Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

August 25, 2020 | 讛壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖状驻

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Eruvin 16

The gemara brings three different tannaitic sources that contradict Rav Papa who holds if the breach is equal to the standing part, it is considered a partition. One of the sources is resolved and then brought as a contradiction for Rav Huna’s position. In the end the halacha is determined like Rav Papa, even though one of the sources brought clearly contradicts, because as seen in Eruvin 15, our mishna fits better with Rav Papa. The mishna discusses putting up “flimsy” partitions made up of horizontal ropes or vertical posts using laws of levud to allow it (less than 3 handbreadths in between each). The mishna was discussing a case of a caravan, presumably with a lot of people. There is a debate in the mishna if that case was chosen specifically because only for many people is it allowed or is it permitted in all cases. Rav Hamnuna asks a question regarding a horizontal wall if it is solid more than breached, does that work? Abaye answers it simply from the mishna and comments on the details that show that it only works if the ropes have thickness to them – if they could be thinner, it still could have worked using the principle “standing more than breached” – since it doesn’t say that, it must not be the case. The gemara rejects his suggestion of using thinner ropes as they explain it could not work halachically as he suggested. The gemara brings two other suggestions regarding what exactly Rav Hamnuna was asking. The gemara questions Rabbi Yehuda approach in our mishna that the leniencies in the mishna are only for caravans – didn’t he say elsewhere that it works for individuals?

讘注讘讬讟讬谉 讘砖诇讬驻讬谉 讘拽谞讬诐 讘拽讜诇讞讜转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讙诪诇 诇讙诪诇 讻诪诇讗 讙诪诇 讜讘讬谉 讗讜讻祝 诇讗讜讻祝 讻诪诇讗 讗讜讻祝 讜讘讬谉 注讘讬讟 诇注讘讬讟 讻诪诇讗 注讘讬讟


or with saddle cushions [avitin], or with wheat sheaves, or with boards, or with stalks [kola岣t], one may carry within the enclosed area, provided that there is no camel-length gap between one camel and another, or a saddle-length gap between one saddle and another, or a cushion-length gap between one cushion and another. Apparently, from this baraita it can be understood that if the breach is equal to the standing segment, it is not a valid enclosure.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗


The Gemara rejects this conclusion. Here, too, it is referring to gaps through which the various objects can easily be inserted and extracted, so that the breached segment is in fact slightly greater than that of the standing segment.


转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 诪讚讜转 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诇砖讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讚拽专 讛讙讚讬 讘讘转 专讗砖


The Gemara cites yet another proof: Come and hear that which was taught in the Tosefta in tractate Kilayim: Ultimately, you say that there are three measures for partitions. These partitions form a barrier that demarcates between vines and seeds. They are needed to render permitted the sowing of a field with diverse kinds of seeds. In the case of any partition consisting of boards that are each less than three handbreadths wide, it is necessary that there will not be a gap of three handbreadths between this board and that, so that a goat would not be able to leap headlong through it unimpeded. If the gap is wider than three handbreadths, i.e., wide enough that a goat can leap through it, the boards are not considered joined and it is not considered a partition.


讻诇 砖讛讜讗 砖诇砖讛 讜诪砖诇砖讛 注讚 讗专讘注讛 爪专讬讱 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讻诪诇讜讗讜 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讗祝 讻谞讙讚 讛注讜诪讚 讗住讜专


In the case of any partition that consists of boards that are three handbreadths wide, as well as boards from three to four handbreadths wide, the gap between the boards may be greater than three handbreadths. Nonetheless, it is necessary that there will not be a gap equal to the full width of a board between one board and the next, so that the breached segment will not equal the standing segment. And if the breached segment is greater than the standing segment, it is prohibited to sow another species, even in the area opposite the standing segment, as the breached segment invalidates the entire partition.


讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗专讘注讛 讜诪讗专讘注讛 注讚 注砖专 讗诪讜转 爪专讬讱 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讻诪诇讜讗讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 讻谞讙讚 讛注讜诪讚 诪讜转专 讻谞讙讚 讛驻专讜抓 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 讗祝 讻谞讙讚 讛驻专讜抓 诪讜转专


With regard to any partition that consists of boards that are four handbreadths wide, as well as boards from four handbreadths to ten cubits wide, it is necessary that there not be a gap the full width of a board between one board and the next, so that the breached segment will not equal the standing segment. And if the breached segment equals the standing segment, then in the area opposite the standing segment, it is permitted to sow other species, as there is a partition there; however, in the area facing the breached segment it is prohibited. And if the sum of the standing segments is greater than the sum of the breached segments, sowing other species is permitted, even in the area opposite the breached part.


谞驻专爪讛 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗住讜专 讛讬讜 砖诐 拽谞讬诐 讛讚讜拽专谞讬诐 讜注讜砖讛 诇讛谉 驻讬讗讛 诪诇诪注诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专 诪讜转专


However, if, the partition was breached more than ten cubits, sowing diverse kinds is prohibited, as a breach of more than ten cubits invalidates the entire partition. But if there were pronged stakes stuck in the ground there, and one made them a braid [pe鈥檃] of straw above them in the form of a doorway, even if the stakes were set more than ten cubits apart, sowing is permitted. The form of a doorway renders the partition valid, even if there is a breach wider than ten cubits.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 专讬砖讗 诪砖诇砖讛 注讚 讗专讘注讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讻诪诇讜讗讜 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗


The Gemara explains how the passage from the Tosefta of tractate Kilayim supports the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, contrary to that of Rav Pappa. In any case, the first clause of the Tosefta teaches that if each of the boards that make up the partition is from three to four handbreadths wide, sowing other species is permitted, provided that there is not a gap the full width of a board between one board and the next. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Pappa, who permits carrying when the breach equals the standing segment of the partition.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 诪诇讜讗讜 谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗


Rav Pappa could have said to you: What does the baraita mean by a gap the full width of a board? It means a gap through which the board could easily be inserted and extracted, which is a gap slightly wider than the board itself.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讗祝 讻谞讙讚 讛注讜诪讚 讗住讜专 讛讗 讻注讜诪讚 诪讜转专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara comments: So too, it stands to reason, from the fact that the Tosefta teaches later: If the breached segment is greater than the standing segment, it is prohibited to sow another species, even in the area opposite the standing portion. By inference, if the breached segment equals the standing segment, sowing other species is in fact permitted. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here proof for the opinion of Rav Pappa.


诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讱 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 讗祝 讻谞讙讚 讛驻专讜抓 诪讜转专 讛讗 讻驻专讜抓 讗住讜专


The Gemara asks: Let us say that this conclusion is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. The Gemara rejects this: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, say the latter clause of the Tosefta as follows: If the sum of the standing segment is greater than the sum of the breached segment, sowing other species is permitted even in the area opposite the breached segment. This clause indicates that if the breached segment equals the standing segment, sowing other species is prohibited.


住讬驻讗 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 专讬砖讗 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注


The Gemara points out that that analysis of the baraita leads to the conclusion that the latter clause poses a difficulty for Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion; the first clause poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


住讬驻讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


The Gemara answers: The latter clause poses no difficulty to Rav Pappa. Since the first clause taught the expression: If the sum of the breached segment is greater than the sum of the standing segment, the latter clause of the baraita taught the parallel expression: If the sum of the standing segment is greater than the sum of the breached segment, even though the latter formulation is imprecise, as the same halakha applies even if the two are equal.


专讬砖讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚


Similarly, the Gemara explains that the first clause does not pose a difficulty to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. Since the baraita sought to teach the expression in the latter clause: If the sum of the standing segments is greater than the sum of the breached segments, in the first clause taught the parallel expression: If the sum of the breached segments is greater than the sum of the standing segments, even though this formulation is imprecise, as the same halakha applies even if the two are equal.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 注专讬讘 诇讛讜 讜转谞讬 诇讛讜


The Gemara continues: Granted, according to Rav Pappa, who permits carrying in the case where the breaches equal the standing segments, the baraita makes sense, as for that reason the tanna did not combine the case of boards less than three handbreadths wide with the case of boards three handbreadths wide and teach them in a single clause. According to Rav Pappa, there is a significant difference between the two situations. In a case where the boards are less than three handbreadths wide, the partition is invalid if there is a gap of three handbreadths between one bar and the next. However, if the boards are precisely three handbreadths wide, the partition is valid unless there is a gap of more than three handbreadths between them.


讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬转谞谞讛讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讜砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诇砖讛


However, according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who considers a partition invalid when its breached segments are equal to its standing segments, the baraita should have combined the case of boards less than three handbreadths wide with the case of boards exactly three handbreadths wide and taught them in the following single clause: Any partition made of boards less than three handbreadths wide or exactly three handbreadths wide, it is necessary that there not be a gap of three handbreadths between one board and another. According to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, if a partition with boards three handbreadths wide is to be valid, the gap must be less than three handbreadths.


诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讚诪讬 驻住讜诇讗 讚专讬砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讗 讚住讬驻讗 驻住讜诇讗 讚专讬砖讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讚拽专 讛讙讚讬 讘讘转 讗讞转 驻住讜诇讗 讚住讬驻讗 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚


The Gemara explains why the two cases were not combined according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. It is because the disqualification in the first clause is not similar to the disqualification in the latter clause. The reason for the disqualification in the first clause is because a valid partition must be constructed so that a goat would not be able to jump through the gap in one leap; the reason for the disqualification in the latter clause, where the boards are three handbreadths wide, is so that the breached segments will equal the combined standing segments. In practice, just as in the case of boards less than three handbreadths wide, the gap must be less than three handbreadths, so too, in the case of boards three handbreadths wide, the gap must also be less than three handbreadths. However, in terms of underlying reasoning, the case of boards three handbreadths wide must be categorized in the second grouping in the Tosefta, not the first. Therefore, no proof can be cited from here, neither in support of the opinion of Rav Pappa nor in support of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 砖诇砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚


The Gemara briefly discusses the ruling cited in the Tosefta that a breach of less than three handbreadths does not invalidate a partition. In accordance with whose opinion is that ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: In the case of a gap less than three handbreadths, we say, i.e., we apply, the principle of lavud, and the partitions are considered joined; however, if the gap is three handbreadths, we do not say lavud.


讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 砖诇砖讛 讜诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 讗专讘注讛


Say the latter clause with regard to a partition of boards as follows: In the case of any partition whose boards are three handbreadths wide, and any partition whose boards are from three to four handbreadths wide,


讗转讗谉 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 诇讘讜讚 讚讗讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 讗专讘注讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讚 讛讜讗


we have arrived at the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: Concerning any gap less than four handbreadths wide, the principle of lavud is applied. As had it been taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, why does the baraita list from three to four handbreadths as a separate category? In the case of both three and four handbreadths, the halakha is one and the same: The principle of lavud does not apply from three handbreadths upward.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讚专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专讘谞谉 讜诪讜讚讜 专讘谞谉 讚讻诇 诇诪讬砖专讗 讻谞讙讚讜 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讞砖讬讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘


Abaye said: From the fact that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the latter clause must also be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the Rabbis concede that with regard to any case where the halakha permits sowing other species in the area opposite the standing portion, if there is an area of four handbreadths, it is considered a significant partition, which permits sowing; and if not, it is not considered a significant partition and does not permit sowing. Accordingly, there is a difference between a fence of three handbreadths and one of four handbreadths, as even the Rabbis concede that a fence of four handbreadths is more significant.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讻讬 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 诇诪讟讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚


Rava said: From the fact that the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the first clause must also be in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that we say the principle of lavud in the case of a gap up to four handbreadths wide, this applies above, off the ground, e.g., in the case of a cross beam suspended at a distance from the wall. However, below, near the ground, it is like a partition through which goats can pass, and therefore he too agrees that we do not say the principle of lavud in that case.


