עירובין 19 — Soncino English Talmud

¹a place for planting of vineyards. R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar further stated: Come and see that human relationship is not like that with the Holy One, blessed be He. In human relationship when a man is sentenced to death for [an offence against] a government, a hook must be placed in his mouth in order that he shall not [be able to] curse the king, but in the relationship with the Holy One, blessed be He, when a man incurs [the penalty of] death for [an offence against] the Omnipresent he keeps silence, as it is said: Towards Thee silence is praise; and he, furthermore, offers praise, for it is stated: ‘praise’; and not only that but he also regards it as if he offered a sacrifice, for it is said in Scripture: And unto Thee the vow is performed. This is exactly in line with what R. Joshua b. Levi has said: What [is the meaning of] what is written: Passing through the valley of Baca they make it a place of springs; yea, the early rain clotheth it with blessings, ‘passing’ is an allusion to men who transgress the will of the Holy One, blessed be He; ‘valley’ [is an allusion to these men] for whom Gehenna is made deep; ‘of Baca’ [signifies] that they weep and shed tears; ‘they make it a place of springs’, like the constant flow of the altar drains; ‘Yea, the early rain clotheth it with blessings’, they acknowledge the justice of their punishment and declare before Him, ‘Lord of the universe, Thou hast judged well, Thou hast condemned well, and well provided Gehenna for the wicked and Paradise for the righteous’. But this is not [so]? For did not R. Simeon b. Lakish state: The wicked do not repent even at the gate of Gehenna, for it is said: And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men, that rebel against me etc.; it was not said: ‘that have rebelled’, but ‘that rebel’ [implying] that they go on rebelling forever? This is no contradiction, since the former refer to transgressors in Israel and the latter to transgressors among idol worshippers. Logical argument also leads to this conclusion, since otherwise a contradiction would arise between two statements of Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish stated: The fire of Gehenna has no power over the transgressors in Israel, as may be inferred a minori ad majus from the golden altar: If the golden altar [the layer] on which was only of the thickness of a denar lasted for many years and the fire had no power over it, how much more would that be the case with the transgressors in Israel who are as full of good deeds as a pomegranate [with seed], as it is said in Scripture: Thy temples are like a pomegranate, and R. Simeon b. Lakish remarked, ‘Read not, "Thy temples" but "Thy empty ones" [signifying] that even the worthless among you are as full of good deeds as a pomegranate [with seed]’. What, however, about what is written: Passing through the valley of Baca? — That [refers to the fact] that [the wicked] are at that time under sentence to suffer in Gehenna, but our father Abraham comes, brings them up, and receives them, except such an Israelite as had immoral intercourse with the daughter of an idolater, since his foreskin is drawn and so he cannot be discovered. R. Kahana demurred: Now that you laid down that [the Scriptural expression,] ‘That rebel’ implies ‘that they go on rebelling’ would you also maintain that where it is written in Scripture: That brings out or That brings up, [the meaning is] ‘that always brings up’ or ‘that always brings out’? You must consequently admit that [the meaning is] ‘That brought up’ or ‘That brought out’ so [may one render here] also, ‘who rebelled’. R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar further stated: Gehenna has three gates; one in the wilderness, one in the sea and one in Jerusalem. ‘In the wilderness’, since it is written in Scripture: So they, and all that appertaineth to them, went down alive into the pit. ‘In the sea’, since it is written in Scripture: Out of the belly of the nether world cried I, and Thou heardest my voice. ‘In Jerusalem’, since it is written in Scripture: Saith the Lord, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem, and the school of R. Ishmael taught: ‘Whose fire is in Zion’ refers to Gehenna, ‘And His furnace in Jerusalem’ refers to the gate of Gehenna. Are there, however, no more [gates]? Has not R. Meryon in fact stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi (or, as others say: Rabbah b. Meryon learned [in a Baraitha of the compilation] of the school of R. Johanan b. Zakkai): There are two palm-trees in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and between them smoke rises, and it is [in connection with] this [spot] that we have learnt: ‘The stone-palms of the iron mountain are fit’, and this is the gate of Gehenna? — It is possible that [this gate] is the same as the one in Jerusalem’. R. Joshua b. Levi stated: Gehenna has seven names, and they are: Nether-world, Destruction, Pit, Tumultuous Pit, Miry Clay, Shadow of Death and the Underworld. ‘Nether-world’, since it is written in Scripture: Out of the belly of the nether-world cried I, and Thou heardest my voice; ‘Destruction’, for it is written in Scripture: Shall Thy Mercy be declared in the grave? Or thy faithfulness in destruction; ‘Pit’, for it is written in Scripture: For Thou wilt not abandon thy soul to the nether-world; neither wilt Thou suffer Thy godly one to see the pit; ‘Tumultuous Pit’ and ‘Miry Clay’, for it is written in Scripture: He brought me up also out of the tumultuous pit, out of the miry clay; ‘Shadow of Death’, for it is written in Scripture: Such as sat in darkness and in the shadow of death; and the [name of] ‘Nether-world’ is a tradition. But are there no more [names]? Is there not in fact that of Gehenna? — [This means,] a valley that is as deep as the valley of Hinnom and into which all go down for gratuitous acts. Is there not also the name of Hearth, since it is written in Scripture: For a hearth is ordered of old? — That [means] that whosoever is enticed by his evil inclination will fall therein. [As to] Paradise, Resh Lakish said: If it is in the Land of Israel its gate is Beth Shean; if it is in Arabia its gate is Beth Gerem, and if it is between the rivers its gate is Dumaskanin. In Babylon, Abaye praised the fruit of Eber Yamina and Raba praised the fruit of Harpania. BETWEEN THEM [THERE MAY BE] AS MUCH [SPACE AS TO ADMIT TWO etc. Is not this obvious, for, since it was stated that they are to be TIED TOGETHER, do we not know that they would not be APART? — It might have been presumed that TIED TOGETHER implies: ‘As if they were TIED TOGETHER’ but not actually so, hence we were told: AND NOT APART. ONE TO ENTER WHILE THE OTHER GOES OUT. A Tanna taught: One team to enter while the other team goes out. Our Rabbis taught: How much [is the total length of] the head and the greater part [of the body] of a cow? Two cubits. And what is the extent of a cow's thickness? A cubit and two-thirds of a cubit^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^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

^ᵃnote:Micah I, 6; plantations of vineyards are a boon to neighbours.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘the measure (character) of flesh and blood’.
^ᶜnote:Emphasis on ‘silence’.
^ᵈnote:Ps. LXV, 2. E.V. have different renderings.
^ᵉnote:The affliction of the penalty.
^ᶠnote:In the conclusion of the text cited.
^ᵍnote:Ps. LXV, 2.
^ʰnote:The statement on the resignation of the wicked to, and their acknowledgment of the justice of the divine judgment.
^ⁱnote:Ps. LXXXIV, 7.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘these are’.
^ᵏnote:ihrcuga of the rt. rcg ‘to pass’.
^ˡnote:ihehngna rt. eng the same as that of ‘valley’ (eng).
^ᵐnote:‘Baca’ tfc is compared with vfc ‘to weep’ by interchange of t and v.
^ⁿnote:So MS.M. Cur. edd. omit.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘spring’.
^ᵖnote:In which the libations of wine were poured all through the year (cf. Suk. 4a). ih,ha ‘altar drains’ is of the same rt. as uvu,hah ‘they make it’.
^ᵠnote:This is implied in the expression ‘blessings’.
^ʳnote:vrun, (‘the early rain’,) is also the term for ‘master’.
^ˢnote:The statement just made (v. supra p. 128, n. 17).
^ᵗnote:ohgaupv, pr. particip. E.V., have rebelled.
^ᵘnote:Isa. LXVI, 24.
^ᵛnote:ugapa perfect.
^ʷnote:Which is contrary to the statement of R. Joshua b. Levi and R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar supra that the wicked acknowledge the justice of the divine judgment.
^ˣnote:The statements of R. Joshua b. Levi and R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar.
^ʸnote:That of Resh Lakish.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘for if so’, if Resh Lakish also speaks of transgressors in Israel.
