dweller

And after that there came one as it were a dweller in the wilderness, and he was inquired of by all: Who art thou? And he answered them and said: I am John, the voice and the prophet of the most High, which came before the face of his advent to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation unto his people, for the remission of their sins. And when I saw him coming unto me, being moved of the Holy Ghost, I said: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him that taketh away the sins of the world. And I baptized him in the river of Jordan, and saw the Holy Ghost descending upon him in the likeness of a dove, and heard a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And now have I come before his face, and come down to declare unto you that he is at hand to visit us, even the dayspring, the Son of God, coming from on high unto us that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.

Because thou hast chosen and loved this for the dwelling-(place) of thine uncleanness, therefore the eternal mighty Lord made thee a dweller upon the earth and through thee every evil spirit of lies, and through thee wrath and trials for the generations of ungodly men; for God, the Eternal, Mighty One, hath not permitted that the bodies of the righteous should be in thy hand, in order that thereby the life of the righteous and the destruction of the unclean may be assured.

"'25. Let their encampment be desolate, let there be no dweller in their habitations.

Mary said: "My Lord, 'Grace and truth met together,'--'grace' then is the spirit who hath come upon thee, when thou didst receive the baptism from John. 'Grace' then is the godly spirit who hath come upon thee; he hath had mercy on the race of men, hath come down and hath met with the power of Sabaōth, the Good which is in thee and which hath made proclamation concerning the regions of Truth. It hath said again: 'Righteousness and peace kissed each other,'--'righteousness' then is the spirit of the Light, which did come upon thee and hath brought the mysteries of the height, to give them unto the race of men. 'Peace' on the other hand is the power of Sabaōth, the Good, which is in thee,--he who hath baptized and hath forgiven the race of men,--and it hath made them at peace with the sons of the Light. And moreover as thy power hath said through David: 'Truth sprouted forth out of the earth,'--that is the power of Sabaōth, the Good, which sprouted forth out of Mary, thy mother, the dweller on earth. 'Righteousness,' which 'looked down from heaven,' on the other hand is the spirit in the height who hath brought all mysteries of the height and given them to the race of men; and they have become righteous and good, and have inherited the Light-kingdom."

It came to pass then, when the First Mystery had finished saying these words unto his disciples, that Thomas came forward, and said: "My Lord, my light-dweller hath ears and my mind hath understood the words which thou hast said. Now, therefore, give commandment unto me to set forth clearly the solution of the words."

If an Israelite rented a field from a priest or from a Levite [for a share in the produce] the tithes belong to the owners [of the field]. Rabbi Ishmael says: if a city dweller [from outside of Jerusalem] rented a field from a Jerusalemite, the second tithe belongs to the inhabitant of Jerusalem. But the sages say: the city dweller may go up and eat the second tithe in Jerusalem.

If an Israelite rented a field from a priest or from a Levite [for a share in the produce] the tithes belong to the owners [of the field]. Rabbi Ishmael says: if a city dweller [from outside of Jerusalem] rented a field from a Jerusalemite, the second tithe belongs to the inhabitant of Jerusalem. But the sages say: the city dweller may go up and eat the second tithe in Jerusalem.

Do they induce ṭevel for the dweller in watch towers? From what it is stated: An elementary school and a Talmud school induce ṭevel for the elementary and the Mishnah teacher, but not for others. That means, they induce ṭevel for the dweller in watch towers.

Do they induce ṭevel for the dweller in watch towers? From what it is stated: An elementary school and a Talmud school induce ṭevel for the elementary and the Mishnah teacher, but not for others. That means, they induce ṭevel for the dweller in watch towers.

HALAKHAH: “Straw on a bed.” Our Mishnah: if he did not sleep on it yesterday; but if he slept on it yesterday it is like its body. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said, the earlier generations were asking, may he stir it by his fingertips? Rebbi Yannai said, the balding is bald, the deprived is deprived, pour cold water on the shivering, the house fell on the dweller in it. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, this is the rule for the poor man.

