevails according to both,
we need not abide by the more rigorous decisions of each but,
on the contrary, should accept the more lenient decrees of both."

Which R. Meir is referred to by Rabh ? The one figuring
in the following Boraitha: In courts an Erub must be made
with bread, but it is not allowed to do so with wine. In the
entries a combine must be effected with wine, but if the inmates
desired to do so with bread, it is permissible. An Erub must
be made in the courts and a combine in the entries in order that
the growing children should not forget the laws of Erub and
say, ' ' Our parents did not make an Erub. ' ' Such is the decree of
R. Meir; the sages, however, say: Either an Erub or a com-
bine must be effected (i.e., if one was omitted the other can be
depended upon).*

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: " The Halakha pre-

* The explanation to this Boraitha, as given by Rashi, will be embodied in the
text throughout this Tract.

TRACT ERUBIN. 169

vails according to R. Meir." R. Huna said: "The custom
prevails according to R. Meir," and R. Johanan said: "The
masses only act in accordance with the dictum of R. Meir." *

MISHNA: Should five different companies take their Sab-
bath-rest in one hall (triclinium), Beth Shammai hold, that each
company requires a separate Erub, but Beth Hillel hold, that
one Erub suffices for all of them. The latter school admit, how-
ever, that if any of these companies occupy distinct chambers
or attics, each company requires a separate Erub.

GEMARA: Said R. Na'hman : " The two schools differ only
as regards a low centre-partition, but if there was a partition ten
spans high between each of the companies, all agree that each
company requires a separate Erub." According to another
version, R. Na'hman is supposed to have said: " They differ not
only as regards a low centre-partition, but also concerning parti-
tions between each company."

R. Jehudah the Sagacious said : The schools of Shammai
and Hillel do not differ where partitions that reach to the ceiling
of the hall are concerned, they agree that in that event each
company requires a separate Erub. Wherein they do differ,
however, is if the partitions do not reach the ceiling. Said R.
Na'hman in the name of Rabh: The Halakha prevails according
to R. Jehudah the Sagacious.

R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said : We can infer this from the
Mishna itself. The latter clause of the Mishna states, that Beth
Hillel also agree with Beth Shammai if the companies each dwell
in distinct chambers or attics. What is meant by distinct cham-
bers and attics ? Shall we say, that they are really chambers and
attics ? Then it would be self-evident. We must say, then,
that they are similar to chambers and attics, i.e., that the refer-
ence is to partitions which reach to the ceiling. Hence the deduc-
tion that the decree of R. Jehudah the Sagacious is correct.

We have learned in a Boraitha: The difference of opinion
between the two schools centres in the question whether the
companies deposited their Erubin elsewhere. But if the Erub
is deposited in the hall occupied by them, all agree that one
Erub is sufficient for all. According to whose opinion will be the
statement of the following Boraitha, that if five men combined
an Erub, one Erub is sufficient for all of them ? This is in
accordance with the opinion of Beth Hillel.

* See pages 146 and 147.

lyo THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

MISHNA: Brothers (or associates) who take their meals at
their father's (or at one) table, but sleep each in his separate
house (in the same court), must each one prepare a separate Erub.
Therefore if one of them had forgotten and not prepared an
Erub, he must resign his right (to the common court). When
is this the case ? When the Erub had been deposited in some
other place ; but if the Erub has been placed with them, or if
there are no other inhabitants in the court, they need not pre-
pare any Erub whatsoever."

GEMARA: From this Mishna it maybe adduced, that an
Erub should be made in the place where a man sleeps and not
where he takes his meals (and further, we will observe, that
Rabh holds, that an Erub must be made where the man takes
his meals). Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh : The Mishna
means to say, that the brothers did not actually eat at their
father's table but merely received from their father the means
with which to obtain their meals.

The Rabbis taught : One who had a vestibule, a gallery, or
a balcony in the court of another, and did not join in an Erub
with the other inmates of the court does not impede the other
inmates. If he had a hay-loft, a cattle-pen, a woodshed, or a
granary in the court of another and did not join in an Erub, he
does impede the others. R. Jehudah, however, said: " Nothing
except a dwelling-house can prove an interference," and he con-
tinued: " It happened that an inhabitant of Naph'ha,* who had
five courts in Usha, did not join in an Erub with the inmates of
those courts and the question was laid before the sages whether
this was an impediment to their carrying within the courts and
the sages replied : ' Nothing but an actual dwelling-house can
prove an impediment.' '

What is meant by a dwelling-house ? A house occupied as
a dwelling. What is to be understood by "occupied as a dwell-
ing " ? Rabh said : " The house where a man takes his meals,"
and Samuel said: " The house wherein a man sleeps."

An objection was made : The shepherds, those that guard the
fig-trees, the inhabitants of huts in the country and the guards
of the fields, when passing the night in a town have the same
rights as the townsmen, but when passing the night at their
posts, they have only the right to two thousand ells from the
place where they are situated. (From this we can see, that the
place where one passes the night is considered as his abode ?)
* In the Tosephta this narrative is told of the son of a prince.

TRACT ERUBIN. 17!

This is no proof ! For we can testify, that those men would be
much better satisfied if their meals were brought to them at
their posts (hence their posts are not only their places of abode
but also their eating-places, and as for those Avho pass the night
in the town, they evidently also take their meals in the town for
the time being).

The Rabbis taught : Concerning five women who receive
from their husbands the means for securing their food and five
slaves who receive the means from their masters to procure their
sustenance and who live in separate houses in the court, R.
Jehudah ben Bathyra permits the women to carry within the
court and prohibits the slaves to do so; but R. Jehudah ben
Babba on the contrary allows the slaves to carry but prohibits
the women to do so.

Said Rabh: " What reason has R. Jehudah ben Babba for
his decree ? Because it is written [Daniel ii. 49] : ' Daniel
remained in the gate of the king,' the inference is, that in the
same manner as Daniel did not always remain in the gate of
the king, but his office being such that his place was there, so it
is also with slaves who, while in the service of their master, are
considered as being always at their master's side." It is self-
evident that if a son eat and dwell with his father, he need not
make an Erub as stated previously. As for a woman who has a
husband and a slave who belongs to a master there is a differ-
ence of opinion between R. Jehudah ben Bathyra and R.
Jehudah ben Babba. How about a disciple, however, who
dwells in trie same court with his master and derives his suste-
nance from his master ?

Come and hear: When Rabh still dwelt with R. Hyya he
said: " We need not join in an Erub because we depend upon
the table of R. Hyya," and when R. Hyya still dwelt with
Rabbi he also said: " We need not make an Erub because we
derive our sustenance from Rabbi."

R. Hyya bar Abhin asked of R. Shesheth: " What about
the disciples of the college, who eat in the inns of the valley
and pass the night at the college ? When the legal limit of two
thousand ells is measured where must the starting point be ?
The college or the inn where they take their meals ? " R. She-
sheth answered: " The college."

Rami bar Kama asked of R. Hisda: If a father and son,
or a master and his disciple, lived in two courts, one inside of
the other, and the outer court opened into an entry, what is

i72 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

the law concerning them ? Are they to be considered as if they
were two distinct individuals who cannot mutually impede each
other because each one of them has a right to carry in his own
court and a man who is permitted to do so in his own court can-
not interfere with a man in another place; hence both father
and son, or master and disciple, may carry each in their respective
courts ; or, shall we consider them collectively because the son or
the disciple who lives in a separate court but eats at his father's
table has a certain right to his father's court. Thus the father
or the master is not in sole possession, but shares it with
another. The consequence is that the father or the master is in
duty bound to make an Erub in his own court and, on account
of this, he becomes one who can interfere with the right of
another, and prevents his son from carrying in his own (the
son's) court ? Then again if they are considered as distinct
individuals, are they in duty bound to combine an Erub covering
the two courts ? Finally if the two courts had separate open-
ings into the entry, are they considered as separate courts and
thus the entry becomes valid by the addition thereto of a cross
and side beam, or they are considered as one court, and if one
court only opens into an entry, the entry cannot be made valid
by the addition of a cross and side beam ?

Answered R. Hisda: We have learned this in a Boraitha: A
father and his son or a teacher and his disciple, providing there
are no other inmates in the court occupied by them, are consid-
ered as individuals, and need not make an Erub at any place.
Nevertheless the entry into which their court opens becomes
valid by the addition thereto of a cross or side beam.

MISHNA: If (the householders dwelling in) five courts that
open into each other and also open into one common alley
(entry) have joined in an Erub for the courts, but have not
combined the alley, they are permitted to carry (things) in the
courts, but must not do so in the alley; if they did combine the
alley, however, they are permitted to carry both in the courts
and in the alley. If they had combined both the courts and
the alley, but one of the householders forgot and did not join in
the Erub, they are nevertheless permitted to carry both in the
courts and in the alley. Should one of the householders (dwell-
ing) in the alley have forgotten to join in the Erub, it is per-
mitted to carry (things) in the court but not in the alley, inas-
much as the alley (bears the same relation) to the courts as the
court (does) to the houses within it.

TRACT ERUBIN. 173

GEMARA: According to whose opinion is our Mishna ?
We must say that it is in accordance with R. Meir, who holds
that an Erub is needed in the court, and a combination in the
alley. How, then, could that part of the Mishna be explained,
which states that if a combination in the alley is made it is
allowed to carry both (in the courts and in the alley) ; and this is
certainly according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that
one of the two is sufficient (i.e., either an Erub in the courts or
a combination in the alley) ? Are then the two parts of the
Mishna based on different opinions ? This presents no difficulty.
The latter part of the Mishna refers to a case where a combina-
tion had already been made in the alley ; hence it is according
to R. Meir's opinion. Now, then, what is the reason of R.
Meir in stating that if one of the householders in the court for-
got and did not join in the Erub, it is nevertheless permitted to
carry both in the courts and in the alley ? R. Meir may hold as
follows: The most essential feature of this case is to make an
Erub in the courts and a combine should also be made in the
alley for the benefit of the growing children in order that they
may not forget the laws of Erubin. Hence if the combination
has been made both in the courts and in the alley, in which the
majority participated, there is no fear of the children forgetting
the laws.

R. Jehudah said: " Rabh does not learn in the Mishna that
the five courts opened into each other but merely that they all
opened into one common alley." This was corroborated by R.
Kahana. What reason did Rabh have to learn thus ? He holds,
that if several courts open into one common alley, a cross and
side beam suffice to make that alley valid. If, however, only
one court open into the alley, a cross and side beam do not
suffice. Samuel, however, said: " Even if only one court or
one house open into an alley, a cross and side beam suffice for
the alley." R. Johanan said: Even if a ruin open into an alley,
a cross and side beam suffice.

Abayi asked of R. Joseph: " Does R. Johanan hold, that
even if the path leading to a vineyard open into an alley, a cross
and side beam suffice for the alley ? " R. Joseph replied: " Nay;
R. Johanan meant to say a ruin which (in an emergency) could
be inhabited ; but a path which could not under any circum-
stances be inhabited, is out of the question."

Said R. Huna bar Hinana: R. Johanan's statement con-
cerning a ruin is but in accordance with his theory expressed in

174 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

his decision regarding the Mishna (Chapter IX., Mishna i, of
this tract) where R. Simeon says that " roofs as well as courts
and woodsheds constitute the same kind of premises for the car-
rying of all utensils contained therein when the Sabbath-rest
began," etc. This was commented by Rabh as follows: " The
Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon provided no Erub was-
combined by the inmates of each separate court," meaning
thereby that if no Erub was combined, the inmates will not carry-
out any vessels from their houses into the court. Samuel and
R. Johanan, however, declare that the Halakha prevails accord-
ing to R. Simeon, even if an Erub was combined, as there is
no apprehension that the inmates will carry out any vessels
from their houses into the court, and as in this case there is no>
apprehension that the vessels will be carried out of the houses,
so also in the case of a ruin, R. Johanan holds, that there is no-
fear of the inmates carrying vessels from the court into the ruin
by way of the alley.

R. Brona sate and repeated the Halakha decreed by Samuel
(to the effect that even if one court or one house opened into
an alley, a cross and side beam was sufficient for the alley). Said
R. Eliezer, one of the schoolmen, to R. Brona: " Did Samuel
indeed say this ?" and R. Brona answered: " Yea." R. Eliezer
then asked to be shown where Samuel resided, and R. Brona
showed him. R. Eliezer then came before Samuel and said:
"Did master decree thus?" and the answer was: "Yea.'*
Rejoined the schoolman: " Didst thou not state previously that
where the laws of Erubin are concerned, we must hold strictly
to the literal text of the Mishna and the Mishna distinctly
teaches: ' The alley bears the same relation to the courts as the
court (does) to the houses within it.' ' Samuel remained silent.

Does the silence of Samuel signify, that he accepted R.
Eliezer's view or that he did not care to reply ? Come and hear:
A certain Aibuth bar Ihi dwelt in an alley and erected a side-
beam therein. Samuel told him that this complied with the
legal requirements. After the death of Samuel, R. Anan came
and destroyed the side-beam. Said Aibuth: " In an alley where
I live by the direct permission of our master Samuel, a mere
disciple like R. Anan dares to come and destroy my side-beam."
Hence we see, that Samuel did not accept the opinion of R.
Eliezer! This is not conclusive evidence ! The case of the alley
could be explained as follows: The sexton of the synagogue
took his meals with this Aibuth bar Ihi, but lodged in the syna-

TRACT ERUBIN. 175

gogue. Aibuth was of the opinion that the residence is deter-
mined by the place where he takes his meals, hence the sexton
and he were the occupants of one house ; (and Samuel declared
his alley to be valid in conformity with his original decision, that
if one court or one house opened into an alley a cross and side
beam is sufficient for the alley) but Samuel, who held that the
residence of a man is determined by his lodging-place, may have
accepted the opinion of R. Eliezer, and taking into consideration
that there were two dwellings in the alley, that of Aibuth and
that of the sexton, he made the alley valid by the addition of a
side-beam.

MISHNA: If two courts be one within the other, should
the inmates of the inner court prepare an Erub and those of the
outer court fail to do so, the inmates of the inner court may
carry within it, but those of the outer court must not carry
within their (own) court. If the inmates of the outer court pre-
pare an Erub, but those of the inner court fail to do so, neither
are allowed to carry within their respective courts. If each have
prepared a separate Erub, they are permitted to carry within
their own limits. R. Aqiba holds, however, that the inmates of
the outer court are prohibited to carry within it and that the
right of thoroughfare possessed by the inner court renders the
outer court prohibited; but the sages hold, that the right of
thoroughfare does not render it so.

Should one of the inmates of the outer court forget to join
in the Erub, it is permitted to carry within the inner court, but
carrying within the outer court is prohibited. If one of the
inmates of the inner court forget to join in the Erub, carrying
in either court is prohibited. If the inmates of both courts
deposit their Erub in one place, and one of the inmates of either
the outer or inner court forgot and did not join in the Erub, car-
rying in either court is also prohibited. Should each court be
the property of an individual (or inhabited by only one house-
hold), neither require an Erub.

GEMARA: When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in
the name of R. Janai: The latter clause of the Mishna stating,
that if one of the inner court forget to join in the Erub, carry-
ing in either court is prohibited, is merely a continuation of the
dictum of R. Aqiba, who holds, that a foot (i.e., a man) which is
allowed to carry in its own place nevertheless interferes with the
right of another place. The sages, however, hold, that as a
foot which is allowed to carry in its own place does not interfere

176 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

with the right of another place, so also a foot which is not
allowed to carry within its own place does not interfere with the
right of another place and thus the inmates of both courts may
carry within their own limits.

An objection was made based upon a previous clause in the
Mishna, which states that if the inmates of the outer court pre-
pare an Erub, but tnose of the inner court fail to do so, neither
are allowed to carry within their respective courts, and this is
certainly not in accordance with the opinion of R. Aqiba, because
even had the inmates of the inner court made an Erub he would
still prohibit the outer court to carry within their own court.
(Hence we must assume, that this is in accordance with the
opinion of the sages, who hold that a foot which is allowed to
carry within its own place does not interfere with the right of
another place, but one which is not allowed does interfere.)
Therefore we must rather accept the statement of Rabhin in
the name of R. Janai: There are three different opinions con-
cerning this subject, viz. : The first Tana of our Mishna holds
that a foot which is allowed to carry within its own place does
not interfere with the right of another place, but a foot which is
prohibited does interfere with the right of another place. R.
Aqiba holds that even a foot which is allowed, also interferes
with the right of another place ; but the last sages of our Mishna
maintain, that as a foot which is allowed does not interfere with
the right of another place, so also a foot which is prohibited
does also not interfere.

" If the inmates of both courts deposit their Erubin in one
place," etc. What is meant by "one place " ? Said R. Jehudah
in the name of Rabh: This refers to the outer court and is called
" one place," because it is designated for the use of both courts
(as the inmates of the inner court must pass through the outer).

We have also learned in a Boraitha (in support to R. Jehu-
dah): " If the Erub was placed in the outer court, but one of
the inmates either of the outer or inner court forgot to join in
the Erub, carrying in either of the courts is prohibited. If the
Erub was deposited in the inner court, but one of the inmates of
that court forgot to join in the Erub, carrying in either court is
also prohibited. If one of the inmates of the outer court forgot
to join in the Erub, carrying in either court is prohibited. Such
is the dictum of R. Aqiba ; the sages, however, maintain that in
the last instance carrying is permitted within the inner court,
but prohibited within the outer court. "

TRACT ERUBIN. 177

Rabba bar Hanan asked Abayi: " Why do the sages permit
carrying within the inner court, because they can close their
door and say all the inmates of our court have joined in the
Erub ? Why should R. Aqiba not take the same view, let him
also say, that they can close their door and assert their right
to carry within their own court?" Abayi answered: "The
Erub deposited in the outer court accustoms the inmates of the
inner court to make use of the outer." Said Rabba bar Hanan
again: " And the sages, do they not hold that the Erub of the
outer court accustoms the inmates of the inner court to walk in
the outer?" The sages may maintain, that the inmates who
have deposited their Erub can say to the one who forgot to join:
We have included thee in our combination for thy convenience,
but not to our detriment. Why can they not do this according
to R. Aqiba also ? According to R. Aqiba, the inmates who
have joined in the Erub may say to the one who had forgotten :
' We will resign our right to the place in thy favor." Why can
this not be said according to the sages ? Because the sages do
not admit of the resigning of one's right to a place in one court
in favor of one who resides in another court.

" Should each court be the property of an individual" etc.
Said R. Joseph: " Rabbi taught, that if there was a third court
between the two also belonging to an individual, it is not per-
mitted to carry in either of the three." Said R. Bibhi (to the
schoolmen): " Do not listen to R. Joseph! Rabbi did not teach
this ; for I myself said it in the name of R. Ada bar Ahabha and
gave as a reason that the outer court will be traversed by (the
inmates of) three (courts) ; therefore I also prohibited carrying
within the middle court, lest a mistake be made and things be
carried in the outer court also." R. Joseph then exclaimed:
" Lord of Abraham ! I confounded the word ' Rabbim ' (many)
with Rabbi ; for before I was ill I heard from R. Bibhi that
the outer court will become a court for many (three) and when
recovered from my illness I quoted the Boraitha in the name
of Rabbi." Samuel, however, said: "It is always allowed to
carry within courts for many (even if there be four or five) pro-
vided there is only one household in each court, but if there be
two in one court it is not permitted."

Said R. Elazar: According to Samuel, if a Gentile live in
one of the courts he is considered as many others and he
impedes the outer courts.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: " If there were ten

VOL. III. — 12

178 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

houses one within the other and the house on the outside opened
into the court it is not necessary for the inmate of each house to
combine in an Erub with the other inmates of the court, but it
is sufficient if the inmate of the innermost house, who must
pass through all the others, do so," but R. Johanan says that
each inmate must combine; even the one living in the house
opening directly into the street. Even the one living in the
uttermost court ? Is not the uttermost court to be regarded as
a vestibule ? By uttermost he means to say the one next to the
uttermost.

Upon which point do Samuel and R. Johanan differ ? Their
point of difference is regarding the definition of a vestibule.
Samuel holds, that all the houses leading to the innermost are
considered as vestibules hence they require no Erub, while R.
Johanan maintains that only the uttermost house, through which
all the other inmates must pass, can be considered a vestibule,
but even the one next to the uttermost through which the eight
other inmates must pass is also not a vestibule.

R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba bar Abahu quoting
Rabh said : There were two courts between which stood three
houses opening into each other and the two houses on each side
of the middle house opened into their respective courts. If the
inmates of the courts desired to place their Erub in the middle
house, they used the houses opening into the courts as thorough-
fares to the middle house. Thus the house at one court becomes
as a vestibule to the inmates of that court and the house at the
other court becomes a vestibule to the inmates of the other
court, while the house in the centre being used to deposit the
Erub therein, it need not be combined in the Erub itself. Con-
sequently none of the three need combine in the Erub of the
courts.

CHAPTER VII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE PREPARATION OF ERUBIN FOR COURTS
SEPARATED BY APERTURES, WALLS, DITCHES, AND STRAW-RICKS.
COMBINATION OF ERUBIN IN ALLEYS.

MISHNA: If there be an aperture, four spans square, and
less than ten spans high (from the ground), between two courts,
the inmates of each court may prepare two separate Erubin ; or
if they prefer it, may combine in one Erub. If the aperture be
less than four spans square or over ten spans from the ground,
they are each obliged to prepare a separate Erub, and must not
combine in one.

GEMARA: Shall we say that this anonymous Mishna is in
accordance with R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, who holds that the
law of ' ' lavud ' ' (attached) applies for a distance of less than
four spans and not for a distance of less than three spans as
maintained by the sages? Nay; this Mishna maybe even in
accordance with the opinion of the sages, for the question of
" lavud " does not arise here. It is merely a case of an aper-
ture which is less than four spans square, hence it is not consid-
ered a door and this is admitted by the sages also, who hold,
that if an aperture is four spans square or more, it is considered
a door, but if less than four spans square it is not.

4 ' If the aperture be less than four spans square, ' ' etc. Why
this repetition ? Is this not self-evident ? The first clause of
the Mishna states, that if there be an aperture four spans square
and less than ten spans high from the ground, the inmates of the
courts may either prepare separate Erubin or combine in one.
Hence if the aperture be less than four spans square and more
than ten spans high, it is obvious that they cannot have their
choice ? The Mishna means to teach us,- that if the aperture
was partly less than ten spans high from the ground and partly
more than ten spans high the inmates of the court still have
their choice of either making separate Erubin or combining in
one, and only if the entire aperture was over ten spans high

179

i8o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

from the ground, they are obliged to make each a separate
Erub.

This explanation of the Mishna has reference to the follow-
ing teaching of the Rabbis, viz.: If the entire aperture, with
the exception of a small part, was higher than ten spans from the
ground {e.g., if the aperture was twelve spans square and was
eight spans high from the ground, thus two spans of the aper-
ture were within ten spans from the ground and ten spans were
over ten spans from the ground), or if the entire aperture with
the exception of a small part was less than ten spans from the
ground (e.g., if it was twelve spans square and only two spans
were over ten spans from the ground), the inmates of the courts
may either each make a separate Erub or combine in one. If
the entire aperture with the exception of a small part was higher
than ten spans from the ground the inmates have their choice;
why is it necessary to state, that if the entire aperture with the
exception of a small part was within ten spans from the ground,
the inmates have their choice, is this not self-evident ? After
having stated the law in the former case, it applies the more to
the latter.

R. Na'hman said: " The case of where the aperture is less
than four spans square or over ten spans from the ground, applies
only to courts, but as for houses, the aperture may be at any
distance from the ground, even over ten spans, and, nevertheless,
the inmates are permitted to join in an Erub." Why so ?
Because a house is considered solid, and every portion is regarded
as occupied.

R. Abba asked of R. Na'hman: "If in the attic of a house
there was a hole for the purpose of fastening a ladder therein,
may the inmate of the attic join in the Erub regardless of
whether there was a ladder fastened in the hole of the attic or
not, i.e., should the house be considered solid and occupied and
no ladder is necessary, or is the house only considered solid as
far as the walls are concerned but not the interior, and a ladder
is essential ?" and he answered: " A ladder is not necessary."
R. Abba understood R. Na'hman to say, that a permanent
ladder was not necessary, but for the time that the Erub was to
be combined it was necessary. It was taught, however, by R.
Joseph bar Minyumi in the name of R. Na'hman that neither a
permanent nor a temporary ladder was necessary.

MISHNA: If there be a wall ten spans high and four spans
wide between two courts, the inmates of each must prepare sep-

TRACT ERUBIN. 181

arate Erubin and must not join in one. If fruit happen to lie
on the wall, they may ascend from their respective sides and
partake thereof, provided they do not bring any of it down
with them. Should there be a breach in the wall, not wider
than ten ells, they may prepare separate Erubin or if they
prefer it join in one, because the breach is considered as a
door. Should the breach, however, be wider than ten ells they
must both join in one Erub but must not prepare two separate
Erubin.

GEMARA: How is it, if the wall did not measure four
spans in width ? Said Rabh: " In that case, the atmosphere of
two separate premises predominates at the wall and one must not
handle anything even the size of a hair lying on the wall." R.
Johanan, however, says to the contrary: " In that case the
inmates of both courts may lay down fruit on the wall (or even
take it down from the wall because it is regarded as ground
under no jurisdiction)." R. Johanan will therefore explain the
Mishna thus: " If the wall was four spans wide it is permitted
to ascend on either side and partake of fruit lying on the wall,
but it is not permitted to bring up any. If, however, the wall
was less than four spans wide, one may carry fruit up on the
wall and eat it there." This statement of R. Johanan is but in
accordance with his own theory, as related by R. Dimi upon his
arrival from Palestine in the name of R. Johanan, viz.: "An
object less than four spans square, standing between public and
private ground, may be used by both the occupants of the public
and private ground as an aid on which to shoulder a burden on
the Sabbath, but they should be careful not to confound the
burdens placed on the object so that a burden placed by an
occupant of public ground be taken up by an occupant of pri-
vate ground and vice versa."

Can Rabh dispute this assertion of R. Dimi ? Is it not iden-
tical with the Boraitha concerning a man standing on the door-
step and passing things to a mendicant in the street or to the
master of a house (see Tract Sabbath, p. 8) ? Rabh does not
dispute the Boraitha in that instance, because it concerns a bib-
lical law, but in this case where rabbinical law is dealt with, the
Rabbis assume the privilege of reenforcing ordinances so as to
preclude the possibility of transgression.

Rabba bar R. Huna in the name of R. Na'hman said: If
between two courts there was a wall, which was ten spans high
from the ground of one court, but on a level with the ground of

182 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

the other,* the wall is ceded to the latter court and considered
part of its ground, but to the former court it is an ordinary wall
ten spans high. Why so ? Because the use of the wall is more
convenient for the latter than for the former, and where an
object is more convenient for one than for another it is generally
ceded to the former.

Said R. Shezbi: " R. Na'hman rendered the same decision
concerning a ditch that was situated between two courts and
was on a level with the ground on one side."

If a man comes to diminish the size of the wall referred to
in the Mishna (either by heaping up earth at the bottom or by
erecting posts or benches at its side ; such was the original defi-
nition of the manner by which the size of the wall was dimin-
ished) and this was done to the extent of four spans, or more,
he may make use of the entire wall, but if less than four spans
he can use only as much of the wall as has been diminished.
What do you mean to say ? In either case there is an objection.
If by diminishing the wall to the extent of less than four spans
the wall is actually diminished, why should it not be allowed to
use the entire wall, and if this does not constitute a diminution
at all, why should it be allowed to use that part (where the earth
was heaped up or the posts erected to the extent of less than
four spans) ?

Said Rabhina: In this case the Mishna does not mean to say,
that the wall was diminished by heaping up earth or erecting
posts but simply that a part of the wall was removed at the top.
If the breach made in this manner exceeded four spans it is
considered as a door, and the entire wall may be used, and if it
was not quite four spans the entire wall must not be used, but
that part of the wall containing the breach may, because its
height is lessened.

R. Yechiel said: " If a basin was set down (bottom side up)
at the bottom of the wall, the wall is diminished thereby."
How can a basin serve to diminish the wall ? A basin may be
handled on the Sabbath, and is it not a fact that any vessel which
may be handled on Sabbath cannot serve to diminish a wall
because it can be removed ? R. Yechiel means to say, if the
basin was fastened to the ground. And if it is fastened to the

* Rashi explains the term " on a level with the ground " to signify, that it was
less than ten spans higher than the ground, in which case it is considered as level
with the ground

TRACT ERUBIN. 183

ground may it not be removed nevertheless ? By the statement
" it was fastened to the ground," is meant if it was fastened so
that a hoe or a pick-axe was required to remove it.

An Egyptian ladder does not diminish a wall but a ladder of
Tyre does. What is meant by an Egyptian ladder ? One that
has not four rungs. So said the school of R. Janai.

Said R. A'ha the son of Rabha to R. Ashi: " Dost thou
know why an Egyptian ladder does not diminish a wall?" and
R. Ashi answered: " Didst thou not hear the statement of R.
A'ha bar Ada in the name of R. Hamnuna, quoting Rabh, to
the effect that it was an article which may be handled on the
Sabbath and any article which may be handled on the Sabbath
cannot serve to diminish a wall?" If such be the case, why
can a ladder of Tyre serve to diminish a wall, may it not also be
handled on Sabbath ? A ladder of Tyre can serve because it is
so heavy that it would require the efforts of several men to
remove it.

Abayi said : If a wall ten spans high was between two courts
and a ladder four spans wide was placed at each side of the wall:
if the ladders were placed so that they are three spans apart,
i.e., the ladder placed on the other side was three spans further
up or down alongside of the ,wall than the other ladder, the wall
is not diminished ; but if they are not three spans apart the wall
is diminished. If the wall, however, was four spans deep so
that a man can walk on it, it makes no difference how far apart
the ladders are.

R. Bibhi bar Abayi said: " If one erected two benches one
above the other at the foot of a wall, and the lower one was four
spans wide while the upper was less, the wall is thereby dimin-
ished. If the lower bench however was less than four spans
wide and the upper four, or more, the wall is also diminished
thereby, providing the two benches were less than three spans
apart." R. Na'hman said in the name of Rabba bar Abahu,
that the same rule applies to a ladder where there is empty space
between the rungs (i.e., where one side of the ladder is not
closed with boards).

R. Na'hman said again in the name of Rabba bar Abahu:
If a cornice four spans square protrude from a wall and a
ladder, no matter how narrow, has been placed against the cor-
nice, the size of the wall is thereby diminished, provided the
ladder was placed directly against the cornice, but if placed
underneath the cornice against the \vall, the cornice was merely

184 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

enlarged but the wall was not diminished. R. Na'hman says
again in the name of the same authority: a wall which is nine-
teen spans high must have an additional cornice (a ladder which
should be placed in the centre of the wall so that the space
should not attain ten spans at the top or at the bottom). If the
walls, however, measure twenty spans two cornices are needed
to make them valid. (One cornice a trifle less than ten spans
from the ground and another above that also a trifle less than
ten spans from the lower.)

Said R. Hisda: '" Providing the cornices are not exactly
opposite each other (to prevent a ladder being placed on the
bottom cornice)." R. Huna said: " If a peg be placed on a pil-
lar in public ground ten spans high and four spans wide (which
is legally private ground) the pillar is diminished." Said R.
Adha bar Ahaba: " Providing the peg is three spans high."
Abayi and Rabba both said: " Even if it is not as high as three
spans." Why so? Because the peg makes the pillar useless.
R. Ashi, however, said: " Even if the peg be three spans high
it does not diminish the pillar and does not make it private
ground because a peg of that kind can be used as a hanger."

R. A'ha the son of Rabha asked R. Ashi, " What is the law
if several pegs be placed on the pillar in question?" and he
answered: " Did you not hear what R. Johanan said concerning
a well, that its enclosures of earth are counted in with the ten
spans (makes it a legal private ground), why then should they be
counted, are they not useless ? " We must assume that, because
one can place an object upon the enclosures and thus use them.
The same is the case with the peg, one might also place some-
thing upon it also.

R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: " If a wall be ten
spans high it requires, in order to become a valid wall, a ladder
fourteen spans in height, because the ladder must be placed
against the wall at an angle and the distance from the foot of
the ladder to the wall being four spans, the ladder loses that
much before it reaches the top of the wall." R. Joseph said:
" Even if the ladder be a trifle over thirteen spans high it may
be used (because should it lack one span of reaching the top of
the wall the deficiency is not taken into consideration)." Abayi,
however, said : It matters not if the ladder be even a trifle
over eleven spans high (because should it lack three spans of
reaching the top of the wall, it is considered as being at the top;
for the law of " lavud " is applied in all cases where there is a

TRACT ERUBIN. 185

deficiency of three spans or less). R. Huna the son of R.
Jehoshua, however, said : The ladder may be only a trifle over
seven spans in height (because it is not compulsory to place the
ladder at an angle, and if placed straight at the wall, together
with the three spans allowed by the law of " lavud," it reaches
the top. Should the ladder even be placed at an angle it may
be considered as straight at the wall and the same rule applies).

Rabh said: "I have a tradition, that a ladder standing
straight against a wall also diminishes its size, but I know no
reason for it." Said Samuel to him: " Does Abba not know
the reason for this ? Why should a ladder be worse than two
benches placed one above the other ? Surely it is more diffi-
cult to scale a wall by means of benches than by means of a
ladder."

Rabha in the name of R. Hyya said: " Trunks of Babylo-
nian fig-trees when placed against a wall need not be fastened,
because their weight is so great, that it is very difficult to remove
them, although they may be handled on Sabbath." R. Joseph
in the name of R. Oshiya said: " The same applies to Babylo-
nian ladders, which are so heavy, that there is no fear of their
being removed."

R. Joseph asked Rabba: " If a man had a ladder which he
desired to place against a wall and the ladder being too narrow,
i.e., less than four spans wide, he hewed out in the wall itself,
steps on each side of the ladder, how far up should those steps
be hewn out?" Rabba answered: "For a distance of ten
spans." Asked R. Joseph again: " How is it if a man hews
out steps four spans wide in the wall itself ? How far up must
he do this ?" and the answer was: " The entire height of the
wall." " What is the difference between the case of the ladder
where steps had to be hewn out additionally and this case where
the steps were all hewn out of the wall ? " "In the first instance
the ascent of the wall is so much easier because the ladder can
be placed against the wall at an angle, while in this instance the
ascent is much more difficult ; hence the steps should reach the
entire height of the wall."

R. Joseph asked Rabba again : " What is the law if a man
used a tree, which grew right at the wall, for a ladder ? I ask
thee, taking into consideration the difference of opinion between
Rabbi and the sages. According to Rabbi, who holds, that
rabbinical ordinances were not surrounded with precautionary
measures for the sake of twilight, it may be said, that in this

i86 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

case, where the tree will be used during the whole Sabbath day,
even Rabbi might decide that it would not be allowed to make
use of the tree; and on the other hand, even according to the
sages, who disagree with Rabbi as regards the precautionary
measures for the sake of twilight, it may be said, that the tree
might be considered as a door; which, however, cannot be used
because it is regarded as if a lion lie across it ; nevertheless, it is
a door, and being such, the wall may be used. Now, shouldst
thou decide, that the wall may be used if a tree grow at its side,
how would it be if a grove such as is used in idolatrous worship,
grow alongside of the wall ? I ask thee in this instance taking
into consideration the difference of opinion between R. Jehudah
and the sages. We are aware that R. Jehudah permits the
depositing of an Erub even in a grave, notwithstanding the fact
that no benefit must be derived from a grave, but for the reason
that after the Erub has been deposited for the moment of twi-
light the grave is of no further use as the Erub need not be
watched. In this case, however, R. Jehudah might prohibit the
use of a grove, because it serves a distinct purpose, namely, that
of a walk to the wall, and it is a law that no benefit must be
derived from a grove used for idolatrous worship. On the other
hand, even according to the sages, who prohibit the use of a
grave for the depositing of an Erub, it might be permitted to
use the grove because it is virtually a door to the wall and is
merely regarded as if a lion were lying across it, which tempo-
rarily makes it unfit for use."

Rabba answered: " A tree may be used but a grove must
not." R. Hisda opposed this: " On the contrary," said he,
" the lion lying across the tree which renders it unfit for use tem-
porarily is the rabbinical ordinance concerning the Sabbath-rest,
i.e., the tree must not be used on account of the Sabbath, while
the grove must not be used for another reason altogether, hence
it should be permitted to use the grove and the use of the tree
should be prohibited."

It was also taught, that when Rabhin came from Palestine,
he said in the name of R. Elazar, according to another version,
R. Abahu said in the name of R. Johanan : (This is the rule :)
Whenever the prohibition is based upon the Sabbath-rest laws,
such prohibition must stand, but whenever the prohibition is
based in some other law, it need not hold good.

R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak taught: "Concerning a tree the
same divergence of opinion as exists between Rabbi and the

TRACT ERUBIN. 187

sages remains, and concerning a grove the same difference of
opinion as exists between R. Jehudah and the sages remains."

MISHNA: If two courts be separated by a ditch, ten spans
deep and four wide, the inmates of each court should prepare
separate Erubin and must not join in one, even though the ditch
be filled with stubble or with straw. Should it however be filled
with earth or pebbles, the inmates must join in one Erub and
not prepare two separate ones. If a board four spans wide had
been put across the ditch, and likewise, if two projecting balco-
nies, one opposite the other, have been connected by means
of such a board, or plank, the inmates of the courts may pre-
pare separate Erubin, or if they prefer it, they may join in one ;
if the board, however, was less (than four spans) wide, they must
each prepare a separate Erub, and not join in one.

GEMARA : The Mishna states, that if the ditch was filled
with stubble or straw, the inmates of each court must make a
separate Erub, because the straw is not considered firm enough
to afford a safe passage over the ditch, i.e., it does not consti-
tute a solid filling for the ditch, but in the succeeding Mishna
we learn, that if there be between two courts a straw-rick, the
inmates of each court must prepare a separate Erub, thereby
demonstrating that straw can form a solid partition ? Answered
Abayi : As for a partition all agree that a straw-rick can form a
partition, but as for straw serving as a filling for a ditch it
depends upon whether the owner has devoted it entirely for that
purpose. If he did and will not remove it, it may constitute a
solid filling for the ditch, but if he did not and intends to subse-
quently remove it, it cannot be considered such.

' ' Should it however be filled with earth or pebbles. ' ' Even if
the man who did this, does not declare that he has devoted the
earth or the pebbles for that purpose entirely ? Have we not
learned in a Mishna, that if a man filled a room (which had con-
tained a corpse) with straw or pebbles and declared that he does
not intend to make any further use of either the straw or the
pebbles, the room is regarded as filled up and is not considered
a tent, but if no such declaration was made, the room is still con-
sidered a tent. Thus we see, that one must declare the straw
and pebbles to be devoted for such purpose only, and our Mishna
does not state anything in regard to this ? Said R. Assi : This
Mishna treating of Erubin is in accordance with the opinion of
R. Jose in a Tosephta (in Tract Oholoth) who holds, that in the
case of straw no express declaration is necessary.

1 88 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

R. Huna, the son of R. Jehoshua, however, said: Thou
wouldst prove a contradiction from a law pertaining to unclean-
ness to a Sabbath-law ? Leave out the prohibition of Sabbath ;
for a thing which must not be handled on Sabbath is at all
events sacrificed even if it be a purse of money; because it must
not be handled on Sabbath. (With straw it is different, because
that is food for animals, and hence may be handled on Sab-
bath.)

R. Ashi, however, said : Thou wouldst base a contradiction
on an ordinance concerning a room to that concerning a ditch.
A ditch was made to be filled up, but is then a room also made
to be filled up ?

" If a board four spans wide had been put across the ditch. ' *
Said Rabha: " When must the board be four spans wide ? If it
was laid crosswise across the ditch, but if it was laid lengthwise
across the ditch it makes no difference how wide the board is,
because the width of the ditch was decreased to less than four
spans."

' ' If two projecting balconies, one opposite the other, ' ' etc.
Said Rabha: The statement in the Mishna, " one opposite the
other," might be construed to signify, that if they were not
directly opposite each other, no connection could be made ; such
is the case, however, only if they are three spans or more distant
one from the other. Should they be less apart than three spans,
it matters not whether they are directly opposite, diagonally so,
or even one above the other, a connection may be made and it is
simply considered a crooked balcony, but a balcony nevertheless.

MISHNA: If there be between two courts a straw-rick, ten
spans high, the inmates of both courts must prepare separate
Erubin, and must not join in one. Cattle maybe fed from each
side of the rick (and no fear need be entertained, that it will
become less than ten spans high). Should the rick become less
than ten spans high, the inmates must join in one Erub and not
prepare two.

GEMARA: Said R. Huna: " (Cattle may be fed from each
side of the rick), providing the straw is not removed by a man
and placed in the crib of the cattle (because the straw was desig-
nated as a partition since the preceding day, hence it must not
be handled)." Did we not learn in a Boraitha: " If a house
which was filled with straw stand between two courts, the
inmates of each court must make a separate Erub, but must not
join in one, and may remove the straw from the house to their

TRACT ERUBIN. 189

respective courts and place it in the crib for the cattle ? " Thus
we see, that it is allowed for the inmates of each court to
remove the straw to their respective courts and place it in the
crib; why does R. Huna prohibit this? I will tellthee: In a
house, on account of the roof, it will become noticeable if the
heap of straw becomes lower than ten spans, but a straw-rick
standing in the open air might be overlooked as to its height.

(The above Boraitha continues as follows:) " If the heap of
straw contained in the house became less than ten spans high,
neither of the inmates of either court are permitted to carry
unless the inmates of one court resign their right to the place in
favor of the inmates of the other." Thus, if the heap of straw
was ten spans high, it still serves the purpose of a partition,
even though it does not reach the ceiling. We may adduce
therefrom, that any partition if it be only ten spans high, though
it should not reach the celing, is valid. From the statement in
the Boraitha, that neither of the inmates of either court are per-
mitted to carry we can also infer, that any dwellings which may
have been added on the Sabbath are included in the prohibi-
tion ? This is not conclusive evidence ! It may be that the
Boraitha refers to a case where the heap of straw was diminished
to less than ten spans' height before the Sabbath set in.

The Boraitha continues further: " The one wishing to make
use of his court should lock up the house and resign his right to
the ground." What, do both ? Lock the house and resign his
right to the ground ? Yea; both are necessary, for the man is
accustomed to use the house on Sabbath,* and he might per-
chance, if he leave it unlocked, come and use it.

Continuing, the Boraitha states: "If he did so, he must not
carry, but his neighbor may." Is this not self-evident? We
might assume that the man's neighbor must also do as he did,
hence we are told, that the Tana holds repeated resignation of
the ground to be prohibited.

MISHNA: How are alleys (entries) to be combined? A
man places a cask of wine (in the alley) and says: " This shall
be for all the inmates of the alley," and he may transfer the
right of possession (which he has in the cask) to them either
through his adult son or daughter, or through his Hebrew man-

* Rashi asserts, that the Tana of this Boraitha maintains, that all those who
resign their right to the ground of their houses should also lock them, but Tosphath
does not agree with Rashi.

I9o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

servant or maid-servant, or through his wife; but he cannot
transfer his right of possession through his minor son or daughter,
or through his Canaanitish bond-man or bond-woman, because
their hand is virtually the same as his.

GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah: The person that accepts the
transfer of ownership should lift the cask of wine at least one
span from the ground at the time of acceptance (saying, I have
accepted this for the other inmates). Said Rabha : These two
things were said by the old sages of Pumbaditha, namely : This
statement of R. Jehudah just quoted and the other one is:
When a man pronounces the benediction over a goblet of wine,
if he tastes a whole mouthful he has acquitted himself of the
duty properly, otherwise he does not.

An objection was raised: We have learned in a Boraitha:
How are alleys to be combined ? A cask of wine, oil, dates, or
figs, or any other fruit, is brought, and if belonging to the one
who brought it, he should transfer his right of possession to the
other inmates ; but if the others have a share in it to commence
with, he need only inform them (that he has combined the Erub
for them). While transferring the right of possession, the cask
should be lifted off the ground a trifle ? By a trifle the Borai-
tha also means a span.

It was taught : At the combining of alleys, the right of pos-
session need not be transferred. So said Rabh; but Samuel
maintains, that this must be done. At the combining of the
legal limits, however, Samuel declares that the right of posses-
sion must be transferred, while Rabh holds, that it is not neces-
sary.

Samuel may be right in his opinion, because he holds in
accordance with our Mishna, which teaches, that at the combin-
ing of alleys, the right of ownership must be transferred, and at
the combining of legal limits nothing is said about transfer, but
upon what does Rabh base his opinion ? There is a difference
of opinion among Tanaim concerning this ordinance as R. Jehu-
dah said in the name of Rabh: " It happened that the daughter-
in-law of R. Oshiya went to the bath-house, and not returning
before dusk, her mother-in-law made an Erub for her. When
this was told to R. Hyya, he declared it unlawful. Said R.
Ishmael bar R. Jose to him : Thou Babylonian ! So strict art
thou with Erubin. Then said my father: Whatever can be
made more lenient with regard to Erubin, should so be made."

Said R. Zera to R. Jacob, the son of the daughter of Jacob :

TRACT ERUBIN. 191

" When thou goest to Palestine, go out of thy way and pass
through Tyre and ask of R. Jacob bar Idi how the case was : Did
the mother-in-law make an Erub with her own material, and on
account of not transferring her ownership to her daughter-in-
law, R. Hyya held it to be unlawful, or did she make it with
material belonging to her daughter-in-law and R. Hyya held it
to be unlawful because the daughter-in-law was not informed ? "
R. Jacob bar Idi answered, that it was on account of the owner-
ship not having been transferred.

R. Na'hman said : " We are in possession of a tradition which
teaches us, that whether Erubin of legal limits or Erubin of
courts or combinations of entries are concerned, a transfer of
ownership must be effected. Now the question arises as to
Erubin of cooked articles,* whether a transfer of ownership is
necessary or not." Said R. Jose: "What question is this?
Did R. Na'hman not hear the dictum of R. Na'hman bar R.
Ada in the name of Samuel, that in the case of Erubin of
cooked articles a transfer of ownership must also be effected ?"
Replied Abayi: " Assuredly he did not hear this dictum or he
would not have asked." Rejoined R. Jose: " Did not Samuel
say that in the case of Erubin of courts a transfer of ownership
is not necessary and still R. Na'hman maintains that it is?"
Abayi then said : " How can this be compared ? In the case of
Erubin of courts and legal limits there is a difference of opinion
between Rabh and Samuel, while R. Na'hman accepts the more
rigorous decrees of each, but in this instance how could R.
Na'hman override the absolute decree of Samuel alone ?"

There was a guard of the arsenal living in the neighborhood
of R. Zera. His neighbors asked him to rent them his place for
the Sabbath, but he refused. So R. Zera was asked whether
the place may be rented from the man's wife, who was willing
to do so. He answered them: " Thus said Resh Lakish in the
name of a great man, i.e., R. Hanina: A man's wife may
effect an Erub without the man's knowledge (or against his
will)."

The same case occurred in the neighborhood of R. Jehudah

* Erubin of cooked articles, called in Hebrew " Erubin Thabhshilin." When a
Sabbath follows a festival, no food must be cooked on the festival for the Sabbath,
but in order to circumvene this ordinance the Rabbis decreed that two different kinds
of food be set aside on the eve of the festival to serve for the Sabbath and thus enable
the people to cook, in addition to the food set aside, on the festival in order to provide
for the Sabbath.

192 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

bar Oshiya, and when asked concerning the law in the matter,
he did not know. R. Mathna could not solve the problem either.
When R. Jehudah, however, asked, he answered in the name of
Samuel the dictum attributed above to R. Hanina.

An objection was raised : We have learned in a Boraitha :
"If women made an Erub or combined in an alley without the
knowledge of their husbands, the Erub and the combination are
both unlawful." This presents no difficulty. The Boraitha
refers to a case, where the husbands distinctly forbid their wives
to do so, whereas Samuel refers to a case, where the husbands
did not forbid them. Such seems to be the case, for were it not
so Samuel would contradict himself as he said elsewhere: If
one of the inmates of the alley who, as a rule, combined with
the others, refused to do so at one time, the other inmates may
enter his house and take his share against his will. Thus we
see, that only if the man, as a rule, combined but (out of spite)
refused in one instance, then and then only the other inmates
may take his share by force ; but if he was not in the habit of
combining, this would not be allowed. Hence this bears it
out.

Can we assume that the following Boraitha is in support of
the decree of Samuel ? (It teaches:) " It is permitted to com-
pel a man to take a share in the erection of a side and cross beam
to an entry, if he refuses to do so voluntarily." In the case of
an entry it is different, because there were no partitions (hence
it was difficult to watch the entry). According to another inter-
pretation, Where an act is committed out of spite, with the
intention to injure another, it is different (i.e., a man may be
compelled to desist as explained in Chapter IV., page 109).*

* What we have rendered above with ' ' Where an act is committed out of spite,
etc., it is different," is expressed in the Hebrew original with but two words, viz.:
" Metzad Sheani," literally, " from the side it is different." The marginal notes in
the original also state that no explanation for the two words can be found, and in
the monographs printed in Venice and Saloniki some two centuries ago, this other
version is omitted entirely. In a manuscript of the Talmud, examined by R. N.
Rabinowicz, it is also not to be found. According to our method, always to render
the other version, because it is invariably more reasonable than the first, we should
have omitted the first here also, and more especially so, as it is very abstruse. How-
ever, the other version is even more so if read as written. After considerable specula-
tion, however, as to its meaning, we found that it is merely a misprint, and instead
of " Metzad Sheani " should read "Metzar Sheani." The misprint is the more
excusable because of the extreme similarity of a Hebrew Daled T and a Resh 1.
Metzar Sheani means " With one who wishes to injure another, it is different," and
this was just the case referred to by Samuel, who, according to Rashi. refers to one

TRACT ERUBIN. 193

It was taught: R. Hyya bar Ashi said: " A side-beam may
be made of a grove." R. Simeon ben Lakish said: " A cross-
beam may be made of a grove." One who says, that a cross-
beam may be made of a grove certainly permits a side-beam also
to be made of a grove; but he who says, that a side-beam may
be made thus, does not permit a cross-beam. Why so ? Because
a cross-beam must be sound enough to hold a brick one span
thick, and as a grove (being used for idolatry) must be burned, it
is considered as if it were already burned, hence not sound
enough to hold a brick of the prescribed thickness.

MISHNA: If the quantity of food (required for the combi-
nation) become diminished, one may (himself) add thereto and
transfer his right of possession without notifying the other
inmates (to that effect). If, however, new inhabitants have
(since) arrived in the alley, he adds sufficient to make up the
required legal quantity, transfers his right of possession to them
and notifies them to that effect. How much is this legal quan-
tity (of food required for the combination of alleys) ? If those
who join therein are numerous, it must be sufficient for two
meals for all of them ; but if they be few, the size of a dried fig
for each is sufficient.

R. Jose said : " To what does this regulation apply ? To the
original (first) preparation of the Erub ; but to extend the Erub
(for later use) any quantity, however small, is sufficient. Nor
did the sages direct that (where the combinations of an alley had
been effected) an Erub should be prepared for the several courts
(contained in the alley) except that the children might not forget
about the law of Erub.

GEMARA : What food does the Mishna refer to as having
become diminished ? Shall we assume, that it was but one kind
of food, then even had it been totally destroyed, it was not nec-
essary to notify the other inmates ; if on the other hand there
were two kinds of food, then, even, if it became diminished, the
man was in duty bound to notify the other inmates, as we have
learned in a Boraitha: " If the food was all of one kind and was
totally destroyed, one need not notify the other inmates ; but if
the food was of two different kinds, one must notify the other
inmates." (It was assumed that the same law applied to food

who, out of spite, would not combine, so that the other inmates of the alley would be
prevented from carrying on the Sabbath ; hence, in this instance no further explana-
tion by Rashi was necessary.
VOL. in. — 13

i94 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

that had merely become diminished, but the Gemara answered :)
" The Boraitha refers to food that had been totally destroyed,
but with food that had become diminished, it is different."

' ' How much is this legal quantity ? ' ' etc. What does the
Mishna mean to say by " numerous " ? Said R. Jehudah in the
name of Samuel: " Eighteen persons." Eighteen and not
more ? Say, from eighteen on and upwards. Then why state
eighteen in the first place ? Said R. Itz'hak the son of R. Jehu-
dah: My father explained this to me thus: If the food were
divided equally amongst all and the share of each for two meals
would not amount to the size of a dried fig, then those who took
part were " numerous," and it is sufficient if the share of each
did not amount to the size of a dried fig; but if the share of
each amounted to more than the size of a dried fig, those who
took part are considered few, and even if each received but the
size of one dried fig, it is sufficient. (Thus both are the more
lenient constructions of the law.) Incidentally we are told by
R. Jehudah that eighteen dried figs are sufficient for two meals.

MISHNA: The Erub (of courts) or combination (of alleys)
may be effected with all kinds of nutriment except water and
salt. Such is the dictum of R. Eliezer. R. Jehoshua, however,
said: Only a whole loaf of bread is a lawful Erub. Should
even a whole saah of flour be baked into one loaf, and that be
broken, it must not be used for an Erub, while a small loaf of
the value of an Eesar (a small coin ; probably the Roman " as "),
if it be whole, may be used for an Erub.

GEMARA : Have we not already learned the first clause of
this Mishna (in Chapter III., Mishna i), that the Erub or combi-
nation may be effected with all kinds of nutriment except water
and salt ? Said Rabba bar bar Hana : This Mishna repeats
the ordinance solely on account of R. Jehoshua, who maintains,
that only a whole loaf is a awful Erub, but not a broken loaf.
Hence we are taught that with all kinds of nutriment it may be
effected, including a broken loaf.

What reason has R. Jehoshua for his assertion ? Said R.
Jose ben Saul in the name of Rabbi: " In order to prevent
enmity (lest one say he deposited a whole loaf and another a
broken loaf, etc.)." Said R. A'ha the son of Rabba to R.
Ashi: " How is it if all deposited broken loaves?" and R. Ashi
answered: "There is fear that the next time the Erubin are
deposited there will be the same strife. One will deposit a whole
loaf and another a broken one, etc."

TRACT ERUBIN. 195

R. Johanan ben Saul said: " If from a whole loaf of bread
the legal first dough (offering) has been removed or from a whole
loaf of bread made of Therumah and ordinary flour the legal
one-hundredth part had been removed, the loaf is still consid-
ered whole, and an Erub may be effected therewith. ' ' Did we
not learn in a Boraitha, that the loaf remains whole, and may
be used for an Erub if the legal one-hundredth part had been
removed, but if the quantity of the legal first dough had been
removed it does not remain whole and must not be used for an
Erub ? This presents no difficulty. R. Johanan refers to the
loaf of a baker who must remove only a small piece for the first
dough, while the Boraitha refers to a loaf of a householder as we
have learned in a Mishna (Tract Chalah) : 4 ' The prescribed
quantity for the first dough is one twenty-fourth. One who pre-
pares the dough for his own use or for the wedding (feast) of his
son must also give one twenty-fourth ; but a baker, or even a
woman who prepares the dough for sale in the market, need only
give one forty-eighth as the legal first dough."

R. Hisda said: " If a man made a loaf whole again by join-
ing the broken pieces with a stick of wood, so that it appeared
like an unbroken loaf, he may use it for an Erub."

Said R. Zera in the name of Samuel: " It is permitted to
make an Erub with bread made of rice or millet." Said Mar
Uqba: " Samuel the Master explained to me that rice-bread may
be used for an Erub but not millet-bread." R. Hyya bar Abhin
in the name of Rabh said : It is also permitted to make an Erub
with lentil-bread.

MISHNA: A man may give money to the wine-seller or
baker in order to acquire the right to join in the Erub. Such is
the dictum of R. Eliezer ; but the sages hold, that money can-
not acquire the right for a person to join in the Erub. They
admit, however, that if a man give money to another person
(with the commission to effect the Erub for him) it will acquire
for him the right to join in the Erub, since no Erub can be
effected for a man without his knowledge. Said R. Jehudah :
To what do these (preceding) regulations apply ? To the
Erubin of limits; in the Erubin of courts, however, a man may
be included with or without his knowledge; for advantages may
be conferred on a person, even though he be not present,
whereas, he must not be deprived of his right in his absence.

GEMARA: What reason has R. Eliezer for his dictum ?
The person giving the money to the wine-seller or the baker

196 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

did not draw his purchase toward him, hence no sale or pur-
chase was effected.*

Answered R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba bar Abahu :
" R. Eliezer makes this case analogous with the case mentioned
in the Mishna (Tract Cholin, Chapter V., Mishna 4) concern-
ing a man who purchases one dinar's worth meat and the
butcher is compelled to slaughter for him an ox worth one thou-
sand dinars. The question there is propounded by the Gemara :
' How can the sale be effective ? No drawing towards himself
was accomplished by the purchaser ? ' and the answer was that
the Meshi'kha (drawing) was dispensed with for the sake of the
advantage which was to be conferred on the purchaser on the
four days or periods enumerated. In this case of our Mishna
the Meshi'kha is also dispensed with and for the same reason, or
according to the reason of another sage in the mentioned Tract
(Cholin) who said that according to biblical law a sale is effective
when the money for the purchase is paid."

' They admit, however \ that if a man give money to another, ' '
etc. What is meant by " another person "? Said Rabh: " A
householder," and Samuel agrees with him, meaning, that this
other person must be a householder and not a baker (or a wine-
seller). Samuel added, that only if the man gave money to the
baker he cannot acquire the right to join in the Erub, but
if he gave him a vessel he does acquire the right. Also if
when giving him the money, he does not say to him: " With
this money thou shalt give me bread sufficient to make an
Erub," but says: " For this money thou shalt go and effect
an Erub for me," then it is as if he merely commissioned
him to effect his Erub and he acquires the right to join in the
Erub.

4 ' Said R. Jehudah : To what do these ordinances apply ? ' ' etc.
R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said : " The Halakha prevails
according to R. Jehudah, not only in this case, but in all
instances where R. Jehudah decrees concerning Erubin, the
Halakha prevails in accordance with his dictum." Said R.
Hana of Bagdad to him: " Does Samuel hold, that even in the
case where R. Jehudah declares an entry, from which the side
and cross beams had been removed, valid, the Halakha prevails

* A sale or a purchase was not binding or effective unless the purchaser at the
time of the purchase drew the object bought towards him, and this act of drawing
towards him is called in the Talmud Meshi'kha, based upon the passage, Exod.
xii. 21.

TRACT ERUBIN. 197

accordingly?" Answered R. Jehudah: " Did I not state par-
ticularly concerning Erubin, but not concerning partitions ?"

Said R. A'ha the son of Rabha to R. Ashi: "If it is said,
that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah, then there
must be some who disagree with him ?" Did not R. Jehoshua
ben Levi say, that whenever we find in a Mishna the statement :
" Said R. Jehudah : ' When is this the case? ' or ' When do these
regulations apply? ' " it is not to be accepted as a refutation of
previous decrees, but merely as a further explanation of the
drecree of the sages ? [How can it be said, that it is not to be
accepted as a refutation ? Did we not learn in a previous
Mishna, that if additional inhabitants came into the alley, the
right of possession must be transferred to them and they must
be notified, whereas R. Jehudah states, that no notification is
necessary ? The previous Mishna refers to a court between two
alleys when the inhabitants newly arrived must be notified that
the Erub was effected in one of the alleys (and R. Jehudah
would agree to this also). Did not R. Shezbi say in the name
of R. Hisda, that the previous Mishna distinctly states, that the
colleagues of R. Jehudah differ with his dictum in this last
Mishna ?] Answered R. Ashi (the previous question of R.
A'ha): Wouldst thou make a contradiction from one man to
another ? Samuel may hold one thing and R. Jehoshua ben
Levi another.

Referring again to the statement of R. Jehoshua ben Levi,
R. Johanan said, that whenever R. Jehudah says: "When is
this the case ? " he means to explain the previous teachings, but
whenever he says, ' ' When do these regulations apply ? " he
means to differ from the foregoing opinions.

CHAPTER VIII.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE ERUBIN OF LIMITS. THE QUANTITY
OF FOOD REQUIRED FOR SUCH ERUBIN, AND FURTHER REGULA-
TIONS CONCERNING ERUBIN OF COURTS.

MISHNA: How are the (legal) limits to be combined ? A
man places a cask (of wine) and says : " This is for all my towns-
men or for all who go to the house of mourning, and for all who
go to the house of feasting." Whosoever joins in the combina-
tion while it is yet day (on the eve of Sabbath) is permitted to
do so ; after dusk, however, it is prohibited, because an Erub
must not be deposited after dark.

GEMARA: Said R. Joseph: " Legal limits should not be
combined except for religious duties." Is this not expressed in
the Mishna ? It says for all who go to the house of mourning
or the house of feasting ? R. Joseph teaches that the limits
should not be combined except for religious duties, lest it might
be assumed, that the Mishna merely makes this a general asser-
tion ; because people are wont to go to such places on the Sab-
bath.

The Mishna states " while it is yet day." Shall we adduce
therefrom that the Mishna holds, there is no such thing as
the theory of premeditated choice ? For were it said, that the
Mishna accepts the theory, the fact that the man would make
use of the legal limits on the Sabbath would demonstrate that
he had the intention to do so on the previous day. Said R.
Ashi : By " while it is yet day " is meant if the man was notified
of the combination while it was yet day, even though he did not
agree to it until after dusk ; but if he was not notified while it
was yet day, he could have no intention to do so previously, and
hence he cannot join in the combination.

R. Assi said: " A child that is only six years old may go out
in the legal limits which have been combined by its mother."
An objection was made based upon a Boraitha stating: " A child
still dependent upon its mother may go out in the limits com-

198

TRACT ERUBIN. 199

bined by its mother; but if it is no longer dependent upon its
mother it must not." Said R. Jehoshua the son of R. Idi:
" R. Assi means to say still more, that even if the father had
combined him in his Erub towards the north and his mother com-
bined an Erub for herself towards the south, a child even six
years old prefers to go with its mother."

Another objection was made: We have learned in another
Boraitha : A child which is dependent upon its mother may go
out with her in the limits which she has combined until it reaches
the age of six years. (Hence when it is six years old it must
not ?) R. Assi might say that until six years includes six years.

