Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 25, 2020 | ה׳ באלול תש״פ

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.

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?

בעביטין בשליפין בקנים בקולחות מטלטלין בתוכה ובלבד שלא יהא בין גמל לגמל כמלא גמל ובין אוכף לאוכף כמלא אוכף ובין עביט לעביט כמלא עביט

or with saddle cushions [avitin], or with wheat sheaves, or with boards, or with stalks [kolaḥot], 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.

הכא נמי כשנכנס ויוצא

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.

תא שמע נמצאת אתה אומר שלש מדות במחיצות כל שהוא פחות משלשה צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה שלשה כדי שלא יזדקר הגדי בבת ראש

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.

כל שהוא שלשה ומשלשה עד ארבעה צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה כמלואו כדי שלא יהא פרוץ כעומד ואם היה פרוץ מרובה על העומד אף כנגד העומד אסור

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.

כל שהוא ארבעה ומארבעה עד עשר אמות צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה כמלואו שלא יהא פרוץ כעומד ואם היה פרוץ כעומד כנגד העומד מותר כנגד הפרוץ אסור ואם היה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ אף כנגד הפרוץ מותר

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.

נפרצה ביותר מעשר אסור היו שם קנים הדוקרנים ועושה להן פיאה מלמעלה אפילו ביותר מעשר מותר

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’a] 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.

קתני מיהת רישא משלשה עד ארבעה ובלבד שלא יהא בין זה לזה כמלואו תיובתא דרב פפא

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.

אמר לך רב פפא מאי מלואו נכנס ויוצא

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.

הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני אם היה פרוץ מרובה על העומד אף כנגד העומד אסור הא כעומד מותר שמע מינה

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.

לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר לך וליטעמיך אימא סיפא אם היה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ אף כנגד הפרוץ מותר הא כפרוץ אסור

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.

סיפא קשיא לרב פפא רישא קשיא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע

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

סיפא לרב פפא לא קשיא איידי דתנא רישא פרוץ מרובה על העומד תנא סיפא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

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.

רישא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא קשיא איידי דבעי למיתני סיפא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ תנא רישא פרוץ מרובה על העומד

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.

בשלמא לרב פפא משום הכי לא עריב להו ותני להו

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.

אלא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ליערבינהו וליתננהו כל שהוא פחות משלשה ושלשה צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה שלשה

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.

משום דלא דמי פסולא דרישא לפסולא דסיפא פסולא דרישא כדי שלא יזדקר הגדי בבת אחת פסולא דסיפא שלא יהא פרוץ כעומד

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.

פחות משלשה מני רבנן היא דאמרי פחות משלשה אמרינן לבוד שלשה לא אמרינן לבוד

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.

אימא סיפא כל שהוא שלשה ומשלשה ועד ארבעה

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,

אתאן לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאמר פחות מארבעה לבוד דאי רבנן משלשה ועד ארבעה שלשה וארבעה חד הוא

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.

אמר אביי מדרישא רבנן סיפא נמי רבנן ומודו רבנן דכל למישרא כנגדו אי איכא מקום ארבעה חשיב ואי לא לא חשיב

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.

רבא אמר מדסיפא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל רישא נמי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל וכי אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אמרינן לבוד הני מילי למעלה אבל למטה הוה ליה כמחיצה שהגדיים בוקעין בה לא אמרינן לבוד

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.

תא שמע דפנות הללו שרובן פתחים וחלונות מותר ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

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.

שרובן סלקא דעתך אלא שריבה בהן פתחים וחלונות מותר ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

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.

הא כפרוץ אסור תיובתא דרב פפא תיובתא והילכתא כוותיה דרב פפא

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.

תיובתא והילכתא אין משום דדייקא מתניתין כוותיה דתנן לא יהיו פרצות יתירות על הבנין הא כבנין מותר:

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…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.

מתני׳ מקיפין שלשה חבלים זה למעלה מזה וזה למעלה מזה ובלבד שלא יהו בין חבל לחבירו שלשה טפחים

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.

שיעור חבלים ועוביין יתר על טפח כדי שיהא הכל עשרה טפחים

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.