MISHNAH: In a courtyard where one dweller forgot to make an eruv, his house is forbidden for him and them to bring anything in or take out, but theirs are permitted for them and him. If they ceded their rights to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden. If there were two they forbid one another since a single individual cedes rights and accepts rights but two may cede rights but cannot accept rights.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “In a courtyard where one dweller forgot to make an eruv,” etc. “But theirs are permitted for them and him.” Because he ceded his rights. May this be repeated cyclically? The students of Rav in the name of Rav: it may be repeated cyclically. Samuel said, it may not be repeated cyclically. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “theirs are permitted for them and him.” Because he ceded his rights. But did we not state: “If they ceded their rights to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden”? He explains it that the Mishnah treats different cases.

It was stated: “If two people were partners in a courtyard and one of them died, and the house fell as inheritance to an outside person. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: This is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since he dies there is no greater cession of rights than this. “If an outside person owned a house in the courtyard with them when he died and the house fell as inheritance to a dweller in the courtyard. If before it became dark, this makes it forbidden; after dark it is not forbidden.” Still this is the House of Shammai’s, for the House of Shammai say, one may not cede rights after dark, but the House of Hillel say, one may cede rights after dark. May one cede rights after dark? Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi went up to Ḥammat Gader. They asked Rebbi Ḥama bar Joseph and he permitted. Rebbi Joḥanan heard them and said, you did the correct thing. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish heard it and said, you acted incorrectly. Do they disagree? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they did not disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you moved. Rebbi Abba said, they disagree. He who said, you did the correct thing, that you leased and moved. But he who said, you acted incorrectly, that you leased and that you moved.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Two houses, one inside the other. If the inner one made an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. If the outer one made an eruv, the inner one must contribute to the eruv. Rebbi Phineas said, but in Egypt it was the other way. If he gave on the inner, the outer has to give. If he gave on the outer, the inner does not have to give. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even if the inner one did not make an eruv, the outer one does not have to make an eruv. Why? It is treated as a porter’s lodge. His statement implies that there is no porter’s lodge for a single dweller. Rav’s statement implies that there is a porter’s lodge for a single dweller, for Rebbi Abba bar Jehudah said in the name of Rav: This refers to a porter’s lodge of a single dweller. But for a porter’s lodge of multiple dwellers it is an eruv, and one who dwells there forbids him. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If there are two people, one is entitled, the other one is not entitled. If the one entitled made an eruv, the one not entitled is permitted. If the one not entitled made an eruv, the one entitled is not permitted.

There, we did state: “One puts an eruv in an old house, for communal peace”. Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah speaks of a prior dweller.

MISHNAH: Even though they said that one does not take pledges from women, slaves, and minors, but if they gave the sheqel one accepts it from them. One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan, and from them one does not accept nests of male sufferers from gonorrhea, nests of female sufferers from flux, nests of women having given birth, and purification and reparation sacrifices. This is the principle: Anything which can be given as a vow or a gift one does accept from them; anything which\can be given neither as a vow nor a gift one does not accept from them. So it is spelled out by Ezra, it is not upon you and us to build our God’s House. The following are liable for agio: Levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freedmen, but not priests, women, slaves, and minors. He who pays the sheqel for a slave, a woman, a priest, or a minor, is not liable. He who paid the sheqel for himself and another person is liable for one agio; Rebbi Meïr says, two agios. He who gives a tetradrachma to receive back a sheqel is liable for two agios. A person who pays the sheqel for a poor person. a neighbor, or a dweller in his town is not liable for the agio, unless it is as a loan, then he is liable. Brothers who are partners who are liable for the agio are not liable for animal tithe; if they are liable for animal tithe they are not liable for the agio. How much is the agio? A silver obolos, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, half an obolos.

The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi: I heard from your fathers that all covers [which existed] only were in Benjamin’s part. What is the reason? He rests between his shoulders. But is it not written, He despised the Tent of Joseph and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah. Did he choose Judah? But choosing, choosing. Since choosing there includes Benjamin, so choosing here includes Benjamin. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. Sacral meat given to atonement is consumed in the part of Joseph. Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris said, like vertex of a trapezoid entered from Joseph’s part into Benjamin’s part; on it the altar was situated. What is the reason? The border turned eastward to Taanat-Shilo, up to the door-sill of Shilo. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. That the Divine Presence dwelt in the greatness of Joseph.

