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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 28, 2020 | 讞壮 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Eruvin 19

Today’s daf is sponsored by Adam Dicker and Caroline Hochstadter in commeration of the yahrzeit of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Baruch, z”l, an amazing father and Saba, as well as in celebration of the recent marriage of our son Shimshon Dicker to Zoe Abboudi. Saba would have been proud of you, Shim and Zoe, and he would have loved the learning at Hadran. Thank you all for providing a beautiful space and environment to learn the Daf! And by Gabi and Barry Gelman in honor of Amichai Shalom on becoming a bar mitzvah.聽

We finish the last statements of Rabbi Yirmia ben Elazar and through that get into a discussion about Gehenom – Hell. The gemara discussed the differences between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the space in between posts. Abaye asks Raba several questions about the posts put up around a well.

Click here for pictures

 

诇诪讟注讬 讻专诐

for planting vines鈥 (Micah 1:6), which benefits all the surrounding inhabitants.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻诪讚转 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讚转 讘砖专 讜讚诐 诪讚转 讘砖专 讜讚诐 诪转讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 讛专讬讙讛 诇诪诇讻讜转 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 讞讻讛 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬拽诇诇 讗转 讛诪诇讱

And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. For the attribute of flesh and blood is to place an iron or wooden hook in the mouth of a person who was sentenced to death by the government, so that he should not be able to curse the king when he is taken away for execution.

诪讚转 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗讚诐 诪转讞讬讬讘 讛专讬讙讛 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讜转拽 砖谞讗诪专 诇讱 讚讜诪讬讛 转讛诇讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪砖讘讞 砖谞讗诪专 转讛诇讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖讚讜诪讛 诇讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诪拽专讬讘 拽专讘谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讱 讬砖讜诇诐 谞讚专

But the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He is that one is willingly silent when he is sentenced to death by the Omnipresent, as it is stated: 鈥淔or You silence is praise, O God in Zion, and to You shall the vow be performed鈥 (Psalms 65:2). And what is more, he praises God for his sufferings, as it is stated: 鈥淧raise.鈥 And what is more, it appears to him as though he were offering a sacrifice in atonement for his sin, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd to You shall the vow be performed.鈥

讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 注讜讘专讬 讘注诪拽 讛讘讻讗 诪注讬谉 讬砖讬转讜讛讜 讙诐 讘专讻讜转 讬注讟讛 诪讜专讛

And this is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭hose who pass through the valley of weeping turn it into a water spring; moreover, the early rain covers it with blessings鈥 (Psalms 84:7)?

注讜讘专讬 讗诇讜 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖注讜讘专讬谉 注诇 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诪拽 砖诪注诪讬拽讬谉 诇讛诐 讙讬讛谞诐 讛讘讻讗 砖讘讜讻讬谉 讜诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讚诪注讜转 讻诪注讬讬谉 砖诇 砖讬转讬谉 讙诐 讘专讻讜转 讬注讟讛 诪讜专讛 砖诪爪讚讬拽讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讬驻讛 讚谞转 讬驻讛 讝讻讬转 讬驻讛 讞讬讬讘转 讜讬驻讛 转拽谞转 讙讬讛谞诐 诇专砖注讬诐 讙谉 注讚谉 诇爪讚讬拽讬诐

鈥淭hose who pass through [overei],鈥 these are people who transgress [overin] the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He. 鈥淰alley [emek]鈥 indicates that their punishment is that Gehenna is deepened [ma鈥檃mikin] for them. 鈥淥f weeping [bakha]鈥 and 鈥渢urn it into a water spring [ma鈥檃yan yeshituhu],鈥 indicates that they weep [bokhin] and make tears flow like a spring [ma鈥檃yan] of the foundations [shitin], meaning like a spring that descends to the foundations of the earth. 鈥淢oreover, the early rain covers it with blessings,鈥 indicates that they accept the justice of God鈥檚 judgment, and say before Him: Master of the Universe, You have judged properly, You have acquitted properly, You have condemned properly, and it is befitting that You have prepared Gehenna for the wicked and the Garden of Eden for the righteous.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 专砖注讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 驻转讞讜 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐 讗讬谞诐 讞讜讝专讬谉 讘转砖讜讘讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪讗讜 讜专讗讜 讘驻讙专讬 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讛驻讜砖注讬诐 讘讬 讜讙讜壮 砖驻砖注讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讛驻讜砖注讬诐 砖驻讜砖注讬诐 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say: The wicked do not repent, even at the entrance to Gehenna, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men who rebel against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh鈥 (Isaiah 66:24)? The verse does not say: Who rebelled, but rather: 鈥淲ho rebel,鈥 in the present tense, meaning they continue rebelling forever.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘驻讜砖注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛讗 讘驻讜砖注讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, i.e., where it is said that they accept God鈥檚 judgment, it is referring to the sinners of the Jewish people; there, i.e., where it is said that they do not recant, it is referring to the rebels among the nations of the world.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 驻讜砖注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 讗讜专 讙讬讛谞诐 砖讜诇讟转 讘讛谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘

So too, it is reasonable to say this, for if you do not say so, there would be a contradiction between one statement of Reish Lakish and another statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish said: With regard to the sinners of the Jewish people, the fire of Gehenna has no power over them, as may be learned by a fortiori reasoning from the golden altar.

