json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Eruvin/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Eruvin",
    "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
    "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
    "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה עירובין",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Moed"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "\tA mavui (an alleyway) which is higher than twenty cubits — he diminishes. [A mavui which is not wider than sixteen cubits, even though it is open on its two ends to the public domain; or else, sixteen cubits wide, but not mefulash (open on both ends), but one end open to the public domain and the other closed — By Torah law it is permitted to carry therein without any tikun (act of amendment). But the rabbis decreed against it lest he come to carry in the public domain, and they permitted it with a lechi (a stake fastened in the ground) or a korah (a beam, laid crosswise) to serve as a sign. If he placed the korah higher than twenty he \"diminishes.\" That is, he lowers the korah below twenty. For above twenty the eye does not notice it. But if there are amaltera, i.e., designs and carvings, even above twenty cubits, it does not require lowering; for the amaltera cause it to be noticed.] R. Yehudah says: It is not necessary. [For the purpose of the korah is not to serve as a sign but to act as a partition. For we say: \"The mouth of the ceiling descends and closes up.\" This being so, what difference does it make whether it is within twenty cubits or higher? The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] And if it is wider than ten cubits, he diminishes. [For if it is wider than ten cubits, it is not called an \"opening,\" but a \"breach,\" and we require an opening. Therefore, he diminishes the width of the entrance until it is ten or less.] But if it has a tzurath hapetach (\"the appearance of an entrance\"), even if it is wider than ten cubits, he need not diminish. [Wherever the sages say \"tzurath hapetach,\" there suffices even a stick on one side and a stick on the other, twenty cubits or higher, and a stick above them, even if it does not touch them, and even if it is more than three cubits above them. All of the \"cubits\" (amoth) mentioned in this Mishnah and in all of Eruvin, Succah, and Kilayim, are an amah of six tefachim (handbreadths); each tefach, four fingers and the thumb. It is just that sometimes the measurement must be made with \"tefach atzev,\" i.e., not leaving any space between the two thumbs, but having them touch; and, sometimes, with space between the two thumbs, not having them touch, this being called \"tefach sochek.\" How so? When the measurement with tefach atzev is for stringency (of ruling), as with a mavui higher than twenty cubits, in which instance he must diminish, and with a succah higher than twenty cubits, which is pasul (unfit), he measures with tefach atzev. And when the measurement with tefach sochek is for stringency, as with a mavui, which may not be lower than ten tefachim, and with a succah lower than ten tefachim, he measures with a tefach sochek; and so, in all instances.]",
            "\tWhat is required for a mavui [so that it be permitted to carry therein through shituf (partnership)] — Beth Shammai say: Lechi and korah. [Both are required, Beth Hillel holding that by Torah law four complete partitions are required, and halachah leMosheh miSinai (\"a law unto Moses upon Sinai\") permits lechi and korah as the fourth.] And Beth Hillel say: Either lechi or korah, [Torah law requiring three complete partitions and no more, and the halachah leMosheh miSinai adding the fourth through a lechi of any size or through a korah as sign of partition. \"Mavui\" here is a mavui closed on three sides and open to the public domain on the fourth, with its length greater than its width. For if length and width were equal, it would be like a breached chatzer (courtyard) opening into the public domain, requiring a board (pas) somewhat longer than four cubits, or two boards of any size. Likewise, a chatzer breached into the public domain is regarded as a mavui and is permitted with a lechi or a korah. And a mavui permitted through a lechi differs from one permitted through a korah. For a mavui permitted through a lechi is regarded as having four partitions and one who throws something into it from the public domain is liable, whereas a mavui permitted through a korah, even though it is permitted to carry therein through shituf, is not an absolute private domain, and one who throws something into it from the public domain is not liable, it being ruled that a korah serves as a sign (distinguishing the mavui from the public domain), and a lechi, as a partition.] R. Eliezer says: Two lechis. [He holds with Beth Shammai and requires a lechi on either side. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.] It was said in the name of R. Yishmael that a certain disciple [R. Meir] said in the presence of R. Akiva: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ in respect to a mavui [the width of] which is less than four cubits, [both agreeing] that either a lechi or a korah [suffices]. Where do they differ? Where it is from four to ten cubits, Beth Shammai requiring lechi and korah, and Beth Hillel, either lechi or korah. R. Akiva said: They differ in respect to both. [And the first tanna also holds that no distinction is made between wide and narrow. The Talmud explains that they (the first tanna and R. Akiva) differ in respect to a mavui less than four tefachim in width, one holding that neither lechi nor korah is required, and the other, that either lechi or korah is required. And it is not clear from their statements who requires it and who does not.]",
            "\tThe aforementioned \"korah\" must be wide enough to receive an ariach (a small brick) [so that a permanent structure could be built upon it.] And an ariach is half a brick of three tefachim, [so that an ariach is a tefach and a half wide.] It is sufficient that the korah be a tefach wide to receive an ariach along its length. [This is what is meant: If the korah is a tefach wide, the additional half tefach by which the ariach is wider (the ariach being a tefach and a half) can be plastered the width of a finger on either side, so that it will be wide enough to receive an ariach. Thus is it explained in the gemara.]",
            "\t(The korah must be) wide enough to receive an ariach and strong enough to receive an ariach [i.e., to support its weight without breaking. And this is the halachah.] R. Yehudah says: Wide enough, even if it is not strong enough.",
            "\tIf it (the korah) were of straw or of reeds, it is viewed as if it were made of metal. [R. Yehudah says this. The halachah is not in accordance with him.] If it were crooked, [so that an ariach could not rest upon it (as it also could not if it were round)], it is viewed as if it were straight. If it were round, it is viewed as if it were square. Whatever is three tefachim in circumference is one tefach in width. [That is, what is the required measure for a round korah? Whatever is three tefachim in circumference — i.e., whatever requires a cord three tefachim long to go around it — would, if squared, have a width of a tefach. For thus do we find with the yam (the reservoir) made by Solomon, viz. (I Kings 7:23): \"And he made the molten yam, ten cubits from brim to brim, round all about … and a line of thirty cubits compassed it roundabout\" — whence it is seen that for every cubit of width in the circle, there are three cubits of circumference.]",
            "\tThe aforementioned lechis (1:2) [The lechis concerning which R. Eliezer and the sages differ, R. Eliezer requiring two and the rabbis one — these are their specifications:] They must be ten tefachim high, [as the height of the mavui, whose height is not less than ten tefachim. And even if the mavui were much higher, a lechi of ten tefachim suffices], and any size in breadth and thickness. R. Yossi says: They must be three tefachim wide, [something substantial being required as a partition. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.]",
            "\tAnything may be used as a lechi, even a living thing. R. Yossi forbids it, [fearing that it might die and no longer be ten tefachim high, and people, not noticing it, continue to rely upon it.] And it (a living thing) renders unclean by reason of golel (\"top-stone\"). [If he made it the golel of a grave, it always renders unclean if touched by a man or vessels, as a tent over a dead body, even if it were taken from there, it being written (Numbers 19:16): \"And all that touch on the face of the field one slain by the sword, etc.\", which is expounded to include golel and dofek (grave-frame). \"Golel\" is the grave cover.] R. Meir rules it clean. [The rationale pf R. Meir: Any partition which stands by virtue of a living spirit is not a partition. This is not the halachah.] And divorces may be written upon it (an animal). R. Yossi Haglili rules it unfit, [it being written (Deuteronomy 24:1): \"Then he shall write her a scroll of divorce.\" Just as a scroll has no living spirit, so, all that has no living spirit (is valid as a divorce). And the rabbis? (They would say:) If it were written: \"And he shall write to her in a scroll,\" it would be as you say. But now that it is written: \"He shall write her a sefer,\" sippur devarim, \"relating of words\" (of divorce) is what is intended. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna. And if he wrote her a divorce on the horn of a cow and gave her the cow, in which instance it does not require cutting off after being written, it is kasher. But if he did not give her the cow, but only the horn, since he must cut if off, she is not divorced with it.]",
            "\tIf a caravan encamped in a valley and it were fenced around by animal gear, it is permitted to carry therein, so long as the fence be ten tefachim high and the (composite length of the) breaches not greater than (that of) the structure. [And even if the breaches are smaller than ten (amoth), if more is breached than standing, it is not a partition, and it is forbidden (to carry) even opposite what is standing.] Every breach which is within ten amoth (in length) is permitted, being like an entrance. [This, provided that what stands is more than or equal to what is breached, in which instance there is a (valid) partition, and it is permitted to carry (even) opposite the breach.] More than that (ten amoth) is forbidden. [Even one breach larger than ten (amoth) forbids (i.e., invalidates) the entire fencing, even if what stands is more (than what is breached), for people do not make entrances larger than ten — so that it is a breach (and not an entrance). And this, only if it does not have tzurath petach (\"the appearance of an entrance\"); but if it does, even more than ten is (regarded as) an entrance.]",
            "\tThey may fence it [a caravan that encamped in a valley] around with three ropes [tied to stakes]; the second above the first, and the third above the second, so long as between rope and rope there are not three tefachim. [From the bottom rope to the ground there are fewer than three tefachim, so that it is like a standing (partition). For any space less than three (tefachim) is considered a solid. And from there to the middle rope there are fewer than three, making a \"standing\" of six tefachim less two small measures for the two spaces. And from the middle to the top, fewer than three tefachim, making nine tefachim less three small measures of \"standing\" in the three spaces.] The (combined) thickness of the ropes must be [three small measures] more than a tefach, so that the whole be ten tefachim.",
            "\tThey may fence it with reeds [stuck in the ground and standing straight (a perpendicular partition; that of ropes, being a horizontal one)], so long as there not be more than three tefachim between one reed and the next. This was stated in respect to a caravan. [They were lenient with them, requiring either a perpendicular arrangement, as with reeds, or a horizontal one, as with ropes; but they were not lenient with an individual, requiring both perpendicular and horizontal. (Three men are considered a \"caravan.\")] These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages said: They spoke of a \"caravan\" only as being the common instance, (but it is permitted even with an individual.) Any partition which is not (both) perpendicular and horizontal is no partition. These are the words of R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah. [R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah differs with his father, saying that even a caravan requires perpendicular and horizontal.] The difference between the first rabbis and the second: The first rabbis permitted it to an individual only in an instance like that of a caravan, i.e., when he is on the road and cannot make a regular partition, but not when he is in the settlement. And the second rabbis say: Either way (perpendicular or horizontal), whether for an individual or for many; whether on the road or in a settlement. And the halachah is in accordance with them. But one man or two who camped in the desert may not make a partition larger than beth sa'atayim, one hundred cubits in length by fifty in width, as per the tabernacle court. And three or more men constitute a \"caravan,\" and they may make a large partition, even several mil, as may be required by them, their belongings, and their beasts, so long as there be no empty space larger than a beth sa'atayim in the partition. Those who go out to war [even a sanctioned war (milchemeth reshuth, as opposed to milchemeth mitzvah)] were exempt from four things: They may bring wood from anywhere, [with no concern over theft, even if it were cut and piled by the owners]; they are exempt from washing their hands [before a meal. (But they are required to wash after the meal, that washing having been prescribed by reason of Sodomite salt, which causes blindness. A risk (to life) is of greater stringency than a prohibition.)]; (they are exempt) from demai [They are not required to separate terumath ma'aser from demai (suspect produce), as when they bought produce from an am ha'aretz]; (and they are exempt) from making an eruv [an eruv of courts, such as from tent to tent within the camp surrounded by partitions; but they are required to make an eruv of (Sabbath) bounds.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tBoards are placed (upright) around wells [in the public domain. For the wells are private domain, being ten tefachim deep, so that it is not permitted to draw water from them and take it out to the public domain. Therefore, boards are arranged to form an enclosure around the well as a private domain. He can then draw water from the well and place it there, and bring in his beast entirely or its head and most of its body and water it] — four dioamudin, giving the appearance of eight (boards). [\"dioamudin\" - \"two amudin\" (boards), each one of these four (corner-pieces) giving the appearance of two boards (\"dio,\" Greek for \"two\"). When he sticks one of the corner-pieces in the southwest corner, one wall extends to the east and the other to the north; the second in the northwest corner — one wall to the east, and the other, to the south. So that when he places all four on all four sides, each side has two cubits of wall, cubit facing cubit and a space in between.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: Eight (boards), giving the appearance of twelve — four dioamudin and four plain boards, (each board) ten tefachim high, six tefachim (= 1 cubit) wide, any thickness, and between them ,the distance of two teams (revakoth) of three (heads of) cattle. These are the words of R. Meir. [(\"four plain boards\":) a one-cubit board on each side in the middle. When there are ten cubits or less between the boards of these four corner-pieces, R. Meir concurs that plain boards are not needed. And when there are more than thirteen and a third cubits between them, R. Yehudah concurs that plain boards are required. They differ only (in respect to a distance of) from ten to thirteen and a third cubits, R. Meir requiring plain boards and R. Yehudah not requiring them. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah. (\"two revakoth of three (heads of) cattle\":) For the width of each (head of) cattle is one and two-thirds cubits — so that the width of six (heads of) cattle is found to be ten cubits, this being the permitted distance between one board and the other according to R. Meir, a greater distance requiring the addition of plain boards. (\"revakoth:\") as in (I Samuel 28:24): \"egel (a calf) marbek.\"] R. Yehudah says: (Two teams) of four (heads of) cattle [thirteen and a third cubits], tied and not free [So that it not be thought that \"as if tied,\" but not literally \"tied,\" is intended, it is stated \"and not free\" — for greater stringency, to reduce the space between them], one [team] entering and another leaving, [in which instance there is more space than for two leaving or two entering — for greater lenity, less constriction being required.]",
            "\tIt is permitted to place [the boards] closer to the well [and to form a small enclosure], so long as [from the edge of the well until the boards there are two cubits (the length of the head and most of the body of the cow), so that] the head and most of the body be within when it drinks, [but not less, lest he follow his cow and take the pail outside the enclosure.] It is permitted to place (the boards) farther, any distance, [to make the enclosure as large as he wishes], so long as he adds boards. [For the farther the distance from the well, the greater the space between the boards. He, therefore, must add boards so that the distance between board and board or board and dioamud be no greater than thirteen and a third cubits, as per R. Yehudah, whose ruling is followed.]",
            "\tR. Yehudah says: [He should make not make an enclosure for the well greater than] until beth sa'atayim (the size of a field requiring two sa'ah of seed). They said to him: They said \"beth sa'atayim\" only for a garden or a karpef, [which do not serve for habitation. A karpef is a large enclosure outside the city, where wood is stored.] But in a corral [set up in the fields (today, here; tomorrow, there) in order to fertilize the field with animal dung], or a sachar (an enclosure) [for animals in the city (Some read it \"sahar\" (a prison yard)], or a muktzeh [a space behind the house], or a chatzer [an open space in front of the house] — even (in) five kur it is permitted (to carry), even in ten kur. [For all of these serve for habitation. And, likewise, the boards of wells. Since the water is fit to be drunk by men, a bona fide (human) function is served.] And it is permitted to place (the boards) farther, any distance, so long as he adds boards. [That is, just as one may carry in all of the above, which serve for habitation, even if they are as large as ten kur, so one may move the enclosure of well boards as far as he wishes. And this is the halachah.]",
