Eruvin

GEMARA. R. Joseph stated in the name of Rab Judah who had it from Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah b. Baba. R. Joseph further stated in the name of R. Judah who had it from Samuel: Strips [of wood] around wells were permitted only in the case of a well of living water. And [both these statements were] required. For if we had only been told, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah b. Baba’ it might have been assumed that [in the case] of public [water he allows strips of wood] even [where the water is] collected, and that the reason why he mentioned A PUBLIC WELL was to express disagreement1 with the view of R. Akiba,2 hence we were told that ‘strips of wood around wells were permitted only in the case of a well of living water’.3 And if only ‘a well of living water’ had been mentioned [it might have been assumed that] there is no difference between a public and a private one,4 hence we were told ‘the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah b. Baba’.5 MISHNAH. R. JUDAH B. BABA FURTHER RULED: IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS6 IN A GARDEN OR A KARPAF7 WHOSE [AREA DOES NOT EXCEED] SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION8 BY SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION AND WHICH ARE SURROUNDED BY A WALL TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, PROVIDED THERE IS IN IT A WATCHMAN'S HUT OR A DWELLING PLACE9 OR IT IS NEAR TO A TOWN.10 R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN IF IT CONTAINED ONLY A CISTERN, A DITCH OR A CAVE IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS11 WITHIN IT. R. AKIBA RULED: EVEN IF IT CONTAINED NONE OF THESE IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS11 WITHIN IT, PROVIDED ITS AREA [DOES NOT EXCEED] SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION12 BY SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION. R. ELIEZER RULED: IF ITS LENGTH EXCEEDED ITS BREADTH EVEN BY A SINGLE CUBIT IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO MOVE ANY OBJECTS WITHIN IT.13 R. JOSE RULED: EVEN IF ITS LENGTH IS TWICE ITS BREADTH IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE EFFECTS WITHIN IT. R. ILA'I STATED: I HEARD FROM R. ELIEZER,14 EVEN IF IT IS AS LARGE AS A BETH KOR. I LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE ‘ERUB,15 HIS HOUSE IS FORBIDDEN TO HIM FOR THE TAKING IN OR THE TAKING OUT OF ANY OBJECT16 BUT IS PERMITTED TO THEM.17 I HAVE LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT PEOPLE MAY FULFIL THEIR DUTY18 AT PASSOVER BY EATING HART'S-TONGUE.19 WHEN, HOWEVER, I WENT ROUND AMONG ALL HIS DISCIPLES SEEKING A FELLOW STUDENT20 I FOUND NONE.21 GEMARA. What did he22 already teach that, in consequence, he23 used the expression of FURTHER? If it be suggested: Because he taught one restrictive ruling24 and then he taught the other25 he therefore used the expression of FURTHER, surely [it could be retorted] did not R. Judah26 teach one restrictive ruling27 and then he taught another one28 and yet he29 did not use the expression ‘further’? — There30 the Rabbis interrupted him31 but here the Rabbis did not interrupt him.32 [Is it then suggested] that wherever the Rabbis interrupted one's statements the expression of ‘further’33 not used? Surely, [it may be objected] was not R. Eliezer, in the case of a law about sukkah, interrupted by the Rabbis and the expression ‘further’ was nevertheless used?34 There35 they interrupted him with [a ruling on] his own subject but here they made the interruption with another subject.36 R. AKIBA RULED: EVEN IF IT CONTAINED NONE OF THESE IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT. down that the water, whether springing or collected, must not be private but public if strips of wood around it are to be permitted. regarded as a dwelling place. permitted where the enclosure around it was not made for dwelling purposes. purposes, to seventy and two-thirds cubits square. of our Mishnah). expression of ‘further’ is obviously unsuitable.