שמשכים ומעריב עליהן לבית המדרש רבה אמר במי שמשחיר פניו עליהן כעורב
who, for the Torah’s sake, gets up early in the morning [shaḥar] and stays late in the evening [erev] in the study hall. Rabba said: In him who, for the Torah’s sake, blackens his face like a raven, i.e., who fasts and deprives himself for the sake of Torah study.
רבא אמר במי שמשים עצמו אכזרי על בניו ועל בני ביתו כעורב כי הא דרב אדא בר מתנא הוה קאזיל לבי רב אמרה ליה דביתהו ינוקי דידך מאי אעביד להו אמר לה מי שלימו קורמי באגמא
Rava said: In him who makes himself cruel to his sons and other members of his household like a raven for the sake of Torah. This was the case with Rav Adda bar Mattana, who was about to go to the study hall to learn Torah, and his wife said to him: What shall I do for your children? How shall I feed them in your absence? He said to her: Are all the rushes [kurmei] in the marsh already gone? If there is no other bread, let them eat food prepared from rushes.
ומשלם לשונאיו אל פניו להאבידו אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אילמלא מקרא כתוב אי אפשר לאומרו כביכול כאדם שנושא משוי על פניו ומבקש להשליכו ממנו
The Gemara proceeds to interpret a different verse homiletically: “And He repays them that hate Him to His face to destroy them; He will not be slack to him that hates Him, He will repay him to his face” (Deuteronomy 7:10). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Were the verse not written in this manner, it would be impossible to utter it, in deference to God, for it could be understood, as it were, like a person who bears a burden on his face, and wishes to throw it off. Written slightly differently, the verse could have been understood as implying that God is unable, as it were, to bear the situation, but must punish the wicked immediately.
לא יאחר לשונאו אמר רבי אילא לשונאיו הוא דלא יאחר אבל יאחר לצדיקים גמורים
With regard to the words “He shall not be slack to him that hates Him,” Rabbi Ila said: He will not be slack in bringing punishment to him that hates Him, but He will be slack in rewarding those who are absolutely righteous, as the reward of the righteous does not arrive immediately, but only in the World-to-Come.
והיינו דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב אשר אנכי מצוך היום לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם היום לעשותם למחר לקבל שכרם
And that is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments which I command you today to do them” (Deuteronomy 7:11)? It means: Today is the time to do them, in this world, and tomorrow is not the time to do them, as there is no obligation or opportunity to fulfill mitzvot in the World-to-Come. Furthermore, it means: Today is the time to do them, but only tomorrow, in the ultimate future, is the time to receive reward for doing them.
אמר רבי חגי ואיתימא רבי שמואל בר נחמני מאי דכתיב ארך אפים ארך אף מבעי ליה
In a similar vein, Rabbi Ḥaggai said, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed: The Lord, the Lord, merciful and gracious, long-suffering [erekh appayim], and abundant in love and truth” (Exodus 34:6)? Why does it say “erekh appayim,” using a plural form? It should have said erekh af, using the singular form.
אלא ארך אפים לצדיקים ארך אפים לרשעים:
What this means is that God is long-suffering in two ways: He is long-suffering toward the righteous, i.e., He delays payment of their reward; and He is also long-suffering toward the wicked, i.e., He does not punish them immediately.
רבי יהודה אומר עד בית סאתים וכו׳: איבעיא להו בור ופסין קאמר או דילמא בור ולא פסין קאמר
The mishna stated that Rabbi Yehuda says: The area may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a, an area of five thousand square cubits. A dilemma was raised before the Sages in clarification of this statement: Did he speak of the area of the cistern itself and that enclosed by the upright boards, that the total area enclosed by the upright boards may be expanded up to, but may not exceed, an area of two beit se’a? Or perhaps he spoke of the area of the cistern without that enclosed by the upright boards, that the cistern itself may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a? In that case, the total area enclosed by the boards could exceed an area of two beit se’a.
אדם נותן עיניו בבורו ולא גזרינן דילמא אתי לטלטולי יותר מבית סאתים בקרפף
The underlying rationale of each side of this dilemma is as follows: Does one fix his eyes on his cistern, keeping in mind that the partition is made because of it, and therefore, since the area of the cistern is not greater than an area of two beit se’a, we do not decree lest he come to carry also in an enclosure [karpef], an enclosed storage space behind the house that was not originally surrounded by a fence for the purpose of residence, even when it is more than an area of two beit se’a?
או דילמא אדם נותן עיניו במחיצתו וגזרינן דילמא אתי לאיחלופי יותר מבית סאתים בקרפף
Or perhaps a person fixes his eyes on his partition, and does not pay attention to the cistern, but only to the area enclosed by the partition. And in this case we do decree, lest he come to confuse this case with that of a karpef that is larger than an area of two beit se’a, and come to carry there, because of the similarity between them.
תא שמע כמה הן מקורבין כדי ראשה ורובה של פרה וכמה הן מרוחקין אפילו כור אפילו כוריים רבי יהודה אומר בית סאתים מותר יתר מבית סאתים אסור
In order to resolve this question, the Gemara cites a proof: Come and hear what was taught in a baraita: How close may the boards be to the well? They may be as close as the length of the head and most of the body of a cow. And how far may they be from the well? The enclosed area may be expanded even to the area of a beit kor and even two beit kor, provided that one adds more upright boards or increases their size so as to reduce the size of the gaps between them. Rabbi Yehuda says: Up to an area of two beit se’a, it is permitted to enclose the area in this manner; more than an area of two beit se’a, it is prohibited.
אמרו לרבי יהודה אי אתה מודה בדיר וסהר מוקצה וחצר אפילו בית חמשת כורים ובית עשרת כורים שמותר
The other Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you not concede with regard to a pen, a stable, a backyard, and a courtyard, that even one the size of five beit kor and even of ten beit kor is permitted for use?
