עירובין 16 — Soncino English Talmud

¹saddle-cushions, saddlebags, reeds or stalks [it is permitted to] move objects within it, provided there is no more than the space of one camel between any two camels, that of one saddle between any two saddles, and that of one saddle-cushion between any two saddle-cushions! — Here also [it is a case where each object can be easily] moved in and out. Come and hear: Thus you might say that there are three categories in the case of partitions. Wherever [in a reed fence the width of each reed is] less than three handbreadths, it is necessary that there shall be no [gap of] three handbreadths between any two reeds so that a kid could not leap headlong [through it]. Wherever [the width of each reed is] three, or from three to four handbreadths, it is necessary that [the gap] between any two reeds shall not be as wide as the full width of a reed, in order that the gaps shall not be equal to the standing parts; and if the gaps exceeded the standing parts it is forbidden [to sow corn] even over against the standing parts. Wherever [the width of each reed is] four handbreadths, or from four handbreadths to ten cubits, it is necessary that [the gap] between any two reeds shall not be as wide as a reed, in order that the gaps shall not be equal to the standing parts; and if the gaps were equal to the standing parts it is permitted [to sow seed] over against the standing parts and forbidden over against the gaps. If, however, the standing parts exceeded the gaps it is permitted [to sow seed] over against the gaps also. If there was a gap wider than ten cubits, [sowing] is forbidden. If forked reeds were there and a plait was made above them, [sowing] is permitted even [if the gaps between the reeds] exceeded ten cubits. In the first clause at any rate it was taught that [the fence is valid if the width of each reed was] from three to four handbreadths provided the gap between any two reeds was not as wide as a reed. Is not this an objection against R. Papa? — R. Papa can answer you: By the expression of ‘as wide as’ was meant [the width of the space through which the reed can be easily] moved to and fro. Logical deduction also leads to the same conclusion. For, since it was stated: ‘If the gaps exceeded the standing parts it is forbidden [to sow corn] even over against the standing parts’, it follows that if they were equal to the standing parts [the sowing] is permitted. This proves it. Must it then be assumed that this presents an objection against R. Huna the son of R. Joshua? — He can answer you: According to your line of reasoning [how will you] explain the final clause, ‘If, however, the standing parts exceeded the gaps it is permitted [to sow seed] over against the gaps also’, from which it follows that if it was equal to the gaps, [sowing] is forbidden? Now then, the final clause is a contradiction to the ruling of R. Papa and the first one to that of R. Huna son of R. Joshua? — The final clause is really no contradiction to the ruling of R. Papa for, since the Tanna used the expression, ‘If the gaps exceeded the standing parts [it is forbidden]’ in the first clause, he used the expression, ‘If the standing parts exceeded the gaps [it is permitted]’ in the final clause. The first clause presents no contradiction against R. Huna the son of R. Joshua for, as it was desired to state in the final clause, ‘If the standing parts exceeded the gaps [it is permitted]’, it was also taught in the first clause ‘If the gaps exceeded the standing parts [it is forbidden]’. According to R. Papa it is quite well, for this reason, that the two cases were not included in one statement. According to R. Huna son of R. Joshua, however, why should not the two cases be included in one statement thus: Wherever [the width of a reed is] less than three, or [as much as] three, handbreadths it is necessary that [the gap] between any two reeds shall be less than three handbreadths? — Because the cause of the restriction in the first clause is not like that in the second clause. The cause of the restriction in the first clause is that a kid shall not be able to leap headlong [through the gap]; while [the cause of] the restriction in the final clause is that the gaps shall not be equal to the standing parts. Whose [view is expressed in the principle that the gap must be] less than three handbreadths? [Is it not] that of the Rabbis who laid down that [to a gap of] less than three handbreadths the law of labud is applied but that to one of three handbreadths the law of labud is not applied? Read, however, the final clause: ‘Where [the width of each reed is] three, or from three to four’.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵃnote:Which shows that where the gaps are equal to the built-up parts, the movement of objects is permitted. An objection against R. Huna.
^ᵇnote:Cf. supra note 1 mutatis mutandis.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘it is found’.
^ᵈnote:if vines grow on one side of the fence and it is desired to sow corn in close proximity on the other side.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘this to this’,
^ᶠnote:The law of labud (v. Glos.) is applied in such a case even where the total area of the gaps exceeds that of the reeds. If a gap is wider than three handbreadths, a kid can leap headlong through it and the law of labud cannot consequently apply.
