Parallel
עירובין 15
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
It was stated: A side-post put up accidentally, Abaye ruled, is a valid side-post, but Raba ruled: It is no valid side-post. Where [the residents] did not rely on it from the previous day, no one disputes that it is no valid side-post. They differ only where [the residents] did rely upon it on the previous day. Abaye ruled: ‘It is a valid side-post’, since the residents relied on it from the previous day. But Raba ruled: ‘It is no valid side-post’, because owing to the fact that originally it was not made for that purpose, it cannot be regarded as a valid side-post. It has been assumed that as they differed in the case of a side-post, so they differed in that of a partition. Come and hear: If a man made his sukkah among trees and the trees serve as its walls, it is ritually fit! Here we are dealing [with trees] that were originally planted for the purpose. If so, is this not obvious? — It might have been presumed that a preventive measure should be enacted as a precaution against the possibility of using the tree [for other purposes also], hence we were informed [that no such precaution was deemed necessary]. Come and hear: If there was present a tree or a wall or a fence of [growing] reeds it may be treated as a corner-piece! — Here also we are dealing with one that was originally intended for the purpose. If so, what need was there to tell us this? — We were told that a fence of reeds [is valid if the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths, as [was explained in] the enquiry that Abaye addressed to Raba. Come and hear: Where a tree overshadows the ground, it is permitted to move objects under it if [the top of] its branches is not higher than three handbreadths from the ground! — Here also we are dealing with one that was originally planted for the purpose. If so, it should be permissible to move objects under it in all cases; why then did R. Huna the son of R. Joshua state that movement of objects under it is permissible only [where its area was no larger than] two beth se'ah? — Because it is a dwelling that serves the [outside] air and no movement of objects is permitted in a dwelling that serves the outside air unless [its area is no larger than] two beth se'ah. Come and hear: If a man received the Sabbath on a mound that was ten handbreadths high and between four cubits and two beth se'ah in area, or in the cleft [of a rock] that was ten handbreadths deep and between four cubits and two beth se'ah in area, or reaped corn that was surrounded by [growing] ears, he may walk in all the area, and outside it for two thousand cubits! And should you reply that there also it is a case where one had originally made them for the purpose, [your submission] might be quite agreeable as regards the corn; what, however, could be said as regards the mound or the cleft? — The fact, however, is that in respect of partitions, no one disputes that [one put up accidentally] is a valid partition. They only differ in respect of a side-post — Abaye follows his own point of view, for he has laid down that a side-post represents a partition, and a partition set up accidentally is a valid partition. Raba, on the other hand, follows his own point of view, for he has laid down that a side-post serves the purpose of a distinguishing mark, and only where it is made for that purpose, is it a distinguishing mark, otherwise it is no distinguishing mark. Come and hear: If stones that project from a wall are separated from each other by less than three handbreadths, no other side-post is required; [if they are separated by] three handbreadths, another side-post is required! Here also it is a case where they were originally built for that purpose. If so, is not this obvious? — It might have been presumed that [projections] are made solely as building connections, hence we were informed [that no other side-post is required]. Come and hear what R. Hiyya taught: A wall of which one side recedes more than the other, whether [the recess can be] seen from without and appears even from within or whether it can be seen from within and appears even from without, may be regarded as [being provided with] a side-post! — Here also it is a case where it was originally constructed for the purpose. If so, what need was there to tell us [the obvious]? — It is this that we were informed: [If the recess can be] seen from without though it appears even from within, [the wall] may be regarded as [provided with] a side-post. Come and hear [of the incident] where Rab was sitting in a certain alley and R. Huna sat before him when he said to his attendant, ‘Go, bring me a jar of water’. By the time the latter returned, the side-post fell down and he motioned to him with his hand to remain in his place. Said R. Huna to him, ‘Is not the Master of the opinion that one may rely upon the palm-tree?’ ‘This young Rabbi’, he replied: ‘seems to think that people cannot explain a ruling they have heard! Did we rely upon it since yesterday?’ The reason then is that no one had relied on it; but if they had relied on it, it would have been regarded as a valid side-post. Might not one suggest that Abaye and Raba differed only where [the residents] did not rely on it, but that where they did rely on it, it is regarded as a valid side-post? — This cannot be entertained at all; for there was a certain piazza at the house of Bar Habu, about which Abaye and Raba were always in dispute. MISHNAH. SIDE-POSTS MAY BE MADE OF ANYTHING, EVEN OF AN ANIMATE OBJECT, BUT R. MEIR FORBIDS THIS. IT ALSO CAUSES DEFILEMENT AS THE COVERING OF A TOMB,
—
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,
—