עירובין 23

23:1

GEMARA. R. Joseph stated in the name of Rab Judah who had it from Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah b. Baba. R. Joseph further stated in the name of R. Judah who had it from Samuel: Strips [of wood] around wells were permitted only in the case of a well of living water. And [both these statements were] required. For if we had only been told, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah b. Baba’ it might have been assumed that [in the case] of public [water he allows strips of wood] even [where the water is] collected, and that the reason why he mentioned A PUBLIC WELL was to express disagreement with the view of R. Akiba, hence we were told that ‘strips of wood around wells were permitted only in the case of a well of living water’. And if only ‘a well of living water’ had been mentioned [it might have been assumed that] there is no difference between a public and a private one, hence we were told ‘the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah b. Baba’. MISHNAH. R. JUDAH B. BABA FURTHER RULED: IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS IN A GARDEN OR A KARPAF WHOSE [AREA DOES NOT EXCEED] SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION BY SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION AND WHICH ARE SURROUNDED BY A WALL TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, PROVIDED THERE IS IN IT A WATCHMAN'S HUT OR A DWELLING PLACE OR IT IS NEAR TO A TOWN. R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN IF IT CONTAINED ONLY A CISTERN, A DITCH OR A CAVE IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT. R. AKIBA RULED: EVEN IF IT CONTAINED NONE OF THESE IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT, PROVIDED ITS AREA [DOES NOT EXCEED] SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION BY SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION. R. ELIEZER RULED: IF ITS LENGTH EXCEEDED ITS BREADTH EVEN BY A SINGLE CUBIT IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO MOVE ANY OBJECTS WITHIN IT. R. JOSE RULED: EVEN IF ITS LENGTH IS TWICE ITS BREADTH IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE EFFECTS WITHIN IT. R. ILA'I STATED: I HEARD FROM R. ELIEZER, EVEN IF IT IS AS LARGE AS A BETH KOR. I LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE ‘ERUB, HIS HOUSE IS FORBIDDEN TO HIM FOR THE TAKING IN OR THE TAKING OUT OF ANY OBJECT BUT IS PERMITTED TO THEM. I HAVE LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT PEOPLE MAY FULFIL THEIR DUTY AT PASSOVER BY EATING HART'S-TONGUE. WHEN, HOWEVER, I WENT ROUND AMONG ALL HIS DISCIPLES SEEKING A FELLOW STUDENT I FOUND NONE. GEMARA. What did he already teach that, in consequence, he used the expression of FURTHER? If it be suggested: Because he taught one restrictive ruling and then he taught the other he therefore used the expression of FURTHER, surely [it could be retorted] did not R. Judah teach one restrictive ruling and then he taught another one and yet he did not use the expression ‘further’? — There the Rabbis interrupted him but here the Rabbis did not interrupt him. [Is it then suggested] that wherever the Rabbis interrupted one's statements the expression of ‘further’ not used? Surely, [it may be objected] was not R. Eliezer, in the case of a law about sukkah, interrupted by the Rabbis and the expression ‘further’ was nevertheless used? There they interrupted him with [a ruling on] his own subject but here they made the interruption with another subject. R. AKIBA RULED: EVEN IF IT CONTAINED NONE OF THESE IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT.

—

23:2

Is not R. Akiba [laying down] the same ruling as the first Tanna? The difference between them is a small area. For it was taught: R. Judah stated, [two beth se'ah] exceed seventy cubits and a fraction [square] by a very small margin but the Sages did not indicate its exact dimensions. And what [is the area of] the size of two beth se'ah? — One like that of the courtyard of the Tabernacle. Whence is this deduced? — Rab Judah replied: From Scripture which said: The length of the court shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty everywhere, the Torah having thus ordained, ‘Take away fifty and surround [with them the other] fifty’. What, however, is the ordinary meaning of the text? — Abaye replied: Put up the Tabernacle at the edge of fifty cubits so that there might be [a space of] fifty cubits in front of it and one of twenty cubits on every side. R. ELIEZER RULED: IF ITS LENGTH EXCEEDED etc. Was it not taught, however, that R. Eliezer ruled: If its length was more than twice its breadth, even if only by one cubit, it is forbidden to move objects within it? — R. Bebai b. Abaye replied: What we learned in our Mishnah we learned [in respect of an enclosure whose length] was more than twice its width. If so, is not this ruling exactly the same as that of R. Jose? — The difference between them is the squared area which the Rabbis have prescribed. R. JOSE RULED etc. It was stated: R. Joseph laid down in the name of Rab Judah who had it from Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose; and R. Bebai laid down in the name of Rab Judah who had it from Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Akiba. And both [these rulings] are on the side of leniency; and [both were] required. For if we had only been told, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’ it might have been assumed [that the permissibility was dependent] on the existence of a watchman's hut or a dwelling place, hence we were informed that ‘the halachah is in agreement with R. Akiba’. And if we had been told, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Akiba’ it might have been assumed that [an enclosed area that was] long and narrow is not [permitted], hence we were also informed that ‘the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’. If a karpaf bigger than two beth se'ah, is fenced round for dwelling purposes, then if the greater part of it is sown [with seed] it is regarded as a garden and it is forbidden [to carry any objects within it], but if the greater part of it is planted [with trees] it is regarded as a courtyard [and the movement of objects within it] is permitted. ‘If the greater part of it is sown [etc.]’. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua: This applies only [where the area sown was] bigger than two beth se'ah but one of two beth se'ah is permitted. In agreement with whose view? Is it in agreement with that of R. Simeon; for we learned: R. Simeon ruled: Roofs, courtyards and karpafs are equally regarded as one domain in respect of [carrying from one into another] objects that were kept within them when Sabbath began, but not in respect of objects that were in the house when the Sabbath began? But [it may be objected] even according to R. Simeon, since the major part of it was sown [with seed] would not the minor part

—