Eruvin

at Obelin, and found him dwelling in an alley that had only one side-post. He said to him, ‘My son, put up another side-post’. ‘Is it necessary for me’, the other asked: ‘to close it up?’ — ‘Let it be closed up’, the first replied: ‘what does it matter?’ R. Simeon b. Gamaliel stated: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ on [the ruling that] an alley that was less than four cubits [in width]1 required no provision at all. They only2 differed in the case of one that was wider than four, but narrower than3 ten cubits, in respect of which Beth Shammai ruled: Both a side-post and a beam, [are required) while Beth Hillel ruled: Either a side-post or a beam.4 At all events it was stated: ‘Is it necessary for me to close it up’ — Now, if you concede that both side-posts and a beam [are required]5 it is quite intelligible why he6 said: ‘Is it necessary for me to close it up’;7 but if you contend that side-posts without a beam [are sufficient], what [can be the meaning of] ‘to close it up’? — It is this that he6 meant: Is it necessary for me to close it up with side-posts?’ The Master said: ‘R. Simeon b. Gamaliel stated: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ on [the ruling that] an alley that was less than four cubits [in width] required no provision at all’. Did we not learn, however, ‘A DISCIPLE IN THE NAME OF R. ISHMAEL STATED IN THE PRESENCE OF R. AKIBA: BETH SHAMMAI AND BETH HILLEL DID NOT DIFFER ON [THE RULING THAT] AN ALLEY THAT WAS LESS THAN FOUR CUBITS [IN WIDTH] MAY BE CONVERTED INTO A PRIVATE DOMAIN EITHER BY MEANS OF A SIDE-POST OR BY THAT OF A BEAM’? — R. Ashi replied: It is this that he8 meant: It9 required neither a side-post and a beam as Beth Shammai ruled10 nor two side-posts as R. Eliezer ruled,10 but either a side-post or a beam in agreement with the ruling of Beth Hillel.11 And how much, [is the minimum]?12 — R. Ahli, or it might be said R. Yehiel, replied: No less than13 four handbreadths.14 R. Shesheth, in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba, who had it from Rab stated: The Sages agree with R. Eliezer in the case of the side-posts of a courtyard.15 R. Nahman, however, stated:16 The halachah is in agreement with the ruling of R. Eliezer17 in respect of the side-posts of a courtyard. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Who [are they that] ‘agree’18 [with R. Eliezer]? Rabbi. [But since R. Nahman said,]19 ‘The halachah is’, it follows that some differ; who is it that differs from his view? — The Rabbis.20 For it was taught: A courtyard may be converted into a permitted domain by means of one post, but Rabbi ruled: Only by two posts.21 R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: A courtyard requires two side-posts.22 Said R. Zera to R. Assi: Did R. Johanan give such a ruling? Did not you yourself state in the name of R. Johanan that the side-posts of a courtyard must have [a width of] four handbreadths?23 And should you suggest [that the meaning is] four [handbreadths] on one side24 and four on the other, surely [it may be retorted], did not R.25 Adda b. Abimi recite in the presence of R. Hanina or, as some say, in the presence of R. Hanina b. Papi: [The ruling applies to a case where] the small courtyard was ten, and the large one eleven cubits?26 — When R. Zera27 returned from his sea travels,28 he explained this [contradiction]: [A side-post] on one side [of an opening must have a width] of four handbreadths, [but side-posts] on the two sides [of an opening] need be no wider than a fraction each;29 and that which R.30 Adda b. Abimi recited is [the view of] Rabbi who holds the same view as R. Jose.31 R. Joseph laid down in the name of Rab Judah who had it from Samuel that a courtyard may be converted into a permitted domain by means of one side-post.32 Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Did Samuel lay down such a ruling? Did he not in fact say to R. Hananiah b. Shila, ‘Do not you permit the use33 [of a courtyard]34 unless [there remained] either the greater part of the wall or two strips of it’!35 — The other replied: I36 know only37 of the following incident that occurred at Dura di-ra'awatha38 where a wedge of the sea penetrated into a courtyard39 and [when the question]40 was submitted to41 Rab Judah, he required the gap42 [to be provided with] one strip of board only.43 ‘You’, [Abaye] said to him, ‘speak of a wedge of the sea; but in the case of water, the Sages have relaxed the law.44 As [you may infer from the question] which R. Tabla asked 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, because it is only in respect of water that the Sages have relaxed the law’.45 Does not the difficulty46 at any rate remain? — When R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua returned from the academy they explained it: [A side-post] on one side [of a gap] must be four [handbreadths wide but where there is one] on either side,47 any width whatever is enough.48 R. Papa said: If I had to point out a difficulty it would be this.49 For Samuel said to R. Hananiah b. Shila, ‘Do not you permit the use [of a courtyard] unless [there remained] either the greater part of the wall or two strips of it’.50 Now what was the need for ‘the greater part of the wall’? Is not a strip of four handbreadths [in width] enough? And should you reply that51 ‘the greater part of the wall’ referred to a wall of seven [handbreadths in width] where four handbreadths constitute the greater part of the wall, [the objection might be raised,] why should it be necessary to have four handbreadths, when three and a fraction are enough, since R. Ahli, or it might be said R. Yehiel, ruled [that no provision was necessary where a gap is] less than52 four [handbreadths in width]? — If you wish I might reply: One ruling deals53 with a courtyard and the other53 with an alley.54 And if you prefer I might reply: [The ruling] of R. Ahli himself [is a point in dispute between] Tannas.55 Our Rabbis taught: From a wedge of the sea that ran into a courtyard56 no water may be drawn57 on the Sabbath unless it was provided58 with a partition that was ten handbreadths high. This applies only where the breach was wider than ten cubits but [if it was only] ten [cubits wide] no provision whatever is necessary.59 ‘No water may be drawn’ [you say]60 but the movement of objects61 is inferentially permitted; [but why?] Has not the courtyard a gap that opens it out in full62 on to a forbidden domain? Beth Shammai and R. Eliezer in addition to those required by Beth Hillel. domain unless little5 strips of the wall remained on either side of the gap forming a sort of side-post and imparting to the gap the character of a doorway. one cubit only, which equals to six handbreadths, a side-post of four handbreadths on one side would leave for the other side no more than (6-4=) two handbreadths, which cannot be regarded as a valid side-post. It consequently follows that, according to R. Johanan, one side-post of the width of four handbreadths is enough. How then could it be said by R. Assi that R. Johanan required two side-posts? handbreadths (cf. supra p. 73, n. 14) is sufficient to allow for the required minimum width on either side of the gap. R. Johanan, however, upholds the view of the Rabbis who require a side-post on one side of an opening to have a minimum width of four handbreadths while in the case of a side-post on either side, any width is sufficient. of the wedge of water is, therefore, no proof that a single strip is also admissible is respect of the use of the courtyard itself. handbreadths wide while Samuel's instruction to R. Hananiah b. Shila referred to narrow strips. even though the gap is narrower than four handbreadths, unless the greater part of the broken wall remained intact. Hence Samuel's instruction to R. Hananiah b. Shila. An alley, however, sc. one whose length exceeds its width, of which R. Ahli spoke, is treated as a permitted domain wherever the width of the gap is less than four handbreadths. there remained ‘either the greater part of the wall or two strips of it’.