מקיפין בקנים ובלבד שלא יהא בין קנה לחבירו שלשה טפחים

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.

בשיירא דברו דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים לא דברו בשיירא אלא בהווה

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.

כל מחיצה שאינה של שתי ושל ערב אינה מחיצה דברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים אחד משני דברים:

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.

גמ׳ אמר רב המנונא אמר רב הרי אמרו עומד מרובה על הפרוץ בשתי הוי עומד בעי רב המנונא בערב מאי

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?

אמר אביי תא שמע שיעור חבלים ועוביין יתר על טפח שיהו הכל עשרה טפחים ואי איתא למה לי יתר על טפח

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?

ליעביד פחות משלשה וחבל משהו פחות משלשה וחבל משהו פחות מארבעה וחבל משהו

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.

ותיסברא האי פחות מארבעה היכא מוקים ליה אי מוקים ליה תתאי הוה ליה כמחיצה שהגדיים בוקעין בה

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.

אי מוקים ליה עילאי אתי אוירא דהאי גיסא ודהאי גיסא ומבטל ליה

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.

אי מוקים ליה במיצעי הוה ליה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ משתי רוחות שמעת מינה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ משתי רוחות הוי עומד

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.

אלא רב המנונא הכי קא מיבעיא ליה כגון דאייתי מחצלת דהוי שבעה ומשהו וחקק בה שלשה ושבק בה ארבעה ומשהו ואוקמיה בפחות משלשה

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?

רב אשי אמר מחיצה תלויה איבעיא ליה כדבעא מיניה רבי טבלא מרב מחיצה תלויה מהו שתתיר בחורבה אמר ליה אין מחיצה תלויה מתרת אלא במים קל הוא שהקלו חכמים במים:

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.

מקיפין בקנים וכו׳: בשירא אין ביחיד לא והתניא רבי יהודה אומר כל מחיצות שבת לא התירו ליחיד יותר מבית סאתים

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’t 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’a? This indicates that, for an area of up to two beit se’a, Rabbi Yehuda permits these partitions even for an individual.

כדאמר רב נחמן ואיתימא רב ביבי בר אביי לא נצרכא אלא ליתן להן כל צרכן הכא נמי ליתן להן כל צרכן

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna can be understood in accordance with that which Rav Naḥman, 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’s 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’a.

היכא איתמר דרב נחמן ואיתימא רב ביבי בר אביי אהא דתנן כל מחיצה שאינה של שתי וערב אינה מחיצה דברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה

The Gemara asks: Where was this statement of Rav Naḥman, 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.

ומי אמר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה הכי והתניא אחד יחיד ואחד שיירא לחבלים ומה בין יחיד לשיירא יחיד נותנין לו בית סאתים שנים נותנין להם בית סאתים שלשה נעשו שיירא ונותנין להן בית שש דברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, actually say this? Wasn’t 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’a, 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’a. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides each of them with an area of two beit se’a, for a total of six beit se’a. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

וחכמים אומרים אחד יחיד ואחד שיירא נותנין להן כל צרכן ובלבד שלא יהא בית סאתים פנוי

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’a. They may not enclose an area that is two beit se’a 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.

אמר רב נחמן ואיתימא רב ביבי בר אביי לא נצרכא אלא ליתן להן כל צרכן:

Rav Naḥman, 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’a fit for one to carry within it, only in the case of a caravan.

דרש רב נחמן משום רבינו שמואל יחיד נותנין לו בית סאתים שנים נותנין להו בית סאתים שלשה נעשו שיירא ונותנין להן בית שש

Rav Naḥman taught in the name of Rabbeinu Shmuel: With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se’a. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se’a 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’a, for a total of six beit se’a.

שבקת רבנן ועבדת כרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה

Rav Naḥman 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?

הדר אוקים רב נחמן אמורא עליה ודרש דברים שאמרתי לפניכם טעות הן בידי ברם כך אמרו יחיד נותנין לו בית סאתים שנים נותנין להן בית סאתים שלשה נעשו שיירא ונותנין להן כל צרכן

Rav Naḥman 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’a. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se’a 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.

