עירובין 3 — Soncino English Talmud

¹a cornice should be of no avail, since [the entrance to the] Hekal had a cornice and yet was only twenty cubits high? For have we not learnt: Five cornices of oak were above it, one higher than the other? (What an objection, however, is this? Is it not possible that the statement about the cornices was made in respect of the Ulam? — And what difficulty is this! It is quite possible that the build of [the entrance to] the Hekal was like that of the Ulam). Then why did R. Il'a state in the name of Rab [that if a cross-beam was] four [handbreadths] wide [it constitutes a proper gateway] even though it is not strong enough, and if it had a cornice there is no need to lower it even if it was higher than twenty cubits? — R. Joseph replied: [The ruling about] the cornice is that of a Baraitha. (Who learned it? — Abaye replied: Hama the son of Rabbah b. Abbuha learned it.) But even if [the ruling about] the cornice is a Baraitha, does it not present an objection against Rab? — Rab can answer you: Even if I am removed from here, are not the two Baraithas mutually contradictory? All you can reply, [however, is that they represent the views of different] Tannas; so also [the reply to the contradiction] against me may be [that our respective statements are the views of different] Tannas. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: In the absence of [the statement of] Rab there is no contradiction between the [two] Baraithas, since the reason of the Rabbis [for limiting the height of] the beam, [may be] that there should be a distinguishing mark and that the use of the expression, ‘higher than the doorway of the Hekal’ is a mere mnemonic. As to R. Nahman b. Isaac, [his explanation may be accepted as] satisfactory if he does not adopt the view of Rabbah; but if he does adopt the view of Rabbah who stated: ‘It is written in Scripture: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths, [if the roof of the booth is] not higher than twenty cubits, one knows that one is living in a booth but if it is higher than twenty cubits one would not know it, since [the roof] does not catch the eye’, from which it is clear that in respect of sukkah also they differ on the question of distinction, why [it may be asked] should they express the [same] difference in two [rulings]? — [Both are] required. For if we had been informed [of their dispute] in respect of sukkah only, it might have been assumed that only in this case does R. Judah maintain his view, [because a sukkah], since it is made for the purpose of sitting in, the eye would well observe [the roof], but [that in the case of] an alley, since it is used for walking he agrees with the Rabbis. And if we had been informed of the other [ruling only], it might have been assumed that only in this case did the Rabbis maintain their view, but that in the other case they agree with R. Judah. [Hence the] necessity [for both rulings]. What [is the meaning of] amaltera? — R. Hama son of Rabbah b. Abbuha replied: Pigeon holes. When R. Dimi came he stated that in the West it was explained as cedar poles. He who said that cedar poles [constitute a proper entrance would] with even more reason [admit that] pigeon holes [constitute a proper entrance]. He, however, who said that pigeon holes [constitute a proper entrance recognizes only these] but not cedar poles. As to him, however, who recognized cedar poles, is not his reason because their length is considerable? But [if so, it may be objected]: Is not the extent [of the roof] of a sukkah considerable and the Rabbis nevertheless ruled that it is not [valid]! — The fact, however, is that since [they are] valuable people talk about them. If part of [the thickness of] the cross-beam was within twenty cubits and part of it above twenty cubits, or if part of [the depth of] the covering [of a sukkah] was within twenty cubits and part of it above twenty cubits, [such an altitude] said Rabbah, is admissible in the case of an entrance but inadmissible in that of a sukkah. Why is this admissible in the case of an entrance? Obviously because we say, [Regard the beam as] planed; but, then, [why should it not] be said in respect of a sukkah also, [Regard the roof as] thinned? — If you [assume the roof to be] thinned, the sunshine in the sukkah [would have to be assumed to be] more than the shade. But here also, if you [regard it as] planed, would not the beam be like one that can be carried away by the wind? Consequently you must [assume