We have learned in a Boraitha : A man should not combine
an Erub for his adult son or daughter or for his Hebrew man or
maid servant, or for his wife, unless he notifies them to that
effect. He may however combine an Erub for his Canaanitish
bond-man or bond-woman or for his minor son or daughter even
without their consent because their hand is virtually the same as
his. If, however, all those mentioned in the Boraitha have com-
bined an Erub for themselves in one direction, and the master
combined an Erub for them in another, they must all make use
of the one which the master combined, excepting only his wife,
because she can object.

Why should the wife only be excepted ? Cannot the other
persons mentioned in the first clause of the Mishna also object ?
Said Rabba: " The wife and those equal to her (mentioned with
her) are meant to be excepted, and by 'all those mentioned in
the Boraitha ' is meant the persons enumerated in the latter
clause of the Boraitha."

The master said: " Excepting only his wife, because she
can object." Shall we say, that only if shv. objects she may use
her own limits, but if she does not, she may go out in the limits
combined by her husband ? Does not the Boraitha mean to
state that he must notify them and obtain their consent ? (Then
why must she object if she previously did not give her consent ?)
Nay; the Boraitha means to state that he must merely notify
them, and if they make no answer it is the same as if they
agreed to it.

The Boraitha states again, however, that if they made an
Erub for themselves and the master made another one for them
they must utilize that of the master; this must have been the
case where they did not object when notified that the master
would combine the Erub for them. " Excepting only the wife

2oo THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

who can object ?" How is this consistent ? Said Rabha: " Is
the fact of their making a separate Erub not sufficient objec-
tion ? "

MISHNA: How much is the legal quantity (of food required
to effect the combination of limits) ? Sufficient food for two
meals for everyone who joins therein ; for work-day meals but
not for Sabbath-meals. Such is the dictum of R. Meir ; but R.
Jehudah said : For Sabbath-meals, but not for work-day meals.
Both (sages), however, intend to render the observance of this
regulation more lenient. R. Johanan ben Berokah said : It is
sufficient to effect the combination if the loaf used therefor be
worth a Pundian, when the price of flour is one selah for four
saah. R. Simeon said : Two-thirds of a loaf (is sufficient), such
as go three to one kahb of flour. (The time it takes to eat) half
(of such a loaf, is the prescribed time for remaining) in the house
of a leper,* and the half of a half of such a loaf (which were it
it unclean) would make the body unclean, f

GEMARA : How much food constitutes food for two meals ?
Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: " Two loaves as used
by the peasants in the field." R. Ada bar Ahabha said: " Two
loaves as baked by the inhabitants of N'har Pepitha (Papa)."

R. Joseph said to R. Joseph the son of Rabha: " In accord-
ance with whose opinion does thy father hold concerning the two
meals. Doubtless with that of R. Meir ? I also hold with R.
Meir; for if the opinion of R. Jehudah were accepted, why do
people say, that the stomach always has room for sweet things ? "

' ' R. Johanan ben Berokah said, ' ' etc. We have learned in a
Boraitha, that there is not much difference between the quantity
prescribed by R. Johanan and that prescribed by R. Simeon.
How can this be said ? According to R. Johanan one kabh will
provide four meals, and according to R. Simeon one kabh will
produce nine meals ? Said R. Hisda: " Deduct one-third as the
profit of the dealer." Then according to R. Johanan one kabh
will provide six meals and according to R. Simeon nine. Say in
accordance with the dictum of R. Hisda at another time, that
one half should be deducted as the profit of the dealer. Then

* One who remains in the house of a leper the length of time required to eat half
of such a loaf, renders his clothes unclean and must wash them (as explained in Tract
Negayim).

f One who eats a fourth of such a loaf which has become unclean, renders him-
self unclean and cannot partake of any consecrated thing until he has bathed (as will
be explained in Tract Oholeth).

TRACT ERUBIN. 201

according to one a kabh contains sufficient for erght meals and
according to the other, nine.* Hence we have already heard
that there was not much difference between R. Simeon and R.
Johanan.

Now there is a contradiction in two of R. Hisda's state-
ments ? This presents no difficulty. One of his statements
referred to a case where the wood for the baking was furnished
while the other refers to a case where the purchaser had to fur-
nish it himself.

The Rabbis taught: It is written [Numbers xv. 20]: "As
the fruit of your doughs shall ye set aside a cake for a heave-
offering," which signifies, that the first of the doughs that were
prepared at that time should be set aside. How much was
the dough prepared in the desert ? It is written [Exodus xvi.
36]: " But the omer is a tenth of an ephah." They usually
prepared an omer for each person (and an ephah is three saahs),
whence they adduced that three saahs being equal to seventy-
two lugs, an omer is equal to seven and one-fifth lugs, and when
dough measures that quantity it is subject to the first dough offer-
ing. These seven and one-fifth lugs, according to Babylonian
measure, are only six lugs in Jerusalem, and five in Sepphoris.
From this it was also adduced that one who eats that much in
a day is healthy and blessed. One who eats more than this is a
glutton and one who eats less than that has a weak stomach.

MISHNA: If the inhabitants of a court and the inhabi-
tants of a balcony should have forgotten to combine an Erub,
whatever is above ten spans from the ground is considered as
belonging to the balcony, and whatever is less than ten spans
high from the ground is considered as belonging to the court.
If the earth dug out of a ditch, or a stone, be ten spans high,
they belong to the balcony ; but if less than ten spans high they
belong to the court. When is this the case ? If the earth (heap)
or the stone be close to the balcony, but if some distance away
from the balcony, even though they be ten spans high, they
belong to the court. What is considered close ? Whatever is
less than four spans distance.

* In order to explain this problem mathematically it must be borne in mind that
a Kabh is equal to 2 Saah and a Pundian is equal to J Selah. Hence if i be
allowed the dealer for baking the loaf, according to R. Johanan the loaf will be equal
to | of a Kabh minus ^ of i or in other words J of a Kabh, while, according to R.
Simeon, a loaf is f of J of a Kabh or f . If $ of a Kabh constitute sufficient for 2
meals, then i Kabh provides 9 meals, and according to R. Johanan 6.

202 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

GEMARA: If the object standing between the court and
the balcony is easily accessible to both the same as a door, it is
considered as if it were an aperture between two courts. If it
is not easily accessible but both the inmates of the courts and of
the balcony can throw things on it with equal facility it is equal
to a wall between two courts. If both the inmates of the court
and the balcony can with equal ease deposit things upon that
object it is considered as a ditch between two courts ; but if the
object be easily accessible to one but was not as easily reached
by the other, it is the same as the ditch mentioned by R.
Shezbi in the name of R. Na'hman, which was level with the
ground of one court. If the object was easily accessible to one
but could only be reached by throwing by the other, it is the
same as the wall mentioned by Rabba bar R. Huna in the name
of R. Na'hman, which was level with the ground of one court.
The question, however, is concerning an object which by the
inmates of the court could only be reached by throwing and by
the inmates of the balcony could only be reached by letting
down an article upon it. Rabh said: " It must not be used by
either"; but Samuel said: " It is given to those who can reach
it by letting down something upon it because that is the easier
way of reaching it ; and it is a rule that whoever can reach an
object the more easily is entitled to it."

An objection was made: Come and hear: If the inhabitants
of a court and the inhabitants of an attic had forgotten to com-
bine in an Erub, the inhabitants of the court may utilize the
lower ten spans and the inhabitants of the attic may use the
upper ten spans. How so ? If a cornice project from the wall
at a distance of less than ten spans from the ground it may be
used by the inhabitants of the court, but if it project at a dis-
tance of less than ten spans below the attic, it may be used by
the inmates of the attic. If, however, the cornice was just
between the ten spans above the ground and the ten spans below
the attic it appears that neither can make use of it, and this
would be in accordance with the opinion of Rabh and an objec-
tion to Samuel. Said R. Na'hman: " The case treated of by
the above Boraitha is where the entire wall was only nineteen
spans high and if the cornice was less than ten spans high from
the ground it was easily accessible to the court-inhabitants the
same as a door would be, but not so easily reached by the inhab-
itants of the attic (hence the court is entitled to it). If the cor-
nice was above ten spans from the ground it was easily accessible

TRACT ERUBIN.

203

to the inmates of the attic but not so to the court-inhabitants,
who would have to throw in order to reach it (hence the attic is
entitled to it)."

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: " If between two
•courts there was a small alley, into which the doors of the courts
did not open, but which contained a well four spans distant from
the wall of each court, the inhabitants of each court may put up
-a projecting board no matter how small on top of the wall, and
•draw water from the well through their windows. (In reality
this was unnecessary, because the alley was not used as a thor-
oughfare, but as the two courts had not joined in an Erub and
used the well in common the boards were erected as a sign)."
R. Jehudah himself continued: " A projecting board is not nec-
essary, for even any small stick is sufficient."

Said Abayi to R. Joseph: ." The statement of R. Jehudah
on his own account was also made in conformity with the opin-
ion of Samuel, for according to Rabh, where a place is not used
as a thoroughfare it cannot prove an impediment to the adjoin-
ing grounds."

Said R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba bar Abahu, quot-
ing Rabh : If there were three ruins between two houses, each
house may use the adjoining ruin by throwing therein, but the
middle ruin must not be used by either of the two houses.

R. Brona was sitting and proclaiming this Halakha. Said R.
Eliezer, one of the schoolmen, to him: " Did Rabh indeed say
this?" and he answered: "Yea; he did." So R. Eliezer
requested that he be shown where Rabh resided. This was done,
and coming before Rabh he inquired: " Did Master indeed say
this?" and he answered, 'Yea." Said R. Eliezer: "Did
Master not say, that if an object is not easily accessible. to both,
it must not be used by either?" Answered
Rabh: "Dost thou then think, that I had
reference to three ruins, that stood one after
the other between two houses ? I was speak-
ing of ruins that stood two on one side and
one of the size of both on the other (as shown
in accompanying illustration). Now as re-
gards the ruins into which the windows open,
from the fact that access is gained by means
of windows, or in other words through the
atmosphere, they are permitted to be used in accordance with the
opinion previously rendered that a place where there is no thor-

204 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

oughfare does not prove an impediment to adjoining ground.
Even in this case, where the ruins being naturally broken it
might be said that the atmosphere of one mingling with the
other renders both unlawful for use, I have already decided,
that atmosphere cannot produce such a condition. As for the
other rain, which both can reach by means of the small opening
at the bottom it is not as if they were reached through the atmos-
phere but by actual contact. Hence the ruin being directly
between the two houses cannot be used unless an Erub had been
combined."

MISHNA: If a man deposit his Erub (for the combination
of courts) in a vestibule, gallery, or balcony, it is not a lawful
Erub. Should a man reside in any such place, who has not
joined in the Erub, he cannot prevent the other inmates of the
court (from carrying therein). If a man deposit his Erub in a
hay-loft, or in a stable, or in a woodshed, or in a granary, it is a
legal Erub, and one who dwells there (if he had not joined in the
Erub) impedes the other inmates of the court. R. Jehudah
said: If the householder has reserved the right of access thereto
(to such a loft, stable, shed, or granary), he who dwells there
does not impede the other inmates of the court.

GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah the 'son of R. Samuel bar
Silas * : In all cases where the sages decree that if a man reside
in a certain place (and had forgotten to join in the Erub) he
does not impede the others, an Erub which he might deposit in
such a place is not legal, excepting only in the case of a vesti-
bule belonging to an individual, and in all cases where the sages
decree that an Erub must not be deposited in a certain place, it
is permitted to effect the combination of alleys in such a place,
excepting only the atmosphere of an entry (that is, in the air
above the ground of the entry).

R. Jehudah again said in the name of Samuel: " If a com-
pany was seated at table on the eve of Sabbath and the Sabbath
set in, the bread lying on the table may be depended upon to
serve as an Erub and according to another version it may serve
as the combination of the alley." Said Rabba: " They do not
differ. Those who say that the bread serves for an Erub (of the
court) refer to a case where the table was situated in the house,

* At times the name Silas is also called Shila in the Talmud, and while the same
person is meant, still we render it according to the manner in which it appears in the
original.

TRACT ERUBIN. 205

and those who say that it may serve as a combination of alleys
refer to a case where the table was in the court." Said Abayi
to him: " I know of a Boraitha, which will bear out thy opin-
ion, viz. : ' Erubin of courts must be made in the courts, com-
binations of alleys must be effected in the alleys. ' After delib-
erating upon this Boraitha we decided that it could not be so,
for we have learned in our Mishna that if a man deposit his
Erub (of courts) in a vestibule, gallery, or balcony, it is not a
lawful Erub, and the conclusion was that the statement of the
Boraitha to the effect that the Erubin must be made in the courts
in reality means, that they should be made in the houses con-
tained in the courts, and the combination of alley should be
made not in the alleys proper but in the courts opening into the
alleys.

' ' /?. Jehudah said : If the house/wider has reserved the right
of access," etc. What is meant by the right of access ? The
privilege as held by Bunayis ben Bunayis (according to the Aruch
Ben Nanas), who was a very wealthy man and would loan his
houses for the use of the other inhabitants, but would reserve
the right to store his utensils in such houses. At one time he
came before Rabbi; said Rabbi: " Make room for a man who
has a hundred golden minas. " * Later another man came along
and (thinking that he was the wealthier) Rabbi said: " Make
room for a man who has two hundred golden minas." Said R.
Ishmael the son of R. Jose to Rabbi: " Rabbi, the father of this
(first) man (Bunayis) hath a thousand ships in the sea and a thou-
sand cities on land." Said Rabbi to him : " When thou shouldst
see his father, tell him, not to send his son to Rabbi dressed so
poorly, because it is Rabbi's wont to honor rich men."

R. Aqiba would also honor rich men, as Rabha bar Mari
preached: " It is written [Psalms Ixi. 8] : ' May he abide forever
before God: ordain that kindness and truth may guard him/
which signifies : When can he abide forever before God ? If rich
men guard him with kindness and truth so that he know not
want."

Rabba bar bar Hana said: " What is meant by the right of
access ? If a man have in the house (any utensil) even a plough-
share." Said R. Na'hman: "The disciples of Samuel said on
the contrary : Only an utensil which may not be handled on the
Sabbath gives a man the right of access to a house, but an uten-

* A mina was at one time of the value of 100 Zuz, but later its value was increased
to 60 Shekel or Sela, which is equal to 240 Zuz.

206 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

sil which may be handled on Sabbath does not, because he might
come and remove it." The same was also taught in a Boraitha.

MISHNA: If a man leave his house and goes to take his
Sabbath-rest in another town (without previously joining in the
Erub), be he a Gentile or an Israelite, he thereby prevents the
other inmates of his court from carrying within it. Such is the
dictum of R. Meir. R. Jehudah saith: " He does not prevent
the others." R. Jose saith: "A Gentile prevents the others,
but an Israelite does not, as it is not usual for an Israelite to
return on the day of rest." R. Simeon saith: Even if the mart
left his house and had gone to take his Sabbath-rest with his
daughter, in the same town, he does not prevent the other
inmates, since he has in thought renounced his abode for the
time, being.

GEMARA: Said Rabh: The Halakha prevails according
to R. Simeon, but only if the man went to take his Sabbath-rest
with his daughter ; if, however, he went to take his Sabbath-
rest with his son he does not renounce his own abode for the
time being; for people say: " If thou hearest a dog bark in a
house thou canst enter without fear ; but if thou shouldst hear
little pups squeal and their mother bark at thee, do not enter"
(meaning that a father is not apt to quarrel with his daughter
and return to his abode, but he may do so with his daughter-in-
law and be compelled to return to his own home).

MISHNA: If there be a well between two courts it is not
lawful to draw water therefrom (on Sabbath), unless a partition
be made ten hands high either below (within the water) or at
the edge of the well. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: " Beth
Shammai hold, that the partition must be made below; but
Beth Hillel maintain that it must be made above." Said R.
Jehudah : The partition is not more effective than the wall which
is between the two courts.

GEMARA: Said R. Huna: " By saying that the partition
must be made below, Beth Shammai mean, that it should be
within the well but not so as to touch the water, and Beth Hillel
by maintaining that it should be made above, mean, that it
should be erected over the well. Both agree, however, that the
partition must not be outside of the well proper, but within its
enclosures." Beth Hillel's reason for the decree is that wherever
water is concerned the ordinances are to be construed in as
lenient a manner as possible, as we have learned from R. Tabla's
question and Rabh's answer (see page 24).

TRACT ERUBIN. 207

' 4 Said R. Jiehudah : The partition is no more effective, ' ' etc.
Said Rabba: R. Jehudah and R. Hananiah ben Aqabia said
virtually the same thing. R. Jehudah said what we have learned
in the Mishna and R. Hananiah ben Aqabia as we have learned
in the Boraitha, viz. : " In a balcony four ells square a hole four
spans square may be cut out and water may be drawn through
that hole (and although there were no partitions surrounding the
balcony, it is considered as if it reached the ground by the appli-
cation of the law of Gud Achith *). So said R. Hananiah ben
Aqabia." (This is virtually the same as the opinion of R. Jehu-
dah in our Mishna.) Said Abayi to Rabba: " Perhaps this is
not so ! R. Jehudah, who says, that no separate partition is nec-
essary, does so because he holds, that the wall between the two
courts suffices as a partition for the well also ; consequently he
considers the wall as reaching down as far as the well ; but, in
the case of the balcony, where there is no partition at all to
commence with, the balcony must first be inclined into a stand-
ing position and then be considered as reaching down as far as
the well. Now while R. Jehudah may hold that the wall may
be considered as if it reached down to the well, it does not fol-
low that he also permits of a previous imaginary inclination of
the balcony in addition to the supposition that it reaches down
to the well and thus forms a valid partition. On the other hand,
R. Hananiah ben Aqabia, who permits of both the imaginary
inclination of the balcony and the supposition that it reaches
down as far as the water, may have applied this only to a bal-
cony which was erected above the sea of Tiberias, which is sur-
rounded by cities, banks, and woodsheds, but in the case of a
balcony erected above any other waters he might not have per-
mitted even as much as R. Jehudah."

Said R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua: If the well stood in
a corner between two courts, the partition to be erected on the
other side of the well (which is not between the two walls)
should be ten spans high and a span and a trifle wide on each
side (and when applying the law of Lavud to the partition on
both sides a partition will be effected on every side of the well,
providing the well was only four spans square).

MISHNA: If a canal runs through a court, it is not lawful
to draw water therefrom (on Sabbath), unless there be a parti-
tion ten spans high where the canal flows into the court and

* For explanation of Gud, see note to page 7.

2o8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

another where it flows out again. R. Jehudah said: " The wall
above is to be considered a partition." R. Jehudah further
said: " It happened, that water was drawn from the canal around
the walls of a town (the moat) on the Sabbath with the sanction
of the elders," but the sages replied: " That was done, because
the canal was not of the legal size (of four spans width)."

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught: If a partition was made
where the canal flowed into the court but not where it flowed
out of the court, or if it was made where the canal flowed out
but not where it flowed in, it is not lawful to draw water there-
from on the Sabbath unless there was a partition both where
the canal flowed into and out of the court. R. Jehudah, how-
ever, said: " The wall above the canal may serve as the parti-
tion/'

Said R. Jehudah: " It happened that water was drawn from
the canal flowing into the city of Sepphoris from the walls
around it * (the canal flowing from the moat) with the sanction
of the elders," but the sages said to him: " Wouldst thou place
this in evidence ? In that case the canal was not ten spans deep
nor four spans wide."

We have learned in another Boraitha: " A canal which flows
between two walls which contained apertures, if it was less than
three spans wide, a bucket may be let down from the apertures
and water drawn from the canal ; but if it was over three spans
wide this must not be done (on Sabbath). R. Simeon ben
Gamaliel, however, says, that if the canal was less than four
spans wide, water may be drawn therefrom, but if over four
spans, this must not be done." In which class of legal ground
can such a canal be placed ? Shall we say: in the class of
unclaimed ground ? Then the statement of R. Dimi in the name
of R. Johanan to the effect that there is no unclaimed ground
less than four spans will not be in accordance with the opinion
of all the sages but merely with that of part of them ; for accord-
ing to the sages of the above Boraitha, even three spans may
constitute unclaimed ground ? Zera said: " The sages of the
Boraitha do differ with R. Simeon ben Gamaliel concerning this

* The term in the Mishna which we render with " walls around the city" is
" Ebal," and in a translation of the Mishna by De Sola and Raphall, Ebal is called
the " town of Ebal." This seems to be inconsistent with the text, however, as further
on in the Gemara we find " Me-Ebal le-Sepphoris," and were Ebal a town it is not
reasonable that a canal from one city to another should not be ten spans deep and four
wide. Aside from this, the Mashbir of Schoenhak and the dictionary of Levy define
the term Abuloh (Greek kuftohrj), " walls around a town.-"

TRACT ERUBIN. 209

point whether unclaimed ground may be three spans or four,
and the statement of R. Dimi is merely in accordance with the
opinion of part of the Tanaim."

Why should a canal between two walls containing apertures
not be considered as the holes in unclaimed ground ; for prior to
its entering the space between the two walls it was undoubtedly
over four spans wide, and hence unclaimed ground (as holes in
public or private ground are considered as part of public or pri-
vate ground respectively, see Tract Sabbath, p. 1 1) ? Abayi bar
Abhin and R. Hanina bar Abhin both declare, that this theory
(of holes being equal to the ground) does not exist where
unclaimed ground is concerned.

R. Ashi, however, said: Even if the theory does apply to
unclaimed ground it applies only then, if the ground is near to
the hole (in a wall of the ground), but if it is a distance off as it
must be in the case of this canal, the theory can under no cir-
cumstances be applied. Rabhina, however, said: The three,
respectively four spans discussed in the Boraitha do not apply
to the canal, but to partitions which were erected at the entrance
and outlet of the canal at each end of the alley, and both parties
to the dispute merely adhere to their respective theories concern-
ing Lavud, one side maintaining that three spans constitute
" Lavud," and the other that even four spans accomplish this
object.

MISHNA: If there be a balcony above the water, it is not
lawful to draw water therein on the Sabbath, unless a partition
be made ten hands high, either above or below the balcony.
Thus, also, if there be two balconies, one above the other:
Should a partition have been made for the upper and not for the
lower, it is unlav/ful to draw water through either, unless they
have been combined by an Erub.

GEMARA: Our Mishna is not in accordance with the opin-
ion of Hananiah ben Aqabia, who holds, that in a balcony four
ells square, a hole maybe cut out four spans square, etc., as
related previously (page 207), but R. Johanan in the name of
R. Jose ben Zimra said: " Hananiah ben Aqabia permitted this
to be done only in the case of a balcony erected above the waters
of the sea of Tiberias for the reason as stated previously, but
not above other waters."

The Rabbis taught: Three things were allowed by R. Hana-
niah ben Aqabia to the inhabitants of Tiberias, viz. : To draw
water through a balcony on Sabbath ; to deposit fruit in pea-
VOL. in. — 14

210 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

stalks (although, while in the field, dew had settled on the fruit,
it is not considered as being wet, and hence not subject to defile-
ment) ; and to wipe themselves with a towel when emerging from
the bath (as there is no fear of their wringing the towel).

Rabba bar R. Huna said: " Do not say, that the imaginary
hanging partition of the balcony makes it lawful, only to draw
water through the balcony but not to pour out water through it,
for it is also permitted to pour out superfluous water through
that balcony." Said R. Shezbi: "Is this not self-evident?
For is this not identical with a sewer mentioned in the next
Mishna?" From the succeeding Mishna, where the sewer is
supposed to absorb the water, it is allowed to pour water into it
even if it be full and run over into the street because the inten-
tion was to have the sewer absorb the water, but in this case,
where the waters are not stationary, we might assume that it is
not allowed to pour out more water to commence with ; hence
we are told by Rabba bar R. Huna that this may be done.

' Thus, also, if there be two balconies, one above the other"
etc. Said R. Huna in the name of Rabh: (The Mishna states,
that if a partition had been made for the upper and not for
the lower, it is unlawful to draw water through either.) When
is this the case ? If the balconies were not quite four spans
apart, but if they were four spans apart it is allowed to draw water
through the upper. This is merely in accordance with the men-
tioned theory of Rabh, that one man cannot impede (the actions
of) another through atmosphere.

Rabba said in the name of R. Hyya and R. Joseph made the
statement in the name of R. Oshiya, as follows: The law con-
cerning robbery is applicable also on Sabbath. What is meant
thereby ? If there was a ruin belonging to a man and another
man made use of it during the week, it might be assumed that
he had acquired the right to it for the Sabbath and may carry
therein (for under ordinary circumstances, if a man robbed
another of an article and such article is in his possession it is
considered as belonging to him until the victim of the robbery
reclaims his right to it by law) ; but we are given to understand
that in this case as soon as the Sabbath sets in the property
reverts to its rightful owner (without his recovering same by
law).

Said Rabba: " This above statement (that the law of robbery
is applicable also on Sabbath) would be contradictory to our
Mishna, which says that if there were two balconies one above the

TRACT ERUBIN. 211

other, and a partition was made for the upper, it is prohibited to
draw water through either, etc., and for this reason: During the
week the upper balcony undoubtedly makes use of the lower
and thereby acquires a temporary right to it. If, then, by using
the lower balcony during the week the upper balcony does so
wrongfully, and on Sabbath the lower balcony reverts to its
rightful owners, to the exclusion of the inmates of the upper
balcony, how can the upper balcony prove an impediment to the
lower, which it cannot use ? " * Said R. Shesheth : " The Mishna
refers to a case, where the partition made for the upper balcony
was joint property of both upper and lower." If the partition
was made jointly, of what benefit would a partition made to
the lower be to the upper ; as long as a share in the partition of
the upper balcony is owned by the lower, the upper cannot be
used until both combine an Erub ? As soon as the lower bal-
cony erects a partition for itself, it exposes its intention to sever
all connection with the upper and thus either balcony may draw
water through their respective grounds.

MISHNA: If a court be less than four ells square, it is not
permitted to pour water therein on Sabbath, unless a sewer is
made, which has a capacity of two saahs exclusive of the walls,
either outside or within the court. If the sewer has been made
outside it must be covered up (with boards), while on the inside
it need not be covered up. R. Eliezer ben Jacob said: " Into
a gutter, which is covered up to the extent of four ells in public
ground, it is permitted to pour water on the Sabbath " ; the sages,
however, hold, that even though the court or roof be one hun-
dred ells long, it is not permitted to pour water down the gutter
(direct) ; but the water may be poured out on the roof, so as to
drop down into the gutter. (In computing the four ells) men-
tioned in the first clause of this Mishna, the hall may be added.
Thus, also, if there be two habitations facing each other (in one
court) and the inmates of one have made a sewer, but were not
joined in making it by the inmates of the other habitation, those
who made the sewer are permitted to throw water into it, but
those that did not make it, are not permitted to do so.

GEMARA: What is the reason that water must not be
poured into a court less than four ells square ? Said Rabba :

* The explanation of this paragraph of the Gemara is according to the commen-
tary of Rabbena Hananel, as Rashi reverses the case from the lower balcony to the
upper and presents an incomprehensible explanation.

212 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

" A man generally consumes two saahs of water every day. If
his court be four ells square or more he pours out the water in
order to lay the dust ; but if it be less than four ells square, he
merely would throw out the water in order to have it run out
into the street (and that is prohibited as a precaution, lest he
should pour out the water into the street direct)."

R. Zera said : " A court of four ells square absorbs two saahs
of water, hence, even should part of it run out into the street,
it was not the intention of the man who poured it out that it
should, but if the court is less than four ells square it does not
absorb that quantity of water and part of it must needs run out
into the street, hence it is prohibited to pour it out." Wherein
lies the difference between Rabba and R. Zera ? Said Abayi :
" If the court was oblong, say eight ells by two. It absorbs the
water undoubtedly, but as for laying the dust in a court of that
size a man would not trouble himself to pour out water for that
purpose." An objection was made based upon our Mishna,
which states in computing the four ells square of the court the
hall may be added. Would this not prove that the reason is
according to R. Zera? "According to Rabba," explained R.
Zera, " the Mishna might refer to a hall which, surrounding the
court, made it in the form of a square, e.g., if the court was
four ells long by two wide, and the hall added two ells to the
width."

" R. Eliezer ben Jacob said: 'Into a gutter,'" etc. Our
Mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Hananiah, for
we have learned in a Boraitha: " Hananiah said: ' Even if the
roof be one hundred ells long, it is not permitted to pour water
on it, as it is not made for the purpose of absorbing the water,
but for the purpose of throwing it off into the street.' '

It was taught in a Boraitha: " All these regulations concern-
ing the pouring of water apply only to summer but during the
rainy period one may pour as much water as he chooses into the
court." Why is this so? Said Rabha: " Because it is the
intention of the man to have the court absorb the water." Said
Abayi to him: "Unclean water is certainly intended to be
absorbed by the ground, still it is not permitted to pour it down
the gutter." Rejoined Rabha: " Why should this not be per-
mitted during the rainy season ? Can it be the intention of the
man that the water should run out into the street in order that
his court should not become muddy ? It is already muddy.
Then the reason might possibly be in the manner of a precau-

TRACT ERUBIN. 213

tion, lest the man pour the water into the street direct or others
seeing water running out of a court, might assume that it is
allowed to pour out such water into the court even during the
dry season ? The precaution is unnecessary. Those who see
water running out of the court will naturally conclude that it is
rain-water, because of the rainy season of the year, and there is
no fear of the man pouring out the water into the street, because
his court being already muddy, he will not mind pouring more
water into it." Said Aoayi: "According to thy explanation,
then, during- the rainy season the quantity of water is immaterial,
even if it be a kur or two it may be poured out nevertheless."

" If there be two habitations facing each other," etc. It was
taught: Rabba said: "They must not pour water into the
sewer, provided they did not combine an Erub, but if they did
combine an Erub, they may pour water into the sewer." And
if they did not combine an Erub, why should it not be allowed ?
They merely throw the water down the sewer! Said R. Ashi :
' This is merely a precautionary measure, lest they fill some
vessels with water and then carry them to the sewer."

CHAPTER IX.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE COMBINING OF ROOFS ON SABBATr

MISHNA: All the roofs of a town are considered one pri-
vate ground (although the houses underneath are occupied by
several), provided there be not one roof ten hands higher or ten
hands lower than the rest. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; the
sages, however, hold, that each roof constitutes a separate private
ground. R. Simeon said : Roofs, as well as courts and wood-
stores, constitute one private ground, for the carrying of all such
utensils as were actually situated there when the Sabbath set in,
but not for the carrying of such utensils as were still in the house
when the Sabbath set in.

GEMARA: Abayi bar Abhin and R. Hanina bar Abhin
were sitting alongside of Abayi, and were conversing between
themselves: "It is right according to the sages, who hold, that
in the same manner as the houses are separated below, so are
also the roofs above ; thus, unless an Erub is made between the
houses, it is not permitted to carry from one roof to the other;
but what is the opinion of R. Meir ? Does he hold, that as the
houses are separated so are also the roofs, why does he state,
that all the roofs constitute one private ground ; or if he holds
that above ten spans there is nothing but private ground, what
difference does it make to him, whether a roof be ten spans
higher or lower than the rest ? " Said Abayi to the two brothers :
" Have ye not heard the dictum of R. Itz'hak bar Abhdimi to
the effect, that R. Meir said thus : ' Where there are two dis-
tinct premises both of which, however, are legally private ground,
e.g., a pillar, ten spans high and four spans wide standing in pri-
vate ground, and which must not be used to shoulder burdens
thereon on the Sabbath, lest a heap of the same size standing in
public ground be used for the same purpose,' so it is also in
this case, where a roof is ten spans lower or higher than the rest
the same precautionary measure applies."

The two brothers hearing this from Abayi thought, that
according to R. Meir the same case applied to a mortar or kettle,

214

TRACT ERUBIN. 215

ten spans high; said Abayi to them : " My master told me, that
R. Meir said, this precaution applied only to a pillar and a mill-
stone because for these two objects special places are designated,
but as for other utensils, even if they be ten spans high, the pre-
caution is unnecessary."

The sages, however, hold, that each roof constitutes a separate
private ground." It was taught: Rabh said: " On every roof
things must not be handled except within a limit of four ells,"
but Samuel said: " They may be handled in the whole extent of
the roof." If the roofs are separated and the separation is
apparent, all agree, that carrying things on those roofs is permis-
sible (because in this case the walls underneath are considered as
if they reached up to the tops of the roofs) but they differ con-
cerning roofs that are separated, where the separation is not
apparent. Rabh holds that things must not be carried on those
roofs (where the separation is not apparent) except for a distance
of four ells, because he does not admit, in this case, the theory
of Gud Assik (possibility of the. walls reaching up to the tops of
the roofs), while Samuel, who does admit the theory, holds, that
carrying is permitted in the entire extent of the roofs (because he
admits of the possibility of the walls reaching the tops of the roofs).

An objection was made based upon our Mishna: The sages
hold, that each roof constitutes a separate private ground. This
is in accordance with Samuel's opinion but is contradictory to
the opinion of Rabh. The disciples of Rabh said in his name,
that the statement, " things must not be handled except within
a limit of four ells," meant to signify, " two ells in each adjoin-
ing roof" (but in the one roof things may be handled through-
out its entire extent).

Abayi said: " If a man erected an attic on top of his house
and provided it with a small door four spans wide, he may carry
things in all the roofs." (The reason for this statement is, that
the fact of the man having made an attic and provided it with a
door is proof, that the other inmates had resigned their right to
the use of the roof in his favor.) Said Rabha : " It may happen,
that the small door with which the attic was provided may pre-
vent the man from using the other roofs " (even according to R.
Meir). How so ? If the door in the attic faced a garden below
and the partition made by the attic separated his roof from the
others, it might be said, that he made that door merely so as to
be able to watch his garden and renounced his right to the use
of the roofs.

216 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

(It was taught :) Roofs, level one to the other in which,
according to R. Meir, it is permitted to carry things, and a single
roof which may be used according to the sages, may according to
Rabh be used throughout their whole extent, while according to
Samuel, it is only allowed to use them for an extent of four ells.
Would not this be a contradiction by Rabh to his previous
statement and by Samuel to his own former dictum ? This can
be explained thus : Rabh's previous statement referred to a case,
where the separation between the roofs was not apparent while
in this case the separation is apparent and Samuel's former
dictum referred to a roof that had less than two saahs' capacity,
while in this case it refers to a roof that has a capacity of more
than two saah. Why should a roof of that size not be allowed
to be used ? The possibility of the walls reaching the tops of the
roofs is not admitted, for the reason that partitions which enclose
dwellings are made downwards and are not supposed to extend
upwards, and of a space which is not enclosed by partitions of
dwellings and has a capacity of over two saah, only four ells
may be used.

It was taught : Concerning a ship, Rabh said, one may carry
things throughout the whole extent of the ship, because the
space of a ship is enclosed with partitions, and Samuel said, one
may carry only to the extent of four ells. Why so ? Because
the partitions were not made for the purpose of making the
space inhabitable but merely to keep out the water. Said R.
Hyya bar Joseph to Samuel: "According to whose opinion
does the Halakha prevail ? According to thy opinion or accord-
ing to Rabh's," and Samuel answered, " The Halakha prevails
according to Rabh."

R. Giddel in the name of R. Hyya bar Joseph said: " Rabh
agrees with Samuel's opinion, concerning a ship that was in dry
dock and turned over, that it was only permitted to carry things
for a distance of four ells." For what purpose was the ship
turned over ? If people lived within it, why should it not be
allowed to carry things throughout its whole extent ? Is the
bottom of the ship not equal to a roof, when the ship was turned
over ? Nay; the ship was turned over for a coating of tar.

R. Jehudah said : When we shall arrive at the final conclu-
sions of R. Meir we shall find that all roofs are considered as
one private ground in their own right, i.e., that carrying from
one roof to the other is permissible ; also that all courts are con-
sidered as one private ground and likewise all woodsheds, but

TRACT ERUBIN. 217

from the final conclusions of the sages we shall learn, that roofs
and courts constitute one private ground, i.e., that it is permitted
to carry things from the roof to the court and vice versa, which,
according to R. Meir is not allowed. The woodsheds, however,
are considered according to the sages a separate private ground,
i.e., things may be carried from one woodshed to another but
not from a woodshed into a court. The final conclusions of R.
Simeon denote, that all roofs, courts, and woodsheds are consid-
ered as one private ground.

We have learned one Boraitha in support of Rabh and
another in support of R. Jehudah. The one supporting Rabh
reads as follows: " All roofs of the town are considered as one
private ground ; but it is prohibited to carry things from the roofs
to the courts, and vice versa.'' Vessels which were situated in
the court before the Sabbath set in, may be carried in all the
courts, and those situated in the roofs before the Sabbath set in
may be handled in all the roofs, provided there is not a roof ten
spans higher or lower than the rest. Such is the dictum of R.
Meir ; but the sages said : Every roof constitutes a separate
ground and things must not be carried in it for a distance ot over
four ells. This bears out the statement of Rabh in which he
says that when the separation between the roofs is not apparent
one must not carry except in a limit of four ells.

In support of R. Jehudah we have learned the following
Boraitha: Rabbi said: " When we learned the Law at R. Sim-
eon's in the city of Thequa, we would carry towels and oil from
one roof to another, from that to the court, and from that
to another, and from the other court to a woodshed, and from
that to another, until we would come to the springs where we
would bathe."

Said R. Jehfidah: " It happened in a time of danger, that we
brought up the sacred scrolls from a court to a roof, from the
roof to another court, and from that to a woodshed in order to
read therein." The sages answered: " Acts committed during
a time of danger do not serve as evidence."

' ' R. Simeon said: 4 Roofs as well as courts and woodsheds, ' '
etc. Said Rabh: " The Halakha prevails according to R. Sim-
eon, providing no Erub was made, but if an Erub was effected,
it is not so, because there is fear, lest the utensils from the houses
be carried out on the Sabbath and are then carried about in all
the courts." (R. Simeon himself admits, that they form one
private ground for the carrying of such utensils as were actually

218 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

within the courts or roofs when the Sabbath set in but nor for
such utensils as were within the house.) Samuel, however, as
well as R. Johanan, said: " There is no difference whether an
Erub was made or not."

R. Hisda opposed this: According to Samuel and R. Johanan
there will be two kinds of vessels in the court, one kind, which
had already been situated in the court when the Sabbath set in,
and the other, which was brought out from the house during
Sabbath. Is then not the precautionary measure decreed by
Rabh really necessary ? Simeon holds to his theory that pre-
cautionary measures are not necessary.

Come and hear: " Five courts which opened into each other
and also opened into one alley, the inmates of which had all for-
gotten and not combined an Erub, (the inmates) are prohibited
to carry in or carry out from the court into the alley, or from the
alley into the court. The utensils which were situated in the
courts when the Sabbath set in may be carried in the courts, but
the utensils which were situated in the alley must not be carried
even in the alley. R. Simeon, however, permits this to be done
(even to carry the utensils of the court into the alley) because he
used to say: as long as many people lived there and had forgotten
to combine an Erub, the roof, the court, the balcony, the gallery,
the woodshed, and the alley are all considered the same legal
premises." Thus we see that R. Simeon makes this decree only
if no Erub was made, but if an Erub was made he would not do
so; hence he contradicts Samuel and R. Johanan? Nay; R.
Simeon states this merely to supplement the statement of the
sages and says to them: " As far as I am concerned it makes no
difference whether an Erub was made or not, but according to
your opinion, grant me, that when no Erub was made the
courts, the roofs, etc. all constitute the same legal premises."
The sages, however, answered: " Nay; according to our opinion,
each constitutes separate premises."

Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: " Is it possible that R. Johanan
said this ? Did not R. Johanan say, that the Halakha prevails
according to an anonymous Mishna, and we have learned previ-
ously (Chapter VII., Mishna 2) concerning a wall between two
courts, if there was fruit on the wall, the inmates of both courts
may partake of the fruit providing they do not carry any of it
down with them ? Hence we see that it is not permitted, accord-
ing to that Mishna, to carry things from one court into another
even if an Erub was made by each court ! " (R. Ashi answered :)

TRACT ERUBIN.

219

By carrying it down is meant carrying it down into the houses,
but carrying it down into the courts is permitted.

Asked Rabhina again: " Did not R. Hyya teach (in addition
to the quoted Mishna), ' providing the inmates of each court do
not take it down into their respective courts and eat it '? " Said
R. Ashi: " If Rabbi did not teach this in the Mishna, whence
does R. Hyya adduce that explanation (I think that my inter-
pretation of the Mishna is correct) ?"

It was taught: " If there were two courts, which had a ruin
between them and the inmates of one court combined an Erub,
while the inmates of the other did not, R. Huna said that the
court that had not the Erub is entitled to the ruin (i.e., the ves-
sels situated in their court may be transferred to the ruin) but the
court that had combined the Erub is not entitled to the ruin for
fear that they might carry out vessels, which were situated in their
houses on the Sabbath, into the court, and thence into the ruin."

Hyya, the son of Rabh, however, said : (I heard from my
father) that even the court that had an Erub combined may be
entitled to the ruin and I explain my father's dictum to signify,
that the utensils contained in either court may be transferred to
the ruin. If thou shouldst explain my father's dictum to sig-
nify, that neither of the courts may make use of the ruin,
because he understood R. Simeon's decree to mean " if they
had made an Erub they became separate premises," hence, in
this case, one of the courts having combined an Erub interferes
with others also, I will answer it by saying, that such would be
the case if there were an occupied court between them, in which
event there might be vessels which were situated in the court
when the Sabbath set in and also vessels which had been carried
out of the houses, so that it would be impossible to distinguish
which could and which could not be carried throughout all the
courts. When, however, as is the case here, a ruin is between
the two courts where there are no vessels which are actually
situated there, the danger of confusion is removed and hence
my explanation is, that it is permitted for both courts to transfer
their vessels to the ruin.

MISHNA: If a large roof adjoin a small one, the owners of
the large roof are permitted to carry things thither from the
house, but the owners of the small roof are prohibited to do this.
If a large court opens into a small one, through a breach in the
wall, the inmates of the large court are permitted to carry
things through the breach, but the inmates of the small court

220 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

are prohibited to do so, because the smaller court is considered
as an entry to the larger.

GEMARA: Why does the Mishna teach both cases, concern-
ing a roof and a court ? According to Rabh, the object is to
demonstrate that in the same manner as courts are divided by
partitions so should the partitions between roofs be apparent.
According to Samuel, the object is to show, that a roof is on a
par with a court, i.e., as the latter is used by many, so also is
the former.

Rabba, R. Zera, and Rabba bar R. Hanan were sitting
together and Abayi sate close by. They said: " From this
Mishna we may adduce, that the inmates of the larger court
control the actions of the smaller, whereas the inmates of the
smaller court exert no influence over those of the larger. How
so ? (For instance:) If vines were planted in the larger, other
seed must not be planted in the smaller; but if the vines were
planted in the smaller, any other seed may be planted in the
larger. If a woman who was to be divorced stood in the smaller
court and the bill of divorce was thrown to her from the larger
court, she is thereby legally divorced, but if she stood in the
larger and the bill was thrown to her from the smaller court,
she is not legally divorced. If the congregation assembled for
prayer stood in the larger and the reader who was to recite the
prayer for them was in the smaller, they have acquitted them-
selves of their duty; if they were in the smaller court, however,
and the reader was in the larger, they have not. If there were
nine men in the larger court and one man in the smaller, that
one man is counted in with the nine and it constitutes a legal
assembly for prayer or for the commission of religious acts, but
if there were nine men in the smaller and one in the larger that
one man cannot be counted in. If there was a filthy thing in
the smaller court (on account of which the Shema prayer could
not be recited) the larger court may nevertheless recite the
prayer; but if the filthy thing was in the larger court the inmates
of the smaller are not allowed to do so."

Said Abayi to them: " According to this then, a partition,
which under ordinary circumstances should facilitate the observ-
ance of laws, would prove a detriment ; for were there no parti-
tion between the larger and smaller court and vines were planted
anywhere within the two courts, a man would simply be obliged
to measure off four ells whence the vines grew and could then
plant whatever he chose."

TRACT ERUBIN. 221

Rabha, through R. Shmaiah ben Zera, sent the following
query to Abayi: " Do we not find as a matter of fact that a
partition at times proves a detriment ? Did we not learn in a
Boraitha, that concerning the partitions of a vineyard there are
instances where they make the observance of laws more lenient
and on the other hand there are instances where they make it
more rigorous." How so ? If the vines are planted hard by
the partition, one may on the other side of the partition plant
whatever he chooses. If there were no partition, however, he
would have to measure off four ells whence the vines grew and
then plant whatever he chose. This is an instance of leniency
caused by the partition. When does it make the law more rig-
orous ? If the vines were planted to within eleven ells of the
partition, it is not allowed to plant other seed anywhere within
those eleven ells; but if there were no partition, four ells would
suffice between the vineyard and the place where other seed was
to be planted. Rejoined Abayi: " Why base thy query upon
a Boraitha, if in thy opinion the partition is the main issue ?
Why not cite the following Mishna ? (Kilaim, Chapter IV.,
Mishna 2:) 'If the space between the vineyard and the fence
which surrounds it be less than twelve square ells, no other seed
may be sown therein; but if it measure that superficies, a vacant
space must be allowed for the cultivation of the vines growing
near it, and the rest of the ground may be used for saving (other
seed).' ' We must say, that because in the Mishna the partition
is not the issue, but it is a question of the space between the
four ells allowed for the cultivation of the vineyard and the four
ells allowed to the hedge or fence, and if such space is four ells
wide (i.e., if the whole is twelve) other seed may be sown
therein, but if less than four, it is abandoned. Hence we might
say, that the same issue is treated of in the Boraitha ?

R. Jehudah said: " If there are three woodsheds opening
into each other, of which the two outer are enclosed while the
middle one is not
(see illustration^),
and there is a man
in each of the wood-
sheds, the men are
considered as a caravan and are entitled to as much room as they
desire. If the middle one, however, was enclosed, but the two
outer ones were not (see illustration B\ and there was a man in
each of the three woodsheds, they are entitled to a space of six

222 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

saahs' capacity, i.e., two saahs to each man. (For the reason,
that in the first instance the middle woodshed is smaller than
either of the two outer ones and is virtually absorbed by them,
while in the latter case, the middle woodshed is the larger, but
cannot absorb the two outer ones, hence the men cannot be con-
sidered as a caravan.)"

The schoolmen propounded a question: " How is it if (in
the latter instance of the woodsheds, illustration B) there were
two men in the middle woodshed and one each in the outer
sheds ? Shall we assume that the two men of the middle shed,
having a right to either shed, are considered as being in either
one of the two outer sheds, and three persons being in one place,
thereby form a caravan, or shall we say, that as there are two
men in the middle woodshed, each one of them can occupy
either court, in which event there would be two people each in
the outer courts and no caravan is formed — consequently they
are entitled only to a space of two saahs' capacity for each
man ? If the latter instance should apply, how would it be if
there were two men in each of the outer sheds and one man in
the middle shed ? Whichever court he might occupy, there
would be three men, and thus a caravan would be formed, or,
because there is doubt which he would occupy, having a right
to either, it would not be considered as a caravan?" The
answer was: "All ordinances pertaining to Erubin should be
construed in their most lenient form."

Said R. Hisda: " If a court was five spans higher at the
edges than in the centre and a partition of five spans height
was added to the edges, it does not constitute a valid partition ;
for either the edges must be ten spans high to commence with
or the partition must be made ten spans high." Mareimar,
however, maintained, that the two may be counted together and
constitute a legal partition.

Rabhina met R. A'ha the son of Rabha and asked him:
"Does the master teach anything pertaining to partitions?"
and he answered : " Nay." The Halakha prevails, that the edges
of the court and the partitions are counted together and con-
stitute a legal partition.

R. Oshiya propounded a question: " How is it if new habi-
tations are added to a court on the Sabbath (i.e., if a wall
between two courts had become broken and thus new dwellings
were added); do they impede the inmates of that court or not ? "
Said R. Hisda: Come and hear: (We have learned this in our

TRACT ERUBIN. 223

Mishna:) " If a large court opens into a small one, through a
breach in the wall, the inmates of the large court are permitted
to carry things through the breach, but the inmates of the small
court are prohibited to do so." Rejoined Rabba: " Perhaps
the Mishna refers to a breach that was made before the Sab-
bath set in." Said Abayi: " The Master should not say ' per-
haps ' ; it is certain, that the breach was caused on the eve of
Sabbath; because didst not thou, Master, say thyself at one time,
that thou didst ask of R. Huna and of R. Jehudah concerning
an Erub which was made through an aperture or a door which
had accidentally become closed up on the Sabbath and they told
thee, that if that happened after the Sabbath set in, the Erub is
valid for the whole Sabbath, having been valid at the beginning
(and they certainly would not contradict a Mishna) ! "

It was taught : If a wall between two courts was destroyed
on the Sabbath, Rabh said, that it is not permitted to carry
things in either of the courts for a distance of over four ells,
but Samuel maintains, that the inmates of each court may
carry as far as the ruins of the wall. The statement herein
attributed to Rabh was not made by him outright, but was
inferred from the occurrence as follows : Rabh and Samuel were
both sitting in one court on Sabbath and suddenly the wall of
the court caved in. Said Samuel to the other inmates of the
court: " Take a garment and hang it up in place of the wall."
Rabh turned away his face from Samuel. Said Samuel: "If
Abba (Rabh) is angry let him take his girdle and fasten the gar-
ment with it to the wall." If according to Samuel it is allowed
to carry as far as the ruins of the wall, why did he order that a
garment should be fastened as a partition ? Samuel did not
order this to be done in order to make a partition but merely to
prevent outsiders from peering into the court. And Rabh ! if
he holds that it is not allowed to carry he should have said so ?
It was Samuel's domain, and he could not contradict him at that
time. Why then did he turn away his face ? (Surely he is not
responsible for Samuel's actions.) In order to show that he did
not agree with Samuel's opinion but still adhered to his oivn.

MISHNA: If a court (through an incavation of its walls) is
laid open to public ground, whosoever brings anything from
private ground into such a court, or from the court into private
ground, is culpable. Such is the dictum of R. Eliezer. The
sages hold, however: Whoever brings anything from the court
into public ground, or from public ground into the court, is

224 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

absolved; since the court (through the incavation of its walls
and consequent opening) has become like unclaimed ground.

GEMARA: Does R. Eliezer hold, that if a court by reason
of the incavation of its walls is laid open to public ground, it
becomes public ground ? Yea! He holds to his theory as
expressed elsewhere (Baba Bathra), that if the public had taken
a certain path through a meadow (although there was no path)
and used it constantly, it remains a path (and the same is the
case with this court ; if it was laid open into public ground it
becomes the same as public ground). This is not so ! Did not
R. Giddel say in the name of Rabh, that R. Eliezer (in the pas-
sage quoted) referred to a case where the original path had been
lost and could not be found, and if we would assume that in the
case of the court he holds, that only the space which had been
lost to the public, i.e., where it is not apparent that the wall had
been standing, becomes as public ground, but the whole court is
certainly not to be considered such ; did not R. Hanina say, that
the sages and R. Eliezer differ as to the entire space up to where
the wall was standing ? Hence we must say, that R. Eliezer
holds the entire court to have become as public ground! The
statement of R. Hanina should be modified to the effect, that
they differ only as to the space that had been occupied by the
wall and not up to the wall; thus R. Eliezer does not consider
the entire court as public ground. If you wish, I may say, that
(the place where the wall stood is still apparent, and) the sages
differ with R. Eliezer merely as to the adjoining places to public
ground. R. Eliezer holds them to be the same as public ground,
while the sages say that, as there had at one time been a court
there, it is now not public ground.

MISHNA: In a court (the corner walls of which had fallen
in on Sabbath so) that (it) has been laid open to public ground
on two sides ; also in a house (which by a similar accident) was
laid open on two sides ; or in an entry the cross and side beam
of which had been removed, it is permitted to carry things on
that same Sabbath; but it is not permitted to do so on the suc-
ceeding Sabbaths. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah; but R.
Jose said: If it were permitted for that particular Sabbath, it
would also be permitted for the future; but since it is prohibited
for the future, it is also prohibited on that same Sabbath.

GEMARA: How is the case with the walls treated of in the
Mishna ? If the breach caused by the incavation does not
exceed ten ells, (it is regarded as a door) so what difference does

TRACT ERUBIN. 225

it make upon how many sides the court has been laid open ? If
the breach, however, exceeded ten ells, then it would be the
same even if one side only were laid open. Said Rabh : The
breach does not exceed ten ells but in a corner it is not custom-
ary to make a door.

"A house which was laid open on both sides '," etc. How
would it be if the house were laid open only on one side ? We
would say, that the edge of the roof is supposed to reach down
to the bottom and thus serve as a substitute for the wall by
application of the law of " Gud Achith." Cannot the same rule
apply to two sides of a house ? Let the edge of the roof on
both sides be supposed to reach down to the bottom ? Said the
disciples of Rabh in the name of their master: " The Mishna
refers to a house where the corner walls had fallen in and where
the roof was not flat but slanting, so that with the walls it also
fell."

Samuel said: " In the case of a court the Mishna does refer
to an instance where the breach exceeded ten ells, but it also
states that the walls had caved in on both sides because further,
when treating of a house, it must specify two sides, hence it
does so also when courts are in question." Why must two
sides be mentioned in the instance of a house ? Cannot the
edge of the roof be supposed to reach down to the bottom of
both walls ? Then again does Samuel hold to the supposition,
that the edge of the roof reaches to the bottom of the wall ?
Was it not taught that concerning a gallery in a valley, Rabh
said, it is permitted to carry throughout the whole extent of the
valley, because the edges of the gallery are supposed to reach
down to the ground and thus form a partition for the entire val-
ley, whereas Samuel maintained that this supposition cannot be
considered and hence it is only permitted to carry for a distance
of four ells ? This would not present a difficulty, for in that
case Samuel maintains, that the edges of the gallery must not be
supposed to reach down to the ground because there must be
four distinct partitions, but where only three are necessary he
would admit the feasibility of such a supposition. The difficulty
concerning the two sides of the house where the breach measured
over ten ells still remains! In the same manner as the disciples
of Rabh referred to a house where the corner walls had fallen in
together with their slanting roof, Samuel may refer to a house,
the corner walls of which had sustained a breach four ells in
width on each corner, or eight ells in all, and five ells in length
VOL. in. — 15

226 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

on one side, and five ells and a trifle on the other side, or
slightly over ten ells in all. Hence it would be necessary to sup-
pose that the edges of the roof reach down on four sides of the
breach two in width and two in length and that would be con-
trary to the theory of Samuel !

Why does Samuel not hold with Rabh ? Because the Mishna
does not mention a slanting roof and Rabh does not hold with
Samuel because he (Rabh, as we have seen in the instance of the
gallery in the valley) permits of the supposition, that the edges
of a gallery or a roof can reach down on four sides.

" R.Jose said: If it were permitted for that particular Sab-
bath,1' etc. The schoolmen propounded a question: " How is
R. Jose's dictum to be construed ? Does he mean to permit it
entirely or to prohibit it entirely ? " R. Shesheth as well as
R. Johanan said: "He means to prohibit it entirely." We also
learned to this effect in a Boraitha, viz. : R. Jose said : As they
are not permitted to carry on subsequent Sabbaths, so are they
also prohibited to do so on that particular Sabbath.

It was taught : R. Hyya bar Joseph said, the Halakha pre-
vails according to R. Jose, and Samuel said: "The Halakha
prevails according to R. Jehudah. Did Samuel indeed say so ? "
Did not R. Jehudah reply to R. Hana of Bagdad that Samuel
decreed: " The Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah in all
cases pertaining to Erubin, but not where partitions are con-
cerned?" Said R. Anan: "Samuel himself explained to me
that if the courts were laid open towards unclaimed ground the
Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah but if they were laid
open towards public ground the Halakha prevails according to
R. Jose."

MISHNA: If an attic be built over two houses, also if
bridges are open at both ends, it is lawful to carry things under-
neath on the Sabbath. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah ; but
the sages prohibit it. Moreover, R. Jehudah further said: It is
lawful to combine, by means of an Erub, an alley that is open
at both ends, but the sages prohibit it.

GEMARA: Said Rabba: Do not say that the reason of R.
Jehudah is because a private ground requires according to bibli-
cal law only two partitions, but because he holds (Gud Achith)
that the ends of the roofs (in this case of the attic or the
bridge) are supposed to reach down to the bottom.

CHAPTER X.

SUNDRY REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SABBATH.

MISHNA: If a man (on Sabbath) find tephilin (on the road),
he should match them and bring them (into the nearest town
or village) in single pairs (i.e., one for the head and one for the
arm). Rabbon Gamaliel said: " He may bring in two pair at a
time." To what does this rule apply ? To old tephilin (phy-
lacteries), but if they be new, he need not bring them in (at all).
If he find them tied up in pairs, or all tied together, he should
remain with them till dark and then bring them in. In times of
danger (religious persecutions), however, he covers them up and
passes on. R. Simeon said: He should hand them to his com-
panion (i.e., the man standing next to him), who in turn hands
them to his companion, and so on from hand to hand until the
outmost court is reached. So, likewise, his child, he should
hand it to his companion, who in turn hands it to his companion
and so on from hand to hand, even (if it have passed through
the hands of) an hundred (men). R. Jehudah said: " In like
manner, a man may pass a cask of wine (which he has found on
the road on the Sabbath) to his companion, and he in turn to
his companion (and so on from hand to hand) even beyond the
legal limits ; the sages, however, objected : " The cask cannot be
conveyed further than its owners have the right to walk."

GEMARA: He may only carry them in single pairs ? Shall
we assume that this anonymous Mishna is not in accordance
with R. Meir, who decrees (Tract Sabbath, page 257) that a
man may clothe himself in as many garments as he chooses ?
Said Rabba: In both instances the decree of R. Meir is based
upon the custom of the week-days (when a man may also put on
as many clothes as he chooses), and as the above-mentioned
Mishna treats of " saving from fire " the Rabbis permit a man to
wear as much clothing as he chooses. In this instance, how.
ever, where there is no danger, (and as a man only wears one
pair of tephilin on a week-day, hence he may wear only one pair

227

228 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

on a Sabbath). Thus this Mishna can also be in accordance
with the decree of R. Meir.

" Rabbon Gamaliel said : He may bring in two pair." What
is the reason of R. Gamaliel's dictum ? Does he hold, that on
Sabbath also tephilin should be worn ? Then he should only
have permitted one pair to be brought in ? If, however, he holds
that on Sabbath tephilin should not be worn and it is merely to
save the tephilin that it was permitted for a man to wear them
on his head and arm, why does he only permit two pair at a
time ; he could have permitted more ? Said R. Samuel bar R.
Itz'hak: " On the head there is only room for two." On the
hand, however, there is room for but one ? As there is room
for two on the head, according to R. Samuel, there is room for
two also on the arm.

Shall we say that the first Tana of the Mishna differs with
Rabbon Gamaliel upon the point advanced by R. Samuel bar
R. Itz'hak maintaining that there is only room for one on the
head or arm while R. Gamaliel holds there is room for two ?
Nay ; all agree that there is room for two, but they differ as to
the legality of wearing tephilin on the Sabbath. The first Tana
holds that they should be worn on Sabbath, while Rabbon
Gamaliel holds that they must not.

Who of the Tanaim ever held, that on Sabbath tephilin must
be worn (in order that it might be said the first Tana of the
Mishna is in accordance with his opinion) ? That was R. Aqiba;
as we have learned: It is written [Exod. xiii. 10] : " And thou
shalt keep this ordinance in its season from year to year." And
elsewhere [Tract Menachoth] where there is a dispute between
R. Jose the Galilean and R. Aqiba, it concludes with the state-
ment that R. Aqiba holds the wearing of tephilin on Sabbath to
be legal. Does R. Aqiba indeed hold that Sabbath is (also) a
proper time for the wearing of tephilin ? Have we not learned
in another Boraitha as follows: R. Aqiba said: "Lest we
should assume that it is required to wear tephilin on Sabbath
or on festivals, it is written [ibid. 9] : ' And it shall be unto thee
for a sign upon thy hand,' which means, that tephilin should be
worn, when a sign is required, but Sabbath and festivals being
signs in themselves, it is not necessary to have another." There-
fore we must say, that the first Tana of our Mishna does not
hold according to R. Aqiba but in accordance with the Tana of
the following Boraitha: " He who stays awake at night may
either wear tephilin or not, so said R. Nathan ; Jonathan Qitoni,

TRACT ERUBIN. 229

however, said: ' It is not allowed to wear tephilin at night.' '
If R. Nathan, then, holds that tephilin may be worn at night, he
also holds, that they may be worn on Sabbath. This is no evi-
dence ! It may be that he holds that they may be worn at night,
but not on Sabbath ; for have we not learned that R. Aqiba held
the night to be a proper time for wearing tephilin, but not so
the Sabbath ?

We must say, therefore, that the first Tana of our Mishna
is in accord with the opinion of the Tana of the following Bora-
itha: " Michal the daughter of Qushai used to wear tephilin,
and the sages did not object to it ; the wife of Jonah would go
to Jerusalem for the festivals and the sages did not object to
that" [whence we see that the duty of wearing tephilin is a
(positive) commandment which is not dependent upon the time,
*>., if it said, that they must not be worn at night or on Sab-
bath, the law would be dependent upon the time, and that duty
which is dependent upon time need not be performed by women.
If such were the case then the sages would have prevented
Michal from wearing tephilin because of the commandment :
' Thou shalt not add to the law "]. Hence we see that tephilin
may be worn on Sabbath, according to the sages.

It may be, however, that the sages hold to the opinion of
R. Jose, who said, that while the laying of hands upon sacrificial
offerings is only obligatory for men, still, women, when bringing
their offerings, may, if they choose, perform that duty, and the
proof that the sages hold thus is that when the wife of Jonah
would go to Jerusalem for the festivals, a duty which no one
disputes is entirely dependent upon the time, the sages had no
objection. Therefore we must say that the first Tana of our
Mishna is in accord with the opinion of another Tana, viz. : the
Tana of the following Tosephta: " One who finds tephilin on
the Sabbath should bring them in single pairs, whether the
finder be a man or a woman, whether the tephilin be old or new.
Such is the dictum of R. Meir. R. Jehudah, however, prohibits
new tephilin to be brought in but permits old." Now we see
that they differ only as regards new and old tephilin, but not as
to whether a man or woman may bring them in, whence we see
that the duty of tephilin is not dependent upon the time. Then
the question again arises, " does not this Tana hold in accord-
ance with the opinion of R. Jose ? " This would not be consist-
ent ; for neither R. Meir nor R. Jehudah are in accord with R.
Jose. R. Meir is not in accordance with R. Jose as we have

23o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

learned in a Mishna (Tract Rosh Hashana): " One must not pre-
vent children from blowing the cornet." From this we see that
only children are not to be prevented, but women are, and as
the above Mishna is anonymous and it is traditional that all
anonymous Mishnaoth are in accordance with R. Meir, we see
that he (R. Meir) is not in accordance with R. Jose, and that R.
Jehudah is not in accordance with R. Jose is to be seen in the
following Boraitha in Siphra: It is written [Levit. i. 4] : " And
he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering," this is
a law which applies to a man but not to a woman. For the rea-
son that this dictum is by anonymous teachers we, in accordance
with what we have learned elsewhere, ascribe it to R. Jehudah.