^ᵍnote:But not actually four.
^ʰnote:V. p. 104, n. 10.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘this to this’.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘like its fullness’.
^ᵏnote:If vines were planted on the other side of’ the fence in close proximity.
^ˡnote:Inclusive, but not wider.
^ᵐnote:Thus we have three categories: (i) It is not necessary for each gap to be less in width than a reed where the reeds are less than three handbreadths in width; and even if a gap is as wide as or wider than a reed, provided it is not wider than three handbreadths, all the fence is valid. (ii) It is necessary for each gap to be less in width than a reed where the reeds are three, or from three to four handbreadths in width. A gap of three or more handbreadths destroys the validity of the entire fence even that of its standing parts. (iii) Where the standing parts of a fence are considerable, their validity is not affected by the gaps, though it is forbidden to sow over against one side of the gaps if vines grow on the other.
^ⁿnote:In any of three cases enumerated.
^ᵒnote:V. supra note 5.
^ᵖnote:Tosef. Kil. IV; because a gap in the shape of a doorway, even if it is wider than ten cubits, does not impair the validity of a fence.
^ᵠnote:The ruling that the fence is valid only when the gaps are less than the standing parts.
^ʳnote:Who ruled supra that even if the breaches in an enclosure were equal to its standing parts, the movement of objects within it on the Sabbath is permitted or, in other words, the fence of the enclosure is valid.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘what its fullness?’
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘enters and goes out’, so that a gap equal to that width is really wider than the actual width of the reed. Where, however, the gaps are exactly equal to the standing parts, the fence is valid in agreement with the view of R. Papa.
^ᵘnote:The Baraitha just discussed which provides support for R. Papa's ruling.
^ᵛnote:Who differed from R. Papa (supra 15b).
^ʷnote:In agreement with the ruling of R. Huna son of R. Joshua and contrary to that of R. Papa.
^ˣnote:An expression which was essential for the inference that if the gaps equalled the standing parts it is permitted to sow even over against the gaps.
^ʸnote:As an antithesis; although the ruling here was really unnecessary in view of the statement, ‘The gaps shall not be equal to the standing parts’, i.e., (as explained supra) the space through which the reeds can move freely to and fro, from which it follows that if the gaps and the standing parts are equal, and much more so if the latter exceed the former, this is permitted. As the final clause is this a mere antithesis, no inference from it may be drawn.
^ᶻnote:A statement necessary for the purpose of the inference: But if they were equal to the gaps this is forbidden.
^ᵃᵃnote:As a mere antithesis.
^ᵃᵇnote:Though it was superfluous in view of the ruling that this is forbidden even where they were equal to the standing parts.
^ᵃᶜnote:Who recognizes the validity of a fence where gaps and standing parts are equal.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. previous note.
^ᵃᵉnote:Reeds of (i) less than three and (ii) of three handbreadths.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘he does not mix them and teach them’, as, for instance, ‘Wherever (the width of a reed is) three, or less than three, handbreadths it is necessary that the gap between any two reeds shall be less than three handbreadths’. Such a statement would be wrong since in the latter case (according to R. Papa) the gap may be three handbreadths wide.
^ᵃᵍnote:Who does not recognize the validity of a fence where its gaps and standing parts are equal.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘let him mix them and teach them’.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘disqualification’, ‘invalidity’.
^ᵃʲnote:As the reasons are different the two rulings could not be joined into one statement.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃˡnote:Apparently it is.