诪讛 诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讻注讜讘讬 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 注诪讚 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 砖诇讟讛 讘讜 讛讗讜专 驻讜砖注讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪诇讬讗讬谉 诪爪讜转 讻专诪讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻驻诇讞 讛专诪讜谉 专拽转讱 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诇 转讬拽专讬 专拽转讱 讗诇讗 专讬拽转讬讱 砖讗驻讬诇讜 专讬拽谞讬谉 砖讘讱 诪诇讬讗讬谉 诪爪讜转 讻专诪讜谉 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

If the golden altar in the Temple, which was only covered by gold the thickness of a golden dinar, stood for many years and the fire did not burn it, for its gold did not melt, so too the sinners of the Jewish people, who are filled with good deeds like a pomegranate, as it is stated: 鈥淵our temples [rakatekh] are like a split pomegranate behind your veil鈥 (Song of Songs 6:7), will not be affected by the fire of Gehenna. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said about this: Do not read: Your temples [rakatekh], but rather: Your empty ones [reikateikh], meaning that even the sinners among you are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate; how much more so should the fire of Gehenna have no power over them.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 注讜讘专讬 讘注诪拽 讛讘讻讗 讛讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘讬 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讘讙讬讛谞诐 讜讗转讬 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 讜诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 讜诪拽讘诇 诇讛讜 讘专 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讗 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛 讚诪砖讻讛 注专诇转讜 讜诇讗 诪讘砖拽专 诇讬讛

However, that which is written: 鈥淭hose who pass through the valley of weeping鈥 (Psalms 84:7), which implies that the sinners nonetheless descend to Gehenna, should be explained as follows: There it speaks of those who are liable at that time for punishment in Gehenna, but our father Abraham comes and raises them up and receives them. He does not leave the circumcised behind and allow them to enter Gehenna, except for a Jew who had relations with a gentile woman, in punishment for which his foreskin is drawn, and our father Abraham does not recognize him as one of his descendants.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讛驻讜砖注讬诐 讚驻砖注讬 讜讗讝诇讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讜讛诪注诇讛 讚诪住讬拽 讜讚诪驻讬拽 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚讗住讬拽 讜讗驻讬拽 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻砖注讬 讛讜讗

Rav Kahana strongly objected to this: Now that you have said that the words those who rebel are referring to those who go on rebelling, if so, in those verses in which it is written of Him: 鈥淗e Who brings out鈥 (see Exodus 6:7) and 鈥淗e Who raises up鈥 Israel from Egypt (see Leviticus 11:45), do these expressions mean: He Who is currently raising them up and bringing them out? Rather, you must understand these terms to mean: He Who already raised them up and brought them out; here too then, the phrase those who rebel means those who already rebelled.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 (讘专) 讗诇注讝专 砖诇砖讛 驻转讞讬诐 讬砖 诇讙讬讛谞诐 讗讞讚 讘诪讚讘专 讜讗讞讚 讘讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘诪讚讘专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬专讚讜 讛诐 讜讻诇 讗砖专 诇讛诐 讞讬讬诐 砖讗讜诇讛

And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: There are three entrances to Gehenna, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem. There is one entrance in the wilderness, as it is written with regard to Korah and his company: 鈥淎nd they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit [She鈥檕l], and the earth closed upon them, and they perished from among the congregation鈥 (Numbers 16:33).

讘讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 诪讘讟谉 砖讗讜诇 砖讜注转讬 砖诪注转 拽讜诇讬

In the sea there is a second entrance to Gehenna, as it is written about Jonah in the fish鈥檚 belly: 鈥淥ut of the belly of the netherworld [She鈥檕l] I cried, and You did hear my voice鈥 (Jonah 2:3).

讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 谞讗诐 讛壮 讗砖专 讗讜专 诇讜 讘爪讬讜谉 讜转谞讜专 诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗砖专 讗讜专 诇讜 讘爪讬讜谉 讝讜 讙讬讛谞诐 讜转谞讜专 诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讝讜 驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐

And there is a third entrance to Gehenna in Jerusalem, as it is written: 鈥淪ays the Lord, Whose fire is in Zion, and Whose furnace is in Jerusalem鈥 (Isaiah 31:9). And it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: 鈥淲hose fire is in Zion,鈥 this is Gehenna; and 鈥淲hose furnace is in Jerusalem,鈥 this is an entrance to Gehenna.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 诪专讬讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 转谞讗 专讘讛 讘专 诪专讬讜谉 讘讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖转讬 转诪专讜转 讬砖 讘讙讬 讘谉 讛谞讜诐 讜注讜诇讛 注砖谉 诪讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 爪讬谞讬 讛专 讛讘专讝诇 讻砖讬专讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讬专讜砖诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: Are there no more entrances? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Maryon say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and some say it was Rabba bar Maryon who taught in the name of the school of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Zakkai: There are two date trees in the valley of ben Hinnom, and smoke rises from between them, and with regard to this statement about date trees that differ from other palms we learned: The palms of Har HaBarzel are fit for the mitzva of palm branches [lulav], and this is the entrance to Gehenna. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, for perhaps this is the entrance in Jerusalem.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖讘注讛 砖诪讜转 讬砖 诇讙讬讛谞诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖讗讜诇 讜讗讘讚讜谉 讜讘讗专 砖讞转 讜讘讜专 砖讗讜谉 讜讟讬讟 讛讬讜谉 讜爪诇诪讜转 讜讗专抓 讛转讞转讬转

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Gehenna has seven names, and they are as follows: She鈥檕l, Avadon, Be鈥檈r Sha岣t, Bor Shaon, Tit HaYaven, Tzalmavet, and Eretz HaTa岣it.