            "\tR Yehudah says: If a public path intervened [between the boards], he diverts it (the path) to the side [outside of the boards, so that people not walk between the boards. For this would render it a public domain and negate the enclosure.] The sages say: He need not do so. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] Boards may be used (as an enclosure) for both public (water) pits, [in which instance, if the water is used up, they remind each other (not to carry in the enclosure). For they permitted well-boards only so that water be available for the beasts of the festival pilgrims. And if there is no water there, the boards do not have the status of an enclosure.], public wells, and individual wells. [These are also permitted; for, being live wells, their water is not depleted.] But for an individual (water) pit, a partition ten tefachim high must be made. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah b. Bava says: Boards may be used only for a public well, [in that it possesses two positive features. And this is the halachah. And it is permitted to draw water and to take it from the well using well-boards only in order to water the beasts of the festival pilgrims and in Eretz Yisrael alone. But it is forbidden to take out water for a man himself to drink. Instead, he must go down in it and drink or make a partition ten tefachim high.], and for the others, he must make a \"belt\" (partition) ten tefachim high.",
            "\tR. Yehudah b. Bava said further: It is permitted to carry in a garden and a karpef which are seventy cubits and a remnant by seventy cubits and a remnant surrounded by a gate ten tefachim high [Since he stated one stringency vis-à-vis boards, i.e., that they may be used only for a public well, and he now states another stringency, that even when serving for habitation more than beth sa'atayim was not permitted, \"further\" is stated.] so long as there be within it a watcher's booth [(For even though it serves for habitation, only beth sa'atayim is permitted, and not more)], or a house to dwell in, or (so long as it be) close to the city. [For since it is close to his house, he intends to use it constantly, so that it is regarded as serving for habitation.] R. Yehudah says: Even if there is within it only a hole, a pit, or a cave, he may carry within it. R. Akiva says: even if none of the above is in it, he may carry within it, so long as there be within it seventy cubits and a remnant (four tefachim) by seventy cubits and a remnant. [And not more. And the first tanna, above (2:3), viz.: \"They said to him: They said 'beth sa'atayim' only for a garden or a karpef, but in a corral, or a sachar, or a chatzer, etc.\" — that tanna also holds with R. Akiva, that where there is a habitation, only beth sa'atayim is permitted. Where do they differ? The gemara explains that they differ with regard to the small amount by which beth sa'atayim exceeds seventy cubits and a remnant squared, the first tanna holding that a complete beth sa'atayim is permitted; and R. Akiva, seventy cubits and a remnant by seventy cubits and a remnant and no more. And whence do we derive that beth sa'atayim is greater than seventy cubits and a remnant squared? The gemara asks: How much is sa'atayim? (And it answers:) As the court of the tabernacle, of which it is written (Exodus 27:18): \"The length of the court shall be one hundred cubits, and its width, fifty by fifty. And it is expounded: What is the intent of \"fifty by fifty\"? The Torah is telling us: Take the fifty by which the length exceeds the width and \"surround\" the fifty that are left to arrive at the (permitted) Sabbath limit — seventy cubits and four tefachim squared. How so? Make of them five strips of ten cubits wide by fifty cubits long. Place one to the east (of the fifty by fifty) and another to the west, so that we now have seventy wide by fifty long. Place one (strip) to the south and another to the north, and we now have seventy by seventy; but the corners are defective (i.e., unfilled), each corner being ten by ten cubits by reason of the addition. From the fifth strip take four pieces of ten (by ten) with which to fill up the four corners. Take the remaining ten by ten, which are sixty tefachim by sixty tefachim (1 cubit = six tefachim), and make of them thirty strips of two tefachim each, each one ten cubits long — all together, three hundred cubits long. Place seventy on each side, so that there are now seventy cubits and four tefachim by seventy cubits and four tefachim. But the corners are defective, two tefachim by two tefachim. This leaves you with twenty cubits. Take eight tefachim and fill up the corners. You are left with eighteen cubits and four tefachim length by two cubits width. And this is the \"small amount.\" For if you spread them around equally, the additional width amounts to two-thirds of a finger. For you must make of it a strip 283 cubits long to surround the four sides. Thus did I find it explained in Rashi, and it is correct. Rambam \"sought many accountings,\" but I was unable to fathom him. The ruling is in accordance with R. Akiva in \"Even if none of the above is in it, he may carry within it.\" But in his differing with the sages of \"They said to him, etc.\" above, contending that it must be (at most) seventy and a remnant (four tefachim) by seventy and a remnant, and no more — in this, the halachah is in accordance with the sages. For it is permitted with beth sa'atayim, as (the area of) the court of the tabernacle, which is somewhat more than seventy cubits and a remnant squared.] R. Eliezer says: If its length were greater than its width by even one cubit, it is not permitted to carry therein [even if he reduced the width and added to the length, so that in the whole there were not more than beth sa'atayim. For it is only a square that the rabbis permitted when it does not serve as a habitation.] R. Yossi says: Even if its length were twice its width, it is permitted to carry therein. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi, who differs with R. Eliezer, a square not being required.]",
            "\tR. Ilai said: I heard from R. Eliezer: Even if it were as (large as) a beth kur. [This refers to the argument vis-à-vis garden and karpef above.] I also heard from him: The men of the courtyard — if one of them forgot and did not make an eruv, he is forbidden to carry into and out of his house, but they are permitted to do so. [If the next day (Shabbath), he gave up his rights in the courtyard to his neighbors (for he had forbidden them to carry from their houses to the courtyard, the courtyard being their common domain, and his part being forbidden to them) — by giving up his rights in the courtyard, he also gives up his rights in his house, even though he does not say so explicitly, and he becomes a \"guest\" of theirs. For this reason, even his house is permitted to them. But he is forbidden to carry in and out of his house to the courtyard, even though he is permitted to carry in and out of their houses to the courtyard (as anyone who enters his neighbor's house, who is permitted to carry therefrom to the courtyard, it being the domain of one person.) Still, he is forbidden to carry out from his house. And we do not say that since he gave up to them his rights to his house it is regarded as their house. For as soon as he takes something out from his house to the courtyard, he regains possession of his property, and forbids it to them. This, as we learned in respect to one dwelling together with a gentile — If he gave up his rights and then, again carried something out, whether unwittingly or wittingly, he forbids it (to the other)]. And I also heard from him that one fulfills his obligation [of maror] on Pesach with akrevanim [a vegetable whose leaves resemble a scorpion (akrav). And I have heard (that it is) bast growing around the palm.] and I questioned all of his disciples, seeking a second [for these three things, i.e., one who would say that he, too, had heard it from him], and I could not find one. [And the halachah is not in accordance with any of them. For in respect to garden and karpef, more than beth sa'atayim was not permitted. And in respect to the men of a courtyard, one of whom forgot to make an eruv, and gave up his rights (in the courtyard), but not in his house, his house is forbidden to them, too; but it is permitted (to carry) from their houses to the courtyard. And akrevanim are not maror, and one does not fulfill his obligation with them on Pesach.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tAn eruv and a partnership [in a mavui (see 1:1)] is made with all (foods), except with water and salt. [We are speaking here of eruvin of tchumin (Sabbath bounds); for eruvin of chatzeroth (courtyards) are made only with bread. \"With all\" in our Mishnah is non-categorical, as stated in the gemara: \"We do not learn (rules) from generalizations, even those qualified by 'except.'\" For here we learn \"An eruv is made with all (foods), except with water and salt,\" even though we also do not make an eruv with morils and truffles, they, too, not being foods, like water and salt.] And all (foods) may be bought with ma'aser (sheni) money, [it being written (Deuteronomy 14:26): \"And you shall give the money for all that your soul desires\"], except water and salt, [this not being \"fruit of a fruit\"]. If one bevows himself from \"mazon,\" he is permitted water and salt. [Not that he says: \"Let mazon be forbidden to me,\" for the only foods that are called \"mazon\" are the five species that \"sustain and support\" (wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt); rather, he says: \"I bevow myself of everything that sustains (zan)\" — and all foods sustain and sate for a while except water and salt.] An eruv may be made for a Nazirite with wine, [for even though it is forbidden to him, it is permitted to others], and (an eruv may be made) for an Israelite with terumah, [for it is permitted to Cohanim.] Somchos says: (An eruv may be made for an Israelite, only) with chullin (non-consecrated food), [for something permitted to him is required. And Somchos does not differ vis-à-vis (an eruv of) wine for a Nazirite, for a Nazirite can be absolved of his vow, and the wine be permitted to him on that Shabbath. But terumah cannot be rendered permissible to an Israelite. For even if he were \"absolved\" of his terumah-taking, so that it is as if it were never taken, it returns to its state of tevel, and may not be eaten until a different terumah is taken. But terumah may not be taken on Shabbath, even at twilight; therefore, it cannot be permitted to him. The halachah is not in accordance with Somchos.] And (an eruv may be made) for a Cohein in a beth hapras. [This is anonymous, not stated by Somchos. Beth hapras is a field in which a grave has been plowed up. A Cohein may enter there when he \"blows\" as he walks, taking care not to touch a bone the size of a barley-corn. He is, therefore, permitted to place his eruv there; for he can go to the place where he placed his eruv, and he and his eruv be in the same spot.] R. Yehudah says: (An eruv may be made for him) even in a cemetery, for he can make a partition and eat. [He can make a partition between himself and the grave, so that he not \"tent\" over it, as by entering in a closed wagon, in which instance it is permitted to him. The gemara states that the rabbis differ with R. Yehudah even vis-à-vis an Israelite, ruling that it is forbidden to place an eruv in a cemetery, \"Cohein\" being stated only to apprise us of the \"power\" of R. Yehudah, that it is permitted even with a Cohein. The rationale of their difference: R. Yehudah holds that even though it is forbidden to derive benefit from a cemetery, it is permitted to place an eruv there, a Sabbath-bound eruv being made only for the sake of a mitzvah, and mitzvoth not having been given for \"benefit.\" And even though the eruv is \"guarded\" there after he acquires (halachic habitation), this being effected at twilight; and the eruv remains after he has performed the mitzvah, the entire Shabbath — R. Yehudah holds that one is not concerned if his eruv is lost or stolen after he acquires (halachic habitation). And the rabbis hold that one is concerned, desiring that it not be stolen. Therefore, with the eruv being \"guarded\" in the cemetery the entire Shabbath after he has acquired (habitation) at twilight and his mitzvah having been completed, he is found to be deriving benefit from graves, something which is forbidden. Therefore, one may not place an eruv in a cemetery. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tIt is permitted to make an eruv with demai (produce which is \"suspect\" as improperly tithed). [(It is permitted to make an eruv) with a loaf taken from an am ha'aeretz, from which terumath ma'aser of demai has not been separated.], and with ma'aser rishon whose terumah has been taken, and with ma'aser sheni and hekdesh which had been redeemed; and Cohanim, with challah and with terumah, but not with tevel (untithed grain), and not with ma'aser rishon whose terumah had not been taken, and not with ma'aser sheni and hekdesh which had not been redeemed. [All of these are explained in Shabbath (18:1)]. If one sends his eruv through a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, or through one who does not acknowledge (the institution of) eruv, [such as a Cuthite or a Sadducee], it is not valid. [(\"If one sends his eruv\":) to take it to the end of two thousand cubits. And it is only with eruvei techumin that it is not valid if he sent it through a minor; but with eruvei chatzeroth it is ruled that a minor may be deputed with an eruv.] And if he told another to accept it from him, it is valid. [(If he told another) who is kasher to accept it from the pasul (the unfit one) and to carry it to the end of two thousand cubits, it is valid, so long as he stands and witnesses the pasul placing it into the hand of the kasher, even if he does not see the kasher carrying it; for it is assumed that a messenger performs his embassy.]",
            "\tIf he placed it in a tree [ four by four tefachim or more, standing in a public domain], higher than ten tefachim, his eruv is not valid. [For since the tree is four tefachim wide, higher than ten, it is a private domain, and he acquires habitation in the public domain. So that if he wished to take his eruv and eat it at the time the eruv effects acquisition for him, i.e., ben hashmashoth (at twilight), he would not be permitted to do so, for he would be taking it from a private to a public domain. Therefore, it is not a valid eruv.] Below ten tefachim, his eruv is an eruv. [For below ten tefachim is a karmelith (anything three to nine tefachim high and four wide being a \"karmelith.\") Taking the eruv, then, would involve only a (rabbinic) interdict of shvuth (resting). Therefore, it is a valid eruv. Our Mishnah is in accordance with Rebbi, who says: Anything which is interdicted by reason of shvuth was not decreed against ben hashmashoth. At the time the eruv effects acquisition for him — ben hashmashoth — he is permitted to take it, so that \"he and his eruv are in one spot,\" for which reason it is a valid eruv.] If he placed it in a hole [in a karmelith, as in a valley or in a field, desiring to acquire habitation in the valley or in the field], even if it were a hundred cubits deep, his eruv is valid. [For the hole itself is a private domain, and he acquires habitation in the karmelith. For at the time the eruv effects acquisition for him — ben hashmashoth — he is permitted to take it. This, in accordance with Rebbi, who says: Anything which is interdicted by reason of shvuth was not decreed against ben hashmashoth.] If he placed it on top of a reed or on top of a pole, which was uprooted and stuck (in the ground) [and which is not four tefachim wide below, in which instance it is not a private domain] — even if it is a hundred feet high, it is a valid eruv, [even though it is four tefachim wide above (for an eruv must be on top of a place of four tefachim.) (\"uprooted and stuck\":) Only then is it an eruv, but not if it were rooted — a decree, lest when he takes the eruv, he breaks it. For a reed, being soft, is susceptible of being broken. But a tree is hard, and ben hashmashoth there is no apprehension of \"lest he go up and tear off (fruits).\" But, we do fear that he will lop off the reed and be liable by reason of kotzer (\"harvesting\"). Or, with reed and pole, there is a possibility that he will confuse what is rooted for what is torn off; for many reeds which are uprooted and stuck in the ground give the appearance of being rooted, for which reason it is to be decreed lest he lop off what is rooted, thinking it to be unrooted. But with a tree, there is basis for a decree of lest he go up and tear off, thinking it to be unrooted.] If he placed it in a closet and lost the key, it is a valid eruv, [as when the lock were tied with ropes in such a manner that if the key were not found, they could be cut only with a knife. The first tanna holds that since it could be opened by cutting the ropes with a knife, there is no skilah (stoning) interdict here, but one of shvuth (resting), the one who opens it \"destroying\" in the cutting of the ropes, all who thus \"destroy\" not being liable. And anything interdicted by reason of shvuth was not decreed against ben hashmashoth, as stated above. Therefore, it is a valid eruv; for he can bring a knife, cut the ropes and take the eruv.] R. Eliezer says: If he does not know that the key is in its place it is not a valid eruv. [R. Eliezer holds that an instrument may be handled only for its regular use and that it is forbidden to take a knife to cut ropes with, it being used regularly to cut food with. And since there are two (interdicted acts), the handling of the knife and the cutting of the ropes — even Rebbi, who says that anything forbidden by reason of shvuth was not interdicted ben hashmashoth — even Rebbi concurs that in this instance they did decree. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.]",
