Eruvin

so that the extent1 [of all the cows is] about ten cubits;2 so R. Meir, but R. Judah said: About thirteen or about fourteen cubits.3 ‘About ten’ [you say], but are they not in fact ten exactly?4 As it was desired to state ‘about thirteen’ in the final clause ‘about ten’ was stated in the first clause also.5 ‘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]?6 — R. Papa replied: [The meaning is:] More than thirteen but less than7 fourteen. R. Papa stated: In respect of a cistern that is eight [cubits wide]8 no one disputes the ruling9 that no single boards are required.10 In respect of a cistern that is twelve [cubits wide]11 no one disputes the ruling12 that single boards also are required.13 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 required14 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?15 R. Papa did not hear of the Baraitha16 and he told us17 [the same measurements] as the Baraitha.18 (Mnemonic:19 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 width20 was] equal to the required width of the single boards?21 — 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 of22 ‘Provided one increases the strips’23 [should not the reading] have been, ‘Provided24 one increases the number of the strips’? — Read:25 PROVIDED26 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’.23 This is decisive. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: What is the ruling according to R. Judah27 where [the distance between the corner-pieces was] more than thirteen and a third cubits? [Is it necessary] to provide [additional] single boards28 or must one rather extend [the width of] the corner-pieces?29 — The other replied: You have learnt it: How near30 may they31 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 kor32 and even two kors [of seed may be sown]. R. Judah ruled: [An area of] two beth se'ah32 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?32 This,33 he — replied, is [one that has a complete] partition34 but those35 are [isolated] boards.36 Now, if that were so37 should they [not have objected:] The one as well as the other38 is a proper partition?39 — It is this that he40 meant: The one41 is subject to the law of a partition, and gaps in it [must not be wider] than ten cubits,42 but those43 are subject to the law of strips of wood and gaps of thirteen and a third cubits between then, [are allowed].44 Abaye enquired of Rabbah: Is a mound that rises to a height of45 ten [handbreadths] within an area of46 four [cubits]47 treated as a corner-piece48 or not? — The other replied: You have learnt it: R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled: If a four sided stone was present49 we must consider this: If on being cut50 there would remain a cubit length for either side51 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 present49 we consider this: If on being chiselled52 and cut50 there would remain a cubit length for either side51 it may be regarded as a valid corner-piece, otherwise it cannot be so treated.53 On what principle do they differ? — One Master54 is of the opinion that one imaginary act55 may be assumed56 [as having been effected] but not two,57 and the other Master58 is of the opinion that two imaginary acts may also be assumed [to have been effected].59 Abaye enquired of Rabbah: Is a fence of reeds60 [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.61 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.62 If so, is it not exactly [of the same nature as] a tree?63 — 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?63 What then could you reply?64 [That there are] two kinds of wall? [Well then] in this case also [one might reply that there are] two kinds of tree.65 There are [others] who say that he66 enquired concerning a hedge of reeds67 What [he asked, is the ruling in respect of] a hedge of reeds?68 — 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?69 — What then [would you suggest? That it refers to] a hedge of reeds? Is not this exactly [of the same nature as] a tree?69 What then could you say in reply 3 = ) ten cubits. The expression ‘about’ is discussed infra. 2/3 X 2 X 4 =) thirteen and a third cubits. one third only, was it proper to describe it also in the same context, as ‘about fourteen’ which exceeds it by two thirds? 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). exceed (12 — 2 =) ten cubits, and may in consequence be regarded as doorways, even according to R. Meir. supra n. 3). Judah does not allow. 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. 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? reduced. virtually annul their existence. 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. private domain (cf. Shab. 100a). corner-piece depends, therefore, on the respective opinions of R. Simeon and R. Ishmael.