砖讗讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 诪讘讟谉 砖讗讜诇 砖讜注转讬 砖诪注转 拽讜诇讬 讗讘讚讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讛讬住讜驻专 讘拽讘专 讞住讚讱 讗诪讜谞转讱 讘讗讘讚讜谉 讘讗专 砖讞转 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诇讗 转注讝讜讘 谞驻砖讬 诇砖讗讜诇 诇讗 转转谉 讞住讬讚讱 诇专讗讜转 砖讞转 讜讘讜专 砖讗讜谉 讜讟讬讟 讛讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇谞讬 诪讘讜专 砖讗讜谉 诪讟讬讟 讛讬讜谉 讜爪诇诪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讬讜砖讘讬 讞讜砖讱 讜爪诇诪讜转 讜讗专抓 讛转讞转讬转 讙诪专讗 讛讜讗

She鈥檕l, as it is written: 鈥淥ut of the belly of the netherworld [she鈥檕l] I cried and You did hear my voice鈥 (Jonah 2:3). Avadon, as it is written: 鈥淪hall Your steadfast love be reported in the grave or Your faithfulness in destruction [avadon]?鈥 (Psalms 88:12). Be鈥檈r Sha岣t, as it is written: 鈥淔or You will not abandon my soul to the netherworld; nor will You suffer Your pious one to see the pit [sha岣t]鈥 (Psalms 16:10). And Bor Shaon and Tit HaYaven, as it is written: 鈥淗e brought me up also out of the gruesome pit [bor shaon], out of the miry clay [tit hayaven]鈥 (Psalms 40:3). And Tzalmavet, as it is written: 鈥淪uch as sat in darkness and in the shadow of death [tzalmavet], bound in affliction and iron鈥 (Psalms 107:10). And with regard to Eretz Ta岣it, i.e., the underworld, it is known by tradition that this is its name.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讙讬讛谞诐 讙讬讗 砖注诪讜拽讛 (讘讙讬讛谞诐) 砖讛讻诇 讬讜专讚 诇讛 注诇 注住拽讬 讛谞诐

The Gemara poses a question: Are there no more names? Isn鈥檛 there the name Gehenna? The Gemara answers that this is not a name rather a description: A valley that is as deep as the valley [gei] of ben Hinnom. An alternative explanation is: Into which all descend for vain [hinnam] and wasteful acts, understanding the word hinnam as if it were written 岣nnam, meaning for naught.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 转驻转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 注专讜讱 诪讗转诪讜诇 转驻转讛 讛讛讜讗 砖讻诇 讛诪转驻转讛 讘讬爪专讜 讬驻讜诇 砖诐

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 there also the name Tofte, as it is written: 鈥淔or its hearth [tofte] is ordained of old鈥 (Isaiah 30:33). The Gemara answers: That name too is a description, meaning that anyone who allows himself to be seduced [mitpateh] by his evil inclination will fall there.

讙谉 注讚谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诐 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讘讬转 砖讗谉 驻转讞讜 讜讗诐 讘注专讘讬讗 讘讬转 讙专诐 驻转讞讜 讜讗诐 讘讬谉 讛谞讛专讜转 讛讜讗 讚讜诪住拽谞讬谉 驻转讞讜 讘讘讘诇 讗讘讬讬 诪砖转讘讞 讘驻讬专讬 讚诪注讘专 讬诪讬谞讗 专讘讗 诪砖转讘讞 讘驻讬专讬 讚讛专驻谞讬讗:

Having discussed the entrances to Gehenna, the Gemara also mentions the entrance to the Garden of Eden. Reish Lakish said: If it is in Eretz Yisrael, its entrance is Beit She鈥檃n, and if it is in Arabia, its entrance is Beit Garem, and if it is between the rivers of Babylonia, its entrance is Dumsekanin, for all these places feature a great abundance of vegetation and fertile land. The Gemara relates that Abaye would praise the fruits of the right bank of the Euphrates River, and Rava would praise the fruits of Harpanya.

讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讻诪诇讜讗 砖转讬 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讗 诇讬讛 讚拽砖讜专讜转 讛讜讜 讗谞谉 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 诪讜转专讜转

The Gemara goes back to the mishna in which we learned: And between them, i.e., between the upright boards and the double posts, there may be a gap the size of two teams of four oxen each, as measured when tied together and not when they are untied. The Gemara asks: This is obvious; since the tanna taught that they are tied, we know that they are not untied.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 拽砖讜专讜转 讻注讬谉 拽砖讜专讜转 讗讘诇 诪诪砖 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜诇讗 诪讜转专讜转:

The Gemara answers: This is specified, lest you say that tied means similar to tied, i.e., close to each other, but not necessarily that they are actually tied. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is not enough that they be close; rather, they must be actually tied and not untied.

讗讞转 谞讻谞住转 讜讗讞转 讬讜爪讗转: 转谞讗 专讘拽讛 谞讻谞住转 讜专讘拽讛 讬讜爪讗转 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 专讗砖讛 讜专讜讘讛 砖诇 驻专讛 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讜讻诪讛 注讜讘讬讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬 讗诪讛

The mishna continued: There must be sufficient space left so that one can enter and another can leave. A Tosefta was taught that explains the mishna: Enough space so that one team can enter and another team can leave. Our Sages taught in a baraita: How much is the length of the head and most of the body of a cow? Two cubits. And how much is the thickness of a cow? A cubit and two-thirds of a cubit,

砖讛谉 讻注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜讻讗专讘注 注砖专讛 讗诪讛

so that the total width of six oxen is approximately ten cubits; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda said the following, in accordance with his own opinion that the gap may be the size of two teams of four oxen each: The total width is approximately thirteen cubits or approximately fourteen cubits.

讻注砖专 讛讗 注砖专 讛讜讬讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讻砖诇砖 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the baraita say: Approximately ten cubits in Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement? Isn鈥檛 it exactly ten cubits? The Gemara answers: Since he wanted to teach: Approximately thirteen, in the last clause, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement, he therefore also taught: Approximately ten, in the first clause.

