Parallel
עירובין 44:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
or whether the halachah was not in agreement with R. Gamaliel or do we deal [here with a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men, and the point he raised was whether the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer or not? — It is obvious that we are dealing with [a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men, for were it to be imagined that we are dealing with one where it could be fully lined with men what was there for him to ask seeing that Rab has actually laid down, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Gamaliel in respect of a cattle-pen, a cattle-fold and a ship’? We must consequently be dealing with [a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men and the point he raised was in connection with the ruling of R. Eliezer. This is also borne out by an inference. For he said to him, ‘Let him re-enter’; but what [was the need for saying] ‘Let him re-enter’? Does not this imply re-entry in the absence of a complete wall? R. Nahman b. Isaac pointed Out the following objection to Raba: If its wall collapsed it is not permitted to replace it by a human being, a beast or vessels, nor may one put up the bed to spread over it a sheet because even a temporary tent may not for the first time be built on a festival day, and there is no need to state [that this is forbidden] on a Sabbath day. ‘You,’ the other replied: ‘quote to me from this statement; I can quote to you from the following: A man may put up his fellow as a wall in order that he may thereby be enabled to eat, to drink and to sleep, and he may put up the bed and spread over it a sheet to prevent the sun rays from falling upon a corpse or upon foodstuffs’. Are then the two rulings mutually contradictory? There is really no contradiction, since one represents the view of R. Eliezer and the other that of the Rabbis. For we learned: in the case of the stopper of a sky-light, R. Eliezer says that if it was tied and suspended one may close the sky-light with it; otherwise it may not be so used; but the Sages ruled: In either case one may close the sky-light with it. Has it not, however, been stated in connection with this ruling: Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: All agree that not even a temporary tent may for the first time be made on a festival day, and there is no need to say that this may not be done on a Sabbath day; but they differ on the question of adding to a structure, since R. Eliezer holds that no such structural addition may be made on a festival day, and there is no need to say that this may hot be done on a Sabbath day, while the Sages maintain that such structural additions’ may be made on a Sabbath, and there is no need to say that this may be done on a festival day? — The fact is that there is really no contradiction, since one Baraitha represents the view of R. Meir and the other that of R. Judah. For it was taught: If a man used a beast as a wall for a sukkah, R. Meir ruled it to be invalid while R. Judah ruled it to be valid. Now, R. Meir who ruled the wall there to be invalid, from which it is evident that he does not regard it as a proper wall, would here permit the putting up of a similar wall, since thereby nothing improper is done, while R. Judah who regards the wall there as valid, from which it is evident that he regards it as a proper wall, would here forbid a similar wall. Do you regard this as sound reasoning? Might it not be suggested that R. Meir was heard [to rule the wall to be invalid only in the case of] a beast, was he, however, heard [to give the same ruling in respect of] a human being and vessels? Furthermore, in agreement with whose view could that of R. Meir be? If it be suggested: In agreement with that of R. Eliezer one could object that the latter forbade even the addition to a Structure. Consequently it must be in agreement with that of the Rabbis; but could it not be objected: The Rabbis may only have permitted the addition to a structure, did this, however, make it permissible to put up a full wall at the outset? — The fact is that both are in agreement with the view of the Rabbis; yet there is no contradiction between the rulings regarding vessels, since the former relates to a third wall and the latter to a fourth one. The inference from the wording leads to the same conclusion; for it was stated: ‘If its wall collapsed’. This is conclusive.
—