Parallel
עירובין 16:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Does not this represent the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who laid down that the law of labud is applied [to a gap that is] less than four handbreadths? For if [it represents the view of] the Rabbis [how could it be said], ‘from three to four’ where three and four are subject to the same law? Abaye replied: Since the first clause [is the view of] the Rabbis the final clause also [must be that of] the Rabbis, but the Rabbis admit that wherever [it is a question of] permitting [to sow corn] over against [a standing part], if it is four handbreadths wide it is deemed [a partition], but not otherwise. Raba replied: As the final clause is the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel the first clause also must be that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but it is only to [a gap] above that he applied the rule of labud but in the case of one below it is like a fence which kids can break through [to which the rule of] labud is not applied. Come and hear: [The space enclosed by] such walls as consist mostly of floors and windows is permitted, provided the standing parts exceed the gaps. Now, is it possible to imagine [that the reading was] ‘mostly’? [The reading] then [must obviously be] ‘[The space enclosed by walls] in which many doors and windows were made is permitted, provided the standing parts exceed the gaps’. Thus it follows [that if the standing parts] equal the gaps it is forbidden. [Is not this then] an objection against R. Papa? — This is indeed an objection. The law, however, is in agreement with R. Papa. ‘An objection’ and ‘the law’! — Yes. Because the inference from our Mishnah is in agreement with his view. For we learned: THE GAPS DO NOT EXCEED THE BUILT-UP PARTS, from which it follows [that if they are] equal to the built-up parts it is permitted. MISHNAH. [A CARAVAN IN CAMP] MAY BE SURROUNDED BY THREE ROPES, THE ONE ABOVE THE OTHER, PROVIDED [THE SPACE] BETWEEN THE ONE ROPE AND THE OTHER IS LESS THAN THREE HANDBREADTHS. THE SIZE OF THE ROPES [MUST BE SUCH] THAT THEIR [TOTAL] THICKNESS SHALL BE MORE THAN A HANDBREADTH, SO THAT THE TOTAL HEIGHT SHALL BE TEN HANDBREADTHS. [THE CAMP] MAY ALSO BE SURROUNDED BY REEDS, PROVIDED THERE IS NO [GAP OF] THREE HANDBREADTHS BETWEEN ANY TWO REEDS. [IN LAYING DOWN THESE RULINGS, THE RABBIS] SPOKE ONLY OF A CARAVAN. THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. JUDAH; BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN THAT THEY SPOKE OF A CARAVAN ONLY BECAUSE [IN ITS CASE THIS IS] A USUAL OCCURRENCE. ANY PARTITION THAT IS NOT [MADE UP OF] BOTH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL [STAKES] IS NO VALID PARTITION; SO R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH. BUT THE SAGES RULED: ONE OF THE TWO [IS ENOUGH]. GEMARA. Said R. Hamnuna in the name of Rab: Behold the Rabbis have laid down that if the standing parts [of a partition made up] of vertical [stakes] exceed the gaps [the fence] is valid. What, however, asked R. Hamnuna, is the ruling in respect of horizontally [drawn ropes]? — Abaye replied: Come and hear: THE SIZE OF THE ROPES [MUST BE SUCH] THAT THEIR TOTAL THICKNESS SHALL BE MORE THAN A HANDBREADTH, SO THAT THE TOTAL HEIGHT SHALL BE TEN HANDBREADTHS. Now if [such a barrier] were valid what need was there [for the TOTAL THICKNESS to be] MORE THAN A HANDBREADTH seeing that one could leave [a distance slightly] less than three handbreadths and [stretch] a rope of any [thickness, and again leave a distance slightly] less than three handbreadths, and [stretch] a rope of any [thickness, and then again leave a distance slightly] less than four handbreadths and [stretch] a rope of any thickness? — But how do you understand this: Where could one leave less than four [handbreadths of distance]? Were it to be left below, [the barrier] would be like a partition which kids can break through; were it to be left above, the [unlimited] air space on the one side [of the rope] and that on the other would join to annul its validity; and if one were to leave it in the middle, the [virtually] standing parts would be exceeding the gaps [only by combining the parts] on its two sides; or would you infer from this that where the standing parts [of a partition or barrier] exceed a gap in it [only by combining those] on its two sides they are nevertheless valid? But it is this that R. Hamnuna asked: [What is the ruling where one] brought for instance a mat that measured seven handbreadths and a fraction, and cut out in it [a hole of] three handbreadths leaving [untouched the remaining] four handbreadths and fraction, and put it up within [a distance of] less than three handbreadths [from the ground]? R. Ashi said: His enquiry related to a suspended partition, as did that which R. Tabla addressed to Rab: Does a suspended partition convert a ruin into a permitted domain? And the other replied: A suspended partition can effect permissibility only in the case of water because only in respect of water did the Sages relax the law. [THE CAMP] MAY ALSO BE SURROUNDED BY REEDS etc. Only in the case of A CARAVAN but not in that of all individual? But was it not taught: R. Judah stated: All [defective] partitions in connection with the Sabbath [laws] were not permitted to an individual [if the space enclosed] exceeded two beth se'ah? — As R. Nahman (or [as] some say: R. Bibi b. Abaye) replied [elsewhere that the ruling] was only required [in respect] of allowing them all [the space] they required, [so may one] here also [explain that the statement referred to the permissibility] of allowing them all [the space] they required. Where was [the reply] of R. Nahman (or [as] some say, [that of] R. Bibi b. Abaye) stated?- In connection with what we learned: ANY PARTITION THAT IS NOT [MADE UP OF] BOTH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL [STAKES] IS NO VALID PARTITION; SO R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH. Now [it was objected] could R. Jose son of R. Judah have given such a ruling seeing that it was taught: ‘An individual and a caravan are subject to the same law as regards [a barrier] of ropes. But [then] what is the difference [in this respect] between an individual and a caravan? One individual is allowed two beth se'ah, so are two individuals also allowed two beth se'ah, but three become a caravan and are allowed six both se'ah,’ so R. Jose son of R. Judah. But the Sages ruled: Both an individual and a caravan are allowed all [the space] they require provided no area of two beth se'ah remains unoccupied’? [To this] R. Nahman (or some say: R. Bibi b. Abaye) replied: [This ruling] was only required in respect of allowing them all [the space] they required. R. Nahman in the name of our Master Samuel gave the following exposition: One individual is allowed two beth se'ah, two individuals are also allowed two beth se'ah, but three become a caravan and are allowed six beth se'ah. Do you leave the Rabbis [he was asked] and act in agreement with R. Jose son of R. Judah? Thereupon R. Nahman appointed an Amora on the subject and gave the following exposition: The statement I made to you was an error on my part; it is this indeed that the Rabbis have said: ‘An individual is allowed two beth se'ah, two also are allowed two beth se'ah, but three become a caravan and are allowed all [the space] they require.
—