Eruvin

or whether the halachah was not in agreement with R. Gamaliel or do we deal [here with a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men,1 and the point he raised was whether the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer2 or not? — It is obvious that we are dealing with [a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men, for were it to be imagined that we are dealing with one where it could be fully lined with men what was there for him3 to ask seeing that Rab has actually laid down, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Gamaliel in respect of a cattle-pen, a cattle-fold and a ship’? We must consequently be dealing with [a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men and the point he3 raised was in connection with the ruling of R. Eliezer. This4 is also borne out by an inference. For he5 said to him,6 ‘Let him re-enter’; but what [was the need for saying] ‘Let him re-enter’?7 Does not this imply re-entry in the absence of a complete wall?8 R. Nahman b. Isaac pointed Out the following objection to Raba: If its wall9 collapsed it is not permitted to replace it by a human being, a beast or vessels, nor may one put up10 the bed11 to spread over it a sheet because even a temporary tent may not for the first time be built on a festival day, and there is no need to state [that this is forbidden] on a Sabbath day.12 ‘You,’ the other replied: ‘quote to me from this statement; I can quote to you from the following: A man may put up his fellow as a wall13 in order that he may thereby be enabled to eat, to drink and to sleep,14 and he may put up the bed and spread over it a sheet to prevent the sun rays from falling upon a corpse or upon foodstuffs’.15 Are then the two rulings16 mutually contradictory? There is really no contradiction, since one represents the view of R. Eliezer and the other that of the Rabbis. For we learned: in the case of the stopper of a sky-light, R. Eliezer says that if it was tied and suspended one may close the sky-light with it; otherwise it may not be so used;17 but the Sages ruled: In either case18 one may close the sky-light with it.19 Has it not, however, been stated in connection with this ruling: Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: All20 agree that not even a temporary tent21 may for the first time be made on a festival day, and there is no need to say that this may not be done on a Sabbath day; but they differ on the question of adding to a structure,22 since R. Eliezer holds that no such structural addition may be made on a festival day, and there is no need to say that this may hot be done on a Sabbath day, while the Sages maintain that such structural additions’ may be made on a Sabbath, and there is no need to say that this may be done on a festival day?23 — The fact is that there is really no contradiction, since one Baraitha represents the view of R. Meir and the other that of R. Judah. For it was taught: If a man used a beast as a wall for a sukkah, R. Meir ruled it to be invalid24 while R. Judah ruled it to be valid.25 Now, R. Meir who ruled the wall there to be invalid, from which it is evident that he does not regard it26 as a proper wall, would here permit the putting up of a similar wall,27 since28 thereby nothing improper is done, while R. Judah who regards the wall there as valid, from which it is evident that he regards it as a proper wall, would here forbid a similar wall.29 Do you regard this as sound reasoning? Might it not be suggested that R. Meir was heard [to rule the wall to be invalid only in the case of] a beast,24 was he, however, heard [to give the same ruling in respect of] a human being30 and vessels?31 Furthermore,32 in agreement with whose view could that of R. Meir33 be? If it be suggested: In agreement with that of R. Eliezer one could object that the latter forbade even the addition to a Structure.34 Consequently it must be in agreement with that of the Rabbis; but could it not be objected: The Rabbis may only have permitted the addition to a structure,35 did this, however, make it permissible to put up a full wall at the outset? — The fact is that both36 are in agreement with the view of the Rabbis; yet there is no contradiction between the rulings regarding vessels,37 since the former relates to a third wall38 and the latter to a fourth one.39 The inference from the wording40 leads to the same conclusion;41 for it was stated: ‘If its wall collapsed’.42 This is conclusive. through them? to add the last clause (cf. supra p. 302, n. 11). Its addition, therefore, must imply re-entry despite the gap of the two cubits, in agreement with R. Eliezer. direct construction of a wall. alteration which is forbidden on the Sabbath. This view is in agreement with that cited by R. Nahman b. Isaac. to an existing one, it cannot be in agreement even with the view of the Sages. The difficulty as to the contradiction between the two quoted Baraithas arises again. as a wall for a sukkah. even a temporary hut may for the first time be put up on the Sabbath. which the Rabbis permit. affect the sukkah's validity (cf. Suk. 2a).