转讗 砖诪注 讚驻谞讜转 讛诇诇讜 砖专讜讘谉 驻转讞讬诐 讜讞诇讜谞讜转 诪讜转专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


The Gemara returns to the dispute with regard to a breach equal to the standing segments of a partition and cites another proof. Come and hear that which was taught in the following baraita: With regard to an area enclosed by these walls, in a case where most of them consist of entrance and windows, it is permitted to carry on Shabbat within the area, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments.


砖专讜讘谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛谉 驻转讞讬诐 讜讞诇讜谞讜转 诪讜转专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the baraita: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to a case where most of the walls are entrances and windows? If so, the standing segments are certainly not greater than the breached segments. Rather, emend the baraita as follows: Carrying in the area enclosed by these walls, to which one added many entrances and windows, is permitted, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments.


讛讗 讻驻专讜抓 讗住讜专 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗


The Gemara draws an inference: If the standing segments equal the breached segments, carrying is prohibited in that enclosure. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Pappa. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation. Nevertheless, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa.


转讬讜讘转讗 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讚讬讬拽讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 诇讗 讬讛讬讜 驻专爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 讛讘谞讬谉 讛讗 讻讘谞讬谉 诪讜转专:


The Gemara wonders: A conclusive refutation and the halakha? The Gemara answers: Yes, that is the case, because the precise reading of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa. As we learned in the mishna the following phrase: Provided鈥there will not be breaches in the partition greater than the built segment. This is clearly indicating that if the breached segments are equal to the built segments, carrying is permitted, as maintained by Rav Pappa.


诪转谞讬壮 诪拽讬驻讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讘诇讬诐 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讜讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘讬谉 讞讘诇 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐


MISHNA: If a caravan is camped in a field, and the travelers seek to construct partitions to render the area fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat, one surrounds the area with three ropes, one above another, and a third one above the other two. One is permitted to carry within the circumscribed area provided that there will not be a gap of three handbreadths between one rope and the next.


砖讬注讜专 讞讘诇讬诐 讜注讜讘讬讬谉 讬转专 注诇 讟驻讞 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讛讻诇 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐


The measure of the ropes and their combined thickness must be greater than a handbreadth, so that the entire partition, consisting of three ropes and the empty spaces between them, will be ten handbreadths high.


诪拽讬驻讬谉 讘拽谞讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 拽谞讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐


Alternatively, one may surround the area with boards that stand upright, provided that there will not be a gap of three handbreadths between one board and the next.


讘砖讬讬专讗 讚讘专讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讚讘专讜 讘砖讬讬专讗 讗诇讗 讘讛讜讜讛


When the Sages issued this ruling, they spoke exclusively of a caravan; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that a partition of this kind, which consists of only horizontal or vertical elements, is permitted exclusively in exigent circumstances. Otherwise, full-fledged partitions are required. However, the Rabbis say: They spoke of a caravan in the mishna only because they spoke in the present, citing the most typical case. Those traveling in caravans were typically unable to erect full-fledged partitions, so they would surround their camps with ropes or boards. However, the halakha in the mishna applies in all cases.


讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 砖转讬 讜砖诇 注专讘 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐:


The mishna cites an additional dispute: Any partition that is not constructed of both warp and woof, i.e., vertical and horizontal elements, is not a partition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. He holds that the vertical boards and the horizontal ropes are not considered a partition, even in the exigent circumstances of a caravan. However, the Rabbis say: One of the two elements, either vertical or horizontal, is sufficient.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 讘砖转讬 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚 讘注讬 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘注专讘 诪讗讬


GEMARA: Rav Hamnuna said that Rav said: It was concluded in the previous mishna that the Rabbis said that in the case of a partition that consists only of warp, i.e., vertical, elements, if the standing segment of the partition is greater than the breached segment, the fence is considered standing. Rav Hamnuna raised a dilemma: What is the halakha in the case of a partition that consists only of woof, i.e., horizontal, elements? Is it also considered standing if the standing segment is greater than the breached segment, or not?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 砖讬注讜专 讞讘诇讬诐 讜注讜讘讬讬谉 讬转专 注诇 讟驻讞 砖讬讛讜 讛讻诇 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讬转专 注诇 讟驻讞


Abaye said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: The measure of the ropes and their combined thickness must be greater than a handbreadth, so that the entire partition will be ten handbreadths high. And if it is so that, in a case where the standing segment is greater than the breached segment, the partition is considered standing even in the case of a fence that consists of horizontal elements, why do I need ropes with a combined thickness of greater than a handbreadth?


诇讬注讘讬讚 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讜讞讘诇 诪砖讛讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讜讞讘诇 诪砖讛讜 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讜讞讘诇 诪砖讛讜


Instead, let one leave a space slightly less than three handbreadths, and place a rope of any size, leave another space slightly less than three handbreadths, and place another rope of any size, leave a third space slightly less than four handbreadths, and place a third rope of any size. The ropes between which there is a space less than three handbreadths should be considered joined, based on the principle of lavud. The entire partition should be considered standing because the standing segment, measuring six handbreadths, is greater than the breached segment, which measures four handbreadths.


讜转讬住讘专讗 讛讗讬 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讛讬讻讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 转转讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛


The Gemara presents a difficulty: And how can you understand that this would be effective? Where does he position the space of slightly less than four handbreadths? If he positions it at the bottom, its legal status is like that of a partition through which goats pass, which is not a valid partition.


讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 注讬诇讗讬 讗转讬 讗讜讬专讗 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛


If he positions it at the top, then the air on this side, above the uppermost rope, and on that side, below that rope, come and negate it. As there are more than three handbreadths between them the upper and lower ropes, they are not joined together based on the principle of lavud. The four handbreadths below the uppermost rope and the airspace above it combine to negate the connection.


讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘诪讬爪注讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚


If he positions it in the middle, then the standing segment of the partition is greater than the breached segment, provided that the standing portions on the two sides of the breach are combined. However, if each side is considered separately, the breach is greater than the standing portion. If it is nevertheless deemed a partition, conclude from it that even if the standing segment is greater than the breached segment only when the standing segments on the two sides of the breach are combined, the partition is considered standing. However, that circumstance was raised as a dilemma and remained unresolved.


讗诇讗 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 诪讞爪诇转 讚讛讜讬 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 讜讞拽拽 讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讜砖讘拽 讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 讜讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛


Rather, Rav Hamnuna raised the following dilemma: What is the halakha in a case where one brought a mat that is seven handbreadths and any additional amount, and carved in it a hole three handbreadths wide, and left four handbreadths above the hole and any additional amount below it, and positioned the mat less than three handbreadths off the ground?


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 诪专讘 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪讛讜 砖转转讬专 讘讞讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪转专转 讗诇讗 讘诪讬诐 拽诇 讛讜讗 砖讛拽诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐:


Rav Ashi said: The dilemma he raised is with regard to the legal status of a ten-handbreadth partition suspended off the ground. That dilemma is similar to that which Rabbi Tavla raised as a dilemma before Rav: Does a suspended partition act as if it were a partition that reaches the ground and render it permitted for one to carry in a ruin? Rav said to him: A suspended partition renders it permitted for one to carry only when it is suspended over water, as there is a leniency introduced by the Sages with regard to water.


诪拽讬驻讬谉 讘拽谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 讘砖讬专讗 讗讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讘转 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讬讞讬讚 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐


We learned in the mishna: One may surround the area with boards that stand upright, provided there will not be a gap of three handbreadths between one board and the next. Rabbi Yehuda said that this leniency, which allows the establishment of a partition consisting exclusively of horizontal or vertical elements, was stated only with regard to a caravan. The Gemara infers: With regard to a caravan, yes, it is permitted; with regard to an individual, no, it is not permitted. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to all unsteady partitions of Shabbat, e.g., those consisting exclusively of horizontal or vertical elements, the Sages did not permit their use for an individual if the space that they enclose is greater than two beit se鈥檃? This indicates that, for an area of up to two beit se鈥檃, Rabbi Yehuda permits these partitions even for an individual.


讻讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讬转谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪专讻谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬转谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪专讻谉


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement in the mishna can be understood in accordance with that which Rav Na岣an, and some say it was Rav Beivai bar Abaye, said with regard to a different statement: This halakha was necessary only in order to provide those traveling in the caravan with space to satisfy all their needs. Here, too, in the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement can be understood as coming to provide those traveling in the caravan with space to satisfy all their needs. In other words, Rabbi Yehuda does not dispute the fundamental effectiveness of a partition of this kind, even for an individual. When he says that the halakha applies solely to a caravan, he means that it applies only in the case of a caravan, regardless of the size of the area in question. However, in the case of an individual, a partition of that kind is effective only if it encloses an area up to two beit se鈥檃.


讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 砖转讬 讜注专讘 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: Where was this statement of Rav Na岣an, and some say of Rav Beivai bar Abaye, stated? It was stated with regard to this ruling at the end of the mishna: Any partition that is not made of both vertical and horizontal elements is not a partition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讬讞讬讚 讜讗讞讚 砖讬讬专讗 诇讞讘诇讬诐 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 诇砖讬讬专讗 讬讞讬讚 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖谞讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖诇砖讛 谞注砖讜 砖讬讬专讗 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, actually say this? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: For both an individual and a caravan, partitions made of ropes are effective? And what, then, is the difference between an individual and a caravan? With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se鈥檃, in which he may carry by virtue of partitions of this kind. With regard to two individuals as well, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se鈥檃. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides each of them with an area of two beit se鈥檃, for a total of six beit se鈥檃. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讬讞讬讚 讜讗讞讚 砖讬讬专讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪专讻谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 驻谞讜讬


And the Rabbis say: With regard to both an individual and those traveling in a caravan, one provides them with space to satisfy all their needs, provided that there will not be an unoccupied space of two beit se鈥檃. They may not enclose an area that is two beit se鈥檃 larger than the space that they require. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, relies on the ruling that ropes render an area fit for one to carry within it, even for an individual.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讬转谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪专讻谉:


Rav Na岣an, and some say it was Rav Beivai bar Abaye, said: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, in the mishna was necessary only to provide them with the space to satisfy all their needs in the case of a properly constructed partition consisting of both horizontal and vertical elements. A partition consisting of exclusively horizontal or vertical elements renders an area of six beit se鈥檃 fit for one to carry within it, only in the case of a caravan.


讚专砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讞讬讚 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖谞讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛讜 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖诇砖讛 谞注砖讜 砖讬讬专讗 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖砖


Rav Na岣an taught in the name of Rabbeinu Shmuel: With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se鈥檃. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se鈥檃 as well. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides each of them with an area of two beit se鈥檃, for a total of six beit se鈥檃.


砖讘拽转 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讚转 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


Rav Na岣an was asked: Did you abandon the majority opinion of the Rabbis and act in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?


