Talmud - Eruvin 98a עירובין צ״ח א׳

who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Shimon, who said: Anything that is prohibited on Shabbat and its prohibition is not by Torah law, but rather is due to a rabbinic decree issued to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest does not stand as an impediment before the rescue of sacred writings. But if it is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself; and Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the scroll is on the ground itself, he rolls it back to himself.

Is it possible that the tanna cited in the first clause of the mishna is Rabbi Shimon, as claimed above, while it is explicitly stated that the last clause represents the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and yet its middle clause reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rav Yehuda said: Yes, that is the correct, albeit unconventional, explanation. The first and last clauses are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while the middle clause of the mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabba said that the mishna may be understood differently. Here, we are dealing with a threshold that is trodden upon by the public, and due to the potential degradation of the sacred writings the Sages permitted one to violate the rabbinic decree. It would be disgraceful if people were to trample over sacred writings.

Abaye raised an objection to his explanation: It was taught that if the scroll rolled within four cubits, he rolls it back to himself; if it rolled beyond four cubits, he turns it over onto its writing. And if you say we are dealing with a threshold that is trodden on by the public, what difference is there to me whether it remained within four cubits and what difference is there to me if it rolled beyond four cubits? Since the prohibition is a rabbinic decree, not a Torah prohibition, why isn’t one permitted to move the scroll in both cases to prevent the degradation of the sacred writings?

Rather, Abaye said: Here, we are dealing with a threshold that is a karmelit, as the threshold is four handbreadths wide but is less than ten handbreadths high. Furthermore, on one side of the karmelit there is a private domain, and a public domain passes before it.

The reason for the different rulings is as follows: If the scroll rolled within four cubits, even if the entire scroll falls out of the one’s hand and he brings it back, he cannot incur liability to bring a sin-offering, as the prohibition against carrying from a public domain to a karmelit is a rabbinic decree. Consequently, the Sages permitted him to roll it back to himself, as there is no danger of transgressing a Torah prohibition.

However, if it rolled beyond four cubits, so that if he brings it back he incurs liability to bring a sin-offering, as carrying an object four cubits in the public domain is prohibited by Torah law, the Sages did not permit him to roll it back. In this case, if he forgot and carried the scroll instead of rolling it, he would be violating a severe prohibition.

The Gemara asks: If so, let us likewise issue a decree in the case where the scroll remained within four cubits, lest he bring the scroll in from the public domain to the private domain, i.e., to his house. And lest you say: Since a karmelit separates the public and private domains we have no problem with it, as nothing is directly carried from one domain to the other, didn’t Rava say: One who carries an object from the beginning of four cubits to the end of four cubits in the public domain, and he carried it by way of the airspace above his head, he is liable, even though the object remained more than ten handbreadths off the ground and passed from the beginning to the end of four cubits by way of an exempt zone? Here, too, one should be liable for carrying the scroll from the public domain to a private domain by way of a karmelit.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with an extended threshold. Consequently, in the meantime, while he is carrying the scroll along the length of the threshold, he will remember not to bring it into the private domain.

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is referring to a threshold that is not extended; however, ordinarily one peruses sacred writings and then puts them in their place. Consequently, there is no concern that he might pass directly from the public to the private domain, as he will pause on the threshold to read the scroll. The Gemara asks: According to this explanation too, let us be concerned lest he pause to peruse the scroll in the public domain, and subsequently carry it directly into the private domain without pausing in the karmelit.

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Ben Azzai, who said that walking is considered like standing. Consequently, one who passes through the karmelit is considered to have paused and stood there. Therefore, the object was not transferred directly from the public domain to the private domain, as he paused in the karmelit. The Gemara asks: But what of the concern lest he throw the scrolls inside, rather than carry them by hand, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Azzai concedes that one who throws an object from the public domain to a private domain by way of an exempt domain is liable?

The Gemara answers that Rav Aḥa bar Ahava said: That is to say that one does not throw sacred writings, as this is demeaning to them. Consequently, there is no concern that one might throw the scrolls rather than carry them by hand.

It was stated in the mishna: If one was reading on top of the roof, which is a full-fledged private domain, and the scroll rolled from his hand, as long as the edge of the scroll did not reach ten handbreadths above the public domain, he may roll it back to himself. However, once the scroll reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll it back. In that case, he should turn it over, so that the writing of the scroll will be facedown and not be exposed and degraded. The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to do so? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to writers of scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot who interrupt their work, the Sages did not permit them to turn the sheet of parchment facedown lest it become soiled? Rather, one spreads a cloth over it in a respectful manner.

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to scribes, it is possible to cover the parchment respectfully; here, it is not possible to do so. And if he does not turn the scroll over, it will be more degrading to the sacred writings. Consequently, although this is not an ideal solution, it is preferable to turn it over rather than leave the scroll exposed.

The mishna states: Once the scroll has reached within ten handbreadths above the public domain, it is prohibited to roll it back to oneself, and one turns it over onto the writing. The Gemara asks: But why is this prohibited? Since the scroll did not come to rest in the public domain, rolling it back to oneself should not be prohibited. Rava said: This teaching is referring to an inclined wall. Although the scroll did not reach the ground, it came to rest within the confines of the public domain.

Abaye said to him: In what manner did you establish that the mishna is referring to the case of an inclined wall? Say the latter clause of the mishna as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the scroll is removed only a needle breadth from the ground, he rolls it back to himself. But didn’t the scroll come to rest in the public domain? It shouldn’t matter whether or not the scroll is in contact with the ground.

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of an inclined wall. However,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Eruvin 98a examines rescuing sacred scrolls on Shabbat, debating Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda's views on rabbinic decrees versus preventing disgrace to holy texts.