²Does not this represent the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who laid down that the law of labud is applied [to a gap that is] less than four handbreadths? For if [it represents the view of] the Rabbis [how could it be said], ‘from three to four’ where three and four are subject to the same law? Abaye replied: Since the first clause [is the view of] the Rabbis the final clause also [must be that of] the Rabbis, but the Rabbis admit that wherever [it is a question of] permitting [to sow corn] over against [a standing part], if it is four handbreadths wide it is deemed [a partition], but not otherwise. Raba replied: As the final clause is the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel the first clause also must be that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but it is only to [a gap] above that he applied the rule of labud but in the case of one below it is like a fence which kids can break through [to which the rule of] labud is not applied. Come and hear: [The space enclosed by] such walls as consist mostly of floors and windows is permitted, provided the standing parts exceed the gaps. Now, is it possible to imagine [that the reading was] ‘mostly’? [The reading] then [must obviously be] ‘[The space enclosed by walls] in which many doors and windows were made is permitted, provided the standing parts exceed the gaps’. Thus it follows [that if the standing parts] equal the gaps it is forbidden. [Is not this then] an objection against R. Papa? — This is indeed an objection. The law, however, is in agreement with R. Papa. ‘An objection’ and ‘the law’! — Yes. Because the inference from our Mishnah is in agreement with his view. For we learned: THE GAPS DO NOT EXCEED THE BUILT-UP PARTS, from which it follows [that if they are] equal to the built-up parts it is permitted. MISHNAH. [A CARAVAN IN CAMP] MAY BE SURROUNDED BY THREE ROPES, THE ONE ABOVE THE OTHER, PROVIDED [THE SPACE] BETWEEN THE ONE ROPE AND THE OTHER IS LESS THAN THREE HANDBREADTHS. THE SIZE OF THE ROPES [MUST BE SUCH] THAT THEIR [TOTAL] THICKNESS SHALL BE MORE THAN A HANDBREADTH, SO THAT THE TOTAL HEIGHT SHALL BE TEN HANDBREADTHS. [THE CAMP] MAY ALSO BE SURROUNDED BY REEDS, PROVIDED THERE IS NO [GAP OF] THREE HANDBREADTHS BETWEEN ANY TWO REEDS. [IN LAYING DOWN THESE RULINGS, THE RABBIS] SPOKE ONLY OF A CARAVAN. THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. JUDAH; BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN THAT THEY SPOKE OF A CARAVAN ONLY BECAUSE [IN ITS CASE THIS IS] A USUAL OCCURRENCE. ANY PARTITION THAT IS NOT [MADE UP OF] BOTH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL [STAKES] IS NO VALID PARTITION; SO R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH. BUT THE SAGES RULED: ONE OF THE TWO [IS ENOUGH]. GEMARA. Said R. Hamnuna in the name of Rab: Behold the Rabbis have laid down that if the standing parts [of a partition made up] of vertical [stakes] exceed the gaps [the fence] is valid. What, however, asked R. Hamnuna, is the ruling in respect of horizontally [drawn ropes]? — Abaye replied: Come and hear: THE SIZE OF THE ROPES [MUST BE SUCH] THAT THEIR TOTAL THICKNESS SHALL BE MORE THAN A HANDBREADTH, SO THAT THE TOTAL HEIGHT SHALL BE TEN HANDBREADTHS. Now if [such a barrier] were valid what need was there [for the TOTAL THICKNESS to be] MORE THAN A HANDBREADTH seeing that one could leave [a distance slightly] less than three handbreadths and [stretch] a rope of any [thickness, and again leave a distance slightly] less than three handbreadths, and [stretch] a rope of any [thickness, and then again leave a distance slightly] less than four handbreadths and [stretch] a rope of any thickness? — But how do you understand this: Where could one leave less than four [handbreadths of distance]? Were it to be left below, [the barrier] would be like a partition which kids can break through; were it to be left above, the [unlimited] air space on the one side [of the rope] and that on the other would join to annul its validity; and if one were to leave it in the middle, the [virtually] standing parts would be exceeding the gaps [only by combining the parts] on its two sides; or would you infer from this that where the standing parts [of a partition or barrier] exceed a gap in it [only by combining those] on its two sides they are nevertheless valid? But it is this that R. Hamnuna asked: [What is the ruling where one] brought for instance a mat that measured seven handbreadths and a fraction, and cut out in it [a hole of] three handbreadths leaving [untouched the remaining] four handbreadths and fraction, and put it up within [a distance of] less than three handbreadths [from the ground]? R. Ashi said: His enquiry related to a suspended partition, as did