            "\tIf it rolled outside the tchum, or a heap fell upon it, or it were burned, or it were terumah and it became unclean while it was still day, it is not an eruv. [(\"If it rolled outside the tchum\":) Since there are from the house where he lodges until his eruv more than two thousand cubits, he cannot go and take it. This, if it rolled two cubits outside two thousand cubits. For every man has four cubits from the place of his eruv, two cubits from the east of the eruv and two cubits from the west. (\"or a heap fell upon it\":) This, if it requires hoe or pick-axe to dig it out, in which instance it is a (forbidden Sabbath) labor and not shvuth. (\"or if it were terumah and it became unclean\":) For now it is fit neither for him nor for others. The tanna must apprise us of both \"it rolled\" and \"a heap.\" For with \"it rolled,\" since it is not together with him, \"he is in one place, and his eruv in another\"; but with \"a heap,\" where it is with him (i.e., within the tchum), I might say that it would be a valid eruv (if I were not apprised otherwise.) And if I were apprised of \"a heap,\" (I might say that it is not valid) because he can get it only with the (interdicted) labor of hoe and pick-axe, but with \"it rolled,\" where a wind might blow it back into the tchum, I might say that it should be valid. We must, therefore, be apprised otherwise. And \"burned\" is taught to apprise us of the power of R. Yossi (below), that even though it is not in the world (when burned), it is not invalidated because of doubt. And \"terumah that became unclean\" is taught to apprise us of the \"power\" of R. Meir, that even though it is \"in the world,\" so that there is reason to confirm it in its original status of \"clean,\" still, we do not accept \"status\" for leniency of ruling.] (If these things happened) after dark, it is a valid eruv. [For since he acquired (habitation) ben hashmashoth, we are not concerned about its going lost.] In the instance of a doubt, R. Meir and R. Yehudah say: \"He is leading a camel and an ass.\" [For we are in doubt. It is possible that his eruv effected acquisition (of habitation), so that his house is here (at the eruv site), and from here he can walk two thousand cubits in all directions; and he has lost two thousand cubits from his home (starting point). Or it may be that his eruv did not effect acquisition, so that from his home he can walk two thousand cubits in all directions, and he has acquired nothing around his eruv. Because of this doubt, he may walk only the two thousand cubits from his home to the eruv, for this is permitted in any event; but he may not walk the two thousand cubits from his eruv, for it may be that his eruv did not effect acquisition. And from his home, too, (he may not walk in other directions), for it may be that his eruv did effect acquisition. So that this (his home) \"pulls\" him here, and that (his eruv) \"pulls\" him there, like a man leading an ass and a camel. The ass walks before him and he leads it; and the camel walks behind him and he pulls it, so that he must turn back and forth.] R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: In an instance of doubt, the eruv is kasher. [For we confirm the eruv in its (original) status. When he placed it there, it was within the tchum, and clean, and there was no heap upon it, so that it is a valid eruv. And this is the halachah.] R. Yossi said: Avtulmos testified in the name of five elders that in an instance of doubt the eruv is kasher.",
            "\tA man makes a stipulation over his eruv, saying: \"If the idolators come from the east, my eruv is to the west; if from the west, my eruv is to the east.\" [He places two eruvin; one, two thousand cubits to the east of his house, and one, two thousand cubits to the west, and he says: If the idolators come form the east and I must flee them, let my eruv in the west effect (acquisition) for me, so that I have four thousand cubits to the west of my house. And even though they come only on the morrow (Sabbath), we say that there is breirah (retroactive designation), that ben hashmashoth his eruv on the other side (the west) effected acquisition for him.] (He says:) \"If they come from both sides, I shall go wherever I choose.\" \"If they come from neither side, I am as one of the (other) men of my city.\" [i.e., I have two thousand cubits from my city on every side, and I need not gain in one direction and lose in another.] \"If the sage comes from the east, my eruv is to the east; if from the west, it is to the west.\" [(If he comes) outside the tchum of my city, and I wish to learn from him — and now I do not know whether he will come — and tomorrow I will hear from men who come here from there by means of an eruv, etc.] \"If he (i.e., a sage) comes from either side, I shall go wherever I choose.\" \"If he comes from neither side, I am as one of the (other) men of my city.\" R. Yehudah says: If [they came from both sides and] one of them were his teacher, he goes to his teacher [and not to the other, for we posit that when his eruv effected acquisition ben hashmashoth, his will was that the eruv in the direction of his teacher do so.], and if both of them were his teachers, he goes whither he wishes. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah, one sometimes favoring his friend over his teacher.]",
            "\tR. Eliezer says: Yom Tov close to Shabbath, both (immediately) before it or after it — one places two eruvin and says: \"My first eruv is to the east, and the second, to the west\" (or) \"My first to the west and the second to the east.\" [If he had to go in one direction on the first day, and in a different direction the second day, he can place an eruv to the east and to the west on the eve of the first day and say: \"Let my eruv to the east effect acquisition for me today for tomorrow, and let my eruv to the west effect acquisition for me ben hashmashoth tomorrow for the second day.\" For R. Eliezer holds that Shabbath and yom tov are not regarded as one long day, but as two separate sanctities, and the ben hashmashoth of the first effects acquisition for itself and not for the second day.] \"My eruv is (for) the first (day); and on the second, as the people of my city.\" [That is, if he needed to go only on the first day, and on the second, he did not need to move from his spot, and he does not wish to lose two thousand from his tchum in either direction, he places one eruv in the direction he wishes to go the first day, and he says: \"Let his eruv effect acquisition for me for tomorrow, and on the second day, I shall be as the men of my city,\" who did not make an eruv. Or, if he had to go on the second day and not on the first, he says: \"Let this eruv effect acquisition for me ben hashmashoth tomorrow, and on the first day I shall be as the men of my city.\"] And the sages say: He makes an eruv in one direction (for both days) or he does not make an eruv at all; or he makes an eruv for two days or he does not make an eruv at all. [This is the same as \"in one direction\" above. Why need it be mentioned? This is what the rabbis are saying to R. Eliezer: Do you not concur that for one day he makes an eruv either in one direction or not at all? For he cannot say: \"Let my eruv be a half day to the east and a half day to the west.\" For two days, too — that is, for Shabbath and yom tov — he makes an eruv as for one day or he does not make an eruv at all. For the rabbis are in doubt as to whether or not Shabbath and yom tov are regarded as one day. So they rule stringently here — that he may not make an eruv in two directions, in that they might constitute one sanctity — and stringently there, saying below that if it were eaten on the first day, there is no eruv for the second day, in that they might constitute two distinct sanctities and not be regarded as one long day.] What does he do (if he desires the eruv for two days in one direction)? He [the messenger] takes it on the first day [i.e., on the eve of the yom tov before Shabbath], and he waits for dark [until the eruv effects acquisition.] Then he takes it and returns, [lest it go lost and he have no eruv for the second day, as it is taught: \"If his eruv were eaten on the first day, it is an eruv for the first day but not for the second.\"], and on the second day he waits for dark and eats it. [He takes it back on the second day. For it is ruled that if one makes an eruv with a loaf on the first day and he wishes to make an eruv with a loaf on the second day, he must do so with the very same eruv that he designated as such the day before (saying nothing), but not with a different loaf. For he would have to designate it as an eruv, and this would constitute preparation from yom tov to Shabbath.] So that he is found to gain in his going [That is, he effects acquisition for going (beyond the tchum) the next day], and (he is found) to gain in his eruv, [which he eats. And on yom tov after Shabbath, where this is not possible, he takes it there on the first day and does not eat it, and he returns there on the second day to see if it is still there. (If it is,) he waits for dark, after which he may eat it if he so desires.] If it were eaten on the first day, it is an eruv for the first but not for the second. R. Eliezer said to them: You concur with me that they are two (distinct) sanctities. [For you say that if his eruv were eaten on the first day, it does not serve for the second day. And if it were one sanctity, it would be reckoned as one long day, so that the ben hashmashoth of the first day would effect acquisition for both days. Since they are two sanctities, then, he can also make an eruv in two directions! And the rabbis follow the stringent ruling in both instances, as stated above, being in doubt (as to whether they are one or two sanctities.) The halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer, that Shabbath and yom tov are two sanctities.]",
            "\tR. Yehudah says: If one apprehended that beth-din might intercalate Rosh Hashanah, he puts down two eruvin and says: \"My eruv for the first day is to the east, and for the second day to the west\" (or) \"for the first day to the west, and for the second day to the east.\" \"My eruv is for the first day, and on the second day, as the people of my city\" (or) \"My eruv is for the second day, and on the first day, as the people of my city.\" [If he were afraid that the great beth-din might intercalate Elul, so that there would be two holy days (the thirtieth and the thirty-first of Elul), and he had to go in one direction on the first day and in another direction on the second, he puts down two eruvin on the eve of yom tov, one in either direction, and says, etc.] And the sages did not concur with him. [For they hold that they are one sanctity. And the halachah is in accordance with the sages vis-à-vis the two days of Rosh Hashanah. For it is not because of doubt alone that two days were instituted, (doubt as to) whether beth-din had sanctified the thirtieth day or the thirty-first day and one of them is chol (i.e., not yom tov), but also because of the possibility that witnesses (had come) from minchah on, in which instance that day is observed as holy, and the next day as holy, both (together) being reckoned as one sanctity. But with the other festivals of the exile, where they instituted two days only because of doubt, our not knowing when the great beth-din had sanctified the new moon, the sages concur with R. Yehudah that they are two distinct sanctities. (The \"sages\" here are R. Yossi.)]",
            "\tAnd R. Yehudah said further: One stipulates over a basket on the first day of the holiday and eats (from) it on the second. [A basket with fruits of tevel (untithed produce) — one stipulates over it on the first day of Rosh Hashanah, saying: \"If today is chol (not yom tov), let this be terumah for those; and if today is kodesh, there is nothing in my words.\" For terumoth are not separated on yom tov. And the next day he says: \"If yesterday was kodesh and today is chol, let what I designated yesterday be terumah for these; and if today is kodesh and yesterday was chol, it is terumah already.\" And he eats (from) the tithed basket and leaves over the terumah.] And the sages did not concur with him. [The \"sages\" here are R. Yossi (as above), who holds that they are one sanctity and terumah may not be separated thereon. And this is so only with the two days of Rosh Hashanah, as explained above.] Likewise (R. Yehudah said that) an egg hatched on the first day [of Rosh Hashanah] may be eaten on the second. [For if the first is kodesh, the second is chol; and an egg hatched on yom tov is permitted on chol, there being no hachanah (\"preparation\") for chol. And if the first is chol and the second kodesh, chol is found, appropriately, to be preparing for kodesh.] And the sages did not concur with him [vis-à-vis the two days of Rosh Hashanah alone, regarding them as one sanctity; but they did concur with him vis-à-vis the two festival days of exile.]",
            "\tR. Yossi b. Harkinas says: On Rosh Hashanah the prayer leader says \"Hachalitzeinu, O L rd our G d, on this day of Rosh Chodesh\" [(\"Hachalitzeinu\":) Give us zeal and gird us with strength, as in (Numbers 32:17): \"Nechaletz chushim\" (\"We will go ready armed\"). Another interpretation: \"Save us and deliver us,\" as in (Psalms 140:2): \"Chaltzeini, O L rd, from an evil man\"], \"whether today or tomorrow.\" [If it (Rosh Chodesh) is today, hachalitzeinu today; and if tomorrow, hachalitzeinu tomorrow.] And the next day he says: \"…whether today or yesterday.\" And the sages did not concur with him [both in respect to mentioning Rosh Chodesh on Rosh Hashanah and in respect to stipulating \"whether today or tomorrow.\" Rather, he says: \"Hachalitzeinu,\" unqualified, on both days and does not mention Rosh Chodesh at all. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one were taken [forcibly] by idolators outside [the tchum], or an evil spirit [i.e., if he were invested by a demon or he became deranged and went outside the tchum, and he regained his senses and found himself outside the tchum], he has only four cubits (of permitted movement). If they returned him [within the tchum], it is as if he had not left [and the entire city is as four cubits to him as in the beginning, and outside it two thousand cubits on every side. This, only when they took him out and returned him forcibly. But if he went out of his own will and were returned against his will, or if he were taken out against his will and returned of his own will, he has only four cubits.] If they took him to a different city [surrounded by walls] or put him in an enclosure or a corral [fenced off with a high partition] — R. Gamliel and R. Elazar b. Azaryah say: He may walk in all of it, [for since it is fenced off, it is like four cubits.] R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva say: He has only four cubits. [For since he had not dwelt in the partitioned space while it was yet day, the partitions do not avail him. Our rabbis explain that enclosure and corral are decreed against by reason of valley, where there are no partitions. And all agree that in a valley he has only four cubits.] Once they came from Prandisin and their boat put out to sea (hifligah) [leaving the shore and putting out to sea is called \"haflagah,\" as in (Psalms 1:3): \"palgei mayim\" (lit., \"clefts of water\").] R. Gamliel and R. Elazar b. Azaryah walked all of it. [They walked along the whole boat. And even though the boat sailed on Shabbath and they left the tchum, this is comparable to leaving the tchum and being placed in an enclosure or a corral, the boat being \"fenced\" with partitions.] R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva did not budge beyond four cubits, desiring to be stringent with themselves. [For according to them, too, who decreed enclosure and corral by reason of valley — with a boat, so long as it is moving, it is permitted to walk along all of it. And, what is more, they dwelt within its partitioned space while it was still day. But they desired to be stringent. The halachah is in accordance with R. Gamliel and R. Elazar b. Azaryah.]",
            "\tOnce, they did not enter the harbor until dark. They asked R. Gamliel: \"May we go down?\" [from the boat into the city, or did we come from outside the tchum after dark? (This harbor was not partitioned; for if it were, R. Gamliel has already said above that if one were placed into a (fenced-off) enclosure or corral, he may walk in all of it.] He answered: \"You may do so, for I already looked [through my telescope, adjusted to a two-thousand cubit range], and (found that) we were within the tchum before it had gotten dark.\"",
            "\tIf one went out [of the tchum] by sanction [e.g., to testify to (the appearance of) the New Moon or to save one from idolators or from a flood], and he were told: \"The deed has already been done\" [and there is no need to go], he has two thousand cubits on all sides [from the place where he was told]. If he were within the tchum, it is as if he had not left. [This is what is meant: If those two thousand cubits accorded him on every side from the place where he was told were within the two thousand cubit tchum of his house, it is as if he had not left his tchum, and he may walk to his house and be as before.] For all who leave (the tchum) to rescue, return to their places. [This is what is meant: For we find another lenient ruling vis-à-vis those who leave the tchum to rescue people from idolators of from cave-ins, viz.: Since they left by sanction, they were permitted to return with their arms to their places, and they were not constrained to leave them there. Here, too, they were lenient with those who had left.]",
            "\tIf one stopped on the road [to rest, not knowing that he was within the tchum of a city and night descended upon him there], and [when] he arose, he saw that he was close to a city, [within its tchum] — since, he did not intend it (to acquire habitation in the city), he may not enter [the city to be as one of its inhabitants; but from the place that night descended upon him he measures two thousand cubits, and he walks until the end of that distance within the city and not more.] These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: He may enter [and walk throughout the city and outside of it two thousand cubits, as the other inhabitants. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.] Once R. Tarfon entered without (prior) intent [i.e., without having known when darkness descended that he was within the tchum of the city and not having intended to acquire habitation in the city but in his place.]",