that beams in the conditions mentioned] are regarded as metal spits; [may it not then], here also [be said], that whatever the assumption the extent of the shade is actually more than that of the sunshine? — Raba of Parazika replied: In the case of a sukkah, since [it is usually intended] for the use of an individual, one might not remember [the altitude of the roof]. In the case of an entrance however, since [it is made] for the use of many, [the people concerned] would remind one another. Rabina replied: The Rabbis made the law stricter in respect of a sukkah because [the commandment is] Pentateuchal, but in respect of an entrance [to an alley the prescribed construction of] which is only Rabbinical, the Rabbis did not impose such restrictions. R. Adda b. Mattenah taught the statement of Rabbah just cited in the reverse order: Rabbah said: It is inadmissible in the case of an entrance but admissible in that of a sukkah. Why is this admissible in the case of a sukkah? Obviously because we say: [Regard the roof as] thinned out; but, then, [why should it not] be said in respect of an entrance also: [Regard the beam as] planed? — If you [regard it as] planed, the beam would be like one that can be carried away by a wind. But here also if you [regard the roof as] thinned out [would not also] the sunshine in the sukkah [have to be regarded as] larger in extent than its shade? Consequently you must maintain that whatever the assumption, the actual extent of the shadow is larger than that of the sunshine, [may it not then] here also [be said] that whatever the assumption [beams in the condition mentioned] are regarded as metal spits? — Raba of Parazika replied: In the case of a sukkah, since [it is usually made] for one individual, that person realizes his responsibility and makes a point of remembering [the conditions of the roof]. In the case of an entrance, however, since [it is made] for the use of many, [the people affected might] rely upon one another and so overlook [any defects in the cross-beam]; for do not people say: ‘a pot in charge of two cooks is neither hot nor cold’. Rabina replied: [the law of] sukkah, since it is Pentateuchal, requires no buttressing but that of an entrance, since it is only Rabbinical, does require buttressing. What is the ultimate decision? — Rabbah b. R. Ulla replied: The one as well as the other is inadmissible. Raba replied: The one as well as the other is admissible,^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^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ

^ᵃnote:tr,knt or tr,kn cf. Gr. **.
^ᵇnote:Where the gateway is higher than twenty cubits.
^ᶜnote:vkhn cf. Gr. ** quercus infectoria.
^ᵈnote:The argument is interrupted by the discussion within the brackets and is then resumed.
^ᵉnote:While the entrance to the Hekal may have had no cornice at all?
^ᶠnote:Supra n. 13.
^ᵍnote:To carry the weight of an ariah (a small brick hall’ the size of an ordinary one), v. infra 13b.
^ʰnote:Not that of Rab himself. Hence there is no contradiction between Rab's own statements.
^ⁱnote:I.e., who reported (or recited) it?
^ʲnote:Delete tvu with MS.M. and Bah. Emden reads: ‘R. Hama’.
^ᵏnote:This Baraitha from which it is obvious that the inference is not made from the door of the Hekal.
^ˡnote:Who stated (supra 2a) that the inference is made from the door of the Hekal; whereas from this Baraitha it is evident that such an inference is not drawn.
^ᵐnote:Sc. even if his opinion had never been expressed.
^ⁿnote:The one just cited and that quoted supra 2b where the inference from the door of the Hekal is specifically mentioned.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘what have you to say’.
^ᵖnote:The Tanna supra 2b infers from the Hekal and consequently limits the height of a gateway to twenty cubits irrespective of the presence or absence of a cornice, while the Tanna of the last cited Baraitha draws no such inference.
^ᵠnote:Sc. if Rab had not suggested that the Rabbis in the first Baraitha derived their measurement from the door of the Hekal.
^ʳnote:Between the alley and the public domain into which it opens. At a height of more than twenty cubits the beam would not be noticed and people might mistake the alley for a public domain. As a cornice can be noticed even at a higher altitude the limit of twenty cubits, as stated in the second Baraitha, was in its case removed.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘and that which he taught’.
^ᵗnote:In the first Baraitha.
^ᵘnote:V. Suk. 2a.
