Eruvin

saddle-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!1 — Here also [it is a case where each object can be easily] moved in and out.2 Come and hear: Thus3 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 necessary4 that there shall be no [gap of] three handbreadths between any two reeds5 so that a kid could not leap headlong [through it].6 Wherever [the width of each reed is] three, or from three to four7 handbreadths, it is necessary8 that [the gap] between any two reeds9 shall not be as wide as the full width of a reed,10 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]11 even over against the standing parts. Wherever [the width of each reed is] four handbreadths, or from four handbreadths to ten cubits,12 it is necessary8 that [the gap] between any two reeds9 shall not be as wide as a reed,10 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]11 over against the standing parts and forbidden over against the gaps.13 If, however, the standing parts exceeded the gaps it is permitted14 [to sow seed] over against the gaps also. If there was a gap wider than ten cubits, [sowing]15 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.16 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 this17 an objection against R. Papa?18 — R. Papa can answer you: By the expression of ‘as wide as’ was meant19 [the width of the space through which the reed can be easily] moved to and fro.20 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 this21 presents an objection against R. Huna the son of R. Joshua?22 — 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?23 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]’24 in the first clause, he used the expression, ‘If the standing parts exceeded the gaps [it is permitted]’ in the final clause.25 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]’,26 it was also taught in the first clause27 ‘If the gaps exceeded the standing parts [it is forbidden]’. 28 According to R. Papa29 it is quite well, for this reason,30 that the two cases31 were not included in one statement.32 According to R. Huna son of R. Joshua,33 however, why should not the two cases be included in one statement thus:34 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 restriction35 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.36 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 labud37 is applied but that to one of three handbreadths the law of labud is not applied?38 Read, however, the final clause: ‘Where [the width of each reed is] three, or from three to four’. against R. Huna. a gap is wider than three handbreadths, a kid can leap headlong through it and the law of labud cannot consequently apply. 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. validity of a fence. within it on the Sabbath is permitted or, in other words, the fence of the enclosure is valid. however, the gaps are exactly equal to the standing parts, the fence is valid in agreement with the view of R. Papa. even over against the gaps. 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. parts. 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.