            "\tIf one fell asleep on the road and was not aware of its having become dark, he has two thousand cubits on all sides. These are the words of R. Yochanan b. Nuri. [R. Yochanan b. Nuri holds that articles of hefker (renounced property), absent from the owner's mind, acquire habitation in their place and have two thousand cubits on every side. And one who sleeps, whose mind is \"absent\" at the time of acquisition of habitation, is like an article of hefker and he has two thousand cubits on every side.] The sages say: He has only four cubits. [The rabbis hold that articles of hefker do not acquire habitation in their place, but the one who acquires them may take them as far as he may walk. Here, too, the one who sleeps does not acquire habitation and he has only four cubits alone. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yochanan b. Nuri that one who sleeps acquires habitation in his place and has two thousand cubits on every side. But with articles of hefker the halachah is in accordance with the sages, that they are as the \"feet of all men\" and do not acquire habitation in their place, but the one who acquires them takes them as far as he may go. (\"He has only four cubits\":) Since, when \"the day was sanctified\" (i.e., at nightfall), he was sleeping, he did not acquire acquisition, and he has only the four cubits accorded him by the Torah, viz. (Exodus 16:29): \"Let every man sit in his place.\" The average man's height is three cubits and one cubit for stretching his hands and feet.] R. Eliezer says: And he, in the middle. [The sages hold that he is given four cubits on every side, and R. Eliezer holds that he is given two cubits on each side.] R. Yehudah says: [He may take four cubits] in whichever direction he chooses to go. And R. Yehudah concedes that once he has chosen one direction he cannot retract [and choose another].",
            "\tIf two were standing, part of the (four) cubits of the one within the (four) cubits of the other, they bring and eat in the middle, so long as one does not take out from his own (four) cubits to those of the other. [If they were standing six cubits from each other, two of the cubits of each being \"swallowed\" in those of the other, they may bring (food) and eat within those two cubits, so long as one does not stretch his hand with his loaf or his articles into the two outer cubits (of the other, having no possession therein)]. If there were three, with the middle one \"swallowed\" between them, [two of his cubits common to one, and two to the other], he is permitted with them [He may turn to one side and share with the one, and to the other, and share with the other], and they are permitted with him; and the two outer ones are forbidden with each other. R. Shimon said: To what may this be compared? To three courtyards opening one into the other and (all) opening into the public domain, [in which instance each is a domain in itself, there being no crossing from one to the other, so that they do not mutually forbid one another (see 6:9)] — If the two of them (the outer ones) made an eruv with the middle one, it (the middle one) is permitted with them and they are permitted with it, and the two outer ones are forbidden with each other. [And the rabbis differ with R. Shimon on this, saying that all are forbidden with each other. R. Shimon now says to the rabbis: Is not the instance of three men and the middle one \"swallowed\" between them, where you concur that he is permitted with them and they are permitted with him — is that instance not similar to the instance of three courtyards? Why, then, do you differ with me in that instance? And they respond: In the instance of three courtyards, since there are many (persons involved), if the two outer ones that are forbidden with each other would come to carry from one to the other, the (men in the) middle one would not be aware of it and would not warn them, thinking that it was one of the middle dwellers (who is permitted with each of the outer ones) who was carrying. But here, with three men, if one of the two outer ones came to take something into the two cubits of the outer one, the middle one would notice this and would warn him. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon in the instance of three courtyards, that the two outer ones alone are mutually forbidden.]",
            "\tIf one were on the road, and it began to get dark, and he recognized a tree or a fence [which he could have reached before it got dark, but he was fatigued and he wished to rest in his place], and he said: \"My habitation is beneath it,\" he has said nothing. [Since he did not make explicit which four cubits he chose under the tree, this does not constitute (acquisition of) habitation, and he has only four cubits where he is. For he did not acquire habitation in his place, since he \"uprooted\" that intent. And he, likewise, did not acquire it under the tree. This is so only when there are eight cubits or more under the tree, in which instance it could be said that he chose one side or the other, so that there is no specific designation. But with seven cubits, perforce, \"part of his house\" (i.e., habitation) is distinguishable in the middle cubit. For if he chose four cubits in the middle of the tree, it is (part) of them; and if (he chose four cubits) on either side, it is of them — so that he acquires habitation there.] (If he said:) \"My habitation is at its trunk,\" [(Since he designated the spot, that habitation acquires for him)], he walks a distance of two thousand cubits from his feet until its trunk, and from its trunk until his house, two thousand cubits — so that when darkness descends, he has walked a distance of four thousand cubits.",
            "\tIf he does not recognize [a tree or a fence] or if he is not expert in the halachah [and does not know that it will avail him to say: \"My habitation is in that place\"] and he says: \"My habitation is in my place\" (i.e., wherever he finds himself), his place effects habitation for him, two thousand cubits in a circle on all sides, [for in respect to the cities of refuge from which the two thousand cubits of the tchum Shabbath are derived it is written (Numbers 35:5): \"This shall be for them the open spaces of the cities\" — For this (i.e., for the cities of refuge) you add the corners (around the circle), but you do not add corners for those acquiring habitation on Shabbath.] These are the words of R. Chanina b. Antignos. The sages say: (two thousand cubits in a) square, as in a square tablet, so that the corners be gained. [The rabbis expound \"This\" (above) as inclusive, i.e., As this shall be (the ruling for) all who acquire habitation on Shabbath. The halachah is in accordance with the sages. (\"as in a square tablet\":) Rambam explains that because it is impossible to make an exact square, it is taught: \"as in a square tablet.\" That is, in the manner that men are wont to square, though it not be exact. (\"so that the corners be gained\":) the four corners of the diagonal, which are an addition to the circle in the midst of the square.]",
            "\tAnd it is in this regard [i.e., in respect to one on the road, who does not have a loaf, who at that time is \"poor\"] that they said: \"A poor man makes an eruv with his feet.\" R. Meir said: We hold only a poor man. [i.e., It is only he whom the sages permitted to make an eruv with his feet. For R. Meir holds that an eruv, essentially, is with a loaf, and they were lenient with a poor man or with one on the road without a loaf, allowing them to make an eruv \"with their feet.\"] R. Yehudah says: Both a poor man and a rich man (make an eruv \"with their feet.\") They said that an eruv is made with a loaf only to be lenient with the rich man, that he not (be constrained to) go out and make an eruv with his feet. [R. Yehudah holds that an eruv, essentially, is with one's feet, and they were lenient with a rich man who could not do it \"with his feet,\" allowing him to send his eruv through a messenger. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah. And both R. Meir and R. Yehudah hold that if one says: \"My habitation is in that place,\" he does not acquire habitation there unless he be a poor man or on the road without a loaf; but a rich man must send a loaf to the place of his habitation. And if one says: \"My habitation is in that place,\" he does not acquire habitation there unless there is time in the day for him to run and reach it before dark, lacking which, he does not acquire habitation there.]",
            "\tIf one went out [of his city] to go to a city for which they were wont to make an eruv [i.e., If the men of his city sent him to put down an eruv for them so that they could go on the morrow to a city for which they were wont to make an eruv, being two t'chumei Shabbath away from them, so that they could go from one to the other by means of an eruv], and his friend turned him back, [telling him that it was too hot or too cold to go], he is permitted to go [on the morrow to that city. For since he took to the road to acquire habitation two thousand cubits from the city, he is like a poor man who says: \"My habitation is in that place,\" who acquires habitation there], and all the men of his city are forbidden. [For they did not take to the road and they have only two thousand cubits on every side of their city.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: Whoever could have made an eruv (with a loaf) and did not do so is like a man leading an ass and a camel (see 3:4). [R. Meir is in doubt as to whether he is considered \"a poor man,\" since he left his house and took to the road, or not, since he could have made an eruv with a loaf and did not do so. Therefore, he is as one leading an ass and a camel. He does not have two thousand cubits on all sides of his city, for his habitation might be the place he was going to for the placing of his eruv, two thousand cubits from his city. And at the end of the two thousand he also does not acquire habitation towards the other city, for it may be that he acquired habitation only in his home. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tIf one went outside the tchum, even one cubit, he may not enter (the tchum). [He has only four cubits on either side. And even though these four cubits are \"swallowed up\" within the tchum of the city, we do not say \"once he has entered, he has entered,\" for he holds that the \"swallowing up\" of t'chumin is of no account.] R. Eliezer says: (If he went outside) two (cubits), he may enter; three, he may not enter. [R. Eliezer is consistent with his view (4:5): \"And he, in the middle\"; i.e., at the end of two thousand cubits, he has four cubits: two on one side, within the tchum, and two on the other side, outside the tchum. Therefore, if he is standing in the second cubit (outside the tchum), he may enter. For the \"swallowing up\" of t'chumin is of account. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.] If darkness descended upon one outside the tchum [i.e., If he were on the road, and darkness descended upon him outside the tchum], even one cubit, he may not enter. [For he did not acquire habitation in his place, having shown that he did not wish to do so; and he did not acquire habitation in the city, there being more than two thousand cubits between himself and the city. Therefore, he has only four cubits, as one who has left the tchum.] R. Shimon says: Until fifteen cubits [Not precisely, but also a little more or less. (Some interpret it as precisely fifteen. I have not been able to construe this well)]; for the surveyors [those who measure the t'chumin of cities and make a sign for the end of the tchum] do not measure exactly, because of those who err. [They do not mark the tchum exactly at the end of two thousand cubits, but within that distance, because of those who err, not recognizing the marking and sometimes unknowingly going beyond it and returning. Because of this, they (the surveyors) always marked within the two thousand, so that these fifteen cubits are found to be within the tchum. And because he (one who went beyond that limit) did so in error, he was permitted to return; and they were not stringent with him as they were with one who went outside the tchum, who should have taken heed not to do so. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tHow me'abrin cities? [\"me'abrin,\" as in \"ishah me'ubereth\" (a pregnant woman). This is the intent: How are cities extended? \"If one house were recessed and another projected etc.\" When he came to designate the city tchum and to measure two thousand cubits outside it, if the wall were not straight, but the houses were close together…] If one house were recessed [within the city more than its neighbor, so as to give a \"defective\" appearance] and another projected [more than its neighbor], or if one turret were recessed and another projected, or if there were tall ruins [sections of the wall of ruined houses within seventy cubits and a fraction of the city], or structures over tombs (provided that they contain living quarters) — the measure is taken opposite them [i.e., If the projections were in the northeast corner, it is perceived as if there were other projections opposite it in the southeast corner, and a line stretched from one to the other; and the measurement is taken from the line outwards so that the tchum be equal in the two corners and not longer in one and shorter in the other.] And it [the tchum] is made like a square tablet, [two thousand cubits on the sides as in the middle] so that the corners be gained, [and (it is not made) round, two thousand cubits in the middle and losing at the sides, as a circle does.]",
            "\tA karpef (an enclosed space) is provided for a city. [Whoever comes to measure t'chumin for a city leaves a space of seventy cubits and a fraction, seventy and two-thirds cubits; and from there he begins to measure the two thousand cubits, viz. (Numbers 35:4): \"From the wall of the city and outwards, one thousand cubits roundabout,\" Scripture hereby intimating: Provide an \"outwards,\" and then measure, i.e., provide a karpef of seventy cubits and a fraction and then measure from there.] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: A karpef was instituted only between two cities. If each had (an outer edge of) seventy cubits and a fraction, a karpef is made for both, to be as one. [If two cities were close to each other, each is accorded a karpef of seventy cubits and a fraction in order to connect them thereby, to be regarded as one city; so that if one wished to go from one of them through the other, two thousand cubits are measured for him outside of the other, the two of them being regarded as one city through these karpefoth which join them. The halachah is in accordance with the sages, that a karpef is not provided for one city but only for two.]",
            "\tLikewise, three villages in a triangle — if there are between the two outer ones (and the middle one) one hundred and forty-one and a third cubits, the middle one causes the three of them to be regarded as one. [(\"in a triangle\":) Not necessarily a triangle, but with the third standing afar, opposite the outer ones, in such manner that if it were placed between them there would be no more than one hundred forty-one and a third cubits (seventy and two-thirds cubits for each) between it and each of the outer ones, in which instance the three are regarded as one, so that a man leaving one of them to pass through the others counts the two thousand cubits from the wall of the outer village. This, when there are no more than two thousand cubits between the middle and the outer ones. For since the (men of) the middle one may go to the outer one and vice versa without an eruv, we say that the middle one is regarded as placed between them; but we do not say this when the distance is greater than two thousand cubits.]",
            "\tWe measure [the two thousand cubits of the tchum Shabbath] only with a [flaxen] rope of fifty cubits, not less, [for when the rope is short, it is stretched more and the measure increases], and not more, [for when it is longer, its weight doubles it in the middle and it shortens.] And one measures only against his heart. [The sages fixed a place for the end of the rope, each against his heart. For if one placed it against his heart and the other against his feet, the rope would shorten and the tchumin would diminish.] If he were measuring and he came to a valley or a fence [a fallen stone wall that became a high, slanted heap], he \"swallows it up\" [If it were not fifty cubits wide from edge to edge above, even if its incline were more than a thousand, we do not say that it is included in the measurement of the tchum; but one stands on one side and one on the other, and the incline is swallowed up with one rope], and he returns to his measure. [\"He returns to his measure\" implies that if its width in the direction of the city were more than fifty, so that he could not swallow it up there with the rope, and with one of its ends not in the direction of the city, he could swallow it up — he goes and swallows it up there, and he keeps on walking and measuring from the edge onwards until the spot where the width of the valley ends in the direction of the city, and he continues measuring in the direction of the city and completes the measure of the tchum.] If he came to a mountain, he swallows it up [This, if the mountain is not very steep, but on an incline, so that walking five cubits of it lifts one only ten handbreadths; but if it is so steep that less than five cubits of walking lifts one ten handbreadths, he does not swallow it up, but only estimates (its distance) and goes on.], so long as he does not go outside the tchum. [When the measurer goes to \"swallow up\" the mountain or the valley, he may not go outside the tchum to a place where the heads of the valley are so narrow that he can swallow them up, in order to return thence to his measurement in the direction of the city — a decree by reason of the possibility of one's seeing him going and measuring there and saying that the tchum measurement of the sides of the city extends that far.] If he is unable to swallow it up, about this R. Dostai said: I heard that mountains are \"bored through.\" [(\"about this R. Dostai said\":) \"about this,\" to exclude (the measurements for) cities of refuge and for the red heifer, (the city) closest to the slain man, where there is no boring through. (\"bored through\":) They (the mountains) are regarded as bored through, and they are measured through the hole to exclude the measurement of the slope, as stated in the gemara. It is measured with a four cubit rope. The lower (measurer) places the rope against his heart, and the higher, against his feet, and they measure the whole, four cubits after four cubits progressively, so that a four cubit slope loses half a man's height. The halachah is in accordance with R. Dostai.]",
