עירובין 93

93:1

If an exedra that had side-posts was covered with boughs, it is valid as a sukkah; but if its side-posts had been straightened, it would have been invalid, would it not?’ ‘According to my view, Abaye replied: ‘it is still valid, while according to your view it is a case of the removal of’ partitions’. Said Rabbah b. R. Hanan to Abaye: Do we not find elsewhere that a partition may be the cause of a prohibition? Was it not in fact taught: If a house was half covered with a roof while its other half was uncovered, it is permissible to sow in the uncovered part though vines grew in the covered part; but if all the house had been equally covered with a roof would not this have been forbidden? — There, the other replied: It is a case of the removal of partitions. Raba sent to Abaye by the hand of R. Shemaiah b. Ze'ira [the following message]: ‘Do we not find a partition to be the cause of a prohibition? Was it not in fact taught: partitions in a vineyard may be either the cause of a relaxation of the law or one of a restriction of it. In what manner? If the plantation of a vineyard stretched to the ‘very foundation of a fence one may sow from the very foundations of that fence and beyond it; whereas in the absence of a partition one may sow only at a distance of four cubits; and this is an example of a partition in a vineyard that is the cause of a legal relaxation. In what manner are they a cause of legal restriction? If a vineyard was removed eleven cubits from a wall no seed may be sown in the intervening space; whereas in the absence of a wall one may sow at a distance of four cubits; and this is an example of a partition in a vineyard that is the cause of a legal restriction?’ — ‘According to your view, however, the other replied: ‘might you not raise an objection against me from a Mishnah, since we learned: A patch in a vineyard, Beth Shammai ruled, must measure no less than twenty-four cubits, and Beth Hillel ruled: Sixteen cubits; and the width of an uncultivated border of a vineyard, Beth Shammai ruled, must measure no less than sixteen cubits, and Beth Hillel ruled: Twelve cubits. And what is meant by a patch in a vineyard? The barren portion of the interior of the vineyard. If its sides do not measure sixteen cubits no seed may be sown there, but if they do measure sixteen cubits, sufficient space for the tillage of the vineyard is allowed and the remaining space may be sown. What is meant by the uncultivated border of a vineyard? The space between the actual vineyard and the surrounding fence. If the width is less than twelve cubits no seed may be sown there, but if it measures twelve cubits, sufficient space for the tillage of the vineyard is allowed and the remaining area may be sown’? Consequently it must be assumed that the reason there is that all the space to the extent of four cubits that adjoins the vineyard is allotted for the tillage of the vineyard, and a similar space that adjoins the wall, since it cannot be sown, is renounced so that the area intervening, if it measures four cubits, is deemed to be of sufficient importance, but not otherwise. Rab Judah said: If three karpafs adjoined one another, and the two outer ones had projections while the middle one had none and one man occupied each, the group is treated as a caravan who are allowed as much space as they require. If the middle one had projections while the two outer ones had none and one man occupied each, the three men together are allowed no more space than six [beth se'ah]. The question was raised: What is the ruling where one person occupied each of the outer karpafs and two occupied the middle one? Is it held that if these were to go to the one karpaf there would be in it three and if they were to go to the other karpaf there would be in it three , or is it rather held that only one of them is deemed to be going to each karpaf? And were you to find Some ground for the assumption that only one of them is deemed to be going to each karpaf, the question arises: What is the decision where two persons occupied each of the outer karpafs and only one occupied the middle one? Is it certain that the view is here: If he were to go to the one karpaf there would be in it three and if he were to go to the other karpaf there would be in it three, or is the view rather that it is doubtful in which direction he would go? The law is that in these questions the more lenient rule is adopted. R. Hisda said:

—

93:2

All embankment five handbreadths high and a partition on it five handbreadths high are not combined since it is necessary that the entire height shall be contained either in the embankment or in the partition. b An objection was raised: If there were two courtyards one higher than the other, and the upper one is ten handbreadths higher than the lower one, or has an embankment fGve handbreadths high and a partition five handbreadths high, two separate ‘erubs may be prepared but not one. If it was lower, only a single ‘erub may be prepared but not two ‘erubs! — Raba replied: R. Hisda agrees in the case of the lower courtyard, since its tenants can see a frontage of ten handbreadths. If so, [should not the tenants of] the lower [courtyard] prepare an ‘erub [as in the case of] two [separated courtyards] but not a single one, while those of the upper one should neither prepare a single one [for the two courtyards] nor one for themselves alone? — Rabbah b. Ulla replied: [This deals with a case,] for instance, where the upper courtyard had rims [that left a gap] not wider than ten cubits. If so, read the final clause: ‘If it was lower, only a single ‘erub may be prepared but not two should not the tenants be allowed to prepare one ‘erub if they wished or, if they preferred it, two? — Rabbah son of Raba replied: This deals with a case, for instance, where the gap extended along a whole side of the lower courtyard. If so should not the tenants of the lower one be allowed to prepare a single ‘erub [jointly] but not one for themselves alone while those of the upper one should be allowed, if they wished it, to prepare an ‘erub for themselves alone or, if they preferred it, a single ‘erub jointly? — This is so indeed, and the ruling, ‘If it was lower, only a single ‘erub may be prepared but not two’ applies to the tenants of the lower one. Amemar made the following exposition: An embankment five handbreadths high and a partition on it five handbreadths high are combined. When Rabina met R. Aha son of Raba he asked him, ‘Did the Master learn anything about a partition?’ the other replied: ‘No’; and the law is that an embankment five handbreadths high and a partition on it five handbreadths high are combined. R. Hoshaia enquired: Do tenants who arrive on the Sabbath impose restrictions? — R. Hisda replied: Come and hear: IF THE FULL WIDTH OF A WALL OF A SMALL COURTYARD WAS BROKEN DOWN SO THAT THE YARD FULLY OPENED INTO A LARGE COURTYARD, THE USE OF THE LARGER ONE IS PERMITTED, BUT THAT OF THE SMALLER ONE IS FORBIDDEN BECAUSE THE GAP IS REGARDED AS A DOORWAY TO THE FORMER. Is it not possible to assume’, Rabbah objected, ‘that the breach occurred while it was yet day?’ Said Abaye to him, Do not say: Master, ‘It is possible to assume’ but rather, ‘It is ‘certain that the breach occurred while it was yet day’, for, surely, it was the Master himself who stated: ‘I enquired of R. Huna and also of Rab Judah as to what was the law where an ‘erub was laid in reliance on a certain door and that door was blocked up, or on a certain window and that window was stopped up? And each replied: Since permission for that Sabbath was once granted the permissibility continues until the conclusion of the day’. It was stated: If a wall between two courtyards collapsed, Rab ruled, it is permitted to move objects within four cubits only, but Samuel ruled:

—