1there are people available to bury it. As it was taught in a baraita : Which is the corpse that is considered a met mitzva ?Any corpse that has no one available to bury it. If, however, the deceased has friends or relatives to tend to his burial, his corpse is not considered a met mitzva . Likewise, if the body is in a place where if one calls out, others can answer him, this is not a met mitzva . The Tosefta teaches a novel ruling applicable to the case of a military camp: A solider is buried where he was killed, even if the conditions for met mitzva are not met there.
2With regard to the halakha itself, the Gemara asks: And does a met mitzva actually acquire its place? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita : One who finds a corpse laid out on a main street evacuates it for burial either to the right of the street or to the left of the street, but it may not be buried under the main street itself?
3If one can move the corpse either to an uncultivated field or to a plowed field, he evacuates it to the uncultivated field. If the choice is between a plowed field and a sown field, he evacuates it to the plowed field. If both fields are plowed, or if both are sown, or if both are uncultivated, he evacuates it to any side that he wishes to move it. Apparently, a met mitzva is not necessarily buried where it is found. It may be moved elsewhere.
4Rav Beivai said: Here we are dealing with a corpse laid out across on the side of a public path, and it stretches across the path and reaches the other side. Were the corpse buried there, it would prohibit passage by priests. Since permission was already granted to evacuate it from the side of a public path, one may evacuate it to any side he wishes. If, however, the corpse was in a field, moving it would be prohibited.
5We learned in the mishna that in a military camp one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands. Abaye said: They taught this exemption only with regard to first waters, i.e., hand-washing before eating. However, final waters, i.e., hand-washing after eating and before reciting Grace after Meals, is an obligation even in a military camp.
6Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: For what reason did the Sages say that the final waters are an obligation? It is due to the fact that there is the presence of Sodomite salt, which blinds the eyes even in a small amount. Since Sodomite salt could remain on one’s hands, one must wash them after eating. This obligation is binding even in a camp because soldiers are also obligated to maintain their health.
7Abaye said: And this type of dangerous salt is present in the proportion of a single grain [ korta ] in an entire kor of innocuous salt. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If one measured salt and came into contact with Sodomite salt not during mealtime, what is the halakha ? Is there an obligation to wash his hands afterward? He said to him: It was unnecessary to say this, as he is certainly obligated to do so.
8The mishna continues: And in a military camp, one is exempt from the separation of tithes from doubtfully tithed produce [ demai ]. As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor demai , and one may also feed quartered soldiers [ akhsanya ] demai . Rav Huna said: A tanna taught in a baraita : Beit Shammai say that one may neither feed the poor demai , nor may one feed quartered soldiers demai . And Beit Hillel say that one may feed the poor demai , and one may also feed quartered soldiers demai .
9We learned in the mishna: And in a military camp, one is exempt from establishing an eiruv . The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: They taught that this exemption applies only with regard to the joining of houses in courtyards. However, even those in a military encampment are obligated to establish an eiruv if they desire to effect a joining of Shabbat boundaries, whereby one extends the Shabbat limits beyond which one may not walk on Shabbat.
10As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita : One is flogged by Torah law for going beyond the Shabbat limit if there is no joining of Shabbat boundaries. The Torah states: “No man shall go out [ al yetze ] of his place on the seventh day” (Exodus 16:29). Since this is a Torah prohibition, leniency is possible only in life-threatening circumstances.
11Rabbi Yonatan strongly objects: Is one flogged for violating a prohibition that is expressed in the Torah with the negative al , rather than the negative lo ? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov strongly objects to the question: If what you say is so, with regard to that which is written: “Turn you not [ al ] unto the ghosts, nor unto familiar spirits” (Leviticus 19:31), is the halakha there too that one is not flogged?
12Rather, this is the difficulty for Rabbi Yonatan: The prohibition against overstepping the Shabbat limits is a prohibition that was given primarily as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, i.e., a prohibition which, under certain conditions, is punishable by the death and not merely by lashes, as is the case with most prohibitions. In fact, the prohibition against carrying objects out to the public domain is derived from that same verse, and one who violates that prohibition is liable for execution by the court. And this principle applies: Any prohibition that was given primarily as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment one is not flogged, even if the death penalty does not apply in that particular case.
13Rav Ashi said: Is it written in the Torah: No man shall carry out [ yotzi ], indicating a prohibition against carrying objects from one domain to another on Shabbat? “No man shall go out [ yetze ]” is written. Indeed, according to its plain meaning, the verse deals exclusively with the prohibition of going beyond the Shabbat limits and not with the prohibition of carrying out. Everyone agrees that there is no death penalty administered by the court in overstepping the Shabbat limit.
14MISHNA: One may arrange upright boards [ passin ] around a well in the public domain in order to permit drawing water from the well on Shabbat. A well is usually at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is considered a private domain, and it is prohibited to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a private domain into a public one. The Sages therefore instituted that a virtual partition may be built in the area surrounding the well, so that the enclosed area could be considered a private domain, thus permitting use of the well and carrying of the water within the partitioned area.
15In this specific instance, the Sages demonstrated special leniency and did not require a proper partition to enclose the entire area. For this purpose, it suffices if there are four double posts [ deyomadin ] that look like eight single posts, i.e., four corner pieces, each comprised of two posts joined together at right angles; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: There must be eight posts that look like twelve. How so? There must be four double posts, one in each corner, with four plain posts, one between each pair of double posts.
16The height of the double posts must be at least ten handbreadths, their width must be six handbreadths, and their thickness may be even a minimal amount. And between them, i.e., between the posts, there may be a gap the size of two teams [ revakot ] of three oxen each; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
17Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: There may be a slightly larger gap, the size of two teams of four oxen each, and this gap is measured with the cows being tied together and not untied, and with the minimal space necessary for one team to be entering while the other one is leaving.
18It is permitted to bring the posts closer to the well, provided that the enclosed area is large enough for a cow to stand with its head and the majority of its body inside the partitioned space while it drinks.
19It is permitted