R. Elazar said : If a man found whole strands of wool dyed
purple-blue, the same as is used for show-threads (vide Numbers
xv. 38) in the market and it is not known whether they were
intended for the preparation of show-threads, they are not suit-
able for such purpose, but if he found threads of that kind of
wool they are suitable for that purpose. Why should the
strands not be suitable, because it is possible that they were
intended for other purposes, e.g., for garments ? Why not assume
the same to be the case with threads ? The threads are referred
to as being already twisted into the form required for show-
threads. Even so, it might be that they were intended for fringes
on a garment ? Nay; the threads mentioned were already cut to
a size suitable for show-threads and a man would not go to the
trouble of preparing them so carefully if they were to be used
for any other purpose.

Said Rabha: And what about tephilin ? The Mishna dis-
tinctly states, that only old tephilin may be brought in, because
of the certainty that they are actually tephilin, but as for new
ones, even though they be made exactly like tephilin, they must
not be brought in for fear that they be only ordinary amulets.
Hence we see that they apprehended lest a man take the trouble
to prepare amulets exactly like tephilin (why should he not do
so with the blue thread for show-threads) ? Said R. Zera to his
son Ahabha: " Go and tell them, that I have found another
Boraitha which explicitly teaches that if the threads were found
cut off to the required size of the show-threads, they are suitable
for that purpose, for a man will not go to the trouble of cut-
ting off the threads for any other purpose." Rejoined Rabha:
" And if Ahabha taught that Boraitha, did he then encircle it
with jewels ? Our Mishna states explicitly, that only old teph-

TRACT ERUBIN. 231

ilin, but not new, may be brought, which is proof that there is
fear, lest a man go to the trouble of making amulets exactly like
tephilin." ' Therefore," he continued, " whether a man would
take the trouble (to cut off the threads) or not is merely a differ-
ence of opinion between Tanaim as we have already learned in
the Boraitha above: ' R. Meir permitted the bringing in of both
new and old tephilin, while R. Jehudah permitted only old tephi-
lin to be brought,' for the latter held that a man would take
the trouble to make amulets exactly like tephilin while the
former held that he would not."

Now, if the father of Samuel and the son of R. Itz'hak
explained the terms in the Mishna "old tephilin" to signify
that the straps of the tephilin had already been attached and the
legal knot made therein, and "new tephilin" to signify that
the straps had already been attached but the legal knot had not
yet been made, the question whether a man would take the
trouble to imitate the genuine tephilin falls to the ground, and
the issue is merely : One holds, that if the tephilin were already
fit to be worn they may be brought in, while the other holds,
that even if they were not quite prepared they may also be
brought in.

R. Hisda said in the name of Rabh: " If one buys tephilin
of a man who is not an expert, he must examine two tephilin
used for the arm and one used for the head or two of the head
and one of the arm (and if he finds them suitable, he may pur-
chase more)." Now, then, let us see! If he purchases the
tephilin of one man, what reason is there in examining two used
for the arm and one used for the head ; why not examine three for
the arm or three for the head ? And if he purchases the tephilin
of several men, he should examine three of each man !

R. Hisda refers to a man who buys tephilin from one expert,
but he must examine the tephilin for both head and arm in
order to see that both kinds are properly inscribed and it matters
not whether he examine two for the head and one for the arm or
one for the head and two for the arm.

Did R. Kahana, however, not teach, that he should examine
only one each for the head and arm ? This is in accordance
with the opinion of Rabbi, who holds, that in order to firmly
establish (the fact) that the man is an expert or where any other
proof must be brought, two only are necessary. If this is
according to Rabbi, how shall we explain the final clause of
the Boraitha stating, that so shall the second bunch of tephilin

232 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

be examined and likewise the third ? According to Rabbi
why is a third required ? When bunches of tephilin are con-
cerned, Rabbi also admits that they should all be examined,
because the expert probably receives the bunches from different
makers and for that reason two of each bunch, one for the head
and one for the arm, should be examined. Then why only three ?
Four or five should be examined ? Such is really the case, any
amount should be examined but three only are mentioned as a
rule, that in this instance the theory of Hazakah* does not
apply.

' ' He should remain with them till dark and then bring them
in." Why not bring them in in single pairs ? Said R. Itz'hak
the son of R. Jehudah: " My father explained the Mishna thus:
If the man can bring them all in, pair by pair, before darkness
sets in» he may do so, but if he cannot, i.e., if some would still
remain, by the time it gets dark, he should rather remain with
them until it becomes dark and then bring them all in at once."

" In times of danger, however, he covers them up," etc. Have
we not learned that in times of danger he should carry them less
than four ells at a time ? Said Rabh: " This presents no diffi-
culty. Our Mishna treats of times of danger arising from relig-
ious persecutions by the Gentiles while in the Boraitha the
danger is supposed to be that arising from robbers." Said
Abayi t to him: " Thou sayest that our Mishna treats of danger
arising from religious persecutions, how then will the latter clause
of the Mishna correspond with this ? R. Simeon said : ' He
should hand them to his companion,' etc. Would this not
involve still greater danger ? " Answered Rabh : " The Mishna
is not complete and should read thus: ' In times of danger,
however, he covers them up and passes on. ' When is this the
case ? When the danger arises from religious persecutions, but
if it be dangerous on account of robbers he should carry them
for a distance of four ells at a time." R. Simeon, however, said :
" (In the latter case), he should hand them to his companion,"
etc.

Upon what point do R. Simeon and the first Tana differ ?
The first Tana holds that the method adopted by R. Simeon
would be too ostentatious and would seem like a violation of the

* The explanation of the Hazakah will be found in section Jurisprudence.
f This Abayi is presumably Abayi the elder, as the Abayi generally quoted lived
at a later period than Rabh and could not have seen him.

TRACT ERUBIN. 233

Sabbath, whereas carrying for a distance of less than four ells is
by no means objectionable. R. Simeon, however, holds, that
when a man is obliged to carry things for a distance of less than
four ells at a time, he might forget and carry for a distance of
four ells or more, whereas handing the things from one man to
another is perfectly safe.

" So, likewise, his child,'' etc. How came his child on the
field or on the road ? The disciples of Menasseh taught: " This
refers to a child that was born on the road (or in the field)."
What does R. Simeon mean to say by " even if it pass through
(the hand of) an hundred ? " He means to tell us, that although
passing it through many hands is not good for the child, still it
is preferable to carrying it for less than four ells at a time.

' ' R. Jehudah said : In like manner a man may pass a cask, ' '
etc. Does not R. Jehudah hold in accordance with the Mishna
elsewhere [Tract Beitza] that an animal may be led or vessels
may be carried only as far as the owner thereof is entitled to
walk ? Said Rabha: R. Jehudah in the Mishna refers to a cask
which had acquired the right to its Sabbath-rest at the place
where it was situated, but the contents of which had not.
acquired such right, and the cask becomes of no consequence to
the contents.

R. Joseph objected: We have learned in a Boraitha: R.
Jehudah said: " When a caravan was encamped a man may hand
a cask to his companion, he in turn to his companion, and so
on." Thus we see, that this is said only of a caravan but not
under ordinary circumstances ? Hence R. Joseph explained,
that the dictum of R. Jehudah in the Mishna also applies to a
caravan only.

MISHNA: If a man reads in a scroll (of sacred scriptures)
on the threshold of the house, and the scroll slips out of his
hand, he may draw it back again. If a man reads in a scroll of
the scriptures on the roof of his house and the scroll slips out
of his hand, he may, if it has not rolled down for a distance of
ten spans (from public ground), draw it up again ; * but if it
reached down to a distance of ten spans (from public ground)
he should turn the written side over (downwards to the wall), and
leave it there till nightfall. R. Jehudah said: " If the scroll be
but the breadth of a needle from the ground, the man may roll

* It must be borne in mind that the scrolls were rolled on two separate rollers,
and were unwound from one and wound on the other as the reading progressed.

234 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

it back again to himself." R. Simeon said: Even though it be
completely on the ground, the man may roll it back to himself,
for no ordinance regarding the Sabbath-rest supersedes the ven-
eration due to sacred scriptures.

GEMARA: What was the threshold ? Shall we say that the
threshold was private ground and the space before it public
ground, and no precautionary measure is ordained which would
forestall his picking up the entire scroll if it fell into that public
ground ? Hence we must assume, that this is in accordance with
the opinion of R. Simeon, who holds that no ordinance regard-
ing the Sabbath-rest supersedes the veneration due to sacred
scriptures. If, then, the first clause of the Mishna is according
to R. Simeon, then comes the dictum of R. Jehudah, then again
the dictum of R. Simeon, it is obvious, that the first and last
clauses of the Mishna are in accordance with the opinion of R.
Simeon, while the intervening clauses are R. Jehudah's ? Said
R. Jehudah: "Yea, so it is." Abayi, however, said: "The
threshold referred to, was not private ground but unclaimed
ground, and the space before it was public ground. If the scroll
had rolled out into that public ground entirely but for a distance
of four ells only, the man would not be culpable even if he
picked it up and brought it back to the threshold, hence in this
case it was allowed him to bring it back to commence with ; but
if it fell for a distance of more than four ells, he would, should
he bring it back, be culpable, because he would have carried
more than four ells in public ground ; hence it was not allowed
under those circumstances to bring it back in the first place."

" If a man reads, etc., on the roof." The Mishna teaches, that
he should turn the written side of the scriptures over! Is this
then allowed ? Have we not learned in a Boraitha, that the
scribes who write scriptures, tephilin, or Mezuzoth were not per-
mitted to turn over the vellum in order to prevent it from
becoming dirty, but must cover it up with a cloth ? Where this
can be done it should be done, but where it is impossible, rather
than desecrate the sacred scriptures, they should be turned over.

If it fell from the roof and remained hanging alongside of the
wall, it did not rest in any place because the wall is perpendicular,
and it is necessary that it should actually rest on some object ?
The Mishna is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehudah and
is not complete but should read thus: He should turn the written
side over. When is this to be done ? If the wall was a slanting
wall ; but if it was straight, he may draw it back even if it be

TRACT ERUBIN. 235

less than three spans from the ground, because R. Jehudah said:
" If the scroll be but the breadth of a needle from the ground,
the man may roll it back again to himself." Why so ? Because
it is necessary, that it should rest on some object.

MISHNA: On a ledge outside a window it is permitted to
place vessels and to remove them therefrom on the Sabbath.

GEMARA : Where does the ledge project ? Shall we assume,
that it projects into public ground ? Then there is fear, lest they
fall to the ground and the man might bring them back into the
house. Or shall we say that it projects into public ground, then
it is self-evident, that it is permitted. Said Abayi : The ledge is
supposed to project into public ground, but the vessels which
may be placed are brittle, and hence, should they fall, they will
be broken and there is no fear that they will be brought back
into the house.

We have also learned to this effect in a Boraitha: On a ledge
outside a window, which projects into public ground, may be
placed bowls, goblets, jugs, and glasses, and the whole wall
down to within ten spans from the ground may be used, and if
there be another ledge underneath (but over ten spans from the
ground) the wall underneath the lower ledge may be used
entirely, but the upper ledge must only be used to the extent
that it faces the window.

MISHNA: A man may stand in private ground and move
things that are in public ground ; or he may stand in public
ground and move things that are in private ground, provided,
that he does not move them beyond four ells. A man must
not, standing in private ground, make water in public ground
on (Sabbath), nor may he standing in public ground make water
in private ground. In like manner he must not, standing in one
(kind of) ground spit into another. R. Jehudah said: He
who (when coughing) has brought up phlegm into his mouth,
must not go four ells before expectorating.

GEMARA: Said R. Joseph: If he did so (meaning if he
expectorated, etc.) he is culpable and liable for a sin-offering.
But is it not necessary in the first place, that there be a transfer
from a certain fixed place and that the article transferred rest in
another fixed place of four ells square ? Yea, the intention of
the man, however, brings about that condition. For if this
were not so, how could Rabha have said elsewhere, that if a man
threw a thing and it fell into the mouth of a dog or into a fur-
nace, he is culpable ? Is it not necessary that it rest in a space

236 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

of four ells ? Therefore we must say, that the intention of the
man is equal to the deed and such is also the case in this
instance.

" R. Jehudah said : He who has brought up phlegm," etc.
Said Resh Lakish : If a man expectorated in the presence of his
master, he deserves to be killed, for it is written [Proverbs viii.
36] : " All those that hate me, love death." Do not read " All
those that hate me" but " All those who make me hateful"
(see Sabbath, page 236).

MISHNA: A man must not, standing in private ground
drink in public ground, nor may he, standing in public ground,
drink in private ground, unless he places his head and the
greater part of his body, within the place in which he drinks.
Such is also the law regarding a wine-press.

GEMARA: Is the first part of the Mishna preceding our
Mishna in accordance with the opinion of the sages, and our
Mishna in accordance with R. Meir ? Said R. Joseph : The
preceding Mishna refers to objects which are not of absolute
importance while this Mishna refers to objects which are a
necessity to the man ; hence the precautionary measure forestall-
ing the probability of the man's carrying them into the other
ground is instituted.

The schoolmen propounded a question: "What is the law
regarding unclaimed ground, i.e., if the man stood in private or
public ground and drinks out of unclaimed ground and vice
versa?" Said Abayi: "The same law applies to unclaimed
ground." Rejoined Rabha: This ordinance is merely a precau-
tionary measure! Shall we then institute one precautionary
measure as a safeguard to another?" Answered Abayi: "I
deduce this from the further teaching of the Mishna stating,
' Such is also the law regarding a wine-press ' ; for the wine-
press must needs be considered unclaimed ground, as in the
event of its being private ground, why should the repetition be
made ?" and Rabha replied: " The law regarding a wine-press
is not for the sake of the observance of the Sabbath; but it
means to imply, that a man may drink the wine made at the
press without waiting for the tithes to be acquitted thereof."
Thus also said R. Shesheth, as we have learned in a Mishna:
A man may drink from a wine-press, whether he mix the must
with warm or cold water, and need not first acquit the tithes
thereof. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but R. Elazar ben
Zadok prohibits this, if the man mixes the must with water,

TRACT ERUBIN. 237

because by that act he turns it into a beverage. The sages,
however, hold that if he mix it with warm water he turns it into
a beverage and is culpable, but if he mix it with cold water he
is not culpable as it is not considered a beverage, for he can,
after quenching his thirst, pour it back into the press.

MISHNA: A man may catch water dropping from a spout
on the roof, within ten hands from the ground; but from a
projecting spout he may drink in any manner (he chooses).

GEMARA: He may catch it with his hands 'but with the
mouth it is not allowed! Why so ? Said R. Na'hman: This is
the case if the spout was less than three spans from the roof, in
which it is considered as the roof itself, and consequently it is
private ground. If he should catch the water with his mouth
it is like carrying things from private into public ground.

We have also learned to this effect in a Boraitha : A man may
stand in private ground, raise his hand upwards of ten spans to
the spout which is less than three spans from the roof and drink
the water out of his hand; but he must not place a cask or his
mouth underneath the spout.

' ' But from a projecting spout, he may drink in any manner. ' '
We have learned in a Boraitha, that if such spout was four
spans square he must not do this; for it is regarded as carrying
from one (kind of) ground into another.

MISHNA: Should a well standing in public ground have an
enclosure ten spans high, it is lawful to draw water therefrom
(on the Sabbath) through an aperture (window) that is above it.
On a dunghill, ten spans high, standing in public ground, it is
lawful to pour water through any aperture above it.

GEMARA : Where is the well supposed to be situated ? Is
it near the wall, why are ten-span-high enclosures necessary ?
Said R. Huna: " A well is referred to that is more than four
spans distant from the wall, in which case a ten-span-high
enclosure is necessary, otherwise the water would be carried
from private into private ground by way of public ground." R.
Johanan, however, said: The well might have been even near
the wall, but the Mishna intends to teach us, that the well with
its enclosures together are accounted to be ten spans (and hence
a partition which legalizes the private ground).

" On a dunghill, ten spans high" etc. Is there no apprehen-
sion that the dunghill will be decreased (by removing part of it,
in which case it will be less than ten spans and still they will
continue to pour water on it) ? Did not Rabhin bar R. Ada

238 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

say in the name of R. Itz'hak: " It happened that concerning
an entry which opened into the sea and into a dunghill Rabbi
would neither declare the entry lawful nor unlawful. He would
not declare it lawful, because it might occur, that the sea should
recede and leave the land dry and also that the dunghill might be
removed ; yet he would not declare it unlawful because the sea
and the dunghill were still partitions for the time being " ? This
presents no difficulty. In the case quoted by Rabhin the dung-
hill was the property of an individual and he could have removed
it, but in the case treated of in the Mishna the dunghill is public
property and there is no fear of its being removed. Mareimar
erected partitions for all the entries in Sura facing the sea out of
fish-nets, saying: There is danger lest the sea recede and leave
the land in front of the entries dry.*

MISHNA: Beneath a tree, the branches of which droop and
cover the ground so that the tips of its twigs be within three
spans from the ground, it is lawful to carry things (on the Sab-
bath). Should the roots of the tree project three spans high
out of the ground it is not permitted to sit upon them.

GEMARA: R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua said: " If the
space occupied by the tree is of more than two saahs' capacity,
it is not permitted to carry things therein." Why so ? Because
an abode beneath a tree is not considered an actual abode but is
merely used by such as wish to avail themselves of the fresh air,
and wherever such is the case it is not permitted to carry within
a space of more than two saahs' capacity.

" Should its roots project three spans" etc. It was taught:
" If the roots of a tree projected more than three spans and
sloped to a lesser height, Rabba permits their being used because
the ends of the roots are less than three spans from the ground
and hence equal to the ground itself, whereas R. Shesheth pro-
hibits their use because he claims, that the beginning of the roots
being over three spans from the ground cannot be used and the
ends being part and parcel of the beginning are still subject to-
the same prohibition."

If the roots, however, grew in the shape of a rolling sea,
those protruding highest are according to the opinion of all pro-
hibited to be used. Those growing lowest are in everybody's
opinion allowed to be used ; but concerning the roots that grew

* This passage is transferred to this place from page 8a in the original, as it is
more pertinent to this discussion.

TRACT ERUBIN. 239

between the two there is a difference of opinion between Rabba
and R. Shesheth. The same note applies to a tree growing out
of a water-ditch and to a tree growing in a corner between the
two walls of a court.

The Rabbis taught: Roots of a tree projecting out of the
ground three spans or between which there was a space of three
spans must not be used, though one side of them be level with
the ground, because it is not allowed to climb, hang on to, or
lean upon a tree (on Sabbath). One must not climb a tree on
the eve of Sabbath and remain there during the entire Sabbath.
The same rule applies to animals, i.e., one must not climb upon
the back of an animal on the eve of Sabbath and remain there
the following day. One may, however, ascend to (respectively)
descend into a pit, well, cavern, or fence by scaling or holding
to the walls thereof even though they be an hundred ells long.
(The reason for the prohibition regarding a tree is because there
is fear, lest a man might tear off a twig on Sabbath, while in
the case of a pit, well, etc., there is no possibility of such a
thing.)

We have learned in one Boraitha, that if a man climbed up
a tree (inadvertently) on Sabbath he must not descend, while in
another, we have learned, that he may ! This presents no diffi-
culty. One Boraitha holds, that it should not be allowed to
descend for the sake of a precaution, lest the climbing had been
done with intention, while the other Boraitha maintains, that as
long as it had been done unintentionally the man is permitted
to descend.

In one Boraitha we were taught, that be the tree green or
dried, it is not permitted to be used, while in another it is said,
that only if it is green it is prohibited, if it be dry, however, it
may be used. This presents no difficulty. The Boraitha that
permits the tree to be used refers to one which during the sum-
mer had lost all its fruit and leaves, while it prohibits a tree to be
used in the rainy season when it is full of fruit and leaves.

Rami bar Abba said in the name of R. Assi: A man must
not walk on the grass on the Sabbath, for it is written [Proverbs
xix. 2]: " He that hasteneth with his feet is a sinner."

One Boraitha teaches, that a man is not allowed to walk on
grass on the Sabbath and another teaches that he may ! This
presents no difficulty. One Boraitha refers to wet grass which
is easily torn, while the other refers to dry grass. At this time,
however, when we hold in accordance with the opinion of Sim-

240 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

eon, that an act which one has no intention of performing does
not make one culpable, it is permitted to walk on any kind of
grass.

MISHNA: The shutters of a bleaching ground or thorn
bushes (as are used) to fill up breaches in a wall or reed mats
must not be used to close up avenues unless they be placed a
trifle above the ground.

GEMARA: The following presents a contradiction to the
Mishna : We have learned : Portable shutters, reed mats, and
plough-handles, if already hanging in their places, may be used to
close up (avenues) on Sabbath and so much more on festivals ?
Said Abayi : " Providing they have hinges," and Rabha said:
" Even if they have no hinges at the time but at one time did
have, they may be used."

An objection was made: " We have learned: Portable shut-
ters, reed-mats, and plough-handles if already hanging in their
places and but one hair's breadth removed from the ground,
maybe used to close up avenues?" Abayi explains this, in
accordance with his former dictum, as follows: " Providing they
either have hinges or are removed from the ground even one
hair's breadth," while Rabha explains this, according to his
former statement, namely: " Providing they at one time had
hinges or were one hair's breadth distant from the ground."

The Rabbis taught: Thorn bushes, or bundles of thorns,
which were prepared for filling up a breach in a wall, may, if
they were tied together and already hung up, be used to close
up avenues on the Sabbath and so much more on a festival.

R. Hyya taught: " A movable widow-door may not be
used to close up avenues on the Sabbath." What is meant by
a widow-door ? Some say if it had only one board (which appears
to be as a part of the wall) while others say that it may be even
a two-board door but had no joints.

R. Jehudah said : Bonfires may be made on a festival pro-
vided they are ignited from the top, but they must not be
ignited from the bottom, (because the flames would envelop the
fuel and make it appear like a tent of fire). The same rule applies
to eggs, pots, folding-beds used in the field, and casks (i.e., they
must not be piled up in the form of tents and in the case of
eggs they must not be cooked over a fire which has the appear-
ance of a tent).

A Sadducee said to R. Jehoshua ben Hananiah : " Ye (all
Israelites) are compared to thorns, because it is written concern-

TRACT ERUBIN. 241

ing you [Micah vii. 4]: ' The best of them is like a brier.' '
Replied R. Jehoshua: " Look further into the verse, thou fool,
where it is written [ibid.] : ' The most upright is sharper than a
thorn hedge,' which signifies, that as a thorn-hedge is used to
fill up a breach in a wall, so do the upright among us shield us
from all evil."

MISHNA: A man must not, standing in private ground,
unlock with a key something in public ground, nor may he,
standing in the public ground, unlock with a key something in
private ground, unless he had previously made a partition ten
hands high (round the spot on which he stands). Such is the
dictum of R. Meir; but the sages said to him : "It was the cus-
tom in the poultry-dealers' * market, at Jerusalem, to lock up the
shops, and place the key in the window (aperture) above the
door." R. Jose said: " This was done in the wool-market."

GEMARA: The sages object to the dictum of R. Meir,
who speaks of public ground, by citing an instance in Jerusalem
which is unclaimed ground. Did not Rabba bar bar Hana say
in the name of R. Johanan that Jerusalem, if the gates were
not closed at night, would be considered public ground as far as
Sabbath is concerned ?

Said R. Papa: Our Mishna treats of Jerusalem after its
fortifications had been razed to the ground when it became
public ground, but Rabha said : The sages did not object to
the dictum of R. Meir as quoted in the Mishna, but to another
statement of his referring to gates of gardens, and the Mishna
should read thus: " Nor may he, standing in private ground,
open with a key something in unclaimed ground, or vice versa,
unless he had made a partition ten spans high." Such is the
dictum of R. Meir; but the sages objected: " It was the custom
in the poultry-dealers' market, etc., etc."

The Rabbis taught : The doors of the gates of gardens if
leading into a porter's lodge on the inside may be locked from
the inside. If the porter's lodge was outside of the door, the
doors may be locked on the outside, and if there were lodges on
both sides of the doors they may be locked on either side, but
if there were no lodges at all, the doors must not be locked at
all, because they are situated in private ground and the key must

* The Hebrew term which we render "poultry-dealers" is Patmim. Rashi
translates it " butchers." The Aruch and the Alphasi, however, interpret the term
" poultry-dealers." In Tract Beitza, 296, Rashi explains the word Patam " one who
feeds poultry."

VOL. in. — 16

242 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

necessarily be brought from public ground. The same rule applies
to shops that opened into public ground. If the lock of the
door was less than ten spans from the ground, the key should be
brought on the eve of Sabbath and deposited on top of the door,
and on Sabbath he may take it down, lock the door, and put
the key back in its place. If there was an aperture above the
door, he can place the key in that aperture providing the aper-
ture was not four spans square, for if it be four spans square it
constitutes a separate ground in itself, and the man would carry
from one (kind of) ground into another.

MISHNA: A loose bolt with a knob to it, is prohibited to
use on Sabbath. Such is the dictum of R. Eliezer; but R. Jose
permits its use. R. Eliezer said : In the synagogue of Tiberias it
was customary to use such a bolt, until Rabbon Gamaliel and
the elders came and prohibited it. But R. Jose replied: On
the contrary, they refrained from using it as unlawful, until
Rabbon Gamaliel and the elders came and permitted it.

GEMARA: If the bolt was fastened to a cord (rope) and
when holding the cord the bolt was also held, all agree, that it
may be used, but they differ as to a bolt that was not fastened
to a cord. One master holds that if it had a knob on top it is
regarded as a vessel and may be used, while the other master
said: "As it cannot be held with the cord it cannot be con-
sidered a vessel and must not be used."

MISHNA: A loose bolt, that is fastened to a rope (and
hangs down towards the ground) may be used to fasten with in
the Temple only, but not in the country; but a bolt that is fixed
to the building itself must not be used in either place. R.
Jehudah said : A fixed bolt may be used in the Temple and a
loose bolt in the country.

GEMARA : The Rabbis taught : What is called a loose bolt,
which may be used to fasten with in the Temple and not in the
country ? If it be fastened to a rope, hangs down, and one
end reaches the ground. R. Jehudah, however, says, that a bolt
of that kind may even be used in the country, but a bolt which
must not be used except in the Temple, is one that is not fas-
tened to a rope and hangs down, but which is fixed to the build-
ing itself and when taken out is placed in a corner.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: " The Halakha pre-
vails according to R. Jehudah concerning a loose bolt in the
country but as for a fixed bolt which is not the outcome of a
rabbinical law but against an actual biblical law, namely: that

TRACT ERUBIN. 243

prohibiting building, it is not allowed to be used even in the
Temple." Said Rabha: " A loose bolt is prohibited even in the
country unless it be fastened by a rope to the door." This is
not so ! Do we not know, that it happened when R. Tabhla
came to Mehuzza and saw a bolt fastened by a rope but not
attached to the door, he did not object to its use ? In that case
it was a rope that was amply firm to hold the bolt without being
attached to the door.

R. Ivia came to Neherdai and saw a man fastening a bolt
with papyrus, whereupon he said, that a bolt fastened in that
manner must not be used.

R. Nahumi bar Zachariah asked Abayi: " How is it if a man
made a handle to the bolt ?" and he answered: " Thou askest
then concerning a pestle and it was taught in the name of R.
Nahumi bar Ada that if he made a handle to a bolt and it
looked like a pestle, it may be used."

Rami bar Ezekiel sent a request to R. Amram: " Let master
tell us some of the good sayings, which he at one time related
in the name of R. Assi concerning the canopies of boats."
And R. Amram replied: " R. Assi said thus: If the poles upon
which the canopies were put up be one span thick, or if they
be less than one span thick, but are less than three spans apart,
one may, on the Sabbath, bring a mat and form a tent out of
such poles, because they were already at one time tents, and for
the time being were also temporary tents, and it is permitted to
add to a temporary tent in order to make it useful."

R. Huna had some rams which at night required fresh air and
in daytime required a shady place, so he came to Rabh and asked
him what to do on the Sabbath. Rabh answered: On the
eve of Sabbath, when thou removest the covering of the stalls
which the rams occupied during the day, do not quite remove
all the covering, but leave about a span closed. Thus on Sab-
bath thou wilt have a temporary tent, and thou mayest then
cover up the stalls entirely; for it is permitted to add to a tem-
porary tent on the Sabbath.

Rabh in the name of R. Hyya said: One may unfold and
fold up a curtain on the Sabbath.

R. Shesha the son of R. Idi said: "It is permitted to wear
a black, broad-brimmed hat on Sabbath." Did we not learn in
a Boraitha that it is not permitted to wear such a hat on Sab-
bath ? This presents no difficulty. The Boraitha refers to a
hat, the brim of which was one span in width. If that be the

244 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

case, then it would not be allowed to let down any garment
more than a span ? Therefore we must say, that the Boraitha
prohibits the wearing of such a hat only if it is not tied to the
head and not because of its similarity to a tent, but for fear that
the wind might blow it off and one would be forced to carry it
more than four ells in public ground, while R. Shesheth refers
to a hat that is tied to the head and there is no fear of its being
blown off.

MISHNA: In the Temple the lower hinge of a cupboard-
door may be refitted into its place (on the Sabbath), but this
must not be done in the country. The upper hinge must not be
refitted either in the Temple or in the country. R. Jehudah
said: The upper hinge may be refitted in the Temple and the
lower one in the country.

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught: The lower hinges of a door
of a cupboard or a chest or a tower may be refitted into their
places in the Temple, but in the country they may only be tem-
porarily replaced, but not refitted. If the upper hinges had
become unfastened it is not allowed to even temporarily replace
them as a precaution lest they be refitted with tools, for should
this be done the act involves liability to bring a sin-offering.
The doors of cellars, vaults, or gables must not be refitted, and
if this was done, the man is liable for a sin-offering.

MISHNA: They (priests who minister) may replace a plaster
on a wound (which plaster had been taken off to perform the
service) in the Temple ; but this must not be done in the coun-
try. To put the first plaster on a wound on Sabbath is prohib-
ited in either place.

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught: "If a plaster became
removed from a wound it maybe replaced on Sabbath." R.
Jehudah said: "If it was moved up it may be moved down and
if it was moved down it may be moved up, and it is permitted
to remove part of the plaster and cleanse the exposed portion of
the wound, then replace the plaster, remove another part,
cleanse the exposed wound and again replace the plaster, but it
is not permitted to cleanse the plaster because by so doing one
would rub the plaster and if this was done it involves liability
for a sin-offering."

Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: " The Halakha
prevails according to R. Jehudah."

R. Hisda said: The statement of the first Tana to the
effect that a plaster may be replaced applies only to a plaster

TRACT ERUBIN. 245

that had fallen on a vessel but a plaster that had fallen to the
ground must not be replaced.

Mar the son of R. Assi said: " It happened once that I was
standing before my father and a plaster which he had on a
wound fell on a cushion and he replaced the plaster. Said I to
him: ' Does master not hold in accordance with the opinion of
R. Hisda, who said that the first Tana and R. Jehudah differ
only as to a plaster that had fallen on a vessel, and Samuel said
that the Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah. How then
could master have replaced it ? ' and my father answered that he
did not agree with R. Hisda."

MISHNA: They (the Levites performing on musical instru-
ments) may tie a string (of an instrument which had burst, on
Sabbath) in the Temple ; but this must not be done in the coun-
try. To put a new string on the instrument (on Sabbath) is in
either place prohibited.

GEMARA: There is a contradiction ! Have we not learned
that if a string of an instrument had burst, they only made a
loop but did not tie it into a knot ? This presents no difficulty.
This latter is the opinion of R. Simeon, while the Mishna is in
accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as we have learned
in the following Boraitha: If a Levite had burst the string of an
instrument he may tie it ; R. Simeon, however, said : He may
only make a loop in the string. Said R. Simeon ben Elazar: If
he merely makes a loop, the sound will be affected ; hence he
should loosen the string at the top and draw it down to the bot-
tom or loosen it at the bottom and draw it taut to the top.

MISHNA: They (the priests who minister) may remove a
wart from an animal on Sabbath in the Temple, but this must
not be done in the country ; by means of an instrument it is pro-
hibited to do so in either place.

GEMARA: There is a contradiction. We have learned:
Concerning the paschal lamb, which must be carried on the
shoulders or brought from without the legal limits and the
blemish of which must be removed, these acts must not super-
sede the due observance of the Sabbath.

R. Elazar and R. Jose bar Hinana differ: One holds, that the
Mishna and the Boraitha both treat of a case where the wart is
removed merely by hand and not with an instrument, but the
Mishna, which permits such removal, refers to a wart which had
dried and is easily crumbled, while the Boraitha treats of a sup-
purating wart which involves a deal of trouble to remove. The

246 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

other, however, maintains, that the Boraitha refers to the removal
of the wart with an instrument.

R. Joseph said: Both the Mishna and the Boraitha treat of
a case where the wart was capable of being removed by hand,
and they do not differ. The Mishna maintains, that any rabbin-
ical prohibition which applies to the service of the Temple may
be disregarded in the Temple, while the Boraitha holds, that any
act pertaining to the service of the Temple which is generally
prohibited must not be performed in the country (outside of the
Temple).

Abayi was sitting and repeating the Halakha decreed by his
master R. Joseph, and R. Saphra objected, saying: " Have we
not learned in a Mishna [Tract Sabbath, p. 30] : that the Pass-
over sacrifice may be turned around in the oven (on Friday)
when it is getting dark, and the Passover sacrifice was not roasted
in the Temple itself; hence we see, that the rabbinical prohibi-
tion was disregarded even outside of the Temple ? ' ' Abayi
was silent. Subsequently he came to R. Joseph and told him
R. Saphra's objection. Said R. Joseph to him: " Why didst
thou not answer, that in that case the Passover sacrifice was pre-
pared by an aggregation of men and an aggregation of men is
generally very cautious ?" [Why did Abayi not answer R.
Saphra to that effect ? Because he heard only, that the priests
were very cautious, but never heard anything about an aggre-
gation of men.]

Rabha, however, said: Our Mishna is in accordance with the
opinion of R. Eliezer, who holds, that any preparation for the
fulfilment of a commandment supersedes the observance of the
Sabbath (but the reason that the Mishna prohibits the use of an
instrument for removing the wart, is because even R. Eliezer
admits, that whatever it is possible to do on Sabbath in a manner
different from a week-day, should so be done). Whence do we
adduce that R. Eliezer admits this ? From the following Bo-
raitha: " If a priest should suddenly discover a wart on his per-
son on the Sabbath, his companion should remove it by means
of his teeth." Hence we see that the wart must be removed by
means of the teeth and not by instruments, and again that the
priest himself must not do it but it must be done by his com-
panion. According to whose opinion is this ? Shall we say,
that it is according to the opinion of the sages and it occurred
in the Temple, why should his companion be obliged to do it ?
He could, according to the opinion of the sages, do it himself,

TRACT ERUBIN. 247

because a rabbinical prohibition may be disregarded in the Tem-
ple; therefore we must say, that it is in accordance with the
opinion of R. Eliezer, who holds, that if an ordinary Israelite
did this, he would be liable for a sin-offering, but because this
is an act pertaining to the fulfilment of a commandment it may
be done, but if it is possible to accomplish it in a manner differ-
ent from that on a week day it should so be done.

MISHNA: A priest (ministering) who hurts his finger, may
bind it up with reeds in the Temple (on the Sabbath), but this
must not be done in the country. Squeezing out the blood is, in
either place, prohibited. It is permitted to strew salt on the
stairs of the altar (on Sabbath), in order to prevent the minis-
tering priests from slipping. It is also permitted to draw water
from the well Gola and from the large well by means of the
rolling wheel on the Sabbath and from the cold well (on festi-
vals).

GEMARA: R. Ika of Pashrunia propounded a contradictory
question to Rabha: In our Mishna it is stated, that it is allowed
to strew salt on the stairs, whence we see, that this may be
done in the Temple only but not in the country; but have we
not learned that if a court had become deluged by rain it is
permitted to strew straw on the ground (so as to make it pass-
able) ? Answered Rabha: "With straw it is different! For
he can eventually remove the straw and use it for another pur-
pose."

Rabha related: " If a court had become deluged by rain,
one may bring straw and spread it out on the ground (of the
court)." Said R. Papa to him: " Have we not learned, how-
ever, that he should not spread the straw in the same manner
as he does on a week day, i.e., through a basket, or crate, but
through the sides of a broken basket. ' ' Whereupon Rabha pro-
cured an interpreter (crier) and proclaimed: What I told you
previously was a mistake ! Thus was it taught in the name of
R. Eliezer: When he comes to spread out the straw on the
ground he should not do it by means of a basket or a crate but
through the sides of a broken basket.

" It is also permitted to draw water from the well Gola, ' ' etc.
Ula was a guest in the home of R. Menasseh. A man happened
to come along and knocked at the door. So Ula asked: " Who
is it that is violating the Sabbath ? " Said Rabba to him: " It
was prohibited only to produce a sound by means of an instru-
ment, but not to knock on the door." Abayi objected: " We

248 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

have learned that it is permitted to draw wine by means of a
siphon or drip it through a colander for a sick person on the
Sabbath (and it is known that both produce a sound)." So we
see, that this is only permitted for a sick person but not for a
healthy person. What purpose would it serve in the case of a
sick person ? To arouse him from slumber ? Hence it is not
permitted to produce a sound for a healthy person ? Nay;
dripping wine through a colander is supposed to produce a sound
similar to that of a cymbal and it is done in order to induce
sleep in the case of a sick person who had dozed off in slumber.

Is not, however, the prohibition to draw water form the well
Gola or from the large well instituted on account of the sound
produced by the rolling wheel ? Nay ; it is prohibited as a pre-
caution, lest a man take water from such a well and sprinkle his
garden or his ruins (to lay the dust).

Ameimar permitted water to be drawn from the wells in
Mehuzza by means of a rolling wheel, saying: " The sages pro-
hibited it as a precaution, lest a man sprinkle his garden or his
ruin with that water, but here in this city there are no gardens
and no ruins." Afterwards he observed that the people used
that water for the purpose of soaking flax during the week, so
he prohibited the drawing of that water on Sabbath.

" And from the cold well (on festivals)." What is meant by
the cold well ? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: " That well was
filled with spring- water. " Whence does R. Na'hman adduce
this ? From the passage [Jeremiah vi. 7]: " As a well sendeth
forth its waters. ' ' *

We have learned in a Boraitha: It was not permitted to
draw water from all cold wells but only from the one mentioned ;
because when the Israelites returned from exile they together
with their prophets who lived in that day drank therefrom and
made it lawful to draw water from that well on Sabbath forever.
The prophets would not have done this either, if it were not
for the fact that they knew it to be an ancient custom of their
ancestors.

MISHNA: Should (the carcass of) a dead reptile be found in
the Temple on the Sabbath, the priest shall move it out with his
belt, as an unclean thing must not remain within the Temple.

* The Hebrew term for " sendeth forth " is " hokir," and the term for " cold
well " is " Bor hak'ar," whence R. Na'hman adduces that as a well which sendeth
forth waters must necessarily be a spring, so this well called Bor Hakar was also a
spring : a deduction by analogy.

TRACT ERUBIN. 249

Such is the dictum of R. Johanan ben Berokah; but R. Jehudah
said: It should be removed with wooden pincers, in order that
the uncleanness spread not further. From which (parts of the
Temple) should it be removed ? From the inner Temple, from
the hall, and from the interspace between the hall and the
altar. Such is the dictum of R. Simeon ben Nanos; but R.
Aqiba said: It should be removed from every place (in the
Temple) which, if entered by an unclean person intentionally,
lays him liable to the punishment of Kareth (being cut off), and
if entered inadvertently, makes him liable for a sin-offering. In
all other parts of the Temple, the carcass of the reptile should
be covered with a (copper) cooling-vessel (ipvKTrjp) till the
Sabbath is over and then be removed. R. Simeon said: What-
soever the sages permit thee to do is (not an infraction of bibli-
cal law, but) a right which is thine own ; inasmuch as whatever
they permit could at all events become unlawful only on account
of their own enactments for the sake of the Sabbath-rest.

GEMARA: R. Tabhi bar Kisna said in the name of Samuel:
" One who brings a thing, which had become unclean through a
reptile into the Temple (if he does it intentionally), he becomes
amenable to the punishment of Kareth (being cut off) * and (if
he does it inadvertently) is liable for a sin-offering; but one who
brings in the carcass of a reptile itself, is not culpable." Why
so? Because it is written [Numbers v. 3]: "Both male and
female shall ye send out," and this refers to such as have become
unclean, but by taking a legal bath (Mikvah) can become clean.
The reptile itself can never be clean, however, hence one is not
culpable, if he brings it into the Temple.

Shall we assume that the point of variance between R.
Johanan ben Berokah and R. Jehudah in our Mishna is based
upon the above Halakha of Samuel, i.e., R. Johanan, when
stating, that an unclean thing must not remain in the Temple
means to say, that if a man brought in a reptile, he is culpable,
while R. Jehudah, who states that the reptile should be removed
on account of the possibility of its spreading uncleanness, means
to signify that a man who brings in a reptile is not culpable, and
the reptile itself is merely a means of spreading uncleanness ?
Nay; both agree that a man is culpable, but R. Johanan means
to assert, that the remaining of an unclean thing in the Temple
is a far more grievous condition than the possibility of its

* See Numbers xix. 13.

250 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

spreading uncleanness, while R. Jehudah claims, that the spread-
ing is of more consequence, hence he advises that wooden pin-
cers be used but not the belt of the priest.

Thus we see, that whether a man is culpable or not is not the
point of variance between the two teachers of the first clause in
the Mishna but between the Tanaim of the second clause com-
mencing: " From which parts (of the Temple) should it be
removed ? " He who says, that it should be removed only from
the inner Temple, from the hall, etc., holds, that if a man
brought in a reptile into the Temple, he is not culpable, but R.
Aqiba, who says that it should be removed from every place,
etc., holds that the man who brings in the reptile is culpable.

R. Johanan said: Both Tanaim, R. Simeon ben Nanos and
R. Aqiba, adduced their teaching from one and the same pas-
sage, viz., II Chronicles xxix. 16: "And the priests went into
the inner part of the house of the Lord to cleanse it ; and they
brought out everything unclean which they found in the temple
of the Lord into the court of the house of the Lord ; and the
Levites received it, to carry it out abroad unto the brook
Kidron. " R. Simeon ben Nanos means to say, that because
the Levites received the unclean things from the priests for fur-
ther conveyance, it is evident, that only as far as the place
where the transfer was made to the Levites, it is important that
no uncleanness be found, and a rabbinical ordinance may be vio-
lated in order to remove such uncleanness, but from that place
and further it is not of sufficient consequence to permit of the
infraction of an ordinance instituted for the sake of the Sabbath-
rest. R. Aqiba, however, means to say, that the finding of
uncleanness in any part of the Temple is of sufficient importance
to permit of the infraction of a rabbinical ordinance, and the
reason that the priest transferred the unclean things to the Le-
vites was because where Levites could carry it, the priests are
exempt, but up to the place of transfer, although the priests
were not permitted under ordinary circumstances to traverse the
space except for ministerial duties, in that case the matter was
of such importance that they were allowed to disregard that
regulation.

The Rabbis taught: It is permitted for anyone to enter the
Temple for the purpose of building, repairing, and also for the
purpose of removing an unclean thing. It is a better fulfil-
ment of that religious duty if a priest does so, and in lieu of a
priest a Levite ; but if there is no Levite on hand, an ordinary

TRACT ERUBIN. 251

Israelite may go. All of them, however, must be (ritually)
clean (notwithstanding the fact that they are about to become
unclean).

" J?. Simeon said : Whatsoever the sages permit '," etc. What
does R. Simeon refer to with this dictum ? He has reference to,
or in fact supplements his dictum in the fourth chapter of this
tract (last Mishna) to the effect that " if a man was even fifteen
ells beyond the legal limits he may nevertheless go back," and
referring to this he states, that this is merely the man's own
right, as the land surveyors are liable to err in the measurement.

" As whatever they permit could at all events become unlaw-
ful, ' ' etc. What would R. Simeon refer to with this part of
his statement ? This latter part of his dictum refers to his
statement in the Boraitha concerning a new string for an instru-
ment (previously mentioned) when he decrees, that if the string
is broken the Levite may tie it into a loop, and here he supple-
ments it by saying, that whatever the sages permitted was only
such an act as could not involve liability for a sin-offering ; but
any act which could involve liability for a sin-offering was not
permitted by the sages to be performed.

END OF THIRD VOLUME.

NEW EDITION

BABYLONIAN TALMUD

Uejt, lE&fteo, Corrected, Formulates, ano

^Translated into

MICHAEL L. RODKINSON

SECOND EDITION— REVISED AND ENLARGED

SECTION MOED (FESTIVALS)
TRACTS SHEKALIM AND ROSH HASHANA

HEBREW AND ENGLISH

Volume IV.

BOSTON

THE TALMUD SOCIETY
1918

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

In our translation we adopted these principles :

1. Tenan of the original — We have learned in a Mishna ; Tania — We have
learned in a Boraitha ; Itemar — It was taught.

2. Questions are indicated by the interrogation point, and are immediately
followed by the answers, without being so marked.

3. When in the original there occur two statements separated by the phrase,
Lishna achrena or Watbayith Aetna (literally, "otherwise interpreted"), we translate
only the second.

4. As the pages of the original are indicated in our new Hebrew edition, it is not
deemed necessary to mark them in the English edition, this being only a translation
from the latter.

ERASMES GEST, ESQ.

OF CINCINNATI, OHIO
MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY TH1

EDITOR

TRACT SHEKALIM

CONTENTS OF VOLUME IV.

HEBREW AND ENGLISH

ENGLISH.

TRACT SHEKALIM.

PAGE

PREFACE, xi-xii

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS, xiii-xviii

CHAPTER I.

OF THE DUTIES OF COURT IN THE MONTH OF ADAR —
PAYMENT OF POLL DUTIES IN THE WHOLE REGION OF
ISRAEL, . . 1-6

CHAPTER II.

THE EXCHANGE OF COINS FOR SHEKALIM — THE PROVISIONS
FOR THE SAVING OF MONEY FOR DIFFERENT OFFERINGS
AND THE USE OF THE REMAINDERS, . . . 7- 1 1

CHAPTER III.

PERIODS AT WHICH MONEYS WERE DRAWN FROM THE

TREASURY, AND THE CEREMONIES THEREAT, . . 12-15

CHAPTER IV.

PURPOSES FOR WHICH MONEYS WERE DRAWN, AND WHAT
WAS DONE WITH THEIR REMAINDERS AND THAT OF
OTHER OFFERINGS, . .... 16-19

CHAPTER V.

THE MAIN OFFICES, THEIR OFFICERS, THEIR DUTIES, SEALS,

AND CHAMBERS, . , . . . . . 20-24

viii CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VI.

PAGE

THE THIRTEEN COVERED CHESTS AND OTHER PARAPHER-
NALIA, AND RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES ADOPTED WITH
THE NUMBER THIRTEEN, - . 25-28

CHAPTER VII.

MONEYS FOUND BETWEEN THE CHESTS, AND CATTLE FOR
OFFERINGS FOUND IN THE VICINITY OF THE CITY OF
JERUSALEM, 29-32

CHAPTER VIII.

SPITTLE, UTENSILS, AND SUBMERGING OF THE DEFILED

SACRIFICES, 33-36

TRACT ROSH HASHANA.

OPINIONS OF SCHOLARS OF THIS ENTIRE WORK, . . v-xi

PARTIAL LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS, xi-xii

A FEW WORDS TO THE ENGLISH READER, . . xiii-xviii
INTRODUCTION TO THIS TRACT, .... xix-xxii

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS OF THIS TRACT, . . . xxiii-xxviii

CHAPTER I.

OF THE FOUR NEW YEAR'S DAYS AS KEPT DURING THE

PERIOD OF THE SECOND TEMPLE, .... 1-36

CHAPTER II.

THE OBSERVERS OF THE NEW MOON BEFORE THE HIGH

COURT IN THE CITY OF JERUSALEM, .... 37-44

CHAPTER III.

OBSERVING THE MOON BY THE HIGH COURT ITSELF — THE
BLOWING OF THE CORNET ON THE NEW YEAR'S AND
JUBILEE DAYS, 45-5 2

CHAPTER IV.

WHEN NEW YEAR'S DAY FELL ON SABBATH — THE ORDER

OF BENEDICTION AND PRAYERS ON THE SAME, . . 53-66

CONTENTS. ix

THE HEBREW PART.
(Order of pages, from right to left.)

TRACT SHEKALIM.

pID ,*r\Va "in*O— THE FIRST OF ADAR, CHAP-

TER I., ...... . . ... 1-3

pID /Q^pG? rDHJD— THE COINS OF SHEKALIM
MAY BE EXCHANGED FOR DARKONS, CHAPTER II., . 4-5

plO /D^pID HE^EO — Ax THREE PERIODS,
CHAPTER III., ....... . 6-7

ic ,?rn p&ny TTI no nonnn— TH«

SEVERED (SHEKALIM) : WHAT WAS DONE WITH IT ?,
CHAPTER IV., ........ 8-10

pIC /plDDH ]H ^R-Tm FOLLOWING ARE
THE NAMES OF THE OFFICERS, CHAPTER V., . . 11-13

D /miDIE? *^®y rti&bw— THIRTEEN CHESTS,
CHAPTER VI., ........ 14-16

^C ,]^ WXE3& mi?D— MONEYS FOUND BE-
TWEEN, CHAPTER VII., ....... 17-18

ID /rpTIH ^D— ALL THE SPITTLE, CHAPTER
VIII., .......... 19-20

TRACT ROSH HASHANA.

jsn? -inrns-A COR.

RIDOR LEADING TO THE PALACE (CONTAINING THREE
ENTRANCES).*

C— FlRST ENTRANCE, ..... i-vii

* By these three entrances the editor illustrates his reasons for this enterprise
and his method of correcting and translating the original. This has not been trans-
lated into English, for the reason that it would be of but little interest to the English
reader who does not understand the Hebrew ; it is, however, hoped that the reader
of Hebrew will find great interest in the matter.

CONTENTS.

— SECOND ENTRANCE, . . *%
— THIRD ENTRANCE,

— LETTERS OF APPROVAL, .
— BRIEF INTRODUCTION, ..

pis ,DH D^ff np&n njD^

YEAR'S DAYS, CHAPTER I.,

KNOW HIM, CHAPTER II., . .

. vii-xv

xiv-xix

xix-xxii

xxiii-xxvi

NEW

4-24

THEY DID NOT

IT, CHAPTER III.,

pID /H^l^n
OF THE NEW YEAR, CHAPTER IV.,

. . . 24-28

BETH DIN SAW

28-32
THE FESTIVAL

... 33-39

PREFACE TO TRACT SHEKALIM.

AMONG the treatises contained in the Section Moed of the
Babylonian Talmud is to be found that of Shekalim, which con-
sists, however, only of Mishnas, the Babylonian Talmud having
no Gemara. The Palestinian Talmud contains a Gemara for this
tract also, and there is an additional commentary by Maimonides.
While we are translating only the Babylonian Talmud, we
would not care to omit Shekalim, which is of peculiar histori-
cal value and may prove quite interesting to the reader. But
the Mishna, without any explanation whatever, would naturally
seem obscure, and in some instances would be absolutely incom-
prehensible; and, the Gemara of the Palestinian Talmud, as
well as the commentary of Maimonides, consisting of very com-
plicated and intricate series of arguments, inferences, and expla-
nations, which would be not only difficult of translation but also
immaterial to the subject, the insertion of which would be a
deviation from our method, and unnecessary, as would explana-
tions of Barthanora, Tosphath-yomtabh, etc., we were forced
to provide the text with a commentary of our own, drawn from
the most authentic sources. This, we trust, will serve to eluci-
date any obscure passages not quite comprehensible to the gen-
eral reader. Accordingly, every sentence or word in the Mishna
requiring an explanation is distinguished by a number or an
asterisk, and has a corresponding reference in the commentary
printed below the text. We may add that, for our personal
satisfaction and to guard against any possible errors, we have
given this tract for revision to some noted Russian scholars who
are competent to judge upon it, and they find it very intelligible.

As stated above, we have taken our commentary from the
most authentic sources we could find. We do not, therefore,
solicit leniency on the part of worthy critics, but ask them to
restrain their criticisms until they shall have carefully studied the
commentaries mentioned, as well as our commentary, with proper
consideration; for ours is derived from the Palestinian Talmud,
Maimonides, etc. Conscientious critics will do so without our

xii PREFACE TO TRACT SHEKALIM.

solicitation ; and as for others, who are ready to criticise every-
thing impromptu as soon as it leaves our pen, such a request
would be of no avail. We nevertheless will be grateful to any
one who will call our attention to things which are not compre-
hensible in the commentary, this being our first venture of the
kind, more especially as we think we shall be compelled to do the
same with other Mishnayoths to which the Babylonian Talmud
has no Gemara. A separate introduction to Tract Shekalim we
think unnecessary, as the contents of this speaks for itself. We
nevertheless will return to this when we come to Tract Midoth
(Measures).

In compliance with our promise in our prospectus, we add to
this volume the Hebrew text of the Tracts Shekalim and Rosh
Hashana of our new edition, for the benefit of students and
scholars who may desire to compare the translation with it.

M. L. RODKINSON.
NEW YORK, May, 1897.

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS

VOLUME IV.— TRACT SHEKALIM.*

CHAPTER I.

MISHNA a treats of: What were the duties of the Beth Din in the month
of Adar in the time of the second Temple. When the Megillah (Book of
Esther) was to be read in the fortified cities. For what purpose messengers
were sent out, and what were the things to be heralded.

MISHNA b treats of : What was the punishment for not obeying the com-
mandments of Kelayim in the former times and later.

MISHNA c deals with : When the money-changers, with their tables,
began their work in the countries of Judea and in Jerusalem. The time for
pledges which were taken for not paying the Shekalim. From what persons
the pledges were to be taken. If a father might pay the Shekalim for his
children.

MISHNA d treats of: What ordinance Ben Buchri proclaimed in Jamnia
in behalf of the priests, and what R. Johanan b. Zakkai rejoined. The
defence of the priests, with their interpretation of biblical passages, which
was accepted only for the sake of peace.

MISHNA e treats of: The voluntary payment of Shekalim from women,
slaves, and minors being accepted, but not from the heathens or Samaritans.
Bird-offerings not accepted from persons affected with venereal diseases or
from women after confinement. Sin and vow offerings, however, were
accepted from the Samaritans. The vow-offerings were also accepted from
heathens. The general rule concerning this.

MISHNA f deals with : The premium one had to pay in addition to the
half-shekel. Who was obliged to do so? The different opinions of the
sages and R. Meir. How much one had to pay if given one Selah and taking
a shekel in exchange.

* See introduction to synopsis in Tract Sabbath, Vol. I., p. xxix. This tract has
no Geraara. The synopsis contains the Mishnas, with their commentaries.

xiii

xiv SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

MlSHNA g treats of: The law concerning one who pays for a poor man,
for a neighbor, and for a countryman. Law concerning brothers and part-
ners paying together ; also, law regarding cattle-tithe. How much was the
premium.

CHAPTER II.

MlSHNA a. One may put together the Shekalim and exchange them for
a gold coin called Darkon. Concerning the chests which were given to the
collectors in the country and at Jerusalem. What is the law if money were
stolen or lost by the messengers of a city, when a portion of the Shekalim
was already expended ; what is the law if not expended.

MlSHNA b. Concerning the law when one gives his shekels to another to
pay his head-taxes for him ; if he pays his shekels from the money of the
second tithes or from the money of the fruit of the Sabbatical year. Con-
cerning how he shall replace it and use it for the same purpose.

MlSHNA c. The law concerning one who gathered single coins little by
little and said : "With this money I shall pay my shekels." The different
opinions of the schools of Hillel and Shamai in this matter. Concerning the
same case when one gathers money for sin-offerings. What shall be done
with the eventual remains of such money.

MlSHNA d. Concerning the explanation of R. Simeon of the teachings
of the school of Hillel. The discussion of the former with R. Jehudah. The
claims of the latter that the coins of the Shekalim were also changed in times
and places. The rejoinder of R. Simeon to this.

MlSHNA e. The law concerning the remainder of money intended for
Shekalim when considered to be ordinary. Regarding the remainder of the
tenth part of an ephah, bird-offerings, and guilt-offerings : what shall be done
with it. A rule concerning this matter. Also, regulations concerning the
remainder of Passover sacrifices, Nazarite offerings, the remainder of moneys
for the poor in general and individuals, of money for prisoners, for burial of
the dead, and R. Meir and R. Nathan's opinions regarding this matter.

CHAPTER III.

MISHNA a. Regarding the appointed periods of the year when the money
was drawn from the treasury. The different opinions, concerning this
matter, of R. Aqiba b. Asai, R. Eliezer, and R. Simeon. The same time
appointed for cattle-tithes.

MISHNA b. Concerning the ceremony of drawing the money at all
periods of the year. The law regarding measures of the boxes in which the
coins of the Shekalim were filled, and the numbers of the chests in which
the money was drawn from the boxes for the expenses of the Temple.
Which box must be opened first, and which last. What garments the person
drawing the money must wear. How a man must stand unblemished before
his fellow-man and before his God.

MISHNA c. Concerning the custom of the house of Rabban Gamaliel,
when the members of the house had paid their Shekalim. The law regarding

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xv

one who drew money did not commence until he had said to the bystanders,
" I will now draw," and they answered, " Draw, draw, draw," three times.

MlSHNA d. Concerning the covering of the boxes after drawing the
money. For which countries the drawings were performed in the first
period, the second, and the third.

CHAPTER IV.

MlSHNA a. What was done with the money drawn ? Concerning the
watchmen that were sent out to guard the after-growth of the Sabbatical
year, of which the Omer and two loaves were taken for sacrifice. The
opinion of R. Jose in this matter, and what the rabbis answered.

MlSHNA b. Concerning the red heifer, the goat that was to be sent away,
the strip of scarlet, the bridge for the cow, the bridge for the goat, the canal,
the city wall, the towers, and other necessities of the city : all were paid for
out of the Shekalim money. What Abba Saul said.

MISHNA c. What was done with the balance of the money left over in
the treasury. The discussion of R. Ishmael and R. Aqiba in this matter.
Some of the many things which are enumerated in the Palestinian Talmud
and which were done with this money. Among them was the hiring of
teachers for priests to teach them the laws of the sacrifices.

MISHNA d. What was done with the remainder of the moneys of the
chest. The different opinions of R. Ishmael, R. Aqiba, and R. Hanina, the
assistant chief of the priests, concerning profit : if it might be raised from
the remaining money or not, and of what money the gold plates for the
decorations of the Holy of Holies were made. Also, concerning the benefit
of the altar.

MISHNA e. What was done with the remainder of the incense (as the
incense of the New Year must be bought with the new Shekalim money).
The sanctification of the incense on hand then transferred to that money,
and then redeemed with the money of the new revenue.

MISHNA f. Concerning the law when one devoted his entire possessions
in honor of the Lord : what should be done with them. The discussions of
R. Aqiba and Ben Asai regarding this matter.

MISHNA g. Concerning the law when one devoted his possessions, and
among them were cattle, male and female, fit for the altar. The discussions
of this matter between R. Eliezer and R. Jehoshua. R. Aqiba is inclined
to the opinion of R. Eliezer, which seems to him to be more proper, but adds
that he had heard that both opinions were right according to circumstances.

MISHNA h. If one devote his possessions, and among them are things
fit for the altar, such as wines, oils, and birds, what should be done with
them. R. Eliezer decreed it, and no one opposed him.

MISHNA i. Contractors, for the delivery of all things for the altar and
the improvements of the Temple, were appointed every month ; but if the

xvi SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

prices changed during the thirty days, the Sanctuary must not suffer any
injury. Such was the agreement made between them. The illustration
of this.

CHAPTER V.

MISHNA a. Concerning some names of the offices and the heads of them
in the Sanctuary during the entire period when the second Temple was in
existence. What were the officers' duties, and how they officiated.

MISHNA b. Concerning the order of the head officers ; namely, the king,
the high priest, his assistant, two catholicoses, and seven chamberlains, not
less than two officers being put in charge of public moneys.

MISHNA c. Regarding the seals that were in the Sanctuary, serving for
the beverages and meat-offerings which must be brought, according to the
Bible, with every sacrifice. Concerning the inscription on the seals and
their usage. Ben Azai added one seal for the poor sinner. The names of
the officers, of the seal-keeper and the officer who sells the above offerings.

MISHNA d. The date must be put on every seal. The law regarding
surplus money being found in the treasury of the seal-keeper : to whom it
belongs ; and if a deficit, who must supply it.

MISHNA e. The law concerning one who lost his seal ; what must be
done.

MISHNA f. Concerning the two chambers in the Sanctuary, of which
one was called ' ' Chamber of Silence " and the other " Chamber of Utensils. "
What was done there, during what time they were investigated, and what
was done with the presented utensils which were useless for the Temple.

CHAPTER VI.

MISHNA a. Concerning the thirteen covered chests and thirteen tables
which were in the Sanctuary. How many prostrations took place in the
Sanctuary. How R. Gamaliel and R. Hanina, assistant chief of the high
priest, added one in the place where the ark was hidden.

MISHNA b. Relates how a blemished priest who was engaged in select-
ing and peeling wood had noticed the place where the ark was hidden, but
before he had time to tell it to the others he expired.

MISHNA c. Concerning the directions where the prostrations were
made. How many gates were in the Temple : their names, and why they
were so named ; also, different opinions of the sages concerning this.
There were two gates which were nameless.