^ᵃᵃnote:Cant. VI, 7.
^ᵃᵇnote:l,er
^ᵃᶜnote:lh,ehr (from ehr ‘empty’).
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘empty’.
^ᵃᵉnote:Hag. 27a.
^ᵃᶠnote:Ps. LXXXIV, 7, from which it was deduced supra that the wicked in Israel do suffer in Gehenna. How is this statement to be reconciled with the last cited one of Resh Lakish?
^ᵃᵍnote:Hence the ‘passing through’ it, and ‘the weeping’. MS.M.: ‘are sentenced to be in Gehenna for one hour, but etc.’
^ᵃʰnote:By Abraham who mistakes him for a heathen.
^ᵃⁱnote:supra q.v. notes.
^ᵃʲnote:Lit., ‘but from now’.
^ᵃᵏnote:thmunv pr. particip. Cf. Lev. XXII, 33.
^ᵃˡnote:vkgnv also pr. particip. Ibid. XI, 45.
^ᵃᵐnote:Which is absurd.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit., ‘but’.
^ᵃᵒnote:Supra q.v. notes.
^ᵃᵖnote:Num. XVI, 33, and this happened in the wilderness.
^ᵃᵠnote:Jonah II, 3, and this was said under the sea.
^ᵃʳnote:Isa. XXXI, 9.
^ᵃˢnote:To Gehenna.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. Rashi.
^ᵃᵘnote:For the lulab (v. Glos.).
^ᵃᵛnote:The valley of Ben Hinnom lies immediately behind the wall of Jerusalem.
^ᵃʷnote:Or ‘Sheol’.
^ᵃˣnote:Or, ‘pit of destruction’.
^ᵃʸnote:Jonah II, 3.
^ᵃᶻnote:Ps. LXXXVIII, 12.
^ᵇᵃnote:Ibid. XVI, 10.
^ᵇᵇnote:Ibid. XL, 3.
^ᵇᶜnote:Ibid. CVII, 10.
^ᵇᵈnote:To Gehenna.
^ᵇᵉnote:obv hd = obvhd ‘Gehenna’.
^ᵇᶠnote:obv the same rt. as obv by interchange of v and j.
^ᵇᵍnote:Incest.
^ᵇʰnote:Isa. XXX, 33.
^ᵇⁱnote:v,p,nv rt. v,p, the same that of v,p, ‘hearth’.
^ᵇʲnote:A town in an exceedingly fertile district to the south of Tiberias in the Jordan plain. V. Keth., Sonc. ed., p. 725 n. 11. ‘Its fruits are the sweetest in all Palestine’ (Rashi).
^ᵇᵏnote:Prob. Arabia Petraea on the eastern side of the Jordan (v. S. Horowitz, Palestine, p. 130).
^ᵇˡnote:Possibly Wadi Girm Al-Moz, a richly fertile valley facing Beth Shean on the other side of the Jordan and irrigated by an enormous fountain formed by the confluence of nineteen springs flowing south of Fahl and terminating in the Jordan (v. loc. cit.).
^ᵇᵐnote:Perhaps Amanah and Pharpar (cf. II Kings V, 12).
^ᵇⁿnote:Damascus.
^ᵇᵒnote:Or ‘the right hand side’, sc. the south side of the Euphrates (v. Rashi).
^ᵇᵖnote:A rich industrial and agricultural town in the Mesene district, South Babylon.
^ᵇᵠnote:That the cows must not be apart (v. our Mishnah).
^ᵇʳnote:The numeral referring to the teams and not to the individual cows which must be so tied together as not to admit any space between them.
^ᵇˢnote:Referred to in our Mishnah.

