Talmud for Eruvin 10:1

כל שהוא ולעתה בתריה ארבעין זימנין דאת מבעי רב ולא משכח יתיה תמן תנינן שהמבוי לחצירות כחצר לבתים כמה חצירות יהו במבוי רב ושמואל תרויהון אמרין אין להן פחות משתים ר' יעקב בר אחא בשם ר' יוחנן אפי' חצר אחת מיכן וחצר אחת מיכן רבי אחא ר' חיננא בשם ר"י אמר אפי' חצר מיכן ובית מיכן בית מיכן וחנות מיכן רב נחמן בר יעקב בשם רבי יוחנן מבוי אין פחות משני חצירות חצר אינה פחותה משני בתים מבוי שאורכו ורחבו שוין אינו ניתר בלחי וקורה אלא בפסים כחצר שמואל שאל לרב כמה יהא ארכו יתר על רחבו והוא א"ל כל שהוא ההין דר"א דארעא דישראל מה בעו חמשה מבואות פתוחין למבוי עומד מרובה על הפרוץ ופרוץ מרובה על העומד א"צ קורה אם יש ביניהן ד"א הופלג תני רבי הושעיה פתחים פתוחין לרשות הרבים נפתחים נעשה מקומם ר"ה ננעלים נעשה מקומם רשות היחיד מבואות המפולשים לים כמפולשים לבקעה וההן שקקה דר' חנין לא צריך צורת פתח שהוא כמתלקט עשרה טפחים מתוך שלש תקנה תיקנו בו כדי להתיר בתים שלמטן: אם יש לו צורת פתח אע"פ שהוא רחב מעשר אמות אינו צריך למעט: חנניה בר שילמיא הוה יתיב מיתנא לחייה בריה דרב אפיק רב רישיה מן כוותא א"ל לית כן א"ל ולא ניתנייה כן א"ל דתניתיה ואודעיה דלית כן אבא בר הונא אמר צורת פתח שאמרו קנה מיכן וקנה מיכן וגמייא על גביהן רבי ינאי בי רבי ישמעאל בשם רשב"ל

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: They permitted planks for wells only for pilgrims¹⁹The three yearly pilgrimages to the Temple. This implies that after the destruction of the Temple all the rules of the present Chapter became obsolete. Babli 20b as accepted doctrine.. Rav Abin said, at the time of pilgrimage²⁰The suspension of the universal requirement that “what is standing must be more than what is breached” is authorized only temporarily for the needs of actual pilgrims.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Because of the pilgrims²¹But along the pilgrim’s route from Babylonia to Jerusalem the installations are permanent.. Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, the Mishnah implies that one makes planks for wells in the present time²²Since the Mishnah is formulated in the present it must be valid in the present, after the destruction of the Temple and the end of pilgrimages.. But did we not state²³Mishnah 10:12., “one fills from the cistern of the diaspora with a wheel on the Sabbath, from the large cistern, etc.” Why “may one fill from the cold well²⁴While the cisterns mentioned in the Mishnah were on the Temple Mount, the well was somewhere on the pilgrims’ route. Using a mechanical contraption is rabinically forbidden on the holiday since one might be tempted to fix it in case it broke on the holiday. with a wheel on the holiday”? But at the time when Israel came from the diaspora and camped at this well, the prophets among them stipulated that that one could fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday²⁵Babli 104b. Tosephta 8:22.. They did not permit all cold wells, only this well at which they camped. As you are saying there, what was permitted was permitted, and here what was permitted was permitted. Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa instructed in Haifa, Rebbi Jeremiah instructed in Ḥelef about planks for wells in the present time²⁶The Babylonian point of view is rejected..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

