domains

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: (Num. 34:2) “The land of Canaan according to its domains.” Domains that the Canaanites invented. Rebbi Immi asked, does one learn from the Canaanites?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: (Num. 34:2) “The land of Canaan according to its domains.” Domains that the Canaanites invented. Rebbi Immi asked, does one learn from the Canaanites?

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah. The Land of Israel up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure, the one for the Cohen has no measure. From Euphrates or Amanus inside, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion. But it is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux, and to women during menstruation or after childbirth. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen. The following may be given to any Cohen: ḥērem-dedications, firstlings, the redemption money for a [firstborn] son, the redemption value of a firstling donkey, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, oil to burn, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits. Heave vetch Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.

Rebbi Ila said, not only if two doors open to two public roads but even if they open to the same public road will Rebbi Yose agree, for Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. For if he took out the volume of a dried fig through this door and the volume of a dried fig through that door in one period of oblivion is he not liable twice?

Rebbi Ila said, not only if two doors open to two public roads but even if they open to the same public road will Rebbi Yose agree, for Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. For if he took out the volume of a dried fig through this door and the volume of a dried fig through that door in one period of oblivion is he not liable twice?

Rebbi Ila said, not only if two doors open to two public roads but even if they open to the same public road will Rebbi Yose agree, for Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. For if he took out the volume of a dried fig through this door and the volume of a dried fig through that door in one period of oblivion is he not liable twice?

Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Yose compares domains to eating slices. For if one ate the volume of half an olive during the time needed to eat one slice and another volume of half an olive in the time needed to eat another slice, is he not free from liability? If one ate several volumes of olives during several times needed to eat a slice in one period of forgetting, he is liable only once.

“And make an eruv, and store away hot food.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this is about eruv of courtyards. But eruvim of domains are a matter of biblical law.

They asked before Rebbi Yose: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yose said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains one.

A curved and open alley. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he puts a beam or a lath there which permits. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, if they wanted to fix it so that each side may use it up to the closing wall, would not two domains use a common domain? But one may use it up to the bend and the other may use it up to the bend. Would not two domains use a domain forbidden to them? Rav and Samuel, Rav like Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

A curved and open alley. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he puts a beam or a lath there which permits. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, if they wanted to fix it so that each side may use it up to the closing wall, would not two domains use a common domain? But one may use it up to the bend and the other may use it up to the bend. Would not two domains use a domain forbidden to them? Rav and Samuel, Rav like Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

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: “The legitimization of an alley,” etc. What laths? Two laths and beam following the House of Shammai? Laths but no beam following the House of Hillel? Three [hand-breadths wide] following Rebbi Yose? Arbitrarily small following the rabbis? Let us hear from the following: “It happened that Rebbi Eliezer went to his student Rebbi Yose ben Perora at Oblin. He showed him an alley where there was only one lath. He told him, make it two laths. He said to him, what? Are you telling me to close it off? He told him, let it be closed; there is an argument for the domains of the Sabbath in this respect?” This implies three following Rebbi Yose. If you would say, arbitrarily small following the rabbis, does arbitrarily small close off?

HALAKHAH: “One makes planks for wells,” etc. Since what is breached is more than what is standing he makes double columns but not simple ones, which proves by itself that it is because of access to the well. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: You are reaching here what are the limits of domains of the Sabbath, for if he did so at (one) place and then threw there four cubits in the public domain he would be liable. Rebbi Yose said, since you were lenient with him about what is breached may be more than what is standing, you are strict with him in another matter since everywhere else one makes a plank of four hand-breadths but here he makes a plank of six hand-breadths.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they permitted the planks of wells only to draw water. If water came on the Sabbath, the Sabbath already came with prohibition. If the well dried out, the Sabbath already came with permission. Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Nasa asked, may one carry between the planks? We should say that if there are four hand-breadths between one and the other it is like a prohibited threshold, otherwise like a permitted threshold, permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange.