The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi: I heard from your fathers that all covers [which existed] only were in Benjamin’s part. What is the reason? He rests between his shoulders. But is it not written, He despised the Tent of Joseph and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah. Did he choose Judah? But choosing, choosing. Since choosing there includes Benjamin, so choosing here includes Benjamin. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. Sacral meat given to atonement is consumed in the part of Joseph. Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris said, like vertex of a trapezoid entered from Joseph’s part into Benjamin’s part; on it the altar was situated. What is the reason? The border turned eastward to Taanat-Shilo, up to the door-sill of Shilo. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. That the Divine Presence dwelt in the greatness of Joseph.

MISHNAH: A villager who went to a walled city, or a dweller in a walled city who went to a village, if he intends to return to his place he reads as at his place; otherwise he reads with them.

HALAKHAH: One understands the dweller in a walled city whose time is later. Is the time of a village dweller who went to a walled city not earlier? Rebbi Yudan said, there is here no village dweller who went to a walled city. And it was stated in the House of Rebbi so: the dweller in a walled city who went to a village. Rebbi Yose said, also here if he will stay with them. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left before dawn, but if he left after dawn he already is not liable. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, then a proselyte who circumcised after dawn already is not liable? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the village dweller who changed his abode in the night of the Fifteenth [is obligated here; and a dweller in a walled city who changed his abode in the night of the Fourteenth] is not liable at either place?

HALAKHAH: One understands the dweller in a walled city whose time is later. Is the time of a village dweller who went to a walled city not earlier? Rebbi Yudan said, there is here no village dweller who went to a walled city. And it was stated in the House of Rebbi so: the dweller in a walled city who went to a village. Rebbi Yose said, also here if he will stay with them. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left before dawn, but if he left after dawn he already is not liable. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, then a proselyte who circumcised after dawn already is not liable? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the village dweller who changed his abode in the night of the Fifteenth [is obligated here; and a dweller in a walled city who changed his abode in the night of the Fourteenth] is not liable at either place?

HALAKHAH: One understands the dweller in a walled city whose time is later. Is the time of a village dweller who went to a walled city not earlier? Rebbi Yudan said, there is here no village dweller who went to a walled city. And it was stated in the House of Rebbi so: the dweller in a walled city who went to a village. Rebbi Yose said, also here if he will stay with them. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left before dawn, but if he left after dawn he already is not liable. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, then a proselyte who circumcised after dawn already is not liable? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the village dweller who changed his abode in the night of the Fifteenth [is obligated here; and a dweller in a walled city who changed his abode in the night of the Fourteenth] is not liable at either place?

HALAKHAH: One understands the dweller in a walled city whose time is later. Is the time of a village dweller who went to a walled city not earlier? Rebbi Yudan said, there is here no village dweller who went to a walled city. And it was stated in the House of Rebbi so: the dweller in a walled city who went to a village. Rebbi Yose said, also here if he will stay with them. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left before dawn, but if he left after dawn he already is not liable. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, then a proselyte who circumcised after dawn already is not liable? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the village dweller who changed his abode in the night of the Fifteenth [is obligated here; and a dweller in a walled city who changed his abode in the night of the Fourteenth] is not liable at either place?

HALAKHAH: One understands the dweller in a walled city whose time is later. Is the time of a village dweller who went to a walled city not earlier? Rebbi Yudan said, there is here no village dweller who went to a walled city. And it was stated in the House of Rebbi so: the dweller in a walled city who went to a village. Rebbi Yose said, also here if he will stay with them. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left before dawn, but if he left after dawn he already is not liable. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, then a proselyte who circumcised after dawn already is not liable? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the village dweller who changed his abode in the night of the Fifteenth [is obligated here; and a dweller in a walled city who changed his abode in the night of the Fourteenth] is not liable at either place?

HALAKHAH: One understands the dweller in a walled city whose time is later. Is the time of a village dweller who went to a walled city not earlier? Rebbi Yudan said, there is here no village dweller who went to a walled city. And it was stated in the House of Rebbi so: the dweller in a walled city who went to a village. Rebbi Yose said, also here if he will stay with them. Rebbi Yose said, only if he left before dawn, but if he left after dawn he already is not liable. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob asked, then a proselyte who circumcised after dawn already is not liable? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the village dweller who changed his abode in the night of the Fifteenth [is obligated here; and a dweller in a walled city who changed his abode in the night of the Fourteenth] is not liable at either place?