^ᵛnote:Lev. XXIII, 43, emphasis on ‘know’.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘until’.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘the eye does not rule over it’. Suk. 2a’
^ʸnote:The Rabbis and R. Judah, who declare such a booth valid.
^ᶻnote:For hk (sing.) read with Bah uvk (plur.).
^ᵃᵃnote:The Rabbis insisting on, and R. Judah dispensing with the necessity for a distinction.
^ᵃᵇnote:Those of (a) sukkah and (b) the cross-beam of an alley.
^ᵃᶜnote:Cf. Supra n. 4.
^ᵃᵈnote:It is not usual to sit down in an open alley and in passing one would not see a beam lying too high.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘of that’, the entrance to an alley.
^ᵃᶠnote:The Heb. for ‘cornice’, v. supra p. 7.
^ᵃᵍnote:hbhe ‘nests’, sc. ornamental carvings in the shape of birds’ nests.
^ᵃʰnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᵃⁱnote:Palestine.
^ᵃʲnote:Fixed to the walls on the sides of the entrance.
^ᵃᵏnote:Since the latter are more likely to be noticed by the public.
^ᵃˡnote:Which are not so striking and may, in consequence, remain unnoticed.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lit., ‘said’, sc. regarded them as constituting a proper gateway even when higher than twenty cubits.
^ᵃⁿnote:In consequence of which they would be easily observed even at a considerable height.
^ᵃᵒnote:Cf. supra n. 2.
^ᵃᵖnote:If it is more than twenty cubits high.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., ‘it has a voice’, and the public are consequently aware of their existence, a reason which is inapplicable, of course, to a sukkah.
^ᵃʳnote:At the entrance of an alley.
^ᵃˢnote:From the ground.
^ᵃᵗnote:lfx, consisting of branches, twigs or straw.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘fit’, ‘proper’, sc. the entrance to the alley is deemed to constitute a proper gateway.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., ‘unfit’, cf. supra n. 9 mutatis mutandis.
^ᵃʷnote:A cross-beam of which only a portion is below the height of twenty cubits.
^ᵃˣnote:And only that portion remained that lay within the twenty cubits. auke, particip. pass. of ake ‘to weaken’, ‘to thin out’.
^ᵃʸnote:And this would render the sukkah invalid. The roof of a proper Sukkah must be thick enough to enable the shadows in the interior to predominate over the sunshine.
^ᵃᶻnote:In the case of a cross-beam over an entrance.
^ᵇᵃnote:In consequence of which it could not be regarded as a proper beam conforming to the prescribed thickness and strength, V. Supra p. 7, n. 16.
^ᵇᵇnote:In view of their general thickness and strength.
^ᵇᶜnote:A thin one of which can carry as heavy a weight as a thicker one of wood.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘against your will’.
^ᵇᵉnote:Why then, it may again be asked, did Rabbah rule that a Sukkah in such a condition is invalid?
^ᵇᶠnote:Farausag, a district near Bagdad (Obermeyer, p. 269), or Porsica, a town in Mesopotamia (v. Golds.).
^ᵇᵍnote:Should, therefore, the section below the altitude of twenty cubits dry up or fall down it might never occur to the individual that his Sukkah, the roof of which was now completely higher than twenty cubits, was no longer valid. He would thus unconsciously live in an invalid Sukkah and so transgress a Pentateuchal precept.
^ᵇʰnote:Cf. Supra n. 4 mutatis mutandis.
^ᵇⁱnote:v. Supra note 2.
^ᵇʲnote:A roof of a sukkah of which only a portion is below the height of twenty cubits.
^ᵇᵏnote:v. Supra p. 10, n. 12.
^ᵇˡnote:v. Supra p. 10, n. 15.
^ᵇᵐnote:In the case of the roof of a sukkah.
^ᵇⁿnote:Lit., ‘against your will’.
^ᵇᵒnote:Cf. supra p. 10, n. 17. Why then did Rabbah rule that a cross-beam in such a condition is admissible?
^ᵇᵖnote:Lit., ‘throws upon himself’.
^ᵇᵠnote:V. supra p. 11, n. 2.
