Eruvin

BUT R. MEIR RULED THAT IT WAS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEFILEMENT.1 WOMEN'S LETTERS OF DIVORCE TOO MAY BE WRITTEN ON IT, BUT R. JOSE THE GALILEAN DECLARED IT TO BE UNFIT. GEMARA. It was taught: R. Meir ruled: No animate object may be used either as a wall for a sukkah,2 or as a side-post for an alley, [or as one of the] partitions for watering stations or as a covering for a grave.3 In the name of R. Jose the Galilean it was laid down: Women's bills [of divorce] also may not be written on it.4 What is R. Jose the Galilean's reason? — Because it was taught: [From the Scriptural expression of] ‘letter’5 one would only learn that6 a letter5 [may be used]; whence, however, [can it be deduced that] all other things are also included? [From] the explicit statement:7 That he writeth her8 [which implies:] On any object whatsoever.9 If so, why was the expression of ‘letter’ used? To tell you that as a letter is an inanimate object and does not eat, so must any other object [used for the purpose be] one that is inanimate and does not eat.10 And the Rabbis?11 — Is it written: ‘In a letter’?12 Surely only ‘letter’13 is written, and this refers14 merely to the recording15 of the words.16 As to the Rabbis, however, what exposition do they make of the expression: That he writeth her?17 — They require that text [for the deduction that a woman] may be divorced only by writing18 but not by money.19 For it might have been presumed that since divorce20 was compared with betrothal,21 as betrothal [may be effected] by means of money22 so may divorce [also be effected] by means of money;23 hence we were informed [that only by writing18 can divorce be effected]. And whence does R. Jose the Galilean derive this logical conclusion?24 — He derives it from [the expression of] ‘A letter of divorcement’25 [which implies:]26 The letter causes her divorcement but no other thing may cause it.27 And the Rabbis? — They require the expression of28 ‘A letter of divorcement’25 to [indicate that the divorce must be] one that completely separates the man from the woman;29 as it was taught: [Should a husband say to his wife,] ‘Here is your divorce on condition that you never drink any wine’ or ‘on condition that you never go to your father's house’ [such a divorce] is no complete separation;30 [if he said,] ‘During31 thirty days’32 is it regarded as a complete separation.33 And R. Jose the Galilean?34 — He derives it from [the use of] kerituth35 [instead of] kareth.35 And the Rabbis? — They base no expositions [on the distinction between] kareth and kerituth. 36 MISHNAH. IF A CARAVAN CAMPED IN A VALLEY AND IT WAS SURROUNDED BY THE TRAPPINGS OF THE CATTLE IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT, PROVIDED [THE TRAPPINGS] CONSTITUTE A FENCE TEN HAND BREADTHS IN HEIGHT AND THE GAPS37 DO NOT EXCEED38 THE BUILT-UP PARTS.38 ANY GAP WHICH [IN ITS WIDTH DOES NOT EXCEED] TEN39 CUBITS IS PERMITTED,40 BECAUSE IT IS LIKE A DOORWAY.IF IT EXCEEDS THIS [MEASUREMENT] IT IS FORBIDDEN.41 GEMARA. It was stated: If the breaches [in an enclosure] are equal [in area to its] standing parts, the [movement of objects42 in the space within the enclosures], R. Papa ruled, is permitted, and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ruled: It is forbidden. R. Papa ruled: ‘It is permitted’, because the All Merciful taught Moses43 thus: ‘Thou must not allow the greater part of a fence to consist of gaps’.44 R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ruled, ‘it is forbidden for it is this that the All Merciful taught Moses: ‘Its greater part [must be] fence’. We learned: AND THE GAPS DO NOT EXCEED THE BUILT-UP PARTS, but, [it follows, does it not, that if they were] equal to the built-up parts [movement of objects within the enclosure] is permitted?45 — Do not infer: ‘But [if they were] equal to the built-up parts [the movement of objects] is permitted’, but infer: ‘If the built-up parts exceed the gaps [the movement of objects] is permitted’. But [if the gaps are] equal to the built-up parts, what [is the law]? [Is the movement of objects]42 forbidden? If so, however, should not the reading have been, ‘The gaps are not equal to the built-up parts’?46 — This is indeed a difficulty. Come and hear: If a man covered the roof47 of his sukkah48 with spits or with the long [sides] of a bed49 [the sukkah is] valid if there is as much space between them as that of their own [width]!50 Here we are dealing [with such] as can be easily moved in and out.51 Is it, however, possible52 to be exact?53 — R. Ammi replied: One might supply more [of the proper roofing].54 Raba replied: If they55 were placed crosswise, one puts the suitable material lengthwise, [and if they were placed] lengthwise, one puts it crosswise.56 Come and hear: If a caravan camped in a valley and it was surrounded by camels, saddles, uncleanness. divorce? written. was not prescribed. Hence the permissibility to use any writing material or any other object. has no bearing on the question of the writing material, it is obvious that any object is admissible for the purpose. What need then was there to use the expression of ‘writeth’ (Deut. XXIV, 1) when that of giveth (ibid.) viz., ‘That he giveth her the letter of divorcement in her hand’ etc., would have been sufficient? free from all conditions and the separation between husband and wife is complete. Suk. 24b, Yoma 13a, Git. 21b, 83b. parts, the movement of objects would be forbidden; and all ambiguity would thus be avoided. the roof covering of a sukkah. seems to show that where the measurement of the suitable and the unsuitable parts are equal, the structure is valid; and, since the same principle would obviously apply also to the validity of an enclosure, in respect of the Sabbath laws, where its built-up parts equal its gaps, does not an objection arise against R. Huna? width of each spit or bed-side is inevitably less than that of each properly covered intervening space. spaces intervening between the two materials will be duly covered? The answer obviously being in the negative, the question arises: How, in view of the fact that the space of the proper material does not even equal that of the improper one plus the intervening air spaces, could the sukkah be valid? This raises an objection against R. Huna but also against R. Papa (cf. Tosaf. l.c.). Papa, thus covers as much space as the improper one; and according to R. Huna, since the spits etc. can be easily moved in and out, the proper roofing covers the larger area.