May a village dweller free a city dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? May a city dweller free a village dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? Or should it follow what “Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading”? Rebbi Yudan asked. [A village dweller who] decided to move in the night of the Fifteenth? Is that not the Mishnah, “a villager who went to a walled city”? The Mishnah if he was in the walled city. What is problematic for him, if he was in a village. But those on an ocean trip or passing through deserts read normally on the Fourteenth. Rebbi Mana said, if he intended to return to his place. Rebbi Phineas said, therefore the dispersed Jews, in that hour he was dispersed.

May a village dweller free a city dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? May a city dweller free a village dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? Or should it follow what “Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading”? Rebbi Yudan asked. [A village dweller who] decided to move in the night of the Fifteenth? Is that not the Mishnah, “a villager who went to a walled city”? The Mishnah if he was in the walled city. What is problematic for him, if he was in a village. But those on an ocean trip or passing through deserts read normally on the Fourteenth. Rebbi Mana said, if he intended to return to his place. Rebbi Phineas said, therefore the dispersed Jews, in that hour he was dispersed.

May a village dweller free a city dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? May a city dweller free a village dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? Or should it follow what “Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading”? Rebbi Yudan asked. [A village dweller who] decided to move in the night of the Fifteenth? Is that not the Mishnah, “a villager who went to a walled city”? The Mishnah if he was in the walled city. What is problematic for him, if he was in a village. But those on an ocean trip or passing through deserts read normally on the Fourteenth. Rebbi Mana said, if he intended to return to his place. Rebbi Phineas said, therefore the dispersed Jews, in that hour he was dispersed.

May a village dweller free a city dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? May a city dweller free a village dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? Or should it follow what “Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading”? Rebbi Yudan asked. [A village dweller who] decided to move in the night of the Fifteenth? Is that not the Mishnah, “a villager who went to a walled city”? The Mishnah if he was in the walled city. What is problematic for him, if he was in a village. But those on an ocean trip or passing through deserts read normally on the Fourteenth. Rebbi Mana said, if he intended to return to his place. Rebbi Phineas said, therefore the dispersed Jews, in that hour he was dispersed.

May a village dweller free a city dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? May a city dweller free a village dweller of his obligation? Should it follow “anybody not obligated for something may not free the public from their obligation”? Or should it follow what “Rebbi Ḥelbo said, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading”? Rebbi Yudan asked. [A village dweller who] decided to move in the night of the Fifteenth? Is that not the Mishnah, “a villager who went to a walled city”? The Mishnah if he was in the walled city. What is problematic for him, if he was in a village. But those on an ocean trip or passing through deserts read normally on the Fourteenth. Rebbi Mana said, if he intended to return to his place. Rebbi Phineas said, therefore the dispersed Jews, in that hour he was dispersed.

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak? They turned around and said, all your males, to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn, to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?] Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth] and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult] deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

It is written: “And David sang this elegy”, etc., “and said: To teach the people of Judah archery.” Is it reasonable that he had to teach the people of Judah, who was he? But David said, when the just have disappeared, the haters come and attack Israel. “Is that not written in the book Yashar?” Two Amoraïm. One says, that is the book of Genesis. But the other said, that is the fifth of Numbers. The one who said, this is the book of Genesis, is understandable. But the one who said, that is the fifth of Numbers, what war is reported there? “The Children of Israel travelled from the springs of Bene-Ya‘aqon to Mosera; there Aaron died.” Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? That is what is written: “Aaron the Cohen ascended Mount Hor and died there.” But when Aaron died and the clouds of glory disappeared, the Canaanites desired to attack Israel. That is what is written: “The Canaanite, the king of Arad, dweller in the Southland, heard that Israel came by the way of the scouts.” What is “the way of the scouts”? He heard that Aaron died, the great scout, who did scout the way for them. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and travelled eight stations backward. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed eight families from them. They also killed four of their families. That is what is written: “The Amramite, the Yiṣharite, the Ḥebronite, the Uzielite.” When were they re-established? In David’s time. That is what is written: “In his days, the just will blossom”. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not perform kindness for that just man. They went and organized a eulogy and performed kindness for that just man. The verse considers it as if he died and was buried there where they performed kindness for that just man.