^ᵇʳnote:Lit., ‘and would not remember’.
^ᵇˢnote:Lit., ‘of partners’.
^ᵇᵗnote:V. supra p. 11, n. 2.
^ᵇᵘnote:People would in any case be careful properly to observe it.
^ᵇᵛnote:Otherwise it might be entirely disregarded.
^ᵇʷnote:Lit., ‘what is (the decision) about it’.
^ᵇˣnote:Lit., ‘this and this’, the roof of a sukkah and a cross-beam if either is even only partially higher than twenty cubits from the ground.

²for what we learned [in respect of height refers to the] interior of the sukkah and to the empty space of the entrance. Said R. Papa to Raba: A Baraitha was taught which provides support for your view: ‘[A cross-beam over] an entrance [to a blind alley] that is higher than twenty cubits [and is thus] higher than the entrance to the Hekal should be lowered’. Now in the Hekal itself the [height of the] hollow space of [the entrance thereto] was twenty cubits. R. Shimi b. Ashi raised an objection against R. Papa: ‘How does one construct [the prescribed entrance]? One places the cross-beam, below the limit of twenty [cubits of its altitude]’. Read: ‘Above’. But surely it is stated: ‘below’? — It was this that we are informed: That the lowest [permitted altitude is to be measured on the same principle] as the highest. As in the case of the highest [altitude permitted] the hollow space [of the entrance must not exceed] twenty cubits, so also in the case of the lowest [altitude permitted], the hollow space [of the entrance must not be lower than] ten cubits. Abaye stated in the name of R. Nahman: The cubit [applicable to the measurements] of a sukkah and that applicable to an ‘entrance’ is one of five [handbreadths]. The cubit [applicable to the laws] of kil'ayim is one of six [handbreadths]. In respect of what legal [restriction has it been ruled that] the cubit [applicable to the measurements] of an entrance is [only] one of five? [If it be suggested] in respect of its height and [of the size of] a breach in the alley, surely [it could be retorted] is there [not also the law on] the depth of an alley, that [must be no less than] four cubits, in which case [the adoption of the smaller cubit results in] a relaxation [of the law]? — [He holds the same view] as does he who limits the depth to four handbreadths. If you prefer I might reply [that the depth of an alley must indeed be] four cubits, but he spoke of the majority of cubit measurements. In respect of what legal [restriction has R. Nahman ruled that] the cubit [applicable to the measurements] of a sukkah is one of five? [If it be suggested,] in respect of its height and [the permitted size of] a crooked wall, surely [it might be objected is there [not also the law requiring] the area of the sukkah [to be four cubits] by four cubits, in which case [the adoption of the smaller cubit results in] a relaxation [of the law]? For was it not taught: Rabbi said: ‘I maintain that any sukkah which does not contain [an area of] four cubits by four cubits is legally unfit’? [R. Nahman is of the same opinion] as the Rabbis who ruled [that a sukkah is valid] even if it accommodates no more than one's head, the greater part of one's body and a table. And if you prefer I might reply: It may, in fact, [be in agreement with the view of] Rabbi, but he spoke of the majority of cubit measurements. In respect of what legal [restrictions has R. Nahman ruled that] ‘the cubit [applicable to the laws] of kil'ayim is one of six’? — In respect of a patch in a vineyard and the [uncultivated] border of a vineyard; for we have learnt: [Each side of] a patch in a vineyard, Beth Shammai ruled, must measure no less than twenty-four cubits, and Beth Hillel ruled: Sixteen cubits; and [the width of] an [uncultivated] border of a vineyard, Beth Shammai ruled, [must] measure no less than sixteen cubits, and Beth Hillel ruled: Twelve cubits. What is meant by a patch in a vineyard? The barren portion of the interior of the vineyard. [If its sides] do not measure sixteen cubits, no seed may be sown there, but if they do measure sixteen cubits, sufficient space for the tillage of the vineyard is allowed and the remaining space may be sown. And what is meant by the border of a vineyard? [The space] between the [actual] vineyard and the surrounding fence. [If the width] is less than twelve cubits no seed may be sown there, but if it measures twelve cubits, sufficient space for the tillage of the vineyard is allowed and the remaining area may be sown. But, surely, there is [the case of vines planted] closely within four cubits [distance from one another] where [the adoption of the higher standard would result] in a relaxation [of the law]? For have we not learnt: A vineyard [the rows of which are] planted at [distances of] less than four cubits [from one another] is not regarded, R. Simeon ruled, as a proper vineyard, and the Sages ruled, [It is regarded as] a proper vineyard, the intervening vines being treated as if they were non-existent? — [R. Nahman is of the same opinion] as the Rabbis who ruled that [whatever the distances the plantation] constitutes a proper vineyard. If you prefer I might reply: [He may,] in fact, [hold the view of] R. Simeon, but he was referring to the majority of cubit measurements. Raba, however, stated in the name of R. Nahman: All cubits [prescribed for legal measurements are] of the size of six [handbreadths], but the latter are expanded while the former are compact. An objection was raised: All cubits of which the Sages spoke are of the standard of six [handbreadths] except^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

^ᵇʸnote:Suk. 2a and supra 2a.
