Parallel
עירובין 11:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
A plait [of rods trained on poles] is a valid partition in respect of kil'ayim but not in respect of the Sabbath; and R. Johanan stated: As it has no [validity as regards] partitions in connection with the Sabbath, so it has no [validity in respect of] partitions in connection with kil'ayim. One might well concede that there is really no incongruity between the two rulings of Resh Lakish, since the former might be his own while the latter might be that of his Master; but do not the two rulings of R. Johanan represent a contradiction? [Still] if you were to concede that there [the rods were placed] on the tops of the poles while here [the plait was trained] on the sides [all would be] well. If, however, you maintain that in both cases [the rods were attached] sideways, what can be said [in explanation]? — The fact is that it may be maintained that both cases refer [to rods attached] sideways, but there [the distance between the poles was] within that of ten cubits while here it exceeded that of ten cubits. But whence is it derived that we draw a distinction between [distances of] ten, and more than ten cubits? — [From the following] which R. Johanan said to Resh Lakish. ‘Did it not so happen [the former said to the latter] that R. Joshua went to R. Johanan b. Nuri to study the Torah; and, though he was well versed in the laws of kil'ayim, on finding that [the Master] was sitting among the trees, he stretched a rod from one tree to another and said to him: Master, if vines were growing on one side of the rod would it be permitted to sow corn on the other? [And the Master] told him: [If the distance between the trees is] within that of ten cubits it is permitted but if it exceeds ten cubits it is forbidden?’ Now, what was the case under discussion? If it be suggested: [one where the rod was placed] on the tops of the trees, [why was it ruled, it could be objected, that] ‘if it exceeds ten cubits it is forbidden’ seeing that it was taught: If forked reeds were there and a plait was made above them it is permitted even [if the distance between the reeds] exceeded that of ten cubits? Must it not consequently [be one where the rod was attached] sideways? And yet he told him, ‘[If the distance between the trees is] within that of ten cubits it is permitted but if it exceeds ten cubits it is forbidden’ — This proves it. [Reverting to] the [previous] text, R. Hisda ruled that the shape of a doorway that was made [with the cross-reed attached] sideways is of no validity. R. Hisda further ruled: The shape of the doorway of which they spoke must be sufficiently strong to support a door [made of the lightest material] even if only a door of straw. Resh Lakish ruled in the name of R. Jannai: The shape of a doorway must have a mark for a hinge. What [is meant by] ‘a mark for a hinge’? R. Awia replied: A loop. R. Aha the son of R. Awia, met the students of R. Ashi. He asked them, ‘Did the master say anything in respect of the shape of a doorway?’ ‘He,’ they replied to him, ‘said nothing at all [about it]’. It was taught: The shape of a doorway of which they spoke must have a reed on either side and one reed above. Must [the side-reeds] touch [the upper one] or not? — R. Nahman replied: They need not touch it, and R. Shesheth replied: They must touch it. R. Nahman proceeded to give a practical decision in the house of the Exilarch in agreement with his traditional ruling. Said R. Shesheth to his attendant, R. Gadda, ‘Go pull them out and throw them away’. He accordingly went there, pulled them out and threw them away. He was found, however, by the people of the Exilarch's household and they incarcerated him. R. Shesheth thereupon followed him and, standing at the door [of his place of confinement], called out to him, ‘Gadda, come out’, and he safely came out. R. Shesheth met Rabbah b. Samuel and asked him, ‘Has the Master learnt anything about the shape of a doorway?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied, ‘we have learnt: An arched [doorway], said R. Meir, is subject to the obligation of a mezuzah but the Sages exempt it. They agree, however, that if its lower section was ten handbreadths in height [the doorway] is subject to the obligation. And Abaye stated: All agree that, if [an arched doorway] was ten handbreadths high but its lower section was less than three [handbreadths in height], or even if the lower section was three [handbreadths high] but its total height was less than ten handbreadths, the doorway is not valid at all. They only differ where [the height of] its lower section was three handbreadths, its total height was ten cubits and the width [of its arch] was less than four handbreadths, but [its sides are wide enough for the arch] to be cut to a width of four handbreadths. R. Meir is of the opinion [that the sides are regarded as] cut for the purpose of completing [the prescribed width], while the Rabbis maintain [that they are not regarded as] cut for the purpose of completing [the prescribed width]. ‘If you meet the people of the Exilarch's house’, he said to him, ‘tell them nothing whatever of the Baraitha about the arched doorway’. MISHNAH. THE RENDERING OF AN ALLEY FIT [FOR THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS WITHIN IT ON THE SABBATH], BETH SHAMMAI RULED, REQUIRES A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM, AND BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. R. ELIEZER RULED: TWO SIDE-POSTS. A DISCIPLE IN THE NAME OF R. ISHMAEL, STATED IN THE PRESENCE OF R. AKIBA: BETH SHAMMAI AND BETH HILLEL DID NOT DIFFER ON [THE RULING THAT] AN ALLEY THAT WAS LESS THAN FOUR CUBITS [IN WIDTH] MAY BE CONVERTED INTO A PERMITTED DOMAIN EITHER BY MEANS OF A SIDE-POST OR BY THAT OF A BEAM. THEY ONLY DIFFER IN THE CASE OF ONE THAT WAS WIDER THAN FOUR, AND NARROWER THAN TEN CUBITS, IN RESPECT OF WHICH BETH SHAMMAI RULED: BOTH A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM [ARE REQUIRED] WHILE BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. R. AKIBA MAINTAINED THAT THEY DIFFERED IN BOTH CASES. GEMARA. In accordance with whose [view was our Mishnah taught]? Is it in agreement neither with the view of Hanania nor with that of the first Tanna? — Rab Judah replied: It is this that was meant: How is a blind ALLEY RENDERED FIT [FOR THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS WITHIN IT ON THE SABBATH]? BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [By the construction of] A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM AND BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM. Does this then imply that Beth Shammai hold the opinion that Pentateuchally four partitions [and no less, constitute a private domain]? — No; as regards throwing [into it from a public domain] one incurs guilt even if [the former had] only three walls, [but in respect] of moving [objects within it] only where there are four walls [is this permitted]. BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. Does this imply that Beth Hillel hold the view that Pentateuchally three partitions [are required to constitute a private domain]? No; as regards throwing [from a public domain into it] one incurs guilt even if [the former had] only two walls, [but in respect] of moving [objects within it], only where there are three walls [is this permitted]. R. ELIEZER RULED: TWO SIDE-POSTS. A question was raised: Does R. Eliezer mean two side-posts and a beam or is it likely that he means two side-posts without a beam? — Come and hear: It once happened that R. Eliezer went to his disciple, R. Jose b. Perida,
—