讛讚专 讗讜拽讬诐 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专转讬 诇驻谞讬讻诐 讟注讜转 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讘专诐 讻讱 讗诪专讜 讬讞讬讚 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖谞讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖诇砖讛 谞注砖讜 砖讬讬专讗 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪专讻谉


Rav Na岣an then placed a speaker standing over him, and taught: The matters that I stated before you are an error on my part. Indeed, this is what the Rabbis said: With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se鈥檃. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se鈥檃 as well. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides them with space to satisfy all their needs.


Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Eruvin 16: A Wall Made of 3 Ropes and Air

Terminology: Parutz, breach. The case of "Parutz ke-omed," when the breached part and the wall part are equal - as...

Eruvin 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 16

讘注讘讬讟讬谉 讘砖诇讬驻讬谉 讘拽谞讬诐 讘拽讜诇讞讜转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讙诪诇 诇讙诪诇 讻诪诇讗 讙诪诇 讜讘讬谉 讗讜讻祝 诇讗讜讻祝 讻诪诇讗 讗讜讻祝 讜讘讬谉 注讘讬讟 诇注讘讬讟 讻诪诇讗 注讘讬讟


or with saddle cushions [avitin], or with wheat sheaves, or with boards, or with stalks [kola岣t], one may carry within the enclosed area, provided that there is no camel-length gap between one camel and another, or a saddle-length gap between one saddle and another, or a cushion-length gap between one cushion and another. Apparently, from this baraita it can be understood that if the breach is equal to the standing segment, it is not a valid enclosure.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗


The Gemara rejects this conclusion. Here, too, it is referring to gaps through which the various objects can easily be inserted and extracted, so that the breached segment is in fact slightly greater than that of the standing segment.


转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 诪讚讜转 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诇砖讛 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讚拽专 讛讙讚讬 讘讘转 专讗砖


The Gemara cites yet another proof: Come and hear that which was taught in the Tosefta in tractate Kilayim: Ultimately, you say that there are three measures for partitions. These partitions form a barrier that demarcates between vines and seeds. They are needed to render permitted the sowing of a field with diverse kinds of seeds. In the case of any partition consisting of boards that are each less than three handbreadths wide, it is necessary that there will not be a gap of three handbreadths between this board and that, so that a goat would not be able to leap headlong through it unimpeded. If the gap is wider than three handbreadths, i.e., wide enough that a goat can leap through it, the boards are not considered joined and it is not considered a partition.


讻诇 砖讛讜讗 砖诇砖讛 讜诪砖诇砖讛 注讚 讗专讘注讛 爪专讬讱 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讻诪诇讜讗讜 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讗祝 讻谞讙讚 讛注讜诪讚 讗住讜专


In the case of any partition that consists of boards that are three handbreadths wide, as well as boards from three to four handbreadths wide, the gap between the boards may be greater than three handbreadths. Nonetheless, it is necessary that there will not be a gap equal to the full width of a board between one board and the next, so that the breached segment will not equal the standing segment. And if the breached segment is greater than the standing segment, it is prohibited to sow another species, even in the area opposite the standing segment, as the breached segment invalidates the entire partition.


讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗专讘注讛 讜诪讗专讘注讛 注讚 注砖专 讗诪讜转 爪专讬讱 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讻诪诇讜讗讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 讻谞讙讚 讛注讜诪讚 诪讜转专 讻谞讙讚 讛驻专讜抓 讗住讜专 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 讗祝 讻谞讙讚 讛驻专讜抓 诪讜转专


With regard to any partition that consists of boards that are four handbreadths wide, as well as boards from four handbreadths to ten cubits wide, it is necessary that there not be a gap the full width of a board between one board and the next, so that the breached segment will not equal the standing segment. And if the breached segment equals the standing segment, then in the area opposite the standing segment, it is permitted to sow other species, as there is a partition there; however, in the area facing the breached segment it is prohibited. And if the sum of the standing segments is greater than the sum of the breached segments, sowing other species is permitted, even in the area opposite the breached part.


谞驻专爪讛 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗住讜专 讛讬讜 砖诐 拽谞讬诐 讛讚讜拽专谞讬诐 讜注讜砖讛 诇讛谉 驻讬讗讛 诪诇诪注诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专 诪讜转专


However, if, the partition was breached more than ten cubits, sowing diverse kinds is prohibited, as a breach of more than ten cubits invalidates the entire partition. But if there were pronged stakes stuck in the ground there, and one made them a braid [pe鈥檃] of straw above them in the form of a doorway, even if the stakes were set more than ten cubits apart, sowing is permitted. The form of a doorway renders the partition valid, even if there is a breach wider than ten cubits.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 专讬砖讗 诪砖诇砖讛 注讚 讗专讘注讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讻诪诇讜讗讜 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗


The Gemara explains how the passage from the Tosefta of tractate Kilayim supports the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, contrary to that of Rav Pappa. In any case, the first clause of the Tosefta teaches that if each of the boards that make up the partition is from three to four handbreadths wide, sowing other species is permitted, provided that there is not a gap the full width of a board between one board and the next. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Pappa, who permits carrying when the breach equals the standing segment of the partition.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 诪诇讜讗讜 谞讻谞住 讜讬讜爪讗


Rav Pappa could have said to you: What does the baraita mean by a gap the full width of a board? It means a gap through which the board could easily be inserted and extracted, which is a gap slightly wider than the board itself.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讗祝 讻谞讙讚 讛注讜诪讚 讗住讜专 讛讗 讻注讜诪讚 诪讜转专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara comments: So too, it stands to reason, from the fact that the Tosefta teaches later: If the breached segment is greater than the standing segment, it is prohibited to sow another species, even in the area opposite the standing portion. By inference, if the breached segment equals the standing segment, sowing other species is in fact permitted. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here proof for the opinion of Rav Pappa.


诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讱 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 讗祝 讻谞讙讚 讛驻专讜抓 诪讜转专 讛讗 讻驻专讜抓 讗住讜专


The Gemara asks: Let us say that this conclusion is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. The Gemara rejects this: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, say the latter clause of the Tosefta as follows: If the sum of the standing segment is greater than the sum of the breached segment, sowing other species is permitted even in the area opposite the breached segment. This clause indicates that if the breached segment equals the standing segment, sowing other species is prohibited.


住讬驻讗 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 专讬砖讗 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注


The Gemara points out that that analysis of the baraita leads to the conclusion that the latter clause poses a difficulty for Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion; the first clause poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


住讬驻讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 转谞讗 住讬驻讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


The Gemara answers: The latter clause poses no difficulty to Rav Pappa. Since the first clause taught the expression: If the sum of the breached segment is greater than the sum of the standing segment, the latter clause of the baraita taught the parallel expression: If the sum of the standing segment is greater than the sum of the breached segment, even though the latter formulation is imprecise, as the same halakha applies even if the two are equal.


专讬砖讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚


Similarly, the Gemara explains that the first clause does not pose a difficulty to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. Since the baraita sought to teach the expression in the latter clause: If the sum of the standing segments is greater than the sum of the breached segments, in the first clause taught the parallel expression: If the sum of the breached segments is greater than the sum of the standing segments, even though this formulation is imprecise, as the same halakha applies even if the two are equal.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 注专讬讘 诇讛讜 讜转谞讬 诇讛讜


The Gemara continues: Granted, according to Rav Pappa, who permits carrying in the case where the breaches equal the standing segments, the baraita makes sense, as for that reason the tanna did not combine the case of boards less than three handbreadths wide with the case of boards three handbreadths wide and teach them in a single clause. According to Rav Pappa, there is a significant difference between the two situations. In a case where the boards are less than three handbreadths wide, the partition is invalid if there is a gap of three handbreadths between one bar and the next. However, if the boards are precisely three handbreadths wide, the partition is valid unless there is a gap of more than three handbreadths between them.


讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇讬注专讘讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬转谞谞讛讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讜砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诇砖讛


However, according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who considers a partition invalid when its breached segments are equal to its standing segments, the baraita should have combined the case of boards less than three handbreadths wide with the case of boards exactly three handbreadths wide and taught them in the following single clause: Any partition made of boards less than three handbreadths wide or exactly three handbreadths wide, it is necessary that there not be a gap of three handbreadths between one board and another. According to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, if a partition with boards three handbreadths wide is to be valid, the gap must be less than three handbreadths.


诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讚诪讬 驻住讜诇讗 讚专讬砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讗 讚住讬驻讗 驻住讜诇讗 讚专讬砖讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬讝讚拽专 讛讙讚讬 讘讘转 讗讞转 驻住讜诇讗 讚住讬驻讗 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚


The Gemara explains why the two cases were not combined according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. It is because the disqualification in the first clause is not similar to the disqualification in the latter clause. The reason for the disqualification in the first clause is because a valid partition must be constructed so that a goat would not be able to jump through the gap in one leap; the reason for the disqualification in the latter clause, where the boards are three handbreadths wide, is so that the breached segments will equal the combined standing segments. In practice, just as in the case of boards less than three handbreadths wide, the gap must be less than three handbreadths, so too, in the case of boards three handbreadths wide, the gap must also be less than three handbreadths. However, in terms of underlying reasoning, the case of boards three handbreadths wide must be categorized in the second grouping in the Tosefta, not the first. Therefore, no proof can be cited from here, neither in support of the opinion of Rav Pappa nor in support of the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.


驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 砖诇砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚


The Gemara briefly discusses the ruling cited in the Tosefta that a breach of less than three handbreadths does not invalidate a partition. In accordance with whose opinion is that ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: In the case of a gap less than three handbreadths, we say, i.e., we apply, the principle of lavud, and the partitions are considered joined; however, if the gap is three handbreadths, we do not say lavud.


讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 砖诇砖讛 讜诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 讗专讘注讛


Say the latter clause with regard to a partition of boards as follows: In the case of any partition whose boards are three handbreadths wide, and any partition whose boards are from three to four handbreadths wide,


讗转讗谉 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 诇讘讜讚 讚讗讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖诇砖讛 讜注讚 讗专讘注讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讚 讛讜讗


we have arrived at the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said: Concerning any gap less than four handbreadths wide, the principle of lavud is applied. As had it been taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, why does the baraita list from three to four handbreadths as a separate category? In the case of both three and four handbreadths, the halakha is one and the same: The principle of lavud does not apply from three handbreadths upward.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讚专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 专讘谞谉 讜诪讜讚讜 专讘谞谉 讚讻诇 诇诪讬砖专讗 讻谞讙讚讜 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讞砖讬讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘


Abaye said: From the fact that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the latter clause must also be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the Rabbis concede that with regard to any case where the halakha permits sowing other species in the area opposite the standing portion, if there is an area of four handbreadths, it is considered a significant partition, which permits sowing; and if not, it is not considered a significant partition and does not permit sowing. Accordingly, there is a difference between a fence of three handbreadths and one of four handbreadths, as even the Rabbis concede that a fence of four handbreadths is more significant.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讻讬 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 诇诪讟讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚


Rava said: From the fact that the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the first clause must also be in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that we say the principle of lavud in the case of a gap up to four handbreadths wide, this applies above, off the ground, e.g., in the case of a cross beam suspended at a distance from the wall. However, below, near the ground, it is like a partition through which goats can pass, and therefore he too agrees that we do not say the principle of lavud in that case.


转讗 砖诪注 讚驻谞讜转 讛诇诇讜 砖专讜讘谉 驻转讞讬诐 讜讞诇讜谞讜转 诪讜转专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


The Gemara returns to the dispute with regard to a breach equal to the standing segments of a partition and cites another proof. Come and hear that which was taught in the following baraita: With regard to an area enclosed by these walls, in a case where most of them consist of entrance and windows, it is permitted to carry on Shabbat within the area, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments.