讻砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讟驻讬 讛讜讬讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 讻讗专讘注 注砖专讛 讜讻讗专讘注 注砖专讛 讛讗 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谞谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇讗专讘注 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: But how could he say: Approximately thirteen, when it is more? The Gemara answers: Since he wanted to teach: Approximately fourteen, he therefore also teaches: Approximately thirteen. The Gemara continues this line of questioning: But they are not approximately fourteen, but rather are less. Rav Pappa said: It is a third of a cubit more than thirteen cubits, and it does not reach fourteen cubits.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讘讜专 砖诪讜谞讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉

Rav Pappa said: With regard to a water cistern whose own width is eight cubits, everyone agrees, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, that there is no need to position upright boards between the double posts. In such a case, the width of the enclosed area, which is the width of the cistern together with the space required for the cows, i.e., two cubits on each side, is twelve cubits. Since the width of each double post is one cubit, the gap between the double posts is ten cubits, and a gap of this size is permitted even according to Rabbi Meir.

讘讘讜专 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘注讬谞谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉

With regard to a cistern whose width is twelve cubits, everyone agrees that there is a need for upright posts. In this case, even if only two cubits are added on each side for the cows, the enclosed area will be sixteen cubits, and the gap between the double posts will be fourteen cubits, which must be closed off even according to Rabbi Yehuda.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪砖诪讜谞讛 注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘注讬谞谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉

Where they disagree is in the case of a cistern whose width is between eight and twelve cubits. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, one must add upright posts, whereas according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one need not add upright posts.

讜专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: And what is Rav Pappa teaching us? We already learned in the baraita that according to Rabbi Meir the gap may not be more than ten cubits, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda it may be up to thirteen and a third cubits.

专讘 驻驻讗 讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讘专讬讬转讗:

The Gemara answers: Indeed, for us nothing new is being taught here; however, Rav Pappa did not hear this baraita, and he taught us on his own as was taught in the baraita.

讗专讬讱 讬讜转专 讘转诇 讞讬爪转 讞爪专 砖讬讘砖讛 住讬诪谉: 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讛讗专讬讱 讘讚讬讜诪讚讬谉 讻砖讬注讜专 驻砖讜讟讬谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讛讜

Extended, more, in a mound, a barrier of, a courtyard, that dried up; this is a mnemonic containing key words in a series of issues raised by Abaye before Rabba. Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: If the gaps between the double posts were more than ten cubits, and one extended the double posts, that is, he widened each arm of the corner pieces, adding the measure of an upright board, i.e., another cubit, on each side, so that the gaps were no longer more than ten cubits, what is the law according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Do we say that this suffices and it is no longer necessary to arrange upright boards between the two double posts, or must upright boards be positioned in the gaps?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬专讘讛 讘驻住讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诪讗专讬讱 讘讚讬讜诪讚讬谉 诇讗 讚诪驻讬砖 讜注讘讬讚 驻砖讜讟讬谉

Rabba said to him: We already learned it in the mishna: Provided that he increases the boards. Does this not mean that he extends the double posts, increasing them in width? Abaye refutes this: No, perhaps it means that he makes more upright boards, increasing them in number.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬专讘讛 讘驻住讬谉 注讚 砖讬专讘讛 驻住讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬 注讚 砖讬专讘讛 驻住讬谉

Rabba said to him: If so, this wording: Provided that he increases the boards, is imprecise, for it implies that one increases the boards themselves, and instead it should have stated: Provided that he increases the number of upright boards. Abaye answered: There is no need to be particular about this. Teach: Provided that he increases the number of upright boards.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬专讘讛 讘驻住讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诪驻讬砖 讜注讘讬讚 驻砖讜讟讬谉 诇讗 讚诪讗专讬讱 讘讚讬讜诪讚讬谉

The Gemara cites an alternative version of the previous discussion: There are some who say that Rabba said to Abaye as follows: We already learned it: Provided that he increases the boards. Does this not mean that he makes more upright boards, increasing them in number? Abaye refutes this: No, perhaps it means that he extends the double posts, increasing them in width.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬专讘讛 讘驻住讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say this, from the fact that the mishna teaches: Provided that he increases the upright boards, which implies that he extends the width of the boards themselves, in accordance with the second version. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the correct understanding.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 驻砖讜讟讬谉 注讘讬讚 讗讜 讘讚讬讜诪讚讬谉 诪讗专讬讱

Abaye raised another dilemma before Rabba: If the gaps are more than thirteen and a third cubits, what is the law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Does he bring upright boards and position them between the double posts, or does he extend the double posts, increasing them in width?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讻诪讛 讛谉 诪拽讜专讘讬谉 讻讚讬 专讗砖讛 讜专讜讘讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讻诪讛 诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专讬讬诐

Rabba said to him: We already learned the law in a similar case, for it was taught in a baraita: How close may the double posts be to the well? They can be as close as the length of the head and most of the body of a cow. And how far may they be from the well? If one wishes, the enclosed area may be expanded even to the area of a kor and even to two kor, provided that one increases the number of upright boards adequately to keep the gaps under the allowable limit.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 诪讜转专 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讗住讜专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 讘讚讬专 讜住讛专 讜诪讜拽爪讛 讜讞爪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 讞诪砖转 讻讜专讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 注砖专讛 讻讜专讬诐 砖诪讜转专

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: Up to an area of two beit se鈥檃, it is permitted to enclose the area in this manner; but expanding the enclosed area so it is more than an area of two beit se鈥檃 is prohibited. The other Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you not agree with regard to a pen, and stable, and a backyard, and a courtyard that even an area of five beit kor and even of ten beit kor is permitted for use?