that which R. Tabla addressed to Rab: Does a suspended partition convert a ruin into a permitted domain? And the other replied: A suspended partition can effect permissibility only in the case of water because only in respect of water did the Sages relax the law. [THE CAMP] MAY ALSO BE SURROUNDED BY REEDS etc. Only in the case of A CARAVAN but not in that of all individual? But was it not taught: R. Judah stated: All [defective] partitions in connection with the Sabbath [laws] were not permitted to an individual [if the space enclosed] exceeded two beth se'ah? — As R. Nahman (or [as] some say: R. Bibi b. Abaye) replied [elsewhere that the ruling] was only required [in respect] of allowing them all [the space] they required, [so may one] here also [explain that the statement referred to the permissibility] of allowing them all [the space] they required. Where was [the reply] of R. Nahman (or [as] some say, [that of] R. Bibi b. Abaye) stated?- In connection with what we learned: ANY PARTITION THAT IS NOT [MADE UP OF] BOTH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL [STAKES] IS NO VALID PARTITION; SO R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH. Now [it was objected] could R. Jose son of R. Judah have given such a ruling seeing that it was taught: ‘An individual and a caravan are subject to the same law as regards [a barrier] of ropes. But [then] what is the difference [in this respect] between an individual and a caravan? One individual is allowed two beth se'ah, so are two individuals also allowed two beth se'ah, but three become a caravan and are allowed six both se'ah,’ so R. Jose son of R. Judah. But the Sages ruled: Both an individual and a caravan are allowed all [the space] they require provided no area of two beth se'ah remains unoccupied’? [To this] R. Nahman (or some say: R. Bibi b. Abaye) replied: [This ruling] was only required in respect of allowing them all [the space] they required. R. Nahman in the name of our Master Samuel gave the following exposition: One individual is allowed two beth se'ah, two individuals are also allowed two beth se'ah, but three become a caravan and are allowed six beth se'ah. Do you leave the Rabbis [he was asked] and act in agreement with R. Jose son of R. Judah? Thereupon R. Nahman appointed an Amora on the subject and gave the following exposition: The statement I made to you was an error on my part; it is this indeed that the Rabbis have said: ‘An individual is allowed two beth se'ah, two also are allowed two beth se'ah, but three become a caravan and are allowed all [the space] they require.^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ^ᵈᵃ^ᵈᵇ^ᵈᶜ

^ᵃᵐnote:Lit., ‘we came to’.
^ᵃⁿnote:By making a distinction between four and less than four, in which latter case where the gap exceeds the standing part it is forbidden to sow even over against the standing part, whereas in the former it is permitted — the Mishnah presumably follows R. Simeon b. Gamaliel (Rashi).
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘is one’.
^ᵃᵖnote:As to the objection raised.
^ᵃᵠnote:Against which corn may be sown.
^ᵃʳnote:As in the case of a cross-beam,.
^ᵃˢnote:Supra 11a.
^ᵃᵗnote:icura, lit., ‘most of which’; obviously not, since the standing parts of such walls cannot possibly exceed the gaps.
^ᵃᵘnote:vchra, lit., ‘that he made many’.
^ᵃᵛnote:Can the law be in agreement with the view of R. Papa when an objection has been raised against it?
^ᵃʷnote:Cf. Mishnah supra 15b of which this is a continuation.
^ᵃˣnote:In order that it may be permitted to move objects within it on the Sabbath.
^ᵃʸnote:Attached to reeds, or any stakes.
^ᵃᶻnote:And between the lowest one and the ground.
^ᵇᵃnote:A gap of less than three handbreadths being regarded by the rule of labud (v. Glos.) as non-existent, the height of the rope barrier is thus virtually nine handbreadths minus three small fractions (v. following two notes and text).
^ᵇᵇnote:By the three fractions mentioned in the previous note ad fin.
^ᵇᶜnote:Of the rope barrier.
^ᵇᵈnote:V. supra note 1.
^ᵇᵉnote:V. supra note 2.
^ᵇᶠnote:Driven in the ground in a vertical position.
^ᵇᵍnote:So that the rule of labud can be applied.
^ᵇʰnote:That a barrier of ropes drawn horizontally or a fence of reeds driven in the ground vertically is a valid enclosure in respect of the Sabbath laws.
^ᵇⁱnote:In whose case the Rabbis relaxed the law, but not of an individual whose barrier or fence must be provided with both horizontal and vertical (v. our Mishnah infra) stakes, reeds or ropes.
^ᵇʲnote:The putting up of a barrier round the camp.
^ᵇᵏnote:But the same laws apply also to camps of individuals.
^ᵇˡnote:Lit., ‘warp and woof’.
^ᵇᵐnote:Even in the case of a caravan.
^ᵇⁿnote:Who differs from his father's view supra.