^ᵇᶻnote:Lit., ‘hollow’.
^ᶜᵃnote:But does not include the roof of the former or the cross-beam of the latter.
^ᶜᵇnote:V. supra p. 2, n. 7.
^ᶜᶜnote:From which the law relating to the entrance to a blind alley is derived.
^ᶜᵈnote:Tosef. ‘Er. 1; from which it follows, contrary to the view of R. Papa, that the prescribed altitude of twenty cubits for an entrance includes also the cross-beam.
^ᶜᵉnote:Instead of ‘below’, the cross-beam being excluded from the prescribed altitude.
^ᶜᶠnote:By the mention of ‘below’.
^ᶜᵍnote:vynks, lit., ‘that which is below’.
^ᶜʰnote:The expression vynk (‘below’) in the Baraitha does not at all refer to a crossbeam that lies over an entrance twenty cubits in height, but to one of ten cubits only, the entire passage being in the nature of an elliptical note.
^ᶜⁱnote:Lit., ‘and the cubit of’.
^ᶜʲnote:V. Glos.
^ᶜᵏnote:Adopting in each case the standard which makes for the more rigorous application of the law.
^ᶜˡnote:And not six as is the case with that of kil'ayim.
^ᶜᵐnote:Sc. that the cross-beam must not be higher than twenty cubits of the lower standard on the side of rigor.
^ᶜⁿnote:If the breach in one of the walls of the alley is wider than ten cubits, the arrangements in connection with the Sabbath are invalid on the side of rigor; v. infra 5a.
^ᶜᵒnote:In order to render the Sabbath arrangements valid.
^ᶜᵖnote:V. infra 5a.
^ᶜᵠnote:Since a depth of four cubits of the lower standard would be sufficient to render the arrangements valid.
^ᶜʳnote:R. Nahman in whose name Abaye laid down the respective standards of the cubit.
^ᶜˢnote:R. Joseph (v. infra 5a).
^ᶜᵗnote:Lit., ‘who said’.
^ᶜᵘnote:The question of the size of the respective cubits does not, therefore, arise.
^ᶜᵛnote:The answer just given is not very satisfactory since Abaye himself who reported R. Nahman's ruling differs from R. Joseph's view (cf. Supra n. 15).
^ᶜʷnote:V. p. 13, n. 14.
^ᶜˣnote:In connection with an ‘entrance’. In respect of depth, however, he may well hold the size of the cubit to be six handbreadths.
^ᶜʸnote:And not six as is the case with that of kil'ayim.
^ᶜᶻnote:That its interior must not be higher than twenty of the smaller cubits.