            "\tOnly a mumcheh [one expert in measurement] takes the measure. [The Gaon explains it as in (Numbers 34:11): \"Umachah ('And it shall strike upon') the slope of the sea of Kinereth.\" That is, the tchum should be measured ab initio from a straight, level place, where there is no need for \"boring through.\"] If it were more in one spot and less in another [i.e., If the signs of one tchum (measurement) projected beyond those in the opposite corner], we follow the greater [and discount the shorter measurement; for (we assume that) he did not stretch the rope tightly enough to begin with. And it is taught in the Tosefta that he must stretch it with all of his might.] If it were more for one and less for another [This is what is meant: If two experts measured it, and it (the measurement) were more for one and less for the other], the greater measurement is followed. Even a bondsman and even a bondswoman are believed to say: \"Until here is the tchum Shabbath.\" For the sages instituted this (the tchum) not for stringency (of regulation) but for lenity.",
            "\tThe city of an individual, [as when one man acquired all of it and rented out all of its houses to others], which then became a public city — eruvin are made for the whole, [as when it belonged to the individual, no (eruv-less) \"remnant\" being provided]. But a public city which became the city of an individual — eruvin are not made for the whole. [For it is forbidden to make eruvin for a public city without leaving particular houses without an eruv to serve as a sign that (carrying between the others is permitted) by reason of eruv, so that the ordinance of the public domain not be forgotten. And this city, since it was once a public city and required a \"remnant,\" even though it now belongs to an individual, the original procedure is followed.], unless it made (a city) outside it [a \"remnant,\" not making an eruv between it and the rest of the city. We are hereby apprised that even a remnant \"outside it\" avails for the rest of the city.] as the city, Chadashah, in Judah, where there were [only] fifty dwellers. [This was the smallest city in the entire land of Judah, and it served as a \"remnant\" for a large city next to it, being of the size required to serve as an eruv-less \"remnant\" for the (large) city.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: Three courtyards of two houses each (constitute a \"remnant.\") [The halachah is that even one house in one courtyard constitutes a \"remnant.\" And a city which has only one entrance, even a public city, does not require a \"remnant.\"]",
            "\tIf one were in the east, and he said to his son: \"Make an eruv for me in the west\"; or if he were in the west, and he said to his son: \"Make an eruv for me in the east\" — if there are from him to his house two thousand cubits, and to his eruv more than that, he is permitted to his house and forbidden to his eruv. (If there are ) to his eruv two thousand, and to his house more than that, he is forbidden to his house and permitted to his eruv. [(\"If one were in the east\":) in the field, and Shabbath descended upon him there, and he were more than two thousand cubits from his eruv, his eruv is no eruv. Since he may not walk and take it, his habitation is in his house, standing as he does within the tchum of his house. And it is assumed that he desires his habitation to be in his house when his eruv is not an eruv. (\"he is forbidden to his house\":) to count two thousand cubits on all sides of his house.] If one places his eruv in the outskirts (ibur) of the city, [i.e., in one of the houses standing within the seventy and a fraction cubits], he has done nothing. [For without an eruv, too, he has two thousand cubits on all sides, and the entire city with its ibur are reckoned as his four cubits.] If he placed it outside the tchum [i.e., outside the ibur of the city (Thus is it explained in the gemara)], what he gains [on one side], he loses [on the opposite side. For he counts two thousand cubits on all sides of the eruv, and if he places it at the end of a thousand (from the city) eastwards, it is found that the two thousand to the east end three thousand cubits from the city, so that he gains one thousand (to the east), and the two thousand to the west end one thousand cubits west of the city, so that he loses one thousand cubits. We are hereby apprised that the city is not included in the two thousand cubits to the west, but all of it is regarded as four cubits. This, only when the two thousand cubits from the eruv towards the city terminate at the end of the city or beyond it; but if they terminate in the middle of the city or anywhere within it, he may go within the city only as far as the termination of the two thousand cubits of the eruv and not more, as taught below.]",
            "\tThe men of a large city traverse an entire small city [If a small city were within its two thousand cubits, and they walk through it, they traverse the entire small city as if it were four cubits and complete the measurement outside it.], but the men of a small city do not traverse an entire large city [as if it were four cubits. For the measurement of its tchum ends within the large city, for which reason they may go only until the termination of their tchum.] How so? If one were in a large city and he placed his eruv in a small city; or, if he were in a small city and he placed his eruv in a large city, he traverses all of it, and outside it, two thousand cubits. [Our Mishnah is defective. This is what was taught: \"The men of a large city traverse an entire small city, but the men of a small city do not traverse an entire large city. When is this so? When he measures two thousand cubits. But if he places his eruv within the city — whether the men of a large city place their eruv in a small city, or the men of a small city place their eruv in a large city, they traverse the entire city in which the eruv were placed as if it were four cubits. How so? If one were from a large city and he placed his eruv in a small city, etc.\"] R. Akiva says: He has only two thousand cubits form the place of his eruv. [He differs with the first tanna and holds that the eruv does not cause the city in which it is placed to be regarded as four cubits, and the two thousand cubits are counted only from the place of the eruv. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Akiva.]",
            "\tR. Akiva said to them (the sages): Will you not admit to me that if one places his eruv in a cave, he has only two thousand cubits form the place of his eruv? They responded: When is this so? When it is not fit for habitation, [as when its partitions were breached]; but if it were fit for habitation, he traverses all of it, and outside it, two thousand cubits. [For if it were fit for habitation, even if it were uninhabited now, all of it, according to the sages, would be regarded as four cubits. Likewise, a city where no one dwells, but which has a wall roundabout — if one places his eruv therein, it is regarded as four cubits, even if it is as large as Antiocha]. There is found to be more leniency then, with a cave's inside (vis-à-vis the halachah) than its top. [For if one places his eruv on the top of a cave, he has only two thousand cubits from the place of his eruv, its top not being fit for habitation, whereas he may traverse all of its midst and two thousand cubits outside it.] But as far as measuring is concerned, he is given (only) two thousand, even if the measure ends in a cave. [Even though the sages differ with R. Akiva vis-à-vis one's placing his eruv in a city, saying that the entire city is regarded as four cubits, they admit that if one comes from the place of his habitation and his measurement of two thousand terminates even in a cave fit for habitation, he may not enter beyond (the termination of) his measurement.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one dwells in a courtyard with a gentile or with one who does not acknowledge (the institution of) eruv, [i.e., a Cuthite], he (the latter) forbids him (the Israelite) [from carrying from his house to the courtyard until he rents from him his rights in the courtyard.] These are the words of R. Meir. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Only two Israelites can forbid it, one to the other. [Both according to the first tanna and according to R. Eliezer b. Yaakov the dwelling of a gentile is not called a dwelling and, by law, he does not forbid; but the rabbis decreed (that he does forbid) so that an Israelite not come to dwell with an idolator and not learn from his deeds. The first tanna holds that even though a gentile is suspect of bloodshed and a Jew is forbidden to be alone with him, it sometimes happens that an Israelite dwells together with an idolator, and the rabbis ordained that an eruv not avail with a gentile and that negation of his (the gentile's) rights (in the courtyard) not avail, but that he must rent it (to the Jew). And the gentile will not rent it, fearing witchcraft. As a result, a Jew will not come to dwell with a gentile and he will not learn from his deeds. And R. Eliezer b. Yaakov holds that since an idolator is suspect of bloodshed — for two (or more Jews), who might dwell with a gentile, the rabbis made this decree; for one, for whom it would be uncommon to dwell with a gentile, it being forbidden to be alone with him, they did not decree. The halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer b. Yaakov. And it (the courtyard) is rented from an idolator even for less than a p'rutah, and even on Shabbath. And even though a gentile cannot (merely) negate his rights, but must rent (his courtyard) to the Jew, a Jew can negate his rights even on Shabbath. That, by telling his neighbor, when an eruv has not been made: \"My rights are ceded to you.\" In this event, he is forbidden to carry in the courtyard and his neighbor is permitted to do so. And if they so desire, after the one has carried therein what he needed to, he can cede his rights to the other, in which instance it becomes permitted to the other and forbidden to him.]",
            "\tR. Gamliel said: Once a Sadducee lived with us in a mavui (an alleyway) in Jerusalem and (on one occasion) Father said to us: \"Hurry and take out all the vessels to the mavui before he does so and forbids it to you.\" [Our Mishnah is defective. This is what was taught: \"A Sadducee is like an idolator. R. Gamliel says: He is not like an idolator, and once a Sadducee … and Father said to us: 'Hurry and do what you need before he takes out (his vessels) and forbids it to you'\" — whence we see that he is like an Israelite, who can negate his rights. And because one who negates his rights and then retracts (his negation), whether unintentionally or deliberately forbids (usufruct) to others, R. Gamliel said: Hurry and do what you need before he takes out his vessels to the courtyard and reassumes the rights that he had negated and thereby forbids it to you. But if he were like an idolator, who cannot negate his rights without renting, how could he have forbidden it to them after having received his rent?] R. Yehudah says: He said otherwise, viz.: \"Hurry and do what you need in the mavui before it (the day) is out and it is forbidden to you.\" [i.e., The above is not what R. Gamliel said, for he holds a Sadducee to be like an idolator, and that episode is no proof to the contrary, for this is what he said: \"Hurry and do what you need on Sabbath eve before it gets dark\" — Not: \"before he takes out his vessels,\" as you say, but: \"before the day is out and it is forbidden to you.\" The halachah is that any Jew who desecrates Shabbath in public is like an idolator, and it is forbidden to make an eruv with him, and he may not negate his rights, but they must be rented from him as they are rented from an idolator. And if one observes Shabbath in the open, even if he sometimes desecrates it in secret and does not acknowledge the institution of eruv, such as the Sadducees in our time, it is forbidden to make an eruv with him, but he may negate his rights without renting them (this, if he is not an idolator.)]",
            "\tIf one of the men of a courtyard forgot to make an eruv, both he and they are forbidden to bring in and carry out from his house [to the courtyard, as in an instance in which he ceded to them his rights with them in the courtyard, but not his house, this tanna holding that what is ceded is ceded, and what is not ceded is not ceded. Therefore, his house is his domain, and the courtyard, theirs.], and theirs is permitted to him and to them. [Both he and they are permitted to carry out from their houses to the courtyard. For their houses and the courtyard are one domain, and even though he did not make an eruv, he is as a guest to them, a guest being permitted to carry in his inn.] If they gave him their rights [in the courtyard], he is permitted [to carry from his house to the courtyard, the whole being considered as his domain], and they are forbidden [to carry even from his house to the courtyard, and they are not considered his guests. For one vis-à-vis many is considered a guest, but not many vis-à-vis one.] If there were two [who did not make an eruv, and the other men of the courtyard ceded their rights to them], they [the two] forbid it (the courtyard) to each other, [for the courtyard appertains to both and the houses are distinct, each to its owner, and one may not carry from a domain which is distinctly his to one which is his and his neighbor's. And even if one of them afterwards ceded his rights (in the courtyard) to the other, it is of no avail. For at the time the men of the courtyard ceded their rights to these two who had not made an eruv, they forbade it to each other, so that the first ceding was of no avail. Therefore, when one of them cedes his rights, he cannot cede theirs, for he had never acquired them. Therefore, the men of a courtyard, some of whom made an eruv and some of whom did not — those who did not can cede their rights to those who did, but those who did cannot cede theirs to those who did not, the latter forbidding it to each other, as stated. And if one cedes his rights to the men of a courtyard, he must specify that he is ceding them to each one of them.]",
            "\tFrom when may permission be given? (i.e., When may one cede his rights in the courtyard?) Beth Shammai say: While it is still day. [For they hold that ceding of rights constitutes transfer of title, which is forbidden on Shabbath.] Beth Hillel say: (Even) when it gets dark. [They hold that ceding of rights does not constitute transfer of title but surrender of domain, which is permitted on Shabbath. In the baraitha it is explained that \"Since it is forbidden for part of Shabbath it is forbidden for all of it\" obtains in all instances except in that of ceding of domain.] If one ceded his rights and took out (vessels), [retracting, and making use of the domain that he had ceded], whether unintentionally or deliberately, he forbids (the domain to the others). These are the words of R. Meir, [who forbids \"unintentional\" by reason of \"deliberate.\" The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.] R. Yehudah says: If he does so deliberately, he forbids it; unintentionally, he does not forbid it.",
            "\tIf a house-owner were a partner with his neighbors [in a mavui]; with one, in wine and with another, in wine [(partnership in general, not for the sake of an eruv)], they do not need to make an eruv. [This, if they are all partners in one vessel. And it is only a partnership in a mavui which is valid with wine, viz. (3:1): \"An eruv and a partnership (in a mavui) is made with all (foods)\"; but a courtyard eruv is made only with a loaf, eruv obtaining by reason of \"dwelling,\" and one associating dwelling only with a loaf. And if he made a mavui partnership with a loaf, it avails all the more, and that loaf partnership may be relied upon also for an eruv, so that a courtyard eruv is not required. But if they made a partnership with wine or with other things, they must make a courtyard eruv and not rely on the partnership (alone) so that the institution of eruv not depart form the (minds of the) children.] (If he were a partner) with one in wine and with another in oil, they must make an eruv. R. Shimon says: In either case they need not make an eruv. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            "\tFive groups dwelling in one traklin [a mansion, divided into five sections, each with an entrance to the courtyard and requiring an eruv with those sharing the courtyard ] — Beth Shammai say: An eruv (is required) for each group. [The domains are divided and each group must provide a loaf for the eruv of the courtyard.] Beth Hillel say: One eruv (suffices) for all. [This partitioning does not constitute separation of domains.] And they concede that when some of them dwell in rooms or upper chambers a separate eruv is required for each group. [When the traklin is divided by high partitions reaching to the ceiling, all agree that this constitutes separation of domains, it being the equivalent of dwelling in rooms or upper chambers. They differ when it is divided by low partitions not reaching the ceiling. Beth Shammai hold that such a partition effects separation of domain, and Beth Hillel, that it does not.]",
            "\tBrothers, partners, who eat at their father's table and sleep in their houses require an eruv for each. [This is what is meant: Brothers who eat at their father's table and partners who eat at one table. (\"eat at their father's table\":) Not necessarily. They take their food from their father's house and each eats it in his own house. Likewise, with partners, they work in partnership with one house-owner, get their food from him, and take it to eat in their houses. (\"and sleep in their houses\":) And they and their father and others dwell in one courtyard. (\"They require an eruv for each\":) if they wish to make an eruv with the men of their courtyard.] Therefore, if one of them forgot and did not make an eruv, he must negate his domain. When is this so? When they take their eruv elsewhere [to place it in one of the houses of the others of the courtyard. For since they must make an eruv and the other dwellers forbid, they, too, forbid. And they must all provide a loaf for an eruv since their dwellings are separate for sleeping; also, they do not literally eat at their father's table, but each takes his food and eats it in his house.] But if the eruv [of the entire courtyard] came to them [i.e., to their father's house, they themselves not being constrained to provide an eruv, the house where the eruv is placed not requiring a loaf], or if there were no [other] dwellers with them in the courtyard, [so that others do not constrain them to make an eruv], they do not require an eruv, [for they are regarded as one.]",