אמר להם זו מחיצה ואלו פסין
Rabbi Yehuda said to them: A distinction can be made between the cases, for this, the wall surrounding the pen, the stable or the yard, is a proper partition, and hence it is permitted to carry in them even if they are more than an area of two beit se’a. However, these are only upright boards, and they only allow one to carry if the area they enclose is not more than an area of two beit se’a.
רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בור בית סאתים אבית סאתים מותר ולא אמרו להרחיק אלא כדי ראשה ורובה של פרה
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A cistern the length of two beit se’a by the width of two beit se’a is permitted, and they only said to distance the upright boards from the cistern as much as the length of the head and most of the body of a cow.
הא מדקאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר בור ולא פסין מכלל דרבי יהודה בור ופסין קאמר ולא היא רבי יהודה בור בלא פסין קאמר
The Gemara tries to draw an inference from this baraita: From the fact that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar spoke only of the cistern itself and not of the upright boards, we can infer that Rabbi Yehuda spoke of both the cistern itself and the area enclosed by the upright boards. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is not so. When Rabbi Yehuda said that the area may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a, he was, in fact, speaking of the area of the cistern without that which is enclosed by the upright boards.
אי הכי היינו דרבי שמעון בן אלעזר איכא בינייהו אריך וקטין
The Gemara asks: If so, that is exactly what Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said. The Gemara answers: There is a practical halakhic difference between them in a case where the enclosed area is long and narrow. Rabbi Yehuda permits using it, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar requires that the area be square.
כלל אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כל אויר שתשמישו לדירה כגון דיר וסהר מוקצה וחצר אפילו בית חמשת כורים ובית עשרת כורים מותר
The Gemara adds: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: With regard to any enclosed space that is used as a dwelling, such as a pen, a stable, a backyard, or a courtyard, even if it lacks a roof and even if the structure has the area of five beit kor and even ten beit kor, it is permitted to carry in it.
וכל דירה שתשמישה לאויר כגון בורגנין שבשדות בית סאתים מותר יתר מבית סאתים אסור:
And with regard to any dwelling that is used for the space outside it, i.e., whose partitions were arranged not so that it could be lived in, but for the sake of the field or yard outside, such as field huts, if its area was two beit se’a, it is permitted to carry in it; but if its area was more than two beit se’a, it is prohibited to do so.
מתני׳ רבי יהודה אומר אם היה דרך רשות הרבים מפסקתן יסלקנה לצדדין וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך:
MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the path of the public domain passes through the area of the upright boards surrounding a well and obstructs it, one must divert the path to the sides, so that the public will circumvent the enclosed area; otherwise, the partition is invalid and the enclosed area cannot be regarded as a private domain. And the Rabbis say: One need not divert the path of the public domain, for the partition is valid even if many people pass through it.
גמ׳ רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר דאמרי תרווייהו כאן הודיעך כוחן של מחיצות
GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both said: Here, the Rabbis informed you of the strength of partitions; although a path of the public domain passes through the partitions and the partitions do not constitute effective barriers, they are still strong enough to allow one to carry.
כאן וסבירא ליה והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן ירושלים אילמלא דלתותיה ננעלות בלילה חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים
The Gemara wishes to clarify the meaning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Did he mean here that the Rabbis expressed this idea, and he agrees with them that a public thoroughfare does not invalidate a partition? Didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to Jerusalem, even though it is walled, were it not for the fact that its doors are locked at night, one would be liable for carrying in it on Shabbat because its thoroughfares are regarded as the public domain? Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that a partition is not strong enough to overcome the passage of many people.
אלא כאן ולא סבירא ליה
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement must be understood as follows: Here, the Rabbis expressed this idea, although he does not agree with them.
ורמי דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה ורמי דרבנן אדרבנן
The Gemara raised a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and raised a contradiction between this statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis.
דתניא יתר על כן אמר רבי יהודה מי שהיו לו שני בתים משני צידי רשות הרבים עושה לו לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך
The other statements are as it was taught in the Tosefta: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If one had two houses on the two sides of the public domain, and he wishes to carry from one house to the other on Shabbat via the public domain, he may place a side post from here, perpendicular to the public domain, and an additional side post from here, on the other side of the public domain, or he may place a cross beam from here, from one end of one house to the end of the house opposite it, and another cross beam from here, from the other side of the house, and carry objects and place them in the area between them because the two added partitions turn the area in the middle into a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One cannot make the public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv in this manner, i.e., by means of a side post alone, when many people continue to walk through the public thoroughfare in the middle.
קשיא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן
Consequently, there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and there is also a contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis.
דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה לא קשיא התם דאיכא שתי מחיצות מעלייתא הכא ליכא שתי מחיצות מעלייתא
The Gemara answers: Between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda there is no contradiction, because one can differentiate between them. There, in the case of the two houses, there are two proper partitions, for the houses are real partitions, and two partitions suffice to establish a separate domain. However, here, in the case of the upright boards, there are not two proper partitions, for the upright boards are not real partitions.
דרבנן אדרבנן [נמי] לא קשיא הכא איכא שם ארבע מחיצות התם ליכא שם ארבע מחיצות
Between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis there is also no contradiction, as here, with regard to the upright boards, there is a nominal set of four partitions; on all four sides side there are at least two cubits of some form of partition, so the cistern is regarded as enclosed by four partitions. However, there, with regard to the two houses, there is not a nominal set of four partitions.
אמר רבי יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן ארץ ישראל אין חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים יתיב רב דימי וקאמר ליה להא שמעתא אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי מאי טעמא
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In Eretz Yisrael one is not liable for carrying in the public domain. Rav Dimi sat and recited this halakha. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: What is the reason underlying this ruling?