One does not save from a fire²⁶This seems to be a truncated quote from a baraita which disagrees with the preceding argument and states that Hagiographa cannot be saved from a fire if this would involve transgressing rabbinic prohibitions.. For him who says, they render hands impure²⁷Mishnah Yadaim 3:8 reports on disagreement whether touching a scroll of Ecclesiastes makes one’s hands impure. There seems to be tacit agreement that Esther does not make the hands impure. This impurity is purely rabbinical; it was instituted so people should not store their heave, which is sanctified, with also holy Scripture, since this would attract rats which would attack the leather on which the scrolls were written. A scroll which does not render the hands impure is not holy; no rabbinic restrictions would have to be waved to save them from a fire., one saves them from a fire; but for him who says, they do not render hands impure, one does not save them from a fire. They objected: Is there not a Hebrew book which was written in Aramaic²⁸Mishnah Yadaim 4:5.; it will not render hands impure but one saves it from a fire, since we have stated: “even though they are written in any language they have to be hidden.” The Mishnah follows Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, nothing forbidden only rabbinically stands in the way of Holy Scriptures²⁹Mishnah Eruvin 10:3. Only biblical prohibitions have to be observed when caring for Scripture on the Sabbath.. Do they disagree³⁰The mishnaic statements in Yadaim and Eruvin.? There it is because of their degradation³¹Lest rats be attracted to the scrolls, Note 27., but here everybody agrees that one saves them from a fire. For whom is it needed? For Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Even though Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said³²Mishnah Megillah 1:11. There do exist approved Aramaic versions of the Pentateuch and Jonathan ben Uziel’s Aramaic paraphrase of Prophets but no recognized Aramaic versions of Hagiographa. The existing Aramaic versions of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Esther, and Chronicles all seem to be post-Talmudic., “also Hagiographa they permitted only that they could be written in Greek,” would he agree here that one saves them from a fire? “It happened that Rabban [Simeon ben]³³Added from E. From the context this seems to be the correct attribution, referring to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel I, the head of the revolutionary government in the first war against the Romans. In the Babylonian parallels, Babli 115a, Tosephta 13:2 (ed. Liebermann) the name always is “Rabban Gamliel” I, the grandfather of Rabban Gamliel of Jabneh. Gamliel was supervising builders on the the Temple Mount when he an Aramaic version of Job was brought to him. He told the builder to hide it under a row of stones.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

Rebbi Yannai said, one who swallowed half the volume of an olive, then threw it up, and again swallowed it, is liable⁶⁸In the Babli, Ḥulin 103b, statement and supporting argument are by R. Assi (Yasa) in the name of R. Joḥanan. The food swallowed is supposed to be forbidden fat.. But one who brought in half the volume of a dried fig and took it out again, is not liable⁶⁹This is not the situation discussed in Note 32 where half a fig was brought in and half a fig taken out; in all a whole fig was transported. But here the same half fig was transported twice; neither transport created liability.. What is the difference between this and the first one? There his palate enjoyed the volume of an olive, but here he never dealt with a full volume of a fig. Rebbi Yose said, sometimes a person may be dealing with a full volume of a fig and not be liable. How is this possible? He took out half of the volume of a dried fig⁷⁰Here starts a new Genizah leaf (G), also edited by L. Ginzberg, loc. cit. p. 65., put it down, again took out half of the volume of a dried fig, but did not manage to put it down before the first one was burned. He was dealing with a full volume of a fig but is not liable⁷¹In the Tosephta 9:11 (ed. Liebermann): “If the first half was eaten before the second came to rest he is not liable, whether in one or in two periods of oblivion.” As explained earlier, quantities less than the minimum trigger liability only if they exist together.
The statement is referred to as obvious in the Babli, 80a.. Because he compared it to forbidden fat he contrived this⁷²This is R. Yose’s explanation of R. Yannai’s statement. Since for fat a single half olive can create liability, there is good reason to formulate R. Yannai’s rule in the way indicated. For the Sabbath, R. Yannai’s statement is unnecessary; it is formulated purely as companion piece to the statement about fat..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Talmud for Eruvin 10:1

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim