carries

For Trajan, in the ninth year of his reign, being lifted up [with pride], after the victory he had gained over the Scythians and Dacians, and many other nations, and thinking that the religious body of the Christians were yet wanting to complete the subjugation of all things to himself, and [thereupon] threatening them with persecution unless they should agree to worship dæmons, as did all other nations, thus compelled all who were living godly lives either to sacrifice [to idols] or die. Wherefore the noble soldier of Christ [Ignatius], being in fear for the Church of the Antiochians, was, in accordance with his own desire, brought before Trajan, who was at that time staying at Antioch, but was in haste [to set forth] against Armenia and the Parthians. And when he was set before the Emperor Trajan, [that prince] said to him, Who are you, you evil demon, who so zealously breaks our commands, and persuades others to do the same, so that they should miserably perish? Ignatius replied, No one ought to call Theophorus evil; for all of the demons have departed from the servants of God. But if, because I am an enemy to these [demons], you call me wicked in respect to them, I quite agree with you; for inasmuch as I have Christ the King of heaven [within me], I destroy all the devices of these [demons]. Trajan answered, And who is Theophorus? Ignatius replied, He who has Christ within his breast. Trajan said, Do we not then seem to you to have the gods in our mind, whose assistance we enjoy in fighting against our enemies? Ignatius answered, You are in error when you call the dæmons of the nations gods. For there is but one God, who made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that are in them; and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, whose kingdom may I enjoy. Trajan said, Do you mean Him who was crucified under Pontius Pilate? Ignatius replied, I mean Him who crucified my sin, with him who was the inventor of it, and who has condemned [and cast down] all the deceit and malice of the devil under the feet of those who carry Him in their heart. Trajan said, Do you then carry within you Him that was crucified? Ignatius replied, Truly so; for it is written, 'I will dwell in them, and walk in them.' Then Trajan pronounced sentence as follows: We command that Ignatius, who affirms that he carries about within him Him that was crucified, be bound by soldiers, and carried to the great [city] Rome, there to be devoured by the beasts, for the gratification of the people. When the holy martyr heard this sentence, he cried out with joy, I thank you, O Lord, that You have vouchsafed to honour me with a perfect love towards You, and have made me to be bound with iron chains, like Your Apostle Paul. Having spoken thus, he then, with delight, clasped the chains about him; and when he had first prayed for the Church, and commended it with tears to the Lord, he was hurried away by the savage cruelty of the soldiers, like a distinguished ram the leader of a goodly flock, that he might be carried to Rome, there to furnish food to the bloodthirsty beasts.

And again they say of Dionysos that he forsooth! Is a god, who arranges carousals by night, and teaches drunkenness, and carries off women who do not belong to him. And at length, they say, he went mad and dismissed his handmaidens and fled into the desert; and during his madness he ate serpents. And at last he was killed by Titanos. If then Dionysos were a god, and when he was being killed was unable to help himself, how is it possible that he should help others?

If ancient illustrations of faith which both testify to God’s grace and tend to man’s edification are collected in writing, so that by the perusal of them, as if by the reproduction of the facts, as well God may be honoured, as man may be strengthened; why should not new instances be also collected, that shall be equally suitable for both purposes,—if only on the ground that these modern examples will one day become ancient and available for posterity, although in their present time they are esteemed of less authority, by reason of the presumed veneration for antiquity? But let men look to it, if they judge the power of the Holy Spirit to be one, according to the times and seasons; since some things of later date must be esteemed of more account as being nearer to the very last times, in accordance with the exuberance of grace manifested to the final periods determined for the world. For “in the last days, saith the Lord, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy. And upon my servants and my handmaidens will I pour out of my Spirit; and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” And thus we—who both acknowledge and reverence, even as we do the prophecies, modern visions as equally promised to us, and consider the other powers of the Holy Spirit as an agency of the Church for which also He was sent, administering all gifts in all, even as the Lord distributed to every one as well needfully collect them in writing, as commemorate them in reading to God’s glory; that so no weakness or despondency of faith may suppose that the divine grace abode only among the ancients, whether in respect of the condescension that raised up martyrs, or that gave revelations; since God always carries into effect what He has promised, for a testimony to unbelievers, to believers for a benefit. And we therefore, what we have heard and handled, declare also to you, brethren and little children, that as well you who were concerned in these matters may be reminded of them again to the glory of the Lord, as that you who know them by report may have communion with the blessed martyrs, and through them with the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and honour, for ever and ever. Amen.

And the Lord overthrew my enemy by His word: and he became like the stubble which the wind carries away;

And Abraham said, My Lord chief-captain, who is this most wondrous judge? And who are the angels that write down? And who is the angel like the sun, holding the balance? And who is the fiery angel holding the fire? The chief-captain said, Do you see, most holy Abraham, the terrible man sitting upon the throne? This is the son of the first created Adam, who is called Abel, whom the wicked Cain killed, and he sits thus to judge all creation, and examines righteous men and sinners. For God has said, I shall not judge you, but every man born of man shall be judged. Therefore he has given to him judgment, to judge the world until his great and glorious coming, and then, O righteous Abraham, is the perfect judgment and recompense, eternal and unchangeable, which no one can alter. For every man has come from the first-created, and therefore they are first judged here by his son, and at the second coming they shall be judged by the twelve tribes of Israel, every breath and every creature. But the third time they shall be judged by the Lord God of all, and then, indeed, the end of that judgment is near, and the sentence terrible, and there is none to deliver. And now by three tribunals the judgment of the world and the recompense is made, and for this reason a matter is not finally confirmed by one or two witnesses, but by three witnesses shall everything be established. The two angels on the right hand and on the left, these are they that write down the sins and the righteousness, the one on the right hand writes down the righteousness, and the one on the left the sins. The angel like the sun, holding the balance in his hand, is the archangel, Dokiel the just weigher, and he weighs the righteousnesses and sins with the righteousness of God. The fiery and pitiless angel, holding the fire in his hand, is the archangel Puruel, who has power over fire, and tries the works of men through fire, and if the fire consume the work of any man, the angel of judgment immediately seizes him, and carries him away to the place of sinners, a most bitter place of punishment. But if the fire approves the work of anyone, and does not seize upon it, that man is justified, and the angel of righteousness takes him and carries him up to be saved in the lot of the just. And thus, most righteous Abraham, all things in all men are tried by fire and the balance.

And Abraham said, My Lord chief-captain, who is this most wondrous judge? And who are the angels that write down? And who is the angel like the sun, holding the balance? And who is the fiery angel holding the fire? The chief-captain said, Do you see, most holy Abraham, the terrible man sitting upon the throne? This is the son of the first created Adam, who is called Abel, whom the wicked Cain killed, and he sits thus to judge all creation, and examines righteous men and sinners. For God has said, I shall not judge you, but every man born of man shall be judged. Therefore he has given to him judgment, to judge the world until his great and glorious coming, and then, O righteous Abraham, is the perfect judgment and recompense, eternal and unchangeable, which no one can alter. For every man has come from the first-created, and therefore they are first judged here by his son, and at the second coming they shall be judged by the twelve tribes of Israel, every breath and every creature. But the third time they shall be judged by the Lord God of all, and then, indeed, the end of that judgment is near, and the sentence terrible, and there is none to deliver. And now by three tribunals the judgment of the world and the recompense is made, and for this reason a matter is not finally confirmed by one or two witnesses, but by three witnesses shall everything be established. The two angels on the right hand and on the left, these are they that write down the sins and the righteousness, the one on the right hand writes down the righteousness, and the one on the left the sins. The angel like the sun, holding the balance in his hand, is the archangel, Dokiel the just weigher, and he weighs the righteousnesses and sins with the righteousness of God. The fiery and pitiless angel, holding the fire in his hand, is the archangel Puruel, who has power over fire, and tries the works of men through fire, and if the fire consume the work of any man, the angel of judgment immediately seizes him, and carries him away to the place of sinners, a most bitter place of punishment. But if the fire approves the work of anyone, and does not seize upon it, that man is justified, and the angel of righteousness takes him and carries him up to be saved in the lot of the just. And thus, most righteous Abraham, all things in all men are tried by fire and the balance.

If any Christian carries oil into an heathen temple, or into a synagogue of the Jews, or lights up lamps in their festivals, let him be suspended.

But since he sends us to Hercules, let him repeat to us any of his sayings, and let him justify his shameful subjection to Omphale. Let him show that divine honours should be paid to one who, like a highway robber, carries off a farmer’s ox by force, and afterwards devours it, amusing himself meanwhile with the curses of the owner; in memory of which even to this day sacrifices offered to the demon of Hercules are accompanied with curses. Again he proposes Æsculapius to us, as if to oblige us to repeat what we have said already; but we forbear. In regard to Orpheus, what does he admire in him to make him assert that, by common consent, he was regarded as a divinely inspired man, and lived a noble life? I am greatly deceived if it is not the desire which Celsus has to oppose us and put down Jesus that leads him to sound forth the praises of Orpheus; and whether, when he made himself acquainted with his impious fables about the gods, he did not cast them aside as deserving, even more than the poems of Homer, to be excluded from a well-ordered state. For, indeed, Orpheus says much worse things than Homer of those whom they call gods. Noble, indeed, it was in Anaxarchus to say to Aristocreon, tyrant of Cyprus, “Beat on, beat the shell of Anaxarchus,” but it is the one admirable incident in the life of Anaxarchus known to the Greeks; and although, on the strength of that, some like Celsus might deservedly honour the man for his courage, yet to look up to Anaxarchus as a god is not consistent with reason. He also directs us to Epictetus, whose firmness is justly admired, although his saying when his leg was broken by his master is not to be compared with the marvellous acts and words of Jesus which Celsus refuses to believe; and these words were accompanied by such a divine power, that even to this day they convert not only some of the more ignorant and simple, but many also of the most enlightened of men.

The things which certain stupid men invent, who indulge their fancy, and give bodily form to the punishment of sinners and the reward of the just and righteous, and say that there is at the resurrection a reckoning and a pair of scales, the Church does not receive; but each one of us carries his light and his fire within him, and his heaviness and his lightness is found in his own nature. Just as stone and iron naturally possess the property of falling to the earth, and as the air naturally ascends upward on account of its rarity and its lightness; so also in the resurrection, he that is heavy and lying in sins, his sins will bring him down; and he that is free from the rust of sin, his purity will make him rise in the scale. And our Lord will ascend to heaven, and the angels (will go) before Him like ambassadors, and the just and the righteous will be upon His right hand and His left, and the children behind Him in the form of the life-giving Cross.

[Seed sown in a] perforated flowerpot, prohibits [as kilayim] in a vineyard. [In] one not perforated, does not prohibit [as kilayim]. Rabbi Shimon says: both are forbidden but neither prohibits. One who carries a perforated flowerpot through a vineyard, if [that which is sown in it] grows a two-hundredth part, it is forbidden.

One who carries produce of maaser sheni from a place where it is expensive to a place where it is cheap, or from a place where it is cheap to a place where it is expensive, he redeems it according to the market price of the place [where he redeems it]. One who brings produce from the threshing-floor into the city, or jars of wine from the wine-press into the city, the increase in the price belongs to maaser sheni and the expenses [must be covered] from his household.

And how is [a koy] neither like a behemah nor like a hayyah? It is forbidden because of kilayim [to yoke it] with either a behemah or a hayyah. One who deeds his son his behemah and his hayyah he has not [thereby] given him the koy. If one says, “I will become a nazirite if this is [not] a hayyah or a behemah”, he is a nazirite. In all other ways it is like a behemah and a hayyah: It requires slaughtering (shehitah) like them both; It carries carrion impurity; And to it applies the law relating to a limb of a living being like them both.

The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside: If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt.

The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside: If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt.

The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside: If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt.

The carryings out of Shabbat are two which are four from the inside, and two which are four from the outside. How is this so? The poor man stands outside and the householder stands inside: If the poor man reaches his hand inside and places [something] into the hand of the householder, or if he takes [something] from it and carries it out, the poor man is liable, and the householder is exempt. If the householder reaches his hand outside and places [an object] in the poor man's hand, or takes [something] and carries it in, the master is liable, while the poor man is exempt. If the poor man reaches his hand inside and the master takes [an object] from it, or places [an object] in it and he carries it out, both are exempt; If the householder stretches his hand outside and the poor man takes [an object] from it, or places [an article] in it and he carries it inside, both are exempt.

They also stated another general principle: whatever is fit to store and people generally store things like it, and one carries it out on Shabbat, he is liable for a sin-offering on its account. But whatever is not fit to store and people do not [generally] store things like it, and one carries it out on Shabbat, only he that stores it is liable.

They also stated another general principle: whatever is fit to store and people generally store things like it, and one carries it out on Shabbat, he is liable for a sin-offering on its account. But whatever is not fit to store and people do not [generally] store things like it, and one carries it out on Shabbat, only he that stores it is liable.

He who carries out a cow’s mouthful of straw, a camel’s mouthful of bean stalks, a lamb’s mouthful of clover, a goat’s mouthful of grasses, moist leaves of garlic or moist leaves of onion the size of a dried fig, [or] a goat’s mouthful of dry [leaves], [is liable]. And they do not combine with each other, because they are not alike in their standards. He who carries out [human] food the size of a dried fig is liable, And they combine with each other, because they are equal in their standards, except their shells, kernels, stalks, husks and coarse bran. Rabbi Judah said: excluding the shells of lentils, because they are boiled together with them.

He who carries out a cow’s mouthful of straw, a camel’s mouthful of bean stalks, a lamb’s mouthful of clover, a goat’s mouthful of grasses, moist leaves of garlic or moist leaves of onion the size of a dried fig, [or] a goat’s mouthful of dry [leaves], [is liable]. And they do not combine with each other, because they are not alike in their standards. He who carries out [human] food the size of a dried fig is liable, And they combine with each other, because they are equal in their standards, except their shells, kernels, stalks, husks and coarse bran. Rabbi Judah said: excluding the shells of lentils, because they are boiled together with them.

One who carries out: [unmixed] wine, [is liable if it is] enough for the mixing of a cup; milk, as much as is swallowed at a time; honey, as much as is placed on a scab; oil, as much as is required to rub on a small limb; water, enough to rub with it collyrium; and all other liquids, a revi’it; and all waste water, a revi’it. Rabbi Shimon says: all of them are a revi’it, they stated all of these measures only in respect of those who put them away.

One who carries out rope, as much as is required for making a handle for a basket; A reed cord: as much as is required for making a hanger for a sifter or a sieve. Rabbi Judah says: as much as is required for taking the measure of a child's shoe. Paper, in order to write a tax-collector’s receipt on it. And one who carries out a tax-collector’s receipt is liable. Erased paper, as much as is required to wrap round a small vial of perfume.

One who carries out rope, as much as is required for making a handle for a basket; A reed cord: as much as is required for making a hanger for a sifter or a sieve. Rabbi Judah says: as much as is required for taking the measure of a child's shoe. Paper, in order to write a tax-collector’s receipt on it. And one who carries out a tax-collector’s receipt is liable. Erased paper, as much as is required to wrap round a small vial of perfume.

[One who carries] animal hide: as much as is required for making an amulet; Parchment, for writing on it the shortest passage of the tefillin, which is “Sh’ma Yisrael”: Ink, for writing two letters; Eye shadow, for painting one eye.

If one carries out wood, as much as is required for boiling a light egg; Spices, as much as is required for seasoning a light egg, and they combine with each other. Nutshells, pomegranate peel, woad and madder, as much as is required for dyeing a small piece of cloth the size of a hairnet. Urine, baking soda, lye, cimolian earth, and lion’s leaf, as much as is required for washing a small piece of cloth the size of a hairnet. Rabbi Judah says: as much as is required for removing the stain.

[If one carries out] pepper, in whatever quantity. Olive-refuse, in whatever quantity. Various kinds of spices and various kinds of metal, in whatever quantity. [Pieces] of the stones of the altar or the earth from the altar, worn-out pieces of scrolls or their worn-out covers, in whatever quantity, because they are stored away in order to hide them. Rabbi Judah says: also he who carries out the service vessels of idols, in whatever quantity, [is liable], for it is said, “Let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).

[If one carries out] pepper, in whatever quantity. Olive-refuse, in whatever quantity. Various kinds of spices and various kinds of metal, in whatever quantity. [Pieces] of the stones of the altar or the earth from the altar, worn-out pieces of scrolls or their worn-out covers, in whatever quantity, because they are stored away in order to hide them. Rabbi Judah says: also he who carries out the service vessels of idols, in whatever quantity, [is liable], for it is said, “Let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).

If one carries out a peddler’s basket, even though it contains many types of things, he is liable for only one sin-offering. Garden seeds, less than the size of a dried fig; Rabbi Judah ben Batera ruled: five. Cucumber seed, two. Gourd seed, two. Egyptian bean seed, two. A live clean locust, whatever its size. Dead, the size of a dried fig. The bird of the vineyards, whether live or dead, whatever its size, because they store it for a medicine. Rabbi Judah says: even one who carries out a live unclean locust, whatever its size, [is liable], because they store it away for a child to play with.

If one carries out a peddler’s basket, even though it contains many types of things, he is liable for only one sin-offering. Garden seeds, less than the size of a dried fig; Rabbi Judah ben Batera ruled: five. Cucumber seed, two. Gourd seed, two. Egyptian bean seed, two. A live clean locust, whatever its size. Dead, the size of a dried fig. The bird of the vineyards, whether live or dead, whatever its size, because they store it for a medicine. Rabbi Judah says: even one who carries out a live unclean locust, whatever its size, [is liable], because they store it away for a child to play with.

If one stores something for planting, for a sample, or for medicine, and [then] carries it out on Shabbat, he is liable no matter the size. But all others are not liable except for its standard measure. If he carries it back again, he is liable only for its standard measure.

If one stores something for planting, for a sample, or for medicine, and [then] carries it out on Shabbat, he is liable no matter the size. But all others are not liable except for its standard measure. If he carries it back again, he is liable only for its standard measure.

If one carries out food and places it on the threshold, whether he [himself] subsequently carries it out [into the street] or another does so, he is not liable, because the [whole] act was not performed at once. [If one carries out] a basket which is full of produce and places it on the outer threshold, though most of the produce is outside of the threshold, he is not liable unless he carries out the whole basket.

If one carries out food and places it on the threshold, whether he [himself] subsequently carries it out [into the street] or another does so, he is not liable, because the [whole] act was not performed at once. [If one carries out] a basket which is full of produce and places it on the outer threshold, though most of the produce is outside of the threshold, he is not liable unless he carries out the whole basket.

If one carries out food and places it on the threshold, whether he [himself] subsequently carries it out [into the street] or another does so, he is not liable, because the [whole] act was not performed at once. [If one carries out] a basket which is full of produce and places it on the outer threshold, though most of the produce is outside of the threshold, he is not liable unless he carries out the whole basket.

If one carries out food and places it on the threshold, whether he [himself] subsequently carries it out [into the street] or another does so, he is not liable, because the [whole] act was not performed at once. [If one carries out] a basket which is full of produce and places it on the outer threshold, though most of the produce is outside of the threshold, he is not liable unless he carries out the whole basket.

If one carries something out, whether with his right or with his left hand, in his lap or on his shoulder, he is liable, because this the way of the carrying of the children of Kohat (Numbers 7:9). In a backhanded manner, with his foot, in his mouth, with his elbow, in his ear, in his hair, in his belt with its opening downwards, between his belt and his shirt, in the hem of his shirt, in his shoes or sandals, he is not liable, because he has not carried [it] out as people [generally] carry out.

If one carries out a loaf into the public domain, he is liable. If two carry it out, both are exempt. If one could not carry it out and two carry it out, they are liable; But Rabbi Shimon exempts [them]. If one carries out less than the standard quantity of food in a utensil, he is not liable for the utensil, because the utensil is secondary to the [food]. [If one carries out] a living person on a bed, he is not liable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is secondary to him. A corpse in a bed, he is liable. And similarly [if one carries out] the size of an olive of a corpse, the size of an olive of a nevelah, or the size of a lentil of a [dead] creeping thing, he is liable. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

If one carries out a loaf into the public domain, he is liable. If two carry it out, both are exempt. If one could not carry it out and two carry it out, they are liable; But Rabbi Shimon exempts [them]. If one carries out less than the standard quantity of food in a utensil, he is not liable for the utensil, because the utensil is secondary to the [food]. [If one carries out] a living person on a bed, he is not liable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is secondary to him. A corpse in a bed, he is liable. And similarly [if one carries out] the size of an olive of a corpse, the size of an olive of a nevelah, or the size of a lentil of a [dead] creeping thing, he is liable. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

If one carries out a loaf into the public domain, he is liable. If two carry it out, both are exempt. If one could not carry it out and two carry it out, they are liable; But Rabbi Shimon exempts [them]. If one carries out less than the standard quantity of food in a utensil, he is not liable for the utensil, because the utensil is secondary to the [food]. [If one carries out] a living person on a bed, he is not liable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is secondary to him. A corpse in a bed, he is liable. And similarly [if one carries out] the size of an olive of a corpse, the size of an olive of a nevelah, or the size of a lentil of a [dead] creeping thing, he is liable. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

If one carries out a loaf into the public domain, he is liable. If two carry it out, both are exempt. If one could not carry it out and two carry it out, they are liable; But Rabbi Shimon exempts [them]. If one carries out less than the standard quantity of food in a utensil, he is not liable for the utensil, because the utensil is secondary to the [food]. [If one carries out] a living person on a bed, he is not liable even in respect of the bed, because the bed is secondary to him. A corpse in a bed, he is liable. And similarly [if one carries out] the size of an olive of a corpse, the size of an olive of a nevelah, or the size of a lentil of a [dead] creeping thing, he is liable. But Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

Rabbi Eliezer says: if a festival day immediately precedes or follows Shabbat a man may prepare two eruvs and make the following declaration: “my eruv for the first day is that of the east and for the second day is that of the west”; “the one for the first day is that of the west and the one for the second day is that of the east”; “my eruv is for the first day, and for the second day I will be as the people of my town”; or “my eruv is for the second day, and for the first day I will be as the people of my town”. But the sages say: he either prepares an eruv for one direction or none at all; he either prepares one eruv for the two days or none at all. How should he act? He brings [the eruv] on the first day, he lets it get dark and then he takes it and goes away. On the second day [he again carries the eruv to the same place] and lets it grow dark and then he may eat it. He thus benefits both in his going and in [eating] his eruv. If the eruv was eaten up on the first day it remains effective for the first day but not for the second. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: you do then agree with me that they are two distinct holinesses.

Rabban Gamaliel said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and father told us: “Hurry up and carry out all vessels into the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”. Rabbi Judah said [the instruction was given] in different language: “Hurry up and perform all of your needs in the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”.

Rabban Gamaliel said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and father told us: “Hurry up and carry out all vessels into the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”. Rabbi Judah said [the instruction was given] in different language: “Hurry up and perform all of your needs in the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”.

One who carries jars of wine from place to place, he may not carry them in a basket or in a large basket, but he may carry [them] on his shoulder or in front of him. Similarly, one who brings straw, he may not drape a large basket over his back, rather he must carry it in his hand. And one may start [using] a heap of straw, but [one may] not [start using wood] from the back-yard.

A live coal is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, but a flame can be taken anywhere. In respect of a live coal of sanctified property [one who makes use of it] is considered as having trespassed, but as for a flame [of sanctified property], one may not derive benefit from it, but [one who does] has not trespassed. If one carries out a live coal into the public domain [on Shabbat] he is liable, but [if he carries out] a flame he is exempt. [The water from]: A private well is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, And [the water from a well] belonging to the inhabitants of that town is [restricted to the same limits] as the people of that town; And [the water from a well] belonging to those who came up from Babylonia is [restricted to the same limits] as he who draws [the water].

A live coal is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, but a flame can be taken anywhere. In respect of a live coal of sanctified property [one who makes use of it] is considered as having trespassed, but as for a flame [of sanctified property], one may not derive benefit from it, but [one who does] has not trespassed. If one carries out a live coal into the public domain [on Shabbat] he is liable, but [if he carries out] a flame he is exempt. [The water from]: A private well is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, And [the water from a well] belonging to the inhabitants of that town is [restricted to the same limits] as the people of that town; And [the water from a well] belonging to those who came up from Babylonia is [restricted to the same limits] as he who draws [the water].

Greater stringency applies to sacred things than to terumah, that they may immerse vessels within vessels [together] for terumah, but not for sacred things. The outside and inside and handle [of a vessel are regarded as separate] for terumah, but not for sacred things. One that carries anything possessing midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] terumah, but not sacred things. The garments of those who eat terumah posses midras-uncleanness for [those who eat] sacred things. The rule [for the immersion of garments] for [those who would eat terumah is not the same as the rule for [those who would eat] sacred things: for in the case of sacred things, he must [first] untie [any knots in the unclean garment], dry it [if it is wet, then] immerse it, and afterwards retie it; but in case of terumah, it may [first] be tied and afterwards immersed.

[In the case of] all things which cause defilement in a “tent”, if they [the pieces of the corpse] were divided and brought into the house, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas pronounces [everything under the same roof-space] clean, but the Sages pronounce it unclean. How so? He who touches as much as two halves of an olive [in quantity] of an animal’s carcass or carries them; or in the case of a [human] corpse, he who touches as much as half an olive and stands over as much as half an olive; or touches as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him; or if he stands over as much as two halves of an olive; or if he stands over as much as half an olive and as much as half an olive is above him Rabbi Dosa b. Harkinas pronounces him clean, and the Sages pronounce him unclean. But if he touches as much as half an olive [in quantity] and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive; or if he stood over as much as half an olive and another thing was over him and over as much as half an olive, he is clean. Rabbi Meir said: “Also in this case Rabbi Dosa pronounces him clean and the sages pronounce him unclean. In all such cases a man is unclean unless there is an act of touching and also an act of carrying, or an act of carrying and also [the fact of] being under the same roof-space.” This is the general rule: in whatever case the means of causing defilement are of one category, he is unclean; if they are of two categories, he is clean.”

If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt. If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so? If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13), “some matter” but not the entire principle.

This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.

He who slaughters and offers up outside [the Temple courtyard] is liable in respect of slaughtering and in respect of offering. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: if he slaughtered inside and offered up outside, [he is liable]; if he slaughtered outside and offered up outside, he is not liable [for offering up], because he offered up only that which was unfit. They said to him: even when one slaughters inside and offers up outside, since he carries it out, he renders it unfit.

If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid. One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.

With regard to a thigh-bone of a corpse or a thigh-bone of a consecrated animal, he who touches it, whether it be stopped up or pierced, becomes unclean. With regard to a thighbone of a nevelah or of a [dead] sheretz, if it was stopped up, he who touches it remains clean, but if it was at all pierced it conveys uncleanness by contact. From where do we know [the same rules apply] for carrying? Scripture says, “He that touches and he that carries” (Leviticus 11:39-40), anything that [can become unclean] by contact [can become unclean] by carrying. And anything that cannot [become unclean] by contact, cannot become [unclean] by carrying.

All objects that defile by overshadowing which were divided and then brought into a house: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares clean. But the sages declare [it] unclean. What is the case? One who touches two pieces of nevelah, each the size of half an olive, or carries them, Or, in the case of a corpse, if he touches a piece the size of half an olive and overshadows [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him, Or if he overshadows two [pieces, each] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and [another piece] the size of half an olive overshadows him: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean, And the sages declare him unclean. But if he touches [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, Or if he overshadows [a piece] the size of half an olive and another object overshadows him and [another piece] the size of half an olive, he is clean. Rabbi Meir says: Even here Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas declares him clean and the sages declare him unclean. Every [case] is unclean except [a case of] contact [combined] with carriage or of carriage [combined] with overshadowing. This is the general principle: every object [whose defilement] proceeds from one cause is unclean, from two causes is clean.

One who carries the rope in his hand, If in his usual manner, the mixture is valid; But if not in his usual manner, it is invalid. The question was sent on to Yavneh on three festivals and on the third festival, it was ruled that the mixture was valid, as a temporary measure.

One who carries his produce up to the roof because of maggots, and dew came down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if he intended for this to happen, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If a deaf-mute, or a person not of sound senses, or a minor carried it up, although he expected that dew should come down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention.

One who carries up to the roof bundles [of vegetables] or cakes of figs or garlic so as to keep them fresh, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. All bundles [of vegetables] in the market places are unclean. Rabbi Judah declares them clean if they are fresh. Rabbi Meir said: Why did they declare them unclean? Only because of liquid from the mouth. All coarse and fine flours of the market places are unclean. Crushed wheat, groats, and pearl-barley are unclean everywhere.

Whatever carries or is carried by objects on which one sits or lies upon remain clean, except for a person. Whatever carries or is carried by carrion is clean, except for one that shifts it. Rabbi Eliezer says: also one that carries it. Whatever carries or is carried upon a corpse remains clean, except for one that overshadows, or a person when he shifts it.

Whatever carries or is carried by objects on which one sits or lies upon remain clean, except for a person. Whatever carries or is carried by carrion is clean, except for one that shifts it. Rabbi Eliezer says: also one that carries it. Whatever carries or is carried upon a corpse remains clean, except for one that overshadows, or a person when he shifts it.

Whatever carries or is carried by objects on which one sits or lies upon remain clean, except for a person. Whatever carries or is carried by carrion is clean, except for one that shifts it. Rabbi Eliezer says: also one that carries it. Whatever carries or is carried upon a corpse remains clean, except for one that overshadows, or a person when he shifts it.

Whatever carries or is carried by objects on which one sits or lies upon remain clean, except for a person. Whatever carries or is carried by carrion is clean, except for one that shifts it. Rabbi Eliezer says: also one that carries it. Whatever carries or is carried upon a corpse remains clean, except for one that overshadows, or a person when he shifts it.

A double sack full of scrolls or if there were in it bones of a dead person, one carries it on his back and rides.

Five things were said about burning charcoal and five about the flame. One commits larceny with the burning charcoal of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one cannot commit larceny with the latter. Burning charcoal of idolatry is forbidden, its flame is allowed. He who makes a vow not to use anything of another person may not use his burning charcoal but is allowed his flame. He who carries out burning charcoal into the public domain is guilty but for the flame he is free of punishment. One makes the benediction over the flame but not over glowing charcoal. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If the charcoal was crackling one makes the benediction. Rebbi Yoḥanan from Karẓion in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if [the flame] is jumping off.

There are seven kinds of religious people: Religious on the shoulder, religious on credit, religious balancing, religious “what is the deduction,” religious “I shall do it when I realize my guilt,” religious from fear, religious from love. Religious on the shoulder, he carries his deeds onhis shoulder. Religious on credit, “give me credit that I can perform commandments.” Religious balancing, he commits one sin and observes one commandment and balances one against the other. Religious “what is the deduction,” what I have that is what I am using to deduct for doing a commandment. Religious “I shall do it when I realize my guilt,” I committed that sin and therefore I shall do this good deed to counteract it. Religious from fear, like Job. Religious from love, like Abraham. No one is beloved as much as the religious from love, like Abraham.

Where is a warning about calumny? (Deut. 23:10) “Keep yourself from every evil word!” Rebbi La said that Rebbi Ismaël stated (Lev.19:10): “Do not walk around as slanderer among your people,” that is slandering, calumny. Rebbi Nehemiah stated that you should not be like a trader who carries things from one person to another and vice versa.

Who is a trader? Everyone who brought, repeated, and came a third time. Rebbi Jonah asked, if he brought three loads together, is he not a trader; one after the other, is he a trader? Rebbi Jonah asked, does he become a trader retroactively or only for the future? What is the difference? If someone came and brought his things in order, if you say only for the future, can he tithe from one on the other! Rebbi Mana asked: Can he, his son, and his worker combine for three loads? Rebbi Jonah asked, a ship that comes from Rome and carries many kinds, do you count this only as one?

It was stated: “One does not carry to the mourner’s house in colored glass containers because he carries a false load.”

HALAKHAH: : “One does not tie a horse to the sides or the back of a cart.” It is stated: Rebbi Meïr frees from prosecution. If it supported, whether in ascent or in descent, everybody agrees that it is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because the rope is carried between them.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he bound them by their hair? Where do we hold? In case he bound them together by their hair, should we say that it is forbidden to let one animal ride on another? If he tied them by a rope, we say because they carry the rope between them. Rebbi Jonah said, Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree, Rebbi Joḥanan said, because either one carries the laziness of the other. Rav says, because they carry the rope between them. What is the difference? Both according to Rav as also according to Rebbi Joḥanan, if he bound them by their hair he is not punishable!

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with any harvesting-basket. “Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with any harvesting-basket. “Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with any harvesting-basket. “Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.

Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah deals with any harvesting-basket. “Rebbi Simeon permits by a reasoning a fortiori: Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of three tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of two tithes.” Does the First Tithe create ṭevel for the Second? Since you say it is permitted if it carries the potential obligation of two tithes, so much more if it carries only the potential obligation of one tithe.

There, we have stated: “If he worked with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, even on his shoulder, he eats.” We have stated about this, with his hands he makes bundles, with his feet he creates support, even on his shoulder he carries. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with his hands, feet, and body,” as in threshing where he works with his hands, feet, and body, so for anything he works with his hands, feet, and body. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to plucked [grain], so for anything plucked. This excludes him who thins among garlic and onions, makes supports for vines, and weeds under an olive tree. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to growth from the earth, so for anything growing from the earth. This excludes him who milks, makes cheese, or churns milk. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it does not apply after processing, so for anything not after processing. This excludes him who separates dates or dried figs, wine after it is fermented and olive oil when it descends into the vat. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies before the obligation of tithes, so for anything before the obligation of tithes. This excludes him who kneads dough, separates, or bakes.

It is written (Deut. 23:25): “If you come into your neighbor’s vineyard.” I could think that this means everybody; the verse says: “Do not put into your own vessel,” but you may put into somebody else’s vessel. Who is this? This is the laborer. “You may eat grapes.” Do we not know that in a vineyard there is nothing to eat but grapes? Why does the verse say, you may eat grapes? From here [it follows] that if he works fig trees he cannot eat grapes, vines he cannot eat figs. “All your soul’s desire,” all that your inclination may be. “All your soul’s desire,” anything that is free from tithes. What you eat without obligation also the laborer may eat without obligation. “All your soul’s desire,” from here that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages. From here did Rebbi Eleazar Ḥisma deduce that the laborer should not eat more than the value of his wages, but the Sages permit it. From where that his wages are called his soul? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it says here “his soul” and it says at another place “his soul” as it is written (Deut. 24:15): “For that he carries his soul.” Just as “his soul” there means his wages, so here “his soul” means his wages. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not eat and vomit. “Until you are satiated,” that he should not peel figs or suck out grapes.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one exports from a private domain to the public domain through karmelit, he is liable because of him who carries on his back, from the following: “One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable.” For it is impossible that between him and the wall should not karmelit be created. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that his face was turned to the wall and his load on his back and so his load exited first. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: But this is not a usual way of carrying out! He told him, professional porters act in this way. But the following implies it, as Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold.” Is the threshold not karmelit? Rebbi Yose was sorry that he had not said this himself.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one exports from a private domain to the public domain through karmelit, he is liable because of him who carries on his back, from the following: “One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable.” For it is impossible that between him and the wall should not karmelit be created. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that his face was turned to the wall and his load on his back and so his load exited first. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: But this is not a usual way of carrying out! He told him, professional porters act in this way. But the following implies it, as Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold.” Is the threshold not karmelit? Rebbi Yose was sorry that he had not said this himself.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for throwing one is liable. It is everybody’s opinion that the air space over karmelit is not like its essence. Where do they disagree? If one carries out. Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai makes the person walking as if he was putting down but the Sages do not make the person walking as if he was putting down. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna: In Ben Azzai’s opinion nobody ever could become liable for four cubits! Since when he transported something, it is made as if he put it down within every cubit; he should be not liable.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated all of these. The sea as we have stated there: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit. A valley as we have stated: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity. During the rainy season it is (private) [public] domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.” A platform, as we have stated: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid.” A threshold, as we have stated: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if he completed the work at one time he would not be liable. Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden.

Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated all of these. The sea as we have stated there: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit. A valley as we have stated: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity. During the rainy season it is (private) [public] domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.” A platform, as we have stated: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid.” A threshold, as we have stated: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if he completed the work at one time he would not be liable. Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden.

Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated all of these. The sea as we have stated there: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit. A valley as we have stated: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity. During the rainy season it is (private) [public] domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.” A platform, as we have stated: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid.” A threshold, as we have stated: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if he completed the work at one time he would not be liable. Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden.

Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated all of these. The sea as we have stated there: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit. A valley as we have stated: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity. During the rainy season it is (private) [public] domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.” A platform, as we have stated: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid.” A threshold, as we have stated: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if he completed the work at one time he would not be liable. Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden.

MISHNAH: One who brings out rope to make a handle for a box, bast to make a hanger of a small or large sieve, Rebbi Jehudah says to make from it an instrument to measure a shoe for a child. Paper to write on it a toll collector’s receipt; and anybody who carries out a toll collector’s receipt is liable. Erased paper to tie over the the opening of a small perfume flask.

“Anybody who carries out a toll collector’s receipt is liable.” It was stated: “If one carries out a toll collector’s receipt, before he showed it to the toll collector he is liable, after he showed it to the toll collector he is not liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, even after he showed it to the toll collector he is liable since he may show it to another toll collector.” If one carries out a document of indebtedness, before he showed it to the debtor he is liable, after he showed it to the debtor he is not liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, even after he showed it to the debtor he is liable since he may show it to another debtor.

“Anybody who carries out a toll collector’s receipt is liable.” It was stated: “If one carries out a toll collector’s receipt, before he showed it to the toll collector he is liable, after he showed it to the toll collector he is not liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, even after he showed it to the toll collector he is liable since he may show it to another toll collector.” If one carries out a document of indebtedness, before he showed it to the debtor he is liable, after he showed it to the debtor he is not liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, even after he showed it to the debtor he is liable since he may show it to another debtor.

“Anybody who carries out a toll collector’s receipt is liable.” It was stated: “If one carries out a toll collector’s receipt, before he showed it to the toll collector he is liable, after he showed it to the toll collector he is not liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, even after he showed it to the toll collector he is liable since he may show it to another toll collector.” If one carries out a document of indebtedness, before he showed it to the debtor he is liable, after he showed it to the debtor he is not liable. Rebbi Jehudah says, even after he showed it to the debtor he is liable since he may show it to another debtor.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