砖专讜讘谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛谉 驻转讞讬诐 讜讞诇讜谞讜转 诪讜转专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the baraita: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to a case where most of the walls are entrances and windows? If so, the standing segments are certainly not greater than the breached segments. Rather, emend the baraita as follows: Carrying in the area enclosed by these walls, to which one added many entrances and windows, is permitted, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments.


讛讗 讻驻专讜抓 讗住讜专 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗


The Gemara draws an inference: If the standing segments equal the breached segments, carrying is prohibited in that enclosure. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Pappa. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation. Nevertheless, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa.


转讬讜讘转讗 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讚讬讬拽讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞谉 诇讗 讬讛讬讜 驻专爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 讛讘谞讬谉 讛讗 讻讘谞讬谉 诪讜转专:


The Gemara wonders: A conclusive refutation and the halakha? The Gemara answers: Yes, that is the case, because the precise reading of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa. As we learned in the mishna the following phrase: Provided鈥there will not be breaches in the partition greater than the built segment. This is clearly indicating that if the breached segments are equal to the built segments, carrying is permitted, as maintained by Rav Pappa.


诪转谞讬壮 诪拽讬驻讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讘诇讬诐 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讜讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讘讬谉 讞讘诇 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐


MISHNA: If a caravan is camped in a field, and the travelers seek to construct partitions to render the area fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat, one surrounds the area with three ropes, one above another, and a third one above the other two. One is permitted to carry within the circumscribed area provided that there will not be a gap of three handbreadths between one rope and the next.


砖讬注讜专 讞讘诇讬诐 讜注讜讘讬讬谉 讬转专 注诇 讟驻讞 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讛讻诇 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐


The measure of the ropes and their combined thickness must be greater than a handbreadth, so that the entire partition, consisting of three ropes and the empty spaces between them, will be ten handbreadths high.


诪拽讬驻讬谉 讘拽谞讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬谉 拽谞讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐


Alternatively, one may surround the area with boards that stand upright, provided that there will not be a gap of three handbreadths between one board and the next.


讘砖讬讬专讗 讚讘专讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讚讘专讜 讘砖讬讬专讗 讗诇讗 讘讛讜讜讛


When the Sages issued this ruling, they spoke exclusively of a caravan; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that a partition of this kind, which consists of only horizontal or vertical elements, is permitted exclusively in exigent circumstances. Otherwise, full-fledged partitions are required. However, the Rabbis say: They spoke of a caravan in the mishna only because they spoke in the present, citing the most typical case. Those traveling in caravans were typically unable to erect full-fledged partitions, so they would surround their camps with ropes or boards. However, the halakha in the mishna applies in all cases.


讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 砖转讬 讜砖诇 注专讘 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐:


The mishna cites an additional dispute: Any partition that is not constructed of both warp and woof, i.e., vertical and horizontal elements, is not a partition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. He holds that the vertical boards and the horizontal ropes are not considered a partition, even in the exigent circumstances of a caravan. However, the Rabbis say: One of the two elements, either vertical or horizontal, is sufficient.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 讘砖转讬 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚 讘注讬 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘注专讘 诪讗讬


GEMARA: Rav Hamnuna said that Rav said: It was concluded in the previous mishna that the Rabbis said that in the case of a partition that consists only of warp, i.e., vertical, elements, if the standing segment of the partition is greater than the breached segment, the fence is considered standing. Rav Hamnuna raised a dilemma: What is the halakha in the case of a partition that consists only of woof, i.e., horizontal, elements? Is it also considered standing if the standing segment is greater than the breached segment, or not?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 砖讬注讜专 讞讘诇讬诐 讜注讜讘讬讬谉 讬转专 注诇 讟驻讞 砖讬讛讜 讛讻诇 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讬转专 注诇 讟驻讞


Abaye said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: The measure of the ropes and their combined thickness must be greater than a handbreadth, so that the entire partition will be ten handbreadths high. And if it is so that, in a case where the standing segment is greater than the breached segment, the partition is considered standing even in the case of a fence that consists of horizontal elements, why do I need ropes with a combined thickness of greater than a handbreadth?


诇讬注讘讬讚 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讜讞讘诇 诪砖讛讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讜讞讘诇 诪砖讛讜 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讜讞讘诇 诪砖讛讜


Instead, let one leave a space slightly less than three handbreadths, and place a rope of any size, leave another space slightly less than three handbreadths, and place another rope of any size, leave a third space slightly less than four handbreadths, and place a third rope of any size. The ropes between which there is a space less than three handbreadths should be considered joined, based on the principle of lavud. The entire partition should be considered standing because the standing segment, measuring six handbreadths, is greater than the breached segment, which measures four handbreadths.


讜转讬住讘专讗 讛讗讬 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讛讬讻讗 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 转转讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪讞讬爪讛 砖讛讙讚讬讬诐 讘讜拽注讬谉 讘讛


The Gemara presents a difficulty: And how can you understand that this would be effective? Where does he position the space of slightly less than four handbreadths? If he positions it at the bottom, its legal status is like that of a partition through which goats pass, which is not a valid partition.


讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 注讬诇讗讬 讗转讬 讗讜讬专讗 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛


If he positions it at the top, then the air on this side, above the uppermost rope, and on that side, below that rope, come and negate it. As there are more than three handbreadths between them the upper and lower ropes, they are not joined together based on the principle of lavud. The four handbreadths below the uppermost rope and the airspace above it combine to negate the connection.