MISHNA d. Of what material the thirteen tables were made, where they
stood, for what purpose they were used. Concerning the golden table in
the Temple itself, upon which the showbreads were constantly lying.

MISHNA e. Concerning the inscriptions on the thirteen covered chests
in the Sanctuary, and what was done with them. The different opinions of
R. Jehudah and the sages as to using certain money put in some chests.

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xvii

MlSHNA /. Concerning the amount of articles to be furnished in pay-
ment of a vow one made, who did not explain how much he intended to
give ; for instance, wood, incense, gold coins, etc. A rule that was made
concerning this. The hides of all sacrifices belong to the priest.

CHAPTER VII.

MlSHNA a. If money was found in between the differently marked
chests, to which chest the money belonged. Concerning this the rule was :
One must be guided by the proximity, even in the case of the less impor-
tant, etc.

MISHNA b. Concerning money found in Jerusalem, in the court of the
Temple, in the times of the Festivals and in the ordinary times.

MISHNA c. Concerning meat found in the court of the Temple, in the
city, and any place where Israelites resided and where Gentiles and Israel-
ites together resided.

MISHNA d. Concerning cattle found between Jerusalem and Migdal
Eder, and in the vicinity of the city in all directions : what the law pre-
scribes. The different opinions of some sages.

MISHNA e. Relates how, in former days, the finder of such cattle was
pledged to bring drink-offerings, and how afterwards the high court decreed
to furnish them from the public moneys.

MiSHNAS/and g. R. Simeon named seven decrees which were promul-
gated by the high court, and the above decree was one of them. R. Jehudah,
however, does not agree on some points with him. R. Jose has also some-
thing to say about this.

CHAPTER VIII.

MISHNA a. Concerning streets in which people must walk during the
time of the Festival in Jerusalem, for the sake of cleanness. The different
•opinions, in this matter, of R. Meir and the sages.

MISHNA b. Regarding utensils found on the way towards the plunge-
baths : if they are clean or not, and the different opinions of R. Meir and
R. Jose.

MISHNA c. Regarding the butcher-knife, if it was found in the street on
the i4th of Nissan ; and what is the case if the i4th falls on a Sabbath.

MISHNA d. Concerning where the curtain of the Sanctuary must be
submerged if it become defiled. The first time it was submerged it was
spread out for the people to admire the beauty of the work.

MISHNA e. What Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel had to tell in the name of
'Simeon, the son of the assistant high priest. How the curtain was made :
the great amount of the cost and how many hundred priests were required
4o submerge it.

xviii SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

MISHNA/. If meat of the Holy of Holies became defiled, where it must
be burned. The different opinions of the schools of Shamai and Hillel on
this point.

MISHNA £•. The different opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Aqiba concern-
ing anything that had become defiled through a principal uncleanness.

MISHNA h. The joints of the daily sacrifices, where they were laid down ;
the sacrifices of the new moon, where they were placed. The payment of
Shekalim, if it was obligatory after the destruction of the Temple. The same
law regarding cattle-tithe, tithes of grain, and deliverance of the firstlings.
The law if one sanctified Shekalim or firstlings after the destruction of the
Temple.

TRACT SHEKALIM.

UNDER this heading the payment of a head-tax is treated of,
which amounted to one-half of a shekel (in the Mishna always
referred to as a shekel} and which had to be paid by every Israel-
ite (see Exodus xxx. 12) upon the completion of his twentieth
year. In the times of the existence of the Temple, the proceeds
of this tax were applied for communal sacrifices and for the needs
of the capital. The manner of collection, investment, and ap-
plication of this money forms the subject of this treatise. It
contains, in addition, many other historical regulations, most
of which, however, only held good during the existence of the
second Temple.

CHAPTER I.

MISHNA: (a) On the first day of the month of Adar, warn-
ings are heralded (from Jerusalem) concerning Shekalim * and
Kelayim 2 (the prohibition concerning the use, for ploughing to-

EDITOR'S COMMENTARY.

CHAPTER I.

MISHNA a. ' Warnings were heralded from Jerusalem concerning
Shekalim on and after the first of Adar, in order to prepare for the
first of Nissan, before which day the final settlement of Shekalim had
to be made. This was inferred by the Palestinian Talmud from the
following passage [Exodus xl. 17]: " And it came to pass in the first
month in the second year, on the first of the month, that the taber-
nacle was reared up." This was commented upon by a Boraitha,
which stated, that on the day on which the tabernacle was reared
up, the entire sum of the Shekalim collected was ready for disburse-
ment.

'Warnings were also heralded concerning Kelayim, because that
month was the time when ploughing and sowing commenced in
Palestine.

2 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

gather, of an ox with an ass, and the sowing together of differ-
ent kinds of seeds). On the fifteenth day of that month the
Megillah Esther3 is read in the fortified cities; and the same day
the improvement of country roads,4 market-places, and legal
plunge-baths is proceeded with. Public affairs are again taken
up 5; at the same time, graves are marked with lime,6 and messen-
gers are sent out on account of possible Kelayim.7

1 The Megillah (Book of Esther) was read on the fifteenth day of
this month only in such cities as were fortified since the time of Joshua
the son of Nun; but in such as were fortified after his day, and in
the open cities, it was read on the fourteenth of the month. No
mention is made in the Mishna concerning the reading on the four-
teenth, because, the majority of the cities being open, or fortified since
the time of Joshua ben Nun, it was generally known, and there was
no fear of it being forgotten. In the few fortified cities, however, it
was necessary to remind the inhabitants that the day on which they
were to read the Megillah was the fifteenth. The Palestinian Talmud
(Chapter I., Halakha 2) states, that we are taught by this Mishna
that all commandments which are to be fulfilled on a leap year in
the second Adar should not be fulfilled in the first Adar; but we can-
not see how that can be inferred from this Mishna, although some
commentators have tried to explain it.

4 The rainy season ended by the first of Adar, and in consequence
of the heavy rains the country roads and market-places were in bad
condition. In the month of Nissan, travel towards Jerusalem was
very heavy; hence the warning to improve the roads, etc., was her-
alded. The public plunge-baths were also injured by the rains and
had to be repaired, for the sake of the public, to whom the law pre-
scribes the taking of a legal bath on or before the holidays.

* The Palestinian Talmud states, that at that time the courts of law
(Beth-din) would meet in session for the trial of civil suits, criminal
cases, and crimes involving the punishment of stripes; for the redemp-
tion of such as had devoted all their possessions in honor of the Lord,
and such as had given the estimated value of their person, etc. ; also
for the performance of the rite of the bitter water (see Numbers v.
12-31), and for the performance of the rite of breaking the calf's
neck (see Deut. xxi.), and for the rite of the red heifer (see Numbers
xix.), and for the ceremony of piercing a serf's ear (see Exodus
xxi.). For all this, and any other matters that came up before them,
the courts of law assembled in that month.

* Such graves as had been injured during the rainy season, and

TRACT SHEKALIM. 3

(b) R. Jehudah says : At one time the messengers used to
pull out the Kelayim (illegally mixed seeds) and throw them at
the feet of the owners ! The number of the transgressors, how-
ever, being constantly on the increase, the Kelayim were pulled
out and thrown into the roads. Finally, it was determined that
the entire fields of such law-breakers were to be confiscated.*

(c) On the fifteenth of this month (Adar) the money-changers
outside of Jerusalem seated themselves at their tables.1 In the
city of Jerusalem, however, they did not do this until the
twenty-fifth of the month.2 As soon as the money-changers
seated themselves also in the city, the taking of pledges from

were not marked, had to be restored and marked, in order that a
man be saved the annoyance of becoming unclean by stepping on a
grave. The Palestinian Talmud infers this from the passage [Le-
viticus xiii. 46]: "Unclean, unclean, shall he call out," and inter-
prets it to signify that the uncleanness itself should call out ' ' unclean ' '
and keep men away from its vicinity. For this reason it was her-
alded, that the graves were to be marked in order to be a warning to
passers-by that such places were unclean.

7 On account of the severity of the law concerning Kelayim and
the frequency with which that law was infracted, it was deemed
insufficient merely to herald the prohibition, and messengers were
sent out to see the law enforced (Maimonides).

MISHNA b. * R. Jehudah's dictum does not intend to dispute the
foregoing, but merely supplements it with the statement that the mes-
sengers sent out were for the purpose of punishing the infractors of
the law of Kelayim. The Palestinian Talmud adduces the right of
the Beth-din to confiscate property from the passage [Ezra x. 8] :
*' And that whosoever should not come within three days, etc., all
his substance should be devoted." Whence it may be seen, that a
Beth-din has such power.

MISHNA c. l It was the custom for money-changers in those days
to carry their tables with them, and hence they were called "the
men of the tables." The Mishna relates, that on the fifteenth of
the month the money-changers were ordered to go out into the
rural districts with their tables, in order to provide the people with
the necessary half-shekels; for the tax had to be paid in half-shekels
only.

* On the twenty-fifth, when it was high time for payment and the
people commenced flocking into the city of Jerusalem, the money-
•changers returned and sat in the court of the Temple.

4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

the tardy ones commenced.3 But from whom were pledges
taken ? From Levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freedmen ; but
not from women, slaves, and minors. If a father, however,
commenced to give a pledge for a minor, he was not allowed to
stop. From priests no pledges were taken, for the sake of peace
(and the dignity of the priests themselves).4

(d~) Said R. Jehudah: Ben Buchri proclaimed the following
ordinance in Yavne (Jamnia): "Any priest paying his shekel
commits no wrong." R. Johanan ben Zakai, however, rejoined:
" Not so! (The ordinance should read:) ' Any priest not paying
his shekel, commits a sin.' " * But the priests used to interpret
the following passage to their advantage : It is written [Leviticus
vi. 16] : "And every meat-offering of a priest shall be wholly
burnt, it shall not be eaten." (They said therefore:) Were we
obliged to contribute (our shekels) how could we eat our2 Omer

8 The taking of pledges commenced immediately upon the depar-
ture of the money-changers from the rural districts, because, if a
man had not paid his half-shekel while the money-changers were still
within his reach, it was obvious that he either would not or could not
pay it, and in consequence a pledge was taken.

4 According to law, the priests were also in duty bound to pay the
half-shekels, the collection of which was mainly intended for the pur-
chase of communal sacrifices, and the priests were naturally included
in the community. They, however, found a defect in the law, and
held themselves exempt. In consequence of their being in authority
during the existence of the second Temple, they were not forced to
pay or give pledges, for the sake of harmony.

MISHNA d. ' The difference of opinion between Ben Buchri (who
was a priest himself) and R. Johan ben Zakai is, as can be plainly
seen, that Ben Buchri holds, that according to law the priests are not
in duty bound to pay the half-shekel; but if they do it, they may
nevertheless partake of their Omer, two loaves, and showbread,
while R. Johan ben Zakai says, that they are in duty bound to pay
the half-shekel.

8 The priests claim, that if they were to pay the half-shekel with
which the Omer, etc., is bought, they would naturally have a share
in it, and they would eat their share, which, as a priest's offering,
must not be eaten by any one. This is, however, an unjust claim;
for the majority is considered, and the priests were by far in the
minority. As the priests, however, were in charge of the affairs of
state, they interpreted the law to suit themselves, and for the sake of
peace they were not disturbed.

TRACT SHEKALIM. 5

(first sheaves harvested) and the two loaves and the showbread
^which were procured with the shekels of the head-tax) ?

(e) Although it was ordained that no pledges were to be taken
from women, slaves, and minors, if they offered to contribute,
their money was accepted. From heathens and Samaritans it
was not accepted. Nor were bird-offerings, for men or women
afflicted with venereal disease and for women who had recently
been confined, accepted; nor sin and guilt offerings.1 Vowed
and voluntary offerings, however, were accepted.2 The follow-
ing is the rule : Everything which was vowed as an offering and
all voluntary offerings were accepted. Anything not vowed for
offering or given voluntarily was not accepted from them (heath-
ens and Samaritans). So it is explicitly declared in Ezra, for it
is written [Ezra iv. 3] : " It is not for you and us (both) to build
a house unto our God."

(f) The following are obliged to pay a premium * (in addi-

MISHNA e. l This clause of the Mishna refers, according to the
Palestinian Talmud and Maimonides, to Samaritans only and not to
heathens, while the sin and guilt offerings were accepted from
Samaritans but not from heathens, because the latter had not the
same laws as the Israelites as regards sin-offerings. The Samaritans,
however, claiming to be Israelites, were allowed to bring their sin
and guilt offerings. The reason, however, that bird-offerings were
not accepted from the Samaritans was because, in the first place, an
offering for a person afflicted with venereal disease had to be brought
in the form of a sheep; but if the person could not afford a sheep,
birds answered the purpose. The Samaritans, however, were not
considered trustworthy, and it was feared that they might bring a
wrong offering (i.e., an offering of less value than they could afford).

* These were accepted from heathens also, because such offerings
were for forgiveness of sins in general, and in that respect all men
are equal.

MiSHNA/1. ' The shekel mentioned in the Bible is equivalent to
the Sela mentioned in the Mishna, and is worth two shekels of the
Mishna. The half-shekel of the Bible was worth (according to
Maimonides) the weight of 192 grains of barley in silver, and, for
fear that the shekel.of the Mishna of that time was perhaps a trifle
less than the above weight, a small coin was prescribed to be paid in
addition to the above shekel, and which was named from the Greek
Colobbus (£oAAi3/?o?). He who gave the half-shekel voluntarily,
and not because he was obliged to pay it, was exempt from paying
the above " Colobbus." Those of the priests who, regardless of the

6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

tion to the half-shekel) : Levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freed-
men ; but not (priests,) women, slaves, and minors. If one pay
(the half-shekel) for a priest, woman, slave, or a minor, he is
exempt (from paying the premium) ; if he pay for himself and
another, however, he must pay a premium for one. R. Meir
says: "(He must pay) two premiums. One who pays a Sela
(whole Bible shekel) and receives in return a half (Bible) shekel
must pay two premiums."2

(g) If one pay for a poor man, for a neighbor, or for a coun-
tryman, he is exempt from a premium (because it is charity) ; if
he only advances them the money, he is not exempt. Brothers
who (after dividing their inheritance) have their business in com-
mon, or partners, when they become obliged to pay a premium,
are exempt from cattle-tithe.* As long, however, as they must
pay cattle-tithe, they are exempt from a premium. How much
does the premium amount to ? According to R. Meir, to one
silver Meah (one twenty-fourth of a shekel) ; but the sages say,
to one-half of a Meah.

claim that they were not obliged to pay the half-shekel, paid it
nevertheless, were exempt from the above premium for the sake of
peace.

* One in addition to the half-shekel and one for the exchange.

MISHNA g. * Cattle-tithe must be paid by a man only from such
young as his own cattle calve, but not from the calves which, he pur-
chases elsewhere. If two brothers inherit cattle or calves from their
father, they must pay cattle-tithe, because the cattle are regarded
as still their father's. If they have divided their inheritance, even
though they shared alike, they are both exempt from payment, because
it is regarded as if one brother had bought the cattle from the other.
(The same refers to partners. As long as they are in partnership they
are liable for cattle-tithe from such young as is calved by their own
cattle, but if the partners dissolve even after the cattle had calved,
they are exempt, because it is regarded as if one partner had pur-
chased his share from the other.) Now, it is obvious that when the
two brothers are still partners and liable for cattle-tithe they are
regarded as one, and by paying one Sela for both are exempt from
premiums, because the money is still considered as their father's.
(This explanation is taken from Rashi in Tract Chulin.) As soon,
however, as they are exempt from cattle-tithe, they have nothing
more in common, hence must pay a half-shekel each, and thus must
also pay the premium.

CHAPTER II.

MISHNA: (a) One may put together the Shekalim and
exchange them for Darkens l (Greek coins of permanent value),
in order to be able to carry them more readily. Just as the
money-chests were on the order of horns in the city of Jerusa-
lem, so were they also in the country.8 If the inhabitants of a
town sent their Shekalim (to the city of Jerusalem) by messen-
gers, and the money was stolen from them or was lost by acci-
dent, if the treasurers had already drawn their share (from the
communal Shekalim), the messengers of the city must swear to
the fact before the treasurers. If the share had not yet been
drawn, they (the messengers) must swear to the facts before
the inhabitants of the town, and the latter must make the
amount good.3 If the money was recovered or returned by the

CHAPTER II.

MISHNA a. ' The Darken (Greek dapsiHos ,• or drachm, biblical
term, Ezra viii. 27) was a Persian gold coin worth two Selas, or four
half-shekels.

1 The money-chests were narrow on one side and broad at the
bottom, and had a slot through which a Darken on edge only could
be passed, and were given to the messenger locked.

* If a portion of the amount of Shekalim collected had already
been spent for sacrifices or for the improvement of the Temple, all
the Israelites who were bound to pay their Shekalim had a share in
such disbursement, and the amount sent by the town, although lost
or stolen, was counted as if it had been included in the amount
spent, because it was the express understanding that in every shekel
spent for sacrifices, etc., all Israelites had a share, in order that they
might have a share in the sacrifices. Therefore, the messengers of
the city had simply to swear that they had taken the money, and it
was considered received by the treasurers. If, however, no portion
of the Shekalim had yet been expended, the share of the inhabitants
of the town, whose money had been stolen or lost, was not included
in the amount on hand, and hence the representatives of the city were
obliged to make it good (Maimonides).

8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

thieves, both amounts are considered as Shekalim, and nothing
is credited to next year's account.

(b) If one give his shekel to another to pay (his head-tax)
for him, and the man appropriates it to pay his own tax, he
(the latter) commits embezzlement if the share had already been
drawn ; the same is the case with one who pays his shekel with
sanctified money, after his share had been drawn and an animal
was sacrificed for it.1 If he took the money from the second
tithes or from the Sabbatical year fruit, he must eat the full
value of same in the city of Jerusalem.2

(c) If one gather together single coins and say : ' ' These
shall serve for my Shekalim," the eventual remainder is, accord-
ing to the school of Shamai, a voluntary gift; according to the
school of Hillel, it is not sanctified. If the man say, however:
" Out of these I shall pay my Shekalim," the eventual remain-
der is, according to both schools, not sanctified. If he say:
" These shall serve me for a sin-offering," the eventual remain-
der is, according to both schools, a voluntary offering. If he
say: " Ouf of these will I bring a sin-offering," the eventual
remainder is, according to both schools, not sanctified.*

MISHNA b. ' The same reason as stated in note 3 of the preced-
ing Mishna applies also to this clause; and, besides, everybody had
a share in the sacrifice of the animal, even if the sacrifice were made
on the strength of future receipts, for pledges were on hand insuring
the payment by the delinquents.

* If the money was taken from the second tithes, the value of
which had to be consumed in the city of Jerusalem, he must replace
it by an equal amount and proclaim that this money is in exchange
for the money taken from the second tithe, and then consume it
accordingly. If the money was taken from the Sabbatical year fruit,
he must replace it and proclaim the same as above and make it
public property, as is the law of Sabbatical years.

MISHNA c. * The meaning of this Mishna is as follows: If a man
gathered money little by little, with the express intention of paying
his shekalim tax out of such money, and separated it from other
moneys, any remainder which he may have left over after such pay-
ment is, according to the school of Shamai, to be devoted for a vol-
untary offering, because it was separated; and according to the
school of Hillel, it is ordinary money, that may be used at will,
because it was gathered only for the purpose of paying the amount
due, which was already paid. If a man, however, had a sum of

TRACT SHEKALIM. 9

(d] R. Simeon says: " What difference is there here between
the Shekalim and the sin-offerings ? Shekalim have their fixed
value, but sin-offerings have not."1 R. Jehudah says: " Even
Shekalim have no fixed value; for when Israel returned from
captivity, (half-) Darkens were paid ; later (half-) Selas were
paid ; again, Tabas (half-shekels) were current (but not accepted),
and finally people would only pay with Dinars."2 Rejoined R.
Simeon: " Nevertheless, the Shekalim were all of like value at
one and the same time, while as for sin-offerings, one brings one
Sela's worth, another two, and a third three Selas' worth."3

(e) The remainder of moneys intended for Shekalim is not

money, and declared that he would use this sum for the payment of
his shekalim tax, the remainder which he may have after such pay-
ment is, even according to the school of Hillel, to be devoted for a
voluntary offering. With money devoted for a voluntary offering,
whole-offerings only were to be bought.

MISHNA d. 1 By his teaching in this Mishna, R. Simeon wishes to
explain the reason of the decree of the school of Hillel concerning
the remainder of money which had been gathered little by little for
the purpose of paying the Shekalim, or for the bringing of a sin-
offering, and says: " Because it is written [Exodus xxx. 15], 'The
rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the
half of a shekel,' a man when gathering money for the payment of
Shekalim knows exactly how much he will need; hence, although he
separated the amount gathered, the remainder is ordinary money;
but if he gathered money for a sin-offering, which has no fixed value,
and for which he did not know exactly how much he would have to
pay, his intention in separating the money was evidently to use the
entire amount for such purpose, and hence the eventual remainder,
which cannot be used for a sin-offering, as it is already sacrificed,
should be used for a voluntary offering."

' R. Jehudah differs with R. Simeon, and states, that the reason
given by the latter for the decree of the school of Hillel cannot be
correct, for even Shekalim had not always a fixed value, and when
a man commenced to gather money for the payment of his Shekalim
he also may not have known how much he would have to pay when
the time came, because the value of the coin might be changed in
the meantime.

*R. Simeon answered R. Jehudah very properly: "Even if the
value of the coin was changed, the man knew well that he would pay
a certain sum equal to that paid by all others, and the entire amount

io THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

sanctified.1 The remainder of moneys intended for the offering
of the tenth part of an ephah [Lev. v. xi.] (sin-offering of the
poor), for bird-offerings of men or women afflicted with venereal
disease and of women that had been recently confined, and for
sin and guilt offerings, are considered voluntary offerings. Fol-
lowing is the rule : The remainder of everything designated for
sin and guilt offerings is considered as a voluntary offering.2 The
remainder of whole-offerings is applied to whole-offerings,8 of
food-offerings to food-offerings, of peace-offerings to peace-offer-
ings ; that of the Passover-offerings to peace-offerings, and that
of Nazarite-offerings to Nazarite-offerings. The remainder of
such (offering) as is designated for a certain Nazarite is a vol-
untary offering. The remainder of moneys for the poor in gen-
eral, belongs to the poor ; of money collected for a certain poor
man belongs to that same poor man. The remainder of ransom
moneys for prisoners is applied to (the ransom of) other prisoners ;
of moneys collected for a certain prisoner belongs to that prisoner.
The remainder of burial moneys is applied to (the burial of) other
dead ; of money collected for a particular dead (man) belongs to

that he had gathered would not be consumed; as for a sin-offering,
however, he never knew exactly just what amount he would need
for its purchase, because it had no fixed value; therefore, when he
separated the money from other moneys his intention was to use the
entire amount."

MISHNA e. * After explaining the opinions of both schools (Shamai
and Hillel) in the preceding Mishna, and the Halakha, as usual, pre-
vailing according to the school of Hillel, this Mishna states the final
Halakha anonymously, and then cites the subsequent ordinances,
concerning which there is no difference of opinion.

"The reason for this rule is: A sin or guilt offering must be
brought for each sin separately. If money was designated for one
sin-offering, the remainder cannot be applied to another offering
for the same sin, nor for another sin which one might commit in the
future, hence the remainder must be a voluntary offering.

" The remainder of whole-offerings may be used for more whole-
offerings, because the quantity of whole-offerings, which are volun-
tary, is not limited. The same applies to food and peace offerings.
The remainder of Passover-offerings, however, which cannot be used
for the same purpose again, and should, however, be used for an eat-
able sacrifice, cannot be used for a voluntary offering, which is a
whole-offering, but for a peace-offering, which is eatable.

TRACT SHEKALIM. u

the legal heirs. R. Meirsays: "The remainder remains intact
until Elijah comes again " (as the herald of the resurrection).4
R. Nathan says: " It should be applied to the building of a
gravestone for the departed."

4 The reason for R. Meir's dictum is: He holds, that if money is
collected for a certain dead man, the remainder belongs virtually to
him, i.e., should be applied only for the use of the corpse; hence the
heirs have no share in it. R. Nathan, however, says, that the set-
ting up of a gravestone is for the use of the corpse, it being m his
honor and not of any benefit to the heirs.

CHAPTER III.

MISHNA: (a) At three periods of the year money is drawn
from the treasury (of the Shekalim) ; viz. : Half a month before
Passover, half a month before Pentecost, and half a month be-
fore the Feast of Booths. The same dates are also the terms
for the obligation of cattle-tithing, so says R. Aqiba. Ben
Azai says: " The dates for the latter terms are the twenty-ninth
of Adar, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Abh." R.
Eliezer and R. Simeon both say: " The first of Nissan, the first
of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Elul." But why do they say
the twenty-ninth of Elul, why not the first of Tishri ? Because
that is a feast-day, and it is not allowed to tithe on a feast-day;
therefore they ordained it for the preceding day, the twenty-
ninth of Elul.*

(b) The money drawn from the treasury was brought in three
chests, each of three Saahs' capacity. On these chests was
written: Aleph, Beth, Gimmel. R. Ishmael says: " They were
marked in Greek: Alpha, Beta, Gamma." — The one that drew
the money was not allowed to enter (the treasury) with a
turned-up garment, nor with shoes nor sandals, nor with Tephil-
lin, nor with an amulet, in order that, in the event of his becom-
ing impoverished, it should not be said that he was thus pun-
ished on account of transgression against the treasury; or if he
became rich, that he enriched himself by means of money drawn
from the treasury. For a man must stand as unblemished before
his fellowman as before his God, as it is written [Numbers

CHAPTER III.

MISHNA a. * The dates of the time for cattle-tithing have nothing
to do with the time for drawing the money; for as to that time, all
agree upon the dates stated in the Mishna, and the difference of
opinion concerning the time of cattle-tithing is explained in the
Palestinian Talmud and in Tract Rosh Hashana of the Babylonian
Talmud.

TRACT SHEKALIM. 13

xxxii. 22] : " And ye be thus guiltless before the Lord and before
Israel"; and [Proverbs iii. 4]: "So shalt thou find grace and
good favor in the eyes of God and man." *

(c) The members of the family of R. Gamaliel used to enter,
each one with his shekel between his fingers, and throw it before
the one who drew the money from the treasury, and the latter
immediately placed it into the chest (which he took out). — The
one who came in to draw the money did not proceed before he
had said to the bystanders: " I will now proceed to draw," and
they had answered: " Draw, draw, draw," three times.*

MISHNA b. * In this Mishna the manner of drawing the money
from the treasury is described: how it was accomplished, that the
Shekalim for which communal sacrifices were bought should be taken
from the treasury in such a manner that all the contributors should
have a share in them. The mode of procedure was as follows: About
the middle of the month of Nissan, when the money from all Israel
had been collected, the treasurers, amid great ceremony, would open
the rooms where the boxes in which the money had been deposited by
the collectors were situated, and bring out all the boxes contained in
the rooms. These boxes were in turn opened, and their contents
thrown into three cases, each of which had nine Saahs' capacity, and
were covered with a cover. The remainder, after filling the three
cases, was called the remainder of the room (and what was done
with this will be told later). After the performance of this ceremony
one man was selected, while the others withdrew, and he was to
transfer the money to be expended, from the cases into three small
chests, each having three Saahs' capacity and marked with three
letters: Aleph, Beth, Gimmel; or, Alpha, Beta, Gamma.

MISHNA c. * After this ceremony, the man, being almost nude —
for he had no garments on in which he could conceal a coin, no shoes,
no sandals, no hat, no hose; in fact, nothing that would afford a
hiding-place for money — would take the chest marked Aleph and
bring it up to the first case, and fill it up, after which he would
cover the case. Then he would take the chest marked Beth, fill it
from the second case, cover the case, and proceed in the same man-
ner with the chest marked Gimmel, from the third box, which con-
tained nine Saahs' capacity; but in the last instance he would leave
the case uncovered, as a sign whence to commence filling the chests
at the second drawing of money in the same order as before, using
the third case first, then the second, and lastly the first. This was
done in order that the money should be thoroughly intermingled

i4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

(d) After the man had completed the first drawing, he cov-
ered the balance with a cover (of fur) ; the same was done after
the second drawing ; after the third drawing the balance remained
uncovered ; for (the covering in the first two instances) was done
only in order not to draw by mistake again what had already
been drawn from. The first drawing was performed in the name
of the whole land of Israel, the second in the name of the cities-
near the boundaries, and the third in the name of the inhabi-
tants of Babylon, Media, and all distant lands in general.

and everybody have a share in the sacrifices bought with it. The
first drawing took place on the fifteenth of Nissan, and sacrifices-
were purchased for the Passover. The next drawing was held fifteen
days before Pentecost; and Pentecost only lasting one day, not so
many sacrifices were needed, and the money lasted until fifteen days
before the Feast of Booths, when the last lot of money was with-
drawn from the cases and placed in the chests. The expenditure of
the money was also made in the order of chests, chest Aleph being-
emptied first, etc. ; and the intention was to place Jerusalem first,
the surrounding territory next, and all the other places where Israel-
ites dwelt last.

CHAPTER IV.

MISHNA: (a) What was done with this money drawn?
The daily sacrifices, the additional sacrifices, and the drink-
offerings belonging to them were bought therewith; also the
Omers J (sheaves), the two loaves, the showbreads, and communal
sacrifices in general. The watchmen who had to guard the after-
growth on the Sabbatical year were paid out of this money.
R. Jose says: " One who so desired could undertake the guard-
ing (of the after-growth on Sabbatical years) without pay."2
The sages answered him : ' ' Thou wilt admit thyself, that the
sacrifices (from the after-growth on Sabbatical years) must be
brought only from communal property."8

CHAPTER IV.

MISHNA a. l The Omers and the two loaves, which had to be made
of Palestinian grain and of the new crop only, were bought out of
the Shekalim during the six ordinary years, but in the Sabbatical
year, where neither sowing nor reaping was done, where were they
obtained ? Men were sent out to discover where grain was growing
as an after-growth, that had not been sown, and then watchmen
were placed there to see that no one disturbed the crop; for it being
public property, the possessor of the soil where the grain grew could
not prevent its being taken. The men who discovered the grain and
the watchmen were paid for their services out of the Shekalim, and
such payment was regarded as the price of the grain, so that the
grain again became communal property.

* R. Jose, in making this statement, holds, that one may present
the community with a thing intended for a voluntary offering, and
thus the man who guards the after-growth gratuitously, thereby
acquiring a right to it, may donate it to the community for a com-
munal sacrifice.

* The sages mean to say that the Omer, the two loaves, the show-
breads, and the communal sacrifices must be taken from articles
that were communal property from the beginning, while other sacri-
fices may be offered from things donated by a man who does so with
a good will. (See Rosh Hashana.)

j6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

(£) The red heifer, the goat that was to be sent away (on the
Day of Atonement), the strip of scarlet, were paid for out of
this money. The bridge for the cow, the bridge for the goat
that was to be sent away, and the scarlet strip tied between the
latter 's horns, the canal (at the Temple), the city wall, the tow-
ers and other necessities of the city, are paid for out of the re-
mainder of the treasury-money.* Abba Saul says: " The costs
of the building of the bridge for the red heifer were defrayed by
the high priests themselves."

(c) What was done with the balance left over in the treasury
(after all the things in the preceding Mishna had been procured) ?
Wines, oils, and fine meal were bought with it to the profit of
the sanctuary (for the purpose of selling it again to those who
brought sacrifices).* So said R. Ishmael. R. Aqiba, however,
says: " Sanctified moneys or contributions for the poor are not
dealt with for profit."

(d] What was done with the remainder of the money (taken
from the chests) ? It is used for gold plate for the decoration
of the Holy of Holies. R. Ishmael says: "The mentioned
fruit (profit of the wines, oils, and fine meal sold in the Temple)
was for the benefit of the altar, and the remainder of the money
drawn was for service-utensils." R. Aqiba says: " The remain-
der of the money drawn was for the benefit of the altar and
that of the drink-offerings was for service-utensils." R. Hanina,
the assistant chief of priests, says: " The remainder of the drink-

MISHNA b. * The remainder of the Shekalim, left over after the
three cases had been filled, which was called " remainder of the
room," was stored in a high place, access to which was very diffi-
cult, no ladder being permitted to be used. Out of this money all
the accessories for the sacrifices, as enumerated in the Mishna, were
procured. The details of these accessories are explained in Tracts
Para and Yuma.

MISHNA c. * It is known that all those who brought sacrifices were
obliged to purchase wine, oil, and fine meal for meal-offerings, and
all this was purchased in the court of the Temple. In the Palestinian
Talmud many things are-enumerated, for which purposes the balance
of the money was used; for instance, the hiring of teachers to
instruct the priests in the art of slaughtering, in the halakhas per-
taining to such matters, etc., also for the payment of those who in-
vestigated blemishes in the sacrifices, and a great many other things
to be found in that chapter (Halakha 4).

TRACT SHEKALIM. 17

offerings was for the benefit of the altar and that of the money
drawn was for service-utensils." The two latter would not
admit of the alleged gain from fruit * (profit).

(e) What was done with the remainder of the incense ? * At
first the remuneration of the preparers of the incense was set
aside from the treasury; the sanctification of the incense on hand
was then transferred to that money, and the former was then
given to the preparers in lieu of compensation 2; it is then bought
back from them with the money of the new revenue : providing the
new revenue was on hand in time, it was bought back with such
money; otherwise, the old revenue was used for that purpose.

(/) If one devote his entire possessions in honor of the Lord,
and among them are things which are fit for communal sac-
rifices (e.g., incense), the preparers of the incense should be
paid therewith. So teaches R. Aqiba. Ben Azai answered
him * : " Such is not the right mode of procedure. The compen-

MISHNA d. * In the preceding Mishna, R. Ishmael declares, that
the balance of the money in the treasury is used to purchase wines,
oils, and fine meal, to be resold to those bringing sacrifices, and in
this Mishna he relates what is done with the profits accruing from
such sales. R. Aqiba, however, who would not permit of selling the
things mentioned for profit, declares that the money for the altar is
taken directly from the balance left over in the treasury; and R.
Hanina holds, that the balance of the money drawn is used for the
service-utensils.

MISHNA e, ' The remainder of the incense refers to the amount of
incense left over at the end of the year. A quantity of incense was
prepared for the whole year, and every priest would use a handful at
a time; but, as handfuls are not all alike, no fixed amount could be
prepared: hence the remainder.

1 Compensation for labor must not be made with sacrificed articles,
for the sanctification cannot be transferred to labor that had already
been performed; it can be transferred, however, to actual money,
and in consequence the subterfuge for the payment of the preparers
of the incense was resorted to as stated in the Mishna.

MISHNA/. *R. Aqiba and Ben Azai differ in this Mishna as to
whether sanctification can be transferred to labor or not. R. Aqiba
holds, that labor can be compensated with sanctified articles; but
Ben Azai holds, that it cannot. According to Maimonides the
Halakha prevails according to Ben Azai, because in the previous
Mishna there is a concurrent opinion.

i8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

sation of the preparers must first be separated from such pos-
sessions, then the sanctification of those possessions transferred
to money ; then give the separated things to the preparers for
compensation; and, finally, buy them back from them with
money of the new revenue."

(g) If one devote his possessions, and there are among them
cattle fit for the altar, male or female, the male, according to R.
Eliezer, shall be sold for whole-offerings and the female for
peace-offerings to such as are in need of them; and the pro-
ceeds of such sale, together with the other possessions, shall be
devoted to the treasury for the maintenance of the Temple. R.
Jehoshua says: " The male are sacrificed as whole-offerings, the
female are sold to such as are in need of peace-offerings, and the
proceeds used for the sacrifice of whole- offerings. The balance
of the possessions is devoted to the maintenance of the Tem-
ple. "* Said R. Aqiba: " The opinion of R. Eliezer seems to
me to be more proper than that of R. Jehoshua; for R. Eliezer
has an even procedure, whereas R. Jehoshua divides it."2 R.
Papeos says: " I have heard that it is done according to
both teachers; viz.: According to R. Eliezer if the owner who
devotes his possessions explicitly mentions his cattle, and
according to R. Jehoshua if he silently includes his cattle in
his possessions." 3

MISHNA g. l The point of difference between R. Eliezer and R.
Jehoshua is this: The former holds, that if a man devoted all his
possessions, his intention was to devote them for the maintenance of
the Temple only; while the latter holds, that the intention was to
devote the possessions according to their adaptability. Hence if,
among the possessions, there were objects adapted for the altar, they
should be devoted to the altar; if, however, these were female cattle,
which could not be brought as a whole-offering, nor, by reason of
the absence of the owner, even as a peace-offering, such cattle should
be sold and the proceeds applied to the purchase of whole-offerings.

a R. Aqiba holds with R. Eliezer, because, in his opinion, a man
who devotes all his possessions does so with but a single intention;
and this is what he terms an even procedure.

' R. Papeos said, that if the man devoted all his possessions to
the honor of the Lord, R. Jehoshua would be correct, for his posses-
sions can be used in honor of the Lord in various ways; but if he
explicitly stated that he devoted his possessions for the maintenance
of the Temple, R. Eliezer's opinion is proper.

TRACT SHEKALIM. 19

{h) If one devote his possessions, and there are among
them things fit for the altar, such as wines, oils, and birds, says
R. Eliezer, the latter things should be sold to such as need
offerings of these kinds, and the proceeds used for the sacrific-
ing of whole-offerings ; the balance of the possessions goes toward
the maintenance of the Temple.*

(i) Every thirty days the prices paid by the treasury are
determined. If one contract to furnish flour at the rate of four
Saah (for one Sela), and the price is raised to three, he must
nevertheless furnish the same at four Saah (for one Sela).1 If he
contract at the rate of three and the price fall to four, he must
in that case furnish four, for the Sanctuary always has that pre-
rogative. If the flour become wormy, it is the loss of the con-
tractor; and if the wine become sour it is also his loss, and he
does not receive the money for his wares until the purchased
wares have been favorably accepted as sacrifices at the altar.2

MISHNA h. * The reason that R. Eliezer decrees that wines, oils,
and birds should be sold, and whole-offerings brought in their stead,
is because the articles mentioned cannot be redeemed with money.

MISHNA /. * Every month, bids were received from contractors
for the furnishing of the necessaries for the Temple and altar for one
month. The lowest bidder received the contract, and it was dis-
tinctly understood that, even if prices were raised during the month,
his prices were to remain as originally contracted for.

* The Palestinian Talmud states, that the money due the contrac-
tors was paid them by the priests immediately upon the latter receiv-
ing the wares, for the priests were very careful, and never allowed
flour to become wormy or wine to spoil.

CHAPTER V.

MISHNA : (a) The following were the heads of offices * in the
Sanctuary: Johanan, son of Pinchas, keeper of the seals'; A'hia,
(superintendent) of drink-offerings; Mathia, son of Samuel,
(superintendent) of the casting of lots8; Petha'hia, (superinten-
dent) of bird-offerings.4 Petha'hia is Mordecai, but why do
they call him Petha'hia ? Because he used to expound and
interpret scriptures, and was master of seventy languages.
Ben A'hia was (superintendent) of the cures of priests suffering
with abdominal diseases.5 Ne'huniah was master of the well.6

CHAPTER V.

MISHNA a. ' The list of officers enumerated by the Mishna were
not all officers at the same time, but served at different periods, and
the Mishna merely names the most important and pious among them.

8 See Mishna </, same chapter.

1 Lots were cast for the determination of the turn of the priests
for each particular service. The superintendent would keep a record
of such as were eligible for duty, and then cast lots for the priest
who was to serve.

* Petha'hia was superintendent-in-chief of all those who had
charge of the bird-offerings; these bird-offerings were brought by
women who had recently been confined; and there were so many of
them that a record had to be kept, who came first, whose time was
nearly expired, and how much was to be charged for the offerings.
Besides this, it often happened that the birds became mixed and
required great wisdom to separate them and recognize to whom
every bird belonged, as the changing of the birds would make the
offering invalid. (See commentary of Israel Lipshuetz.)

6 Such diseases among priests were of very frequent occurrence and
inevitable; for they were dressed during services very lightly, being
allowed to wear only four articles of apparel; viz., a linen shirt, linen
pantaloons, a linen cap, and a girdle. Besides, they had to walk
barefoot on the marble floor, and were constantly eating meat of
the sacrifices, which had to be eaten during a specified time. Hence

TRACT SHEKALIM. 21

Gebini was herald.7 Ben Gabhar was turnkey of the gates.8 Ben
Bebai was master of the temple-guard.9 Ben Arzah was mas-
ter of the kettledrums (which were beaten as a signal for the
Levites to commence their chant). Higros, son of Levi, was
(leader) of the singing. The family of Garmo (superintended)
the making of the showbreads.10 The family of Abtinos (super-
intended) the preparing of the incense.11 Elazar (superintended)
the making of the curtains.12 Pinchas superintended the vest-
ments.13

they needed many attendants, in order that, as soon as one priest took
sick, a substitute was brought in his place and he was removed to the
sick ward. Ben A'hia was the superintendent-in-chief of these matters.
8 On account of the immense influx of people into Jerusalem
three times a year, the wells for the supply of water, both on the
roads and in the city, had to be looked after, and Ne'huniah had
charge of this.

7 The commencement of all services had to be heralded, and many
heralds were employed. Gebini was herald-in-chief, and his duty
was mainly to call out in the morning: " Priests, to your duties!
Levites, to your chants! Israelites, to your places!" He had so
powerful a voice that it could be heard eight miles.

8 He had charge of the keys of the gates and of the men who
stood at the gates.

' The gates of the Temple had to be guarded day and night, even
in times of peace. To properly care for the guard and to punish all
negligence in guarding the gates was the duty of Ben Babai.

10 For showbreads, twelve loaves had to be made every week, and
had to be made so that they would keep fresh the entire week. For
further details, see Tract Tamid. The family of Garmo had charge
of this work for generations.

11 The incense, which was used twice a day, had to be prepared
with especial skill from many different spices, and in proper propor-
tions. Further details are also to be found in Tract Tamid. The
family Abtinos had charge of this branch for many generations.

11 The curtains, which were frequently changed, had to be inspected
as to workmanship, cleanliness, etc., and this duty devolved upon
Elazar.

13 The vestments of the priests had to be carefully examined as to
cleanliness, and had to be sent out to be laundered regularly. Many
rooms in the Temple were devoted to those vestments, and Pinchas
had charge of them all.

Much has been said as to the character of the men enumerated in

22 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

(b) No less than three treasurers and seven chamberlains
must be appointed,* and no less than two officers were put in
charge of public moneys. Exceptions were made in the cases
of Ben A'hia, superintendent of the cures of the sick, and Elazar,
superintendent of the preparation of curtains, because they were
unanimously elected by the community.

(c) There were four seals in the Sanctuary, inscribed with
the words Egel (calf), Sachar (ram), Gdi (kid), and 'Houte
(sinner, meaning here one covered with sores). Ben Azai says,
that there were five (seals), and the inscriptions were in Aramaic,
meaning: calf, ram, kid, poor sinner (one afflicted with sores),
and rich sinner (one afflicted with sores). The one inscribed
with " calf" was used for drink-offerings brought with offerings
of the herds, large or small, male or female ; the one inscribed
with " kid " was used for drink-offerings brought with offerings
of the flocks, large or small, male or female, with the exception
of rams; the one inscribed with " ram "served for drink-offer-
ings brought only with rams; the seal inscribed with " sinner"
served for drink-offerings brought with the three cattle-offerings
of those afflicted with sores.*

the Mishna, whether they were priests themselves, Levites, or ordi-
nary Israelites. For particularized information regarding this subject,
we would refer to " Die Priesterund der Cultus, " by Dr. Adolf Biich-
ler, Vienna, 1895. It is estimated that the priests in Jerusalem
approached the enormous number of twenty thousand. Besides,
there were numbers of Levites.

MISHNA b. * The officers of the Temple ranked as follows: The
king, the high priest, the assistant high priest (Sagan), two catho-
licoses,f seven chamberlains (Amarkolins), three treasurers (Gisbars),
and, finally, many smaller officials; e.g., inspectors, officers of the
guard, etc. (See " Die Priester und der Cultus," pp. 90-117.) The
duties of each officer are described in Tamid and Yuma.

MISHNA c. * With every sacrifice that was offered, wine and meal

f " Catholicos" is here used in the sense of patriarch or head, which term still
retains a similar meaning in the " Ecclesiastical History of the Armenian Church,"
deriving its original meaning from the Greek xatioJitxo? — general or universal. In
the latter sense it was adopted at a very early period by the Christian church.
In the exclusive sense of denoting the church as the ' ' depository of universally
received doctrine in contrast with heretical sects " it is still improperly retained by the
Roman Catholic Church. I am surprised to find no mention of the officers of this
name and function under the appropriate title anywhere in the " Encyc. Brit."

TRACT SHEKALIM. 23

(d) One who desired to bring drink-offerings, for instance,
went to Johanan, who was keeper of the seals, paid his money,
and received a seal ; he then went to A'hia, who had charge of
the drink-offerings, gave him the seal, and received the drink-
offering. In the evening the two officers came together, when
A'hia turned over the seal and received instead the money. If
there was too much money, it belonged to the Sanctuary ; if too
little, Johanan had to supply the deficit : for the sanctuary had
that prerogative.

(e) One who lost his seal had to wait until evening. If there
was a surplus sufficient to cover the seal,* he was given the
drink-offering for that amount ; otherwise, he did not receive it.
The date of the day was on the seal to prevent fraud.

(f) There were two chambers in the sanctuary. One was

were brought in accordance with the biblical commandment to that
effect, and in quantities prescribed by the ordinances. As the drink
and meal offerings were bought in the Temple, the person bringing
the sacrifice would receive a seal from the priest which he would
exchange for the necessary quantity of wine and meal. The drink-
offerings with goats and sheep were the same, hence the seal
inscribed "kid" served for both. One who brought a ram, how-
ever, which required a larger quantity of wine and meal, would
receive a separate seal, inscribed "ram." As for offerings of the
herds, they were all equal, small or large, male or female; hence the
seal inscribed "calf" sufficed for all. Those who were afflicted with
sores, and had to bring two rams and one sheep, received a seal
inscribed "sin" (which had the hidden purpose of signifying that
sores were the consequence of sin). The poor sinners, who had only
to bring one sheep, two doves, and one-tenth of an ephah of meal
and one lug of oil, without any wine, were, according to the opinion
of the sages, not in need of a seal, because the seal inscribed " kid,"
which they received when bringing the sheep, was sufficient for the
other purpose. Ben Azai, however, says, that another seal was
necessary, and that an extra seal marked " poor sinner " was given,
which was intended as a sign that no wine was necessary. The tra-
dition of Ben Azai, that the seals were inscribed in Aramaic charac-
ters, is also true, because, prior to the introduction of the Greek
language, all the writing in the Temple was done in Aramaic. (See
the mentioned work of Biichler.)

MISHNA e. * Providing only the surplus amounted to exactly the
amount paid for the seal.

24 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

called chamber of the silent, the other chamber of utensils. In
the former, devout men secretly gave charitable gifts, and the
poor of good family received there secretly their sustenance. In
the other chamber, every one who desired to offer a utensil vol-
untarily, laid it down. Every thirty days the treasurers opened
the chamber, and every utensil found to be fit for the mainte-
nance of the Temple was preserved, while the others were sold
and the proceeds went to the treasury for the maintenance of
the Temple.*

MISHNA/. *In the Palestinian Talmud in this chapter (Halakha
15), many legends are related illustrating this Mishna.

CHAPTER VI.

MISHNA: (a) There were thirteen curved chests l and thir-
teen tables in the Sanctuary, and thirteen prostrations took
place in the Sanctuary. The family of R. Gamaliel and of R.
Hananiah, chief of the priests, made fourteen prostrations ; this
extra prostration was made towards the wood-chamber,2 because,
according to an ancestral tradition, the ark was hidden there.

(b] Once a priest 1 was engaged there, and he noticed that
one of the paving-stones on one place appeared different from
the others. He went out to tell others of it ; but he had not
yet finished speaking, when he gave up the ghost ; thereby it was
known to a certainty that the ark of the covenant2 was hidden
there.

(c) In what direction were the prostrations made ? Four to-
wards the north, four towards the south, three towards the east,

CHAPTER VI.

MISHNA a. ' The thirteen chests were used as explained in Mishna
e, and they were shaped like horns, so that a hand could not be
inserted from the top. This Mishna places the number of everything
at thirteen (on account of the thirteen kinds of mercy attributed to
God). R. Ishmael composed the thirteen rules with which the Law
is expounded.

* The location of the wood-chamber can be determined in Tract
Midoth.

MISHNA b. l The priest was a man of blemish (deformed), and
could not take part in the sacrifices, but was allowed to select and
peel the wood used at the altar.

1 The ark was hidden during the existence of the first Temple in
order to save it from the Babylonians, after all hope had been aban-
doned, and its hiding-place was underground. The priests who subse-
quently took charge probably noticed some sign made by the former
generation when the ark was hidden, and this particular priest died
as a consequence of his attempt to reveal the secret.

26 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

and two towards the Occident; i.e., towards the thirteen gates.1
The southern gates were near a corner of the western. These
were: The upper gate, the fire gate, the firstling gate, and the
water gate. Why is it called water gate ? Because a glass of
water was carried through it for the sprinkling of the altar on the
Feast of Booths. R. Eliezer son of Jacob says: At that gate
the waters (flowing from the Holy of Holies) commence to flow
rapidly downwards, until they again flow out under the thres-
hold of the Temple. Opposite there were the northern gates,
near the other corner of the western. These were : The door of
Jekhaniah, the gate of sacrifice, the women's gate, and the music-
gate ; and why is the first one called the gate of Jekhaniah ?
Because Jekhaniah went through it, when he went into exile.
In the east was the gate Nikanur, which also had two small
doors,2 one to the right and the other to the left ; lastly, there
were two in the west, which were nameless.

(d) Thirteen tables were in the Sanctuary: Eight marble
ones in the slaughter-house, on which the entrails were washed.
Two to the west of the altar-sheep, one marble and one silver:
on the marble one the sacrificial pieces were placed, and on the
silver table the utensils were placed. Two in the corridor on
the inside of the Temple entrance, a marble table and a golden
one : on the marble one the showbreads were placed at the time
they were brought in, and on the golden one when they were
taken out ; because the principle is, that the veneration of the

MISHNA c. l That there were thirteen gates in the Temple is
vouched for by Abba Jose ben Johanan ; but the sages declare, that
there were only seven gates and that the thirteen prostrations were
made in the direction of the twelve breaches made by the Greeks in
the walls of the Temple at the time of the Maccabees, and towards
the altar; the twelve breaches had been repaired, and each prostra-
tion was a mark of gratitude for the good fortune. From the fact,
however, that the Mishna cites nine of the gates by their names and
describes their location, it seems that Abba Jose ben Johanan was
correct, and had his knowledge of the matter from tradition.

8 Concerning the gate Nikanur, it is said that the two doors were
made in the gate proper, because the gates were very heavy and it
required a number of priests and Levites to open them (as explained
in Tract Tamid). Hence, in order to facilitate entrance and egress,
the two doors were added.

TRACT SHEKALIM. 27

sacred must be heightened and not lessened.* Lastly, there
was one golden table in the Temple itself, upon which the show-
breads were constantly lying.

(e) Thirteen curved chests were in the Sanctuary.1 On them
was written : Old shekalim, new shekalim, bird-offerings, doves
for whole-offerings, wood, incense, gold for the cover of the
Holy of Holies. Six were for donations in general.2 The term
new shekalim is used for those paid annually. Old shekalim
were those which were paid by men who had failed to pay
them in the year when they were due, and paid them in the
following year. " In those marked ' bird-offerings,' the money
for turtle-doves was deposited; in those marked ' doves,' money
for young doves was deposited : but they were all whole-offer-
ings." So says R. Jehudah. The sages say: " In the former,
money for both sin-offerings and whole-offerings was placed, and
in the latter only for whole-offerings." 3

MISHNA d. * Because the showbreads were lying on a golden table
in the Temple, they were not to be placed on marble tables when
taken out.

MISHNA e. ' When a man paid his half-shekel in Jerusalem, he
would go to the Temple and throw his half-shekel into the chest
marked new shekalim. Into the chest marked old shekalim, such as
had not given pledges for the payment of the Shekalim, and came
voluntarily to pay same, would throw their half-shekel. One who
wished to donate money for specific purposes, e.g., for bird-offerings,
etc., would deposit the money in the respectively marked chests.

* Only one of these chests was for donations in general. The
other five were marked as follows: One, " For the remainder of a
sin-offering," i.e., money left over from a sum originally intended for
the purchase of a sin-offering, was thrown into this chest and was
used only for sin-offerings; the second, " for the remainder of guilt-
offerings"; the third, " for the remainder of bird-offerings of women
who had been confined and of persons suffering from venereal dis-
eases"; the fourth, " for the remainder of Nazarite-offerings "; and
the fifth, "for the remainder of offerings of those afflicted with
sores." If any one had money left over from such offerings, he
deposited it in the respectively marked cases. The contents of the
chest marked " for donations in general " were used for the mainte-
nance of the Temple. (Maimonides.)

* R. Jehudah means to say, that a man who throws money into
the chest marked "for bird-offerings" intends that his offerings

28 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

(f) If one vow, " I will furnish wood for the altar," he must
not furnish less than two cords. If one vow (to furnish) in-
cense, he must not furnish less than a handful. If one vow (to
furnish) gold coin, he must not furnish less than a Dinar.1 Six
(chests) were for voluntary offerings. What was done with these?
Whole-offerings were bought for these, the meat of which was
sacrificed to God, but the hides belonged to the priests.2 The
following explanation was made by Jehoiada the high priest, of
the expression [Lev. v. 19] : " It is a trespass-offering; he hath,
in trespassing, trespassed against the Lord " : The rule is: With
everything coming in under the name of sin or guilt offering,
whole-offerings are bought, the meat of which is offered up to
God and the hides of which belong to the priests ; hence the
two expressions: A guilt-offering for God and a guilt-offering
for the priests, as it is written [II Kings xii. 16] : " The money
for trespass-offerings and the money for sin-offerings was not
brought into the house of the Lord: it belonged to the priests."

should be for the altar only, and not for the benefit of those who eat
sacrifices, while the sages differ with him, as stated in the Mishna.

MISHNA/. 'In the preceding Mishna the remainder of offerings
is treated of, and it made no difference how little the remainder was,
it could be thrown into the chest. In this Mishna, the case of a man
who vows to bring an offering is spoken of, and a minimum value is
placed.

1 Incidentally we are told that the meat of the sacrifices belonged
to the Divinity, while the hides belonged to the priests; and what
immense sums were realized from the sale of such hides may be
gleaned from the mentioned " Priester und Cultus," by Btichler.

CHAPTER VII.

MISHNA: (a) If money is found between the chest marked
" Shekalim " and that marked " voluntary offerings," it belongs
to the chest marked " Shekalim " if it lies nearer to the same,
and to the one marked " voluntary offerings" if it be nearer
that. So also does it belong to the voluntary offerings if it be
found midway between the two chests. Money found lying be-
tween the chests marked " wood " and " incense " belongs, if it
be nearer the former, to the former ; if nearer the latter to the
latter, and also to the latter if found midway between the two.
Money found lying between the chest marked " bird-offerings "
and the one marked " doves " for whole-offerings belongs to the
former if it be nearer the former ; and if nearer the latter to the
latter, and also to the latter if midway between the two. Money
found between ordinary moneys and the moneys of the second
tithes belongs, if nearer the former to the former ; if nearer the
latter to the latter, and also to the latter if found midway be-
tween the two.* The rule is: One must be guided by the prox-
imity, even in the case of the less important ; but in the event
of equidistance, (one must be guided) by the greater impor-
tance (of the moneys).

(b) Money found (in Jerusalem) on the place of the cattle-
dealers is regarded as second tithe.1 Money found on the Tem-

CHAPTER VII.

MISHNA a. * There are different degrees of sanctification attached
to the several kinds of offerings, some greater and some lesser. In
order not to appropriate money belonging to an offering of a greater
degree of sanctification to one of a lesser degree, it was decided
that proximity of the stray coins should govern the disposition of
such money. Where, however, the money was equidistant, it was
appropriated to the offerings of a greater degree of sanctification,
and the degree may be determined from the Mishna itself.

MISHNA £. 'Because it was rare for priests to visit the cattle-
market, but the Israelites who at any time came to buy cattle for

3o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

pie-mount is ordinary.2 Other money found in Jerusalem gen-
erally, during the festivals, is regarded as second tithe ; at other
times of the year as ordinary.3

(c) Meat found in the outer court (of the Temple) is consid-
ered whole-offering if in complete joints ; if cut in pieces it is
sin-offering.1 Meat found in the city is considered peace-offer-
ing.2 All such meat must be laid aside for putrefaction, and
then be burned in the crematory. Meat found anywhere else in
the land is prohibited (to be used) as carrion, if found in whole
joints ; if found cut in pieces, it may be eaten ; and during the
festivals, when a great deal of meat is on hand, even whole joints
may be eaten.3

(d) Cattle found all the way from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder,
and in the same, vicinity in all directions, are considered, if male,
as whole- offerings, and if female as peace-offerings. R. Jehudah

sacrifices generally bought the same with the money exchanged for
their second tithes.

* Money found on the Temple-mount was presumably dropped
there by priests. It never occurred that a priest should carry money
belonging to the treasury about with him; for even if he drew some
money for the purpose of purchasing necessaries, he immediately
turned it over to the vender. Hence, any money which a priest may
have lost was his own, and ordinary.

8 During the festivals, when all the Israelites congregated in Jeru-
salem, they brought money only to expend for their second tithes,
hence money found in any place is considered as second tithes.

MISHNA c. 1 Because whole-offerings were sacrificed in complete
joints, but sin-offerings, which were eaten by the priests, were usu-
ally cut in pieces. Neither must be eaten, because it might be that
the latter had been left over from the preceding day and should be
burned; but the distinction is made simply in case one had eaten of
the meat that was cut up. If he had eaten of the complete joint, he
was certainly guilty, but if he had eaten of the cut meat, it could not
be said positively that he was guilty.

9 This must also not be eaten, because it may have lain more than
two days and a night; but if it is eaten, no one is guilty.

3 Incidentally the rule is laid down as to meat found anywhere in
Palestine. If the meat is found in whole joints, it is presumed to be
carrion left for dogs, and must not be eaten. During the festivals,
when meat is plentiful, it is presumed to be slaughtered meat, and
may be eaten.

TRACT SHEKALIM. 31

says: " If they are fit for Passover-offerings they may be used
for such purpose, providing Passover is not more than thirty
days off."*

(e) In former days, the finder of such cattle was pledged
until he brought the drink-offerings belonging to such sacrifices ;
every finder, however, letting such cattle stand and going on his
way, the high court decreed, that the costs of the drink-offer-
ings belonging thereto be defrayed out of the public money.

(f) R. Simeon says: Seven decrees were promulgated by
that court, and the latter was one of them. Further: If a non-
Israelite send whole-offerings with the necessary drink-offerings
from over the sea, they are offered up ; but if sent without the
necessary drink-offerings, the costs of the latter are defrayed
from public money. If, again, a proselyte died and left offer-
ings, the drink-offerings, if also left by him, are offered up with
the others; if not left, the costs of same are defrayed out of
public money. It was also a decree of the court, that in the
event of a high priest dying, the necessary meat-offering [Levit-
icus vi. 13] should be paid for out of the public treasury. R.
Jehudah, however, declared, that this should be done at the ex-
pense of the heirs. In both cases a tenth of an ephah should
be offered.

(£•) Further, that the priests may (at the sacrificial meals)
make use of the salt and the wood (from the sanctuary) ; that
the priests do not commit a breach of trust when misusing the
ashes of the red heifer * ; lastly, that the public treasury reimburse

MISHNA d. * R. Jehudah states, that if the animal found was a
yearling and a male, it is considered a Passover-offering, but may be
sacrificed only as a peace-offering, because a Passover-offering must
be intended for a stipulated number of persons. (See Exod. xii. 4.)
The sages, however, say, that on account of the number of whole-
offerings which were brought at the time, the animal found must not
be eaten, for fear lest it be intended for a whole-offering and a grave
offence be committed. Hence it should be sacrificed as a whole-
offering only.

MISHNA g. l It was not allowed to appropriate any part of a sac-
rifice designated for some special use for any other purpose. If this
was done, however, (unintentionally,) it was considered a trespass,
and a trespass-offering had to be sacrificed as expiation for the sin.
The ashes of the red heifer did not come under the above ruling

32 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

for paid bird-offerings that had become unfit.2 R. Jose, how-
ever, says: " He who contracts for the furnishing of the bird-
offerings must reimburse for the spoilt."

previously (for reason, see Siphri), but on account of the frequent
misuse of those ashes a decree was promulgated placing them under
the same ruling as other parts of sacrifices, which were not to be mis-
appropriated. Subsequently, this Mishna teaches that, there being
no further necessity for the precautionary measure, the decree was
reversed and the ashes restored to their former insignificance. This
was included among the seven decrees.

8 A special decree had to be promulgated to cover this case. Had
this not been done, contractors would have refused to furnish birds
for offerings, because there were very many birds used, and it was
burdensome to properly care for them. Still, R. Jose does not agree
to this, claiming that the contractor might use it for other purposes
and thus save the Sanctuary the loss. According to Maimonides, the
Halakha prevails according to R. Jose.

CHAPTER VIII.

MISHNA: (a) All spittle1 to be found in Jerusalem is con-
sidered clean, except such as is found at the upper market (for
this place was secluded and those afflicted with venereal diseases
were in the habit of going there). Such is the teaching of R.
Meir. The sages say : In the middle of the street it is at ordi-
nary times unclean, and at the sides of the streets, clean. Dur-
ing the festivals, spittle found in the middle of the street is
clean; at the sides it is unclean, because such as are unclean
on account of their minority usually walk at the sides of the
street.

(&) All utensils found on the way towards the plunge-bath,
in Jerusalem, are unclean ; those found on the way from the
plunge-bath are clean : for they were not carried down to the
plunge-bath the same way that these were carried up from the
plunge-bath. So teaches R. Meir. R. Jose says: "All are
clean, with the exception of such baskets, spades, and pickaxes
as are used for the bones of the dead." *

CHAPTER VIII.