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

בעביטין בשליפין בקנים בקולחות מטלטלין בתוכה ובלבד שלא יהא בין גמל לגמל כמלא גמל ובין אוכף לאוכף כמלא אוכף ובין עביט לעביט כמלא עביט

or with saddle cushions [avitin], or with wheat sheaves, or with boards, or with stalks [kolaḥot], 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.

הכא נמי כשנכנס ויוצא

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.

תא שמע נמצאת אתה אומר שלש מדות במחיצות כל שהוא פחות משלשה צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה שלשה כדי שלא יזדקר הגדי בבת ראש

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.

כל שהוא שלשה ומשלשה עד ארבעה צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה כמלואו כדי שלא יהא פרוץ כעומד ואם היה פרוץ מרובה על העומד אף כנגד העומד אסור

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.

כל שהוא ארבעה ומארבעה עד עשר אמות צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה כמלואו שלא יהא פרוץ כעומד ואם היה פרוץ כעומד כנגד העומד מותר כנגד הפרוץ אסור ואם היה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ אף כנגד הפרוץ מותר

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.

נפרצה ביותר מעשר אסור היו שם קנים הדוקרנים ועושה להן פיאה מלמעלה אפילו ביותר מעשר מותר

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’a] 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.

קתני מיהת רישא משלשה עד ארבעה ובלבד שלא יהא בין זה לזה כמלואו תיובתא דרב פפא

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.

אמר לך רב פפא מאי מלואו נכנס ויוצא

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.

הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני אם היה פרוץ מרובה על העומד אף כנגד העומד אסור הא כעומד מותר שמע מינה

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.

לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר לך וליטעמיך אימא סיפא אם היה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ אף כנגד הפרוץ מותר הא כפרוץ אסור

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.

סיפא קשיא לרב פפא רישא קשיא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע

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

סיפא לרב פפא לא קשיא איידי דתנא רישא פרוץ מרובה על העומד תנא סיפא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

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.

רישא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא קשיא איידי דבעי למיתני סיפא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ תנא רישא פרוץ מרובה על העומד

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.

בשלמא לרב פפא משום הכי לא עריב להו ותני להו

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.

אלא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ליערבינהו וליתננהו כל שהוא פחות משלשה ושלשה צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה שלשה

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.

משום דלא דמי פסולא דרישא לפסולא דסיפא פסולא דרישא כדי שלא יזדקר הגדי בבת אחת פסולא דסיפא שלא יהא פרוץ כעומד

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.

פחות משלשה מני רבנן היא דאמרי פחות משלשה אמרינן לבוד שלשה לא אמרינן לבוד

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.

אימא סיפא כל שהוא שלשה ומשלשה ועד ארבעה

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,

אתאן לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאמר פחות מארבעה לבוד דאי רבנן משלשה ועד ארבעה שלשה וארבעה חד הוא

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.

אמר אביי מדרישא רבנן סיפא נמי רבנן ומודו רבנן דכל למישרא כנגדו אי איכא מקום ארבעה חשיב ואי לא לא חשיב

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.

רבא אמר מדסיפא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל רישא נמי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל וכי אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אמרינן לבוד הני מילי למעלה אבל למטה הוה ליה כמחיצה שהגדיים בוקעין בה לא אמרינן לבוד

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.

תא שמע דפנות הללו שרובן פתחים וחלונות מותר ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

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.

שרובן סלקא דעתך אלא שריבה בהן פתחים וחלונות מותר ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

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.

הא כפרוץ אסור תיובתא דרב פפא תיובתא והילכתא כוותיה דרב פפא

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.

תיובתא והילכתא אין משום דדייקא מתניתין כוותיה דתנן לא יהיו פרצות יתירות על הבנין הא כבנין מותר:

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…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.

מתני׳ מקיפין שלשה חבלים זה למעלה מזה וזה למעלה מזה ובלבד שלא יהו בין חבל לחבירו שלשה טפחים

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.

שיעור חבלים ועוביין יתר על טפח כדי שיהא הכל עשרה טפחים

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.

