Parallel
עירובין 15:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
BUT R. MEIR RULED THAT IT WAS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEFILEMENT. WOMEN'S LETTERS OF DIVORCE TOO MAY BE WRITTEN ON IT, BUT R. JOSE THE GALILEAN DECLARED IT TO BE UNFIT. GEMARA. It was taught: R. Meir ruled: No animate object may be used either as a wall for a sukkah, or as a side-post for an alley, [or as one of the] partitions for watering stations or as a covering for a grave. In the name of R. Jose the Galilean it was laid down: Women's bills [of divorce] also may not be written on it. What is R. Jose the Galilean's reason? — Because it was taught: [From the Scriptural expression of] ‘letter’ one would only learn that a letter [may be used]; whence, however, [can it be deduced that] all other things are also included? [From] the explicit statement: That he writeth her [which implies:] On any object whatsoever. If so, why was the expression of ‘letter’ used? To tell you that as a letter is an inanimate object and does not eat, so must any other object [used for the purpose be] one that is inanimate and does not eat. And the Rabbis? — Is it written: ‘In a letter’? Surely only ‘letter’ is written, and this refers merely to the recording of the words. As to the Rabbis, however, what exposition do they make of the expression: That he writeth her? — They require that text [for the deduction that a woman] may be divorced only by writing but not by money. For it might have been presumed that since divorce was compared with betrothal, as betrothal [may be effected] by means of money so may divorce [also be effected] by means of money; hence we were informed [that only by writing can divorce be effected]. And whence does R. Jose the Galilean derive this logical conclusion? — He derives it from [the expression of] ‘A letter of divorcement’ [which implies:] The letter causes her divorcement but no other thing may cause it. And the Rabbis? — They require the expression of ‘A letter of divorcement’ to [indicate that the divorce must be] one that completely separates the man from the woman; as it was taught: [Should a husband say to his wife,] ‘Here is your divorce on condition that you never drink any wine’ or ‘on condition that you never go to your father's house’ [such a divorce] is no complete separation; [if he said,] ‘During thirty days’ is it regarded as a complete separation. And R. Jose the Galilean? — He derives it from [the use of] kerituth [instead of] kareth. And the Rabbis? — They base no expositions [on the distinction between] kareth and kerituth. MISHNAH. IF A CARAVAN CAMPED IN A VALLEY AND IT WAS SURROUNDED BY THE TRAPPINGS OF THE CATTLE IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT, PROVIDED [THE TRAPPINGS] CONSTITUTE A FENCE TEN HAND BREADTHS IN HEIGHT AND THE GAPS DO NOT EXCEED THE BUILT-UP PARTS. ANY GAP WHICH [IN ITS WIDTH DOES NOT EXCEED] TEN CUBITS IS PERMITTED, BECAUSE IT IS LIKE A DOORWAY.IF IT EXCEEDS THIS [MEASUREMENT] IT IS FORBIDDEN. GEMARA. It was stated: If the breaches [in an enclosure] are equal [in area to its] standing parts, the [movement of objects in the space within the enclosures], R. Papa ruled, is permitted, and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ruled: It is forbidden. R. Papa ruled: ‘It is permitted’, because the All Merciful taught Moses thus: ‘Thou must not allow the greater part of a fence to consist of gaps’. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ruled, ‘it is forbidden for it is this that the All Merciful taught Moses: ‘Its greater part [must be] fence’. We learned: AND THE GAPS DO NOT EXCEED THE BUILT-UP PARTS, but, [it follows, does it not, that if they were] equal to the built-up parts [movement of objects within the enclosure] is permitted? — Do not infer: ‘But [if they were] equal to the built-up parts [the movement of objects] is permitted’, but infer: ‘If the built-up parts exceed the gaps [the movement of objects] is permitted’. But [if the gaps are] equal to the built-up parts, what [is the law]? [Is the movement of objects] forbidden? If so, however, should not the reading have been, ‘The gaps are not equal to the built-up parts’? — This is indeed a difficulty. Come and hear: If a man covered the roof of his sukkah with spits or with the long [sides] of a bed [the sukkah is] valid if there is as much space between them as that of their own [width]! Here we are dealing [with such] as can be easily moved in and out. Is it, however, possible to be exact? — R. Ammi replied: One might supply more [of the proper roofing]. Raba replied: If they were placed crosswise, one puts the suitable material lengthwise, [and if they were placed] lengthwise, one puts it crosswise. Come and hear: If a caravan camped in a valley and it was surrounded by camels, saddles,
—