MISHNAH: He who throws from the sea to dry land, or from dry land to the sea, of from the sea to a ship, or from a ship to the sea, or from one ship to another is not liable. If ships are tied to one another one carries from one to the other; if they are not tied to one another, even though they be surrounded, one does not carry from one to the other.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “and a stone contained in it.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph as our Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan as stated by the House of Rebbi. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it.” Since it is squeezed in it it is like its body. The final clause disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: “otherwise one may not fill with it.” Rebbi Yudan said, since it is used as ballast, one carries the gourd on the stone. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He carries the gourd itself. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person may carry his son with a stone in his hand, a basket and a stone in it,” and in the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis there: they treated a baby like food. There they are saying: they made the stone in the hand of the baby like an expert amulet in the hand of the baby.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “and a stone contained in it.” In the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph as our Mishnah, Rebbi Joḥanan as stated by the House of Rebbi. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it.” Since it is squeezed in it it is like its body. The final clause disagrees with Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: “otherwise one may not fill with it.” Rebbi Yudan said, since it is used as ballast, one carries the gourd on the stone. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He carries the gourd itself. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A person may carry his son with a stone in his hand, a basket and a stone in it,” and in the House of Rebbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis there: they treated a baby like food. There they are saying: they made the stone in the hand of the baby like an expert amulet in the hand of the baby.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the roof as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they do not compare. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed stakes are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine or squash.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shadow it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav Oshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does [not] follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. (We asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rav Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.) We asked about it, we would think this refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him? Samuel said, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, for example what we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it”? He told him, did I not say Eruvin but partitions? Cahana shares Samuel’s opinion. Therefore it was necessary to say that practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah.

Rebbi Zeˋira asked, what kind of threshold? Like a permitted threshold or a forbidden threshold? Rebbi Zeˋira said, when I was still there it was questionable for me, but when I came here I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a threshold is ten [hand-breadths] high but less than four wide it is permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, look what he is saying! He only said, if it is less than four wide. But if it is four wide it is forbidden. He said to him, is that not the case of a cross-beam? Is it not permitted under a cross-beam? Rebbi Zeˋira said, Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan. Samuel said, under the beam it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Everybody agrees that between laths it is forbidden, and it was stated thus: If an alley is made of laths, if between one and the next are four hand-breadths one carries up to the outer one; otherwise one carries up to the inner one. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Uqba, unless the outer one is wider. But if the outer one was wider one carries up to the outer one.

Rebbi Zeˋira asked, what kind of threshold? Like a permitted threshold or a forbidden threshold? Rebbi Zeˋira said, when I was still there it was questionable for me, but when I came here I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a threshold is ten [hand-breadths] high but less than four wide it is permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, look what he is saying! He only said, if it is less than four wide. But if it is four wide it is forbidden. He said to him, is that not the case of a cross-beam? Is it not permitted under a cross-beam? Rebbi Zeˋira said, Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan. Samuel said, under the beam it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Everybody agrees that between laths it is forbidden, and it was stated thus: If an alley is made of laths, if between one and the next are four hand-breadths one carries up to the outer one; otherwise one carries up to the inner one. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Uqba, unless the outer one is wider. But if the outer one was wider one carries up to the outer one.

Rebbi Zeˋira asked, what kind of threshold? Like a permitted threshold or a forbidden threshold? Rebbi Zeˋira said, when I was still there it was questionable for me, but when I came here I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a threshold is ten [hand-breadths] high but less than four wide it is permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, look what he is saying! He only said, if it is less than four wide. But if it is four wide it is forbidden. He said to him, is that not the case of a cross-beam? Is it not permitted under a cross-beam? Rebbi Zeˋira said, Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan. Samuel said, under the beam it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Everybody agrees that between laths it is forbidden, and it was stated thus: If an alley is made of laths, if between one and the next are four hand-breadths one carries up to the outer one; otherwise one carries up to the inner one. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Uqba, unless the outer one is wider. But if the outer one was wider one carries up to the outer one.

HALAKHAH: “One surrounds with sticks, on condition,” etc. One surrounds with sticks for a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. This implies that an individual needs woof and warp. So Rebbi Jehudah differentiates between an individual and a caravan; do the rabbis not differentiate between an individual and a caravan? Let us hear from the following: “If a caravan rested on a hill ten [hand-breadths] high, or in a depression ten [hand-breadths] deep, or in a garden fenced in by a stone wall, one carries in it even if it is a kor or two kor, (one carries in it up to two bet se’ah), on condition that they do not leave an area of two bet se’ah unoccupied.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: even with camel saddles, even with tubs. The word of Rav Huna implies, only by humans. For Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Ḥuna, to one or two one gives two bet se’ah, to three one gives six bet se’ah, from there on by proportion.

HALAKHAH: “One surrounds with sticks, on condition,” etc. One surrounds with sticks for a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. This implies that an individual needs woof and warp. So Rebbi Jehudah differentiates between an individual and a caravan; do the rabbis not differentiate between an individual and a caravan? Let us hear from the following: “If a caravan rested on a hill ten [hand-breadths] high, or in a depression ten [hand-breadths] deep, or in a garden fenced in by a stone wall, one carries in it even if it is a kor or two kor, (one carries in it up to two bet se’ah), on condition that they do not leave an area of two bet se’ah unoccupied.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: even with camel saddles, even with tubs. The word of Rav Huna implies, only by humans. For Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Ḥuna, to one or two one gives two bet se’ah, to three one gives six bet se’ah, from there on by proportion.

From a courtyard open to planks one carries from the courtyard to the planks but not from the planks to the courtyard. Therefore two are forbidden. Rebbi Abba said, not only two courtyards but even a single courtyard and in it two houses. They thought to say if they did not make an eruv; therefore if they made an eruv it would be permitted. Rebbi Daniel the son of Rav Qatina in the name of Rav Ḥuna: even if they made an eruv it is forbidden, for the eruv does not make them one. Rav Ḥuna follows his opinion, as they disagreed: An alley in which on one side dwelt a Gentile and on the other a Jew, Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: even if they made an eruv through doors the Gentile prohibits it for them. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even if they made the eruv through windows the Gentile does not prohibit for them. Even if Rav Ḥuna would hold with Rebbi Joḥanan that there it is permitted, here he has to agree that it is forbidden. There, maybe tomorrow the well will run dry and then he would think that perhaps an eruv is efficient for the planks of wells when an eruv is not efficient for the planks of wells.