Parallel
עירובין 10:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
— [This ruling is in agreement with the view of] Rabbi who laid down that two posts are required. For it was taught: A courtyard may be converted into a permitted domain by means of one post, but Rabbi ruled: [Only] by two posts. [But] what [an interpretation is] this! If you concede [that a side-post that can be] seen from without but appears even from within cannot be regarded as a valid side-post, and that Rabbi holds the same view as R. Jose, and [that the replies] of R. Zera and Rabina are not to be accepted, it will be quite intelligible why [the measurement of the] small courtyard [was given] as ten cubits and that of the large one as eleven, the reason being that he is of the same opinion as R. Jose. If, however, you contend [that a side-post that can be] seen from without though it appears even from within may be regarded as a valid side-post, and [that the replies] of R. Zera and Rabina are to be accepted, and that Rabbi is not of the same opinion as R. Jose, what [it may be asked] was the object [of giving the measurement of the] large courtyard as eleven cubits? For whatever the explanation advanced [a difficulty arises]. If [it be suggested] that the object was to [explain why] the large courtyard was permitted, [it could well be objected that a length of] ten cubits and two handbreadths would have been enough, and if the object was to [provide a reason for] the prohibition of the small courtyard, why [it may equally be objected] did he not inform us [of a case] where [the walls] were much wider apart? Hence it must be concluded [that a post that can be] seen from without but appears even from within cannot be regarded as a valid side-post. This is conclusive. R. Joseph remarked: I did not hear that reported ruling [from my teachers]. Said Abaye to him: You yourself told us that ruling, and it was in connection with the following that you told it to us. For Rami b. Abba said in the name of R. Huna that ‘a post which formed an extension of the wall of an alley, [provided it was] less than four cubits [in length], may be regarded as a valid side-post and one may use [the alley] as far as its inner edge, [but if it was] four cubits long it must be regarded as an alley and it is forbidden to make use of any part of the alley’; and you told us in connection with this, that three rulings may be inferred from this statement: ‘It may be inferred that the space between side-posts is a forbidden domain, and it may be inferred [that the minimum] length of an alley is four cubits, and it may also be inferred [that a post that can be] seen from without though it appears even from within may be regarded as a valid side-post’. And the law is [that a post that is] visible from without though it appears even from within may be regarded as a valid side-post. A refutation and a law? — Yes, because R. Hiyya taught in agreement with him. AND [ANY ENTRANCE] THAT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS SHOULD BE REDUCED. Said Abaye, a Tanna taught: And [any entrance] that is wider than ten cubits should be reduced, but R. Judah ruled that it was not necessary to reduce it. But up to what extent [is reduction unnecessary]? R. Ahi [discoursing] before R. Joseph intended to reply: To the extent of thirteen cubits and a third, [this being deduced] a minori ad majus from [the law relating to] enclosures round wells: If [in the case of] enclosures round wells, where [the use of the wells] is permitted even though the broken [portions of the enclosure] exceed the standing ones, no [break] wider than thirteen cubits and a third is permitted, how much more reason is there that no [opening] wider than thirteen cubits and a third should be permitted [in the case of] an alley [the use of] which is not permitted where its broken portions exceed the standing ones. But [in fact] this [very law] provides [ground for all argument to the contrary]: [in the case of] enclosure of wells, where [the use of the wells] was permitted even if the broken [portions of an enclosure] exceeded the standing ones, no [gap] wider than thirteen cubits and a third could well be permitted, [but in the case of] an alley, [the use of which] is not permitted where the broken portions [of its walls] exceeded their standing ones [an opening] wider than thirteen cubits and a third may well be permitted. Or else, [the argument might run] in another direction: [As regards] enclosures of wells, since the law was relaxed in one respect, it could also be relaxed in another, [but as regards] an alley no [opening wider than ten cubits may have been allowed] at all. Levi learned: If [an entrance to] all alley was twenty cubits wide a reed may be inserted in the center of it and this is sufficient. He himself has learnt it and he himself said that the halachah is not in agreement with that teaching. Some there are who read: Samuel laid down in the name of Levi that the halachah was not in agreement with that teaching. How, then, does one proceed? — Samuel replied in the name of Levi:
—