HALAKHAH: “With anything one may make an eruv or participate,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated there, “with anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. One makes an eruv for courtyards and participates both for courtyards and for domains. Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, as it was stated: one may make an eruv with anything eaten raw as is; with bread, one does not make an eruv with it. Garlic and onions, in the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one does not make an eruv with them, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Meïr spent a Sabbath at Ardaksam; there came a person who said, I made an eruv with onions and Rebbi Meïr restricted him to his four cubits. Even though Rebbi Meïr said, with everything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, on condition that it be something eaten raw as is. Arum and colocasia: in the rabbis’ opinion one does not make an eruv with.

Rav Sheshet in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: It is permitted to move ṭevel which has a condition on it. How does he do it? He puts his eyes on a small part and eats the remainder. And it was stated: The House of Shammai say, one does not use Second Tithe as eruv in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this you are saying about eruv of courtyards. But for an eruv of domains, a villager who deposits his eruv at Jerusalem can go there and eat it.

Samuel said, if he is nine or ten years old his eruv is an eruv. Rebbi Yose said, this you are saying about eruv of domains. But for an eruv of courtyards, even if he is small. Rebbi Joshua [ben Levi] said, why does one make eruv of courtyards? Because of peaceful relations. It happened that a woman was hostile to another and sent her her eruv through her son. She took him, embraced him, and kissed him. He went and told it before his mother. She said, obviously she loves me and I did not know it. As a consequence they made peace. That is what is written, its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths peace.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.

There, we have stated: “If there is a doubt, it is pure; Rebbi Yose declares it impure.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declared it impure only because of proof. And Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose declares impure even (one place) [one miqweh]. The argument of Rebbi Yose seems inverted, as we have stated: “Rebbi Yose said, Autolas testified in the name of five Elders that in case of a doubt an eruv is qualified.” And here you are saying so? There in his own name, but here in the name of five Elders. They wanted to say that he who says there “pure” says here “permitted”; he who says there “impure” says here “prohibited”. But even he who says there “impure” agrees here that it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥinena said, do they not only disagree about their words? And a doubt about their words is for leniency. But an eruv is a word of Torah; and a doubt about a word of the Torah is for restriction But is eruv a word of the Torah? Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation? He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarta said, they treated eruv as a doubt involving a deaf-mute person. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, so far if it exists, or even if it was burned? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.

If he did not stipulate? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody made eruvim for two domains he can go to the South according to his eruv in the North, to the North according to his eruv in the South. If he split the domain he may not move from his place.” An animal belonging to two partners one of which made an eruv in the North and the other in the South. It may walk to the South according to the eruv of the one in the North and to the North according to the eruv of the one in the South. If they split the domain it may not move from its place. If they slaughtered it. Rav said, limbs suck from one another. Ulla bar Ismael said, limbs do not suck from one another. Rav agrees about an amphora that it was his part from before.

Rebbi Hoshaia said: You must conclude that the boundaries of Sabbath domains are not clear in the words of the Torah. Rebbi Mana asked, it is accepted that 2’000 cubits is not clear. Are 4’000 cubits not clear? Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The only clear case among all of them is the domain of twelve mil of the camp of Israel.

They asked before Rebbi Yasa: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard, one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yasa said, each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street. Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move it only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains as one.

It was stated: It happened that they were assembled for a meal in the open courtyard when the Sabbath turned holy. The case came before Samuel who said, since they started eating the dish when it still was daytime it is permitted. This implies even assembled for a meal in the open courtyard. This implies, even if they did not make an eruv. This implies, even if they did not intend to. This implies that two domains may not use one domain. This implies, one may rely on participation in courtyards in an emergency.