²so that the extent [of all the cows is] about ten cubits; so R. Meir, but R. Judah said: About thirteen or about fourteen cubits. ‘About ten’ [you say], but are they not in fact ten exactly? As it was desired to state ‘about thirteen’ in the final clause ‘about ten’ was stated in the first clause also. ‘About thirteen’ [you said] but are there not more? — [‘About’ was used] because it was desired to state ‘about fourteen’. But there are not really ‘about fourteen’, [are there]? — R. Papa replied: [The meaning is:] More than thirteen but less than fourteen. R. Papa stated: In respect of a cistern that is eight [cubits wide] no one disputes the ruling that no single boards are required. In respect of a cistern that is twelve [cubits wide] no one disputes the ruling that single boards also are required. They only differ [in the case of a cistern that was] from eight to twelve [cubits in width]. According to R. Meir single boards are required and according to R. Judah no single boards are required. What [new principle], however, does R. Papa teach us? Did we not learn [what he said] in our Mishnah? R. Papa did not hear of the Baraitha and he told us [the same measurements] as the Baraitha. (Mnemonic: Extended more in a mound fence of a courtyard that dried up) Abaye enquired of Rabbah: What is the ruling according to R. Meir where one extended the corner-piece [so that the excess of their width was] equal to the required width of the single boards? — The other replied: You have learnt this: PROVIDED ONE INCREASES THE STRIPS OF WOOD, [which means,] does it not, that one extends [the width of] the corner-pieces? — No; [it might mean] that one provides more single boards. If so, instead of ‘Provided one increases the strips’ [should not the reading] have been, ‘Provided one increases the number of the strips’? — Read: PROVIDED ONE INCREASES THE NUMBER OF STRIPS. There are others who read: The other replied: You have learnt it: PROVIDED ONE INCREASES THE STRIPS [which means,] does it not, that one must provide more single boards? — No; that one extends [the width of] the corner-pieces. By deduction also one arrives at the same conclusion, since it was stated: ‘PROVIDED ONE INCREASES THE STRIPS’. This is decisive. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: What is the ruling according to R. Judah where [the distance between the corner-pieces was] more than thirteen and a third cubits? [Is it necessary] to provide [additional] single boards or must one rather extend [the width of] the corner-pieces? — The other replied: You have learnt it: How near may they be? As the length of the head and the greater part of the body of a cow. And how far may they be? Even [as far as to enclose an area in which] a kor and even two kors [of seed may be sown]. R. Judah ruled: [An area of] two beth se'ah is permitted but one that exceeds two beth se'ah is forbidden. Do you not admit, the Rabbis said to R. Judah, that if [the enclosure] was a cattle-pen or a cattle-fold, a rearcourt or a courtyard it may be [as big as] five or even ten [beth] kor? This, he — replied, is [one that has a complete] partition but those are [isolated] boards. Now, if that were so should they [not have objected:] The one as well as the other is a proper partition? — It is this that he meant: The one is subject to the law of a partition, and gaps in it [must not be wider] than ten cubits, but those are subject to the law of strips of wood and gaps of thirteen and a third cubits between then, [are allowed]. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: Is a mound that rises to a height of ten [handbreadths] within an area of four [cubits] treated as a corner-piece or not? — The other replied: You have learnt it: R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: If a four sided stone was present we must consider this: If on being cut there would remain a cubit length for either side it may be regarded as a valid corner-piece, otherwise it cannot be so regarded. R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka ruled: If a round stone was present we consider this: If on being chiselled and cut there would remain a cubit length for either side it may be regarded as a valid corner-piece, otherwise it cannot be so treated. On what principle do they differ? — One Master is of the opinion that one imaginary act may be assumed [as having been effected] but not two, and the other Master is of the opinion that two imaginary acts may also be assumed [to have been effected]. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: Is a fence of reeds [in which the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths regarded as a valid corner-piece or not? — The other replied: You have learnt this: If there was present a tree or a wall or a fence of [growing] reeds it may be treated as a corner-piece. Does not [this refer to a fence in which the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths? — No; [it may refer to] a hedge of reeds. If so, is it not exactly [of the same nature as] a tree? — What then [would you suggest? That it referred to a fence in which the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths? Is not this [one could well retort] exactly [of the same nature as] a wall? What then could you reply? [That there are] two kinds of wall? [Well then] in this case also [one might reply that there are] two kinds of tree. There are [others] who say that he enquired concerning a hedge of reeds What [he asked, is the ruling in respect of] a hedge of reeds? — The other replied: You have learnt this: If there was present a tree or a wall or a fence of [growing] reeds it may be treated as a corner-piece. Does not this refer to a hedge of reeds? — No; [it may refer to a fence in which the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths. If so, is it not exactly [of the same nature as] a wall? — What then [would you suggest? That it refers to] a hedge of reeds? Is not this exactly [of the same nature as] a tree? What then could you say in reply^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^ᵈᵈ^ᵈᵉ^ᵈᶠ^ᵈᵍ^ᵈʰ^ᵈⁱ^ᵈʲ^ᵈᵏ^ᵈˡ^ᵈᵐ^ᵈⁿ^ᵈᵒ^ᵈᵖ^ᵈᵠ^ᵈʳ^ᵈˢ^ᵈᵗ^ᵈᵘ^ᵈᵛ^ᵈʷ^ᵈˣ^ᵈʸ^ᵈᶻ^ᵉᵃ^ᵉᵇ^ᵉᶜ^ᵉᵈ^ᵉᵉ^ᵉᶠ^ᵉᵍ^ᵉʰ^ᵉⁱ^ᵉʲ

^ᵇᵗnote:Lit., ‘which are’.