            "\tFive courtyards opening into each other and opening into a mavui [The gemara concludes that \"opening into each other\" is to be omitted from the Mishnah, for we rule that a mavui is not permitted with lechi and korah (see 1:1) until houses and courtyards open into it, i.e., two houses into each courtyard and two courtyards into the mavui. And these, if they all opened into each other and were joined together by an eruv through their opening, would be regarded as one — so that the correct rendering is \"Five courtyards opening into a mavui\"] — If they made an eruv for the courtyards [each for itself], but did not become partners in the mavui, they are permitted in the courtyards [All the men of the courtyard are permitted (in it) for themselves], but forbidden in the mavui, [for eruv is not relied upon where partnership (in the mavui) is required.] And if they became partners [also] in the mavui [after having made an eruv in the courtyard], they are permitted in both places. If they made an eruv in the courtyard and a partnership in the mavui, and one of the men of the courtyard forgot and did not make an eruv [in his courtyard to permit his courtyard, but he did have a share in the (mavui) partnership], they are permitted in both places. [For the reason that partnership is not relied upon where eruv is required is that the institution of eruv not depart form the children (6:5); but here, since most of the men of the courtyard did make an eruv, and only one forgot to do so, there is no fear in this regard.] (If one) of the men of the mavui (forgot) and did not enter into the partnership, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden in the mavui, for a mavui to the courtyards is as a courtyard to the houses. [i.e., Just as it is forbidden to carry from the houses to the courtyard without an eruv, so is it forbidden to carry from the courtyard to the mavui without partnership; and it is not to be contended that they cannot be compared in that with house and courtyard, one is private domain and the other public whereas with courtyard and mavui both are public domain.]",
            "\tTwo courtyards, one within the other [i.e., the inner open to the outer, and the outer open to the public domain and having \"crossing rights\" (drisath regel) through the outer to the public domain] — if the inner made an eruv [for itself, to carry in its courtyard], but not the outer, the inner is permitted and the outer forbidden. If the outer (made an eruv), but not the inner, they are both forbidden, [the inner itself being \"a foot forbidden in its place,\" not having made an eruv for itself, and forbidding the outer because of its drisath regel.] If each made an eruv for itself, each is permitted in itself, [for \"a foot permitted in its place\" does not forbid (the other courtyard)]. R. Akiva forbids the outer, [holding that even \"a foot permitted in its place\" forbids (the other courtyard) if there were no eruv there (from the inner)], drisath haregal forbidding it. And the sages say: Drisath haregel does not forbid it, [holding that even \"a foot forbidden in its place\" (as when the inner did not make an eruv for itself) does not forbid the outer. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna.]",
            "\tIf one (person) from the outer forgot and did not make an eruv, the inner is permitted and the outer forbidden. (If one person) from the inner (forgot) and did not make an eruv, both are forbidden, [for the inner is \"a foot forbidden,\" and it forbids (the outer)]. If they placed their eruv in one place, and one of them forgot, whether an inner (person) or an outer, and he did not make an eruv, both are forbidden. [If they made an eruv with each other and placed the eruv in the outer (It is called \"one place\" because both courtyards use it in common), and even if an outer person forgot and did not make an eruv both are forbidden. The inner is also forbidden to carry in its courtyard, for it cannot disassociate itself from the outer and use (the inner courtyard) by itself, for its eruv is not present. For that eruv which permits the (inner) courtyard was taken to the outer. But if the eruv were placed in the inner, the outer is forbidden through the forgetting of the inner, but the inner is not forbidden through the forgetting of the outer, for \"it (the inner) locks the door\" and uses it.] But if they (the courtyards) belonged to individuals, [i.e., if there we only one in the inner and one in the outer], they need not make an eruv [with each other because of drisath haregel], for since there is only one person in the inner, this is \"a foot that is permitted,\" and it does not forbid (the outer). This anonymous Mishnah is in accordance with the first tanna (above), who holds that \"a foot that is permitted\" does not forbid.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tAn opening (in a wall) between two courtyards, four by four (handbreadths) in the midst of ten (tefachim) from the ground [i.e., if part of it, even a very small part, is ten tefachim from the ground] — two eruvin are made, [each (courtyard) for itself, and each forbids (carrying from one to) the other.] And if they wish, they make one eruv, [these (the men of one courtyard) placing their eruv in the other and being one with them (the men of the other courtyard)]. Less than four by four or higher than ten, two eruvin are made and one is not made. [Less than four by four is not (considered) an opening and is not fit for passing from one to the other. And if it is above ten, too, it does not lend itself to use. Therefore, one eruv is not made. This, only in an unroofed courtyard; but in a roofed house, even higher than ten, one eruv is made, it being customary to place benches and boxes around the house, so that it lends itself to use.]",
            "\tA wall between two courtyards ten (tefachim) high and four wide — two eruvin are made and not one. [\"four\" is taught, not because this amount is required for \"closing off\" (one courtyard from another), for a partition of any breadth constitutes \"closing off,\" but (it is taught) by reason of what follows, viz.:] If there were fruits on top of it, these go up from here (i.e., from their courtyard) and eat, and those go up from there and eat, so long as they do not take it down [to the house-dwellers; but to the courtyard it is permitted. For it (a four-handbreadth wide partition) is considered a domain in itself. It is in this regard that four handbreadths are required, less than that constituting a makum p'tur (\"a place of exemption) and both being permitted to take it down.] If the wall were breached, up to ten cubits, they make two eruvin; and if they wish, they make one, for it is like an opening. (If it is) more than that, they make one eruv and not two. [(For if it is more) it is a breach, and it is all considered one courtyard. And if each made an eruv for itself, it is as if they (the men of one courtyard) are dividing their eruvin, and they forbid each other.]",
            "\tA hole [running the entire length] between two courtyards — ten (handbreadths) deep and four wide (for if less than that, it is easily crossed from edge to edge)] — two eruvin are made and not one, even if it is filled with straw and hay, [for this is not a \"filling,\" not being left to remain there but to be taken away.] If it were filled with soil or stones, one eruv is made and not two.",
            "\tIf he placed a four-handbreadth board over it [from edge to edge, like a bridge, it is considered an entrance]; similarly, two balconies [projecting from the private to the public domain], one opposite the other, [and he placed a four-handbreadth board from one to the other, it is also considered an entrance] — two eruvin are made. And if they wish, they make one eruv. Less than that [i.e., If the board is not four handbreadths wide, one is afraid to cross over on it, so that it is not readily used] — two eruvin are made and not one.",
            "\tA stack of straw [running the entire breadth] between two courtyards, ten tefachim high — two eruvin are made and not one. These eat form here and those eat from there. [i.e., They allow their beasts to eat of the straw and need not fear lest the stack descend to less than ten tefachim and it become one domain, which they forbid to each other, and they continue to carry in the courtyard without being aware of it. This is not to be feared, for even if it does descend, if the reduction does not extend beyond ten cubits, they do not forbid each other. For ten cubits is an entrance (see 7:2), and a beast does not consume that much in one Shabbath.] If the straw (stack) descended below ten tefachim [along the length of the entire courtyard, or beyond ten cubits], one eruv is made and not two [(if it descended thus during the week, before Shabbath)].",
            "\tHow is partnership made in a mavui? He sets down the (food) jug, [his own, if he wishes, in which instance he must assign it to them (for if it belongs to the others, no assignment is necessary)], and he says: \"This is for all the people of the mavui.\" And he assigns it to them through his grown son or daughter or through his Hebrew bondsman or bondswoman, or through his wife. [He says to them: \"Receive this jug and acquire it on behalf of all the people of the mavui.\" And the receiver lifts the eruv in his hand a handbreadth from the ground, for so long as it is in his (the owner's) domain, no acquisition (for others) is effected, and he says: \"I have acquired it for them.\"]; but he does not assign it through his Canaanite bondsman or bondswoman, for their hand is as his (the master's) hand [and assignment (to others) is not thereby effected.]",
            "\tIf the food fell below [the required amount (see Mishnah 8)], he adds and assigns, and he need not apprise (them). [If he wishes to add of his own, even another kind (of food), which is not the same as that of the original partnership, he adds it and assigns it to them, and he need not apprise them of it. For since some of the first kind remains, he does not seem to be making an eruv ab initio. But if he adds of the original kind, even if it (the first eruv) were entirely depleted, he brings of that kind and assigns it to them and need not apprise them.] If (dwellers in the courtyard) were added to them, he adds (to the eruv) and assigns it to them, and he need not apprise them. [This, only when the courtyard has two entrances to two alleyways; for when they make an eruv with the men of one mavui they are forbidden to use the other, for which reason he must apprise them, lest they not wish to acquire (passage) on one side and lose it on the other. But if it has only one entrance to this mavui, for which they made a partnership in the beginning, he need not apprise them, for a man may be benefitted (even) when he is not present, and he may not be made to incur a loss except when he is present.]",
            "\tHow much is the (required) amount (of the eruv)? When they are many, [eighteen men or more] — enough food for two meals for all. When they are few, [fewer than eighteen] — the size of a dried fig, [the amount for liability] for carrying out on Shabbath for each one. [For one who carries out food on Shabbath is not liable for less than that amount.]",
            "\tR. Yossi said: When is this so [that the above amounts are required]? At the beginning of (the making of) the eruv, but with the remnant of the eruv [i.e., with that which fell below the required amount], any amount suffices, for they ordained making an eruv in the courtyards [after they had made a partnership in the mavui] only so that it [the institution of courtyard eruvin] not be forgotten by the children, who do not know about the partnership in the mavui, for which reason we are lenient in this regard. But even though this (the above) is the reason for this ordinance, still, the halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi in regard to the remnant of the eruv. We do not rule so leniently (as he does)].",
            "\tAn eruv and a partnership (in a mavui) is made with all (foods), except with water and salt. [(\"An eruv\":) We are speaking here of eruvin of tchumin (Sabbath bounds); for eruvin of chatzeroth (courtyards) are made only with bread.] These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Yehoshua says: A loaf is an eruv. [R. Eliezer, in \"all (foods)\" includes eruvei chatzeroth, permitting a piece of bread and not requiring an entire loaf; and R. Yehoshua differs with him, saying that only an entire loaf is an eruv. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehoshua.] (R. Yehoshua says:) It is forbidden to make an eruv with a baked piece (of bread) even if it contains a sa'ah (of flour) [The reason: animosity, the possibility that this will arouse contention among the men of the courtyard, viz.: \"I gave a whole loaf and he gave only a piece!\"]; it is permitted to make an eruv with a whole loaf (even) if it is (only) the size of an issar. [It is placed as an eruv together with the other loaves of the men of the courtyard, so long as there be among all of them the size of a dried fig for each one. Rambam explains that a whole loaf the size of an issar (a certain coin) may be used as an eruv by itself for all the men of the courtyard, irrespective of the amount.]",
            "\tOne may give money to a shopkeeper [who sells wine and dwells with him in the mavui] or to a baker [who sells loaves and dwells with him in the courtyard] to assign to him (a share in) the eruv [with his fellows, viz.: \"If the men of the mavui come to buy wine from you for a partnership, or the men of the courtyard, to buy a loaf for the eruv, let me have a share in it.\"] These are the words of R. Eliezer. The sages say: His money does not acquire for him. [For money does not acquire until one pulls (the purchased object). And even if the shopkeeper provided an eruv for all the others and also assigned it to this one, it is not an eruv, for he did not intend to assign it to him as a gift, gratis, in the manner of those who assign eruvin, but that he acquire it for the money. But he does not acquire it, for money (without \"pulling\") does not acquire; so that he is found to have made an eruv with his money.] And they concur that with other men (i.e., not shopkeepers) his money does acquire it. [If the house-owner says to his neighbor: \"Take this money and assign an eruv for me,\" and he went and did so, he (the house-owner) acquires the eruv. For since the (other) house-owner does not regularly sell loaves, the first intended only to make him a messenger, as if he had said: \"Make an eruv for me.\"] For an eruv may be made for another only with his knowledge. [Therefore, in the instance of the shopkeeper, when he said to him: \"Assign it to me,\" his intent was only to acquire it from him, and he did not depend upon him as a messenger. And money does not acquire, and there was no empowering, so that he (the shopkeeper) would be making an eruv for him without his knowledge.] R. Yehudah said: When is this so? With eruvei tchumin (Sabbath bound eruvin) [which can be a liability, for he loses on the other side (of the tchum), and he may not wish it. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.], but with courtyard eruvin, the eruv can be made with or without his knowledge. For a man may be benefitted (even) when he is not present, and he may not be made to incur a loss except when he is present."
        ],
        [
            "\tHow is a tchum (Sabbath bound) partnership made? He puts down the (food) jug and says: \"This is for all the men of my city, for whoever goes to the house of the mourner or the house of the (wedding) feast [i.e., for mitzvah purposes, the ruling being: Eruvei tchumin are made only for mitzvah purposes.] And all who took it upon themselves [to rely upon this eruv] while it was still day are permitted to do so. And after dark (i.e., on Shabbath), it is forbidden, an eruv not being made after dark. [This, when they did not apprise him (of the eruv) while it was still day; but if they did, even if he took it upon himself to rely upon this eruv of a certainty only after it had gotten dark, it is permitted.]",
            "\tWhat is the (required) amount (for a tchum eruv)? Enough for two meals for each one (participating in the eruv) [Since he acquires habitation there, he must place there the food he needs for Shabbath.], his food for a weekday and not for Shabbath. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: For Shabbath and not for a weekday. And both (R. Meir and R. Yehudah) intend to be lenient (in their ruling). [R. Meir holds that on Shabbath one eats more, for the food is tastier. And R. Yehudah holds that since on Shabbath one eats three meals, he does not eat very much at each meal, so that two weekday meals are more than two Sabbath meals.] R. Yochanan b. B'roka says: A loaf for a pundion, four sa'ah for a sela [i.e., a loaf bought for a pundion when four sa'ah of wheat are sold for a sela. Four sa'ah are twenty-four kavin, and a sela is twenty-four ma'ah, that there is a kav to each ma'ah. A ma'ah is two pundionin — so that a loaf sold in the market for a pundion is half a kav. And the shopkeeper takes half as a wage for baking and grinding, so that a loaf bought from a shopkeeper for a pundion is a quarter of a kav, which are six eggs, a kav being twenty-four eggs. And this is the amount of the two meals (required) for the eruv according to R. Yochanan b. B'roka. The halachah is in accordance with him.] R. Shimon says: Two-thirds of a loaf of three to a kav. [He reduces the amount, saying that two-thirds of a loaf of three loaves to a kav suffices for an eruv. A whole loaf of eight eggs is one-third of a kav. Two-thirds of that — five and a third eggs — is two meals.] Half for a house with a plague-spot. [This is an anonymous Mishnah and is to be understood thus: Half of a complete loaf, according to the estimate of both (R. Yochanan b. B'roka and R. Shimon) is the amount for (the criterion of) \"abiding\" in a house with a plague-spot. For one who enters a house with a leprous plague-spot, though he becomes unclean immediately, is not required to wash his clothing until he \"abides\" there long enough to eat, \"long enough to eat\" being understood as long enough to eat half a loaf. According to R. Yochanan b. B'roka, who says that a whole loaf is a quarter of a kav, which is six eggs, half of that, three eggs, is the \"pras\" (half a loaf) in all of the Talmud. And according to R. Shimon, who says that a whole loaf is a third of a kav, which is eight eggs, half of that, four eggs, is the \"pras\" of all the Talmud. And even though R. Shimon holds that a whole loaf contains three meals (two-thirds of a loaf constituting two meals according to R. Shimon), that is in respect to eruv, where the intent was to be lenient, so that two full meals were not required. But in all other places R. Shimon holds that a meal is not less than half a loaf of a third of a kav, the eating of this half-loaf, four eggs, being the criterion.] Half of a half to render the body unfit. [If one eats a half pras of unclean foods, his body becomes unclean by rabbinical ordinance vis-à-vis the eating of terumah. And a half pras is an egg and a half according to R. Yochanan b. B'roka and two eggs according to R. Shimon.]",
            "\tThe men of a courtyard and the men of a mirpeseth (a balcony) who forgot and did not make an eruv — whatever is higher than ten tefachim appertains to the mirpeseth; lower than that, to the courtyard. [(\"mirpeseth\":) a high place in the courtyard of a house onto which many upper chambers open. And all of them (the occupants of the upper chambers) go out by one ladder to the courtyard, and from it, to the public domain. Notwithstanding this, they (the upper occupants) do not forbid (the lower), since the mirpeseth is ten tefachim high (and, therefore, a separate domain). This, provided that the men of the mirpeseth make an eruv for themselves on the mirpeseth, so that it is \"a foot that is permitted in its place\" and does not forbid (see 6:9). (\"and did not make an eruv\":) these (the men of the mirpeseth) with these (the men of the courtyard), but each among themselves. (\"whatever is higher than ten tefachim\":) If there are in the courtyard a mound or a post ten tefachim high close to the mirpeseth and the mirpeseth is not ten tefachim higher than the post, so that the post is easily accessible to the men of the mirpeseth, the mirpeseth \"commands\" it, and they (the men of the mirpeseth) use it and not the men of the courtyard. (\"lower than that, to the courtyard\":) i.e., also to the courtyard, two domains commanding it, the mirpeseth and the courtyard. And if they did not make an eruv with each other, both are forbidden therein.] The chuliah of a hole or a stone ten tefachim high appertain to the mirpeseth; lower than that, to the courtyard. [(The chuliah of a hole\":) the upper edge of the hole. If it is ten tefachim above the (level of the courtyard, the domain of the mirpeseth commands it. This, provided that the hole is full until its mouth with things that it is forbidden to move on Shabbath, in which instance its height, of a certainty, will not be diminished (just as a stone is not diminished), and (provided that) it is level with the floor of the mirpeseth. But if the hole is not full, or even if it is full of things which it is permitted to take on the Sabbath and thereby diminish it — since if it is diminished, it is forbidden, now, even though it is not diminished, it is also forbidden. And if the mirpeseth and the courtyard did not make an eruv with each other, both are forbidden therein.] When is this so? (that a chuliah ten tefachim high appertains to the mirpeseth) When it is close [to the mirpeseth]. But if it is far from it, even if it is ten tefachim high, (it pertains) [also] to the courtyard [as well as to the mirpeseth, and both are forbidden therein if they did not make an eruv with each other.] And what is \"close\"? Whatever is not four tefachim distant.",
            "\tIf one places his eruv [a courtyard eruv] in a gate-house [a place near the gate of the courtyard, where it was customary to station a watchman to keep men in the public domain from entering the courtyard], in an achsadrah (a covered place in front of the house) or on a mirpeseth, it is not an eruv, and if one lives there [in the courtyard gate-house], he does not forbid him [the owner of the courtyard. And he need not furnish a loaf, for it is not a dwelling.] (If one places his eruv) in the straw shed, the cattle shed, the wood shed, or the store-house, it is an eruv, and the one who lives there forbids him. [If the house-owner lent one his straw shed to live in, he the latter) forbids him (the house-owner), since it (the shed) opens on to the courtyard.] R. Yehudah says: If the house-owner has rights in the house [i.e., if he has a place in the other's house where he secretes his vessels], he does not forbid him (the house-owner). [This, only when there are no other dwellers there (in the courtyard); but if there are, he forbids them. Witness: \"he does not forbid him.\" It is him (the house-owner) that he does not forbid, but he does forbid other dwellers, even if the house-owner made an eruv with them. And if the vessels that the house-owner places there are such as may be moved on the Sabbath, this does not constitute \"rights,\" and he does forbid him. For if he wishes, he may take them and put them outside.]",
            "\tIf one leaves his house and goes to spend Shabbath in a different city, whether gentile or Jew, he forbids, [for a dwelling without inhabitants is (still) called a dwelling.] These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: He does not forbid. R. Yossi says: A gentile forbids; a Jew does not forbid. For it is not likely for a Jew to return on Shabbath. [He, too, holds that it is not called a dwelling; still, a gentile forbids, because he might return on Shabbath. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.] R. Shimon says: Even if he left his house and went to dwell with his daughter in that city, he does not forbid, for he puts it (returning home for Shabbath) out of his mind. [Specifically, \"his daughter,\" for one \"makes peace\" in staying with his son-in-law. But one does not put his house out of mind in staying with his son. For there is the possibility that he might quarrel with his daughter-in-law and leave. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            "\tA hole between two courtyards, [half in one and half in the other] — it is forbidden to fill up from it on Shabbath, [for (in doing so) one fills up from his neighbor's domain; and this is forbidden if the courtyards had not been joined by an eruv], unless they make for it a partition ten tefachim high, whether above [i.e., nine tefachim of the partition above the water and one tefach submerged in it], or below [i.e., nine tefachim submerged in it and one tefach visible above], or from the midst of its cavity, [even though the partition does not touch the water at all, this being a lenient ruling of the sages vis-à-vis water, (the sages) saying that we perceive the partition as extending downwards. This, so long as it is in the midst of the cavity of the hole, so that it is perceived as a partition.] Beth Shammai say: below. Beth Hillel say: above. R. Yehudah said: The partition should not be greater than the wall between them! [i.e., (It should not be more effective) than the wall itself that separates the courtyards and runs over the hole, even though it does not descend into its cavity (i.e., the partition is superfluous.) The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tA water-course passing through a courtyard [(Even in a private domain, it is a karmelith (a distinct domain)] — it is forbidden to fill up from it on Shabbath unless one makes a partition for it [in the midst of its cavity along its breadth, which is distinctly recognizable as having been made for the water course], ten tefachim high, at its entrance and at its terminus. R. Yehudah said: The wall on top of it is adjudged a partition. R. Yehudah says: It happened with the water-course of Avel, [which passed through the courtyards] that they filled up (water) from it [in the courtyards] by ruling of the elders on Shabbath, [the partition of the wall of the courtyard availing to that end, R. Yehudah being consistent with his ruling wherein he differs, too, in respect to a hole. The halachah is not in accordance with him.] They said to him: It was short of the required size [for a karmelith, not being either ten tefachim deep or four tefachim wide, lacking which the water does not become a domain in itself to be considered a karmelith. If they made for it a partition at the entrance and not at the terminus, it does not avail, for it is connected to the water outside of the courtyard at its issue, so that it all becomes a karmelith. If they made it at the terminus, but not at the entrance, it likewise does not avail, for it is connected to the upper waters outside the courtyard. But if they made partitions at both the entrance and the terminus, they do avail, for then the waters give the appearance of beginning in this courtyard.]",
            "\tA balcony projecting over the water — it is forbidden to fill up from it on Shabbath unless they make a partition in it ten tefachim high [all around the balcony or all around the hole, four by four, hollowed out in its midst; for we say that we perceive the partition as extending downwards], either above [the hole in the balcony] or below, [i.e., attached to the balcony from below. Rambam explains: \"below\" — on the water opposite the hole of the balcony. For we say that we perceive the partition as extending upwards, as if it reaches to the hole in the balcony from which it is filled.] Likewise, two balconies, one above the other, [and the hole from which it is filled in the upper aligned with the hole in the lower] — if they made (a partition) for the upper [i.e., if the men of the lower were partners with those of the upper to make a partition in the upper], and they did not make one for the lower, both are forbidden until they make an eruv, [for since those of the lower are partners in the partition of the higher, they (the lower) forbid them. And if they made a partition for the lower and did not make one for the higher, even if the higher has no partnership in the partition of the lower, they are both forbidden: the higher, because it lacks a partition; and the lower, because the upper has a \"path\" through it, it, too, filling up water from there, so that the upper forbids the lower until they (the men of the upper) make an eruv with it (the lower). This, when the two balconies are ten tefachim or more distant from each other. But if they are within ten tefachim of each other, even if both made a partition, they forbid each other until they make an eruv.]",
            "\tA courtyard smaller than four cubits — water is not to be spilled into it on Shabbath, [for in four cubits (or more), the water that one is wont to use every day is absorbed in its place and does not go out into the public domain. In less than four cubits, it is not absorbed in its place and does go out into the public domain], unless one makes a hole for it which can contain two sa'ah, [this being the amount of water sufficient for a day's use], from the conduit down, [i.e., the cavity of the hole must contain two sa'ah before the water reaches the conduit on its edge through which it flows into the public domain], both inside or outside, [i.e., whether he made the hole in the courtyard or in the public domain.] It is just that if he made it outside, he must vault it, [i.e., he must make a kind of dome-covering for it, so that it be distinct from the public domain]; but if he made it inside, he need not vault it.",
            "\tR. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: A rut [made for the water spilled out in the courtyard to flow into the public domain], vaulted [a distance of] four by four cubits into the public domain, [four cubits being sufficient to absorb the two sa'ah of water sufficient for a day's use] — water may be spilled into it on Shabbath, [for the water ends and does not go out into the public domain.] The sages say: Even if the roof or the courtyard were a hundred cubits, one may not spill (water directly) onto the rut. [For if he spills the water onto the rut, it flows straight into the public domain, and the onlooker assumes that he spilled it from roof to roof so that the water flows down to the rut. The courtyard and the achsadrah (see 8:4) combine for (the requisite) four cubits. [If there are in the courtyard together with the achsadrah four by four cubits, they combine, and it is permitted to spill water there without making a hole (see 8:9).]",
            "\tLikewise, two upper stories, one opposite the other, [overlooking a courtyard less than four cubits, where they spill their water], some [i.e., the men of one courtyard] having made a hole [in the courtyard], and some [i.e., the men of the other] not having made a hole — those who made a hole are permitted, and those who did not make a hole are forbidden [as long as they did not make an eruv. For if they were permitted to make use of it, they would come to take swill-vessels from their houses down into the courtyard until the edge of the hole, carrying in a courtyard where they had not made an eruv.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tAll the roofs in the city are one domain [And even if there are separate dwellings below for two men, still, the roofs, which are not constantly used, are not distinctive domains, and vessels resting on one roof may be carried to the other], so long as one roof not be ten tefachim higher or lower than the other. [For if there is a ten tefach difference in height, it is forbidden to carry onto the roofs — a decree by reason of a mound ten tefachim high and four tefachim wide in the public domain, which (mound) is a private domain, that one not come to place things upon it to be carried.] These are the words of R. Meir. And the sages say: Each is a domain in itself. [And if the dwellers below did not make an eruv, it is forbidden to carry from one (roof) to the other.] R. Shimon says: Both roofs, and courtyards, and karpefoth (see 2:3) are (considered) one domain for vessels which rested within them, but not for vessels which rested in the house. [R. Shimon's ruling is the most lenient. He says that roofs, courtyards, and karpefoth which are not larger than beth sa'atayim — since their use is not distinctive and constant — are all considered one domain, and one may carry form one to the other without an eruv, even if the roofs were higher or lower than ten (vis-à-vis each other). For R. Shimon holds that courtyard eruvin are required only for house vessels. (\"for vessels which rested within them\":) Vessels which rested in one of them may be carried to the other. (\"but not for vessels which rested in the house\":) Vessels which were resting in the house and were carried into the courtyard by means of the eruv of the men of the courtyard may not be carried from one courtyard to another if the two courtyards did not make an eruv with each other. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            "\tA large roof adjoining a small one — the large is permitted [i.e., It is permitted to bring vessels to it from the house below, and those of the small roof do not forbid it, for vis-à-vis the large roof, the breach in the small roof is (perceived as) an entrance, and it (the large roof) is permitted by reason of the wings jutting out a little on either side as a railing around the roofs, and it is considered an enclosure. (This, when the breach is not larger than ten cubits.)], but the small is forbidden [i.e., It is forbidden to bring vessels to it from the house below, the men of the large roof forbidding it, for it (the small roof) is \"breached onto it\" entirely.] A large courtyard breached onto a small one — the large is permitted, [by reason of the wings remaining on either side, causing the breach to be perceived as an entrance], and the small is forbidden, [being entirely breached. This, only if it were breached before Shabbath, but if it were breached on Shabbath, even the small one is permitted. For since it was permitted for part of Shabbath, before it was breached, it is permitted for all of Shabbath.] A courtyard breached into the public domain [i.e., a courtyard whose wall facing the public domain fell entirely or (were breached) by more than ten cubits] — if one carries from it to a private domain or from a private domain to it, he is liable, [for it is like a public domain.] These are the words of R. Eliezer. The sages say: (If he carries) from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it, he is not liable, [but it is forbidden to do so], for it is [not a public domain, but] like a karmelith. [The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tA courtyard breached into the public domain in two directions, [i.e., one side comprising two directions, as when it were breached in a corner. Even if the breach were less than ten cubits — here, in a corner, it is not considered an entrance, people not making entrances at corners. And a breach larger than ten forbids in even one direction.]; likewise, a house breached (on Shabbath) in two directions, [i.e., if it were breached in a corner, part of one wall having fallen, and part of the other, the roof not extending over the place of the breach. But if the roof did extend over the place of the breach, the breach does not forbid the house, for we perceive the mouth of the roof as \"descending and enclosing.\"]; likewise, a mavui whose walls or lechis were removed (see 1:1) — it is permitted (to carry) on that Shabbath, but forbidden in the future [i.e., the following Shabbath. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says: If it is permitted on that Shabbath, it is permitted in the future, and if it is forbidden in the future, it is forbidden on that Shabbath. [That is, just as it is forbidden in the future, so is it forbidden on that Shabbath. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi. We say \"If it were permitted for part of Shabbath, it is permitted for all of Shabbath\" only in respect to eruv, viz.: If something were permitted by means of an eruv for part of Shabbath, and something happened on that Shabbath which would invalidate the eruv, the eruv is not invalidated, for \"If it were permitted for part of Shabbath, it is permitted for all of Shabbath.\" But we do not say this in an instance where there was a partition part of Shabbath, which was breached on Shabbath.]",
            "\tIf one builds an upper storey atop two houses [which are on two (opposite) sides of the public domain, he may carry under it, for the mouth of the upper storey on either side \"descends and encloses.\"] Likewise, it is permitted to carry on Shabbath under open bridges [since they have partitions beneath them on both ends.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages forbid them. R. Yehudah said further: An eruv may be made for an open mavui [since it has two partitions on two sides, R. Yehudah holding that by Torah law a mavui with two partitions is a private domain. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] The sages forbid it."