It was stated: “A straw heap between two courtyards. Each one opens his door and feeds. If the straw was less than ten hand-breadths, both are forbidden until they make an eruv. Therefore if one of them wants to block his door and cede his rights, he is forbidden but his neighbor is permitted.” (And so it is with a cistern) [A ditch] between two courtyards. This implies that one may not cede from courtyard to courtyard. This implies, even if they did not make an eruv. This implies, even if they did not intend to. This implies that two domains may not use one domain. This implies, if each of them uses his door, both are forbidden. And so it is with a house between two courtyards, not following Rebbi Meïr, who said that a locked house is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Anything and participation except water and salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, an eruv is a loaf of bread. Even if a se’ah was baked but is sliced one may not use it for eruv; a loaf the size of an as which is complete may be used for eruv. A person may give an obolus to a grocer or a baker to acquire part in his eruv, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, his money did not acquire for him. They agree for anybody else that his money does acquire for him, because one makes an eruv for a person only with his agreement. Rebbi Jehudah explained, when has this been said? For eruv of domains, but eruvin of courtyards one makes with or without his agreement since one may give benefits to a person in his absence but impose obligations on him only in his presence.

MISHNAH: How does one participate for domains? One puts down an amphora and says, this is for all people of my town who intend to go to a house of mourning or to a wedding feast. Anybody who accepted when it still was daytime is permitted, after dark it is prohibited since one may not make an eruv after dark.

HALAKHAH: “How does one participate for domains,” etc. One does not state “one transfers rights.” Why does one not state “one transfers rights”? Samuel said, there we stated that “one transfers rights,” one has to transfer rights; but here, where we did not state “one transfers rights”, one does not have to transfer rights. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad maius. If there, where eruvin of courtyards are a rabbinic institution you are saying that one has to transfer rights, not so much more eruvin of domains which are words of the Torah? Rav follows Rebbi Joḥanan, (and) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to treat all domains equally.

HALAKHAH: “How does one participate for domains,” etc. One does not state “one transfers rights.” Why does one not state “one transfers rights”? Samuel said, there we stated that “one transfers rights,” one has to transfer rights; but here, where we did not state “one transfers rights”, one does not have to transfer rights. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad maius. If there, where eruvin of courtyards are a rabbinic institution you are saying that one has to transfer rights, not so much more eruvin of domains which are words of the Torah? Rav follows Rebbi Joḥanan, (and) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to treat all domains equally.

HALAKHAH: “How does one participate for domains,” etc. One does not state “one transfers rights.” Why does one not state “one transfers rights”? Samuel said, there we stated that “one transfers rights,” one has to transfer rights; but here, where we did not state “one transfers rights”, one does not have to transfer rights. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad maius. If there, where eruvin of courtyards are a rabbinic institution you are saying that one has to transfer rights, not so much more eruvin of domains which are words of the Torah? Rav follows Rebbi Joḥanan, (and) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to treat all domains equally.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. The words of the rabbis disagree, as Rebbi Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if the partition is lowered into the water to lower a pail. Do not two different domains use the same domain? They supposed to say that no pail moves more than four hand-breadths. Rebbi Tevelai in the name of Rav: The rules of a ruin do not apply to water. If there was a ceiling, one considers it as if it went down and locked. If there was a cross-beam, one considers it as if it went down and locked.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. The Mishnah if it is deep ten [hand-breadths] and wide four [hand-breadths] and open on both sides. If it is open on one side one puts a beam or a lathe on that side. If it is open on both sides one puts a beam or a lathe on one side and makes the shape of a door at the other. Do not two different domains use the same domain? Explain it if there were houses on one side.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water to lower a pail. Do not two different domains use the same domain? Rav Huna said, only if the partition be within three hand-breadths of the balcony.

MISHNAH: All rooftops of a town form one domain on condition that no roof be ten [hand-breadths] higher or ten lower, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say that each roof is a domain by itself. Rebbi Simeon says, not only rooftops but also courtyards and corrals are single domains for vessels which started the Sabbath in them but not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house.