MISHNA a. l Concerning this spittle, see Leviticus xv. 8. It being
impossible that, of all the people congregated in Jerusalem at the
times of the festivals, there should not be some who had running
issues and whose spittle was unclean, regulations were made where
such men were to walk and where not. These regulations are cited
by the Mishna. R. Meir said, that the upper market was the place
designated for them, but the sages differ with him, and say, that the
regulation was for the healthy men to walk in the middle of the
street and the unclean at the sides during the festivals; but the
whole year, the order was reversed. It is therefore self-evident, that,
wherever the unclean walk, one is liable to contract uncleanness.

MISHNA b. * This Mishna is explained by Maimonides and
translated by Yost in a different manner than we have rendered it;
namely: " All utensils found wrong side up on the way to the plunge-
bath are unclean, and those found right side up are clean." This
3 33

34 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

(c) If a butchering-knife be found on the fourteenth day of
Nissan, a Passover-offering may be slaughtered with it forthwith.
If it be found on the thirteenth, it must be again submerged.*
A severing-knife must be submerged both if found on the thir-
teenth or fourteenth. If the fourteenth, however, fall on a
Sabbath, it may be used for slaughtering forthwith ; so also if
it be found on the fifteenth: if it be found together with a
butchering-knife, it is treated just like the latter.

(d) If a curtain in the Sanctuary become defiled through some
minor uncleanness,1 it is submerged on the inside of the outer
court, and may be put back in its place ; if it become defiled
through a principal uncleanness, it must be submerged on the
outside and then stretched on the rampart, because sunset must
be awaited. At the time it is submerged for the first time (when
new), it should be spread out on the roof of the gallery, in order
that the people may see the beauty of the work.

(i) R. Simeon, son of Gamaliel, says in the name of R. Sim-
eon, son of the assistant high priest, that the curtain was one

explanation is very complicated, and not in accordance with the
literal text and other sources of explanation. Hence we simply
translated the literal text and deem it correct. As for the last three
articles, they are always unclean, on account of being used for bones
of the dead; hence, in our opinion, they were never submerged.
(See also commentary of Israel Lipshuetz, who also interprets it
according to our explanation.)

MISHNA c. * A butchering-knife, being in constant use, is always
considered clean, and hence there is no necessity of submerging it.
If, however, it be found on the thirteenth, when there is still one
day's time, it should be submerged for the sake of precaution. A
severing-knife, however, is considered the same as any other vessel,
and is treated accordingly.

MISHNA d. * For the explanation of the term ' ' minor uncleanness, ' '
as used in this Mishna, it is necessary to state the different degrees
of uncleanness, which are as follows: A corpse is called " the grand-
parent of uncleanness." One who touches a corpse becomes "a
father of uncleanness "; anything touching the latter is, in turn, " a
child of (or first of) uncleanness"; anything touched by this latter
is a "second of uncleanness"; and so forth, "a third" and "a
fourth." (See Tract Taharoth.) In this Mishna a minor uncleanness
refers to a first of uncleanness, and a principal uncleanness to a
father of uncleanness.

TRACT SHEKALIM. 35

span thick, woven on seventy-two warp-cords, each cord twisted
out of twenty threads ; it was forty ells long and twenty ells
wide, and made (worth) of eighty-two myriads (Dinars).* Two
such curtains were made yearly: three hundred priests were re-
quired to submerge it.

(/) If meat of the Holy of Holies * became defiled, be it
through a minor or a principal uncleanness, in the corridor or on
the outside, according to the school of Shamai it must all be
burnt in the court (in a place appointed for that purpose), except
such as had been defiled by a principal uncleanness on the out-
side (of the court); according to the school of Hillel, every-
thing is burnt on the outside except such as had been defiled by
a minor uncleanness on the inside.

(g) R. Eliezer says: "Anything that has become defiled
through a principal uncleanness, on the outside or on the in-
side, is burnt on the outside ; anything that has become defiled
through a minor uncleanness, either on the inside or the outside,
must be burnt on the inside." R. Aqiba says: " In the place
where a thing became defiled, there must it also be burnt."

(h) The joints of the daily sacrifice were laid down under-
neath the half of the altar-stairs on the westerly (according to
others on the easterly) side ; those of the additional offerings on
the easterly (others say on the westerly) side. The sacrifices of
the new moon were placed above the railing (others say beneath)
on the altar.1 The payment of Shekalim was only obligatory
during the time that the Temple stood ; the tithes from grain,
cattle, and the deliverance of the firstlings were in force during
the existence of the Temple and even after the Temple.2 — If

MISHNA <?. * The Palestinian Talmud asserts, that the amount of
the cost of and the number of priests required to submerge the cur-
tain is somewhat exaggerated; but, according to Dr. Biichler's
" Priester und Cultus," the number of priests is not an exaggeration;
and as for the cost, if the smallest existing coin be used for calcula-
tion (as in former times the sou in France, so also was the myriad
mentioned in the Mishna), not even the sum will be exaggerated.

MISHNA /. * For instance, the meat of the sacrifice mentioned in
Leviticus vii. 6.

MISHNA h. l This will be explained in Tract Midoth.

* Because the Levites received their sustenance from this source,
and having inherited no land from their ancestors, they were sup-

36 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

one sanctify Shekalim or firstlings, they are considered sanctified.
R. Simeon says: " If one say, firstlings shall be holy, they are
not sanctified (because no Temple exists)."

ported even after the destruction of the Temple by the same means.
The details will be found in Tracts Becharath, Maasroth, etc.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI., MISHNA a.

FROM the teaching of this Mishna, we may conclude that the
number system of Pythagoras was known and prevailed in the
times of the Sages of the Mishna, and accordingly the number
13 was deemed inauspicious even in the earliest days.

Therefore many religious ceremonies were established with
the express view of convincing the people of the absurdity of
their belief.

It also seems probable that the Sages themselves entertained
the superstition, and that they adopted the number 13 in the
religious ceremonies as a cure for the mischief believed to have
been produced by the inauspicious number.

TRACT ROSH HASHANA

(NEW YEAR).

INTRODUCTION TO TRACT ROSH HA-
SHANA (NEW YEAR'S DAY).

NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that in the history of every
nation, especially such as has ever attained to an established
form of government, the calendar is a matter of great impor-
tance, the Scriptures do not in any manner treat of the Jewish
calendar. There cannot even be found a fixed time whence the
commencement of the year should be reckoned, although there
is this passage in Exodus (xii. 2): This month shall be unto
you the chief of months : the first shall it be unto you of the
months of the year." Doubtless this may be assumed to point
to the month of Nissan (about April), as not only the most
important month, but also as the beginning of the year.

In another passage (Exod. xxiii. 16), however, we find it
written: "And the feast of ingathering (Tabernacles), at the
conclusion of the year. ' ' This would be a palpable contradic-
tion to the previous passage, were it not for the fact that the
words " Betzeth Hashana " (rendered as " at the conclusion of
the year ") in the quoted passage can be, with perfect accuracy,
translated " during the year." While such a translation would
clear away all doubt as to Nissan being the beginning of the
year, it could under no circumstances be applied to the Feast
of Tabernacles, which is neither "at the conclusion" of the
year nor " during the year " (in the sense " when the year has
advanced "), if the beginning of the year be Tishri (about Sep-
tember). Hence the passage should be translated : " And the
feast of the ingathering, which had been completed at the con-
clusion of the year"; i.e., in the months preceding the month
of Tishri.

In the face of these contradictory terms, we must revert to
historical facts which would support one or the other of the
above assertions, and we find, that not only the Egyptian rulers,
but also the Jewish kings since the time of Solomon, counted
the beginning of the year of their accession from the month of

xx INTRODUCTION TO TRACT ROSH HASHANA.

Nissan, while other Eastern potentates, such as the Armenian
and Chaldean kings, counted the commencement of their year
of accession from Tishri.

It is not certain whether the Israelites, after their conquest
of Canaan, computed their calendar in conformity with that of
the country whence they came or with that of the country they
had conquered ; but it is plain that in the Mishnaic period, or
after the erection of the second Temple, they counted the
beginning of the year from Tishri. It may be, however, that
their kings, following the example of their predecessors, com-
menced counting the year of their accession from Nissan, and
in all civil contracts and state documents, according to the exist-
ing custom, used dates to agree with Nissan as the first month
of the year.

On the other hand, the priestly tithes, during the days of
the erection of the second Temple, were payable in Elul (about
August), which was considered the expiring season of the year,
in order to prevent the confusion which might arise from mix-
ing one year's tithes with those of the other. The priestly
tithing of fruits was, however, delayed until Shebhat (about Feb-
ruary), the time when the fruits had already matured on the
trees, in order that the various tithes should not be confused and
to prevent the priests and Levites from unduly interfering with
the affairs of the people.

The prehistoric Mishna, which always formed the law, in con-
formity with the existing custom, and not vice versa* found
four different New Year's days in four different months, and,
with the object in view of making the custom uniform in all
Jewish communities, taught its adherents to observe four dis-
tinct New Year's days, at the beginning of the four respec-
tive months in which certain duties were accomplished. Thus
the text of the opening Mishna of this tract, prior to its
revision by Rabbi Jehudah Hanassi, read as follows: "There
are four different New Year's days; viz., the first day of Nis-
san, the first of Elul, the first of Tishri, and the first of She-
bhat. ' ' The different purposes for which these days were estab-
lished as New Year's days were well known at that time, and it
was therefore deemed unnecessary to specify them. At the time

* Facts corroborating this statement will be found in our periodical Bakayt
Vol. II. , p. 20 et seq.

INTRODUCTION TO TRACT ROSH HASHANA. xxi

of the new edition of the Mishna, by Rabbi Jehudah Hanassi
(the Prince), when the Temple was out of existence, and conse-
quently tithes were no more biblically obligatory (the authority
of the priests having been abrogated and reverted to the house
of David, the great-grandfather of the editor), the latter refer-
ring to the first day of Nissan and the first day of Elul as New
Year's days, added, by way of commentary, the words, " for
kings and cattle-tithe."

He also cited the opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Simeon, that
the New Year's Day for cattle-tithe should not be celebrated
separately, but on the general New Year's Day; viz., on the
first day of Tishri, as under the then existing circumstances
there was no necessity to guard against the confusion of tithes
accruing from one year to the other. From this it may be con-
cluded that R. Jehudah Hanassi, in citing the above opinions,
alluded to them as being in conformity with his own opinion.
To that end he also cites the opinions of the schools of Shamai
and Hillel respectively.

From the statement in the Mishna to the effect that " there
are four periods in each year on which the world is judged," it
appears that in the Mishnaic period the New Year's day was
considered a day of repentance ; and since the principal features
of repentance are devotion to God and prayers for forgiveness of
sin, Rabbi states, in the Mishna, that devotion is the only require-
ment during the days of penitence, i.e., the days between New
Year's Day and the Day of Atonement. The legend relating
that on the New Year's day books (recording the future of each
person) were opened was yet unknown in Rabbi's time.

The story told by R. Kruspedai in the name of R. Johanan,
that "on New Year's Daybooks are opened," etc., is taken from
the Boraitha which teaches: " Three books are opened on the
day of judgment." This Boraitha, however, does not refer to
the New Year's day, but to the day of final resurrection, as
explained by Rashi, and that R. Kruspedai quotes his story in
the name of R. Johanan proves nothing; for in many instances
where teachers were desirous of adding weight to their opin-
ions, they would quote some great teacher as their authority.
R. Johanan himself permitted this method.

After Rabbi Jehudah Hanassi had completed the proper
Mishnaic arrangement regarding the number of New Year's days,

xxii INTRODUCTION TO TRACT ROSH HASHANA.

making the principal one " the Day of Memorial " (the first of
Tishri) ; after treating upon the laws governing the sounding of
the cornet in an exceedingly brief manner — he dwells upon the
custom in vogue at the Temple of covering the mouth of the
cornet or horn with gold, and declares the duty of sounding the
cornet properly discharged if a person passing by the house of
worship can hear it.

He arranges the prayers accompanying this ceremony in a
few words, and then dilates at great length upon the Mishnayoth
treating of the lunar movements by which alone the Jews were
guided in the arrangement of their calendar, upon the manner
of receiving the testimony of witnesses, concerning the lunar
movements, and upon the phases of the moon as used by Rabban
Gamaliel. He then elaborates upon the tradition handed down
to him from his ancestors (meaning thereby the undisputably
correct regulations), and also upon the statutes ordained by R.
Johanan ben Zakkai, enacting that the sages of each generation
are the sole arbiters of all regulations and ordinances, and may
themselves promulgate decrees even though the bases for such
be not found in the Mosaic code.

He also confirms the right of the chief Beth Din (supreme
court of law), but not of a lower Beth Din, of each respective
period, alone to arrange the order of the holidays, on account of
the already apparent discontent of the masses, who were bent
upon taking the management of these subjects into their own
hands.

Thus he dilates upon this feature with the minutest exactness
and supports his assertions with the decision of his grandfather
Rabban Gamaliel, as well as with the decisions of Rabbi Dosa
ben Harkhinas and Rabbi Jehoshua, to the effect that each
generation has only to look for guidance to the Beth Din exist-
ing in its own time, and that the opinion rendered by such a
Beth Din is as binding and decisive as that of Moses, even
though it appear to be erroneous.

Such are the contents of this tract, certainly most important
from an historical and archaeological point of view. Proceed,
then, and study!

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS

TRACT ROSH HASHANA*

CHAPTER I.

MlSHNA I. The first Mishna ordains New Year's Days, viz.: For kings,
for the cattle-tithe, for ordinary years, and for the planting of trees. A king
who ascends the throne on the 2gth of Adar must be considered to have
reigned one year as soon as the first of Nissan comes. The Exodus from
Egypt is reckoned from Nissan. When Aaron died Sihon was still living.
He heard that Aaron was dead and that the clouds of glory had departed.
The rule about Nissan only concerned the kings of Israel ; but for the kings
of other nations, they reckoned from Tishri. Cyrus was a most upright
king, and the Hebrews reckoned his years as they did those of the kings
of Israel. One is guilty of procrastination. Charity, tithes, the glean-
ings of the field, that which is forgotten to be gathered in the field, the
produce of corners of the field.

One is culpable if he does not give forthwith that which he has vowed for
charity. In the case of charity it must be given immediately, for the poor
are always to be found. The Feast of Weeks falls on the fifth, sixth, or
seventh of Sivan.

How the law against delay affects a woman. In which month is grain in
the early stage of ripening ? Only in the month of Nissan. It is also the
New Year for leap-year and forgiving the half-shekels. Congregational sac-
rifices brought on the first of Nissan should be purchased with the shekels
raised for the New Year. He who lets a house to another for a year must
count (the year) as twelve months from day to day ; but if the lessee says (I
rent this house) " for this year," even if the transaction takes place on the
first of Adar, as soon as the first of Nissan arrives the year (of rental) has
expired. The first of Tishri is the New Year for divine judgment. At the
beginning of the year it is determined what shall be at the end of the year.
The Supreme Court in Heaven does not enter into judgment until the Beth

* See introduction to synopsis of Tract Sabbath, Vol. I., p. nix.
xxiii

xxiv SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

Din on earth proclaims the new moon. Israel enters for judgment first. If
a king and a congregation have a lawsuit, the king enters first. From New
Year's Day until the Day of Atonement, slaves used not to return to their
(own) homes ; neither did they serve their masters, but they ate and drank
and rejoiced, with the crown of freedom on their heads. R. Eliezer says,
that the world was created in Tishri. R. Joshua says, that the world was
created in Nissan. Says R. Joshua, God grants the righteous the fulfilment
of the years of their life to the very month and day. Sarah, Rachel, and
Hannah were visited on New Year's Day. Joseph was released from prison
on New Year's Day. On New Year's Day the bondage of our fathers in
Egypt ceased. The Jewish sages fix the time of the flood according to R.
Eliezer, and the solstices according to R. Joshua ; but the sages of other
nations fix the time of the flood also as R. Joshua does. Whoso vows to
derive no benefit from his neighbor for a year must reckon (for the year)
twelve months, from day to day ; but if he said " for this year," if he made
the vow even on the twenty-ninth of Elul, as soon as the first of Tishri
comes that year is complete. The New Year for giving tithes is for a tree
from the time the fruits form ; for grain and olives, when they are one-third
ripe ; and for herbs, when they are gathered. R. Aqiba picked the fruit of
a citron-tree on the first of Shebhat and gave two tithes of them, . 1-20

MISHNA II. At four periods in each year the world is judged. All are
judged on New Year's Day and the sentence is fixed on the Day of Atone-
ment. R. Nathan holds man is judged at all times. God said : " Offer before
Me the first sheaf of produce on Passover, so that the standing grain may be
blessed unto you. Recite before Me on New Year's Day the Malkhioth,
that you proclaim Me King ; the Zikhronoth, that your remembrance may
come before Me, for good, and how (shall this be done) ?" By the sounding
of the cornet. Three circumstances cause a man to remember his sins.
Four things avert the evil decree passed (by God) on man ; viz., charity,
prayer, change of name, and improvement. Some add to these four a fifth
— change of location. Three books are opened on New Year's Day : one
for the entirely wicked, one for the wholly good, and one for the average
class of people. The school of Hillel says : The most compassionate
inclines (the scale of justice) to the side of mercy. Who are those who
inspire their fellowmen with dread of them ? A leader of a community
who causes the people to fear him over-much, without furthering thereby a
high purpose. The legend how R. Joshua fell sick and R. Papa went to
visit him. The Holy One, blessed be He, wrapped Himself, as does one
who recites the prayers for a congregation, and pointing out to Moses the
regular order of prayer, said to him : " Whenever Israel sins, let him pray to
Me after this order, and I shall pardon him." Prayer is helpful for man
before or after the decree has been pronounced. The legend of a certain
family in Jerusalem whose members died at eighteen years of age. They
came and informed R. Johanan ben Zakkai. The Creator sees all their
hearts (at a glance) and (at once) understands all their works, . 20-28

MISHNA III. Messengers were sent out in the following six months : in
Nissan, Abb, Elul, Tishri, Kislev, and in Adar. The legend of the king

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xxv

(of Syria who had earlier) issued a decree forbidding the study of the Torah
among the Israelites, or to circumcise their sons, and compelling them to
desecrate their Sabbath. Judah b. Shamua and his friends cried aloud : " O
heavens ! Are we not all brethren ? Are we not all the children of one
Father ? " etc. Samuel said : " I can arrange the calendar for the whole cap-
tivity." Rabha used to fast two days for the Day of Atonement. Once it
happened that he was right, 29~34

MISHNAS IV. to VII. For the sake of (the new moon), of the two months
Nissan and Tishri, witnesses may profane the Sabbath. Formerly they pro-
faned the Sabbath for all (new moons), but since the destruction of the
Temple they instituted that (witnesses) might profane the Sabbath only on
account of Nissan and Tishri. It once happened that more than forty pair
(of witnesses) were on the highway (to Jerusalem) on the Sabbath. Shagbar.
the superintendent of Gader, detained them, and (when) R. Gamaliel (heard
of it, he) sent and dismissed him. It once happened, that Tobias the physi-
cian, his son, and his freed slave saw the new moon in Jerusalem. The
•explanation of the passage Exodus xii. I, by R. Simeon and the rabbis.
"Who are incompetent witnesses ? Gamblers with dice, etc., . . 34-36

CHAPTER II.

MISHNAS I. to IV. If the Beth Din did not know (the witness), another
was sent with him to testify in his behalf. It once happened that R. Neborai
went to Usha on the Sabbath to testify (to the character) of one witness.
The legend how the Boethusians appointed false witnesses. Formerly bon-
fires were lighted (to announce the appearance of the new moon) ; but when
the Cutheans practised their deceit it was ordained that messengers should
"be sent out. There are four kinds of cedars. The whole country looked
like a blazing fire. Each Israelite took a torch in his hand and ascended to
the roof of his house. Great feasts were made for (the witnesses) in order
to induce them to come frequently. How were the witnesses examined ?
The sun never faces the concave of the crescent or the concave of a rain-
ibow. (If the witnesses say) " We have seen the reflection (of the moon) in
the water, or through a metal mirror, or in the clouds," " their testimony is
not to be accepted." The chief of the Beth Din says : " It (the new moon)
is consecrated," and all the people repeated after Him : " It is consecrated,
it is consecrated." Pelimo teaches : " When the new moon appeared at its
iproper time, they used not to consecrate it," 37-42

MISHNAS V. and VI. R. Gamaliel had on a tablet, and on the wall of his
tipper room, illustrations of the various phases of the moon. Is this per-
mitted ? Yea, he had them made to teach by means of them. It happened
once, that two witnesses came and said : " We saw the moon in the east-
ern part in the morning and in the western part in the evening." R. Johanan
b. Nuri declared them to be false witnesses. Two other witnesses came and
said: "We saw the moon on its proper day, but could not see it on the
tiext evening." R.Gamaliel received them ; but R. Dosa b. Harkhinas said :
•" They are false witnesses." R. Joshua approved his opinion. Upon this.

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

Gamaliel ordered the former to appear before him on the Day of Atonement,
according to his computation, with his staff and with money. What R.
Joshua did, and what R. Aqiba and R. Dosa b. Harkhinas said about it.
What R. Hiyya said when he saw the old moon yet on the morning of the
twenty-ninth day. Rabbi said to R. Hiyya : " Go to Entob and consecrate
the month, and send back to me as a password, ' David the King of Israel
still lives.'" The consecration of the moon cannot take place at a period less
than twenty-nine and a half days, two-thirds and .0052 (i.e., seventy-three
Halaqim) of an hour. Even if the commonest of the common is appointed
leader by a community, he must be considered as the noblest of the nobility.
A judge is to be held, "in his days," equal in authority with the greatest of
his antecedents. Gamaliel said to R. Joshua : " Happy is the generation
in which the leaders listen to their followers, and through this the followers
consider it so much the more their duty (to heed the teachings of the
leaders)," 42-44-

CHAPTER III.

MlSHNA I. If the Beth Din and all Israel saw (the moon on the night
ef the thirtieth day), but there was no time to proclaim, "It is consecrated,"
before it has become dark, the month is intercalary. When three who-
formed a Beth Din saw it, two should stand up as witnesses and substitute
two of their learned friends with the remaining one (to form a Beth Din).
No greater authority than Moses, our master, yet God said to him that Aaron
should act with him. No witness of a crime may act as judge, but in civil
cases he may, 45-46-

MlSHNAS II. to IV. Concerning what kind of cornets may be used on
New Year's and Jubilee days. Some words in the Scripture which the-
rabbis could not explain, until they heard the people speak among them-
selves. The cornet used on the New Year was a straight horn of a wild
goat, the mouthpiece covered with gold. The Jubilee and the New Year's.
Day were alike in respect to the sounding (of the cornet) and the benedic-
tions, but R. Jehudah's opinion was different. R. Jehudah holds that on
New Year's Day the more bent in spirit a man is, and on the Day of Atone-
ment the more upright he is (in his confessions), the better ; but R. Levi
holds the contrary. " On the fast days two crooked ram's-horns were used,
their mouthpieces being covered with silver." According to whom do we-
nowadays pray : " This day celebrates the beginning of thy work, a memo-
rial of the first day " ? It is unlawful to use a cornet that has been split and
afterwards joined together. If one should happen to pass by a synagogue,,
or live close by it and should hear the cornet, he will have complied with
the requirements of the law. If one covered a cornet on the inside with
gold it might not be used. If one heard a part of (the required number of)
the sounds of the cornet in the pit, and the rest at the pit's mouth, he has
done his duty. If one blew the first sound (Teqia), and prolonged the
second (Teqia) as long as two, it is only reckoned as one. If one who-
listened (to the sounds of the cornet) paid the proper attention, but he that

SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS. xxvii

blew the cornet did not, or vice versa, they have not done their duty until
both blower and listener pay proper attention. If special attention in fulfil-
ling a commandment or doing a transgression is necessary or not. As long
as Israel looked to Heaven for aid, and directed their hearts devoutly to
their Father in Heaven, they prevailed ; but when they ceased to do so, they
failed. All are obliged to hear the sounding of the cornet, priests, Levites,
and Israelites, proselytes, freed slaves, a monstrosity, a hermaphrodite, and
one who is half-slave and half-free. One may not say the benediction over
bread for guests unless he eats with them, but he may for the members of
the family, to initiate them into their religious duties, . . . 46-52

CHAPTER IV.

MISHNAS I. to IV. Regarding if the New Year fall on Sabbath. Where
the shofer (cornet) should be blown after the Temple was destroyed. What
was the difference between Jamnia and Jerusalem ? Once it happened that
New Year's Day fell on the Sabbath, and all the cities gathered together.
Said R. Johanan b. Zakkai to the Benai Betherah : " Let us sound (the
cornet) ! " " First," said they, " let us discuss ! " R. Johanan b. Zakkai
ordained that the palm-branch should everywhere be taken seven days, in
commemoration of the Temple. Since the destruction of the Temple, R.
Johanan b. Zakkai ordained that it should be prohibited (to eat of the new
produce) the whole of the day of waving (the sheaf-offering). Once the wit-
nesses were delayed in coming, and they disturbed the song of the Levites.
They then ordained that evidence should only be received until (the time
of) the afternoon service. Concerning what songs the Levites had to sing
every day from the Psalms. What did the Levites sing when the additional
sacrifices were being offered on the Sabbath ? What did they sing at the
Sabbath afternoon service ? According to tradition, a corresponding
number of times was the Sanhedrin exiled. The witnesses need only go to
the meeting place (of the Beth Din). Priests may not ascend the platform in
sandals, to bless the people ; and this is one of the nine ordinances instituted
by R. Johanan b. Zakkai, 53-57

MISHNA V. Regarding the order of the benedictions on New Year's
Day at the morning prayer, additional prayers, and at what time the cornet
must be blown, etc. What passages from the Scriptures are selected for
additional prayers on New Year's Day. To what do the ten scriptural pas-
sages used for the Malkhioth correspond ? How many passages must be
recited from Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa ? We must not men-
tion the remembrance of the individual (in the Zikhronoth), even if the
passage speaks of pleasant things. What are the passages which must be
said in the benediction of Malkhioth, Zikhronoth, and the Shophroth ? R.
Elazar b. R. Jose says : " The Vathiqin used to conclude with a passage
from the Pentateuch." " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is our Lord,"
may be used in the Malkhioth. The second of those who act as ministers of
the congregation on the Feast of New Year shall cause another to sound the
cornet on days when the Hallel (Service of Praise, Ps. cxiii.-cxviii.) is read.

xxviii SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS.

We are permitted to occupy ourselves with teaching (children) until they
learn (to sound the cornet), even on the Sabbath. The order, and how
many times it must be blown ; also, the different sounds and the names of
them. How all this is deduced from the Bible, and the difference of opinions
between the sages. Generally the soundings of the cornet do not interfere
with each other, nor do the benedictions, but on New Year's Day and the Day
of Atonement they do. R. Papa b. Samuel rose to recite his prayers. Said he
to his attendant, "When I nod to you, sound (the cornet) for me." Rabha
said to him, that this may only be done in the congregation. A man should
always first prepare himself for prayer, and then pray. R. Jehudah prayed
only once in thirty days, 57-66

NEW YEAR:

CHAPTER I.

THE ORDINANCES ABOUT THE NEW YEARS OF THE JEWISH CALENDAR

THE MESSENGERS THAT WERE SENT OUT FROM JERUSALEM

AND AT WHICH PERIOD OF THE YEAR THE WORLD IS DIVINELY
JUDGED.

MISHNA /. : There are four New Year days, viz. : The first
of Nissan is New Year for (the ascension of) Kings and for (the
regular rotation of) festivals;* the first of Elu). is New Year for
the cattle-tithe, f but according to R. Eliezer and R. Simeon, it
is on the first of Tishri. The first of Tishri is New Year's day,
for ordinary years, and for sabbatic years £ and jubilees; and
also for the planting of trees § and for herbs. | On the first day
of Shebhat is the New Year for trees,^[ according to the school
of Shammai; but the school of Hillel says it is on the fifteenth
of the same month.**

GEMARA: "For kings." Why is it necessary to appoint
such a day ? (Let every king count the day of his ascension to
the throne as the beginning of his year.) Said R. Hisda: " On
account of documents." So that in the case of mortgages, one
may know which is the first and which is the second by means of

* This refers to the law concerning vows. If one made a vow it had to be ful-
filled before the three festivals elapsed in the order of Passover, Pentecost, and Taber-
nacles, as will be explained further on.

f A date had to be appointed in order to keep the tithes of animals born and
products of the earth, distinct from year to year.

\ Vide Lev. xxv. and Deut. xv.

§ With regard to the prohibition of eating fruit of newly planted trees [Lev. xix.

23-25]-

| So as not to mix the tithe of herbs from year to year.

IT With regard to the tithe due on fruit trees.

** The Gemara fully discusses the reasons for these institutions, but we deem it
wise to anticipate, for the sake of clearness.

2 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

the year of the king's reign mentioned in the documents. The
rabbis taught: A king who ascends the throne on the 2gth of
Adar must be considered to have reigned one year as soon as the
first of Nissan comes, but if he ascends the throne on the first
of Nissan he is not considered to have reigned one year until the
first of Nissan of the following year. From this we infer, that
only Nissan is the commencement of years for kings (or the civil
New Year) ; that even a fraction of a year is considered a year ;
and that if a king ascends the throne on the first of Nissan, he
is not considered to have reigned one year until the next first of
Nissan, although he may have been elected in Adar. The Bo-
raitha teaches this lest one say that the year should be reckoned
from the day of election, and therefore the king would begin his
second year (on the first of Nissan following).

The rabbis taught: If a king die in Adar, and his successor
ascend the throne in Adar, (documents may be dated either) the
(last) year of the (dead) king or the (first) year of the new king.
If a king die in Nissan, and his successor ascend the throne in
Nissan, the same is the case. But if a king die in Adar, and
his successor does not ascend the throne until Nissan, then the
year ending with Adar should be referred to as the year of the
dead king, and from Nissan it should be referred to as that of
his successor.* Is this not self-evident ? The case here men-
tioned refers to an instance where the new king was a son of the
deceased, and, while ascending the throne in Nissan, had been
elected in the month of Adar, and being the king's son, it might
be assumed that he was king immediately after his election, and
thus the following first of Nissan would inaugurate the second
year of his reign. He comes to teach us that such is not the
case.

R. Johanan says: Whence do we deduce that we reckon the
commencement of years (for the reign) of kings, only from Nis-
san ? Because it is written [I Kings, vi. i]: " And it came to
pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the going forth
of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth
year of the month Ziv, which is the second month of the reign
of Solomon over Israel. " Thus the Scriptures establish an anal-
ogy between " the reign of Solomon " and " the Exodus from
Egypt." As the Exodus from Egypt is reckoned from Nissan,

* No reference should be made after the first of Nissan to the reign of the king
just deceased. For instance : it was not permitted to speak of the year beginning
•with Nissan, as the second year after the death of the king.

"NEW YEAR." 3

so also is the reign of Solomon reckoned from Nissan. But
how do we know that the Exodus even should be reckoned
from Nissan ? Perhaps we should reckon it from Tishri.
This would be improper, for it is written [Numb, xxxiii. 38] :
"And Aaron, the Priest, went up into Mount Hor at the
commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth
year after the children of Israel were come out of the land
of Egypt, on the first day of the fifth month." And it is
written [Deut. i. 3]: "And it came to pass in the fortieth
year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month,
Moses spake," etc. Since he mentions the fifth month, which
is certainly Abh, and he speaks of (Aaron's death as happening
in) the fortieth year (and not the forty-first year), it is clear that
Tishri is not the beginning of years (for kings). This argument
would be correct as far as the former (Aaron's) case is con-
cerned, for the text specifically mentions (forty years after) the
Exodus; but in the latter (Moses') case, how can we tell that
(the fortieth year) means from the Exodus ? Perhaps it means
(the fortieth year) from the raising of the Tabernacle in the
wilderness. From the fact that R. Papa stated further on, that
the twentieth year is mentioned twice for the sake of a compari-
son by analogy, we must assume that the analogy of expres-
sion " the fortieth year" (mentioned in connection with both
Aaron and Moses) signifies also ; * as in the former case it means
forty years from the time of the Exodus, so also in the latter
case. But whence do we know that the incident that took place
in Abh (the death of Aaron) happened before (the speech of
Moses) which is related as happening in Shebhat ? Perhaps the
Shebhat incident happened first. It is not reasonable to sup-
pose this, for it is written [Deut. i. 4]: "After he had slain
Sihon the king of the Amorites," and when Aaron died Sihon
was still living. Thus it is written [Numb. xxi. i]: " And the
Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard." What did he hear ? He
heard that Aaron was dead, and that the clouds of glory had
departed (and he thought that a sign that permission was given
from heaven to fight against Israel). f How can we make any
such comparison ? In the one place it speaks of the Canaanite,

* The statement of R. Papa is quoted here, because it is a rule of the Talmud
that no comparisons by analogy may be cited unless they emanate from a tradition or
teaching known to the master making such a comparison, and this rule applies
throughout the Talmud.

f Because the life of the righteous is a protection for the whole people.

4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

and in the other of Sihon. We have learned in a Boraitha that
Sihon, Arad, and the Canaanite are identical. This opinion of
R. Johanan is quite correct, for we find that a Boraitha quotes
all the verses that he quotes here, and arrives at the same
conclusion.

R. Hisda says : The rule of the Mishna — that the year of the
kings begins with Nissan — refers to the kings of Israel only, but
for the kings of other nations it commences from Tishri. As it
is said [Neh. i. i] : " The words of Nehemiah, the son of Hak-
haliah. And it came to pass in the month of Kislev, in the
twentieth year," etc. And it is written [ibid. ii. i]: " And it
came to pass in the month Nissan, in the twentieth year of
Artaxerxes the king," etc. Since Hanani stood before Nehe-
miah in Kislev, and the Bible speaks of it as the twentieth year,
and since Nehemiah stood before the king in Nissan, and the
Text calls it also the twentieth year, it is clear that the New
Year (for the non-Jewish king, Artaxerxes) is not Nissan (or in
the latter case he would have spoken of the twenty-first year).
This would be correct as far as the latter quotation is concerned,
for it specifically mentions Artaxerxes, but in the former verse
how do we know that it refers to Artaxerxes ? Perhaps it refers
to another event altogether. Says R. Papa: Since in the first
passage we read ' ' the twentieth year ' ' and in the second we
read " the twentieth year," we may deduce by analogy that as
in the one case Artaxerxes is meant, so is he meant also in the
other. But how do we know that the event, recorded as having
occurred in Kislev, and not the Nissan incident, happened first ?
This we know from a Boraitha, where it reads: The same words
which Hanani said to Nehemiah in Kislev, the latter repeated
to the king in Nissan, as it is said [Neh. i. i, 2]: " The words
of Nehemiah, son of Hakhaliah. And it came to pass in the
month of Kislev, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the
capital, that Hanani, one of my brethren came, and certain men
of Judah . . . and the gates thereof are burned with fire."
And it also said [Neh. ii. 1-6]: " And it came to pass in the
month of Nissan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king,
that wine was before him ... so it pleased the king to send
me; and I set him a time."

R. Joseph raised an objection. It is written [Haggai, ii.
10] : " In the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month, in the sec-
ond year of Darius." And it is also written [ibid, i]: " In the
second year, in the seventh month, in the one-and-twentieth

"NEW YEAR." 5

day of the month."* If the rule is that Tishri (the seventh
month) »s the beginning of years for non-Jewish kings, should
not the Text read " in the third year of Darius " instead of the
second year ? R. Abbahu answered : Cyrus was a most upright
king, and the Hebrews reckoned his years as they did those of
the kings of Israel (beginning with Nissan). R. Joseph opposed
this. First : If that were so, there are texts that would contra-
dict each other, for it is written [Ezra, vi. 15] : " And this house
was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in
the sixth year of the reign of Darius the King." And we have
learned in a Boraitha : At the same time in the following year
Ezra and the children of the captivity went up from Babylon,
and the Bible says about this [Ezra, vii. 8] : " And he came to
Jerusalem in the fifth month in the seventh year of the king."
But if the rule is (that for Cyrus the year began with Nissan and
not Tishri) should not the Text say " the eighth year" (since
the first day of Nissan, the beginning of another year, inter-
venes between the third of Adar and the month of Abh) ? Sec-
ondly : How can these texts be compared ? In the one place it
speaks of Cyrus, and in the other of Darius. We have learned
in a Boraitha that Darius, Cyrus, and Artaxerxes are all one
and the same person.

tf And for festivals." Do then the festivals commence on
the first of Nissan ? Do they not begin on the fifteenth of that
month ? R. Hisda answered : (The Mishna means that Nissan
is) the month that contains that festival which is called the New
Year for festivals (viz., Passover).

What difference does it make (in practice) ? It makes a dif-
ference to one who has made a vow, because through this festi-
val he becomes culpable of breaking the law, " Thou shalt not
slack to pay."f And this is according to the opinion of R.
Simeon, who says: That (before one is guilty of delay) the three
festivals must have passed by in their regular order, with Pass-
over as the first (of the three). Thus was also the dictum of R.
Simeon ben Jochai, who stated that the law against procrastina-

* The Rabbis of the Talmud must have had a different version of the book of
Haggai from that existing at present. In the second passage quoted, namely Hag-
gai ii. i, the words "in the second year" cannot be found. There is, therefore, a
great difficulty in understanding the discussion. Even Rashi is unable to enlighten
us on this point.

f This law of " Thou shalt not slack to pay," is known as " BAL TE'AHER" ;
i.e., the law against procrastination or delay.

6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

tion may be violated at times only when five festivals had passed
by in their regular order; at other times when four, and again
when three festivals had passed; i.e., if the vow was made
before the feast of Pentecost he becomes guilty of procrastina-
tion only when Pentecost, Tabernacles, Passover, and again
Pentecost and Tabernacles had passed by ; if the vow was made
before Tabernacles then he becomes guilty.

The rabbis taught: As soon as three festivals have passed
by and the following duties (or vows) have not been fulfilled
one is guilty of procrastination ; and these are : The vow of one
who says, " I will give the worth of myself (to the sanctuary);"
or, " I will give what I am estimated to be worth (in accordance
with Lev. xxvii.);" or the vow concerning objects, the use of
which one has forsworn, or which one has consecrated (to
the sanctuary), or sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings,
peace-offerings, charity, tithes, the firstlings, the paschal offer-
ings, the gleanings of the field, that which is forgotten to be
gathered in the field, the produce of the corner of the field.*
R. Simeon says: The festivals must pass by in their regular
order, with Passover as the first. And R. Meir says : As soon
as even one festival has elapsed and the vow has not been kept
the law is infringed. R. Eliezer ben Jacob says: As soon as
two festivals have elapsed the law is infringed, but R. Elazar
ben Simeon says : Only the passing of the Feast of Tabernacles
causes the infringement of the law (whether or not any other
festivals have passed by between the making and the fulfilling
of the vow). What is the reason of the first Tana ? Since in
[Deut. xvi.] the Text has been speaking of the three festivals,
why does it repeat, " On the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the
Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Tabernacles ? " This signi-
fies that when Tabernacles, Passover, Pentecost, and again Tab-
ernacles had passed, but if the vow was made before Passover,
then the man becomes guilty if he allows the three festivals to
pass by in their regular order. Infer from this that the festivals
must pass in the order just mentioned before one is guilty of
procrastination. R. Simeon says: It was not necessary to re-
peat " on the Feast of Tabernacles," because the Text was
speaking of that festival (when it mentioned the names of the
three festivals). Why, then, does it repeat it ? To teach us that
Tabernacles shall be the last of the three festivals. R. Meir

* Lev. xxiii. 22.

"NEW YEAR." 7

arrives at his opinion because it is mentioned of each festival
" Thou shalt come there (to Jerusalem), and ye shall bring
there" (your vows; and this being said of each festival, if one
elapses and the vow is not brought, then the law against delay
is infringed. The reason of R. Eliezer ben Jacob is, that the
passage [Numb. xxix. 39] runs: " These shall ye offer to the
Lord on your appointed feasts," and the minimum of the plural
word ' ' feasts ' ' is two. On what does R. Elazar b. Simeon base
his opinion ? We have learned in the following Boraitha:
' The Feast of Tabernacles" should not have been mentioned
in [Deut. xvi. 16], since the preceding passages (of that chap-
ter) were treating of that feast. Why, then, was it mentioned ?
To indicate that that particular feast (Tabernacles) is the one
that causes the infringement of the law.

What do R. Meir and R. Eliezer ben Jacob deduce from the
superfluous passage " on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the
Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Tabernacles " ? They use
this verse, according to R. Elazar, who says in the name of R.
Oshiya, who said: Whence do we know that the law of com-
pensation * applies to the Feast of Weeks (although the feast is
only one day) ? For this very reason the Bible repeats the three
festivals, and he institutes a comparison between Pentecost and
Passover ; and as the law of compensation applies to Passover for
seven days, so also does it apply to Pentecost for seven days.
WThy, then, do the Scriptures find it necessary to repeat the
words, " In the Feast of Tabernacles" ? To compare it with
the Feast of Passover, as during Passover it was obligatory to
stay over night (in Jerusalem), so was it also necessary during
the Feast of Tabernacles. But how do we know that it was
obligatory during the Feast of Unleavened Bread ? It is writ-
ten [Deut. xvi. '7]: "Thou shalt turn in the morning (after
staying over night), and go unto thy tents." Whence do we
deduce this ? The rabbis taught : It is written [Deut. xxiii.
22]: " When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God,
thou shalt not delay to pay it." Perhaps these words only
apply to a vow. How do we know that they may also be ap-
plied to a voluntary offering ? In the passage just quoted we
read " vow," and in another place [Lev. vii. 16] we find " but
if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow or a voluntary offering " ;

* The privilege of bringing on one of the later days of a festival a sacrifice that
should have been offered on the first day.

8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

as in the latter instance the " voluntary offering" is included,
so is also the former; " unto the Lord thy God," i.e., offer-
ings expressed by " I will give the value of myself," etc., and
other objects mentioned above ; ' ' thou shalt not slack to pay
it " ; i.e., the object promised must be given and not anything in
exchange for it;* " for he will surely require it," i.e., the sin,
guilt, burnt, and peace-offerings; "the Lord thy God," these
words refer to offerings of charity, tithes, and firstlings; "of
thee," this refers to the gleanings, that which is forgotten in
the field and the produce of the corner of the field; " and it
would be sin in thee," i.e., in thee and not in thy sacrifice
(which is not thereby invalidated).

The rabbis taught: It is written [Deut. xxiii. 24]: "What
is gone out of thy lips," this refers to the positive command-
ments (of the Law); " thou shalt keep," refers to the negative
commandments; " and perform," is a warning to the Beth Din
(that they should enforce the laws); "according as thou hast
vowed," refers to vows; " to the Lord thy God," refers to sin,
guilt, burnt, and peace-offerings; "voluntarily," means just
what it is; " which thou hast spoken," refers to the sanctified
objects devoted to the Temple for repairs, etc.; "with thy
mouth," refers to charity. Says Rabha: One is culpable if he
does not give forthwith that which he has vowed for charity.
Why so ? Because there are always poor people (needing im-
mediate help). Is this not self-evident ? One might suppose
that, since the law prohibiting delay is found in connection with
the duty of giving charity and also of bringing the various volun-
tary offerings, it would apply to both, and it would not be in-
fringed until the three festivals had elapsed, he comes to teach us
(that charity and sacrifices are different) ; in the latter case the in-
fringement of the law depends on the festivals, but in the case
of charity it must be given immediately, for the poor are always
to be found. And Rabha said again : As soon as three festivals
have passed (and one has not brought his offering), he daily
transgresses the law against delay. An objection was raised.
As soon as a year, containing three festivals or not, has passed
(he that does not bring his offering), be it a firstling or any of
the holy offerings, transgresses daily the law against delay. It
is quite possible that the three festivals may elapse and yet a
year may not go by (i.e., from Passover till Tabernacles is only

* Ley. xxvii. 32.

"NEW YEAR." 9

seven months), but how can it happen that a year may pass and
the three festivals should not occur (in that time) ? It may
happen according to those who say (that the three festivals
must elapse) in their regular order, but according to those who
do not say (that the three festivals must go by) in their regular
order, how can such a case occur ? This would be correct
according to Rabbi (who holds that the intercalary month* is
not a part of the year), and it occurs in a leap year, when one
consecrates anything (to the Temple) after the Feast of Pass-
over ; for when the end of the second Adar has arrived, a year
(of twelve months) has elapsed, yet the three festivals have not
passed by in their regular order. But how can such a case
occur according to the rabbis ? It can happen as R. Shemaiah
teaches : Pentecost falls on the fifth, sixth, or seventh of Si van.
How is this possible ? In a year when the months of Nissan
and lyar have thirty days each, Pentecost falls on the fifth of
Sivan ; when they each have twenty-nine days, Pentecost falls on
the seventh of Sivan ; but when the one has twenty-nine days and
the other has thirty days, Pentecost falls on the sixth of Sivan.

R. Zera asked: How does the law against delay affect an
heir ? Shall we argue that the Law says [Deut. xxiii. 22] :
"When thou shalt vow " (i.e., the testator has vowed), but the
heir has not vowed (consequently the law does not apply to
him), or shall we infer from the passage [Deut. xii. 5,6]: " And
thither shalt thou come . . . and ye shall bring," that the heir
(who is obliged to come) is also in duty bound to bring with
him (the objects vowed by the testator) ? Come and hear. R.
Hyya taught : It is written in this connection [Deut. xxiii. 22] :
" Of thee " (i.e., from the one who vowed) and this excludes
the heir. But did we not say above that these words refer to
the gleanings, etc.? The Text uses the word Me'immokh
(" of thee "), which we can explain to mean both the successor
and the gleanings, etc. (i.e., all that comes " of thee ").

R. Zera also asked : How does the law against delay affect
a woman ? Shall I say that since she is not obligated to appear
(in Jerusalem) the law does not apply to her ? or perhaps it is
her duty to go there because she is included in the law " to
rejoice"? "Certainly," answered Abayi, "she is bound by
this law because it is her duty to rejoice."

* Leap year occurs seven times in a cycle of nineteen years. On such occasions
one month, the second Adar, is added to the twelve lunar months.

io , THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

The schoolmen asked: From when do we count the begin-
ning of the year for a firstling ? Answered Abayi : From the
moment it is born ; but R. Aha b. Jacob said : From the moment
it is acceptable as an offering (i.e., when it is eight days old,
Lev. xxii. 27). They do not differ, for the former Rabbi refers
to an unblemished animal and the latter to one with a blemish.
May, then, a blemished animal be eaten (on the day of its
birth) ? Yes, if we are sure it was born after the full period of
gestation.

The rabbis taught : The first of Nissan is the new year for
(arranging the) months, for (appointing) leap years, for giving
the half shekels, and, some say, also for the rental of houses.
Whence do we know (that it is the new year) for months ?
From the passage [Ex. xii. 2] where it is written: " This month
shall be unto you the beginning of months ; it shall be the first
month of the year to you." It is also written [Deut. xvi. i] :
"Observe the month of Abib " (early stage of ripening). In
which month is grain in the early stage of ripening ? I can say
only Nissan, and the Law calls it the first. Could I not say
Adar (when the grain begins to shoot up) ? Nay, for the grain
must be ripening during the major portion of the month (and in
Adar it is not). Is it then written that the grain must be ripen-
ing the major portion of the month ? Therefore, says Rabhina,
the sages do not find (the rule of calling Nissan the first month)
in the Pentateuch, but in the Book of Esther, where it is clearly
stated [Esther, iii. 7], " In the first month, that is, the month
Nissan."

" For leap years." Do we, then, count leap years from Nis-
san ? Does not a Boraitha teach us that Adar only is the inter-
calary month ? Answered R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: The words
" FOR LEAP YEARS " mean here the termination of leap years,*
and our Tana speaks of the beginning of the leap year and not
the end.

" For giving the half shekels." Whence do we deduce this ?
Said R. Yoshiah: In Numb, xxviii. 14: "This is the burnt-
offering of the new moon throughout the months of the year."
The Scriptures say "proclaim it a new month" and also bring a
sacrifice from the new products. We make a comparison be-
tween the words " year " used in this passage and in Ex. xii. 2,

* As soon as Nissan had been consecrated, there could be no further debate about
making the past year intercalary, for once the new month had been called Nissan, it
was forbidden to call it by any other name.

"NEW YEAR." ii

" it shall be the first month of the year to you," and deduce
that they both refer to Nissan.

R. Jehudah says in the name of Samuel: It is required that
the congregational sacrifices* brought on the first of Nissan
should be purchased with the shekels collected for the new year ;
but if the sacrifice was bought with the funds obtained from the
former year's funds, it is acceptable, yet the law was but im-
perfectly complied with. We have also learned the same in a
Boraitha with the addition that, if an individual offers from his
own property (proper objects for the congregational sacrifices),
they are acceptable, but he must first present them to the con-
gregation. Is this not self-evident ? Nay, it may be feared
that one will not give them to the congregation with a free will,
and this, he teaches us, is not worthy of consideration. And
the reason that our Tana does not mention that Nissan is a new
year for the giving of shekels also, is because it is said above
that if one has brought an offering (from the old funds) he has
done his duty, therefore he could not make Nissan absolutely
binding as a new year for the sacrifices.

It is said above: "And some say also for the rental of
houses." The rabbis taught: He who lets a house to another
for a year, should count (the year) as twelve months from day to
day; but if the lessee says (I rent this house) " for this year,"
even if the transaction takes place on the first of Adar, as soon
as the first of Nissan arrives, the year (of rental) has expired.
Can you not say Tishri (is the beginning of the year for such
transactions) ? Nay, it is generally understood that if a man
rents a house in the autumn he rents it for the whole of the
rainy season (winter). And the Tana of the first part of the
above Boraitha (who does not fix Nissan as the month for ren-
tals), and also our Tana both are of the opinion that in Nissan,
too, bad weather sometimes prevails (and therefore Nissan and
Tishri are alike in this respect).

' ' On the first of Elul is the new year for the cattle-tithes. ' ' Ac-
cording to whose opinion is this ? Says R. Joseph: It is accord-
ing to Rabbi's own opinion which he formed in accordance with
the opinions of different Tanai'm. With regard to the festivals
he holds with R. Simeon and with regard to the cattle-tithe he
holds to the opinion of R. Meir. If that is so, are there not

* The TAMID or daily offering could not be presented to the Temple by an
individual.

i2 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

five beginnings of years instead of four ? Rabha answered that
the Mishna mentioned only the four, which are not disputed by
any one. According to R. Meir there are four, if that " for the
festivals" be excluded, and according to R. Simeon there are
four, if that " for the cattle-tithes " be excluded. R. Na'hman
bar Itz'hak, however, says : (No such explanation is needed) ; the
Mishna means that there are four (months) in which there are (or
may be) many beginnings of years.

" According to R. Eliezer and R. Simeon it is on the first of
Tishri." R. Johanan says: Both of them deduce their opinion
by (various interpretations of) the same scriptural passage. It
is written [Psalms, Ixv. 14]: " The meadows are clothed with
flocks ; the valleys also are covered with corn ; men shout for
joy, they also sing." R. Meir thinks (this is the interpretation)
of these words : When are the meadows clothed with flocks ?
At the season when the valleys are covered with corn. And
when are the valleys covered with corn ? About (the time of)
Adar. The flocks conceive in Adar and produce their young in
Abh; consequently the beginning of the year (for the cattle-
tithe) is Elul. R. Eliezer and R. Simeon, however, say: When
are the meadows clothed with flocks ? At the season when they
shout and sing. When do the ears of corn (seem to) send up
a hymn of praise ? In Nissan. Now, the sheep conceive in
Nissan and produce in Elul, consequently the beginning of the
year (for their tithe) is Tishri. But Rabha says : All agree that
only Adar is the time when the meadows are clothed with flocks,
and the valleys are covered with corn. But they differ about
this passage [Deut. xiv. 22] : ' ' Thou shalt truly tithe ' ' (liter-
ally, " Thou shalt tithe in tithing"), and we see that the text
here speaks of two tithes — viz., of cattle and of grain. R. Meir
thinks that the following comparison may be instituted between
the two : just as the tithe of grain must be given in the month
nearest to the time it is reaped, so that of cattle must be given
in the month nearest to the one in which they are born (Elul).
R. Eliezer and R. Simeon, however, are of the opinion that
another comparison may be instituted between these tithes —
viz., just as the beginning of the year for giving the tithe of
grain is Tishri, so also is Tishri for that of cattle.

" The first of Tishri is the New Year's Day for ordinary
years." For what purpose is this rule ? Answers R. Zera, to
determine the equinoxes (and solstices); and this agrees with
the opinion of R. Eliezer, who says that the world was created

"NEW YEAR." 13

in Tishri ; but R. Na'hman says (it is the new year) for divine
judgment, as it is written [Deut. xi. 12]: " From the beginning
of the year till the end of the year," i.e., at the beginning of
the year it is determined what shall be at the end of the year.
But whence do we know that this means Tishri ? It is written
[Psalms, Ixxxi. 3]: "Blow on the new moon the cornet at
the time when it (the new moon) is hidden * on our solemn
feast day." What feast is it on which the moon is hidden ?
We can only say Rosh Hashana (New Year's Day), and of this
day it is written [ibid. v. 4] : " For it is a statute unto Israel,
a judgment (day) for the God of Jacob."

The rabbis taught: " It is a statute unto Israel," whence we
infer that the Heavenly Court of Judgment does not enter into
judgment until the Beth Din on earth proclaims the new moon.
Another Boraitha states: It is written: " It is a statute unto
Israel." From this it appears that (New Year's Day is a day
of judgment) only for Israel. Whence do we know it is so also
for other nations ? Therefore it is written: "It is the day of
judgment of the God of Jacob" (the Universal God). Why,
then, is " Israel " mentioned ? To inform us that Israel comes
in for judgment first. This is in accordance with the saying of
R. Hisda: If a king and a congregation have a law suit, the
king enters first, as it is said [I Kings, viii. 59] : " The cause of
his servant (King Solomon) and the cause of his people." Why
so ? Because it is not customary to let a king wait outside.

" For the computation of sabbatic years." On what scriptural
passage is this based ? On Lev. xxv. 4, which reads : ' ' But in
the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, ' '
and he deduces (that it means Tishri) by analogy from the word
" year " in this passage and in the following: " From the begin-
ning of the year " [Deut. xi. 12], which surely refers to Tishri.

" And jubilees" Do, then, jubilees begin on the first of
Tishri ? Do they not begin on the tenth, as it is written [Lev.
xxv. 9]: " On the Day of Atonement shall ye make the cornet
sound throughout all your land" ? Our Mishna is in accord-
ance with R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan ben Berokah of
the following Boraitha: It is written [Lev. xxv. 10] : " Ye shall
sanctify the year, the fiftieth^-dr." Why was it necessary to
repeat the word " year" ? Because in the same connection it

* This is the literal translation of the verse in Psalms ; the free translation is "at
the appointed time," according to Isaac Leeser.

I4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

is said [ibid. 9] : "On the Day of Atonement shall ye make the
cornet sound," and one might suppose that the jubilee is sanc-
tified only from the Day of Atonement (and not before). There-
fore the word ' ' year ' ' is repeated to teach us that by the words
"ye shall sanctify the fiftieth year" is meant, that from the
very beginning of the year the jubilee commences to be conse-
crated. From this R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Bero-
kahsays: From New Year's Day until the Day of Atonement
slaves were not wont to return to their (own) homes, neither
did they serve their masters, but they ate and drank and re-
joiced with the crown of freedom on their heads. As soon as
the Day of Atonement arrived the Beth Din ordered the cornet
to be blown and the slaves returned to their own homes, and
estates reverted to their (original) owners.

We have learned in another Boraitha: "It is a jubilee"
(Jobhel hi). What is meant by (these superfluous words) ?
Since it is said [Lev. xxv. 10]: "And ye shall sanctify the
fiftieth year," one might think that, as at the beginning of the
year the jubilee commences to be sanctified, the sanctification
should be extended to the (Day of Atonement) after the end of
the year ; and be not surprised at such a teaching, since it is cus-
tomary to add from the non-sanctified to the sanctified. Hence
the necessity of the words in the passage (next to that quoted
above) [Lev. xxv. n]: "A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be
unto you " ; i.e., the fiftieth year shall be hallowed, and not the
fifty-first. But the rabbis, whence do they derive the regulation
that the fifty-first year is not sanctified ? Because it is plainly
written the fiftieth year and not the fifty-first. This excludes
the opinion of R. Jehudah who holds that the jubilee year is
added at the beginning and end.* The rabbis taught " Jobhel
hi (it is a jubilee)," even if the people have not relinquished
(their debts), even if the cornet is not sounded; shall we also
say even if slaves are not released ? Hence the word " hi " is
used (to indicate that only when the slaves are released it is a
jubilee), so says R. Jehudah. R. Jose says: " It is a jubilee,"
even if debts are not relinquished and slaves are not released ;
shall we also say even if the cornet is not sounded ? Hence the
word "hi" is used (and means the sounding of the cornet).
Since one passage includes (all that is prescribed) and the other

* I.e., the Jubilee year is, at the same time, the fiftieth year of the last and the
first of the coming series.

"NEW YEAR." 15

passage exempts (certain regulations), why should we say it is
.a jubilee even if they have not released slaves, but that it is not
a jubilee if they failed to sound the cornet ? Because it is pos-
sible that sometimes (a jubilee may occur) and yet there are no
{Hebrew) slaves to release, but a jubilee can never occur with-
out the sounding of the cornet (for a cornet can always be
found). Another explanation is, that (the sounding of the cor-
.net) is the duty of the Beth Din (and it will never fail to per-
form it), while (the releasing of slaves) is the duty of the indi-
vidual, and we cannot be sure that he will perform it. (Is not
the first explanation satisfactory) that he gives this additional
explanation ? (It may not be satisfactory to some who might
.say) that it is impossible that not one (Hebrew) slave should be
found somewhere to be released. Therefore (the Boraitha adds)
that the blowing of the cornet is the duty of the Beth Din (and
they will not fail to perform it).

R. Hyya b. Abba, however, said in the name of R. Johanan:
The foregoing are the words of R. Jehudah and R. Jose; but
the masters hold that all three conditions may prevent the fulfil-
ment (of the law), because they hold that the word " hi " [Lev.
xxv. 10] should be explained as to the subjects mentioned in the
passage in which it occurs, and in the preceding and the follow-
ing passages also, (and in the passage immediately following the
" hi " is said, " fields reverted to their original owners." This,
then, also constitutes one of the three conditions). But is it not
written, " a jubilee," which certainly means to add something
;not mentioned previously? This additional word refers to the
lands outside of Palestine, where the jubilee must also be
•enforced. If so, what then is the intent of the words " through-
out the land " ? (They lead us to infer) that at the time when
Bunder a Jewish government) liberty is proclaimed throughout
the land (Palestine) it should be proclaimed outside the land ;
;but if it is not proclaimed in the land, it need not be proclaimed
.outside the land.

"And also for the planting of trees. ' ' Whence do we deduce
this? From Lev. xix. 23, where it is written: "Three years
•shall it be as uncircumcised," and also [ibid. 24]: " But in the
fourth year." We compare the term " year" used here with
that of Deut. xi. 12, " from the beginning of the ' year,' " and
•deduce by analogy that they both mean Tishri.

The rabbis taught : For one who plants, slips or grafts (trees)
.in the sixth year (the year before the sabbatic year), thirty days

16 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

before the New Year's day (as soon as the first of Tishri arrives),
a year is considered to have passed, and he is permitted to use,
during the sabbatic year (the fruits they may produce), but less
than thirty days are not to be considered a year, and the fruits
may not be used, but are prohibited until the fifteenth of Sheb-
hat, whether it be because they come under the category of
" uncircumcised " or under the category of " fourth year plant-
ing " [Lev. xix. 23, 24]. Whence do we deduce thia ? R.
Hyya bar Abba said in the name of R. Johanan or R. Janai :
The verse says [Lev. xix. 24, 25] : " And in the fourth year. . . .
And in the fifth year," i.e., it may happen that in the fourth
year (from the planting, the fruit) is prohibited because it is still
" uncircumcised," and in the fifth year (from the planting)
because it is still the product of the fourth year.

We have learned R. Eliezer says: In Tishri the wo/ld was
created, the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob were born and died ;
Isaac was born on the Passover; on New Year's Day Sarah,
Rachel, and Hannah were visited with the blessing of children,
Joseph was released from prison, and the bondage of our fathers
in Egypt ceased ; in Nissan our ancestors were redeemed from
Egypt, and in Tishri we shall again be redeemed. R. Jehoshua
says: In Nissan the world was created, and in the same month
the patriarchs were born, and in Nissan they also died; Isaac
was born on the Passover; on New Year's Day Sarah, Rachel,
and Hannah were visited, Joseph was released from prison, and
the bondage of our fathers in Egypt ceased. In Nissan our
ancestors were redeemed from Egypt, and in the same month
we shall again be redeemed.

We have learned in a Boraitha R. Eliezer says: Whence do
we know that the world was created in Tishri ? From the scrip-
tural verse, in which it is written [Gen. i. n] : " And God said,
' Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding see-d, and the
fruit tree,' " etc. In what month does the earth bring forth
grass, and at the same time the trees arey#//of fruit ? Let us
say Tishri, and that time of the year (mentioned in Genesis) was
the autumn; the rain descended and the fruits flourished, as it
is written [Gen. ii. 6]: " But there went up a mist from the
earth," etc. R. Jehoshua says: Whence do we know that the
world was created in Nissan ? From the scriptural verse, in
which it is written [Gen. i. 12]: " And the earth brought forth
grass, and herb yielding seed, and the tree yielding fruit," etc.
In which month is the earth covered with grass (and at the same

"NEW YEAR." 17

time) the trees bring forth fruit ? Let us say Nissan, and at
that time animals, domestic and wild, and birds mate, as it is
said [Psalms, Ixv. 14] : " The meadows are clothed with flocks,"
etc. Further says R. Eliezer: Whence do we know that the
patriarchs were born in Tishri ? From the passage [I Kings,
viii. 2]: " And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto
King Solomon at the feast, in the month Ethanim " (strong),
which is the seventh month; i.e., the month in which Ethanim,
the strong ones of the earth (the patriarchs), were born. How
do we know that the expression ethan means strength ? It is
written [Numb. xxiv. 21] ethan moshabhekha, " strong is thy
dwelling-place," and it is also written [Micah, vi. 2]: " Hear
ye, O mountains, the Lord's controversy, and (ve-haethanim) ye
strong foundations," etc.