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讝讜 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讗诇讜 驻住讬谉

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda said to them: There is a significant difference between these cases, for this one, i.e., the wall surrounding the courtyard and the like, is a proper partition, whereas these are merely upright boards.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讝讜 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabba鈥檚 statement: And if it is so that one extend the double posts, this means that he makes a proper partition of increasingly wider double posts in the area surrounding the well, this is equivalent to the partitions of a courtyard, he, Rabbi Yehuda, should have said: This is a partition and that is a partition.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讝讜 转讜专转 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇讬讛 讜驻专爪讜转讬讛 讘注砖专 讜讗诇讜 转讜专转 驻住讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜驻专爪讜转讬讛谉 讘砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖

The Gemara answers: No proof can be brought from here, for Rabbi Yehuda is saying as follows: This one, the walls of a courtyard, are governed by the laws of a partition, and therefore its breaches must not be more than ten cubits. Whereas these, which surround the well, are governed by the laws of upright boards, and their breaches may be up to thirteen and a third cubits. Consequently, only an area of two beit se鈥檃 can be enclosed in this manner. Therefore, no proof can be brought from this baraita to Abaye鈥檚 dilemma.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 转诇 讛诪转诇拽讟 注砖专讛 诪转讜讱 讗专讘注 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚

Abaye raised another dilemma before Rabba: Can a mound that rises to a height of ten handbreadths within an area of four cubits serve as a double post or can it not serve as a double post?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讬转讛 砖诐 讗讘谉 诪专讜讘注转 专讜讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 转讞诇拽 讜讬砖 讘讛 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 讜讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚

Rabba said to him: We already learned this in the following baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If a square stone was present, we see the stone as if it were altered: Wherever it can be divided in such a way that there would remain a cubit here in one direction and a cubit there at a right angle to it, it can serve as a double post; but if not, it cannot serve as a double post.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讛讬转讛 砖诐 讗讘谉 注讙讜诇讛 专讜讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 转讞拽拽 讜转讞诇拽 讜讬砖 讘讛 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 讜讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: If a round stone was present, we see the stone as if it were altered: Wherever it could be chiseled down into a square, and then divided in such a way that there would remain a cubit here in one direction and a cubit there at a right angle to it, it can serve as a double post; but if not, it cannot serve as a double post. In any case, it is learned from these two statements that anything can serve as a double post if it is of the requisite size and shape.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讞讚 专讜讗讬谉 讗诪专讬谞谉 转专讬 专讜讗讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 专讜讗讬谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉

With regard to the baraita itself, the Gemara asks: With regard to what do these two tanna鈥檌m disagree? The Gemara explains that one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds that we say: We see, once. However, we do not say: We see, twice. That is to say, while the stone can be considered as if it were divided, it cannot also be considered as though it were chiseled down into a square. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, holds that we even say: We see, twice. Since a mound is similar to a round stone, it can therefore serve as a double post.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讗讜 诇讗讜

Abaye raised another dilemma before Rabba: With regard to a barrier of reeds in the shape of a double post, where each reed is less than three handbreadths apart from the next, so that they are considered connected by the principle of lavud, can it serve as a double post or not?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗讬诇谉 讗讜 讙讚专 讗讜 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛

Rabba said to him: We already learned this law in a baraita that states: If a tree, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds was present, it serves as a double post. Does this not refer to a barrier of reeds where each reed is less than three handbreadths from the next?

诇讗 讙讜讚专讬转讗 讚拽谞讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讬诇谉

The Gemara refutes this: No, it may perhaps refer to a thicket of reeds planted close together, forming a kind of post. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, it is equivalent to a tree, and the tanna would not repeat the same case twice.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讚专 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讚专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讗讬诇谉

The Gemara rejects this argument: What, then? Would you say that the baraita is referring to a barrier of reeds where each reed is less than three handbreadths apart? If so, it is a fence. Rather, what must you say is that the baraita teaches two types of fence; here too, then, you can say that it teaches two types of tree, and therefore no proof can be brought from this baraita.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讙讜讚专讬转讗 讚拽谞讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讙讜讚专讬转讗 讚拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讛讬讛 砖诐 讙讚专 讗讜 讗讬诇谉 讗讜 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讜讚专讬转讗 讚拽谞讬

The Gemara cites an alternative version of the previous discussion: There are some who say that the question was posed differently, and the dilemma Abaye raised before Rabba was about whether or not a dense thicket of reeds can serve as a double post. Rabba said to him: We already learned this law in the following baraita: If a tree, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds was present, it can serve as a double post. Does this not refer to a thicket of reeds?

诇讗 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讚专

The Gemara refutes this: No, it may perhaps refer to a barrier of reeds where each reed is less than three handbreadths apart from the next. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, it is exactly a fence.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讙讜讚专讬转讗 讚拽谞讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讬诇谉 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument: What, then? Would you say that the baraita refers to a thicket of reeds? If so, this is a tree. Rather, what must you say is

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time: Eruvin 17-23

We will review key concepts in Daf 17-23 including the maximum area for a campsite, the mechanism by which we...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 19: The Jewish Hell

More aggadot. The gold on the gold-plated altar did not melt in all the years of sacrifices. So too the...

Eruvin 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 19

诇诪讟注讬 讻专诐

for planting vines鈥 (Micah 1:6), which benefits all the surrounding inhabitants.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘讗 讜专讗讛 砖诇讗 讻诪讚转 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讚转 讘砖专 讜讚诐 诪讚转 讘砖专 讜讚诐 诪转讞讬讬讘 讗讚诐 讛专讬讙讛 诇诪诇讻讜转 诪讟讬诇讬谉 诇讜 讞讻讛 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬拽诇诇 讗转 讛诪诇讱

And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. For the attribute of flesh and blood is to place an iron or wooden hook in the mouth of a person who was sentenced to death by the government, so that he should not be able to curse the king when he is taken away for execution.