^ᵇᵘnote:The extent of the thickness of one cow being in cubits that of two teams of three cows each amounts to (1 2/3 X 2 X 3 = ) ten cubits. The expression ‘about’ is discussed infra.
^ᵇᵛnote:According to R. Judah each team may consist of four cows so that the total extent of their thicknesses amounts to (1 2/3 X 2 X 4 =) thirteen and a third cubits.
^ᵇʷnote:Cf. supra n. 10.
^ᵇˣnote:So Bah. Cur. edd. omit ‘about ten was stated . . . also’.
^ᵇʸnote:Obviously not. As the number thirteen and a third was said to be ‘about thirteen’ because it exceeded the latter by one third only, was it proper to describe it also in the same context, as ‘about fourteen’ which exceeds it by two thirds?
^ᵇᶻnote:Lit., ‘and they do not reach’.
^ᶜᵃnote:In which case the length of each side of the space enclosed by the corner-pieces is twelve cubits: Eight cubits (the width of the cistern) plus twice two cubits (the length of the head and the greater part of a cow's body on each side of the cistern).
^ᶜᵇnote:Lit., ‘that all the world do not differ’, sc. even R. Meir agrees.
^ᶜᶜnote:Since the gaps between the corner-pieces that screen the space of one cubit at the extremity of each side do not exceed (12 — 2 =) ten cubits, and may in consequence be regarded as doorways, even according to R. Meir.
^ᶜᵈnote:So that each side of the enclosure is sixteen cubits wide: Twelve cubits (the width of the cistern) plus twice two (as supra n. 3).
^ᶜᵉnote:Even R. Judah admits.
^ᶜᶠnote:Because the distances between the corner-pieces are (16 — 2 =) fourteen cubits and represent gaps which even R. Judah does not allow.
^ᶜᵍnote:In addition to the corner-pieces.
^ᶜʰnote:Sc. in accordance with the measurements laid down in the Baraitha just discussed, his statement follows naturally from the respective rulings of R. Meir and R. Judah in our Mishnah. For as the former allows a space for six oxen, corresponding to a distance of (6 X 1 2/3 =) ten cubits, and the latter allows one for eight oxen, corresponding to a distance of (8 X 1 2/3 =) thirteen and a third cubits, it is obvious that R. Meir does not require single boards in the case of a cistern that is eight cubits wide where the gaps in the enclosure are not wider than ten cubits and that R. Judah does require such boards where a cistern is twelve cubits wide and the gaps in the enclosure are bigger than thirteen and a third cubits.
^ᶜⁱnote:Just discussed, which lays down the measurements of the length and thickness of a cow.
^ᶜʲnote:Independently of the Baraitha, by his own exposition of our Mishnah.
^ᶜᵏnote:These measurements being derived from his exposition.
^ᶜˡnote:Embodying striking words or phrases in Abaye's enquiries of Rabbah that follow.
