Said Abayi: "The passage implies that the tabernacle must be placed immediately beyond where the court is fifty ells in length, and being itself thirty ells long and ten wide, it will have a frontage of fifty ells and twenty ells on each remaining side."
"R. Eliezer said: 'If the length,'" etc. Did we not learn in a Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: "If the length exceeded double the width of the garden or wood-shed by one ell, things must not be carried in them"? Said R. Bibhi bar Abayi: Our Mishna must also be read not "if the length exceed the width," but "if the length exceed double the width." If such be the case, then is this not the same as said by R. Jose? The difference between them is the one square ell which R. Eliezer adds as a proviso but which R. Jose does not incorporate in his dictum, for the former says (according to the above Boraitha): "Even if the length exceed double the width by one ell," while the latter says, "even if the length be double the width (exactly)."
"R. Jose, however, said," etc. It was taught: R. Joseph in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel, said: The Halakha prevails according to R. Jose's dictum in that a square is not essential. R. Bibhi, also, in the name of R. Jehudah, quoting Samuel, said: "The Halakha prevails according to R. Aqiba, who says, that the garden or wood-shed need not contain any of those objects." Samuel found it necessary to make both statements in order to make the ordinance more lenient, i.e., that neither was it essential that the garden or wood-shed be square nor that it contain a watch-box, dwelling, etc.
If a wood-shed of more than two saahs' capacity was fenced in for a dwelling, and the larger part of it was used to sow grain therein, it is like a garden and things must not be moved therein, because the fact that it was used for the purpose of sowing grain nullifies the original intention to use it for a dwelling. If, however, trees were planted in the greater part of it, things may be carried therein, because it is considered as a yard or court adjacent to a house. What is the law, however, if only in the smaller part of such a wood-shed grain was sown? Said R. Huna the son of R. Jehoshua: If the wood-shed was of two saahs' capacity, it is allowed to carry things therein under those circumstances, but if it was of a larger capacity, it is not allowed (to carry things therein). This will be in accordance with R. Simeon, whose opinion will be cited later (Chapter IX., Mishna i.). If trees were planted in the wood-shed: according to R. Jehudah in the name of Abhimi, things may be carried only if benches were made between the trees, but according to R. Na'hman, this is not necessary, and R. Huna the son of Jehudah is of the same opinion as R. Na'hman.
Said R. Na'hman in the name of Samuel: A wood-shed of over two saahs' capacity, which was not fenced in for a dwelling, stood near a house which was subsequently built adjoining it. What is to be done in order to make it lawful for the occupants of the house to carry things to and from the wood-shed and the house on the Sabbath? First, a breach of more than ten ells should be made in the wall of the wood-shed (thereby rendering the walls useless); then the breach should be filled up so as to make it ten ells only. This will be regarded as a door, and will make it lawful to carry things between the house and the' wood-shed.
The schoolmen asked: "How is it, if the man tore down and rebuilt the walls of the wood-shed piecemeal, i.e., ell by ell until more than ten ells were torn down and then by rebuilding just ten ells of the breach were left. (Must over ten ells be demolished at once in order to render the wall useless or does it suffice if eventually such a breach was made even if it was done ell by ell)"? The answer was: Is this not the same as we have learned in a Mishna (in Tract Kelim), that the vessels of householders which contain a hole larger than a pomegranate are not subject to defilement; and Hezkyah asked, what the law was if a hole the size of an olive was made in the vessel and stopped up and this was repeated until the hole became the size of a pomegranate. R. Johanan answered him and related that Rabbi taught this in another Mishna concerning a sandal, one ear of which had become torn and was mended when the other became tom and was also mended, the sandal after the second mending is not subject to defilement. Rabbi was asked why he had ordained thus, for after the second mending, the same condition existed in the sandal as after the first. He answered: Nay; when the other ear was broken off the sandal was virtually destroyed and after it had been mended it assumed a different appearance. This statement can also be applied to the wall, which with each successive breach of one ell assumed a different appearance. The answer was: Such explanations are superhuman (and can only be made by an angel). According to another version, the answer was: "This is a man (who has knowledge)." 1
Said R. Kahana: "In a bleaching-ground (behind a house) things must not be carried except for a distance of four ells." Said R. Na'hman: "If a door was erected in the bleaching-ground, things may be carried over its entire extent; because the door renders this lawful."
If a wood-shed of over two saahs' capacity which had been intended for a dwelling was filled with water it is considered as if planted with trees, and things may be carried over its entire extent. Said Ameimar: Provided the water was fit to drink; but if not fit for drinking purposes, things must not be carried within the wood-shed.
There was a bleaching-ground in the city of Pumnahara, one side of which opened into the city and the other side into a path leading to a vineyard, which in turn opened into the banks of a lake. Said Rabha: A side-beam should be erected on the side of the bleaching-ground facing the city, and if this is of use as an entry to the city, it will also be a valid entry for the bleaching-ground. This makes it lawful to carry things both in the entry and in the bleaching-ground; but as for carrying from the entry into the bleaching-ground or vice versa, there is a difference of opinion between R. Aha and Rabhina. One permits this because the bleaching-ground is uninhabited. The other prohibits this, lest the bleaching-ground become at some time inhabited and things will be carried to and fro nevertheless.
A wood-shed of over two saahs' capacity which was not fenced in for a dwelling and was made smaller by planting trees therein, is not considered diminished in size. If, however, a pillar was erected within it, ten spans high and four wide, it is considered diminished. If the pillar was less than three spans wide, all agree, that it is of no account; but if it be over three spans and less than four, Rabha said, that the wood-shed is thereby diminished because a thing which is over three spans wide does not come within the law of "lavud" (attachment), and is hence considered an independent subject; Rabha, however, maintains that it is not diminished, for a subject which is less than four spans is of no account.
If a partition was made in the wood-shed four spans distant from the wall, things may be carried over the entire wood-shed. If the partition was less than three spans from the wall, all agree that this would be unlawful. If over three and less than four, Rabba said it is lawful, and Rabha said it is not. R. Shimi, however, taught this ordinance in a more lenient form, namely: If the partition was over three and less than four spans from the wall, all agree, that it is lawful; but if it was less than three then there is a difference of opinion.
Rabba bar bar Hana propounded a question: "If the bottom part of a partition was swallowed up by the earth and the top part remained, can it be accounted a lawful partition or not?" What was the object of this question? If it refers to a partition which was erected on the estate of a deceased proselyte, then this question is identical with that of Jeremiah of Bira, which is decided in Tract Baba Bathra; and if it refers to the Sabbath-law, i.e., if a partition was made on Sabbath, then the question has already been decided previously (page 47).
Concerning a wood-shed of three saahs' capacity which was provided with a roof of only one saah capacity Rabha said: The atmosphere of the unroofed portion of the wood-shed nullifies the roof which has been erected and things must not be carries within it. R. Zera, however, said: The atmosphere of the unroofed portion does not interfere with the roof which is considered as attached to the part of one saah's capacity and things may be carried within the roofed part with impunity. I admit, however, that if a wall of the wood-shed facing a courtyard was entirely demolished, the atmosphere of the adjoining courtyard renders the remaining walls void and makes the woodshed one of over two saahs' capacity.
There