^ᵈᵃnote:vnueg ipus; if a portion of the roof of a sukkah consists of materials that are legally unfit for the purpose, the sukkah may nevertheless be valid if that portion is adjacent to any of its walls and terminates within a distance of four cubits from that wall. That portion of the roof together with the wall it adjoins are regarded as one crooked wall; and the space under the remainder of the roof, consisting of suitable materials, may be used as a proper sukkah. (V. Suk. 17a). In both suggested cases, the cubit of the lower standard is on the side of rigor.
^ᵈᵇnote:Since even all area measured by the smaller cubit would render the sukkah valid.
^ᵈᶜnote:R. Judah I, the Patriarch, compiler of the Mishnah.
^ᵈᵈnote:Suk. 3a.
^ᵈᵉnote:Cf. Supra p. 13, n. 17.
^ᵈᶠnote:The ruling reported in R. Nahman's name.
^ᵈᵍnote:R. Nahman in whose name Abaye laid down the respective standards of the cubit.
^ᵈʰnote:In connection with the sukkah, which belong to the lower standard. In the case of the area of a sukkah, however, he may well maintain, the cubit applicable is the one of the higher standard on the side of rigor.
^ᵈⁱnote:,jre., ‘baldness’. This is further explained infra.
^ᵈʲnote:kujn (rt. kuj ‘to go round’) a circle, circumference.
^ᵈᵏnote:V. p. 14, n. 13.
^ᵈˡnote:If it is desired to grow in it wheat or other kinds of grain which under the laws of kil'ayim are forbidden to be grown among vines.
^ᵈᵐnote:Lit., ‘a vineyard the middle of which was destroyed’.
^ᵈⁿnote:Lit., ‘there is not there’.
^ᵈᵒnote:Lit., ‘he shall not bring’.
^ᵈᵖnote:Lit., ‘they were there’.
^ᵈᵠnote:Four cubits on each side.
^ᵈʳnote:Sc. the vines.
^ᵈˢnote:Kil. IV, 1; infra 93a. These regulations — by adopting the cubit of the higher standard, are on the side of rigor.
^ᵈᵗnote:Six handbreadths per cubit.
^ᵈᵘnote:V. infra note 16, second clause.
^ᵈᵛnote:Kil. V, 2.
^ᵈʷnote:And wheat or other corn may be sown there.
^ᵈˣnote:Those planted in the space of the four cubits that should intervene between each two rows.
^ᵈʸnote:So that the prescribed space between the remaining vines is obtained and the plantation constitutes a proper vineyard in which, in accordance with the laws of kil'ayim, no kind of grain may be sown. Now, since it is the existence of distances of four cubits between the rows of vines that determines whether a group of vines may be regarded as a vineyard in the legal sense, it follows that if the lower standard of the cubit is adopted distances of no more than (5 X 4) twenty handbreadths between the rows would subject the vineyard to the laws of kil'ayim, while if the higher standard is adopted, so that distances of (6 X 4 =) twenty-four handbreadths are required, the same plantation would constitute no proper vineyard and the plantation would thus be exempt from the laws of kil'ayim.
^ᵈᶻnote:The standard of the cubit does not consequently affect the prohibition to sow any kinds of grain between the vines.
^ᵉᵃnote:R. Nahman.
^ᵉᵇnote:In adopting the higher standard of the cubit.
^ᵉᶜnote:In connection with kil'ayim, while in respect of distances between vines he also adopts the lower standard, on the side of rigor.
^ᵉᵈnote:Contrary to Abaye's statement supra.
^ᵉᵉnote:Lit., ‘by a cubit’.
^ᵉᶠnote:Lit., ‘those (relating to kil'ayim).’
^ᵉᵍnote:,uejua (rt. eja ‘to laugh’). In measuring the cubit in handbreadths, the fingers are kept apart as are the lips of a laughing person (Aruk); ‘wide spread’ (Jast.).
^ᵉʰnote:Those of sukkah and ‘entrance’.
^ᵉⁱnote:,ucmg (rt. cmg ‘to be sad’), the fingers are kept close to one another as are the lips of a man in sadness (Aruk); ‘pressed together’ (Jast.).
^ᵉʲnote:Lit., ‘in a cubit’.