^ᵇᵒnote:Either vertical or horizontal stakes or poles and the like.
^ᵇᵖnote:In the Mishnah supra 15b.
^ᵇᵠnote:And the like. The trappings of cattle (v. previous note) are usually arranged in a vertical position.
^ᵇʳnote:Lit., ‘a standing’.
^ᵇˢnote:Is such a barrier valid where it contains gaps wider than three handbreadths to which, unlike the rope barrier spoken of in our Mishnah, the rule of labud cannot be applied?
^ᵇᵗnote:V. previous note.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit., ‘there is’.
^ᵇᵛnote:Lit., ‘wherefore to me’.
^ᵇʷnote:Lit., ‘let him make’.
^ᵇˣnote:Two of the gaps, each being less than three handbreadths, would by the law of labud be deemed closed and this would, together with the ropes, provide a ‘standing part’ of six handbreadths that exceeds the third gap of four handbreadths. As this, however, was not permitted it may be concluded that in the case of horizontally drawn ropes, the barrier is invalid even where the standing parts exceed the gaps.
^ᵇʸnote:Lit., ‘set’, ‘place’.
^ᵇᶻnote:Between the lowest rope and the ground.
^ᶜᵃnote:Which, as a suspended partition, is invalid even if its properly standing parts are ten handbreadths high.
^ᶜᵇnote:Lit., ‘set’, ‘place’.
^ᶜᶜnote:The other gaps; i.e., between the second rope from the ground and the topmost one.
^ᶜᵈnote:Its upper side.
^ᶜᵉnote:The space between this rope and the middle one.
^ᶜᶠnote:Lit., ‘come’.
^ᶜᵍnote:Above the lowest, and under the middle rope.
^ᶜʰnote:Sc. the spaces of three handbreadths each below it and above it to which the rule of labud is applied.
^ᶜⁱnote:Which, is not admissible.
^ᶜʲnote:Lit., ‘is a standing’, but this is contrary to the law.
^ᶜᵏnote:The question in the present form being untenable.
^ᶜˡnote:On one side of the gap.
^ᶜᵐnote:On its other side.
^ᶜⁿnote:With the fractional section below the gap in the mat and the four handbreadths one above it. In such a case the lowest gap (the distance between the ground and the fractional section of the mat) is regarded as labud (v. Glos.) while the three handbreadths gap in the mat is exceeded by the remaining four handbreadths of the mat all of which are on one side of the gap. The air spaces on the two sides of this section cannot annul its validity since it exceeds at least the air space on the one side below it.
^ᶜᵒnote:R. Hamnuna's.
^ᶜᵖnote:A mat measuring ten handbreadths, for instance, that was suspended at a distance of more than three, and less than ten handbreadths from the ground. Does the ‘standing part’ (the mat), R. Hamnuna asked, annul the distance between it and the ground because it exceeds it or not?
^ᶜᵠnote:I.e., as regards the permissibility of drawing water from a river or a lake on the Sabbath (cf. infra 87b).
^ᶜʳnote:That were with difficulty allowed where a number of people were concerned.
^ᶜˢnote:Though the enclosure was put up for the purpose of using its interior as a dwelling.
^ᶜᵗnote:V. Glos., but if it did not exceed this measurement such defective partitions were permitted to an individual also. How then is R. Judah's statement in the Baraitha to be reconciled with his statement in our Mishnah.
^ᶜᵘnote:Of R. Judah, that the Rabbis in our Mishnah SPOKE ONLY OF CARAVAN.
^ᶜᵛnote:Though it exceeded two beth se'ah. Where, however, such an area is not exceeded the same privilege is extended to an individual also.
^ᶜʷnote:It is permissible in either case though no vertical stakes were put up.
^ᶜˣnote:Where a barrier is defective as in this case (v. previous note).
^ᶜʸnote:Sc. exceeded actual requirements. Now since R. Jose distinctly recognized here the validity of a barrier made of ropes without stakes how could he rule in our Mishnah to the contrary?
^ᶜᶻnote:Of R. Jose in our Mishnah, according to which a barrier of ropes is not admissible.
^ᵈᵃnote:The respective areas specified in the Baraitha however, are allowed even where the barrier was made only of horizontally drawn ropes.
^ᵈᵇnote:Who represent a majority.
^ᵈᶜnote:To expound to the public R. Nahman's discourse.