诪讚转 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗讚诐 诪转讞讬讬讘 讛专讬讙讛 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讜转拽 砖谞讗诪专 诇讱 讚讜诪讬讛 转讛诇讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪砖讘讞 砖谞讗诪专 转讛诇讛 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖讚讜诪讛 诇讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诪拽专讬讘 拽专讘谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讱 讬砖讜诇诐 谞讚专

But the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He is that one is willingly silent when he is sentenced to death by the Omnipresent, as it is stated: 鈥淔or You silence is praise, O God in Zion, and to You shall the vow be performed鈥 (Psalms 65:2). And what is more, he praises God for his sufferings, as it is stated: 鈥淧raise.鈥 And what is more, it appears to him as though he were offering a sacrifice in atonement for his sin, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd to You shall the vow be performed.鈥

讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 注讜讘专讬 讘注诪拽 讛讘讻讗 诪注讬谉 讬砖讬转讜讛讜 讙诐 讘专讻讜转 讬注讟讛 诪讜专讛

And this is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淭hose who pass through the valley of weeping turn it into a water spring; moreover, the early rain covers it with blessings鈥 (Psalms 84:7)?

注讜讘专讬 讗诇讜 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖注讜讘专讬谉 注诇 专爪讜谞讜 砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诪拽 砖诪注诪讬拽讬谉 诇讛诐 讙讬讛谞诐 讛讘讻讗 砖讘讜讻讬谉 讜诪讜专讬讚讬谉 讚诪注讜转 讻诪注讬讬谉 砖诇 砖讬转讬谉 讙诐 讘专讻讜转 讬注讟讛 诪讜专讛 砖诪爪讚讬拽讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讜讗讜诪专讬诐 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讬驻讛 讚谞转 讬驻讛 讝讻讬转 讬驻讛 讞讬讬讘转 讜讬驻讛 转拽谞转 讙讬讛谞诐 诇专砖注讬诐 讙谉 注讚谉 诇爪讚讬拽讬诐

鈥淭hose who pass through [overei],鈥 these are people who transgress [overin] the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He. 鈥淰alley [emek]鈥 indicates that their punishment is that Gehenna is deepened [ma鈥檃mikin] for them. 鈥淥f weeping [bakha]鈥 and 鈥渢urn it into a water spring [ma鈥檃yan yeshituhu],鈥 indicates that they weep [bokhin] and make tears flow like a spring [ma鈥檃yan] of the foundations [shitin], meaning like a spring that descends to the foundations of the earth. 鈥淢oreover, the early rain covers it with blessings,鈥 indicates that they accept the justice of God鈥檚 judgment, and say before Him: Master of the Universe, You have judged properly, You have acquitted properly, You have condemned properly, and it is befitting that You have prepared Gehenna for the wicked and the Garden of Eden for the righteous.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 专砖注讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 驻转讞讜 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐 讗讬谞诐 讞讜讝专讬谉 讘转砖讜讘讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪讗讜 讜专讗讜 讘驻讙专讬 讛讗谞砖讬诐 讛驻讜砖注讬诐 讘讬 讜讙讜壮 砖驻砖注讜 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讛驻讜砖注讬诐 砖驻讜砖注讬诐 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say: The wicked do not repent, even at the entrance to Gehenna, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men who rebel against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh鈥 (Isaiah 66:24)? The verse does not say: Who rebelled, but rather: 鈥淲ho rebel,鈥 in the present tense, meaning they continue rebelling forever.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘驻讜砖注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛讗 讘驻讜砖注讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, i.e., where it is said that they accept God鈥檚 judgment, it is referring to the sinners of the Jewish people; there, i.e., where it is said that they do not recant, it is referring to the rebels among the nations of the world.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 驻讜砖注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 讗讜专 讙讬讛谞诐 砖讜诇讟转 讘讛谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘

So too, it is reasonable to say this, for if you do not say so, there would be a contradiction between one statement of Reish Lakish and another statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish said: With regard to the sinners of the Jewish people, the fire of Gehenna has no power over them, as may be learned by a fortiori reasoning from the golden altar.

诪讛 诪讝讘讞 讛讝讛讘 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讻注讜讘讬 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 注诪讚 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 砖诇讟讛 讘讜 讛讗讜专 驻讜砖注讬 讬砖专讗诇 砖诪诇讬讗讬谉 诪爪讜转 讻专诪讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻驻诇讞 讛专诪讜谉 专拽转讱 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诇 转讬拽专讬 专拽转讱 讗诇讗 专讬拽转讬讱 砖讗驻讬诇讜 专讬拽谞讬谉 砖讘讱 诪诇讬讗讬谉 诪爪讜转 讻专诪讜谉 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

If the golden altar in the Temple, which was only covered by gold the thickness of a golden dinar, stood for many years and the fire did not burn it, for its gold did not melt, so too the sinners of the Jewish people, who are filled with good deeds like a pomegranate, as it is stated: 鈥淵our temples [rakatekh] are like a split pomegranate behind your veil鈥 (Song of Songs 6:7), will not be affected by the fire of Gehenna. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said about this: Do not read: Your temples [rakatekh], but rather: Your empty ones [reikateikh], meaning that even the sinners among you are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate; how much more so should the fire of Gehenna have no power over them.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 注讜讘专讬 讘注诪拽 讛讘讻讗 讛讛讜讗 讚诪讞讬讬讘讬 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讘讙讬讛谞诐 讜讗转讬 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 讜诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 讜诪拽讘诇 诇讛讜 讘专 诪讬砖专讗诇 砖讘讗 注诇 讛讙讜讬讛 讚诪砖讻讛 注专诇转讜 讜诇讗 诪讘砖拽专 诇讬讛

However, that which is written: 鈥淭hose who pass through the valley of weeping鈥 (Psalms 84:7), which implies that the sinners nonetheless descend to Gehenna, should be explained as follows: There it speaks of those who are liable at that time for punishment in Gehenna, but our father Abraham comes and raises them up and receives them. He does not leave the circumcised behind and allow them to enter Gehenna, except for a Jew who had relations with a gentile woman, in punishment for which his foreskin is drawn, and our father Abraham does not recognize him as one of his descendants.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讛驻讜砖注讬诐 讚驻砖注讬 讜讗讝诇讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讜讛诪注诇讛 讚诪住讬拽 讜讚诪驻讬拽 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚讗住讬拽 讜讗驻讬拽 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻砖注讬 讛讜讗