R. Jehoshua, however, says: Whence do we know that the
patriarchs were born in Nissan ? From I Kings vi. I, where it
says: " In the fourth year, in the month Ziv (glory), which is
the second month," etc., which means in that month in which
the " glorious ones " of the earth (the patriarchs) were already
born. Whether the patriarchs were born in Nissan or Tishri,
the day of their death occurred in the same month as that in
which they were born; as it is written [Deut. xxxi. 2]: " Moses
said, ' I am one hundred and twenty years old to-day.' ' The
word " to-day" implies " just this day my days and years are
complete," for the Holy One, blessed be He, grants the right-
eous the fulfilment of the years of their life to the very month
and day, as it is said: " The number of thy days will I make
full" [Ex. xxiii. 26].

Isaac was born in Nissan. Whence do we know this ? It is
written [Gen. xviii. 14]: " At the next festival I will return to
thee, and Sarah will have a son." What festival was it when
he said this ? Shall I say it was Passover, and he referred to
Pentecost ? That cannot be, for what woman bears children
after fifty days' gestation ? If I say it was Pentecost, and he
referred to Tishri, a similar objection might be raised, for who
bears children after five months' gestation ? If I say it was
Tabernacles, and he referred to Passover, a similar objection
may be made, for who bears children in the sixth month of
gestation ? This last objection could be answered according to
the following Boraitha: We have learnt that that year was a
leap year, and Mar Zutra says that although a child born after
nine months' gestation is never born during the month (but

i8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

only at the end of the required time), still a seven months' child
can be born before the seventh month is complete, as it is said
[I Sam. i. 20]: "And it came to pass, li-tequphath ha-yamim
(when the time was come about) " ; the minimum of tequphoth*
is two and of yamim is also two (i.e., after six months and two
days' gestation, childbirth is possible).

Whence do we know that Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were
visited on New Year's Day ? Says R. Elazar : By comparing
the expression "visit" that occurs in one passage with the
word " visit " that occurs in another passage, and also by treat-
ing the expression " remember" in the same way. It is writ-
ten concerning Rachel [Gen. xxx. 32]: " And God remembered
Rachel," and of Hannah it is written [I Sam. i. 19]: "And
God remembered her." He institutes an analogy between the
word "remember" used in these passages and in connection
with New Year's Day, which is called [Lev. xxiii. 24] " a Sab-
bath, a memorial (literally, a remembrance) of blowing of cor-
nets." It is also written concerning Hannah [I Sam. ii. 21]:
"And the Lord visited Hannah," and of Sarah it is written
[Gen. xxi. i] : " And the Lord visited Sarah," and by analogy
all these events took place on the same day (New Year's Day).

Whence do we know that Joseph was released from prison
on New Year's Day ? From Psalm Ixxxi., in verses 4, 5, it is
written: " Blow on the new moon the cornet at the appointed
time on the day of our feast, for this is a statute for Israel."
In verse 5 of the same Psalm it is written : " As a testimony in
Joseph did he ordain it, when he went out over the land of
Egypt." On New Year's Day the bondage of our fathers in
Egypt ceased. (Whence do we know this ?) It is written [Ex.
vi. 6] : "I will bring you out from under the burdens of the
Egyptians," and it is written in Psalms, Ixxxi. 6: " I removed
his shoulder from the burden " (i.e., I relieved Israel from the
burden of Egypt on the day spoken of in the Psalm; viz., New
Year's Day). In Nissan they were redeemed, as previously
proven. In Tishri we shall again be redeemed. This he de-
duces by analogy from the word " cornet " found in the follow-
ing passages. In Psalm Ixxxi. 4, it is stated : " Blow the cornet
on the new moon " (i.e., on New Year's Day), and in Isa. xxvii.
13, it is written: " And on that day the great cornet shall be

* TEQUPHA — Solstice or equinox ; hence, the period of three months, which
elapses between a solstice and the next equinox, is also called TEQUPHA. Mar Zutra
reads the biblical term Tequphoit in the plural.

"NEW YEAR." 19

blown " (and as it means New Year's Day in the on« place, so
does it also in the other). R. Jehoshua says: " In Nissan they
were redeemed, and in that month we shall be redeemed again."
Whence do we know this ? From Ex. xii. 42, which says: " It
is a night of special observance;" i.e., a night specially ap-
pointed since the earliest times for the final redemption of
Israel.

The rabbis taught : The Jewish sages calculate the time of
the flood according to R. Eliezer, and the solstices according to
R. Jehoshua, but the sages of other nations calculate the time
of the flood also as R. Jehoshua does.

" And for herbs." To this a Boraitha adds "tithes and
vows." Let us see. What does he mean by " herbs " ? The
tithe of herbs. But are not these included with other " tithes " ?
(Nay, for the tithe of herbs) is a rabbinical institution, while the
others are biblical. If so, should he not teach the biblical com-
mandment first ? (This is no question), because it was pleasing
to him (to have discovered that, although the tithe of herbs is
only a rabbinical institution, yet it should have a special New
Year to prevent the confusion of tithes from year to year) he,
therefore, gives it precedence. And the Tana of our Mishna
teaches us the rabbinical institution (viz., the New Year for
herbs), leaving us to infer that if that must be observed, so much
the more must the biblical law be followed.

The rabbis taught : If one gathers herbs on the eve of New
Year's Day before sunset, and gathers others after sunset, he
must not give the heave-offering or the tithe from the one for
the other, for it is prohibited to give the heave-offering or tithe
from the product of the past year for that of the present, or vice
versa. If the second year from the last sabbatic year was just
ending and the third year was just beginning, then for the sec-
ond year he must give the first and second tithes,* and for the
third year he must give the first and the poor tithes. Whence
do we deduce that (in the third year no second tithe was to be

* Tithes must be given even to-day, according to the Rabbinical law, through-
out Palestine and Syria.

It was the duty of the Israelite to give of his produce the following offerings and
tithes : (i) THERUMA, a heave-offering, to be given to the priest every year ; the
measure was not fixed by the Bible ; (2) MANSER RISHON, or first tithe, to be given
every year to the Levite ; (3) MAASER SHENI, or second tithe, was to be taken in the
second year to Jerusalem and eaten there, or to be converted into money, which was
to be spent there ; (4) MAASER Am, or the poor tithe, to be given in the third year.

20 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

given)? R. Jehoshua ben Levi says: In Deut. xxvi. 12, it is
written: " When thou hast made an end of the tithe of produce
in the third year, which is the year of the tithing" i.e., the year
in which only one tithe is to be given." What is to be under-
stood (by one tithe) ? The first and poor tithes, and the second
tithe shall be omitted. But perhaps it is not so (that the first
and poor tithe are one tithe), but that the first tithe shall be
also omitted. This cannot be so, for we read [Numb, xviii. 26]:
" The tithe which I have given you from them, for your inher-
itance," etc. (From this we see that) the Scripture compares
this tithe to an inheritance, and as an inheritance is the per-
petual property of the heir, so also is the first tithe an uninter-
rupted gift for the Levite.

" And for vows." The rabbis taught: Whoso vows to de-
rive no benefit from his neighbor for a year, must reckon (for
the year) twelve months, from day to day; but if he said " for
this year," if he made the vow even on the 2Qth of Elul, as soon
as the first of Tishri comes, that year is complete, for he vowed
to afflict himself and that purpose (even in so brief a period) has
been fulfilled. But perhaps we should say Nissan (should be
regarded as the new year in such a case) ? Nay, in the matter
of vows we follow the common practice among men (who gen-
erally regard Tishri as the New Year).

We have learned (Maasroth L, 3): We reckon the year for
giving the tithe : " for carob as soon as it begins to grow ; for grain
and olives as soon as they are one-third ripe. ' ' What is meant by
" as soon as it begins to grow " ? When it blossoms. Whence
do we know that we reckon the tithe on grain and olives when
they are one-third ripe ? Said R. Assi in the name of R. Jo-
hanan, and the same was said in the name of R. Jose of Galilee:
It is written [Deut. xxxi. 10] : "At the end of every seven
years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the Feast of
Tabernacles." What has the year of release to do with Taber-
nacles; it is already the eighth year (because the Bible says " at
the end of every seven years ") ? It is only to tell us that all
grain which was one-third ripe before New Year's Day must be
regarded even in the eighth year as the product of the sabbatic
year. And for this we find support in the following Boraitha:
R. Jonathan b. Joseph says: It is written [Lev. xxv. 21] : " And
it shall bring forth fruit for three (lishlosK) years. " Do not read
lishlosh " for three," but in this case read lishlish " for a third "
(i.e., it is considered produce when it is a third ripe). But this

"NEW YEAR." 21

verse is required for its own particular purpose. There is an-
other verse [ibid. ibid. 22]: "And when ye sow in the eighth
year, then shall ye eat of the old harvest ; until the ninth year,
until its harvest come in, shall ye eat of the old store."

We have learned in a Mishna (Shebeith, II., 7): Rice, millet,
poppies, and lentils which have taken root before New Year's
Day come under the category of tithes for the past year, and
therefore one is permitted to use them during the sabbatic year;
but if they have not (taken root), one is forbidden to use them
during the sabbatic year, and they come under the category of
tithes of the following year. Says Rabha: Let us see. The
rabbis say that the year (for giving tithes) begins as follows :
" For a tree from the time they blossom, for grain and olives
when they are one-third ripe, and for herbs when they are gath-
ered." Now under which head are the above (rice, etc.) classed ?
After consideration Rabha remarked : Since these do not all
ripen simultaneously, but are gathered little by little, the rabbis
are right when they say they are tithable from the time they
take root.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose of Galilee says: It
is written [Deut. xvi. 13]: " When thou hast gathered in thy
corn and thy wine." We infer that as corn and wine, now
being gathered, grow by means of the past year's rains, and are
tithed as last year's (before New Year's Day) products, so every
fruit that grows by the rain of last year is tithable as the last
year's produce ; but herbs do not come under this category, for
they grow by means of the rains of the new year, and they are
tithable in the coming year. R. Aqiba, however, says that the
words " when thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine"
lead us to infer that as corn and grapes grow chiefly by means
of rain, and are tithed as last year's products, so all things that
grow chiefly by rain are tithed as belonging to the past year ;
but as herbs grow even by watering, they are tithed as the next
year's products. In what case is this difference of opinion ap-
plicable? Said R. Abbuha: In the cases of onions and Egyptian
beans; for a Mishna says: Onions and Egyptian beans which
have not been watered for thirty days before New Year's Day
are tithed as last year's products, and are allowed to be used
during the sabbatic year, but if they have been watered, then
they are prohibited during the sabbatic year and are tithed as
next year's products.

" On the first of Shebhat is the New Year for trees." Why

22 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

so ? Said R. Elazar, in the name of R. Oshyia, because at that
date the greater part of the early rains have fallen, although the
greater part of the Tequpha is yet to come. The rabbis taught:
It once happened that R. Aqiba picked the fruit of a citron tree
on the first of Shebhat, and gave two tithes of them, one accord-
ing to the school of Shammai and one in accordance with the
school of Hillel. Says R. Jose b. Jehudah: Nay, Aqiba did
not do this because of the school of Shammai or the school of
Hillel, but because R. Gamaliel* and R. Eliezer were accus-
tomed to do so. Did he not follow the practice of Beth Sham-
mai because it was the first of Shebhat ? Said R. Hanina, and
some say R. Hanania: The case here cited was one of a citron
tree, the fruit of which was formed before the fifteenth of last
Shebhat, and he should have given the tithe of it even before
the present first of Shebhat, but the case happened to be as
cited. But Rabhina said : Put the foregoing together and read
the (words of R. Jose) as follows: It did not happen on the first
of Shebhat, but on the fifteenth, and he did not follow the regu-
lations of the school of Hillel or the school of Shammai, but the
custom of R. Gamaliel and R. Eliezer. Rabba bar Huna said:
Although R. Gamaliel holds that a citron tree is tithable from
the time it is picked, as is the case with " herbs," nevertheless
the new year for tithing it is in Shebhat. R. Johanan asked R.
Janai: "When is the beginning of a year for (the tithe on)
citrons ? " And he said, " Shebhat." " Dost thou mean," said
he, " the month Shebhat as fixed by the lunar year or by the
solar year (from the winter solstice) ? " " By the lunar year,"
he replied. Rabha asked R. Na'hman, according to another
version R. Johanan asked R. Janai: " How is it in leap years
(when there are thirteen lunar months)?" And he said:
" Shebhat, as in the majority of years." It was taught: R.
Johanan and Resh Lakish both say that a citron that has grown
in the sixth year and is unpicked at the entrance of the sabbatic
year is always considered the product of the sixth year. When
Rabhin came (from Palestine) he said, in the name of R. Jo-
hanan : A citron that was as small as an olive in the sixth year,
but grew to the size of a (small) loaf of bread during the sab-
batic year, if one used it without separating the tithe he is cul-
pable because of Tebhel.^

* The opinion of R. Gamaliel is stated a little further on.

\ Produce of which the levitical and priestly tithe has not been yet separated,
and which must not be used.

"NEW YEAR." 23

The rabbis taught: A tree whose fruits formed before the
fifteenth of Shebhat must be tithed as the product of the past
year, but if they formed after that, they are tithed during the
coming year. Said R. Nehemiah: This applies to a tree that
looks as if it bore two crops; i.e., whose fruits do not ripen all
at once, but at two times. But in the case of a tree that
produces but one crop, as, for example, the palm, olive, or
carob, although their fruits may have formed before the fifteenth
of Shebhat, they are tithed as the products of the coming year.
R. Johanan remarked that in the case of the carob people follow
the opinion of R. Nehemiah. Resh Lakish objected to R. Jo-
hanan : Since white figs take three years to grow fully ripe,
must not the second year after the sabbatic year be regarded as
the sabbatic year for them ? R. Johanan was silent. R. Abba
the priest said to R. Jose the priest: I am surprised that R.
Johanan should have accepted this query of Resh Lakish with-
out comment.

MISHNA : At four periods in each year the world is judged :
on Passover, in respect to the growth of grain; on Pentecost, in
respect to the fruit of trees; on New Year's Day all human
beings pass before Him (God) as sheep before a shepherd, as it
is written [Psalms, xxx. 9]: " He who hath fashioned all their
hearts understandeth all their works";* and on Tabernacles
judgment is given in regard to water (rain).

GEMARA: What grain (does the divine judgment affect on
the Passover) ? Does it mean the grain now standing in the
field (about to be reaped) ? At what time, then, were all the
accidents that have happened to it until that time destined (by
divine will) ? It does not mean standing grain, but that just
sown. Shall we say that only one judgment is passed upon it ?
Have we learned in a Boraitha: If an accident or injury befall
grain before Passover it was decreed on the last Passover, but if
it happen (to the same grain) after Passover, it was decreed on
the immediately preceding Passover; if an accident or misfor-
tune befall a man before the Day of Atonement, it was decreed
on the previous Day of Atonement, but if it happened after the
Day of Atonement it was decreed on the preceding Day of
Atonement? Answered Rabha: Learn from this that judgment
is passed twice (in one year, before the sowing and before the
reaping). Therefore said Abayi: When a man sees that the

* Vide Introduction.

24 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

grain which ripens slowly is thriving, he should as soon as possi-
ble sow such grain as ripens quickly, in order that before the
time of the next judgment it may already have begun to grow.

With whose opinion does our Mishna agree ? Not with that of
R. Meir, nor with that of R. Jehudah, nor with that of R. Jose, nor
with that of R. Nathann, nor with the teaching of the following
Boraitha: All are judged on New Year's Day, and the sentence
is fixed on the Day of Atonement. So says R. Meir. R. Jehu-
dah says all are judged on New Year's Day, but the sentence of
each is confirmed each at its special time — at Passover for grain,
at Pentecost for the fruit of trees, at Tabernacles for rain, and
man is judged on New Year's Day, and his sentence is con-
firmed on the Day of Atonement. R. Jose says man is judged
every day, as it is written [Job, vii. 18]: "Thou rememberest
him every morning "; and R. Nathan holds man is judged at
all times, as it is written [ibid.] : " Thou triest him every mo-
ment." And if you should say that the Mishna agrees with
the opinion of R. Jehudah, and that by the expression " judg-
ment " it means the " confirmation of the decree," then there
would be a difficulty about man. Said Rabha: The Tana of
our Mishna is in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael of
the following Boraitha: At four periods is the world judged: at
Passover, in respect to grain ; on Pentecost, in regard to the
fruit of trees; on Tabernacles, in respect to rain, and on New
Year's Day man is judged, but the sentence passed upon him is
confirmed on the Day of Atonement, and our Mishna speaks of
the opening of judgment only (and not the final verdict).

R. Hisda asked: " Why does not R. Jose quote the same
passage as R. Nathan in support of his opinion?" Because
" trying" is not judging. But does not " remembering" also
convey the same idea ? Therefore said R. Hisda: R. Jose bases
his opinion on another passage; viz. [I Kings viii. 59]: " That
God may maintain the cause of His servant and the cause of
His people Israel every day. Said R. Joseph : According to
whom do we pray nowadays for the sick and for faint (scholars)
every day ? According to R. Jose (who maintains that man is
judged every day).

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah taught in the
name of R. Aqiba: Why does the Torah command [Lev. xxiii.
10] a sheaf of the first fruits to be brought on the Passover ?
Because Passover is the period of judgment in respect to grain,
and the Holy One, blessed be He, said: " Offer before Me the

"NEW YEAR." 25

first sheaf of produce on Passover, so that the standing grain
may be blessed unto you." And why the two loaves [Lev.
xxiii. 17] on the Pentecost ? Because that is the time when
judgment is passed on the fruit of trees, and the Holy One, blessed
be He, said: " Bring before Me two loaves on the Pentecost, so
that I may bless the fruits of the tree. ' ' Why was the cere-
mony of" the outpouring of water" (on the altar) performed
on the Feast of Tabernacles ? Because He said: " Perform the
rite of ' the outpouring of waters,' that the rains shall fall in due
season." And He also said: " Recite before Me on New Year's
Day the Malkhioth, Zikhronoth, and Shophroth;* the Mal-
khioth, that you proclaim Me King; the Zikhronoth, that your
remembrance for good may come before Me." And how (shall
this be done) ? By the sounding of the cornet.

R. Abbahu said : " Why is the cornet made a ram's horn ? "
The Holy One, blessed be He, said: " Sound before Me on a
cornet made of a ram's horn, that I may remember, for your
sake, the offering of Isaac, the son of Abraham [vide Gen. xxii.
13], and I shall consider even you as worthy, as if ye had shown
an equal readiness to sacrifice yourselves to Me."

R. Itz'hak said: A man is judged only according to his deeds
at the time of sentence, as it is written [Gen. xxi. 17]: " God
heard the voice of the lad, as he then was," and the same rabbi
also remarked: Three circumstances cause a man to remember
his sins; viz., when he passes by an insecure wall, when he
thinks deeply of the significance of his prayer, and when he
invokes divine judgment on his neighbor, for R. Abhin says:
Whoso calls down divine judgment on his neighbor is punished
first, as we find in the case of Sarah, who said [Gen. xvi. 5] to
Abraham: " I suffer wrong through thee, may the Lord judge
between me and thee." And shortly after we read (that she
died): " And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep
for her" [Gen. xxiii. 2], (Naturally this only applies to cases
where appeal could have been made to a civil court, and the
invocation of divine judgment was not necessary. f) R. Itz'hak

* These are the divisions of the Additional Service for the New Year's Day.
The Malkhioth consist of ten scriptural passages in which God is proclaimed King.
The Zikhronoth consist of an equal number of scriptural passages in which Divine
remembrance is alluded to. The Shophroth are a similar series of selections in which
the Shophar (cornet) is referred to. In Chapter IV. of this tract there is a discussion
as to the composition of these selections. We retain the Hebrew names, because we
feel that no translation or paraphrase will adequately express what they mean.

f This is taken from Tract Baba Kama.

26 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

preached: Four things avert the evil decree passed (by God) on
man — viz. : charity, prayer, change of name, and improvement.
"Charity," as it is written [Prov. x. 2]: "Charity delivereth
from death." " Prayer," in accordance with [Psalms, cvii.
19] : " They cry unto the Lord when they are in distress, and
He saveth them out of their afflictions." " Change of name,"
as it is written [Gen. xvii. 15]: "As for Sarai, thy wife, thou
shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be,"
and the text continues by saying [ibid. 16]: " Then will I bless
her, and give thee a son also of her." " Improvement," we
deduce from Jonah, iii. IO: "And God saw their works that
they had turned from their evil ways," and immediately adds :
" And God bethought Himself of the evil He had said He would
do unto them, and He did it not." Some add to these four
a fifth, change of location, as it is written [Gen. xii. I and 2]:
" And God said to Abraham, get thee out from thy land " (and
afterwards), " I will make of thee a great nation."

R. Kruspedai said in the name of R. Johanan : Three books
are opened on New Year's Day: one for the utterly wicked, one
for the wholly good, and one for the average class of people.
The wholly righteous are at once inscribed, and life is decreed
for them ; the entirely wicked are at once inscribed, and destruc-
tion destined for them ; the average class are held in the balance
from New Year's Day till the Day of Atonement ; if they prove
themselves worthy they are inscribed for life, if not they are
inscribed for destruction. Said R. Abhin : Whence this teach-
ing ? From the passage [Psalms, Ixix. 29]: "Let them be
blotted out of the book of the living, and they shall not be writ-
ten down with the righteous."

We have learned in a Boraitha : The school of Shammai said :
There are three divisions of mankind at the Resurrection : the
wholly righteous, the utterly wicked, and the average class.
The wholly righteous are at once inscribed, and life is decreed
for them ; the utterly wicked are at once inscribed, and destined
for Gehenna, as we read [Dan. xii. 2] : " And many of them
that sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and
some to shame and everlasting contempt." The third class, the
men between the former two, descend to Gehenna, but they
weep and come up again, in accordance with the passage [Zech.
xiii. 9]: " And I will bring the third part through the fire, and
I will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold
is tried; and he shall call on My name, and I will answer him."

"NEW YEAR." 27

Concerning this last class of men Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 6] :
" The Lord causeth to die and maketh alive, He bringeth down
to the grave and bringeth up again." The school of Hillel
says : The Merciful One inclines (the scale of justice) to the side
of mercy, and of this third class of men David says [Psalms,
cxvi. i]: " It is lovely to me that the Lord heareth my voice " ;
in fact, David applies to them the Psalm mentioned down to
the words, " Thou hast delivered my soul from death " [ibid. 8].

Transgressors of Jewish birth and also of non-Jewish birth,
who sin with their body descend to Gehenna, and are judged
there for twelve months; after that time their bodies are de-
stroyed and burnt, and the winds scatter their ashes under the
soles of the feet of the righteous, as we read [Mai. iii. 23] :
" And ye shall tread down the wicked, for they shall be as ashes
under the soles of your feet " ; but as for Minim, informers and
disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate
themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellow-
men with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as
did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all de-
scend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to gen-
eration, as it is said [Isa. Ixvi. 24]: " And they shall go forth
and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed
against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire
be quenched. " Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they
will not be consumed, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: " And
their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages
comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when
the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam.
ii. 10] : " The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
R. Itz'hac b. Abhin says : " Their faces are black like the sides of
a caldron "; while Rabha remarked: " Those who are now the
handsomest of the people of Me'huzza will yet be called the
children of Gehenna."

What is meant by Jews who transgress with their body?
Says Rabh : The Qarqaphtha (frontal bone) on which the phylac-
teries are not placed.* And who are meant by non-Jews who

* There were sects at that time who did not wear the phylacteries on the frontal
bone, but on other places. The people here referred to are those mentioned in
Mishna Megillah III. 5. Those who do not wear phylacteries at all are, under no
circumstances, included under the head of these transgressors. ( Vide Tosaphoth, ad
loc.) For fuller information the reader is referred to our " The History of Amulets,
Charms, and Talismans " (New York, 1893).

28 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

transgress with the body ? Those guilty of the sin (of adultery).
Who are those who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them ?
A leader of a community who causes the people to fear him
overmuch without furthering thereby a high purpose. R. Jehu-
dah said in the name of Rabh: No such leader will ever have
a learned son, as it is said [Job, xxxvii. 24]: "Men do there-
fore fear him : he will never see (in his family) any wise of
heart."

The school of Hillel said above: He who is full of compas-
sion will incline the scale of justice to the side of mercy. How
does He do it ? Answered R. Eliezer: He presses on (the side
containing our virtues), as it is said [Micah, vii. 19]: " He will
turn again, he will have compassion upon us, he will suppress
our iniquities." R. Jose says: He lifts off (the sins), as it is
said [ibid. 18]: "He pardoneth iniquity and forgiveth trans-
gression." And it was taught in the school of R. Ishmael that
this means that He removes each first sin (so that there is no
second), and this is the correct interpretation. " But," Rabha
remarked, " the sin itself is not blotted out, so that if one be
found in later times with more sins (than virtues), the sin not
blotted out will be added to the later ones ; whoso treats with
indulgence one who has wronged him (forms an exception to
this rule), for he will have all his sins forgiven, as it is said
[Micah, vii. 18]: " He pardoneth iniquity and forgiveth trans-
gression." From whom does He remove iniquity ? From him
who forgiveth transgression (committed against him by his
neighbor).

R. Huna ben R. Jehoshua fell sick, and R. Papa went to
visit him. The latter saw that the end was near, and said to
those present : " Make ready his provisions (shrouds)." Finally
he recovered, and R. Papa was ashamed to see him. " Why
did you think him so sick ? " said they. " He was so, indeed,"
he replied, " but the Holy One, blessed be He, said that since
he was always indulgent (with every one), he shall be forgiven, ' '
as it is written: " He pardoneth iniquity and forgiveth trans-
gression." From whom does He remove iniquity ? From him
who forgiveth transgression.

R. A'h the son of Hanina said : The phrase " of the remnant
of his inheritance " [Micah, vii. 18] is like unto a fat tail (of an
Arabian sheep) with a thorn through it (that will stick those
that lay hold of it); (for He forgives) the remnant of His inher-
itance, and not all His inheritance. What is meant by rem-

"NEW YEAR." 29

nant ? Only those who deport themselves like a remnant (i.e. ,
modestly). R. Huna points out a contradiction in these pas-
sages. It is written [Psalms, cxlv. 17]: " The Lord is just in
all his ways," and in the same passage, " and pious in all his
works." It means, in the beginning He is or\]yjust, but in the
end He is /*<9#J (when He finds that strict justice is too severe
on mankind He tempers justice with piety or mercy). R. Elazar
also points out a contradiction. It is written [Psalms, Ixii. 12]:
'Unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy;'1 and again, " thou
renderest to every man according to his work." This can be ex-
plained as the above: In the beginning He rewards every man
according to his works, but in the end He is merciful. Ilphi or
Ilpha points out a similar contradiction in [Ex. xxxiv. 6], where
it is written " abundant \T\ goodness and truth," and gives a sim-
ilar explanation.

It is written [Ex. xxxiv. 6]: "And the Lord passed by
before him and proclaimed." R. Johanan said: Had this pas-
sage not been written, it would have been impossible to have
said it, for it teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He,
wrapped Himself, as does a minister who recites the prayers for
a congregation, and pointing out to Moses the regular order of
prayer, said to him : Whenever Israel sins, let him pray to Me,
after this manner, and I shall pardon him.

" The Lord, the Lord," (these words mean) I am the same
God before a man sins as I am after he sins and does repent-
ance. " God, merciful and gracious." R. Jehudah said (con-
cerning these words) : The covenant made through the thirteen
attributes [Ex. xxxiv.] will never be made void, as it is said
[ibid. 10] : " Behold /make a covenant."

R. Johanan said: Great is repentance, for it averts the (evil)
decreed against a man, as it is written [Isa. vi. 10]: " Obdurate
will remain the heart of this people, . . . nor hear with their
•ears, nor understand with their hearts, so that they repent and
be healed" R. Papa asked Abayi: Do not these last words,
perhaps, mean before the (evil) decree has been pronounced ?
It is written, he replied, " be healed." What is that which
requires healing ? I can only say that against which judgment
has been pronounced. An objection was raised from the fol-
lowing Boraitha: He who repents between (New Year's Day
and the Day of Atonement) is forgiven, but if he does not
repent, even though he offered the choicest sacrifice, he is not
pardoned. This presents no difficulty ; in the one case it refers to

3o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

(the sins of) an individual, and in the other to (those of) a com-
munity. Another objection was raised. Come and hear. It
is written [Psalms, cvii. 23-28]: "They that go down to the
sea in ships, that do business in great waters ; these see the works
of the Lord ... for he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy
wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof, they reel to and fro,
and stagger like a drunken man, . . . then they cry unto the
Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their afflic-
tions; oh, that men would praise the Lord for his goodness,"
etc. Signs are given, such as the words " but " and " only " in
the Scriptures (which intimate limiting qualifications), to indicate
that if they cried before the decree was pronounced, only then
would they be answered ; but if after, they are not answered.
(Would not this be a contradiction to the words " to those of
a community " ?) Nay, for those on a ship are not a community
(but are considered as individuals).

Come and hear. The proselyte Beluria (a woman) asked
R. Gamaliel (concerning the following apparent contradiction) :
It is written in your Law [Deut. 17]: " The Lord who regard-
eth not persons" (literally, who lifteth not up countenances);
and it is also written [Numb. vi. 26]: " May the Lord lift up
his countenance." R. Jose, the priest, joined her, and said to
her: " I will tell thee a parable. To what may this be com-
pared ? To one who lent money to his neighbor, and set a time
for its repayment before the king, and (the borrower) swore by
the king's life (to repay it on time). The time arrived, and he
did not pay, and he came to appease the king. Said the king
to him, ' I can forgive you only your offence against me, but
I cannot forgive you your offence against your neighbor; go
and ask him to forgive you.' ' So also here; in the one place
it means sins committed by a man against Himself (the Lord), but
in the other it means sins committed by one man against an-
other. As to the decree pronounced against an individual, the
Tanaim differ, however, as we may see from the following Bo-
raitha : R. Meir used to say, of two who fall sick with the same
sickness, and of two who enter a tribunal (for judgment) on sim-
ilar charges, one may recover and one not, one may be acquitted
and one condemned. Why should one recover and one not,
and one be acquitted and one condemned ? Because the one
prayed and was answered, and one prayed and was not an-
swered. Why should one be answered and the other not ? The
one prayed devoutly and was answered, the other did not pray

"NEW YEAR." 31

devoutly and therefore was not answered ; but R. Elazar said it
was not because of prayer, but because the one prayed before,
and the other after the decree was pronounced. R. Itz'hak
said : Prayer is helpful for man before or after the decree has
been pronounced. Is it then so that the (evil) decree pro-
nounced against a congregation is averted (through the influence
of prayer)? Does not one scriptural verse [Jer. iv. 14] say:
" Wash thine heart from wickedness," and another states [ibid.
ii. 22]: " For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee
much soap, yet would the stain of thine iniquity remain before
me." Shall we not say in the one case it means before, and in
the other after the sentence has been pronounced ? Nay, both
refer (to a time) after the decree has been pronounced and there
is no contradiction, for in one case it refers to a decree issued
with an oath, and in the other to a decree pronounced without
an oath, as R. Samuel b. Ami said in the name of R. Jonathan:
Whence do we know that a decree, pronounced with an oath,
cannot be averted ? From the passage [I Sam. iii. 14]: " There-
fore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of
Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor meat-offering
forever." Rabha, however, said: Even in such a case it is only
through sacrifices that sin cannot be purged, but by (the study
of) the Law it may be ; and Abayi said : With sacrifice and offer-
ing it cannot be purged, but by (the study of) the Law, and by
active benevolence it can. (Abayi based this opinion on his
own experience, for) he and (his master) Rabba were both de-
scendants of the house of Eli; Rabba, who only studied the
Law, lived forty years, but Abayi, who both studied the Torah
and performed acts of benevolence, lived sixty years. The
rabbis tell us also: There was a certain family in Jerusalem
whose members died at eighteen years of age. They came and
informed R. Johanan ben Zakkai of their trouble. Said he:
" Perhaps you are descendants of Eli, of whom it is said, ' all
the increase of thy house shall die in the flower of their age ' '
[I Sam. ii. 33]; " Go, then, study the Law, and live." They
went and studied, and they lived, and they called that family
R. Johanan's after his name. R. Samuel ben Inya says in the
name of Rabh: Whence do we know that if the decree against
a community is even confirmed, it may nevertheless be averted ?
From [Deut. iv. 7] where it is written: " As the Lord, our God,
in #// things that we call upon him for; " (but how can you har-
monize that with the passage) [Isa. Iv. 6]: " Seek ye the Lord

32 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

while he may be found " ? The latter passage refers to an indi-
vidual, the former to a community. When is that time that
He will be found even by an individual ? Answered Rabba bar
Abbahu: " During the ten days, from New Year's Day till the
Day of Atonement."

' ' On New Years Day all the inhabitants of the world pass
before him, Kibhne Mar on (like sheep]." What does the Mishna
mean by these last two words ? " Like sheep," as they are
translated in Aramaic, but Resh Lakish says they mean " as the
steps of the Temple" (i.e., narrow, so that people ascended
them one by one). R. Jehudah, however, said in the name of
Samuel: (They mean) " like the armies of the house of David "
(which were numbered one by one). Said Rabba bar Bar Hana
in the name of R. Johanan: " Under any circumstances they
are mustered at a glance. And R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said:
Thus also we understand the words of our Mishna: " He that
fashioned all their hearts alike" [Psalms, xxxiii. 15], i.e., the
Creator, sees all their hearts (at a glance) and (at once) under-
stands all their works.

MISHNA: Messengers were sent out* for the following six
months: for Nissan, on account of the Passover; for Abh, on
account of the fast; for Elul, on account of the New Year; for
Tishri, on account of appointing the order of the (remaining)
festivals ;f for Kislev, on account of the Feast of Dedication ;
for Adar, on account of the Feast of Passover; also for lyar,
when the Temple was in existence, on account of the minor (or
second) Passover.;}:

GEMARA: Why were they not also sent out for Tamuz
and Tebheth (in which months there are also fasts) ? Did not
R. Hana bar Bizna say in the name of R. Simeon the pious :
What is the meaning of the passage [Zach. viii. 19]: "Thus
saith the Lord of hosts ; the fast of the fourth, and the fast of
the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth
shall become in the house of Judah joy and gladness," etc.,
that they are called fasts, and also days of joy and gladness ?
Are we not to understand that only in the time of peace (cessa-
tion of persecution) they shall be for joy and gladness, but in
the time when there was not peace they shall be fasts ? Said

* See Slekalim I. i.

f e.g. Tabernacles. This was necessary since the Beth Din might have made
the month intercalary.

\ Vide, Numb. ix. 10. n.

4 'NEW YEAR." 33

R. Papa : It means this: When there was peace, these days should
be for joy and gladness; in the time of persecution they shall
be fasts; in times when there are neither persecution nor peace
people may fast or not, as they see fit. If that is so, why then
(should messengers have been sent out) on account of the fast
of Abh ? Said R. Papa: The fast (ninth day) of Abh is differ-
ent, since many misfortunes occurred on that day, as the master
said: " On the ninth of Abh, the first and second Temples were
destroyed, Bether was captured, and the city of Jerusalem was
razed to the ground."

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon said: There are
four matters that R. Aqiba expounded, but which I interpret
differently; " the fast of the fourth " means the ninth of Tamuz,
on which the city was broken in, as it is written [Jer. lii. 6, 7] :
" In the fourth, in the ninth day of the month . . . the city
was broken in." What does he mean by fourth ? The fourth
of the months. " The fast of the fifth," means the ninth of
Abh, on which the Temple of our Lord was burnt ; and what
does he mean by calling it fifth ? The fifth of the months.
" The fast of the seventh " means the third of Tishri, the day
on which Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, was slain (and we fast),
because the death of the righteous is equal to the loss of the
house of our Lord. And what does he mean by calling it the
seventh ? The seventh of the months. ' The fast of the
tenth," means the tenth of Tebheth, the day on which the king
of Babylon set himself against Jerusalem, as it is written [Ezek.
xxiv. I, 2]: " Again in the ninth year, in the tenth month, in
the tenth day of the month the word of the Lord came unto me
saying, Son of man, write thee the name of the day, even of this
same day; the king of Babylon set himself against Jerusalem."
And what does he mean by calling it the tenth ? The tenth of
the months, and actually this last event should have been placed
first (since it occurred first). And why is it placed here last in
order ? To mention the months in their regular order. Said
R. Simeon: I, however, do not think so, but thus: " The fast
of the tenth" means the fifth of Tebheth, on which day the
news came to the exiles that the city was smitten, as it is writ-
ten [Ezek. xxxiii. 21]: "And it came to pass in the twelfth
year of our captivity, in the tenth (month), in the fifth day of
the month, that one that had escaped out of Jerusalem came to
me, saying, The city is smitten," and they held the day on
which they received the news equal to the day (on which the

34 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Temple) was burnt. And it seems to me that my opinion is
more satisfactory, for I speak of the first, first, and of the last,
last; while he speaks of the last, first, and of the first, last; he
mentions them in the order of the months, while I mention
them in the order in which the calamities occurred.

It was taught : Rabh and R. Hanina say : The Rolls of
Fasts (which contained the names of minor holidays on which
it was prohibited to fast) is annulled, but R. Johanan and R.
Jehoshua ben Levi say: "It is not." When Rabh and R.
Hanina say that it is annulled they mean : In the time of peace
the (fast) days are days of joy and gladness, but in the time of
persecution they are fast days, and so also with other (days men-
tioned in the Rolls of Fasts); and when R. Johanan and R.
Jehoshua ben Levi say it is not annulled (they mean) that those
(four fasts mentioned in Zachariah) the Bible makes dependent
on the rebuilding of the Temple ; but those (mentioned in the
Rolls of Fasts) remain as they are appointed.

R. Tobi b. Matana objected : In the Rolls of Fasts it is said
that on the twenty-eighth of (Adar), the good news came to the
Jews that they need no longer abstain from studying the Law,
for the king (of Syria had earlier) issued a decree, forbidding
them to study the Law, or to circumcise their sons, and com-
pelling them to desecrate their Sabbath. What did Jehudah
b. Shamua and his friends do ? They went and took counsel of
a certain matron, whose house the celebrated people of the city
frequented. Said she to them, " Go and cry aloud at night."
They did as she advised and cried aloud, " Oh, heavens! Are
we not all brethren ? Are we not all the children of one Father ?
Are we not all the children of one mother ? Why should we be
treated differently from other nations, and from all people who
speak other languages inasmuch as ye issue such cruel edicts
against us?" The decrees were annulled, and the day (on
which this happened) they appointed a holiday. Now if it be
true that the Rolls of Fasts has been annulled (i.e., the former
[feasts] have been all abrogated), may then new ones be added ?
There is a difference of opinion among Tanaim on this question,
as we have learned in the following Boraitha: The days recorded
in the Rolls of Fasts, whether during or after the existence of
the Temple, are not permitted (to be kept as fasts), so said R.
Meir; R. Jose, however, said, so long as the Temple stood it
was not permissible (to fast on them) because they were days of
joy, but since the Temple fell it is allowed because they are

"NEW YEAR." 35

days of mourning. One rule says that they are abrogated, but
another rule says they are not abrogated. There is a question
here caused by one rule contradicting the othei. In the latter
case it refers to the Feasts of Dedication and Esther (which are
never to be abrogated), and in the former case to all other
(minor feast) days.

' ' For Elul on account of New Years Day, and for Tishri on
account of appointing the order of the (remaining) festivals."
Since (the messengers) were sent out on account of Elul, why
need they go again on account of Tishri ? Shall we say because
(the Beth Din) desired to proclaim Elul an intercalary month ?
(That cannot be) for did not R. Hanina bar Kahana say in the
name of Rabh : Since the time of Ezra we have not discovered
that Elul was an intercalary month ? We have not discovered
it, because it was not necessary (to make it so). But if it should
be necessary, shall we make it an intercalary month? This would
disturb the position of New Year's Day. It is better that the
position of New Year's Day alone should be disturbed than that
all the holidays should be disarranged. And it seems to be so,
for the Mishna says that the messengers were sent for Tishri on
account of appointing the order of the festivals.

" And for Kislev on account of Hanuka, and for Adar on
account of the Feast of Esther." But the Mishna does not say
if it be a leap year, that the messengers were sent out in the
second Adar on account of Purim. From this we learn that the
Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi of the following Bo-
raitha: Rabbi says: " In a leap year messengers are sent out
also in the second Adar on account of the Feast of Esther."

When Ula came (from Palestine) he said : They have made
Elul an intercalary month, and he also said: " Do my Babylo-
nian comrades know the benefit we have gained through it ?"
Because of what is this a benefit ? " Because of herbs," * said
Ula. R. A'ha bar Hanina, however, said: " Because of dead
bodies. "f What difference is there between them? They

* By adding an intercalary day to Elul, the holiday (New Year or Atonement
Day) was prevented from falling on Friday or Sunday, the intention being to separate
the holiday by an intervening day from the Sabbath. Thus, herbs that were to be
eaten fresh, and other foods, would not spoil, as they might, if kept from Thursday
till after the Sabbath.

f A similar practice was followed with regard to the keeping of a dead body over
the Day of Atonement and a Sabbath. Since it was impossible to keep the dead
body two days, the Sabbath and the Atonement Day were separated by the means of
the intercalated dav.

36 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

differ concerning a holiday that falls immediately before or after
the Sabbath (on the sixth or first day of the week). According
to the one who says " because of herbs" wemay add an inter-
calary day, but (it is not necessary) according to him who says
" because of dead bodies," for we can employ non-Jews (to bury
the dead for us on the holidays). If this is the case, why is this
a benefit only for us (in Babylon) ; is it not also to the advan-
tage of them (in Palestine) ? Our climate is very hot, but theirs
is not.

Is this really so ? Did not Rabba bar Samuel teach : One
might suppose that as we intercalate the year when necessary, so
we intercalate the month when necessary ? Therefore it is writ-
ten [Ex. xii. 2] : " This month shall be unto you the first of the
months," which means as soon as you see (the new moon) as on
this occasion, you must consecrate the month (whether or not it
is necessary to intercalate it). (How, then, could they inter-
calate Elul, which had always only twenty-nine days ?) To
intercalate it (when necessary) was permitted, but to consecrate
it was not permitted, and Rabba's words should read : One
might suppose that as it is permitted to intercalate the year and
the month when necessary, so we may consecrate the month when
necessary. Therefore it is written [Ex. xii. 2]: "This month
shall be unto you," etc., which means only when the moon is
seen as on this occasion, may you consecrate it.

Samuel said: " I can arrange the calendar for the whole cap-
tivity." Abba, the father of R. Simlai, said to him: " Does
the master know that which a certain Boraitha teaches concern-
ing the secret of the intercalary day; viz., whether the new
moon appears before or after midday ? " Answered he, " No."
" Then, master," said he, " if thou dost not know this, there
may be other things which thou dost not know." When R.
Zera went (to Palestine) he sent back word to his comrade (say-
ing) : The evening and the morning (following) must both be-
long to the month (i.e., when the old moon has still been seen
after dark on the twenty-ninth day of the month, the thirtieth
evening and following day belong to the closing month). And
this is what Abba, the father of R. Simlai, meant : We calculate
only the beginning of the new moon; if it began before midday,
it is certain that it was seen close upon the setting of the sun,
but if it did not begin before midday, it is certain that it did not
appear close upon the setting of the sun. What difference does
it make (in practice)? Answered R. Ashi, " to refute witnesses."

"NEW YEAR." 37

R. Zera said in the name of R. Na'hman, in every case of
doubt (about the holidays), we post-date, but never ante-date.*
Does this mean to say that (in a case of doubt concerning the
exact day on which Tabernacles begins) we observe the fifteenth
and sixteenth, but not the fourteenth. Let us keep the four-
teenth also. Perhaps Abh and Elul have each only twenty-nine
days ? Nay, if two consecutive months should each have
twenty-nine days, this would be announced.

Levi went to Babylon on the eleventh of Tishri. Said he:
" Sweet is the food of Babylon on the great Day (of Atonement
now being held) in Palestine." They said to him, " Go and
testify." Answered he, " I have not heard from the Beth Din
the words, ' It is consecrated ' (and therefore I cannot testify)."

R. Johanan proclaimed: In everyplace that the messengers
sent in Nissan reached, but that the messengers sent in Tishri
cannot reach, they must observe two days for the holidays ;% and
they make this restriction for Nissan lest people would do in
Tishri as in Nissan, f Rabha used to fast two days for the Day
of Atonement.:}: Once it happened that he was right (because
the Day of Atonement fell one day later in Palestine than in
Babylon). R. Na'hman was once fasting on the Day of Atone-
ment, and in the evening a certain man came and said to him,
' To-morrow will be the Day of Atonement in Palestine." He
angrily quoted, " Swift were our persecutors " [Lam. iv. 19].

R. Na'hman said to certain sailors, " Ye who do not know
the calendar take notice that when the moon still shines at dawn
(it is full moon, and if it happens to be Nissan) destroy your
leaven bread (for it is then the fourteenth day)."

* i.e. if there be a doubt about which day is the Passover or the feast of Taber-
nacles, the festival should be kept for two days ; not, however, by ante-dating and
keeping the fourteenth and fifteenth (of Nissan or Tishri) but by fast-dating and
keeping the fifteenth and sixteenth of either month.

f In Tishri, messengers might be delayed reaching distant places, to which they
were sent to announce the date of the festival (Tabernacles), on account of New
Year's Day and the Day of Atonement, on which they could not travel more than a
short distance. In Nissan, however, they could, without delay, reach those places,
and having announced the date of the festival, only one day was hallowed. Fearing
that people might do, in regard to the Feast of Tabernacles, what they did with
regard to Passover (i.e., keep one day, even when in doubt about the date), the Rab-
bis instituted that both Tabernacles and Passover should have two days hallowed
instead of one.

$ He was in doubt whether the Beth Din in Palestine had made Elul intercalary
or not, and as the messengers did not arrive until after the Day of Atonement, he
fasted two days.

38 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

MISHNA: For the sake of (the new moon) of the two
months, Nissan and Tishri, witnesses may profane* the Sab-
bath, because in these months the messengers went to Syria,
and the order of the festivals was arranged ; when, however, the
Temple f was in existence, they might profane the Sabbath in
any month, in order to offer the (new moon) sacrifice in its
proper time.

GEMARA: For the sake of these two months and not
more ? This would be a contradiction to the Mishna above,
which states: " For the sake of six months messengers were
sent out" ? Said Abayi: " This is to be explained thus: For
all new moons the messengers were sent out while it was still
evening, but for Nissan and Tishri they were not sent out until
they heard from the lips of the Beth Din the words, ' It (the
new moon or month) is consecrated.' '

The rabbis taught : Whence do we know that for them we
may profane the Sabbath ? From [Lev. xxiii. 4], which reads:
" These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim in
their seasons." Might not one suppose that as (witnesses) were
permitted to profane the Sabbath until the new moons had been
consecrated, so were messengers permitted to profane the Sab-
bath until (the festivals) were introduced ? This the Law says :
Therefore it is written: " Which ye shall proclaim," i.e., you
may profane the Sabbath in order to proclaim them, but not to
introduce them.

' When, however, the Temple was in existence, ' ' etc. The rabbis
taught: Formerly they profaned the Sabbath for all (new
moons), but after the destruction of the Temple, R. Johanan b.
Zakkai said to them : ' ' Have we any (new moon) sacrifice to
offer ? They then instituted that (witnesses) might profane the
Sabbath only on account of Nissan and Tishri.

MISHNA: Whether the new moon had appeared clear to
all or not (the witnesses) were permitted to profane the Sabbath
on its account. R. Jose says: If it appeared clear to every
one,:}: the Sabbath should not be profaned (by witnesses). It
once happened that more than forty pair (of witnesses) were on
the highway (to the Beth Din) on the Sabbath, when R. Aqiba

* To travel to Palestine in order to inform the Beth Din might have necessitated
walking more than the distance permitted on the Sabbath.

f The Temple in Jerusalem.

$ It might then be presumed that every one had seen it, and it was therefore
unnecessary for any one to go to Palestine to announce it to the Beth Din.

"NEW YEAR." 39

detained them at Lydda. R. Gamaliel then sent word saying,
" If thou thus detainest the people, thou wilt be the cause of
their erring in the future" (i.e., they may refuse to come and
testify).

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It is written [Eccles. xii.
10] : Koheleth sought to find out acceptable words," which sig-
nifies that Koheleth sought to enforce decrees without the aid
of witnesses or warning. A heavenly voice was heard saying
[Eccles. xii. 10]: " And that which was written uprightly, even
words of truth" (which meant that) as it is written [Deut. xx.
15]: " Upon the evidence of two witnesses, etc., must a case
be established," so should words of truth also be established by
two witnesses.

' ' It once happened that more than forty pair (of witnesses)
were on the highway (to Jerusalem) and R. Aqiba detained them"
etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said : It would
be a sin to say that R. Aqiba should have detained them. It
was Shazpar, the superintendent of Gadar, who detained them,
and (and when) R. Gamaliel (heard of it, he) sent and dismissed
him.

MISHNA: When a father and son have seen the new moon,
they must both go to the Beth Din, not that they may act
together as witnesses, but in order that, should the evidence of
either of them be invalidated, the other may join to give evi-
dence with another witness. R. Simeon says: Father and son,
and relatives in any degree may be accepted as competent wit-
nesses to give evidence as to the appearance of the new moon.
R. Jose says: It once happened that Tobias, the physician, his
son, and his freed slave saw the new moon in Jerusalem (and
when they tendered their evidence), the priests accepted -his
evidence and that of his son, but invalidated that of his freed
slave; but when they appeared before the (Beth Din) they re-
ceived his evidence, and that of his freed slave, but invalidated
that of his son.

GEMARA: Said R. Levi: What is the reason for R. Sim-
eon's decree ? It is written [Ex. xii. i] : " And the Lord spake
unto Moses and Aaron saying, This month shall be unto you ,"
which means, this evidence shall be acceptable from you (although
you are brothers). And how do the rabbis interpret it ? They
explain it as follows: This testimony shall be placed at your
disposal (i.e., the Beth Din's). Says Mar Uqba in the name of
Samuel, the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon.

4o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

MISHNA: The following are considered incompetent to be
witnesses: gamblers with dice, usurers, pigeon breeders,* those
who deal with the produce of the sabbatic year, and slaves.
This is the rule : All evidence that cannot be received from a
woman cannot be received from any of the above. One who
has seen the new moon, but is unable to go (to give evidence),
must be brought (if unable to walk) mounted on an ass, or even
in a bed.f Persons afraid of an attack by robbers may take
sticks with them ; f and if they have a long way to go, it will be
lawful for them to provide themselves with and carry their food.f
Whenever (witnesses) must be on the road a day and a night, it
will be lawful to violate the Sabbath to travel thereon, to give
their evidence as to the appearance of the moon. For thus it
is written [Lev. xxiii. 4]: " These are the feasts of the Lord,
the holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their appointed
seasons. ' '

* Those who breed and train pigeons for racing.

f Even on the Sabbath, when under ordinary circumstances this might not be
done.

CHAPTER II.

ORDINANCES ABOUT THE WITNESSES CONCERNING THE NEW MOON,
THE HOISTING OF THE FLAGS AND HOW IT WAS CONSECRATED
BY THE BETH DIN.

MISHNA: If the witness was unknown another was sent
with him to testify to his character. In former times they
would receive evidence (about the appearance of the moon) from
any one ; but when the Boethusians commenced to corrupt the
witnesses the rule was made, that evidence would only be re-
ceived from those who were known (to be reputable).

GEMARA: What is meant by "another" (in the above
Mishna) ? Another pair (of witnesses). It seems also to be so
from the statement of the Mishna. " If the witness was un-
known? Shall we assume that it means one (witness) ? Surely
the evidence of one was not received, for this transaction was
called "judgment" [Psalms, Ixxxi.] (and two witnesses are
necessary)? What, then, does "the witness " mean ? That
pair; so also here, "another" means another pair. Is, then,
the evidence of one not accepted ? Have we not learned in a
Boraitha: It once happened that R. Neherai went to Usha on
the Sabbath to testify (to the character) of one witness ? He
knew that there was one witness in Usha, and he went to add
his evidence (and thus make two witnesses). If that is so,
what does it tell us ? One might suppose that, as there was
a doubt (that he might not meet the other witness), he ought
not to have profaned the Sabbath (by travelling to Usha as a
single witness); therefore he comes to teach us (that even in
such a case of doubt the Sabbath might be violated).

When Ula came (to Babylon, from Palestine), he said : They
have already consecrated the new moon in Palestine. Said R.
Kahana: (In such a case) not only Ula, who is a great man, is
to be believed, but even an ordinary man. Why so ? Because
men will not lie about a matter that will become known to every
one.

' ' In former times they would receive evidence from any one, ' '
etc. The rabbis taught : How did the Boethusians corrupt the

42 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

witnesses ? They once sought to deceive the sages, and they
bribed, with four hundred zuz (silver coins), two men, one
belonging to their party and one to ours. The former gave his
evidence and went out, to the latter they (the Beth Din) said,
" Tell us what was the appearance of the moon ?" "I went
up," replied he, " to Maale Adumim,* and I saw it crouching
between two rocks. Its head was like a calf, its ears like a
goat, its horns like a stag, and its tail was lying across its thigh.
I gazed upon it and shuddered, and fell backwards ; and if you
do not believe me, behold, here I have two hundred zuz bound
up in my cloth." " Who induced you to do this ? " they asked.
" I heard," he replied, " that the Boethusians wished to deceive
the sages; so I said to myself, I will go and inform them, lest
some unworthy person may (accept their bribe), and come and
deceive the sages." Then said the sages: " The two hundred
zuz may be retained by you as a reward, and he who bribed you
shall be taken to the whipping-post (and be punished)." Then
and there .they ordained that testimony should be received only
from those who were known (to be of good character).

MISHNA: Formerly bonfires were lighted (to announce the
appearance of the new moon) ; but when the Cutheans f prac-
tised their deceit, it was ordained that messengers should be
sent out. How were these bonfires lighted ? They brought
long staves of cedar wood, canes, and branches of the olive tree,
and bundles of tow which were tied on top of them with twine;
with these they went to the top of a mountain, and lighted
them, and kept waving them to and fro, upward and downward,
till they could perceive the same repeated by another person on
the next mountain, and thus, on the third mountain, etc.
Whence did these bonfires commence ? From the Mount of
Olives to Sartabha, from Sartabha to Grophinah, from Grophi-
nah to Hoveran, from Hoveran to Beth Baltin; they did not
cease waving the burning torches at Beth Baltin, to and fro,
upwatd and downward, until the whole country of the captivity
appeared like a blazing fire.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Bonfires were only lighted
to announce the new moon that appeared and was consecrated
at the proper time (after twenty-nine days). And when were
they lighted ? On the evening of the thirtieth day. Does this

* The name of a place between Jerusalem and Jericho,
•f Samaritans.

"NEW YEAR." 43

mean to say that for a month of twenty-nine days the bonfires
were lighted, but not for a month of thirty days ? It should
have been done for a month of thirty days, and not at all for
a month of twenty-nine days. Said Abayi: That would cause
the people a loss of work for two days (because they would wait
to see if the bonfires would be lit or not and thus lose a second
day).*

" How were these bonfires lighted? They brought long staves
of cedar wood" etc. R. Jehudah says; There are four kinds of
cedars : the common cedar, the Qetros, the olive tree, and the
cypress. Qetros says Rabh is (in Aramaic) Adara or a species
of cedar. Every cedar, said R. Johanan, that was carried away
from Jerusalem, God will in future times restore, as it is written
[Isa. xli. 19]: " I will plant in the wilderness the cedar tree,"
and by " wilderness " He means Jerusalem, as it is written [Isa.
Ixiv. 10] : " Zion is (become) a wilderness." R. Johanan says
again: Who studies the law, and teaches it in a place where
there is no other scholar, is equal to a myrtle in the desert,
which is very dear. The same says again : " Woe to the
Romans, for whom there will be no substitution," as it is writ-
ten [Isa. Ix. 17]: " Instead of the copper, I will bring gold, and
for iron I will bring silver, and for wood, copper, and for stones,
iron." But what can He bring for R Aqiba and his comrades
(who were destroyed by Rome) ? Of them it is written [Joel,
iv. 21]: "I will avenge (but for) their (Aqiba' s and his com-
rades') blood I have not yet avenged."

" And whence did these bonfires commence?" From Beth
Baltin. What is Beth Baltin ? " Biram," answered Rabh.
What (does the Mishna) mean by the captivity ? Said R.
Joseph, " Pumbeditha." And how was it that the whole coun-
try looked like a blazing fire ? We learn that each Israelite took
a torch in his hand and ascended to the roof of his house.

MISHNA: There was a large court in Jerusalem called Beth

* The thirtieth day from the last New Moon was always New Moon, but in
intercalary months the thirty-first day was also New Moon (second day). In the latter
case the thirtieth day (first day of New Moon) belonged to the passing month, and
the second day of New Moon was the first day of the new month. Bonfires were
always lighted on the night of the thirtieth day, i.e., on the night after New Moon ;
and if no bonfires were lighted then there were two days New Moon. In the case of
the month of Elul they would, after twenty-nine days, observe New Year's Day.
Now, if that month happened to be intercalary (i.e., have thirty days) and bonfires
would have been lighted, the next day would have had to be observed as New Year's
Day again, and the people would consequently have lost a second day. — Rasht.

44 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

Ya'azeq, where all the witnesses met, and where they were ex-
amined by the Beth Din. Great feasts were made there for (the
witnesses) in order to induce them to come frequently. At first
they did not stir from there all day (on the Sabbath),* till R.
Gamaliel, the elder, ordained that they might go two thousand
ells on every side; and not only these (witnesses) but also a
midwife, going to perform her professional duties, and those
who go to assist others in case of conflagration, or against an
attack of robbers, or in case of flood, or (of rescuing people)
from the ruins (of a fallen building) are considered (for the time
being) as inhabitants of that place, and may go (thence on the
Sabbath) two thousand ells on every side. How were the wit-
nesses examined ? The first pair were examined first. The
elder was introduced first, and they said to him : Tell us in what
form thou sawest the moon ; was it before or behind the sun ?
Was it to the north or the south (of the sun) ? What was its
elevation on the horizon ? Towards which side was its inclina-
tion ? What was the width of its disk ? If he answered before
the sun, his evidence was worthless. After this they introduced
the younger (witness) and he was examined; if their testimony
was found to agree, it was accepted as valid; the remaining
pairs (of witnesses) were asked leading questions, not because
their testimony was necessary, but only to prevent them depart-
ing, disappointed, and to induce them to come again often.

GEMARA: Do not the questions (asked by the Mishna),
" was it before or behind the sun ?" and " was it to the north
or to the south?" mean the same thing? Answered Abayi :
(The Mishna asks) whether the concave of the crescent was
before or behind the sun, and if (the witness said) it was before
the sun, his evidence was worthless, for R. Johanan says: What
is the meaning of the passage [Job, xxv. 2] : " Dominion and fear
are with him ; he maketh peace in his high places ? " It means
that the sun never faces the concave of the crescent or the con-
cave of a rainbow.

What was its elevation on the horizon ? Towards which
side was its inclination f " In one Boraitha we have learned : If
(the witness) said " towards the north," his evidence was valid,
but if he said, " towards the south," it was worthless ; in another
Boraitha we have learned the reverse. It presents no difficulty;

* For if they had already traveled two thousand ells, they were prohibited from
journeying more than four cubits more.

"NEW YEAR." 45

in the latter case it speaks of the summer, while in the former
it refers to the winter.

The rabbis taught: If one (witness) said its elevation ap-
peared about as high as two ox -goads and another said about as
high as three, their testimony was invalid, but either might be
taken in conjunction with a subsequent witness (who offered
similar testimony). The rabbis taught (If the witnesses say):
' We have seen the reflection (of the moon) in the water, or
through a metal mirror, or in the clouds," their testimony is
not to be accepted; or (if they say we have seen) " half of it in
the water, and half of it in the heavens, or half of it in the
clouds," their evidence carries no weight. Must they then see
the new moon again (before their testimony can be accepted) ?
Said Abayi: " By this is meant that if the witnesses testify that
they saw the moon accidentally, and they then returned pur-
posely and looked for it, but they saw it not, their evidence is
worthless." Why so? Because one might say they saw a
patch of white clouds (and they thought it was the moon).

MISHNA: The chief of the Beth Din then said: " It (the
new moon) is consecrated," and all the people repeated after
him: " It is consecrated; it is consecrated." Whether the new
moon was seen at its proper time (after twenty-nine days) or
not, they used to consecrate it. R. Elazar b. Zadok said : If it
had not been seen at its proper time it was not consecrated,
because it had already been consecrated in heaven (i. e., of
itself).

GEMARA: Whence do we deduce this ? Said R. Hyya b.
Gamda quoting Rabbi, in the name of R. Jose b. Saul: It is
written [Lev. xxiii. 44] : " Moses declared unto the children of
Israel the feasts of the Lord," from which we deduce that (as
Moses, who was the chief in Israel, declared the feasts to
Israel, so also) the chief of the Beth Din should announce the
words, " It is consecrated."

" All the people repeated after him: It is consecrated ; it is conse-
crated." Whence do we deduce this? Said R. Papa: It is
written [Lev. xxiii. 2] : Shall proclaim." " Othom " (them).
Do not read " Othom," but Athem (ye) — i. e., which ye, all the
people, shall proclaim. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak, however, said:
We know it from the words [ibid.]: " These are my feasts,"
i. e., (these people) shall announce my feasts. Why are the
words "It is consecrated" repeated? Because in the scrip-
tural verse just quoted we find it written " holy convocations"

46 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

(literally, announcements, and the minimum of the plural
expression is two).