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow away from the seafaring men,” etc. That you should not say, not from those who go from Acco to Jaffa but those who frequently take to the sea. “From the dwellers on dry land he is forbidden the seafaring men,” not only those who go from Acco to Jaffa but even those who frequently take to the sea. But did he not make a vow regarding the dwellers on dry land? This implies that the seafaring men are part of the dwellers on dry land. If he made a vow away from the seafaring men after thirty days but [a certain mariner] became a land dweller, there is a dispute between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. For Rebbi Ismael says, after the vow, and Rebbi Aqiba says, after the prohibition. And about children it is a problem.

HALAKHAH: “One who vows not to use the house,” etc. The opinion of Rebbi Meïr is reasonable for a city dweller.

“One puts an eruv in an old house.” Rebbi Abin said, the Mishnah speaks of a prior dweller.

Those bearing columns. Rebbi Ze‘ira: He tells the bottom dweller, you are obliged to support me. Rebbi La: He tells the dweller in the upper floor, the builders say that both have to build the foundations. The following supports the builders: “If his ruined building was close to the wall of his neighbor’s courtyard, he should not tell him: I am contributing to the foundations of your wall where it comes up, but he has to contribute to the foundations from the bottom and up. If it was built on top of ditches or caves, he is not obligated for anything.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it, for example those inhabitants of Bet Shean where the bottom dweller cannot build unless the builder of the upper floor builds.

Those bearing columns. Rebbi Ze‘ira: He tells the bottom dweller, you are obliged to support me. Rebbi La: He tells the dweller in the upper floor, the builders say that both have to build the foundations. The following supports the builders: “If his ruined building was close to the wall of his neighbor’s courtyard, he should not tell him: I am contributing to the foundations of your wall where it comes up, but he has to contribute to the foundations from the bottom and up. If it was built on top of ditches or caves, he is not obligated for anything.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it, for example those inhabitants of Bet Shean where the bottom dweller cannot build unless the builder of the upper floor builds.

Those bearing columns. Rebbi Ze‘ira: He tells the bottom dweller, you are obliged to support me. Rebbi La: He tells the dweller in the upper floor, the builders say that both have to build the foundations. The following supports the builders: “If his ruined building was close to the wall of his neighbor’s courtyard, he should not tell him: I am contributing to the foundations of your wall where it comes up, but he has to contribute to the foundations from the bottom and up. If it was built on top of ditches or caves, he is not obligated for anything.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it, for example those inhabitants of Bet Shean where the bottom dweller cannot build unless the builder of the upper floor builds.

“Rebbi Yose says, the lower one contributes the roofing and the upper one the roof covering,” etc. Rebbi Justus in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish:: The bottom dweller contributes the logs and the planks; the dweller on the upper floor contributes the roof covering. Which kind of roof covering? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: heavy roof covering. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: medium roof covering, since they only spoke about rinsing cups. But if he wanted to wash clothing, also Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar will agree that the roof covering has to be heavy. Rebbi Ḥanina instructed those of Sepphoris that both of them should contribute the logs and the plates since they expect to bring up there their wine and their produce.

“Rebbi Yose says, the lower one contributes the roofing and the upper one the roof covering,” etc. Rebbi Justus in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish:: The bottom dweller contributes the logs and the planks; the dweller on the upper floor contributes the roof covering. Which kind of roof covering? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: heavy roof covering. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: medium roof covering, since they only spoke about rinsing cups. But if he wanted to wash clothing, also Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar will agree that the roof covering has to be heavy. Rebbi Ḥanina instructed those of Sepphoris that both of them should contribute the logs and the plates since they expect to bring up there their wine and their produce.

Also this needs to be differentiated. It is said about a stranger. But to a fellow town dweller he will give an as before he takes his denar.

“May one go there?” If he was a guest, it is forbidden; a town dweller is permitted. A caravan is permitted since caravans go everywhere.

We have proved this for a villager. How do we know that it applies also to inhabitants of walled towns? It is reasonable: If a villager of one day is called a villager, a walled-city-dweller of one day is called a walled-city-dweller.

We have proved this for a villager. How do we know that it applies also to inhabitants of walled towns? It is reasonable: If a villager of one day is called a villager, a walled-city-dweller of one day is called a walled-city-dweller.