Rav Kahana strongly objected to this: Now that you have said that the words those who rebel are referring to those who go on rebelling, if so, in those verses in which it is written of Him: 鈥淗e Who brings out鈥 (see Exodus 6:7) and 鈥淗e Who raises up鈥 Israel from Egypt (see Leviticus 11:45), do these expressions mean: He Who is currently raising them up and bringing them out? Rather, you must understand these terms to mean: He Who already raised them up and brought them out; here too then, the phrase those who rebel means those who already rebelled.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 (讘专) 讗诇注讝专 砖诇砖讛 驻转讞讬诐 讬砖 诇讙讬讛谞诐 讗讞讚 讘诪讚讘专 讜讗讞讚 讘讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘诪讚讘专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬专讚讜 讛诐 讜讻诇 讗砖专 诇讛诐 讞讬讬诐 砖讗讜诇讛

And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: There are three entrances to Gehenna, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem. There is one entrance in the wilderness, as it is written with regard to Korah and his company: 鈥淎nd they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit [She鈥檕l], and the earth closed upon them, and they perished from among the congregation鈥 (Numbers 16:33).

讘讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 诪讘讟谉 砖讗讜诇 砖讜注转讬 砖诪注转 拽讜诇讬

In the sea there is a second entrance to Gehenna, as it is written about Jonah in the fish鈥檚 belly: 鈥淥ut of the belly of the netherworld [She鈥檕l] I cried, and You did hear my voice鈥 (Jonah 2:3).

讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 谞讗诐 讛壮 讗砖专 讗讜专 诇讜 讘爪讬讜谉 讜转谞讜专 诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗砖专 讗讜专 诇讜 讘爪讬讜谉 讝讜 讙讬讛谞诐 讜转谞讜专 诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讝讜 驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐

And there is a third entrance to Gehenna in Jerusalem, as it is written: 鈥淪ays the Lord, Whose fire is in Zion, and Whose furnace is in Jerusalem鈥 (Isaiah 31:9). And it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: 鈥淲hose fire is in Zion,鈥 this is Gehenna; and 鈥淲hose furnace is in Jerusalem,鈥 this is an entrance to Gehenna.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 诪专讬讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 转谞讗 专讘讛 讘专 诪专讬讜谉 讘讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖转讬 转诪专讜转 讬砖 讘讙讬 讘谉 讛谞讜诐 讜注讜诇讛 注砖谉 诪讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 爪讬谞讬 讛专 讛讘专讝诇 讻砖讬专讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讬专讜砖诇讬诐

The Gemara asks: Are there no more entrances? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Maryon say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and some say it was Rabba bar Maryon who taught in the name of the school of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Zakkai: There are two date trees in the valley of ben Hinnom, and smoke rises from between them, and with regard to this statement about date trees that differ from other palms we learned: The palms of Har HaBarzel are fit for the mitzva of palm branches [lulav], and this is the entrance to Gehenna. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, for perhaps this is the entrance in Jerusalem.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖讘注讛 砖诪讜转 讬砖 诇讙讬讛谞诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖讗讜诇 讜讗讘讚讜谉 讜讘讗专 砖讞转 讜讘讜专 砖讗讜谉 讜讟讬讟 讛讬讜谉 讜爪诇诪讜转 讜讗专抓 讛转讞转讬转

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Gehenna has seven names, and they are as follows: She鈥檕l, Avadon, Be鈥檈r Sha岣t, Bor Shaon, Tit HaYaven, Tzalmavet, and Eretz HaTa岣it.

砖讗讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 诪讘讟谉 砖讗讜诇 砖讜注转讬 砖诪注转 拽讜诇讬 讗讘讚讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讛讬住讜驻专 讘拽讘专 讞住讚讱 讗诪讜谞转讱 讘讗讘讚讜谉 讘讗专 砖讞转 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 诇讗 转注讝讜讘 谞驻砖讬 诇砖讗讜诇 诇讗 转转谉 讞住讬讚讱 诇专讗讜转 砖讞转 讜讘讜专 砖讗讜谉 讜讟讬讟 讛讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇谞讬 诪讘讜专 砖讗讜谉 诪讟讬讟 讛讬讜谉 讜爪诇诪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讬讜砖讘讬 讞讜砖讱 讜爪诇诪讜转 讜讗专抓 讛转讞转讬转 讙诪专讗 讛讜讗

She鈥檕l, as it is written: 鈥淥ut of the belly of the netherworld [she鈥檕l] I cried and You did hear my voice鈥 (Jonah 2:3). Avadon, as it is written: 鈥淪hall Your steadfast love be reported in the grave or Your faithfulness in destruction [avadon]?鈥 (Psalms 88:12). Be鈥檈r Sha岣t, as it is written: 鈥淔or You will not abandon my soul to the netherworld; nor will You suffer Your pious one to see the pit [sha岣t]鈥 (Psalms 16:10). And Bor Shaon and Tit HaYaven, as it is written: 鈥淗e brought me up also out of the gruesome pit [bor shaon], out of the miry clay [tit hayaven]鈥 (Psalms 40:3). And Tzalmavet, as it is written: 鈥淪uch as sat in darkness and in the shadow of death [tzalmavet], bound in affliction and iron鈥 (Psalms 107:10). And with regard to Eretz Ta岣it, i.e., the underworld, it is known by tradition that this is its name.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讙讬讛谞诐 讙讬讗 砖注诪讜拽讛 (讘讙讬讛谞诐) 砖讛讻诇 讬讜专讚 诇讛 注诇 注住拽讬 讛谞诐

The Gemara poses a question: Are there no more names? Isn鈥檛 there the name Gehenna? The Gemara answers that this is not a name rather a description: A valley that is as deep as the valley [gei] of ben Hinnom. An alternative explanation is: Into which all descend for vain [hinnam] and wasteful acts, understanding the word hinnam as if it were written 岣nnam, meaning for naught.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 转驻转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 注专讜讱 诪讗转诪讜诇 转驻转讛 讛讛讜讗 砖讻诇 讛诪转驻转讛 讘讬爪专讜 讬驻讜诇 砖诐

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 there also the name Tofte, as it is written: 鈥淔or its hearth [tofte] is ordained of old鈥 (Isaiah 30:33). The Gemara answers: That name too is a description, meaning that anyone who allows himself to be seduced [mitpateh] by his evil inclination will fall there.