" R. Elazar b. Zadok said: If it had not been seen at its
proper time it was not consecrated," etc. We have learned in
a Boraitha, Pelimo* said : If the new moon appear at its
proper time it was not customary to consecrate it, but if it
appeared out of its proper time they used to consecrate it. R.
Eliezer, however, said: In neither case would they consecrate
it, for it is written [Lev. xxv. 10]: " And ye shall consecrate
the fiftieth year; " years should be consecrated, but not months.
Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: " The halakha prevails
according to R. Elazer b. Zadok. Said Abayi: There can be a
support to this from the following Mishna, viz.: " If the Beth
Din and all Israel saw the new moon (on the thirtieth day) and
if the examination of the witnesses had already taken place, and
it had become dark before they had time to announce ' It is
consecrated,' the month (just passing) is intercalary." That
(the month) is intercalary is mentioned (by the Mishna), but not
that they said "It is consecrated." It is not clear that this is
a support for Abayi's argument, for it was necessary to say that
it was intercalary, or we would not have known that the next
day was the intercalary day. One might have thought that,
since the Beth Din and all Israel saw the new moon, it was
apparent to all, and that the month does not become inter-
calary; therefore he teaches us that (nevertheless the month
becomes intercalary).

MISHNA: R. Gamaliel had on a tablet, and on a wall of
his upper room, illustrations of the various phases of the moon,
which he used to show to the common people, saying: " Did
you see the moon like this figure or like this ? "

GEMARA: Is this permitted ? Have we not learned in a
Boraitha that the words " Ye shall not make anything with me "
[Ex. xx. 20] mean, ye shall not make pictures of my ministers
that minister before me, such as the sun, moon, stars or plan-
ets ? It was different with R. Gamaliel, for others made it for
him. But others made one for R. Jehudah, yet Samuel said to
him: "Thou, sagacious one, destroy that figure ! "f In the
latter case the figure was embossed, and he was afraid that one
might suspect the owner (of using it as an idol). Need one be

* The name of a Tana, a contemporary of Rabbi.
\ Literally ' ' put out the eyes of that figure ! "

"NEW YEAR." 47

afraid of such suspicion ? Did not that synagogue in Shep-
hithibh of Neherdai have a statue (of the king), yet Rabh,
Samuel and Samuel's father and Levi went there to pray and
were not afraid of being suspected (of idolatry) ? It is a differ-
ent case where there are many. Yet R. Gamaliel was only one.
Yea, but he was a prince, and there were always many with him ;
and if you wish you may say that he had them made for the
purpose of instruction, and that which is written [Deut. xviii. 9],
" thou shalt not learn to do," means but thou mayest learn, in
order to understand and to teach.

MISHNA: It happened once that two witnesses came and
said: We saw the moon in the eastern part of the heavens
in the morning, and in the western part in the evening. R.
Jo'hanan b. Nouri declared them to be false witnesses; but
when they came to Yamnia, Rabbon Gamaliel received their
evidence as valid. (On another occasion) two other wit-
nesses came and said : We saw the moon on its proper day,
but could not see it on the next evening of the intercalary
day. R. Gamaliel accepted their testimony, but R. Dosa b.
Harkhenas said : They are false witnesses ; for how can they
testify of a woman being delivered (on a certain day) when
on the next day she appears to be pregnant ? Then R. Je-
hoshua said unto him : I approve your opinion. Upon this R.
Gamaliel sent him (R. Jehoshua) word, saying: " I order thee
to appear before me on the Day of Atonement, according to
your computation, with your staff and with money." R. Aqiba
went to him (R. Jehoshua) and found him grieving. He then
said to him : I can prove that all which R. Gamaliel has done is
proper, for it is said: " These are the feasts of the Lord, holy
convocations which ye shall proclaim," either at their proper
time, or not at their proper time, only their convocations are to
be considered as holy festivals. When he (R. Jehoshua) came
to R. Dosa b. Harkhinas, the latter told him: "If we are to
reinvestigate the decisions of the Beth Din of R. Gamaliel, we must
also reinvestigate the decisions of all the tribunals of justice which
have existed from the time of Moses till the present day ; for it
is said [Ex. xxiv. 9] Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy
elders went up (to the Mount)." Why were not the names of
the elders also specified ? To teach us that every three men in
Israel that form a Beth Din are to be respected in an equal
degree with the Beth Din of Moses. Then did R. Jehoshua
take his staff and money in his hand, and went to Yamnia, to

43 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

R. Gamaliel, on the very day on which the Day of Atonement
would have been according to his computation, when R. Gam-
aliel arose and kissed him on the forehead, saying: " Enter in
peace, my master and disciple ! My master — in knowledge ; my
disciple — since thou didst obey my injunction."

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha that R. Gam-
aliel said to the sages: " Thus it has been handed down to me
from the house of my grandfather (Zamalill the elder) that some-
times the new moon appears elongated and sometimes dimin-
ished. R. Hyya saw the old moon yet on the morning of the
twenty-ninth day, and threw clods of earth at it, saying : ' We
should consecrate thee in the evening, and thou art seen now ?
Go, hide thyself !' "

Said Rabbi to R. Hyya: " Go to Entob and consecrate the
month and send back to me as a password* ' David, the King
of Israel, still lives.' '

The rabbis taught: Once it happened that the heavens were
thick with clouds and the form of the moon was seen on the
twenty-ninth of the month (of Elul), so that the people thought
that New Year's Day should be then proclaimed, and they (the
Beth Din) were about to consecrate it. Said R. Gamaliel to
them : Thus it has been handed down to me by tradition, from
the house of my grandfather, the consecration of the moon can-
not take place at a period less than twenty-nine and a half days,
two-thirds and .0052 (i. e., seventy-three 'Halaqim) of an hour.
On that self-same day the mother of Ben Zaza died and R.
Gamaliel delivered a great funeral oration, f not because she
specially deserved it, but in order that the people might know
that the new moon had not yet been consecrated by the Beth
Din.

" R. Aqiba went to him, and found him grieving." The
schoolmen propounded a question: " Who found whom griev-
ing ?" Come and hear. We have learned in a Boraitha: " R.
Aqiba went to R. Jehoshua and found him grieving, so he asked
him : ' Rabbi, why art thou grieving ? ' And he answered :
' Aqiba, I would rather lie sick for twelve months than to have
this order issued for my appearance.' Rejoined R. Aqiba:
' Rabbi, permit me to say one thing in thy presence which thou
thyself hast taught me.' R. Jehoshua granted him permis-

* This device was resorted to, because in the days of Rabbi, the Romans had
prohibited the Jews, under penalty of death, to consecrate the moon.

f No funerals or funeral orations were or are permitted on the holidays.

"NEW YEAR." 49

sion, and R. Aqiba proceeded : ' It is written [Lev. xxiii. 2,
4 and 37] : Three times ' shall proclaim Othom (them), which
should, however, not be read Othom (them), but Athem (ye),
which would make the verse read, " Ye shall proclaim." Now
the threefold "ye" signifies that even if ye were deceived by
false pretences and changed the day of the festivals, or even if
ye did it purposely, or even if ye were held to be in error by
others — once the dates had been established they must so remain.'
With the following words R. Jehoshua answered R. Aqiba:
Aqiba, thou hast comforted me; Aqiba, thou hast comforted
me.'"

" When he (Rabbi Jehoshua) came to R. Dosa b. Harkhenas"
etc. The rabbis taught: The reason that the names of those
elders are not mentioned, is, in order that one should not say:
Is So-and-so like Moses and Aaron ? Is So-and-so like Nadabh
and Abihu ? Is So-and-so like Eldad and Medad ? (And how
do we know that one should not ask thus ?) Because, it is
written [i Sam. xii. 6J: " And Samuel said unto the people the
Lord that appointed Moses and Aaron " and in the same con-
nection it is written [ibid, n]: "And the Lord sent Jerubaal
and Bedan and Jephtha and Samuel." [Jerubaal is Gideon;
and why is he named Jerubaal ? Because he strove against
Baal. Bedan is Sampson ; and why is he named Bedan ? Be-
cause he came from Dan. Jephtha means just what it is (i. e.,
he had no surname or attribute).] And it is also written [Ps.
xcix. 6] : " Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel
among those who called upon his name." The sacred text
regards the three common people equal with the three noblest,
to teach us that Jerubaal was in his generation like Moses in
his; Bedan in his generation was like Aaron in his; Jephtha in
his generation was like Samuel in his generation. From all this
one must learn that if even the commonest of the commoners is
appointed leader by a community, he must be considered as the
noblest of the nobility, for it is said [Deut. xvii. 9] : " And thou
shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that
shall be in his days." (Why does the passage say" in those
days "?) Can you imagine that one could go to a judge who was
not in his days ? (Surely not ! But by these words Scripture
teaches us that a judge is to be held " in his days " equal in au-
thority with the greatest of his predecessors.) We find a similar
teaching in Eccles. vii. 10: " Say not thou that the former days
were better than these! "
4

5o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

" He took his staff" etc. The rabbis taught: (R. Gamaliel
said to R. Jehoshua): Happy is the generation in which the
leaders listen to their followers, and through tins the followers
consider it so much the more their duty (to heed the teachings
of the leaders).

CHAPTER III.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE INTERCALATING OF THE MONTH—
THE CORNET, AND OF WHAT IT IS TO BE MADE — AND THE
PRAYERS OF THE NEW YEAR'S DAY.

MISHNA: If the Beth Din and all Israel saw (the moon on
the night of the thirtieth day), or if the witness had been exam-
ined, but there was no time to proclaim " It is consecrated"
before it had become dark, the month is intercalary. If the
Beth Din alone saw it, two of its members should stand up and
give testimony before the others, who shall then say " It is con-
secrated; it is consecrated." When three who formed a Beth
Din saw it, two should stand up and conjoining some of their
learned friends with the remaining one, give their testimony
before these, who are then to proclaim "It is consecrated; it is
consecrated," for one (member of a Beth Din) has not this right
by himself alone.

GEMARA: " If the Beth Din alone saw it" etc. Why so ?
Surely hearsay evidence is not better than the testimony of an
eye-witness! Said R. Zera: " It refers to a case where they
saw it at night (and on the next day they could not consecrate
the new moon until they had heard the evidence of two
witnesses)."

1 ' When three who formed a Beth Din, saw it, two should stand
up and conjoining some of their learned friends with the remain-
ing one," etc. Why so ? Here also we may say, surely hearsay
evidence is not better than the testimony of an eye-witness!
And if you would say that this also means where they saw it at
night, is this not, then, the same case ? The case is the same,
but the above statement is required because of the concluding
words, " one (member of a Beth Din) has not the right by him-
self alone; " for it might be assumed, since in civil cases three
(are required to constitute a Beth Din), but where he is well
known (as a learned authority) one judge may act alone, so here
we may consecrate (the new moon) on the authority of one
judge; therefore, he teaches us (that three are required). Per-
haps I should, nevertheless, say here (that one learned authority

52 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

is sufficient) ? Nay, for there is no greater authority than
Moses, our master, yet God said to him that Aaron should act
with him, as it is written [Ex. xii. I, 2]: " And the Lord spake
unto Moses and Aaron, in the land of Egypt, saying: This
month shall be unto you the beginning of months."

Does this mean to say that a witness may act as judge ?
And shall we assume that the above Mishna is not according to
R. Aqiba, as on following Boraitha: If the members of the
Sanhedrin saw a man commit murder, part of them may act as
witnesses and part as judges, according to R. Tarphon ; but
according to R. Aqiba all of them are witnesses, and no witness
(of a crime) may act as judge. It may be said that the Mishna
is even according to R. Aqiba. In the latter instance R. Aqiba
only refers to capital cases, for it is written [Numb. xxxv. 24,
25]: " Then the congregation shall judge . . . and the congre-
gation shall deliver," and since they saw him commit murder,
they will not be able to urge any plea in his favor; but here
(concerning the new moon) even R. Aqiba assents (that a wit-
ness may act as judge).

MISHNA: Every kind of cornet may be used (on New
Year's Day) except those made of cow-horn, because they are
called " horn " (qeren), and not " cornet " (shophar). R. Jose
said: Are not all cornets called " horn ?" for it is said [Josh.
vi. 5] : " And it came to pass that when they made a long blast
with the horn of the Jobhel."

GEMARA: How comes it that the word Jobhel means
ram ? A Boraitha teaches : R. Aqiba says : When I went to
Arabia I found they called a ram " Yubla."

The rabbis did not know the meaning of the word Sal-
seleho in the passage [Prov. iv. 8]: " Salseleho and she shall
exalt thee." One day they heard Rabbi's maidservant say to
a certain man who was (conceitedly) playing with his hair,
"How long wilt thou mesalsel (hold up) thy hair?" The
rabbis did not know the meaning of the word yehabhekha in the
passage [Ps. Iv. 23]: " Cast yehabhekha (thy burden) upon the
Lord." Said Rabba bar Bar Hana: " One day I went with a
certain Arabian caravan merchant, and I was carrying a burden.
Said he to me : ' Take down yehabhekha (thy burden) and put it
on my camel.' '

MISHNA: The cornet used on the New Year was a straight
horn of a wild goat; the mouth-piece was covered with gold.
The two trumpets were stationed one on each side. The sound

"NEW YEAR." 53

of the cornet was prolonged, while that of the trumpet was
short, because the special duty of trie day was the sounding of
the cornet. On the fast days two crooked ram's horns were used,
their mouth-pieces being covered with silver, and the two trum-
pets were stationed in the middle between them. The sound
of the cornet was shortened, while that of the trumpet was pro-
longed, because the special duty of the day was the sounding of
the trumpets. The Jubilee and New Year's Day were alike in
respect to the sounding (of the cornet) and the benedictions,
but R. Jehudah says: "On the New Year we blow (a cornet)
made of ram's horn, and on the Jubilee one made of the horn of
a wild goat."

GEMARA: R. Levi said: It is a duty on New Year's Day
and the Day of Atonement to use a bent cornet, but during the
rest of the year a straight one. But have we not learned that
the cornet used on the New Year must be the " straight horn
of a wild goat ?" He (R. Levi) said as R. Jehudah of the fol-
lowing Boraitha: On New Year's Day they used to blow (a
cornet) made of a straight ram's horn, and on the Jubilees one
made of wild goat's horn. What is their point of variance ? R.
Jehudah holds that on New Year's the more bent in spirit a man
is, and on the Day of Atonement the more upright he is (in his
confessions) the better; but R. Levi holds the more upright a
man is on New Year's Day and the more bowed in spirit on the
Fast Days, the better.

" The mouth-piece was covered with gold." Does not a Bor-
aitha teach, however, that if one covers the place to which the
mouth was put the cornet may not be used; but if (he covers)
another place it may be used ? Answered Abayi: " Our Mishna
also means a place to which the mouth was not put."

' ' The two trumpets were stationed one on each side. ' ' Could
the two sounds be easily distinguished ? Nay; and therefore
the sound of the cornet was prolonged, to indicate that the
special duty of the day was the sounding of the cornet.

" On the Fast -Days two crooked ram's horns were used, their
mouth-pieces being covered with silver." Why was the cornet
used in the one case covered with gold and in the other with
silver ? All (signals for) assemblies were blown on horns made
with silver, as it is written [Numb. x. 2] : " Make unto thee two
trumpets of silver . . . that thou mayest use them for the call-
ing of the assembly," etc. R. Papa bar Samuel was about to
follow the practice prescribed by the Mishna. Said Rabha to

54 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

him: " That was only customary so long as the Temple was in
existence." A Boraitha also teaches that this applies only to
the Temple; but in the country (outside of Jerusalem) in a place
where they use the trumpet, they do not use the cornet, and
vice versa. Such was the wont of R. Halaphta in SepphoFis
and also of R. Hanina b. Teradion in Si'hni. When the matter
was brought to the attention of the sages they said: " That was
the custom only at the eastern gates or the Temple Mount."
Rabha, according to others R. Jehoshuaben Levi, asked: " From
which passage is this deduced?" From the passage [Psalms
xcviii. 6]: " With trumpets and sound of cornet, make a joyful
noise before the Lord, the King;" i. e., before the Lord, the
King (in the Temple) we need both the trumpets and the
cornet, but not elsewhere.

' ' The Jubilee, and the New Year were alike in respect to the
sounding (of the cornet), and the benediction." R. Samuel bar
Itz'hak said: According to whom do we nowadays pray: " This
day celebrates the beginning of thy work, a memorial of the
first day ? " According to R. Eliezer, who says: The world was
created at Tishri. R. Ina objected. Did we not learn in our
Mishna that the Jubilee and New Year are alike in respect to
the sounding (of the cornet), and the benedictions, and now how
can that be so if we say " This day celebrates the beginning of
thy work, a memorial of the first day, ' ' which is said on New
Year, but not on the Jubilee ? (That which we have learned in
our Mishna that they are alike means) in every other respect but
this.

MISHNA: It is unlawful to use a cornet that has been split
and afterwards joined together; or one made of several pieces
joined together. If a cornet had a hole that had been stopped
up, and prevented (the production) of the proper sound, it must
not be used ; but if it does not affect the proper sound it may
be used. If one should blow the cornet inside a pit, a cistern
or a vat, and the sound of the cornet was (plainly) heard (by one
listening to it) he will have done his duty (to hear the cornet on
the New Year), but not if he heard only an indistinct sound.
Thus also, if one should happen to pass by a synagogue, or live
close by it, and should hear the cornet (on the New Year) or the
reading of the Book of Esther (on the Feast of Esther), he will
have complied with the requirements of the law, if he listened
with proper attention, but not otherwise ; and although the one
heard it as well as the other, yet the difference (on which every-

"NEW YEAR." 55

thing depends) is that the one listened with proper attention
and the other did not.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If a cornet was long and
was shortened, it is valid; if one scraped it and reduced it to its
due size it is valid ; if one covered it on the inside with gold it
is invalid ; if on the outside and it changed the tone from what it
originally was, it is invalid, but if not it is. If a cornet had
a hole in it and it was closed up, and thereby prevented (the
production) of the proper sound, it is invalid, but if not it is
valid; if one placed one cornet inside another and the sound
heard (by a listener) was produced from the inner one, he has
fulfilled his duty, but if from the outer one, he has not.

" Or one made of several pieces joined together." The rabbis
taught: If one added to a cornet ever so small a piece, whether
it be of the same kind of horn or not, it is invalid. If a cornet
had a hole, whether one stopped it up with a piece of the same
kind (of horn) or not, it is invalid. R. Nathan, however, said
(only when repaired with material) not of the same kind it is
invalid, but otherwise if of the same kind it is valid. (To which)
R. Jehudah added : " That is, if the greater part of a cornet was
broken." From this we can infer that if repaired with material
of the same kind, although the greater part was broken, it is,
nevertheless, valid.

" If one covered a cornet on the inside with gold it is invalid ;
if on the outside, and it changed the tone from what it originally
was, it is not valid, but if not it is." If a cornet had been split
lengthwise it is invalid, but if crosswise, yet enough remained
with which to produce the sound, ft is valid, but if not it is
invalid. (And how much is that ? R. Simeon b. Gamaliel
explains it to be as much as we may hold in our closed hand,
and yet on either side a portion is visible).* If its tone was thin,
or heavy, or harsh, it is valid, for all tones were considered
proper in a cornet. The schoolmen sent a message to the father
of Samuel: (" One has fulfilled his duty if he bored a hole in a
horn and blew it. That is self-evident ! for in every cornet a
hole must surely be bored." Said R. Ashi: " If one bored a
hole through the bony substance inside the horn (which ought
to be removed), are we to suppose that one substance causes an

* The opinion of the editor is that this parenthesis is a fair illustration of the
interpolations in the Talmud. The term Piresh is not Talmudical and was only
used in later times. It has only been left here because the explanation happens to be
correct.

56 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

interposition with another of the same nature (and that there-
fore it must not be used)?" Therefore they sent to say that
this is no objection.

" If one should blow the cornet inside a pit or a cistern," etc.
R. Huna said: They taught this only in the case of those who
stood at the pit's mouth, but those who were in the pit itself
fulfill their duty. If one heard a part of (the required number
of) the sounds of the cornet in the pit, and the rest at the pit's
mouth, he has done his duty; but if he heard a part before the
dawn of day, and the rest after the dawn, he has not. Said Abayi
to him: Why in the latter case (should he not have done his
duty, because he did not hear the whole of the sounds at the
time when the duty should be performed), yet in the former
case (he is considered to have done his duty) under similar cir-
cumstances ? How can these cases be compared ? In the latter
case, the night is not the time of performing the obligation at all,
while in the former case, a pit is a place where the duty may be
performed for those who are in it ! Shall we say that Rabba
held: If one heard the end of the sounding (of the cornet) with-
out having heard the beginning he did his duty, and from these
words we must understand that if he heard the beginning with-
out the end he has also done his duty ? Come and hear. If
one blew the first sound (Tekia) and prolonged the second
(Tekia) as long as two, it is only reckoned as one; and (if
Rabba's opinion is correct) why should he reckon it as two ?
(This is no question)! If he heard half the sounds he has done
his duty, but when one blows one sound on the cornet we can-
not consider it two halves.

Rabha says: One who vows to receive no benefit from his
neighbor may nevertheless blow for him the obligatory sounds
(of the cornet) ; one who vows refusal of any benefit from a
cornet may blow on it the obligatory sounds. Furthermore,
said Rabha: " One who vows to refuse any benefit from his
neighbor may sprinkle on him the waters of a sin-offering in the
winter, but not in the summer. One who vows to receive no
benefit from a spring may take in it a legal bath in the winter,
but not in the summer.

The schoolmen sent a message to the father of Samuel: " If
one had been compelled to eat unleavened bread (on the first
night of Passover, /. e., he had not done so of his own accord)
he has also done his duty." Who compelled him ? Said R.
Ashi: " Persians." Rabha remarked: From this statement we

"NEW YEAR." 57

can prove that if one plays a song on a cornet he does his duty.
Is this not self-evident ? The cases are similar. One might
suppose that in the former case the law commanded him to eat
(unleavened bread) and he ate it, but in the latter case the Torah
speaks of " a remembrance of blowing the cornet " [Lev. xxiii.
24], and (when he plays a song he does not remember his duty
for) lie is engaged in a worldly occupation. Therefore he teaches
us that even under such circumstances he does his duty.

To this an objection was raised. We have learned: If one
who listened (to the sounds of the cornet) paid the proper atten-
tion, but he that blew the cornet did not, or vice versa, they
have not done their duty until both blower and listener pay
proper attention. This would be correct in the case where the
blower, but not the listener, pays the proper attention, for it is
possible that the listener imagines he hears the noise of an
animal; but how can it happen that the listener should pay due
attention, and the one who blows (the cornet) should not, ex-
cept he was only playing a song (by which he does not do his
duty) ? (It is possible) if he only produced a dull sound (i, e.,
and not, for example, a Tekia).

Said Abayi to him: " But now, according to thy conclusion
(that a duty performed without due attention is the same as if
performed with due attention) wilt thou say that he who sleeps
in a tabernacle on the eighth day of the Feast of the Tabernacles
shall receive stripes (because he had no right to observe the law
for more than seven days)?" Answered Rabha: " I say that
one cannot infringe a command except at the time when it
should be performed." R. Shamen b. Abba raised an objec-
tion : Whence do we know that a priest who ascended the plat-
form (to pronounce the priestly benediction) must not say:
Since the Torah has given me the right to bless Israel, I will
supplement (the benedictions, Numb. vi. 24-26) by one of my
own, as, for example [Deut. i. 11]: " May the Lord God of
your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye
are?" From the Torah which says [Deut. iv. 2] : Ye shall
not add unto the word." And in this case as soon as he has
finished the benedictions the time for performing that duty has
gone by; still if he add a blessing of his own he is guilty of
infringing the law, which says, " Ye shall not add." This refers
to a case of where the priest had not yet finished the scriptural
benediction. We have learned, however, that he had finished
the scriptural benediction. The Boraitha means to say that he

58 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

had finished only one of the (three) benedictions. We have
learned in another Boraitha, however, that even if he had com-
pleted all three benedictions, and then supplemented one of his
own, he is also guilty of a transgression. In this case it is differ-
ent, for it might be that the priest would come to another
assembly where prayer was held and be called upon to again
pronounce the benedictions. Hence it must be assumed that
there is no specified time for the priest to pronounce his bene-
dictions, but all day can be considered as the proper time, and
thus the priest, by supplementing a benediction of his own,
becomes guilty.

R. Shamen bar Abha, however, does not admit that the
whole day is the proper time, because the priest is not in duty
bound to pronounce the benediction in another assembly.
Nevertheless he is guilty if he should supplement an additional
benediction of his own ; whence we see that even if the proper
time has passed, guilt is nevertheless incurred, and this is con-
tradictory to Rabha's dictum. Therefore, said Rabha: (I
mean), To fulfill the requirements of the law one need not pay
attention; to transgress the law against supplementing, at the
time prescribed for performing it, also does not require one's
special attention ; but to transgress the law against supplement-
ing, at the time not prescribed for performance, needs one's
special attention. Hence the priest, after completing the scrip-
tural benediction, who says: " Because the law gives me author-
ity I shall supplement a benediction of my own, demonstrates
thereby that he does this with special attention, and conse-
quently incurs guilt, even if the prescribed time had passed.

R. Zera said to his attendant: " Pay attention, and sound
(the cornet) for me. Do we not thus see that he holds that to
fulfill the requirements of the law the act is not enough, and
one must pay attention ? This is a disputed question among
the Tanai'm, for we have learned in a Boraitha: One who hears
(the blowing of the cornet) must himself listen in order to per-
form his duty, and he who blows (the cornet) blows after his
usual manner. R. Jose said: " These words are said only in
the case of the minister for a congregation ; but an individual
does not do his duty unless both he that hears and he that
blows pay proper attention."

MISHNA: (It is written in Ex. xvii. 11 that) "When
Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed," etc. Could then the
hands of Moses cause war to be waged or to cease ? (Nay) ; but

"NEW YEAR." 59

it means that as long as Israel looked to heaven for aid, and
directed their hearts devoutly to their Father in heaven, they
prevailed; but when they ceased to do so they failed. We find
a similar instance also in [Numb. xxi. 8] : " Make unto thee a
fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and every one that is bitten,
when he looketh upon it shall live." Could, then, the serpent
kill or bring to life ? (Surely not.) But it means when the
Israelites looked (upward) to heaven for aid and subjected their
will to that of their Father in heaven they were healed, but
when they did not they perished. A deaf mute, an idiot, or a
child cannot act in behalf of the assembled congregation. This
is the general rule: " Whosoever is not obliged to perform a
duty cannot act in behalf of the assembled congregation " (for
that duty).

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: All are obliged to hear the
sounding of the cornet, priests, Levites and Israelites, prose-
lytes, freed slaves, a hermaphrodite, and one who is half slave
and half free. A sexless person cannot act in behalf of those
like or unlike itself, but a hermaphrodite can act in behalf of
those of the same class, but not of any other.

The Master said: It is said, All are obliged to hear the
sounding of the cornet, priests, Levites and Israelites. This is
self-evident, for if these are not obliged, who are ? It was
necessary to mention priests here, for one might have supposed
that since we have learnt " the Jubilee and New Year's Day are
alike with regard to the sounding of the cornet and the benedic-
tions," that only those who are included under the rule of
Jubilee are included in the duties of New Year's Day; and as
the priests are not included in the rule of Jubilee (for they have
no lands to lie fallow, etc.), might we not, therefore, say that
they are not bound by the duties of New Year's Day ? Therefore
he comes to teach us (that they must hear the sounding of the
cornet).

A'hbha, the son of R. Zera, teaches: "With regard to all
the benedictions, although one has already done his duty he
may nevertheless act for others, with the exception of the bless-
ings over bread and wine; concerning which, if he has not yet
done his duty, he may act for others, but if he has done his
duty he must not act for others."

Rabha asked: What is the rule in the case of the benediction
of the unleavened bread, and the wine used at the sanctification
of a festival ? Since these are special duties, may one act for

Co THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

others, or perhaps the (duty is only the eating of the unleav-
ened bread and the drinking of the sanctification wine) ; but
the benediction is not a duty, and therefore he cannot act for
others ? Come and hear. R. Ashi says: When we were at the
home of R. Papa, he said the blessing of sanctification for us,
and when his field laborer came from work later he said the
blessing for him also.

The rabbis taught : One must not say the benediction over
bread for guests, unless he eats with them, but he may do so
for the members of the family, to initiate them into their relig-
ious duties. With regard to the Service of Praise [Hallel Ps.
cxiii.-cxviii.] and the reading of the Book of Esther, although
one had already done his duty, he may, nevertheless, act for
others.

CHAPTER IV.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE NEW YEAR'S DAY WHEN IT FALLS
ON SABBATH, AND THE PRAYERS THEREON — THE ORDINANCES OF
THE BENEDICTIONS, ETC.

MISHNA: When the feast of New Year happened to fall
on the Sabbath, they used to sound (the cornet) in the Temple,
but not outside of it. After the destruction of the Temple R.
Jo'hanan b. Zakkai ordained that they should sound (the
cornet) in every place in which there was a Beth Din. R.
Elazar says that R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai instituted that for
Yamnia alone ; but they (the sages) say the rule applied both to
Yamnia and every place in which there was a Beth Din. And
in this respect also was Jerusalem privileged more than Yamnia,
that every city from which Jerusalem could be seen, or the
sounding (of the cornet) could be heard, which was near enough,
and to which it was allowed to go on the Sabbath, might sound
the (cornet) on the Sabbath ; but in Yamnia they sounded (the
cornet) before the Beth Din only.

GEMARA : Whence do we deduce all this ? Said Rabha :
The rabbis took a precautionary measure concerning them, as
said: Although the duty of sounding (the cornet) is obligatory
upon all, yet all are not skilled in sounding (it) ; therefore they
feared lest one might take (the cornet) in his hand, and go to an
expert and carry it more than four ells in public ground. The
same rule applies to the palm branch (lulabh) and also to the
scroll (on which is written the) Book of Esther.

" After the destruction of the Temple, R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai
ordained" etc. The rabbis taught: Once it happened that New
Year's Day fell on the Sabbath, and all the cities gathered
together. Said R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai to the Bne Bathera:*
"Let us sound (the cornet)." "First," said they, "let us
discuss." " Let us sound it," replied he, " and then we will
discuss." After they had sounded (the cornet) they said to
him: "Now let us discuss." He answered: "The cornet

^A scholarly family of Babylonian descent, much favored by Herod.

62 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

has now been heard in Yamnia, and we cannot retract after the
act has been performed."

' ' But they (the sages] say the rule applied both to Yamnia and
every place in which there is a Beth Din." Said R. Huna: That
means in the presence of the Beth Din. Does this preclude
people from sounding (the cornet) out of the presence of the
Beth Din ? And, when R. Itzhak bar Joseph came (from
Yamnia) did he not say: When the officiant ministers appointed
by the congregation in Yamnia had finished sounding (the cornet)
one could not hear his own voice on account of the sounds (of
the cornets) used by individuals ? (Even individuals) used to-
sound (the cornet) in the presence of the Beth Din. It was also-
taught: Rabbi said, " We may only sound (the cornet) during
the time that the Beth Din is accustomed to sit."

"Jerusalem was privileged more than Yamnia" etc. (When
the Mishna speaks of) " Every city from which Jerusalem could
be seen," it means with the exception of a city located in the
valley (from which it could be seen only by ascending to an
elevated spot); by "the sounding (of the cornet) could be
heard," it means to except a city located on the top of a moun-
tain; by " which was near enough," it means to exclude a city
outside the prescribed limit (of a Sabbath journey); and by
" and to which it was allowed to go," it means to exclude a city
(even near by) but divided (from Jerusalem) by a river.

MISHNA: Formerly the palm branch (lulabh) was taken to
the Temple seven days, but in cities outside (of Jerusalem) it
was taken (to the synagogue) one day. Since the destruction of
the Temple, R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai ordained that the palm
branch should everywhere be taken seven days, in commemora-
tion of the Temple, and also it should be prohibited (to eat the
new produce) the whole day of waving (the sheaf-offering ; vide
Lev. xxiii. 11-15).

GEMARA : Whence do we know that we do things in com-
memoration of the Temple ? It is written [Jer. xxx. 17] : " For I
will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds,
saith the Lord, because they called thee an outcast, saying, This
is Zion whom no man seeketh after." By implication (we see)
that it (Zion or the Temple) needs being sought after (or com-
memorated).

" And that it should be prohibited to eat . . . on the whole day
of waving (the sheaf -offering)," etc. R. Na'hman b. Itzhak
remarked: R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai says this according to the

"NEW YEAR." 63

system of R. Jehudah, for it is written [Lev. xxiii. 14]: " And
ye shall eat neither parched corn . . . until the self-same
day," i.e., until the very day itself, and he holds that when-
ever the expression "until" (ad) occurs it is inclusive. How
can you say the above according to (R. Jehudah); surely he
differs from R. Jo'hanan her Zakkai ? As we have learnt in a
Mishna: Since the destruction of the Temple R. Jo'hanan b.
Zakkai ordained that it should be prohibited (to eat of the new
produce) the whole of the day of waving (the sheaf-offering).
Said R. Jehudah : Is this not prohibited by the passage which
says: " Until the self-same day" ? R. Jehudah was mistaken;
he thought that R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai taught that (the prohib-
ition) was rabbinical, and it was not so, for R. Jo'hanan also
said it was biblical. But does the Mishna not say " he or-
dained " ? Yes; but what does it mean by " he ordained" ?
(It means) he explained the ordinance.

MISHNA: Formerly they received evidence as to the
appearance of the new moon the whole (of the thirtieth) day.
Once the witnesses were delayed in coming, and they disturbed
the songs of the Levites. They then ordained that evidence
should only be received until (the time of) the afternoon service,
and if witnesses came after that time both that and the following
day were consecrated. After the destruction of the Temple,
R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai ordained that evidence (as to the appear-
ance) of the new moon should be received all day.

GEMARA : What disturbance did they cause to the songs
of the Levites ? Said R. Zera to A'hbha, his son : Go and
teach to them (the Mishna) thus: " They ordained that evidence
as to the appearance of the new moon should not be received,
only that there might be time during the day to offer the contin-
ual and the additional sacrifices and their drink offerings, and to
chant the (daily) song without disturbing the order."

We have learned in a Boraitha : R. Jehudah said in the name
of R. Aqiba, What (song) did (the Levites) chant on the first day
of the week ? ' The earth is the Lord's and the fulness
thereof" [Ps. xxiv.], because He is the Creator, the Providence
and the Ruler of the Universe. What did they sing on the
second day? "Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised"
[Ps. xlviii.], because He distributed His works and reigned
over them. On the third day they sang, " God standeth in the
congregation of the mighty" [Ps. Ixxxii.], because He, in His
wisdom, made the earth appear and prepared the world for its

64 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

occupants. On the fourth day they sang, " O Lord, to whom
retribution belongeth " [Ps. xciv.], because (on that day) He
created the sun and moon, and (determined) to punish in the
future those who would worship them. On the fifth day they
sang, " Sing aloud unto God our strength " [Ps. Ixxxi.], because
(on that day) He created birds and fish to praise Him. On the
sixth day they sang, " The Lord reigneth, He is clothed with
majesty" [Ps. xciii.], because (on that day) He finished His
works and reigned over them. On the seventh day they sang,
"A Psalm or Song for the Sabbath Day" [Ps. xcii.], for the
day that is a perfect rest.

Said R. Nehemiah: " Why did the sages make a distinction
between these sections (for the last refers to a future event,
while all the others refer to the past) ? It should have been said
that they sang that Psalm on the Sabbath day because He
rested!"

What did the Levites sing when the additional sacrifices
were being offered on the Sabbath? R. Hanan bar Rabha said in
the name of Rabh: Six sections of Deut. xxxii.* R. Hanan
bar Rabha also said in the name of Rabh: " As these sections
were divided (by the Levites), so they are divided for the read-
ing of the law (on the Sabbath on which they are read)." What
did they sing at the Sabbath afternoon service ? Said R.
Jo'hanan : A portion of the Song of Moses [Ex. xv. i-io] ; the
conclusion of that song [ibid. 11-19], ant* the Song of Israel
[Numb. xxi. 17],

The schoolmen asked: Did they sing all these on one Sab-
bath, or did they, perhaps, sing one section on each Sabbath ?
Come and hear! A Boraitha teaches: During the time that the
first choir of (Levites who sang at the time of the additional
sacrifice) sang their sections once, the second choir (that sang at
that time of the afternoon sacrifice) had sung theirs twice ; from
this we may deduce that they sang but one section on each
Sabbath.

R. Jehudah b. Idi said in the name of R. Jo'hanan: Accord-
ing to the rabbinical explanation of certain scriptural passages
the Shekhinah made ten journeys, and according to tradition a
corresponding number of times was the Sanhedrin exiled, viz. :
from the cell of Gazith (in the Temple) to the market-place,

* i.-vii. ; viii.-xiii.; xiv.-xix. ; xx.-xxvii.; xxviii.-xxxvi. ; xxxvii.-xliv. These
passages are called Hazyv Lakh because the initial letters are H, Z, Y, V, L, KH.

"NEW YEAR." 65

from the market-place- to Jerusalem, from Jerusalem to Yamnia,
from Yamnia to Usha, from Usha (back again) to Yamnia, from
Yamnia (back again) to Usha, from Usha to Shapram, from
Shapram to Beth Shearim, from Beth Shearim to Sepphoris,
from Sepphoris to Tiberias, and Tiberias was the saddest of
them all, as it is written [Is. xxix.] : " And thou shalt be low,
and shalt speak out of the earth."

R. Elazar says they were exiled six times, as it is written [Is.
xxvi. 5]: " For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the
lofty city he layeth low ; he layeth it low even to the ground ;
he bringeth it even to the dust." Says R. Jo'hanan: And
thence (from the dust) they will in future be redeemed, as it is
written [Is. lii. 2] : " Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit
down," etc.

MISHNA: R. Joshua b. Kar'ha said: This also did R.
Jo'hanan b. Zakkai ordain : That it mattered not where the chief
of the Beth Din might be, the witnesses need only go to the
meeting-place (of the Beth Din).

GEMARA: A certain woman was summoned for judgment
before Ameimar in Neherdai. Ameimar went away to Me'huzza,
but she did not follow him, and he wrote a letter to put her in
the ban. Said R. Ashi to Ameimar: " Have we not learned that
it mattered not where the chief of the Beth Din might be, the
witnesses need only go to the meeting place (of the Beth Din) ? "
Answered Ameimar : ' ' That is true in respect to evidence for
the new moon; but with regard to my action, in which case she
has been summoned for debt, ' The borrower is servant to the
lender,' and she must come to the place where the chief court
is " [Prov. xxii. 7].

The rabbis taught : Priests may not ascend the platform in
sandals to bless the people; and this is one of the nine ordi-
nances instituted by R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai; six are to be found
in this chapter, one in the first chapter; another one is, if one
become a proselyte nowadays, he must pay a quarter of a shekel
for a sacrifice of a bird (so that if the Temple should be rebuilt
the authorities would have a contribution from him towards the
daily sacrifices). R. Simon b. Elazar, however, said that R.
Jo'hanan had already withdrawn this regulation and annulled
it, because it easily led to the sin (of using the money for
different purposes). And what is the ninth (ordinance of R.
Jo'hanan) ? R. Papa and R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak dispute about
this. R. Papa says it was with regard to a vineyard of the
5

66 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

fourth year's crop; but R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak says it was
with regard to the crimson-colored strap (displayed on the Day
of Atonement (on the scapegoat).

MISHNA: The order of the benedictions (to be said on New
Year is as follows): The blessings referring to the patriarchs
(Abhoth), to the mighty power of God (Gebhuroth), and the
sanctification of the Holy name; to these he adds the selection
in which God is proclaimed King (Malkhioth), after which he
does not sound the cornet ; then the blessing referring to the
sanctification of the day, after which the cornet is sounded;
then the biblical selections referring to God's remembrance of
His creatures (Zikhronoth), after which the cornet is again
sounded ; then the biblical selections referring to the sounding
of the cornet (Shophroth), after which the cornet is again
sounded ; he then recites the blessings referring to the restora-
tion of the Temple, the adoration of God, and the benediction
of the priests. So is the decree of R. Jo'hanan b. Nouri. Said
R. Aqiba to him : If the cornet is not to be sounded after the
Malkhioth, why are they mentioned ? But the proper order is
the following: The blessings referring to the patriarchs (Abhoth),
to the mighty power of God (Gebhuroth), and the sanctification
of the Holy name; to this last the biblical selections referring
to the proclamation of God as King (Malkhioth) are joined, and
then he sounds the cornet ; then the biblical selections referring
to God's remembrance of His creatures (Zikhronoth), and he
then sounds the cornet ; then the biblical selections referring to
the sounding of the cornet (Shophroth), and he again sounds the
cornet ; then he says the blessings referring to the restoration of
the Temple, the adoration of God, and the priestly benedictions.

GEMARA : The rabbis taught : Whence do we know that
we should recite the Malkhioth, Zikhronoth, and Shophroth?
Said R. Eliezer : From the passage [Lev. xxiii. 24] in which it is
written: "Ye shall have a Sabbathon, a memorial of blowing
cornets, a holy convocation," the word " Sabbathon " refers to
the consecration of the day ; " a memorial " refers to the Zikhro-
noth ; " blowing of cornets " refers to the Shophroth ; " a holy
convocation " means the hallowing of the day in order to pro-
hibit servile work. Said R. Aqiba to him : Why is not the word
41 Sabbathon " construed to mean the prohibition of servile work,
since the passage (quoted above) begins with that ? Therefore,
let the passage be interpreted thus: "Sabbathon" means the
hallowing of the day and the prohibition of servile work ; " me-

"NEW YEAR." 67

morial " refers to the Zikhronoth ; " blowing of the cornets " re-
fers to the Shophroth ; " a holy convocation " means the conse-
cration of the day.

Whence do we know that we should recite the Malkhioth ?
From the following Boraitha : Rabbi said : The words, " I am the
Lord your God " ; and " in the seven month " (stand together)
[Lev. xxiii. 22, 24], which may be interpreted to refer to the pro-
clamation of God as King. R. Jose b. R. Jehudah says it is not
necessary to cite this passage ; for it is written [Numb. x. 10]
" that they may be to you for a memorial before your God : I
am the Lord your God." These concluding words " I am the
Lord your God " are entirely superfluous, but since they are
used, of what import are they ? They form a general rule, that
in every selection in which (God's) remembrance of His creatures
is mentioned there should also be found the thought that He is
the King of the Universe.

MISHNA : Not less than ten scriptural passages should be
used for the Malkhioth, ten for the Zikhronoth, and ten for the
Shophroth. R. Jo'hanan b. Nouri says : If by three of each
class, one will have done his duty.

GEMARA : To what do the ten scriptural passages used for
the Malkhioth correspond ? Answered Rabbi : To the ten ex-
pressions of praise used by David in the Psalms. But there are
more expressions of praise found? Only those are meant, in
conjunction with which it is written " praise him with the sound
of the cornet " [Psalm ci. 3]. R. Joseph says : " They correspond
to the ten commandments that were proclaimed to Moses on
Sinai." R. Jo'hanan said, they correspond to the ten words with
which the universe was created.

" By three of each class, one will have done his duty" The
schoolmen asked : " Does he mean three from the Pentateuch,
three from the Prophets, and three from the Hagiographa, which
would make nine, and they differ about one (passage) ? or per-
haps one from the Pentateuch and one from the Prophets and
one from the Hagiographa, which would make three, and they
differ about many passages ? " Come and hear ! We have learned
in a Boraitha : Not less than ten scriptural passages should be
used for the Malkhioth, ten for the Zikhronoth, and ten for the
Shophroth ; but if seven of them all were recited, corresponding
to the seven heavens, the duty has been fulfilled. R. Johanan
ben Nouri remarked : He that recites less (than ten of each) should
not, however, recite less than seven ; but if he recited but three,

68 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

corresponding to the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa,
according to others corresponding to the Priests, Levites, and
Israelites, it is sufficient. Said R. Huna in the name of Samuel :
The Halakha prevails according to R. Jo'hanan b. Nouri.

MISHNA: We do not cite scriptural passages for the above
three series that contain predictions of punishment. The pas-
sages from the Pentateuch are to be recited first, and those from
the Prophets last. R. Jose, however, says " if the concluding
passage is from the Pentateuch one has also done his duty."

GEMARA : Passages, proclaiming the kingdom of God that
should not be used (because of the above), are such as the fol-
lowing [Ezekiel, xx. 33] : " As I live, saith the Lord God, surely
with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury
poured out, I will rule over you," and although as R. Na'hman
says (of this passage) : Let Him be angry with us, but let Him
take us out of captivity, still, since it refers to anger, we should
not mention " anger " at the beginning of the year. An example
of the same idea being found in conjunction with the Zikhronoth
is to be read in [Ps. Ixxviii. 39], " For he remembered they were
but flesh ; " in conjunction with the Shophroth an example is
found in Hosea, v. 8 : " Blow ye the cornet in Gibeah," etc.

We must not mention the remembrance of the individual (in
the Zikhronoth) even if the passage speaks of pleasant things, as,
for example [Ps. cvi. 4], " Remember me, O Lord, with the favor
that thou bearest unto thy people." However, passages that
contain the expression of "visiting" may be used in the
Zikhronoth, e.g., " And the Lord visited Sarah " [Gen. xxi. i]
or " I have surely visited you " [Ex. iii. 16], so says R. Jose ;
but R. Jehudah says, they may not. But even if we agree to
what R. Jose says (shall we say that) the passage " and the Lord
visited Sarah " speaks of an individual (and therefore it should
not be used) ? Nay ; since many descended from her, she is re-
garded as many and therefore that passage, though speaking of
one only, is regarded as though it spoke of many.

(In the Malkhioth, they used Ps. xxiv. 7-10, which is divided
into two parts.) The first part can be used as two of the re-
quired passages, and the second as three, so said R. Jose ; but R.
Jehudah said : The first part can be used only for one, and the
second for two.* So too [Ps. xlvii. 7, 8], " Sing praises to God,
sing praises, sing praises to our king, sing praises ; for God is the

* He excludes the two interrogative sentences, " Who is the king of glory ? "

"NEW YEAR." 69

King of all the earth." R. Jose said : This may be used for two
of the Malkhioth ; but R. Jehudah said : " It is to be reckoned
as one only." (He rejects one, because the words " our king,"
referring to one people only, was not a sufficiently broad
expression of praise for Him who is the King of the uni-
verse.) Both, however, agree that the next verse of the same
Psalm, " God is King over the nations ; God sitteth upon
the throne of his holiness," is to be used for one only. A
passage containing a reference to God's remembrance of His
creatures and also to the cornet, as for instance [Lev. xxiii. 24],
" Ye shall have a Sabbath, a memorial of blowing of cornets,"
may be used in the Zikhronoth and the Shophroth ; so said R.
Jose ; but R. Jehudah said : It can only be used in the Zikhro-
noth. A passage in which God is proclaimed King, contain-
ing also a reference to the cornet, as for instance [Numb, xxiii.
21], "The Lord his God is with him, and the shout (Teruath) of
a king is among them," may be used in the Malkhioth and in
the Shophroth, said R. Jose ; but R. Jehudah said : It may only
be used in the Malkhioth. A passage containing a reference to
the cornet, and nothing else, as for instance [Numb. xxix. i], " It
is a day of blowing the cornet," may be used for the Shophroth,
so said R. Jose ; R. Jehudah, however, said : Must not be used
at all.

" The passages from the Pentateuch are to be recited first and
those from the Prophets last" R. Jose said : " We should con-
clude with a passage from the Pentateuch, but if one con-
cluded with a passage from the Prophets, one has done his duty."
We have also learned : R. Elazar bar R. Jose says : " The Va-
thiqin * used to conclude with a passage from the Pentateuch. It
is correct as far as Zikhronoth and Shophroth are concerned, for
there are many such passages ; but as for the Malkhioth there
are but three in the Pentateuch, viz.: " The Lord his God is with
him, and the shout of a King is among them " [Numb, xxiii. 21] ;
" And he was king in Yeshurun " [Deut. xxxiii. 5] ; and " The
Lord shall reign forever" [Ex. xv. 18], but we require ten and
there are not so many? Said R. Huna : We have learned that,
according to R. Jose, the passage, " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our
God is one " [Deut. vi. 4], may be considered as Malkhioth, but
R. Jehudah said, it may not ; so also they differ with regard to
the passages, " Know, therefore, this day, and consider it in thine

* A sect similar to Hasidim.

THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

heart, that the Lord, he is God ; there is none else " [Deut. iv. 39],
and " Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that
the Lord, he is God ; there is none else beside him " [Deut. iv.
35]. According to the one they are considered Malkhioth, but
according to the other not.

MISHNA : The second of those who act as ministers of the
congregation on the feast of New Year shall cause another to
sound the cornet ; on days when the HALLEL (Service of Praise,
Ps. cxiii.-cxviii.) is read, the first (minister) must read it. In order
to sound the cornet on New Year's Day it is not permitted to go
beyond the Sabbath limit, to remove a heap of stones, to ascend
a tree, to ride on an animal, to swim over the waters, nor to cut
it (the cornet) with anything prohibited either by the (Rabbinical)
laws against servile work or by a Biblical negative command-
ment; but if one wishes to put water or wine in a cornet (to
cleanse it) he is allowed to. Children must not be prevented from
sounding the cornet, but on the contrary we are permitted to
occupy ourselves with teaching them until they learn to sound
it ; but one who thus teaches, as also others who listen to sounds
thus produced, do not thereby fulfil their duty.

GEMARA: What is the reason of the above prohibitions?
Because the sounding of the cornet is a positive commandment ;
now, the observance of a festival involves both positive and nega-
tive commandments, and the one positive cannot supersede two
(negative and positive.)

" Children must not be prevented from sounding the cornet" etc.
But women are to be prevented ? Have we not learned in a Bo-
raitha: Neither women nor children may be prevented from sound-
ing the cornet on the New Year's Day ? Said Abayi : " It presents
no difficulty, the one is according to R. Jehudah and the other is
according to R. Jose and R. Simeon, who say that as women are
permitted (in the case of sacrifices) to lay their hands on the
animals, so here, if they desire to sound the cornet, they may.

" Until they learn" Said R. Elazar: Even on the Sabbath ;
so also we have learned in the following Boraitha : We are per-
mitted to occupy ourselves with teaching (children) until they
learn (to sound the cornet) even on the Sabbath : (and if we do
not prevent them doing this on the Sabbath) how much less do
we, on the feast (of New Year). Our Mishna says, " We do not
prevent them " (from this we may infer that we do not start to
tell to a child : Go and sound the cornet) ? It presents no dif-
ficulty : a child already initiated in the performance of religious

"NEW YEAR." 71

duties may be told also : Go and sound ! but not a child not yet
initiated ; however, we do not prevent him.

MISHNA: The order of sounding the cornet is three times
three. The length of a TEQIA is equal to that of three TERUOTH,
and that of each Terua as three moans (YABABHOTH). If a per-
son sounded a Teqia and prolonged it equal to two, it is only
reckoned as one Teqia.* He who has just finished reading the
benedictions (in the additional service for the New Year) and only
at that time obtained a cornet, should then blow on the cornet
the three sounds three times. As the Reader of the congregation
is in duty bound (to sound the cornet) so too is each individual ; R.
Gamaliel, however, said the Reader can act for the congregation.

GEMARA : But have we learned in a Boraitha, that the
length of a Teqia is the same as that of a Terua ? Said Abayi :
The Tana of our Mishna speaks of the three series, and means that
the length of all the Teqioth is the same as that of all the Teruoth.
But the Tana of the Boraitha speaks of only one series and says
that one Teqia is equal to one Terua (which is the same thing).

"Each Terua is (as long as) three moans." But we have
learned in a Boraitha, a Terua is as long as three broken (staccato)
tones (SHEBARIM). Said Abayi : About this they do indeed
differ, for it is written [Numb. xxix. i], "It is a day of blowing
the cornet," which in the (Aramaic) translation of the Pentateuch
is, " It is a day of sounding the alarm (YABABA). Now it is writ-
ten concerning the mother of Sisera [Judg. v. 28], " The mother
of Sisera .... moaned " (VAT'YABEB) ; this word, one explains
to mean a protracted groan, and another to mean a short wail.

The Rabbis taught : Whence do we know (that one must
sound) with a cornet ? From the passage [Lev. xxv. 9], " Thou
shalt cause the cornet .... to sound, etc." Whence do we know
that (after the Terua) there should be one Teqia ? Therefore it
is said (later in the same verse), "Ye shall make the cornet
sound." f But perhaps this only refers to the Jubilee? Whence
do we know that it refers also to New Year's Day ? Therefore it
is written (in the same verse) " in the seventh month." These

* The cornet is sounded three times, corresponding to the Malkhioth, Zikhronoth,
and Shophroth. The order of the sounds is Teqia, Terua, Teqia ; Teqia, Terua,
Teqia, etc. The case here supposed is that the one who sounded the cornet sustained
the second Teqia as long as two Teqioth, intending thereby to sound the second and
third Teqioth. This, we see, is not permitted.

f The Hebrew words UTHEQATEM TERUA are interpreted to mean that first a
Teqia should be sounded, and then a Terua.

72 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

words are superfluous ; for what purpose then does the Torah use
them ? To teach us that all the sounds of the cornet during the
seventh month should be like each other. Whence do we know
that the sounds are to be three times three? From the three
passages, " Thou shalt cause the cornet ... to sound " [Lev.
xxv. 9]; "A Sabbath a memorial of blowing of cornets" [Lev.
xxiii. 24] ; " It is a day of blowing the cornet " [Numb. xxix. i].
But the Tana of the following Boraitha deduces it by analogy of
expression from (the rules given in) the wilderness [Numb, x, i-io].
As we have learned, the words " When ye sound an alarm "
[Numb. x. 5] mean one Teqia and one Terua. Whence do we
know that they shall be separated, perhaps it means that both
together should be sounded ? Since it is written [ibid. 7] : " But
when the congregation is to be gathered together, ye shall blow
but ye shall not sound an alarm," we may infer that they must
be separated, a Teqia by itself, and a Terua by itself. But whence
do we know that there should be one Teqia before the Terua ?
From the words [ibid. 5] :_ " When ye sound an alarm " (i. e., first
a " sound," or Teqia, and then an " alarm," or Terua). And
whence do we know that there should be one after the Terua ?
From the words [ibid. 6] : " An alarm shall they sound ! " R.
Ishmael, the son of R. Jo'hanan bar Berokah, however, says : It is
not necessary, as it is written : " When ye sound an alarm the
second time " [ibid. 6]. The words " a second time " are unneces-
sary, and to what purpose are they used ? To form a general rule
that on every occasion on which " alarm " (Terua) is mentioned,
a sound (Teqia) must be used with it as a second (or following)
tone. Possibly all this only refers to the practices followed in
the wilderness, but how do we know that they refer to New Year's
Day also ? Therefore it is written : Terua twice to make us infer
by an analogy of expression, and as concerning the New Year
Terua is written thrice in the three passages, [Lev. xxiii. 24] :
" A sabbath, a memorial of cornets " ; [Numb. xxix. i] : " It is a
day of blowing of cornets " ; and [Lev. xxv. 9] : " Thou shalt
cause the cornet ... to sound " ; and for each Terua there are
two Teqioth, we therefore learn that on New Year's Day must
be sounded three Teruoth and six Tekioth.

R. Abbahu enacted in Caesarea that the order should be first
a Teqia * then three single staccato sounds, or Shebharim, then a

* The Teqia is a long tone produced by sounding the cornet. The Terua is a
long tremulous sound. The Shebharim consists of three short staccato sounds.

"NEW YEAR." 73

Terua and then again a Teqia. At all events it is not right : If
by Terua is meant " a protracted groan " then he should have
instituted the order to be a Teqia, a Terua, and then a Teqia ; and
if it means " a short wail," then he should have instituted the
order to be, a Teqia, then Shebharim (three single broken sounds)*
and then again a Teqia ? He was in doubt whether it meant one
or the other (and therefore he enacted that both should be
sounded).

" If a person sounded a teqia and prolonged it equal to two,''
etc. R. Jo'hanan says : If one heard the nine sounds at nine
different hours during the day, he has fulfilled his duty. The
same we have learned in the following Boraitha : "If one
heard the nine sounds at nine different hours of the day it is
sufficient, and if he heard from nine men at one time, a Teqia
from one and a Terua from another, etc., he has also done his
duty, even if he heard them intermittently, and even during the
whole day or any part of the day." The rabbis taught : (Gen-
erally) the soundings of the cornet do not prevent each other
(if one can blow a Teqia, but not a Terua, or pronounce one
benediction and not another, it might be said he should not blow
or pronounce any benediction at all. We are taught that the
one does not prevent the other on the fasts of the congregation
and other occasions when these are needed), nor do the bene-
dictions ; but on New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement
they do.

" He who has just finished reading (the additional service)
and only at that time obtained a cornet shall sound on the
cornet the three sounds three times." This means, only when
he did not have a cornet at the beginning (of the service) : but if
he had one at the beginning of the service when the sounds of
the cornet are heard, they must be heard in the order of the
benedictions of the day.

R. Papa bar Samuel rose to recite his prayers. Said he to
his attendant, When I nod to you sound (the cornet) for me.
Rabha said to him : " This may only be one in the congrega-
tion." We have learned in a Boraitha in support of this : " When
one hears these sounds, he should hear them both in their order
and in the order of the benedictions (in the additional service of
the New Year)." This only applies to a congregation, but one
should hear them in the order of the benedictions only, if he is
not in a congregation ; and a private individual who has not
sounded the cornet (or heard it sounded) can have a friend sound

74 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.

it for him ; but a private individual who has not recited the bene-
dictions cannot have a friend say them for him ; and the duty to
hear the cornet sounded is greater than that of reciting the bless-
ings. How so ? If there be two cities (to which a person may
go) and in one city they are about to sound the cornet and in
the other to recite the benedictions, he should go to the city in
which they are about to sound the cornet ; and not to that in
which they are about to recite the benedictions. Is this not self-
evident, because the sounding is Biblical and the benedictions
are only Rabbinical ? The case is when the reciting of the bene-
dictions in one city was certain ; sounding the cornet in the other
city was doubtful. He must nevertheless go to the city where
they are about to sound the cornet.

"Just as the reader of the congregation is in duty bound (to
sound the cornet) so too is each individual" We have learned
in a Boraitha : The schoolmen said to R. Gamaliel, Why accord-
ing to thy opinion should the congregation pray ? Answered he :
In order to enable the Reader of the congregation to arrange his
prayer. Said R. Gamaliel to them : " But why, according to
your opinion, should the Reader act for the congregation?"
Answered they : " In order to enable those who are not expert
to fulfil their duty." And he rejoined: "Just as he en-
ables the illiterate, so too he causes the literate to fulfil their
duty." Rabba bar bar 'Hana said in the name of R. Jo'hanan :
The sages later accepted the opinion of R. Gamaliel ; but Rabh
said there is still a difference between them ; could (the same)
R. Jo'hanan say this? Did not R. 'Hana of Sepphoris say in
the name of R. Jo'hanan : " The Halakha prevails according to
R. Gamaliel ; " from these words (" the Halakha prevails accord-
ing to R. Gamaliel ") we see that there must have been some
that differed from him ! Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak : " By the
words, " the sages accept the opinion of R. Gamaliel," R. Meir is
meant, and the rule arrived at through those who differed from
him (was arrived at) through other rabbis ; for we have learned
in the following Boraitha : R. Meir holds that with regard to the
benedictions of New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement, the
Reader can act for the congregation ; but the sages say : " Just
as the Reader is in duty bound, so too is each individual." Why
only for these benedictions (and no other) ? Shall we assume
it is because of the many Biblical selections used ? Does not R.
'Hananel say in the name of Rabh : As soon as one has said (the
passages beginning with) the words, " And in thy law it is writ-

"NEW YEAR." 75

ten," he need say no more? It is because there are many (more
and longer) benedictions (than usual).

It was taught, R. Jehoshua ben Levi said : Both the private
individual and the congregation as soon as they say (the passages
beginning) with the words, " And in thy law it is written," need
say no more.

R. Elazar says : A man should always first prepare himself for
prayer and then pray. R. Abba said : " The remarks of R.
Elazar seem to apply to the benedictions of New Year's Day
and the Day of Atonement, and to the various holidays, but not
to the whole year." It is not so ; for did not R. Jehudah pre.
pare himself (even on a week day) before his prayers and then
offer them ? R. Jehudah was an exception, for since he prayed
only once in thirty days, it was like a Holiday. When Rabbin
came (from Palestine) he said in the name of R. Jacob bar Idi
quoting R. Simeon the Pious : R. Gamaliel did not excuse from
public service any but field-laborers ! What is the difference
(between them and others) ? They would be forced to lose their
work (if they went to a synagogue), but people in a city must go
(to the House of Prayer).

