Eruvin

an iron wall1 to divide it [into two independent sections].2 R. Jose son of R. Hanina laughed at him. Why did he laugh? If it be suggested: Because the latter taught this in agreement with R. Johanan b. Nuri3 [that the law is] to be restricted,4 while he is of the same opinion as the Rabbis5 [that the law is] to be relaxed,6 [is it likely, it may be asked,] that because he is of the opinion that the law is to be relaxed he would laugh at any one7 who learned that it was to be restricted? — Rather say: Because it was taught: Running rivers and gushing springs8 are on a par with the feet of all men.9 But is it not possible that he10 spoke of collected water?11 — Rather say: Because he10 taught: ‘Requires an iron wall to divide it’. For why should not reeds be admissible?12 Obviously because the water would pass through them; but then, in the case of an iron wall too, the water might pass.13 But is it not possible that he10 meant: ‘Requires . . .’ hence there is no remedy?14 — Rather say: Because the Sages have in fact relaxed the law in respect of water;15 as R. Tabla [was informed]. For R. Tabla enquired of Rab: Does a suspended partition convert a ruin into a permitted domain? And the other replied: A suspended partition can effect permissibility of use in the case of water only, since it is only in the case of water that the Sages have relaxed the law. 16 THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: HE HAS ONLY FOUR etc. Is not R. Judah17 repeating the very view of the first Tanna?18 Raba replied: There is a difference between them, [for the first Tanna allows an area of] eight cubits by eight.19 So it was also taught: He has [the right to walk within an area of] eight cubits by eight; so R. Meir. Raba further stated: They20 differ only on the question of walking, but regarding the movement of objects both agree that it is permitted21 [along a distance of] four cubits but no more. Where in Scripture are these four cubits22 recorded? — As it was taught: Abide ye every man in his place,23 which implies within an area equal to ‘his place’. And what is the area of ‘his place’? Three cubits for his body and one cubit for stretching out his hands and feet; so R. Meir. R. Judah said: Three cubits for his body and one cubit to enable24 him to take up an object at his feet and put it down at his head. What is the practical difference between them?25 The practical difference between them is [that according to R. Judah the measurements of] the four cubits are to be exact.26 R. Mesharsheya requested his son: When you visit R. Papa, ask him whether the four cubits of which the Rabbis have spoken27 are measured28 by the arm29 of each individual concerned or by the standard cubit30 used for sacred objects. If he tells you that the measurement is to be made by the cubit used for sacred objects, [ask him:] What should be done in the case of31 Og the king of Bashan;32 and if he tells you that the measurement is to be made by the arm of each individual concerned, ask him: Why was not this measurement33 taught among those which the Rabbis have prescribed in accordance with each individual?’34 When he came to R. Papa the latter told him: ‘If we had been so punctilious we would not have learnt anything.35 The fact is that the measurement is calculated by the arm of each individual concerned, and as to your objection, "Why was not this measurement taught among those which the Rabbis have prescribed in accordance with each individual", [it may be explained] that the ruling could not be regarded as definite since [even a normal person] may have stumped limbs’.36 IF THERE WERE TWO MEN AND A PART OF THE PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF CUBITS OF THE ONE etc. What need was there for him37 to make the remark, TO WHAT MAY THIS CASE BE COMPARED? — It is this that R. Simeon meant to say to the Rabbis: ‘Consider! TO WHAT MAY THIS CASE BE COMPARED? TO THREE COURTYARDS THAT ARE OPENING ONE INTO THE OTHER AND ALSO INTO A PUBLIC DOMAIN;38 why then do you differ there39 and not here?’40 And the Rabbis?41 There42 the residents are many43 but here44 they are few.45 BUT THE TWO OUTER ONES etc. But why?46 Do not the outer ones, since they have joined in an ‘erub with the middle one,47 constitute one permitted domain?48 — Rab Judah replied: This is a case, for instance, where the middle one deposited its one ‘erub in one courtyard and its other ‘erub in the other courtyard.49 R. Shesheth, however, replied: It may even be assumed that they50 deposited their erubs in the middle one, [but this is a case, for instance,] where they had deposited it acquire its own place but is deemed to be on a par with the feet of the people of that town within whose Sabbath limit it happens to be. As each section of the pond lies at the very end of the Sabbath limit of the town nearest to it the water of that section must not be carried beyond four cubits from the boundary line in the direction of the other town; and it is only an iron wall that in the opinion of R. Hiyya can prevent the water in the respective sections from mingling with one another. In the absence of such a wall the mingling of the waters of the two sections would on a Sabbath or a festival day prevent the inhabitants of either town from carrying them to their homes. limit of the respective towns. men. in the pond; and since such a wall is an impossibility none of them may use it. partition of reeds be. Thus R. Hiyya's demand for all iron wall caused R. Jose b. Hanina's laughter. cubits in two opposite directions. stretching out of one's hands and feet. Moses’ arm (cf. Pes. 86a). obviously have to be applied. [The order of the argument is reversed in R. Hananel's text: Why was this measurement not taught among . . . individuals. And should you argue that it is because there may be one who has stumped limbs, then it should have stated, except one who has stumped limbs? Thereupon R. Papa replied: ‘If we had been so punctilious’ etc. This reading removes the obvious difficulty involved in our text]. might erroneously assume that the former may also have free access to one another and would this infringe the laws of ‘erub. deposited in one of the houses of the middle one. virtue of their ‘erubs, are regarded as residents of the outer courtyards as well as of their own, while the residents of the outer courtyards, having no ‘erubs in the middle courtyard, cannot be regarded as its residents; and since these have in consequence no domain in common, they cannot be permitted access to one another.