Parallel
עירובין 48
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
an iron wall to divide it [into two independent sections]. R. Jose son of R. Hanina laughed at him. Why did he laugh? If it be suggested: Because the latter taught this in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri [that the law is] to be restricted, while he is of the same opinion as the Rabbis [that the law is] to be relaxed, [is it likely, it may be asked,] that because he is of the opinion that the law is to be relaxed he would laugh at any one who learned that it was to be restricted? — Rather say: Because it was taught: Running rivers and gushing springs are on a par with the feet of all men. But is it not possible that he spoke of collected water? — Rather say: Because he taught: ‘Requires an iron wall to divide it’. For why should not reeds be admissible? Obviously because the water would pass through them; but then, in the case of an iron wall too, the water might pass. But is it not possible that he meant: ‘Requires . . .’ hence there is no remedy? — Rather say: Because the Sages have in fact relaxed the law in respect of water; as R. Tabla [was informed]. For R. Tabla enquired of Rab: Does a suspended partition convert a ruin into a permitted domain? And the other replied: A suspended partition can effect permissibility of use in the case of water only, since it is only in the case of water that the Sages have relaxed the law. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: HE HAS ONLY FOUR etc. Is not R. Judah repeating the very view of the first Tanna? Raba replied: There is a difference between them, [for the first Tanna allows an area of] eight cubits by eight. So it was also taught: He has [the right to walk within an area of] eight cubits by eight; so R. Meir. Raba further stated: They differ only on the question of walking, but regarding the movement of objects both agree that it is permitted [along a distance of] four cubits but no more. Where in Scripture are these four cubits recorded? — As it was taught: Abide ye every man in his place, which implies within an area equal to ‘his place’. And what is the area of ‘his place’? Three cubits for his body and one cubit for stretching out his hands and feet; so R. Meir. R. Judah said: Three cubits for his body and one cubit to enable him to take up an object at his feet and put it down at his head. What is the practical difference between them? The practical difference between them is [that according to R. Judah the measurements of] the four cubits are to be exact. R. Mesharsheya requested his son: When you visit R. Papa, ask him whether the four cubits of which the Rabbis have spoken are measured by the arm of each individual concerned or by the standard cubit used for sacred objects. If he tells you that the measurement is to be made by the cubit used for sacred objects, [ask him:] What should be done in the case of Og the king of Bashan; and if he tells you that the measurement is to be made by the arm of each individual concerned, ask him: Why was not this measurement taught among those which the Rabbis have prescribed in accordance with each individual?’ When he came to R. Papa the latter told him: ‘If we had been so punctilious we would not have learnt anything. The fact is that the measurement is calculated by the arm of each individual concerned, and as to your objection, "Why was not this measurement taught among those which the Rabbis have prescribed in accordance with each individual", [it may be explained] that the ruling could not be regarded as definite since [even a normal person] may have stumped limbs’. IF THERE WERE TWO MEN AND A PART OF THE PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF CUBITS OF THE ONE etc. What need was there for him to make the remark, TO WHAT MAY THIS CASE BE COMPARED? — It is this that R. Simeon meant to say to the Rabbis: ‘Consider! TO WHAT MAY THIS CASE BE COMPARED? TO THREE COURTYARDS THAT ARE OPENING ONE INTO THE OTHER AND ALSO INTO A PUBLIC DOMAIN; why then do you differ there and not here?’ And the Rabbis? There the residents are many but here they are few. BUT THE TWO OUTER ONES etc. But why? Do not the outer ones, since they have joined in an ‘erub with the middle one, constitute one permitted domain? — Rab Judah replied: This is a case, for instance, where the middle one deposited its one ‘erub in one courtyard and its other ‘erub in the other courtyard. R. Shesheth, however, replied: It may even be assumed that they deposited their erubs in the middle one, [but this is a case, for instance,] where they had deposited it
—
in two houses. In agreement with whose view? Is it in agreement with that of Beth Shammai since it was taught: If five residents collected their ‘erub and deposited it in two receptacles, their, ‘erub, Beth Shammai ruled, is invalid and Beth Hillel ruled: Their ‘erub is valid? — It may be said to be in agreement even with the view of Beth Hillel, since Beth Hillel might have maintained their view Only there where the ‘erub, though kept in two receptacles, was in one and the same house, but not here where it was kept in two houses. Said R. Aha son of R. Iwia to R. Ashi: A difficulty presents itself on the interpretation of Rab Judah as well as on that of R. Shesheth. On Rab Judah's interpretation the following difficulty arises: As he explained that ‘This was a case, for instance, where the middle one deposited its ‘erub in the one courtyard and its other ‘erub in the other courtyard’, and since the middle one, having first joined in an ‘erub with one of the outer ones, constituted with it one domain, does it not, when it subsequently joins in an ‘erub with the other, act on behalf of the former also? On the interpretation of R. Shesheth also a difficulty arises: Why should not this case be subject to the same law as that of five men who resided in one courtyard and one of whom had forgotten to contribute his share to their ‘erub, where these men impose upon one another the prescribed restrictions in the use of that courtyard? — R. Ashi replied: There is really no difficulty either on the view of Rab Judah or on that of R. Shesheth. On that of Rab Judah there is no difficulty because, since the residents of the middle courtyard joined in an ‘erub with those of each of the outer ones while the latter did not join one another in a common ‘erub, they have thereby intimated that they were satisfied with the former association but not with the latter. On the view of R. Shesheth too there is really no difficulty. For would the Rabbis who regarded [the people of the outer courtyards as] residents [of the middle one] in order to relax the law also treat them as its residents to impose additional restrictions? Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: ‘This is the view of R. Simeon. The Sages, however, ruled: The one domain may be used by the residents of the two but the two domains may not be used by the residents of the one. When I recited this in the presence of Samuel he said to me:
—