END OF TRACT "NEW YEAR."

p p,par

a bjn ,nnx3 pxr3 B'3sn B'jnw bjn ,nsD ,T2j? nans
nsrni nan C^SIK nanx ,pBin jrnxi antrj? xzrn

rruj73 xiai

n 2x2 p2 fxaD3w osuip ^np 1^3 0
,0-322 p]ntr^ Ssn anaiK •'xau n*a ,pm pa ,as]S2 pa

ban B-IBIK SSn n^a ; pna nxaien 2x2 xae;^ ^ pn
»ai|3B2 nxaien nbi2 xats:^ ^a pn fpna
pa rnxEitsn 2x2 xata:ir nx ,-ifcix iirbx "2^ CT
/inxata aipa -.aix X2^py -2^ ; 3^322 P]-IW ,pna pa

,pn7ca ntoabi ^22 "sna psn^ Tann najj (n

tfxi bwi ,2"ipa2 rt»aSi ^22 ^na p:n^3 pscia
px amaam n-bpwn .naa^a naran aiana nnna p;n-3
nmaam nona -iwjyai p-r -iwpa Sax ,n^2n ^332 xbx p:nw
tpan .n^an "3sa xbt? pa ^n^an S3aa pa p:nu
omaa naixn naix ratr "2-1 ;wn m nn fD""naai

nans

* D n BM -n D

cai ,»K2n iie^a man n:»on '3 »D^»n»a IOK* naicn 1213 ,a*3Bn (n
nzi jo am bv Diaa Tonn n» iptrns- no 0:11 nrn natron n« ai»n» (: s pin)
i3'« im« p'ruon n%:nan »«n '3 n8i» ,^»j?^ inrtB' Buchler nssa nxnn
,,D » o » a nnisai niSnj onyS »p»nm nwom nson n:tron HK uiwo «
minntr ns'rna w SKyotr* 'i IQK 122 »a ^a nan i:'« nbipb pxn y p a n i ^ pi
jo uj»» am »Saa Tonn n» mptrnS nai ,nvo«o n£oan» ns 3"Ntro ,m« »aa jit^a man
awa tr/;o »"j«Bna n«i) ^"ysi /tripoa vn» am ^ai nn»»yn »an 'sS rB*tt^M3n nnai
na n:op yaao n'n o mw ^a' nanan nxsin^ nasptr -jan DJI ,(t«3^»ttO pwan
i2cn natrons \ayso N1? SSa Tna »a ; nsnsa ma-na i» jaSi^n nsnoa nnj;
naoos ,in«Olt3 DipD ,D^B3 ejtK" i>an (T /I

.{oips nr »a
nmaai i»yo .nna 'DOS iNan» na-\ »SDIO psjrS Nintr aianan j':y (n

nnS n»n »Sr /a'nn pan n» 'jaSaS n'an '3ra «^BP

p"®

pn ,p-nna a^trrva pxxasn ppnn
>n ma-1 iKtra anaiK a^aam ; -rxa ••an "-m ^r1
,bnn nyrai ,pmn» p*
6 ppbnaa ,papia jntt?
jn wzb nT-i1* -j-n rfu^vn-a ptwcastr a^an
11 "[ma Kbu? ; pixie ,r\*by
pn ,pmna fbia ,"iaix SDV ^an ; T«a
•nnapb pnnran ^snam
na am-vT ,-iwp npa"i»a nxacaaw paQ (a
naw nn pai nn pa ,paipi ; b^atoai n:w nrp
na emw nwp nwana n^a na tamw ,nae?3 nrnb nrcp nyanx
.paaa IT n"in ,paD7 niwp nxxa: ,T<a

nm« p^aioa /nxaitsn axa nxatD3tr nxi n^a nniK

aa by nmx pn^w ntnn nn^n cxi ,Snna nnix pntDV^n ,pna

" D "i em ^ D
/:saw pis

in j?n» (8 i"ts «ip»i) n-nra n:T:n atn pn ,j
onints iya» »"?» I»EN 'Ki ,m» ov n^n's wrtr sin nyn ]»a |nt vn
T nvna wna nsa^x ,:inaon n« natron i:yo3-n ,oSB>iv maima oa^no nj»a am
vhyn p:»a ID? iaSn nan 'NOB Sat? io« o"n nani .
nytra »a ,Dnow o»oan ^aw /oninon n« IMDB» ttb
12101 nc'n'? Sinai ,yso«a oSn nninan Sai comn ns ns nwaan ^SnoS iy
mpoa «so3n pnn» peo pit pi /ooSno nmnontr nipoa ixsostr pnnS trin? J

nn« n^aan n'aS vn DOIT ntr o isno5? nstron nKro ^D^DH ba (3

NOB Nso:n i^soa p?an Sa vn» mnm ,c"isj xano trnsi Sa 101^3 ann

nnvo» n^rn Sy INI ,iina Kso:n ]mno vntr
paoa DJ ntn cyam ; nnprno »Sa ]'N»sio
"i"nn .xrno trns irs o ,wn n:itr ia
oj ii»«i TNT wana nnsi ,nBic?D3 natron n« latsna jaSi ,iso pirn Nini n«tn nation

.i;triTEa pao sin ca» ,SxiB" nnxen tm'ca

aNa p3» »o Nip' "nsoiaS jic-sn,, ^ntr nwaian n^i p:y ,1KOO3{J> naiie (T
8»n na yjian /"nsoian niaN 'as,, nsipa N-n "no n'U,, : s'n nmpSno -nsi ,nsoian
pi ,'E"^,, pi ,nsoiaS '3tr,, Kip' prsna yawm /pc'xi^ «in la piani "nxoitsn astf

.nnna iioa iinan' csn »BIEI ,"'j?'a%

na,-Q f-"1

,-iaix mim '•an ; nwir TOT map: ,nibip D-nat ,m-i bab
.DV D'trbtf bnb amp ,D'nos DTiDsb "ix-n
araa xintf np n^na nx pauaa vn n^tfK-Q (n
Ka n*3D: I,T» irpnn ,pn-nai nmx prr:a nvnb ntrr

nn ,p ma irpnn nnan npaw ,|ipaw ^an na^ o

nap nban ,D"n nriaa inSip nbtr^ nas : jna
; pi ;

ra nanp inn:a xnnw natr nj pa p Kin pi rra H

»nanp nrrn na^tri p^rir Stra ,"iaix ntin^ ^an nia-'S
bpi ; pa pm*T3 D^nan I.TW ,n^rn Ssn ,nban by a
mxa i.Ttf mbicsn prpn bpi ,nnssa pbyia ins K?-^ nnsn
prpn nx p^soan naix ••or -an ; nia^ b^

" JD 1 BM T» D

ON p^ ,D'aS{s» nnaN1? pi o'nnaS nmx rnnao vn xSi n=Tan
i a'nna1? vnnaa vn ,|^3iN n'jnan vn ruaotr ,n«tsnn

« S'js n^3w vn vh

nay DH pn y-u ]yzh ,Nso:n i»an p nw
n« a^nS n»Sia» ia»n »*? nitya pi ,N*nn r6o«n hy m«
ss a« ^as ,ma'nn rvn N^ ni^iyno o jC'snaS Saton ian »Kma nn'n
pn n« ison aaxi .^^a nSia nvn'? noBB-ot? »»n n^iyo KO» a»
Kinty ann inn I'a'jin pa» wSi x»n na'nn •]« DKB» SKIB" nj? ^
mix nt^i nSai xv\v ':s» lann1? VJ-BTI vh «DC> trinS BW nStS' ia»

pna i» ; nac-n ma»

.nan SNIB" i^n ^3K antr oipaa /no'.ny ntyra NinB> ann
itr nnatn niana hy inspe'na pis» Niin» 'n ,'131 nKVDJB' n»H3 (n
p ins sin 'a «in ixni1? aiipe* in'naD n« panpa bxw ^>ar nyn ^nas?
n:B* ja inv i? t^tr nxiirr nana hy «Si niw p *iar ^j? xpn inaia ^ax ,in^j?aS naxatr
mSiyn p ]B ,^3 nVis N^nir n^j?1? aipv o nnaixi ma n^ p'ana o'sann ix ,nnx

.pma xSi cnipa vhyni N'n
.13 ,1 xnp'ia iaxsn x^n }n3 nnaa ,nDB> bnj )na 0
,r'aann iiu n^j?o K^I n»np xS na j'x minn ]a 'a nx ,niBN3 pbytD (T
^I'jioen p»Pn non 'ns maTa n:trany -Din ip»j?i /msxa D'c-DnE'a c'jnsn vr.tr »3£»
nmv. n?3 iSoca pro 'Satr paiana onp^i onj?a ohv lawnc- ins ni^iae ix-jaa ax V'i
T o jyi /iiais hva n^nnn uip» nnnwi isian hy nninns px TXB> iiun T nnn iaa
pS ,ia nay*? 1^3' x*? nnaian aiitr onann ia n'n mn iaini ;ravhyn hy Tan cnpnn
D'ann 'oisi^ .imaa nsSn |»s is ,ma nj pSin <DI» '11 ,mnvo nspna nxr \?nb

' n^ptrb anp ,na-t3b n^pwn pa iKxaarc mpjp («
sr pa ; na-ub iSa* ^acria^ nxna ,na-ub iSa< nai:1? ,a
iSsr nsiabb ,a'itfS iba^ D'xp1? anp ,
bs' prpb anp ,nbij7 ^ru1? prp pa ; n:iabb
rrarrab nxna ; nbip -bra1? ibs" ,r6iy

binS anp /:» ntrpa1? pbin pa ;
nxnab nxno /:«? -irrx:1? na"
n^nnb nxnab nsna h\>rh anpn nnx pabin ,SSan nt
ina ; n^ra nbivb ,nona nmo ••js'? 1x^x2:^ mp£ (
ma11 ^a "ix^ai nwpa /bnn nsr^a n^wn^a ; pbin

; rnxtan

n rvaS x^ni inTix naiyn nn m ; n-'B^w ^na:
n np^a ; nnma ma^nn .ni'ra: p-ia^ pbia:a

"i3"K f« ,nana

o -i L^ i -i -

3^ "IB

,nSp r»np pn nonp onan n-nan nimpS lainitr m>*o jo mapS is'Sn' xSir
n'Sptrn naw spin p nstnn norw ia«n ,nnain »3tro nw iijT'tra ejaan «va nxtr
nom mSij? pi pip nno» nana mj?a nan NO2> tryno T« ,in:n mr mijn na»nSi
e^oaa lap' i^S /IUOIN'? pnu nai im ^>a pip on'mre* n^p»n ^a jo n-non nrnp
naiaSntr n:nSi o»sj? oj; lain ]ai ^c'Sp^n cps jo mion nsmp iay 121 pin
airnn it?s Saa pin sin jai ,iaip 'Ttrao pn D»sj?ni pip s»n mnsfmv UED o»syna
mi .n?pn jo miann Tan natn PED nva pSi /nawKina im» ne-np mvnv nxSn
om'ay lanai ,m«ar tsna mian nemp iatp lan qoana map'? V'n /TannS/ mom

.'"sen tfn'Ea nxi nnatn nnsitrn bv

tt" ,nnna nan 13 DO7inn anr n'=n ina ttvaatr ipan ,nona nmo ^s^ (3
nxi annSs; nunan ixtf «? D'tnpn s)33 »a '320 ,]'Sin nam nnxa Sra qran »a ijrtpS
x^aai ,narSa mya nanan by mix Mn iaa psa ^a ,p*ipn niBO? n:»nn p im^a:
PCD 'n^a wn mi nan nnia ^sb nnx Dipa= ejoan KVOJ CN a"s»a ; |»SinS eiaan ss'
ma* Saa p awn: pSi ,iap» »atr i»yo qaaa i« c»aipn an ir« /:» icrya myao
' ,b:nn ny^a nS»iT msina oipa Saa Ksa:i qarn ntn nytaoi .nasw
nnsa na»:tf ann in« D'aSin /:» i»;*o epa n» nn» is'a'i ^i? not?
•vbm J)3an ,nianan pir nSit ,n:crn nia( Saa

aima i»a NSB: CK iaS ,mH bsb -vyn ^33 j^aw o-aSyn »nar 'a j>" (j
inipnir p? ,(nn« nS'Si B'O» wo ini' S*i) im: Nine' nrnS Sia» »a j;"i ,c'aSrS im«
nn»n nbiy-v ntyri .im: 'xma nsntrn n'a^ ix'sin? i^av jyaS nnx nrS 11;* psoa

,avb -i»an .rnbip na rnpiS V na rtznp vn na nan: .na-t:S
Kin DWK. : ^n: jna jmrr «m «rn» im ; D^nsS nmpm
mrai Ktan owa KS Kintr ba Aban nt C^ «vO 'n1? D^K D^K
"3tr iK^tti ; D^naS nmpm ,atrb nwan ,mbij7 ia nbs ,natz?K

.'"r,T D^na 'n n^n Km-

vbv aisp nij?»» c" TK ,121 HT»H «Vj? nn io«i ma ns Saw ,mip 112 IIPM ma n«
Buchler S» iiBon ,o'an;S vn n i a 2 i p n Sa ta nmj?n '3 na»on MJPOBVI raxi ,nra
n^nan nn'yym nta n»poyno vn n'ana noa «iipn «sa' ,V'an
n'ananS ip^nna 'no pi ,tsnpaa nt Sne'a vn» nnrn»a matrS n
» ,Sni invn pSnn n« ynra nasyS nnp^a n»»aj?n n'arun HK iS
,I#Q an n»n nniyn oiaoi ,iwa n»p rnisy nn'n» maanpn mwya nosy

.(oainirni

n w DtP -t£> 15

: 1*3 vn pwBtrB 'ntm ,ni3p'3 nptr : nntas .im'wa

.DW jnb ,TH xb^ ,3ij7a3 awi ,T?Katp a
,a<n:itoan rraa ww b^r ruiatr : tznpaa vn nunbw
in* ,rcaan a-iyaa DWI ,DMa-in nx prmB frr

vn »

: n^an nna bp proa

bv 7^1 ^no^aa a^sn ar6 panw ,w» btt? Ss? ; ant bw
ant bv ^inxi ; |nma xbi trmpa

•Tan Bs

pbpn : arrbs? ainai ,wnaa vn nnairc
ant ,
••a ^

,nbw 'm ,fmn p ,r3"p ; nxan
f^- : anaix a-'aam ; rnin^ 'an nan ,miy iia ,n3T> 133 j

,ant -i3na mns11 x? /ant. ; paipa mne-1

,18130 nian^urn pjn .mn^nn nn« i«s^« IK nine1? i^Dasno vn o»ai n«i^ IK
^ isnsn /am hv \rfnv hy ouea naio n»n O'aen nnSt? UBD ,Kin *tnpa j^ro//

.»Tipn jo iriKSs DJI nt3

y sina n»n wm ,iawn »3B3 il natro
ao "japo »im iswn 'asa a"a maj?n natrs isaa tth
.ia inaia T^B» "lU'pw ^J? 2"iaS fenn »3 IDK^ ,]'j»p vhy aina n»n
DK nSij? oisS naroS nai' 'aai nnin nj?a D'anaon ia^ts» ia V'n "n
^'atra "naia^ 1^5? ains »trtm ,n3n5?o^ n»syn Sj? niaia Saip

enp dais's mann» nman vn ia '3 *nniB3^ anrw »j?»a»n ^naia^n hy mana omaon
,nana nno^ vnt^ ntp»ni /n^aiifKin m-iBiB' nyaert nan n^K .ntr n'nt? mieani D»riprt
'o S//-i ,*nKon inio,, IWKIH ^j? : nni (o'^oin nj?n^) nnnvo nice' o'nnn vn DrpSy DA
eioan jotr )j?oS nrn icwa ns'StrD n«n nnc nij? iS nK»a iniap nnKi nKon^ myo trnpntr
»5?'3in ,*nvAi'i JCT »a»p im»,, 'v'ytrn ,"BVH iniov ^arn ,n«on 'ais1? pi npv K^ ntn
IHK niooS ni5?o 8"i»n OK ,^"33 imp *j?nso pip inio,, 'ts^onni ,"VT3 niaaip inioS^
,i35?ot? |Dioon oipoa IHK hs inion S»a» inaia niao1? ono K'sin» »IHK n»a iiKtrai DHD
lanai .natoS IK vnpvh nisan Ss^ rnpiS vn mop ono "naiaff aina rnn »trrn Sj?i
iap» nBD3ta» ,K»n i'3'pS omaon nyntr onaio nnsanr. »a Kin '"iS D'oann ]»at? KnaiScn
.n'oans na'jnnB' IOIK D"aoim ,S^3 iha naron Sj? rky*v lat
niaia1? n'trontro vnw n»aiwn niicwn \vy iiKanatr nn» ,'by 'in itDlwn (1
ia'K DK ^Kintr Sa iS'DKi fifing naa niinwnS T^wn^ inio m pi o ,iKan

miry rcbiy ,ni3nbw -TO nirbrc ,nnaw nirp nw^ («
xrsn "a-i rra Stzn birbaa pn rra bs? ;«npaa vn nri
?mvr nrrn p-m ;mwp JOTK a'mnra vn D'3nan po
•ma fnxn nw ^an-maxa DTa rniaa pw ,zracpn "in 1333
irnw naann nim ,papna n-ntr /inn paa ntrs?Q c^
n nx maab p^eon xb ,n^anb naxi xa ,nsnnana n3ira
.1333 jriKn DWW mn^a ij?-i^ ,inaiT3 nnsrw np
,nma pa-isi ,pssca pa-ix ? o^nn^a vn p\T) 0

paiao ,DSBTTT .onpw 3"-1 1:33 ,anpaa D-nun nitaa
«-ip3 nabi ; o-an nyir ,nmaan npw
sa-i »3na a^a -]iD3 bw n^mbx po^aa iatp v
PKXV nrnb pn^npi ,paao a^an ia : -iai« app11 p

«nsan |naa nnna
,pip -ipw /n^a" npw : anpab paiaa

p-ia

manan IK o^ptwi BIDS nna vn» nwnnw IJIDK las /nnciB' "iK'y ntf^ (K
|3i ,naina oaaS T ^ain H^ ntso^o n«anii n^oSo nnsp vn» UED nneity
•\vy nvhv iBDoa «npoa n»n» no *>3 nx iieon nntn nstrom ,nr tayao o'oipj? vn
"i j»pnn m«a»i ,mpDa onatan a'amn nnn mvy vhv naaa) ,onS empn
nnew a*'n vn no enen TI natroai ,(minn nn nna tnm1? nn^o rr\vy n
IJ?T o ,nnij riKTn natron pin p) .nvinnrnn vn joipo nt'wa enen pi
lyo^i ,D'aionpn n'o»a DJ nSiSs'H^ a»na n'n 13 icoom onBDon iana onwaK
iaia '^i« IK ,mn iBooa tramp nnan iapn ,nKtn nSean naiosn nK jionn aSo i»on
laaota oai ; D'emp onan^ imaairp nta 13 neooa trontron bv if?to yri p'nonS ma
jionnS niKin'? 13 nesoa pi onann Sa c'^onron *Thirteen-Club« otra man moia
.o'»j?n in ,*vn KIB'K ijjan' nno 'ooai (.ia naaoi vvn bs \wv
pojrno mn pni niaaipn miayS SIDCI 010 Sya n»n pan ,|na2 ne>y» (3
p^yw iiyn p o»vj?n HK J'^SBD vn pi ; o^wc vn mapian IK o»j^inant? o»syn -na1?
enpom i'j?n Ssantr mpn mj? ]'KB> IKT itrto IWKT tnpoa my raja jviKni ;n:ro^
The Pen, iaiBDa j»jn ; ntn mon nK mW? nsiB' »3ED ,no ntn jnani /nnwan n»o

tateuch etc., Chicago t 1894.

,pnv p »DV K3K Kin ,Bnpoa vn nnyw j"» »a IDWH ,D^nnBt3 vn p\*n (j
vn onytr nya» pi o»oann npS ^aK ,'38* npoa vnir D'Vnjin n'anan ]o isa
nu pS» ; oma 'Miotsn nni p*onaa own ISIEB' msie a*» 1^33 vn nvinneTini
D'3»i onio»a nj?c»n ai»»nn IB>K natron nSwi ,nnin rya rrt»Kn nwien 1^33 nvinntm
pi ipSn D'osnni) n»n p nnsns »3 nKia /oita vn KIB'K HIOIKI invo OB» K^a
,(ioSinS ntrp van ntra itni'Bi ^nvstron by ^KBna HKII ,n^apno K^I niytmno
v»pi |Ha3 vn niSiun »3 ,m^ian iina nwap mn^t n'Kipa /pC'DS^B (1

mi uty ^s is

ax ,a-tf n ip i? prnao ,iornn uaa na^tr ^ en
vn *6 ,1*6 DXI ,ib

rorcS nnx : wnpaa rn mDtrb -«n o
nainb pm: xtan "xn<i /c^xtrn ns^b ;
sn ns^b ; ^xtrnn naina ponsna D-
,DV a^b^b nnxi ^nsinS ip-nt /Sa ai:no
^n^an pnab TIIX ia is^totr ^a bai ,nm« pnma
«nt|an pia r\zwbb pbai3i n-'oia p-iaa:

nmn na« DM ,lDnin WDD nSNB' 10 (n
in» span n»n DMI mean eioana o'tnp vn mpa M"a ,aiSa JPC" N*? inmn

vn ,iomn nj?a naipn jnaty myan DJ? m» iW oiaom o»aaa iman Ta» mamnn
V»jno ww ovn otr i^y aina n»n o ,MISD^ iniM jn»Bpo vn M^ oninn hyi nooa iS

jo D»B» onvs M'ao leStrw nioSna ,ni3B *nK> 0
IWM nnnvia motra enpoa vn mai matrS nani .nstn npnvn nwyoo n»ai onan

,a:pa» rbn nntyS TW ma'»rA i«i ,nu

pxi ,panax nratrai pau ntrbrca prims pj$ o
,rrn» pa pn ,a^rca nine paaa -na-'xn Sy n-nw
n an "6ap jrnx^ ,nanan ?pw -iipbxi ,D"ya
/nj ,137 ,b;y : frpbp ainai ,tinpaa vrt mamn njm^ 0
:y : jrrty airo rraixi rn ntran naix 'xw p ;

DJ? ^ ara ,b:iy .TIPP xioim ,Si xtoin /

-^a /u ; m2p:i onat o

; 12^2 n^x *ZD: ny raira ,nat ; n^x b'^a pn ,niapai onat
•D^maco S^r mana vhv ^D: ay tratra ,Ktoin
n:iaa xint? ,j3nr Six ib "[Sin ,D"ao3 upaa mnw "Q CT
',n"nK Sitx ib xa ; nmn iseo bapai ,mpa ib jn^ ,mamnn S^

,rnpa |ia:a bapai ,mamnn nx x^na n-nxi ,nt bax nr pxa
T'W ,insaa pnr nbtt?1 ,inna DXT ,wnpnb n^mn n^mn DXI

'2 vn D'SniB" oa IK ,0'iS ,n»3na n':it3an vn DM mate r»'» natron nani
^aiooni o»anan naian n« ny^h nsnn D'JINI ,«aot »o3n nmn nta nan

Die Priester und der Cultus von Prof. Buchlrr 1BD3 ]"J,*S V^J? ,B11D116a OJ?aoi

nnryS DK ^a ^D'sSK^ K^T niKoV K"? ihy ~&b n'anan IEDO o nx*v natw Wien, 1895
nt'K ?p c'jnano pi n':iODn vn onan nr« ^y jai ,nwn ai n»n o^n 1200 jai /O'B^K
na» 'DO ^33 nto ~ny wian i:msi ,47=67 iso or nxi ,D'Syis"i onSo DJI onan

vn »ipaa niN'ty:n 110 ,pnme px (3

ai vntr jnawn onnn«i ,nyatp vr\v ]»SaiD«n onnnw ,D'3tr vntr jip'^npn
KOVI Ton 'oca nwao ono nn« :o niora nani .001 D'aiao vn on»nnn

.rbyxb latan iBDna

n»n» n»n o'aoan SaS,jmo vn D'awjaip hsb oooan /nionin njmx (3
oa p»5DD n»n *'•«„ omm vn D'ltr nn:» nnarn oa onyi O'»aa 'aoa nani ,trTpoa
onina irontrn jaSi 1:00 Sna nnvo toa n»n o^'sS Sa« ,tyaa waip K»:onS
i matspm o^nan mapam onatn j»w nnpaa ?3K /^K,, laanptr »oS JOD
"Ktain,, omna itronrn D'yuson janp hy\ .ipan ]O waipw 'ob "Sayff onina
/cn'aoai nns ntrrai D^M 'atr N'an1? rvn nn^yn ^ysr («ann 'asra n«a nvisntr
o>ynwon a»>ayn by Sas ^nmna natintr D'ao:n n« onb nnS p»£3DO K a i n oninn
,v' tjSa |o» aiSi n^io nnx jno-y pii ,omn 'ne»i nr,K traa pi s'anS onV n^n
vn monin ntron 'a ,ioi» n»n »«ty jai pnvo joa1? ins n*n t<b 'a ,o^o3nn
»6i n»oi« ]n^y aina n»n» low )" oa invn na nx.ro iSnan"? S n = tt Q i n aina n'a
natron p nxis iai nnanx vn tnpo:ir n'aoon ^a 'a ,W3 nSap nrvn pso »^ai nnay
nj; mSiatrnn jai n»oix pn n'anan inn ^a:o umby nnx an JOT) D'aoan ^aa nosy

onny i^ap nvnya oai ,»xotn '^n nn«

an D tP P"is

pis

ma'ninn bp DPUB p pnr : tznpaa TTW piaon jn ib^ («
•p'pn bp rpnns ,niDMBn bp bxiatr p rpnna xa'aDan by rrnx
n'lana nma rrntp ? rrnns iarc tnp3 nab ; •'ana m rrnna
lain mim ,D"PB -bin bp rpn« p .pwS a^parc PTPI ftrnm
,rpan -?p "aa p ,D-np&' n'rp: ^p -ia: p ,rna -"raj ,prrrc
nirpa bp ID-IJ jva ,*vun Sp <|ln p Di-uin ,h&xn Sp xnx p
nancn Sp ntpbx ,nmtDpn nwpo bp orioas n^a ,a^sn nnS

p on;ai

}-\ ' a

pis

nnn «"3 /njtroa aann «in» piioon vn in« iota «S ,|'JlOon |n I^N (K
\>yy\ ,in 'jaa pjioo vn» nn'onni o'aion pi msto naron 'raw ,in»3n nnsn man

o'ananvntr :}n ,niDMsn .'T n:Bt33 ixarv njemnn
*non p'tnnS ruiaoS vans vm ,w miay »oi n miaj?
nm vne» »3iBDi anpnS nans nn'n mhv nr« Sat? nisaipn p prp .inoS '01 nvn
Tnoa pypn n« rh lan'trimip anpn mip n«an bsv mon p.nnnS na DJ paiooS vn jons
»:n nmn1? nanxj naT noam pwaon nan '3BQ ]»a-ij?no vn wi ,in»Sy iai» K'JI aispn
,tnpoa n«o S'jnn lan n'n D^VO ^in .'jtOB" mxen enTea p'y ;n^>Kn manyr.
hy D'sn' D'aSin vm ,anp nnaa nyai«n pi miayn nya nn^y o»«{n3 nunan vnt? »:DD
,nma n»S n»tnp i«'a' vhv nwaipn i»a n« ^aK1? vn n»maio na vai t?»» h
nxicin nipoS i«»anS nSnair nn« ^a ^j? a»wn vn o'ainam ,n»j?o 'Sina n»on ihra
n3inon pi numan ?aa a»n3 nsi ^mb nm D'siao vn jaSi ,nn'nnn nnnn
Saa «"a D|{7tyii'i tyipaa pi vh ,prrv nain .innatrn nnn nvy* "in ^ane>
/osya tnaa n'n» n3iaan t«n jna .B»ipa »«aSi S^iS 'SiyS n>a ran1? rKmoai p»n
hiyih ,nain nuiaa vn ntS DJ ,D'iyB> n^yi .nsaia miayi miay ^a .rnanS nwo IK
nan^o nya «?» ^K cnpan n« natrS msan n»n ]a o ,tnpan n« nee^i ijr» ^a
fvgn Its'" »Str loipo ^>y iai» ^a nn'aya vn n^iaam /van 'oaa i«an» itr«a /naaoi
vn ,jtr» ona in« n« I^KSIB vn n«i ,1^ {?ajinB» mpaa a^ao aoo
hy o'3iaan na1? nnn« nuiaa ntS vny p^ps Kip3 n«n mi imoa
n« o'l^a vn iai /nuaipn naipn n;*a yovrh cna ooa vntr ownn nan
nn»trn H' nsaan -\tn ,m3aipn n:ipn nya n»iKin nniatan n« lot '

n>:aao naaa naaiySi naoinV ''na poyi ]uy nn»n naipvn av Saa ,n»aye 'ntr nansa
n^3 vn ma n'3'isan j'saiKn IBI ,r\biy nnapn ]3y iTn»» I»MI rin«i in« Sa nyen
mpn» K^B* I'saw*? vans vn yia» Vaa mSn a"» yvny vntf n^Bn Dni> ]ai ,D3^oaN
nr^i ,Tan 'oaa i«iaan ,nn»3am nnn» nai ,B"ts> Str \rrr\v by n'nsia vne* nj?a nina
vns» nansn? aa ,nn'3aS onaaiN nw jnma vn» nain rrnn ^D^3 n^ j»3iaan n»n
.inaxtei invp3i inaaw nwiSi o'aiaana im* SapS inva nsiaa n»n inn ini» j»B^na
•Sin »3EB n»p3 vn'tp n^nuB-ai onnaaa o»anan nraSna n»pioy o»ai c'traw vn oa
vn mai mat?Si .annva n'aiaa vn oSia Sy» ,onaan »oaiai ,s»npaa nSuin n»yan

naaS pi nnnva vne» tripaa

-ixw op I^B' jrraTi) ,nsabrc TOT -anx1? 11312'' mapn
ni3p:i ,mbip •nip'1 jaacp nnat naix ptri.T '-"i ; (n^an
e'DM "ixwi ,mbip jrrana ix^i ,Ds»Str TOT lanxb
-np-"?x "an nan nx '3X nxn naix xa'pp 'a-i ;n'an p-mb

"am /ima nx mwn

an "3J bp p-ixn nnsi jra vm ,ro33 wnpan Cn
imx •'STixb nsia^ ,-iaix -iip^x "3*« ,msipi n^aw ,

.n"2n pisb ibs11 D^DS: "ixwi ; nibip ;nsan
?3pan ba ; ns^bn nx pnpwa nv crw^wS nnj^ (o

;np3ixa pao11 ^w^wa nap ,np3ixa mnSo
nxi ; navbpn Sp wrpn TV ,np3-ixa pso11 ,np3ixa napi
S^pa irxi ; ib pann f|« pann axi ,ib np^nn ,nSio np^nn

.nana nstan xn-'w TP ,vmpa nx

onatn la n»an pna jo aits inv naro 'a ,insi cno na DK ,Kin »npon nyi »a

pi mn»nn niapa S:w anaon cpa n^ij,^ iaip'
»h mn qiixS nao» jaS ,ronpnn nj?a laa'K QK

IQK» ynaoa D»'BD "i "jaK ,M"'> nan DK n«n Kin »a iow ,8*13 anpn nno
nn« ^a *a inais TK ,nr3 onip 8^1 naroS mans vn on'3'ai ono voaa Sa wnpn
n i o n a m n»oaanff : IOKI an»B DM SSK ,yenn» 'n nana «ipn ,iS ninn mpa^ 3ip»
nternp I'osa hsv inyn nta nSa ,natoS ianpv monan »3 tymeo ID« nSi *entpn oSia «Sty
nnn rrto my B|'Dir6 iS n»n ,owa nionan Kiptr jva /p th DM »3 ; n»an pnsS ,tn nnx
orb jm nwiyi D»ao«r nia»ir 'aeo ,K»i3 ono

1303'tr onaian n» imp vn tr»n >3air matron nnt pay ,DV D'E'B'' nnx (o
t'ana vn n'na o;oon ^a^i ,tmnn Ss H* n»3n pna^i naraS -pxan -ian ^3 ^y Tnon DK
,arnnn ^3 ^y vn oni« D'axip vner o»npam ; n«an pns^i nara1? jnw n»ay»ty nanpn n»
^y enpnn n» ,iytrn Snn DM SSM ,ptan nK onaian 0^310 vn ,on3nn np'na DM» JDIIO
nya onS n»ayn onsian 08 ,Virn iytrn 'C3 pi oSer» K^W nmaA n'n nitnm ; navSyn
ininnM my mn myan n« iSap oa DM S"i /DnsiarD ySnn ,y»Snn OKI niaiMtr rai .Su
wan K^I on jnnT D'anam ,TB myan HM I'Sapn vn nan 'a ,iai« 'of>Bm»a SaK ,\rvhy

t"n HM^ y'rnnS nSion n«

pp nivan "inia nai* ^paw1 "a-i ; a'tznpn ^
nannn "inia naia wpp 'an ;mtr ^aS narinn
a^nan po xr:n "an ; mtr ^aS D-ODJ iniai fpota1? p «p
bab narinn "imai ,natab pp n^aoa -inia ,iai*

.nrvaa D-nia vn *6 nn nt
rwaa pwnaa ? na psny vn na n-niopn

prrpib /i3»ta wnnn xa ax ; nwnn noinna nmx pnpi^i pnnm

•n3w\i |» ixb DKI ,nwnn nanna
n maanpS p^im nnai pa vm ,roa3 wnpan o
"Ktp p ib *iax ; Ka-'pj? "a-i nan ,paua paawb

p-inm ,patra paaiK? |niK p:m:i ,p:

•nw^n nanna
,natan ""a:5? .TIKI nana }na nrvm ,roa3 wnpapi (t

t|ans:b naa11 ana: naix ntp^K w ,ma:i nnar

jnn «»» nnjr /nil^an iniD ? na n'tnj? no mart? rutpo qoa i8»a DM ,n:»n
p' 'i IOIHI ,niDiipn fwtrDaa n'aoano wnnr ninnn ^eny vn no ntrnn nS«»
"i Sa« ,n»avn nwaip j»»a Sua 1013? naton n»n» na mp ON nuaip ]uip vn»
,m-j?ts> n:»D qoan imoo ^npiS vn naton yp1? o ioi« tsnpn mjroo n'nnS
I'a^poi nrna moa pnpA vn o) ,0^203 hv nnon »is'oo iNtrae' na h"~\ D'aoa
mail) nstn natron ]o nam .ma iS mn« nyn n^nan po n*ii ,ni» 'SaV (npino mo
iica nan Sa opnno n'aioon iranan vn tsnpon pta <a nwia (nva»an Saa nV nana

'i )ai cnpon jota o»awn n'ans vn MJ,»O»M ye"« vniaNi )ns n»n
.nnasa ipbn i«i anion n« ijn» K1? nn nai ,o'3i»nn ounan ]O n»n
.|VDan »BO nioi8 jno nn« J»NI anaon lana mp'nrw nva»a naaS ^K^aa n;n
vn ntrinn natroi mapp n:»o natrn ^ioa iKtran V'n ,miOpn inio (n
on»n r«i vasn «So K'n niitapn mo n ]«n ,0'tnnn n^pro niapan nmtspa
na» 'jaa i«»a nin ,vaon w'ja pi Sou a":! nn naap iW Tntr jnai ,nv.» pmi jSnaa

.niopn »3BBD nno nt'K

oa n« "?p'o pSi n'an pna1? «in y"n ia«» tnpn nno ,VD3J tr<'^pD^ ^3 (1
n'aip nvnS nansn w^i niapn »aaoD loa ,"210^ n»win nnan enpnn »xen pa vn
,]opS nvatrona nta nan' ru" DJ pi natoS n'iKin n«n nnana D^IKI ,naron
inv ntaia »nna voaa »npon nn »a /inynp .nitspn »aoooa na i»ono »«TJ? p
paoiwn my» hy thihin rpao p1? IB>K ; losy naron Sy ,natoS B»i«nn nnan
.cwnpon nyn^ 'Ntia iaia' T*»J?» ntnn nanno nm« pnpiSi
,n^an pna"? xin cnpn ono o 1210 «"T DJ ,mblj? ^3iV^ "naD1 Dnat (T
nSj" a^tf na n» natan TO IKS' K^ na»o^ ]^it<in nBt?y nnann »a noT r^aj?
,ma wy ;aa laion j?»in' 'i ^i ,iosy nrran TI«^ maio*? 71*0 p^tr n'an

pie

,pTBn na pnpib ? na pwip vn no nannp; («
n nuanp f?ai ,D'3sn onbi ,nnbn inwi ,naipn ,Dn
••an jnawbn nanna paw pbtDia ,rrr3wa D^n^ao naiw
nnx *|* ,iS max ; n:n iaiw ai:na nxnn. *|« naiK 'DT*

.nia^x bra K^K p*a pxw nai*
nanna pxa nmnt bw pwf?i nbnwan n'$?ui
,rnp paw pwbi ,nbnwan Tpw waai ,ma
i«ii'wa pxa "i^pn -"amac bai snirisnm ^yn naim rD^a
pwip D^YIJ D"3na ma waa : -laix bisw xax ; nawbn

jna pnpib ? jna pwip vn na nawbn n-'W
nan ,wnpnb nawm ,mnb
xbi ,wnpn bwa pnanwa px
ant ^pip-i ? na pwip vn na nannn nmg)

/p^an pie

nnis n'npi1? vn PHO ,n3trn wa nSnaw ntrtnn nwwn p spni
no nxi:n n'S-w nipa nr»ND nixi1? nnn wnbiv vn ? nsp w^i ijnr w1? TNIT
T na DiSB'n KS» nmw *nots^n n»so (n"3 sipn) Hipon pirSa nonpar no-npn njc»a
nis-T ]'Ki ipsn Kin ^an n*p'a»n naraw 'asa /naoo }aipn Kavt^ mip mpy^ in«
vn I'jSn nnDitrm nnnn .nxianm D'nasn n« en^n1? onn« n'an^ «SaS mtrn
nn« ^a5? tp»w nxiann n» ia up i"?Ka a»na n»n e)oai ,nae6n nonno niatr o'
nvnS nanira TH» laipy iaio nan IOIB> nvnS mw ananotr ioi«n »DI» '11 .ona
nuaip i«BD »a n« ,onSn 'ntri iciya inioa na'jn j»» Sax inw anao

.(n*i nwi) nc1 ]'ya ma'sS onw anao «in n» i»n» ^o nnp
nvan B-^B^ oaaa n*n KSw roan imo ,nmnt be' pe6l rno (a
<*y v^y o^p vn» ,m:a aipaa imM pama vm nac^n n»» Kipa ,n^nS
mo na»oa isan' ia»tsB» /non« nns1? traa D'tnp vn nrn qDanoi ; mSjm «Sa
oK^ jai ,KDva nwan* na'BB' vaip pair pa^Si STKTJ?S rftnc'DT TVB^ tra^n iai

.pp'n o»ans vn QM

vn na natrSS fin «)Da isw niy nS« ^a nn« DK V'i ,rDB>bn ^^ tnio (a
pen nSioi naTon "?j? ioaS j»» map1? vby ,j=ip K»aa«r 'a *?a ,n^3" p
»a ,rr\B't# rKtn natroni ,ncD3a nitya owp vn
«n' ]yaS ,D'anpanS nTaa^ mnSoi n'aa» }" paip vn
,n»:j? Sr nijraa pi tripn myaa mino nie^ IID^B' ,IBIKI pSm y"-\ San
niaSn ,na»nBf nia^n ma'S natr IBS D'Sptrn qoa iniaa wyr na n»an cnan aann
iBa niyi ; naa^n n»tr myBB I'npi1? vn nS« ^aw nuaipn 'Bio n« ipaS jai ,maaip

.(pien nra 'T na^n uv nxn) ,nf?K
itae> D'Spiro ntnn noiin »* naair ]D'aa nn» yan DK ^*i ,nonnn "iniD (T

nanna nax^i
•p-o ,nipan 'T

xatr IK /:j?n rowbn pya

pa ibpwi /D333 bx^a: pi n.n S^? 0
,D-nn nninn PK .neipb ianm pisna nmnm ,omnn
lonn ! nnn ! nnn : ib onaiK jm ? arinx : onb ia

nanai n^tr ^iKaepa nanai nawxnn n«
nnn111! nnnn nx nsw «aw ,nana n\n x
rrwm ^xntr11 px owb nawxin nx nin .annn *im nx
,722 nw? rpwbw ,nb papian D

•minnn

.p anano n»
oyea naoo

* D •»

noan anaa ,naw f?n nx pamn nawa B'pna rw ^3 («
••an -nan ,nana n^pab nmj pi ,:nrr anaa ,macj7 aiiaa
ontrpai ,|VDa inxi mxa npwni antppa naix w p ; wpp
nnxa ^a^a nnxa anai« ppa» -"aii itpSx ••an ,axa npwni
anwpa via* na ^aa »bil?«a njNwii antppa ,p"Ba
IWBK w ,310 ay KIJTO s:aa ? '-urna "inxa IIBK «Si
nptrm anwpb imann s>h aiia era

nx
aina my ,naiK

,maip

"an ;a^: ,rra ^K : pa ainai

.xSaj ,xn^a ,KabK
xbi ,b*r:Da K^I Apaaa

^v n^pe-n mnsin
in'* n«anpa pSn
p»a n'j'nna o^p

m ,nn» ^

> " o n en n ^ Q

/w^w pia

-no Kin nrn pnen i*3y ,"o
ins hsb nwv n'Sptpn qs
i:a irae- nnxtr : eny vn
nvan

n« znyh

nrn

vm J»KD 'a nn« Sa nuop nwip

namnir
spano n
mnEooa jni«

nn»

18 nnaya .a .a .« nrmx »Stra numoo vrw maapn

rncipn n« i»«
nvanno nnxi

tjyij 'iS'ani ; in»s nuanp pa mapS span n« r»sia i»n matapn nieipna?
Jin 'asS o»o» 1*0 ptny vn pi ,nDcn mip trnn »sn Kintr iD»3a visa nrvn naitrxnn
nyea IK'JB npatr n:nn«n nvann p iS'nnn rvar onx iM'ya nty» nya IK
a"n«i .« niwa naaioan ncipn n« nny who ,'3 niwa naaioan ncipn nw
mipa nnmtr jvB»Strn iai .a nwa naoioan nuipS n:itr»T mip nn'nr n«a»n ja
niaaipa pSn int* SaS nww a'soan aaiyS na nxt itryi .a ni«a naaioon neipS
nioat? /jB'oS nm» noaa n'n K'? n'B^trS ixiaa oya Saa ]sbv /n»an pnaa i«
noian ovh n^rni oreni'S inv nanpn ^KIE" pK nwS naiwKin nx mm ,"vr\yh
anpn ^atf »:fia nipimn niana Sa S>ara wwhvrn ^KIB" pxa nipinin nain nispian
n'tsny vn T*ai ,nna pSn SKia^a K^aS n»m j»aniyo mpan vn ?"ay IK ; mip anp
rvn natr naa6S oaaan Sa oa IK minm ,n»xaan hy -\yn mv n»n» tth ]ynh Sna mmca
TiiKpaTiB iw Viaoi Sy:aa «S nai DO n»»x nna m onazn Sa ana TonS panne vn ,epan
natrir mats? ma'm o»aap ana w yapai pScna na K^I qoan -vnanS n^ia'ir mpa
,3nn D11S3 nivy DPB3 ,'iai n«p3 nn"m ainan S»a»a Sam ,epsn "vnonS n»Sia'
,i"xa 1*03 n'ats-n nsipn nK mnaS D'maia vn ]aS iai noon 'B' nyaira maaipntr
naipn mya vn |aS ,iiasn epaa niaaipn ian K^I inK DV pi Kin» myutrn an
,nona nc'yof) nuiJ |m .rvwten neipn n« inno TK IKW SI^K »sn ny nip'BDB
mo pa SiaxSi jontrS IIDXI piaa nnaiy iaa on niana Sw nnSini iSSn a'aarn
lyapt? ovoni .iwyan nancn mip oa nS'axS vn n»Kiri iSSn n»3BTn pa SaK ptryan
UKII n'Swn'S niSy1? o»Sai »?iy iSnn TXB' »3sa Kin ^ntyyaS auarn iSx nK
pi ma o'pSin w*n K'li mty p ,nD1K '«ry p .n'3pS nnS oixa nianan vn»y

.TK pi ]«' itryan onyiSw ,iwyan

*]* nai* mirr "an ; matp nb px nxtsnb ,rmp jrr>
,ni3i3-n pbpitr vn rnun fa bmw ibpwsw ,raacp \r\b px
wp3i ,pp3iD bipwb mn ^s^a biprcb i-nrr
38 ,nw jbi3 i11 p 'B br ^]K ,ppa» ^n
.^bc?3 xn3a nn ,D^ntr3 x-'sa nt ,j
imo ,nB"Kn rr-rtry

jnnnio naw« D^^I xtsn atrb K3 KIHW 73 from nr
^w nma ,nn:ab nmo "ima ,nbis?S nbi
-ima ,cn^3b D'-ru nma ^n^abtrb noa
ma ,"3j? iniKb "oy ima ,n"3pb a^ap
nan nma /n^nab a^nan ima /law imxb ^3w "ima
; LT^K X3*tr *w H3ia K,T nan "ima "laiK n^x
•nap bp tra3 ib 'paia nan nma

" D

'eS 'wn 13 nasp cnS p« vbyvh uzv
a»trn t"y ^:K ,mn mtnn ^pe> 'sn' nnn pam ^pe6 nnj?na la'Snn DNI runon 003
pn Sip»S D'N»n ]a»« o^ia 'a nasp nnS t? « IN ow ,nnira nsyu |ij?Dtr 'n
.anpi nsinr noa ij-ai ,yatso Sa if? pat? nxtsn a'^trn ,na';ninB' j?:ooa.
Kin j?n«i »*ai n"a nyi ns* nawon nx noon K'antr nn« ,'D ^^p ini» (n
pin tneoi ; pSin Kin o^ptfn iniDtr n"aa nnnoc' nwtn ni»on MK «'a» ,n"aa na^nntr-
nya wnpnt? no S*T ,nan imo ^j? pm o»o'aoo nSia^ npnsa» ian ^a hy im:n ja
S'aira jna «S n:n qcan »a <i:a ,i-i^

n onann Ss D^INI ,ncn Tina a;'j Kin |i»vn paa 'a IBIS 3'hi papa iaa nam D'

i«n ana D'oaicn ,-i'yn niyaa n<n ox *?:x ,TH' SB> epan n»n nx nan-

iaa

.-pin "itra ^aa maia-rib

nx Sparer Tpn ':a .nnaa nnsitr vn *p ,«npaa
OKI onaub ppatw nann main: DX ,naxrc is 133:1:1
ix /ixxa: .jnTinn p^pnr T?n ^ai ,vs?n ^aS ppa»: i
.nxan naw1? onb pSip pxi D^ptt? ibxi ibx f
IT 7J? ibptm ,IT ^y topwf? iTan1? i?pw im:p| (3
nx ,win mpao ib^r ?wn ; Spa nerin nonn: nx

nanan nanpi nannn na-in:

ibx nn. : naixi nira o^aap; o
jna K^aKV. ; p7in pma anaix bbn rrai ,naia pma anaix
,nai: imantr pw /nxiDnb iSx« ; pbin inianw pw /"•

•pbin irnanrc pw /nxon1? |na
u-1 o-bpwb ? nxianS n^pw pa na ppaw sa

•W PIS

o ant yaoo n»n

vn» »3BO ,'3trn nvo ami irw nsia ixp nncw rya vn ma'nm ,*Dxp'n«iw p« <?a
vm iama vb\ vajra painn fnua apa pn n»n ii^yn 7^ai nnwo nwnn n« nnS pnu
"PBIVOW nosi .nnws vnw nya ntro nnnpS o'^ia' vn «S IN maiaiin ntr
vn -pin 'wo »3oo 'a ; maia^pa Q'a»n n

OK h"-\ ,nonn noinj DX .enpn1? pra mo J»K la'ji ja nie^S D«anno onaun
x na utrna rxt? ,n'an pna IK maaip hy
L.SQ pSn c" Spy Santy on»a»a '«ann r

vnt? n^ptrn VSao uoxin iaa nx jaSi ,(n»an p-n i« pnpna pSn nn« SaS n»n»
ncipn nnntr ijr Tivn nan SaS nn« nsipa o»ron»o vm meip
K1? n» ^a« ,m»S iyun K'J n« na nnS o»a«e» nan n:a n^
na M'n ntn oytarn /onawn T^ lywv ny i«yn ua Sy n'Sptrn ia»n» TX ,nonnn noina
panpo vntr »3BO ,enpna Sj?o insy n» hy hpvn hipvh nan iS ]na HKS» nnnwS» nairoa
.(n^atsn) ^mime* n"aj?n n» «)« O'Vptrn Sj? paatroo vn 'a nuaS Tnj?n hy aa
no vnt? mya niaon n« i^tr pSinn e^oaza np' S"i /pwa ^3K^ (3
nn nna rwyi /Sprn n»snaS cno 'nnpSs* D'Spm nS« nnn iS» nn :
y niona ppS S»nroB» »oa : Kin n«tn nae^an jam ,'131 DJ3DH (
,ppan maono ainon r\» hpv ^a^3' nrw SSn no nynSty *»Sp«rS np« ntn
Sax ,nana ]imo /qoan iKBna nanaS om« n n » pn DM t« na ty"a njn?i ;pSin iman
/SSn noS iS'BK nana pma ,^ptrS i S K nn nai»i ai ^33 no imvv »oa

pma T Sy faip na n« nwtana nnynS na» n"a nanS nya jma ,pyotr 'n nox (n
nasp cnS w n»Sptf a"KB»a ,2'ySo -saa na nupS Sian n«an? nasp pKB* uca ,nana

ptwn D^ptP

n naai ;pabpn 1x2 pmtoa nana nwpaa pa'Twai ,nana
(.npa) ^n anai* D'aam ,-TKB "an nan ,*pa npa ?

" D "I B> 11 " S3

itrj?03 awn i:'« watjro nn'jin nn Sapi VSR '02:2 fhn DM ca IR ,IHR mwo nin1^
TK pi o'enwn p) ,VHRD ori» nap D'HRHO THR Ss I'JRS nn^in OK |'amn usty 'aec
nnx 'rs I^RD rnSn istym ip^nru i»R3 Sa« D'onw nontr nj?a nona i»j?oa o»a"rr

nn»a non n^nKntr nj?2» V^RO jaiai (/lenwo oni» n:p
DBDS '3 ':BO ,nn»:tj> nj?a yho D»3ni3 DR pa^pa n'3«n

in TR» ,Dn3?3 ^plB* DH»3R lf?R3 HB 3rH'l i'jn R^B* t"3

nosy hv «^i nn»aM w «in DBDS

.pa^D 11BB

K .pwa? ib'nnn tznpaa inwwo .tznpas iaw» .-warn
*6 bax ,a'T-irwa anasn an; ,a^K-itzn wb 7 paatraa
aw ,rp bp Sip^S van b'nnnw jtop ba .a-atopi nnajn
*mbtr 'DTI "jea a^nan ns psswaa pK ,paiB
jns ba : n33s3 naia p Tjrn n-nn" ••an naj$ (T
jna'ba K^K/S *6 ^atpianv -ai ib ISK ,Kioin ir«
: o ^pi) jaxpb n: xipa o^nn a^nan^ «Sx ,xioin bpiw
anbn ^n^i naipi ^nwi /baxn xb n\nn ^^a pa nnao

as ,a^ropi DHapi DTOJ paawaa pK TIOKW ^

pxi ,jna pbapo PK ibpwu? a^mam o-iapn ,p"a p^apa

rvnhv Tpi mai •'rpi a^at -»rp (p^a) pbapa
: bSan m Xp^a pSapa maisi nms bax)
Kin pi ,p'a pbapa pK ai"3i ~m PKW Sa ^p^a pbapa
n^a msab 13^1 aab *6« : CT mtp) naK3w ,K*ITP n-1 ^p
an: ^a^xn^i a1"!1? : pa^pa pa^mr ibx^ o

T by ,
naix TKO sai ; IHK pabpa a^n ,nan

p T»

n-\

nn»n nowai ? nmK *nsvb D«S«' w«n n»'n ,ona prn w^ B« 1013 ,13 (T
vn non Sas ; D'ins D3»« MoSyn xam ann nnx -[Sin ^anir 'aeo ,«!» nntn n:j?on
.ani« iman oAtr o-n »3Bai nosy naioS itrm n^ttnon
naV (n'3iio») owan Sy ^oi'ya ,0^3? ^Jsp |TD pbapo r«) (n
n»n vSpvnv 'acoi .IJ'nbxb JT3 ni33^ «i>1
IK /p*i^ tiiSi;* ,nma Sa« ,wnpon rvaa
,nno n^apta /nr
in nmna
hpvn hpvo \>» KOW wB-m ,rui^yn hy Ton enpn T-n'rwiw 'acoi/naroa

192 p nnu K1? n"3Din nynf?) mina iiown ^p» »nsn SB» ^p»oS mv ruvon
jo ]«Sp Kipa ntn yianm ,Sp» ^n Sa*? oyo pan in'B» wn*n jaS (
inw ]ma M'H ,p '*cj? a«n Kins' »aco K^I nn'on nn'oo pn
vn K^ ,n'am: vn» on3B» nn'Dnn ,0'Sptra o»a«n B3»KB> onoiK vnv o'an

.n^tr 'a-n »3co ,maia^pn HK nno

,avn K^I nn»on mo pi intw ,iSae»a nsno jnw f>*n ,'iy n1 by bplBTi (t
nap OK IK ,I^K nSisno IK inv nona iwyo ,'«1 ponwrn pnxn .jwSpn IWB

ntram ^msn jn trp^n prare TWO 111x3 CK
nmrnn nxi ^n^Trn nx p:pnei p3*03 nb^en nx p-np ,13 -i
nnspn nx pr'xei ,n^3in -onx bs prcijn ^an nix-ipa nxi

.D'xban b? FIX pxm
,DiT:sS ps^trai pnpip rn ruwxi3,rmrp •
irpnn ,a^*nn by pa-wei pipiy vn ,m<i2j7

.nbia mwn bz p"i"paa
; runes pauv vn m:nbw ,13 ntrj?

JDT ,p'33 nn«3 nm»

»ani ,('D mow) laron apin tsnr6 inns p»«in mna «n»i ,ICI«:B'
,D^N^3n byi .nonn HDIPJ nva u pron npintr ova
p»ip la l"03 .^laS anp njrntn jot r»tn nyaty airo ,manj,»no
nnyn anr UEO ruroa nKT nornS TJIS n»n 161 ,n*'3 1'iip mnsa Sa« ,D<3~>33
anp> mayo nanr noin mspion nnpa Sa» ,nnaB»^ j3»w»n N^I nain nispio
DM »a ,nSuon n«np JOT n« conaa IJ?TW nawo
ff »oVtrn'a npios na^nn «'n ;a ntrio i"t33 oyen
^oStni'a ma^nn naxo n« enE1? D'ennn n'enson nosy ipmw o»pimn Sa »nn« nSixi ,'ia
nv »3'« , ]ie>!o ima nwma ji'M ,':B> mna nunwn mson ^ar /maS1? n«a n:wanw
ai n'oran mo» nayw nnx ,D'3mn ns pjpnoi .nawano nxr naio naa»K
pna maimnw /ninipai maimS nyun Kim ,YTH ny pT Kin a'awa JOT Ka'ntr^s^
.Sa^^ 'asS nosy ino^? iSav tyoS ,inipa? pansi /wann hsi msipaai
,niao un ,m»B3 'an ,maioo 'an |nS qowna Van K'nn nyaw 'o^emn ioi« ^
,mtn nx I'Diitn /neny rfoy I'smyi ,noion nx i»pwai ,mBnpm monn /paiy
HK pj"¥ttt -K'nn nya «na» n"?K ioa niyi ,yiison nx I'nntaoi nay nay

nnapn nx p"sow IOIK 'oStni'ai p'Da ^D'atran ma'a iVp^pnat? ,nn3pn
Knne> ,xip' Koa KBOI (a"' Kipi) Kipa nxr n'aiai ,n»iaiyn ona IXOQ» K^
rpcnaa vn xS iiD'xn nain mtra /D^xban by t\x pNSI'l .*»aoo trnc,, moixi nwiip

.nntrn nx ipaS n'n^w vn ex 'a ,1^2 nnana

;0'xSaa nnra x^ »a wa DX o»mwn ]»tny rnw na ixaS xa xm.T 'T (3
rvtthvh xa' x? iwx Sai/, (8 '«) xnry ;a ipcn x'ny T'a ipenV paa ITDIO '^S
.nna ityantrnw ,ms3y nsiy 131{TD mtrn ^y /DPi^Eib ."airv
/myaoon nx Dn'Sy rvanS nian^iw nnx D'NBna vn avtbrvm 'aso ,nijnhtJ' 0
nx lE^n'tr nyn by SpnS ^nanoa *nxa onwyi nwan ny manSia-n D'O'ira vn »a ,
vn la D'nwyi ran p ixi ; nnS nnx ^a annaw ,mina ainan Spwn 'sn *?y orrniyo
latr'troi ; nn'Spw nx iSptr xS mvi pnaa 'xaS hpv 'snn nx ay x'van^ wipaa paw
nx wa» tya1? ,on'Spw wan xS ntrx nSx nx pxS pna oa jatraS iSvinn /wipaa
O'a»n n'ansn nai .nxtn maaS mnsis* vn n:^naa oa 'a ,p'32 nnx XK' ana cnonn
'3coi ,iapSna ma nasnS nWy ixsa nn Sax ,ma'S niaanp^ on^y itrx o'S-tra vn
'ann »asa ,nmx D'aaraa vn xS 'ay tmpan pra D'B'pnn

nbo }33 nnnx pnp-mi natron nx enan x->Dane> oavi mpo ban
xbi -iix'a -p* nsm'sc' Dipoa x-i»:ni nnxiao matron run ,nix baa nai
man mpo baa oyDae> ,D'aaa wiptj by »*cn en-rea wiax »ny5a p\»
war jyob D*aaa -ionn nx D'be>»a pii "PI-PS* "ima Kb Dan ,epov -IB>K
enra D'3"i*n ibbn nvj^oa mowo DJI"^ bba «nca |»KB' ns ba« ,onnai
tyob ^ T a b nvnb nxo yim nix^an pbi ,ionn nx n-bsrnb pi xb^ niK"3)

.njK^n rma pin

by IDVO ibm ,riDn D^tayo ,niK»aa ^btw o^emn '3 »vb«o pio
by D3i rfovB'b bxic^ i*nn ,Nii3Di3ni -:it3*Dn

pabpn pay niK'33 loa) 'baan o^tra ntn na
,uoo 103 it^x D'^nsn ^KB> TM pnn^n ib ^nnai pbins
«b o /onpaon nxo n D n e^pab inTob 3i^nx p3i (joipo nrtta
ip-oy D1B31 b an D'cn-ian !?33 so^n i:ji3n* DID os&'o N-vinb iin

m onuba o^e^n ^3 ; nwp ^B» nuaiann invs? »tm»D3 3*:
xn ^oyi oman ,D'aixnnbi ^oe'paN nybao nxra iry1 ,0'raon
by iby «b IPK onan /ana ^so IK 'opa nonbi ,«i»n? »nai ?y nan tnpb
^nana -irx no ba n3:a n p n v 0^31 ; ^nie'ps ib^yi1 Nt» nbn ,obiyb
p ,rm'2 xboa ib^QK ^naxbo nuaai niaaa iyjs xbi iy:a i<bi ,na ny
«b nny oa '3 nipxi ,nKtn nennn ^nsxbo naas vya'i 11313^ iona^ ,nip-p
*n'^y p ns>x3 .Qnn'aai Drrmoibn .on^anb ab D'B'x «bi »nyib "2 iyaa;
D^n?x *a'ya jn xvob n y ' K sbi yrx ob»« 'owa ^N n»xa -a ,ns ny
on^yaa onoao ba I^N »pxn *cyi ,D'Dixn oma ^a^ya xb IK a i N i
KiB'K noi ,nbiya n^xvoa my omoa erxra '3 yiv jyob pi ,trn naa

? onbi *b

jKorpn&o 'Dtro nia^n 'j?Kin K'ne' "b^on rn't,, nrn ^nab ^nxip
*nnpb '3 ^lO'JTN1 bab /tyiiao nxr ymo ^ani -b bxa^o "\ xbi .b bxs^o
n^nnK' j»an 'a%K p annx nsxboa -nano w&v ne'3 '3 ,*^ai» ix-n 'rsyb
^a i^ba' xb '3 rnpxi '•os'a enaw xb 'nb nnin ^a ,D^ '?a na viaxbo

.tnnn ^emso DJ 'anix

^bayoa *ana' ,b'n ^nr«' xin --a ,nnax xbi noax na p)yb ;man 'nai
niobnn mm bnanb nxm maam nbn;n naxbon nx nicab »a^jn pnx

.px ,iKnan IXT '•x^E'Di 'xae'Di ,'by naion 'n T3 noainbi mnxnb

.fain ,T'« mna , t K n a

nmpn

! C~n

^33 "NDbnn ^ nennn nxwrn nsnynn ,m33n 'nsxbo
nvnb ,XVN ns ny ww xb IPX n e»-j n nsxbob ^nx^n ,B»ba3X
nonb '3 ; pb mon rrbssn xnojn:? roroosn be> nvjetDn nK ensiD 0)
tmiD' ibf»n nvjtron bst^ ^ao ,prr «b njno mo p nxrn naoon n«
nnvn nsn ,D'p n^ntr |DT3 ,13 o^aan miajn bs^nn nnip
nvatron nx nnn^ ^3X .jownns p nayn pipes ws fnKnp^ nyn^ ,-
D^'IB' ^3 PB>OS *xv nsn oyoa Kin loanj 1335? D^em^n nnx ^o by

D-"lV-n HOT D'31O DJ'OK DX1 riHttVttDI D'SnN D^3^ nTO fl? D'Cn^BH HDH

^Dba n^riT ,mv biabs bso ^PJH ^oiinns D3 B'onB'nij ^nbw xb oyf>
D'^n'Bn bs D'3pinoi Q^aita vrr «?t? ntss ny n»«3T .novys

p ,1-I1VP3 1»3 b"T »*Bn Bm*D Dy DniDlb JB1« DW3
't33 DIB' ^3O1 ,m¥ blB^B D1B> ^3 1O1pO $>y 13T ^3

nannb ipino^ 1^310 nrs enTa 1x1 ; 13 pioy Hint? pjyn nbir
DBijn "iipon nx Diannn b-3^ nxn nxvins nxo nnw ^KI .rvn
PKB' no nt3 rvrv xh /ne'BSB' Dipo3 nyvo? ,i*6y SJ»DV xbi «»» y^i•
i«3b w«n nxp BTPea nwn nsoen ns ^iBb »b ^nboy p by»
D'B>r»B ^3 'b3D ; nstn nssob pn i^t^ni piK^ai BHTB nsnvn
nsbns nr biflSai nmx .Tts: bs ^301 /nnnx rnrooen
.pe«n ^nxvoi viyyi ,nsn nmnnn bs3 ^3nn p
on ^3 nx cnab H'3 nnby^ /xiipn ^nx ,'b nonoa
Kb ,^:^K'x^^ DyB3 ibxn nrjcron nx K"ipn? xnipn Dity ny /mjstD^ nmp
pbi ; n-'pia n:iDK> i>33 30 n pin p:yn nnn \y\ n^bon -nx'3 ib
wtry nsi .t^n^ai -i^x^3 nnxn np»3 nx ?sb pnnnn ino3 oipo o
ntny ^xtr 103 xb .D'jvxa noobo envon nx ^noann >b::xn nwnns na
D'3B3 nyoD WTvy **vn BnTD Dy nnnx nin3DD

: Kim ,nxo
(III)

nDDD

nennn

nvnn nwrn

,enno

HHD

•nabnn "D-sno n-onn

54 East 106th Street.

•wn

THE INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

10 ELMSLEY PLACE
TORONTO 6, CANADA.

II!

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "New edition of the Babylonian Talmud"

See other formats