מקיפין בקנים ובלבד שלא יהא בין קנה לחבירו שלשה טפחים

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.

בשיירא דברו דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים לא דברו בשיירא אלא בהווה

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.

כל מחיצה שאינה של שתי ושל ערב אינה מחיצה דברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים אחד משני דברים:

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.

גמ׳ אמר רב המנונא אמר רב הרי אמרו עומד מרובה על הפרוץ בשתי הוי עומד בעי רב המנונא בערב מאי

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?

אמר אביי תא שמע שיעור חבלים ועוביין יתר על טפח שיהו הכל עשרה טפחים ואי איתא למה לי יתר על טפח

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?

ליעביד פחות משלשה וחבל משהו פחות משלשה וחבל משהו פחות מארבעה וחבל משהו

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.

ותיסברא האי פחות מארבעה היכא מוקים ליה אי מוקים ליה תתאי הוה ליה כמחיצה שהגדיים בוקעין בה

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.

אי מוקים ליה עילאי אתי אוירא דהאי גיסא ודהאי גיסא ומבטל ליה

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.

אי מוקים ליה במיצעי הוה ליה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ משתי רוחות שמעת מינה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ משתי רוחות הוי עומד

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.

אלא רב המנונא הכי קא מיבעיא ליה כגון דאייתי מחצלת דהוי שבעה ומשהו וחקק בה שלשה ושבק בה ארבעה ומשהו ואוקמיה בפחות משלשה

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?

רב אשי אמר מחיצה תלויה איבעיא ליה כדבעא מיניה רבי טבלא מרב מחיצה תלויה מהו שתתיר בחורבה אמר ליה אין מחיצה תלויה מתרת אלא במים קל הוא שהקלו חכמים במים:

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.

מקיפין בקנים וכו׳: בשירא אין ביחיד לא והתניא רבי יהודה אומר כל מחיצות שבת לא התירו ליחיד יותר מבית סאתים

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’t 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’a? This indicates that, for an area of up to two beit se’a, Rabbi Yehuda permits these partitions even for an individual.

כדאמר רב נחמן ואיתימא רב ביבי בר אביי לא נצרכא אלא ליתן להן כל צרכן הכא נמי ליתן להן כל צרכן

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna can be understood in accordance with that which Rav Naḥman, 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’s 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’a.

היכא איתמר דרב נחמן ואיתימא רב ביבי בר אביי אהא דתנן כל מחיצה שאינה של שתי וערב אינה מחיצה דברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה

The Gemara asks: Where was this statement of Rav Naḥman, 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.

ומי אמר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה הכי והתניא אחד יחיד ואחד שיירא לחבלים ומה בין יחיד לשיירא יחיד נותנין לו בית סאתים שנים נותנין להם בית סאתים שלשה נעשו שיירא ונותנין להן בית שש דברי רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, actually say this? Wasn’t 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’a, 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’a. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides each of them with an area of two beit se’a, for a total of six beit se’a. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

וחכמים אומרים אחד יחיד ואחד שיירא נותנין להן כל צרכן ובלבד שלא יהא בית סאתים פנוי

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’a. They may not enclose an area that is two beit se’a 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.

אמר רב נחמן ואיתימא רב ביבי בר אביי לא נצרכא אלא ליתן להן כל צרכן:

Rav Naḥman, 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’a fit for one to carry within it, only in the case of a caravan.

דרש רב נחמן משום רבינו שמואל יחיד נותנין לו בית סאתים שנים נותנין להו בית סאתים שלשה נעשו שיירא ונותנין להן בית שש

Rav Naḥman taught in the name of Rabbeinu Shmuel: With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se’a. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se’a 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’a, for a total of six beit se’a.

שבקת רבנן ועבדת כרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה

Rav Naḥman 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?

הדר אוקים רב נחמן אמורא עליה ודרש דברים שאמרתי לפניכם טעות הן בידי ברם כך אמרו יחיד נותנין לו בית סאתים שנים נותנין להן בית סאתים שלשה נעשו שיירא ונותנין להן כל צרכן

Rav Naḥman 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’a. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se’a as well. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides them with space to satisfy all their needs.

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top