讗讬 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘诪讬爪注讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚


If he positions it in the middle, then the standing segment of the partition is greater than the breached segment, provided that the standing portions on the two sides of the breach are combined. However, if each side is considered separately, the breach is greater than the standing portion. If it is nevertheless deemed a partition, conclude from it that even if the standing segment is greater than the breached segment only when the standing segments on the two sides of the breach are combined, the partition is considered standing. However, that circumstance was raised as a dilemma and remained unresolved.


讗诇讗 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 诪讞爪诇转 讚讛讜讬 砖讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 讜讞拽拽 讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讜砖讘拽 讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讜诪砖讛讜 讜讗讜拽诪讬讛 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛


Rather, Rav Hamnuna raised the following dilemma: What is the halakha in a case where one brought a mat that is seven handbreadths and any additional amount, and carved in it a hole three handbreadths wide, and left four handbreadths above the hole and any additional amount below it, and positioned the mat less than three handbreadths off the ground?


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 诪专讘 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪讛讜 砖转转讬专 讘讞讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪转专转 讗诇讗 讘诪讬诐 拽诇 讛讜讗 砖讛拽诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐:


Rav Ashi said: The dilemma he raised is with regard to the legal status of a ten-handbreadth partition suspended off the ground. That dilemma is similar to that which Rabbi Tavla raised as a dilemma before Rav: Does a suspended partition act as if it were a partition that reaches the ground and render it permitted for one to carry in a ruin? Rav said to him: A suspended partition renders it permitted for one to carry only when it is suspended over water, as there is a leniency introduced by the Sages with regard to water.


诪拽讬驻讬谉 讘拽谞讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 讘砖讬专讗 讗讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讘转 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讬讞讬讚 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐


We learned in the mishna: One may surround the area with boards that stand upright, provided there will not be a gap of three handbreadths between one board and the next. Rabbi Yehuda said that this leniency, which allows the establishment of a partition consisting exclusively of horizontal or vertical elements, was stated only with regard to a caravan. The Gemara infers: With regard to a caravan, yes, it is permitted; with regard to an individual, no, it is not permitted. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to all unsteady partitions of Shabbat, e.g., those consisting exclusively of horizontal or vertical elements, the Sages did not permit their use for an individual if the space that they enclose is greater than two beit se鈥檃? This indicates that, for an area of up to two beit se鈥檃, Rabbi Yehuda permits these partitions even for an individual.


讻讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讬转谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪专讻谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬转谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪专讻谉


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement in the mishna can be understood in accordance with that which Rav Na岣an, and some say it was Rav Beivai bar Abaye, said with regard to a different statement: This halakha was necessary only in order to provide those traveling in the caravan with space to satisfy all their needs. Here, too, in the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement can be understood as coming to provide those traveling in the caravan with space to satisfy all their needs. In other words, Rabbi Yehuda does not dispute the fundamental effectiveness of a partition of this kind, even for an individual. When he says that the halakha applies solely to a caravan, he means that it applies only in the case of a caravan, regardless of the size of the area in question. However, in the case of an individual, a partition of that kind is effective only if it encloses an area up to two beit se鈥檃.


讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 诪讞讬爪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖诇 砖转讬 讜注专讘 讗讬谞讛 诪讞讬爪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: Where was this statement of Rav Na岣an, and some say of Rav Beivai bar Abaye, stated? It was stated with regard to this ruling at the end of the mishna: Any partition that is not made of both vertical and horizontal elements is not a partition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.


讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞讚 讬讞讬讚 讜讗讞讚 砖讬讬专讗 诇讞讘诇讬诐 讜诪讛 讘讬谉 讬讞讬讚 诇砖讬讬专讗 讬讞讬讚 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖谞讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖诇砖讛 谞注砖讜 砖讬讬专讗 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, actually say this? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: For both an individual and a caravan, partitions made of ropes are effective? And what, then, is the difference between an individual and a caravan? With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se鈥檃, in which he may carry by virtue of partitions of this kind. With regard to two individuals as well, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se鈥檃. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides each of them with an area of two beit se鈥檃, for a total of six beit se鈥檃. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讬讞讬讚 讜讗讞讚 砖讬讬专讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪专讻谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 驻谞讜讬


And the Rabbis say: With regard to both an individual and those traveling in a caravan, one provides them with space to satisfy all their needs, provided that there will not be an unoccupied space of two beit se鈥檃. They may not enclose an area that is two beit se鈥檃 larger than the space that they require. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, relies on the ruling that ropes render an area fit for one to carry within it, even for an individual.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讬转谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪专讻谉:


Rav Na岣an, and some say it was Rav Beivai bar Abaye, said: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, in the mishna was necessary only to provide them with the space to satisfy all their needs in the case of a properly constructed partition consisting of both horizontal and vertical elements. A partition consisting of exclusively horizontal or vertical elements renders an area of six beit se鈥檃 fit for one to carry within it, only in the case of a caravan.


讚专砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讞讬讚 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖谞讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛讜 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖诇砖讛 谞注砖讜 砖讬讬专讗 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖砖


Rav Na岣an taught in the name of Rabbeinu Shmuel: With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se鈥檃. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se鈥檃 as well. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides each of them with an area of two beit se鈥檃, for a total of six beit se鈥檃.


砖讘拽转 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讚转 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


Rav Na岣an was asked: Did you abandon the majority opinion of the Rabbis and act in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?


讛讚专 讗讜拽讬诐 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专转讬 诇驻谞讬讻诐 讟注讜转 讛谉 讘讬讚讬 讘专诐 讻讱 讗诪专讜 讬讞讬讚 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖谞讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 砖诇砖讛 谞注砖讜 砖讬讬专讗 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讻诇 爪专讻谉


Rav Na岣an then placed a speaker standing over him, and taught: The matters that I stated before you are an error on my part. Indeed, this is what the Rabbis said: With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se鈥檃. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se鈥檃 as well. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides them with space to satisfy all their needs.


Scroll To Top