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one finds tefillin [in the field, in a place where they are not guarded (against defilement)], he brings them in, pair by pair, [one (phylactery) on his head and one on his arm, as he wears them during the week, this being a \"pair.\" And he keeps on returning and bringing in pairs until he has brought them all in. He holds that the mitzvah of tefillin obtains on Shabbath, but that the sages decreed against it (wearing tefillin on Shabbath) lest the strap tear and he carry them (in a forbidden domain) in his hand. And if he wears more than one pair, he transgresses the prohibition of adding to the mitzvoth, so that they become like a (forbidden) burden.] R. Gamliel says: Two (pairs) by two. [R. Gamliel holds that the mitzvah of tefillin does not obtain on Shabbath, and that the rabbis permitted \"rescuing\" them, for they are regarded as ornaments. Therefore, two pairs at a time may be brought in, two pairs being ornamental. For we learned that there is room on the head for two phylacteries, and so long as it is ornamental it is permitted. And there is no transgression of the prohibition of adding to the mitzvoth here, for there is no mitzvah of tefillin at all (on Shabbath), but (they are regarded as) habiliments in general. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Gamliel.] When is this so? With old ones, [where the knot is recognizable as a tefillin knot, in which instance they are (known to be) holy objects, which may not be left in a place of (possible) defilement.], but with new ones, he is exempt. [He does not desecrate the Sabbath for their sake to bring them in, for they might only be an amulet. They possess holiness only when they are made according to the halachah for the sake of the mitzvah (of tefillin). If he found (many) coupled sets or [many (individual phylacteries)] together, he waits over them [guarding them] until it gets dark, when he brings [all of them] in [together. This, when they are so many that if he brought them in pair by pair he would not be able to bring all of them in by nightfall. (For if they could be brought in pair by pair by nightfall, that is what he does, as stated above)]. And in time of danger [i.e., when the ruling powers decreed against wearing tefillin], he covers them and goes on. [Our Mishnah is defective. This is what was taught: \"When is this so? In a time of danger of shmad (religious persecution). But if he is afraid to stay there because of robbers, he carries them less than four cubits at a time.\"]",
            "\tR. Shimon says: He gives them to his friend, and his friend to his friend until he reaches the outer courtyard (of the city), [and he does not carry them less than four cubits at a time when he is afraid of robbers — a decree lest he carry them from the beginning of four cubits to the end. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon.] And thus with his son, [whose mother bore him in the field on Shabbath — he gives him to his friend, etc. This is preferable to carrying him four cubits at a time.] He gives him to his friend, and his friend to his friend, even a hundred. R. Yehudah says: A man gives a jug to his friend, and his friend to his friend, even outside the tchum. [The jug in this instance is hefker (ownerless), for if it belonged to someone, the ruling is that a beast and vessels are \"as the feet of the owners.\" And R. Yehudah holds that articles of hefker do not acquire \"resting.\"] They said to him [\"They\" here refers to R. Yochanan b. Nuri, who says that articles of hefker acquire \"resting\" in their place]: This (the jug) may not travel farther than the feet of its owner. [That is, if it had an owner who did not make an eruv it could travel only two thousand cubits; so, now, too, it may travel only two thousand cubits from the place of its resting. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tIf one were reading a scroll [(All of their books were rolled up like our Torah scrolls)] on the lower door-sill, [which is a karmelith], and it unraveled from his hand, he may roll it back to himself [since one end was in his hand]. If he were reading on top of a roof and the scroll unraveled from his hand — As long as it has not reached the ten [lower] tefachim [close to the ground of the public domain], he turns it over on the writing, [the letters facing the wall, so that it not be overtly demeaned, and he leaves it there until dark. For if the end were not in his hand, he would be in transgression of a Torah prohibition (if he picked it up), and \"the end in his hand\" is decreed against by reason of \"the end not in his hand.\" The gemara asks: \"But it did not come to rest!\" That is, even though it reached the ten lower tefachim there is no Torah prohibition here, even if the end were not in his hand, for it did not come to rest in the public domain. And it answers: We are speaking of an instance in which the wall is slanted and the scroll came to rest upon the wall projection of the lower ten tefachim, which is tantamount to its resting in the public domain, so that if the end were not in his hand and he brought it back, he would be liable by Torah law.] R. Yehudah says: Even if it were only a needle's-distance from the ground, he rolls it back to himself. [Our Mishnah is defective. It was taught thus: If it reached ten tefachim from the ground, he turns it over on the writing. When is this so? With a slanted wall, where it has come to rest. But with a wall that is not slanted, he rolls it back. These are the word of R. Yehudah, who says that even if it is only a needle's-distance from the ground, he rolls it back to himself, resting on an object being required (for liability).] R. Shimon says: Even if it were on the ground itself, he rolls it back to himself, for nothing proscribed by reason of shvuth (Sabbath resting) overrides (the sanctity of) the holy scriptures, [as in this instance, when the end is in his hand and he transgresses only rabbinical \"shvuth\" if he comes to roll it back. For he is not liable by Torah law unless the scroll leaves his hand entirely and comes to rest in the public domain and he comes to remove it from the public domain and place it in the private domain. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            " \tA ziz [stone or wood projecting from the wall over the public domain, higher than ten tefachim above the ground of the public domain] — they [those in the upper storey] may place (objects upon it) and take from it on Shabbath, [for the air (i.e., the atmosphere) of the public domain reaches only up to ten tefachim. And it is only breakable vessels, like cups and flasks, that may be placed there, but not unbreakable ones, lest they fall into the public domain and come to be retrieved.] One may stand in a private domain and move (an object) in the public domain, [i.e., He may stand in his house or on the roof and take an object in the public domain and put it down elsewhere in the public domain, even though his head and most of his body are not in the public domain in the place of the object, and we do not decree (against this) lest he come to take it in], and he may stand in the public domain and move (an object) in a private domain, so long as he does not remove it from the four cubits [in which it was lying.]",
            "\tOne may not stand in a private domain and urinate into the public domain, [for he thereby \"carries\" from the private domain to the public domain. And if he did so, he is liable for a sin-offering. And even though picking up (an object) from a place four by four tefachim is required (for liability), urine and spittle are regarded as resting in a place four by four.], (and one may not stand) in the public domain and urinate into a private domain. Likewise, he may not spit (from one domain to another). R. Yehudah says: Also, if his spittle become \"dislodged\" in his mouth, [i.e., if it became a bolus and turned about in his mouth], he may not walk four cubits without expectorating. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tOne may not stand in a private domain and drink in the public domain, or in the public domain and drink in a private domain, unless he brings his head and most of his body into the place where he drinks. [This, when he drinks with vessels of which he has need — a decree lest he come to bring them in (to his domain). But with vessels which he has no need of, it is permitted, even if he does not bring his head and most of his body into the domain (of the water)]. Likewise, with a vat (for wine-pressing), [vis-à-vis the tithe (ma'aser). If his head and most of his body are in the vat, he drinks without tithing, this being \"casual\" (as opposed to \"fixed\") drinking, but outside the vat, he is not permitted to drink without tithing, this being \"fixed\" drinking.] One may receive (water) from a mazcheilah (a roof-gutter) [It is called \"mazcheilah,\" for anything which \"crawls\" along a wall or on the ground is called \"zochel,\" viz. (Deuteronomy 32:24): \"zochalei afar\" (\"crawlers in the dust\")] below ten tefachim [It is understood thus: One may stand in the public domain and receive (water) from the mazcheilah in a vessel (which is held) less than ten tefachim (from the ground of the public domain. (\"receive\":) specifically, as explained in the gemara. But he may not press his mouth or a vessel to a mazcheilah which is less than three tefachim from the roof, even if it is less than ten tefachim (from the ground of the public domain). For since it runs all along the wall and is less than three tefachim from the roof, it is regarded as the roof, and it (\"pressing,\" etc.) would constitute carrying from the roof, a private domain, to the public domain.]; and he may drink from a pipe in any event. [That is, whether \"receiving\" or \"pressing,\" for a pipe always projects out into the public domain. (The gemara qualifies this as referring to a pipe which is not four by four tefachim, and so, not a domain unto itself.)]",
            "\tA well in the public domain and its chuliah (its surrounding diggings) ten tefachim high — it is permitted to draw (water) from it through a window overlooking it on Shabbath. [Since the chuliah is ten tefachim high, and it is ruled that higher than ten tefachim is not a public domain but a makom p'tur (\"a place of exemption\"), it is permitted to draw water from it through the window above it on Shabbath. For this constitutes taking from a private domain to a private domain through a makom p'tur. And even if the well is four tefachim removed from the wall of the window, it is permitted to draw water through it, for the public domain does not intervene between the well and the window when he draws water from it, but only a makom p'tur. [Likewise,] (a mound of) refuse in the public domain, ten tefachim high — it is permitted to spill water upon it through a window overlooking it on Shabbath. [For it (the refuse mound) is a private domain, and we do not fear lest the refuse mound be reduced to less than ten tefachim and he come to spill (water) upon it as before. This, only with a public refuse mound, which is not likely to be removed; but with a private mound, which is likely to be removed, it is forbidden to throw (refuse) there on Shabbath, for we fear that he might remove it and render it a public domain.]",
            "\tA tree which bends over the ground, [i.e., whose boughs incline downwards all around] — if its boughs are not three tefachim above the ground, it is permitted to carry beneath if. [For since its boughs are not three tefachim above the ground, they are regarded as attached to the ground, and are, therefore, like partitions, for which reason it is permitted to carry beneath it. In any event, the space between the boughs and the ground must be filled with straw and stubble or the like, and the boughs must be tied so that they not be moved by the wind. For any partition that cannot withstand a normal wind is not a partition. And one may carry there only (the distance of) beth sa'atayim (seventy cubits and a remnant). For within any partition whose purpose is for \"space\" — that is, to guard the space of the fields and the vineyards, but not to dwell in — it is permitted to carry only beth sa'atayim.] If its roots are three tefachim above the ground, he may not sit upon them, [it being forbidden to make use of a tree (on Shabbath) — a decree, lest he come to tear from it. But if they are not three tefachim high, they are like the ground, and it is permitted to sit upon them.] The door of the muktzeh, [a space behind the houses, the door of which is not set in a socket, like other doors, but which stands against the opening, and is placed upon the ground when it is removed], and thorns in [i.e., filling] a breach, and [reed] mats — it is forbidden to close (the opening) with them unless they are above the ground. [All of these are not tied and not fixed in place, but when one comes to open (the enclosure), he places them on the ground. For this reason, he does not replace them, this giving the impression of \"building\" (a forbidden Sabbath labor) — unless they are above the ground, in which instance the impression of \"building\" is not given, and he may close (the space) with them.]",
            "\tOne may not stand in a private domain and open in the public domain [He may not stand in a private domain and take the key lying in the public domain and open the door of the shop situated in the public domain, even if there are not four cubits from the place of the key to the door — a decree, lest he take the key to himself (in the private domain)]; (he may not stand) in the public domain and open in a private domain, unless he makes a partition ten tefachim high [and stands within it and opens and closes.] These are the words of R. Meir. They said to him: Did it not happen in the market of the \"fatters\" [butchers who fatten animals for slaughtering] in Jerusalem that they would lock (the doors) and leave the key on the window over the door! [The rabbis understood R. Meir as saying that just as one may not stand in a private domain and open in the public domain, etc., so he may not stand in a karmelith and open in a private domain, or in a private domain and open in a karmelith. For this reason they query him from the (instance of) the market of the fatters\" in Jerusalem, which was a karmelith. (Since its doors were locked at night, it is not called a public domain), and the window on which the key was placed was a private domain, notwithstanding which they stood in the karmelith and opened in the private domain. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir, neither in the public domain nor in a karmelith.] R. Yossi says: It was a market of wool-sellers.",
            "\tA door-bolt [stuck into the walls or the door-sill to lock the door], on whose end there is a fastening contrivance [i.e., whose end is thick and round like a pomegranate and made like a pestle, suitable for pounding pepper] — R. Eliezer forbids (using) it (on Shabbath), and R. Yossi permits it. [Even though it has the status of a vessel, R. Eliezer forbids it unless it is tied and hanging on the door. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.] R. Eliezer said: It happened in a synagogue in Tiberias that they treated it as permitted, until R. Gamliel and the elders came and forbade it to them. R. Yossi says: They treated it as forbidden, until R. Gamliel and the elders came and permitted it to them.",
            "\tA \"dragging\" door-bolt [one which is tied to the door but which does not hang upon it, the rope which is tied to it being long, so that the door-bolt drags on the ground. We are speaking here of a door-bolt without a fastening contrivance on the end, for if it has such a contrivance, R. Yossi (above) permits it, even if it is not tied (to the door), and the halachah is in accordance with him] — it may be used for locking (doors) in the Temple, [for it (the prohibition) is one of shvuth alone. He does not \"build\" per se, since it is tied. But because it drags (and does not hang from the door), it seems like building, and there is no shvuth in the Temple.] And one that lies (on the ground), [not being tied at all], is forbidden in both places, [being \"building\" per se.] R. Yehudah says: One that lies (on the ground) is permitted in the Temple, [R. Yehudah holding that it is not \"building\" per se, but only gives the appearance of building, and in the Temple they did not decree by reason of shvuth], and a dragging one [is permitted even] outside the Temple, [since it is tied, though it does not hang (from the door). The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tThe lower pivot [of a door (of a chest)] may be returned in the Temple, [for so long as the upper did not come out, it is easy to return it and there is no \"building.\"], but not outside the Temple, [a decree, lest he hammer it back, a (forbidden) labor.] But if the upper (also came out), it is forbidden in both places. [For when the upper comes out, it (the door) falls, and it (returning the pivot) is like building.] R. Yehudah says: The upper (may be returned even) in the Temple, [there being \"no 'building' with vessels,\" and only shvuth obtaining, and shvuth not being decreed against in the Temple.], and the lower (may be returned even) outside the Temple. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tA retiyah (a poulticed bandage) is replaced in the Temple [If a Cohein had to minister on Shabbath, and he removed the retiyah covering a wound on his hand, so that it not intervene between his flesh and the (objects of his) ministration, he may return it to its place after the service. For if he were not permitted to do this, he would not minister], but not outside the Temple, [a decree lest he smear the poultice and be liable by reason of \"scraping.\"] And, ab initio, [i.e., If it had not been tied on before, and the Cohein had not removed it for purposes of the service], it is forbidden in both places. [And we do not say in this instance that there is no shvuth in the Temple, for it does not serve a Higher need, but a personal need. And the rabbinical interdict against replacing the retiyah obtains only if it had been spread out on the ground. But if he took it in his hand, so long as it is in his hand, or even if he placed it atop a vessel and did not spread it out on the ground, he is permitted to replace it everywhere.] A string [of a lute for Levitical song, which broke on Shabbath] may be tied in the Temple, but not outside it. [He holds that mitzvah \"enablers,\" which could not have been provided the day before (it having broken on Shabbath) override the Sabbath. This, only if it broke in the middle, in which instance only a temporary knot is made; but close to the bases, where the knot is permanent, it is forbidden.] And ab initio, [where it had never been there, when it could have been provided the day before], it is forbidden in both places. A wart may be cut in the Temple, but not outside it. And if with an instrument, it is forbidden in both places. [A wart is a blemish in kodshim (consecrations), viz. (Leviticus 22:22): \"…or a wart, etc.\", and it may be cut in the Temple by hand, this entailing only shvuth, it not being the normal manner (of removing it). But not with an instrument, this being a clear (forbidden) labor, it being the normal manner (of removal). And cutting a wart from an animal is a toldah (derivative labor) of shearing wool.]",
            "\tIf a Cohein had a sore on his finger, he may wrap bast around it, [even though it heals the sore. Since at the moment it is a requirement for the service, it being unseemly for the sore to be visible during the service, it may be covered with bast.] (He may wrap bast around it) in the Temple, but not outside it, [healing on Shabbath being shvuth, and forbidden.] And if to remove blood, [i.e., tightening the bast to remove blood], it is forbidden in both places, [this being (the proto-labor) \"chovel\" (making a wound), and a proto-labor was not permitted in the Temple.] Salt may be crushed [and spread out] upon the ramp [leading up to the altar], so that they not slip, [for it was smooth, and sometimes they slipped and fell upon it.], but not outside it, [this constituting \"repairing.\"] It is permitted to draw water on Shabbath from \"the well of the exile\" and from \"the great well,\" [which were found in the chambers of the Temple court] with a wheel [made for raising the pail with ropes. It is only with these two wells that this was permitted, but with others, it was forbidden — a decree lest one draw water for his garden and for his dry land on Shabbath, the task being made easier (by the wheel). And in a place where there are no grounds for such a decree, it is permitted to draw water with a wheel. And we are not apprehensive as to the wheel's producing a sound, only musical sound production being forbidden (on Shabbath). Along the same lines, it is permitted to knock on the door or the gate on Shabbath.], and (it is permitted to draw water) from \"the kar well\" on a festival. [Because it was a spring-well, they called it \"the kar well,\" as in \"makor\" (\"source\"). This well was needed by the men of the exile on a festival, and the prophets among them, Chaggai and Zechariah, permitted their drawing water from it by wheel. And their permit remained in effect, allowing them to do so even outside the Temple on a festival, as opposed to (the ruling for) other spring-wells.]",
            "\tIf a sheretz (an unclean creeping thing) were found in the Temple, the Cohein removes it with his belt [on Shabbath, without apprehension of tiltul (forbidden moving) on Shabbath, there being no shvuth in the Temple.], in order not to keep tumah (uncleanliness) in the Temple. These are the words of R. Yochanan b. B'roka. [Even though he thereby renders his belt, which is kodesh (consecrated) unclean, it is preferable to keeping the tumah in the Temple court while looking for wooden tongs. And the Cohein does not touch it with his hands, so that he himself does not become unclean. He holds it in his belt, not touching it. The sheretz does not render unclean the one who carries it; the belt, which becomes unclean through the sheretz, does not render the Cohein unclean when he holds it. For the belt is of first-degree uncleanliness, and men and vessels acquire uncleanliness only through av hatumah (proto-uncleanliness)]. R. Yehudah says: (He removes it) with wooden tongs, [flat wooden vessels, which do not acquire uncleanliness] in order not to increase tumah, [i.e., (in order not) to render unclean the belt, which is clean. It is better to keep the sheretz there and to look for the tongs than to increase uncleanliness. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.] From where is it taken out? From the heichal (the hall containing the golden altar), the ulam (the entrance hall), and between the ulam and the altar. These are the words of R. Shimon b. Naness. [But if he found it in the azarah (the Temple court), he covers it with a p'sachter (a large pot) and leaves it until dark.] R. Akiva says: Wherever he incurs kareth (cutting-off) for [entering] wittingly [in a state of tumah] and a sin-offering for [entering] unwittingly [i.e., in all of the azarah], from there, it is taken out; and in all other places, a p'sachter [a copper pot] is placed upon it. [(the targum of \"its pots\" (Exodus 27:3) is \"p'sachtravatei\") to cover it until dark. The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.] R. Shimon says: A place that the sages permitted to you, they gave you of what is yours; for they permitted to you only what is (interdicted) by reason of shvuth. [R. Shimon differs from the first tanna (10:13), who says that a string may be tied (with a knot) in the Temple. R. Shimon holds that the string of a lute that snapped may be tied only with a bow, which is (otherwise) forbidden only by reason of shvuth, and by which (mode of tying) one will not come to transgress a Torah prohibition. But it is forbidden to tie it with a knot, for that might lead one to transgression of a Torah interdict. R. Shimon says to the first tanna: Do not wonder that I am stringent here and relatively lenient with respect to tchumin, saying (4:11) that even if one went fifteen cubits outside the tchum he may re-enter. For in respect to tchumin, \"they gave you of what is yours,\" knowing that those fifteen cubits are not really outside the tchum. For we know that the surveyors, who place signs for the end of the tchum do not do so exactly at the end of two thousand cubits (but within that distance), because of those who err, not recognizing the signs, and sometimes going a little beyond the tchum and returning — for which reason I am lenient in respect to tchumin. But, in respect to tying a knot in the Temple, (since they permitted in the Temple only shvuth interdicts, but not Torah interdicts) — there, I rule stringently and say that they permitted only the tying of a bow, a shvuth interdict, but they did not permit the tying of a knot, which, in some instances, is forbidden by the Torah. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]"
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}