Eruvin

It was stated: A side-post put up accidentally,1 Abaye ruled, is a valid side-post, but Raba ruled: It is no valid side-post. Where [the residents] did not rely on it from the previous day,2 no one disputes that it is no valid side-post. They differ only where [the residents] did rely upon it on the previous day.3 Abaye ruled: ‘It is a valid side-post’, since the residents relied on it from the previous day. But Raba ruled: ‘It is no valid side-post’, because owing to the fact that originally it was not made for that purpose,4 it cannot be regarded as a valid side-post. It has been assumed5 that as they6 differed in the case of a side-post, so they differed in that of a partition.7 Come and hear:8 If a man made his sukkah9 among trees and the trees serve as its walls, it is ritually fit!10 Here we are dealing [with trees] that were originally planted for the purpose.11 If so, is this12 not obvious? — It might have been presumed that a preventive measure should be enacted as a precaution against the possibility of using the tree [for other purposes also],13 hence we were informed [that no such precaution was deemed necessary]. Come and hear: If there was present14 a tree or a wall or a fence of [growing] reeds it may be treated as a corner-piece!15 — Here also we are dealing with one that was originally intended for the purpose. If so, what need was there to tell us this? — We were told that a fence of reeds [is valid if the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths, as [was explained in] the enquiry that Abaye addressed to Raba.16 Come and hear: Where a tree overshadows the ground,17 it is permitted to move objects under it18 if [the top of] its branches is not higher than three handbreadths from the ground!19 — Here also we are dealing with one that was originally planted for the purpose. If so, it should be permissible to move objects under it in all cases; why then did R. Huna the son of R. Joshua state that movement of objects under it is permissible only [where its area was no larger than] two beth se'ah?20 — Because it is a dwelling that serves the [outside] air21 and no movement of objects is permitted in a dwelling that serves the outside air unless [its area is no larger than] two beth se'ah. 22 Come and hear: If a man received the Sabbath23 on a mound that was ten handbreadths high24 and between four cubits and two beth se'ah in area, or25 in the cleft [of a rock] that was ten handbreadths deep26 and between four cubits and two beth se'ah in area, or reaped corn that was surrounded by [growing] ears,27 he may walk in all the area,28 and outside it for two thousand cubits!29 And should you reply that there also it is a case where one had originally made them for the purpose, [your submission] might be quite agreeable as regards the corn;30 what, however, could be said as regards the mound or the cleft?31 — The fact, however, is that in respect of partitions, no one32 disputes that [one put up accidentally] is a valid partition. They only differ in respect of a side-post — Abaye33 follows his own point of view, for he has laid down that a side-post represents34 a partition, and a partition set up accidentally is a valid partition. Raba, on the other hand, follows his own point of view, for he has laid down that a side-post serves34 the purpose of a distinguishing mark,35 and only where it is made for that purpose,36 is it a distinguishing mark, otherwise37 it is no distinguishing mark. Come and hear: If stones38 that project from a wall39 are separated from each other by less than three handbreadths, no other side-post is required;40 [if they are separated by] three handbreadths, another side-post is required!41 Here also it is a case where they were originally built for that purpose.42 If so, is not this43 obvious?44 — It might have been presumed that [projections] are made solely as building connections,45 hence we were informed [that no other side-post is required]. Come and hear what R. Hiyya taught: A wall of which one side recedes more than the other, whether [the recess can be] seen from without and appears even from within or whether it can be seen from within and appears even from without, may be regarded as [being provided with] a side-post!46 — Here also it is a case where it was originally constructed for the purpose. If so, what need was there to tell us [the obvious]? — It is this that we were informed: [If the recess can be] seen from without though it appears even from within, [the wall] may be regarded as [provided with] a side-post. Come and hear [of the incident] where Rab was sitting in a certain alley and R. Huna sat before him when he said to his attendant, ‘Go, bring me a jar of water’. By the time the latter returned, the side-post fell down and he motioned to him with his hand to remain in his place.47 Said R. Huna to him, ‘Is not the Master of the opinion that one may rely upon the palm-tree?’48 ‘This young Rabbi’, he replied: ‘seems to think that people cannot explain a ruling they have heard! Did we rely upon it since yesterday?’49 The reason then50 is that no one had relied on it;51 but if they had relied on it,51 it would have been regarded as a valid side-post.52 Might not one suggest that Abaye and Raba differed only where [the residents] did not rely on it,53 but that where they did rely on it, it is regarded as a valid side-post?54 — This cannot be entertained at all; for there was a certain piazza at the house of Bar Habu,55 about which Abaye and Raba were always56 in dispute.57 MISHNAH. SIDE-POSTS MAY BE MADE OF ANYTHING, EVEN OF AN ANIMATE OBJECT, BUT R. MEIR58 FORBIDS THIS. IT59 ALSO CAUSES DEFILEMENT60 AS THE COVERING OF A TOMB,61 on the Sabbath day. does not. presents an objection against Raba. snuhs = sung uhs ‘two pillars’; cf. Gr. **, ‘forked’. A deyomad, or corner-piece consists of two boards, or the like, meeting at their ends at right angles to one another and forming all L shaped construction. Four deyomads of the prescribed size, placed respectively at the four corners of a watering station, constitute a ritually valid partition within which it is permitted to carry on the Sabbath. tree in question had been planted for the purpose, its branches, surely, constitute a valid enclosure; why then should the restriction mentioned apply? spot (four cubits by four), the house or the town where a person was at the time the Sabbath had set in. Within the four cubits, or within the house or town however big it may be, it is always permitted to walk. applied. the Sabbath laws are nevertheless regarded as valid walls, and an objection thus again arises against Raba. particular spot. the requirements of a side-post. constitute a valid side-post though, apparently, they were not put there for that purpose. All objection against Raba. they were so originally intended. side-post present an objection against Raba? vh,fust oe ‘he remained in his place’, render, ‘He motioned to him with his hand and (the latter) remained in his place’. between Abaye and Raba as to the validity of a side-post of accidental origin extends also to one upon which the residents had relied.