Eruvin

Is not R. Akiba [laying down] the same ruling as the first Tanna?1 The difference between them is a small area.2 For it was taught: R. Judah stated, [two beth se'ah] exceed seventy cubits and a fraction [square] by a very small margin but the Sages did not indicate its exact dimensions. And what [is the area of] the size of two beth se'ah? — One like that of the courtyard of the Tabernacle.3 Whence is this4 deduced? — Rab Judah replied: From Scripture which said: The length of the court shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty everywhere,5 the Torah6 having thus ordained, ‘Take away fifty7 and surround [with them the other] fifty’.8 What, however, is9 the ordinary meaning of the text?10 — Abaye replied: Put up the Tabernacle at the edge of fifty cubits so that there might be [a space of] fifty cubits11 in front of it and one of twenty cubits on every side.12 R. ELIEZER RULED: IF ITS LENGTH EXCEEDED etc. Was it not taught, however, that R. Eliezer ruled: If its length was more than twice its breadth, even if only by one cubit, it is forbidden to move objects within it? — R. Bebai b. Abaye replied: What we learned in our Mishnah we learned [in respect of an enclosure whose length] was more than twice its width. If so, is not this ruling exactly the same as that of R. Jose?13 — The difference between them is the squared area which the Rabbis have prescribed.14 R. JOSE RULED etc. It was stated:15 R. Joseph laid down in the name of Rab Judah who had it from Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose;16 and R. Bebai laid down in the name of Rab Judah17 who had it from Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Akiba.18 And both [these rulings] are on the side of leniency; and [both were] required. For if we had only been told, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’ it might have been assumed [that the permissibility was dependent] on the existence of19 a watchman's hut or a dwelling place,20 hence we were informed that ‘the halachah is in agreement with R. Akiba’.21 And if we had been told, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Akiba’ it might have been assumed that [an enclosed area that was] long and narrow is not [permitted],22 hence we were also informed that ‘the halachah is in agreement with R. Jose’.23 If a karpaf24 bigger than two beth se'ah,24 is fenced round for dwelling purposes, then if the greater part of it is sown [with seed] it is regarded as a garden25 and it is forbidden [to carry any objects within it],26 but if the greater part of it is planted [with trees]27 it is regarded as a courtyard [and the movement of objects within it] is permitted. ‘If the greater part of it is sown [etc.]’. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua: This applies only [where the area sown was] bigger than two beth se'ah28 but one of two beth se'ah29 is permitted.30 In agreement with whose view? Is it in agreement with that of R. Simeon; for we learned: R. Simeon ruled: Roofs, courtyards and karpafs31 are equally regarded as one domain in respect of [carrying from one into another] objects that were kept within them when Sabbath began, but not in respect of objects that were in the house when the Sabbath began?32 But [it may be objected] even according to R. Simeon, since the major part of it was sown [with seed] would not the minor part were not enclosed for dwelling purposes) if the area is not more than two beth se'ah i.e., about seventy and two-thirds cubits square (Rashi). first Tanna the area may be as large as two beth se'ah while according to R. Akiba it must not exceed that of 70 2/3 cubits square. objects on Sabbath. cubits. X 50 cubits, a larger square area is the result. The area of two beth se'ah is consequently equal to 100 X 50 square cubits which (since a cubit 6 = handbreadths) equals 100 X 50 X 6 X 6 = 180,000 sq. handbreadths. An area of (70 and 2/3) squared cubits = (70 X 6 + 4) squared = 424 squared = 179,776 sq. handbreadths. The difference between the first Tanna and R. Akiba is thus the small area of 180,000 — 179,776 = 224 sq. handbreadths (or 224/36 = 6 and 2/9 sq. cubits) which if split up into small strips to surround with them the perimeter of (70 and 2/3) squared cubits would be small indeed. [For a full mathematical discussion of this passage v. Feldman, op. cit. pp. 54ff]. already given? sections and setting up the Tabernacle in one of these, its eastern front touching the dividing line, and its southern side removed twenty cubits from the south wall of the court there would remain (since the width of the court was fifty cubits) the following distance between the Tabernacle and the walls of the court. (100 — 50) X 50 = 50 X 50 cubits in front of it, 50 — 30 = 20 at its back, and (50 — 10)/2 = 20 cubits on its sides. area is also permitted; while R. Jose holds that the authorized area is a square although one whose length equals twice its breadth is also permitted. (V. Rashi. Cf., however, R. Han. in Tosaf. s.v. tfht a.l.). the unsown part has the status of a courtyard whose one complete side is fully open into a karmelith and both sections are consequently forbidden domains for the movement of objects on the Sabbath. opens out into a karpaf (cf. previous note). out on Sabbath from the house to the courtyard must not be moved thence to the karpaf or roof (Rashi).