^ᶜᵐnote:Above that of one cubit in extent at the extremities of each side of the well enclosure.
^ᶜⁿnote:Is the reduction of the gaps to ten cubits in this manner effective, or is it necessary, once a gap was wider than the permitted ten cubits, to reduce it by the fixing of two special boards on each side of the enclosure and at the same distance from each corner-piece so that the additional single boards might be distinguishable?
^ᶜᵒnote:Lit., ‘that’.
^ᶜᵖnote:This is the literal meaning of the original ihxpc in our Mishnah, ‘in the strips’, sc. the corner-pieces themselves.
^ᶜᵠnote:Lit., ‘until’.
^ᶜʳnote:As actually rendered.
^ᶜˢnote:So with marginal note. Cur. edd. ‘until’.
^ᶜᵗnote:Who, unlike R. Meir, did not mention single boards at all.
^ᶜᵘnote:At a slight distance from the corner-pieces so as to make a proper display of the means whereby the gaps are reduced.
^ᶜᵛnote:The erection of additional single boards being inadmissible on account of the gaps on either side of them that would virtually annul their existence.
^ᶜʷnote:To the well.
^ᶜˣnote:The boards forming the enclosures round it.
^ᶜʸnote:V. Glos.
^ᶜᶻnote:Any of the enclosures specified.
^ᵈᵃnote:Hence the permissibility of an unlimited area.
^ᵈᵇnote:The boards in a well enclosure.
^ᵈᶜnote:With gaps between them. Tosef. ‘Er. I.
^ᵈᵈnote:That the corner-pieces may be extended and no single boards are required.
^ᵈᵉnote:Lit., ‘this ... this’.
^ᵈᶠnote:Extended corner-pieces, surely, are as good a partition as any of the others.
^ᵈᵍnote:R. Judah in his reply to the Rabbis.
^ᵈʰnote:V. supra n. 5.
^ᵈⁱnote:Lit., ‘within (the limit of) ten’.
^ᵈʲnote:The boards in a well enclosure.
^ᵈᵏnote:As such a partition is obviously much inferior than the others, only a limited area of two beth se'ah was allowed.
^ᵈˡnote:Lit., ‘that collects itself’.
^ᵈᵐnote:Lit., ‘from the midst of’.
^ᵈⁿnote:Where the area is larger, and a height of ten handbreadths is in consequence not well pronounced (v. next note), the question does not arise, because a mound of such dimensions is regarded as a piece of solid ground forming a part of the domain in which it is situated.
^ᵈᵒnote:Since such a mound, owing to its pronounced proportional height, has, in respect of the Sabbath laws, the status of a private domain (cf. Shab. 100a).
^ᵈᵖnote:At one of the corners of a well enclosure.
^ᵈᵠnote:Lit., ‘divided’, sc. shaped into a corner-piece.
^ᵈʳnote:Lit., ‘and there is in it a cubit towards here’ etc.
^ᵈˢnote:To alter its circular shape into a square.
^ᵈᵗnote:Tosef. ‘Er. I.
^ᵈᵘnote:R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
^ᵈᵛnote:The cutting of the stone.
^ᵈʷnote:Lit., ‘one (assumption of) "we see" we say’.
^ᵈˣnote:Chiselling and cutting.
^ᵈʸnote:R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka.
^ᵈᶻnote:The mound under discussion being circular in shape has the same status as a round stone and its admissibility as a corner-piece depends, therefore, on the respective opinions of R. Simeon and R. Ishmael.
^ᵉᵃnote:Growing on the two sides of the corner of a well enclosure.
^ᵉᵇnote:Supra 15a q.v. notes.
^ᵉᶜnote:All growing from the same stem.
^ᵉᵈnote:Which was already mentioned in the same context.
^ᵉᵉnote:To this objection.
^ᵉᶠnote:No answer, therefore, may be derived from these rulings to Abaye's enquiry.
^ᵉᵍnote:Abaye.
^ᵉʰnote:All growing from the same stem.
^ᵉⁱnote:Is it a valid corner-piece?
^ᵉʲnote:V. supra p. 136, n. 15.