You may say that there are four disagreements. “All rooftops of a town form one domain.” Rebbi Jehudah says, courtyard and rooftops form one domain. “Rebbi Simeon says, courtyards, rooftops, and corrals are single domains for vessels which started the Sabbath in them but not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house”.

HALAKHAH: It speaks only about one, but two are forbidden, for two domains cannot use one domain. If it is not four wide. But if it is four wide, that is what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange.

If they were two. Two Amoraim, one said ten [hand-breadths], the other one said four. He who said ten objected to the one saying four: Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain? He told him, the public domain annuls.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest? This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written, do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written, stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart. That is because he thinks it is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting, and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering.

Rav said, I am saying not less than the volume of an olive. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, for me and for him who did not make eruv? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: An eruv needs a measure neither at the start nor at the end. “On a holiday which falls on a Friday one makes eruv neither for courtyards nor for domains, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one makes eruv for courtyards but does not make eruv for domains”. One makes eruv for courtyards, because it allows something which is allowed to him, but does not make eruv for domains, because you would permit him something which is prohibited to him. There are Tannaim who switch. Rebbi Eleazar said, since there are Tannaim who switch, we have to take notice. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: He who wants to do it right makes the eruv the day before. Rebbi Yudan said, what you are saying is when he did not make eruv tavshilin, but if he made eruv tavshilin it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does eruv tavshilin permit dividers?

Rav said, I am saying not less than the volume of an olive. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, for me and for him who did not make eruv? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: An eruv needs a measure neither at the start nor at the end. “On a holiday which falls on a Friday one makes eruv neither for courtyards nor for domains, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one makes eruv for courtyards but does not make eruv for domains”. One makes eruv for courtyards, because it allows something which is allowed to him, but does not make eruv for domains, because you would permit him something which is prohibited to him. There are Tannaim who switch. Rebbi Eleazar said, since there are Tannaim who switch, we have to take notice. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: He who wants to do it right makes the eruv the day before. Rebbi Yudan said, what you are saying is when he did not make eruv tavshilin, but if he made eruv tavshilin it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does eruv tavshilin permit dividers?

Rav said, I am saying not less than the volume of an olive. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, for me and for him who did not make eruv? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: An eruv needs a measure neither at the start nor at the end. “On a holiday which falls on a Friday one makes eruv neither for courtyards nor for domains, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, one makes eruv for courtyards but does not make eruv for domains”. One makes eruv for courtyards, because it allows something which is allowed to him, but does not make eruv for domains, because you would permit him something which is prohibited to him. There are Tannaim who switch. Rebbi Eleazar said, since there are Tannaim who switch, we have to take notice. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: He who wants to do it right makes the eruv the day before. Rebbi Yudan said, what you are saying is when he did not make eruv tavshilin, but if he made eruv tavshilin it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does eruv tavshilin permit dividers?

HALAKHAH: [A well] between two Sabbath domains. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one makes an iron wall for it. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even a partition made of reeds, on condition that the water not flow in both directions. Rebbi Yudan said, they were more strict with their words than with words of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥanina said, is it not {mixture of} kind in its own kind? But they were strict with their words as with words of the Torah.

MISHNAH: One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, in a house open to the public domain in a city where there are Gentiles and Jews it is permitted, in a city where all are Gentiles it is forbidden unless he install there a watchman. But the watchman does not have to sit there and watch; even if he leaves and reenters it is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, all Gentiles’ domains are the same. One who makes a Non-Jew’s wine in purity and leaves it in his domain, if this one writes to him that I received the money, it is permitted. But if the Jew wants to remove it and he does not let him do it before he paid him his money, this was a case in Bet Shean and the Sages forbade.

In Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion it remains a doubt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, if he stands between two domains, between two domains of the Land of Israel and domains of the Land of Israel.

In Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion it remains a doubt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, if he stands between two domains, between two domains of the Land of Israel and domains of the Land of Israel.

In Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion it remains a doubt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, if he stands between two domains, between two domains of the Land of Israel and domains of the Land of Israel.