Parallel
עירובין 19:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
so that the extent [of all the cows is] about ten cubits; so R. Meir, but R. Judah said: About thirteen or about fourteen cubits. ‘About ten’ [you say], but are they not in fact ten exactly? As it was desired to state ‘about thirteen’ in the final clause ‘about ten’ was stated in the first clause also. ‘About thirteen’ [you said] but are there not more? — [‘About’ was used] because it was desired to state ‘about fourteen’. But there are not really ‘about fourteen’, [are there]? — R. Papa replied: [The meaning is:] More than thirteen but less than fourteen. R. Papa stated: In respect of a cistern that is eight [cubits wide] no one disputes the ruling that no single boards are required. In respect of a cistern that is twelve [cubits wide] no one disputes the ruling that single boards also are required. They only differ [in the case of a cistern that was] from eight to twelve [cubits in width]. According to R. Meir single boards are required and according to R. Judah no single boards are required. What [new principle], however, does R. Papa teach us? Did we not learn [what he said] in our Mishnah? R. Papa did not hear of the Baraitha and he told us [the same measurements] as the Baraitha. (Mnemonic: Extended more in a mound fence of a courtyard that dried up) Abaye enquired of Rabbah: What is the ruling according to R. Meir where one extended the corner-piece [so that the excess of their width was] equal to the required width of the single boards? — The other replied: You have learnt this: PROVIDED ONE INCREASES THE STRIPS OF WOOD, [which means,] does it not, that one extends [the width of] the corner-pieces? — No; [it might mean] that one provides more single boards. If so, instead of ‘Provided one increases the strips’ [should not the reading] have been, ‘Provided one increases the number of the strips’? — Read: PROVIDED ONE INCREASES THE NUMBER OF STRIPS. There are others who read: The other replied: You have learnt it: PROVIDED ONE INCREASES THE STRIPS [which means,] does it not, that one must provide more single boards? — No; that one extends [the width of] the corner-pieces. By deduction also one arrives at the same conclusion, since it was stated: ‘PROVIDED ONE INCREASES THE STRIPS’. This is decisive. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: What is the ruling according to R. Judah where [the distance between the corner-pieces was] more than thirteen and a third cubits? [Is it necessary] to provide [additional] single boards or must one rather extend [the width of] the corner-pieces? — The other replied: You have learnt it: How near may they be? As the length of the head and the greater part of the body of a cow. And how far may they be? Even [as far as to enclose an area in which] a kor and even two kors [of seed may be sown]. R. Judah ruled: [An area of] two beth se'ah is permitted but one that exceeds two beth se'ah is forbidden. Do you not admit, the Rabbis said to R. Judah, that if [the enclosure] was a cattle-pen or a cattle-fold, a rearcourt or a courtyard it may be [as big as] five or even ten [beth] kor? This, he — replied, is [one that has a complete] partition but those are [isolated] boards. Now, if that were so should they [not have objected:] The one as well as the other is a proper partition? — It is this that he meant: The one is subject to the law of a partition, and gaps in it [must not be wider] than ten cubits, but those are subject to the law of strips of wood and gaps of thirteen and a third cubits between then, [are allowed]. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: Is a mound that rises to a height of ten [handbreadths] within an area of four [cubits] treated as a corner-piece or not? — The other replied: You have learnt it: R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: If a four sided stone was present we must consider this: If on being cut there would remain a cubit length for either side it may be regarded as a valid corner-piece, otherwise it cannot be so regarded. R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka ruled: If a round stone was present we consider this: If on being chiselled and cut there would remain a cubit length for either side it may be regarded as a valid corner-piece, otherwise it cannot be so treated. On what principle do they differ? — One Master is of the opinion that one imaginary act may be assumed [as having been effected] but not two, and the other Master is of the opinion that two imaginary acts may also be assumed [to have been effected]. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: Is a fence of reeds [in which the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths regarded as a valid corner-piece or not? — The other replied: You have learnt this: If there was present a tree or a wall or a fence of [growing] reeds it may be treated as a corner-piece. Does not [this refer to a fence in which the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths? — No; [it may refer to] a hedge of reeds. If so, is it not exactly [of the same nature as] a tree? — What then [would you suggest? That it referred to a fence in which the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths? Is not this [one could well retort] exactly [of the same nature as] a wall? What then could you reply? [That there are] two kinds of wall? [Well then] in this case also [one might reply that there are] two kinds of tree. There are [others] who say that he enquired concerning a hedge of reeds What [he asked, is the ruling in respect of] a hedge of reeds? — The other replied: You have learnt this: If there was present a tree or a wall or a fence of [growing] reeds it may be treated as a corner-piece. Does not this refer to a hedge of reeds? — No; [it may refer to a fence in which the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths. If so, is it not exactly [of the same nature as] a wall? — What then [would you suggest? That it refers to] a hedge of reeds? Is not this exactly [of the same nature as] a tree? What then could you say in reply
—