Eruvin

Does not this represent the view of1 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who laid down that the law of labud is applied [to a gap that is] less than four handbreadths?2 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?3 Abaye replied: Since the first clause [is the view of] the Rabbis the final clause also [must be that of] the Rabbis, but4 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],5 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, but4 it is only to [a gap] above6 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.7 Now, is it possible to imagine [that the reading was] ‘mostly’?8 [The reading] then [must obviously be] ‘[The space enclosed by walls] in which many9 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’!10 — 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]11 MAY12 BE SURROUNDED BY THREE ROPES,13 THE ONE ABOVE THE OTHER, PROVIDED [THE SPACE] BETWEEN THE ONE ROPE AND THE OTHER14 IS LESS THAN THREE HANDBREADTHS.15 THE SIZE OF THE ROPES [MUST BE SUCH] THAT THEIR [TOTAL] THICKNESS SHALL BE MORE16 THAN A HANDBREADTH, SO THAT THE TOTAL HEIGHT17 SHALL BE TEN HANDBREADTHS. [THE CAMP]18 MAY ALSO BE SURROUNDED19 BY REEDS,20 PROVIDED THERE IS NO [GAP OF] THREE HANDBREADTHS21 BETWEEN ANY TWO REEDS. [IN LAYING DOWN THESE RULINGS,22 THE RABBIS] SPOKE ONLY OF A CARAVAN.23 THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. JUDAH; BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN THAT THEY SPOKE OF A CARAVAN ONLY BECAUSE [IN ITS CASE THIS24 IS] A USUAL OCCURRENCE.25 ANY PARTITION THAT IS NOT [MADE UP OF] BOTH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL26 [STAKES] IS NO VALID PARTITION;27 SO R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH.28 BUT THE SAGES RULED: ONE OF THE TWO29 [IS ENOUGH]. GEMARA. Said R. Hamnuna in the name of Rab: Behold the Rabbis have laid down30 that if the standing parts [of a partition made up] of vertical [stakes]31 exceed the gaps [the fence] is valid.32 What, however, asked R. Hamnuna, is the ruling in respect of horizontally [drawn ropes]?33 — 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]34 were valid35 what need was there36 [for the TOTAL THICKNESS to be] MORE THAN A HANDBREADTH seeing that one could leave37 [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?38 — But how do you understand this: Where could one leave39 less than four [handbreadths of distance]? Were it to be left39 below,40 [the barrier] would be like a partition which kids can break through;41 were it to be left42 above,43 the [unlimited] air space on the one side [of the rope]44 and that on the other45 would join46 to annul its validity; and if one were to leave it in the middle,47 the [virtually] standing parts48 would be exceeding the gaps [only by combining the parts]48 on its two sides;49 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?50 But51 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 handbreadths52 and fraction,53 and put it up within [a distance of] less than three handbreadths [from the ground]?54 R. Ashi said: His55 enquiry related to a suspended partition,56 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 water57 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] partitions58 in connection with the Sabbath [laws] were not permitted to an individual [if the space enclosed]59 exceeded two beth se'ah?60 — 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 statement61 referred to the permissibility] of allowing them all [the space] they required.62 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.63 But [then] what is the difference [in this respect]64 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’?65 [To this] R. Nahman (or some say: R. Bibi b. Abaye) replied: [This ruling]66 was only required in respect of allowing them all [the space] they required.67 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 Rabbis68 [he was asked] and act in agreement with R. Jose son of R. Judah? Thereupon R. Nahman appointed an Amora on the subject69 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. 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). the rope barrier is thus virtually nine handbreadths minus three small fractions (v. following two notes and text). respect of the Sabbath laws. both horizontal and vertical (v. our Mishnah infra) stakes, reeds or ropes. of in our Mishnah, the rule of labud cannot be applied? 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. 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. 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? How then is R. Judah's statement in the Baraitha to be reconciled with his statement in our Mishnah. an individual also. ropes without stakes how could he rule in our Mishnah to the contrary? horizontally drawn ropes.