讙谉 注讚谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诐 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讘讬转 砖讗谉 驻转讞讜 讜讗诐 讘注专讘讬讗 讘讬转 讙专诐 驻转讞讜 讜讗诐 讘讬谉 讛谞讛专讜转 讛讜讗 讚讜诪住拽谞讬谉 驻转讞讜 讘讘讘诇 讗讘讬讬 诪砖转讘讞 讘驻讬专讬 讚诪注讘专 讬诪讬谞讗 专讘讗 诪砖转讘讞 讘驻讬专讬 讚讛专驻谞讬讗:

Having discussed the entrances to Gehenna, the Gemara also mentions the entrance to the Garden of Eden. Reish Lakish said: If it is in Eretz Yisrael, its entrance is Beit She鈥檃n, and if it is in Arabia, its entrance is Beit Garem, and if it is between the rivers of Babylonia, its entrance is Dumsekanin, for all these places feature a great abundance of vegetation and fertile land. The Gemara relates that Abaye would praise the fruits of the right bank of the Euphrates River, and Rava would praise the fruits of Harpanya.

讜讘讬谞讬讛谉 讻诪诇讜讗 砖转讬 讜讻讜壮: 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讗 诇讬讛 讚拽砖讜专讜转 讛讜讜 讗谞谉 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 诪讜转专讜转

The Gemara goes back to the mishna in which we learned: And between them, i.e., between the upright boards and the double posts, there may be a gap the size of two teams of four oxen each, as measured when tied together and not when they are untied. The Gemara asks: This is obvious; since the tanna taught that they are tied, we know that they are not untied.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 拽砖讜专讜转 讻注讬谉 拽砖讜专讜转 讗讘诇 诪诪砖 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜诇讗 诪讜转专讜转:

The Gemara answers: This is specified, lest you say that tied means similar to tied, i.e., close to each other, but not necessarily that they are actually tied. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is not enough that they be close; rather, they must be actually tied and not untied.

讗讞转 谞讻谞住转 讜讗讞转 讬讜爪讗转: 转谞讗 专讘拽讛 谞讻谞住转 讜专讘拽讛 讬讜爪讗转 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 专讗砖讛 讜专讜讘讛 砖诇 驻专讛 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讜讻诪讛 注讜讘讬讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬 讗诪讛

The mishna continued: There must be sufficient space left so that one can enter and another can leave. A Tosefta was taught that explains the mishna: Enough space so that one team can enter and another team can leave. Our Sages taught in a baraita: How much is the length of the head and most of the body of a cow? Two cubits. And how much is the thickness of a cow? A cubit and two-thirds of a cubit,

砖讛谉 讻注砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜讻讗专讘注 注砖专讛 讗诪讛

so that the total width of six oxen is approximately ten cubits; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda said the following, in accordance with his own opinion that the gap may be the size of two teams of four oxen each: The total width is approximately thirteen cubits or approximately fourteen cubits.

讻注砖专 讛讗 注砖专 讛讜讬讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讻砖诇砖 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the baraita say: Approximately ten cubits in Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement? Isn鈥檛 it exactly ten cubits? The Gemara answers: Since he wanted to teach: Approximately thirteen, in the last clause, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement, he therefore also taught: Approximately ten, in the first clause.

讻砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讟驻讬 讛讜讬讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 讻讗专讘注 注砖专讛 讜讻讗专讘注 注砖专讛 讛讗 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讬转讬专讜转 注诇 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谞谉 诪讙讬注讜转 诇讗专讘注 注砖专讛

The Gemara asks: But how could he say: Approximately thirteen, when it is more? The Gemara answers: Since he wanted to teach: Approximately fourteen, he therefore also teaches: Approximately thirteen. The Gemara continues this line of questioning: But they are not approximately fourteen, but rather are less. Rav Pappa said: It is a third of a cubit more than thirteen cubits, and it does not reach fourteen cubits.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讘讜专 砖诪讜谞讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉

Rav Pappa said: With regard to a water cistern whose own width is eight cubits, everyone agrees, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, that there is no need to position upright boards between the double posts. In such a case, the width of the enclosed area, which is the width of the cistern together with the space required for the cows, i.e., two cubits on each side, is twelve cubits. Since the width of each double post is one cubit, the gap between the double posts is ten cubits, and a gap of this size is permitted even according to Rabbi Meir.

讘讘讜专 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘注讬谞谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉

With regard to a cistern whose width is twelve cubits, everyone agrees that there is a need for upright posts. In this case, even if only two cubits are added on each side for the cows, the enclosed area will be sixteen cubits, and the gap between the double posts will be fourteen cubits, which must be closed off even according to Rabbi Yehuda.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诪砖诪讜谞讛 注讚 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘注讬谞谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 驻砖讜讟讬谉

Where they disagree is in the case of a cistern whose width is between eight and twelve cubits. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, one must add upright posts, whereas according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, one need not add upright posts.

讜专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: And what is Rav Pappa teaching us? We already learned in the baraita that according to Rabbi Meir the gap may not be more than ten cubits, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda it may be up to thirteen and a third cubits.

专讘 驻驻讗 讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讜拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讘专讬讬转讗:

The Gemara answers: Indeed, for us nothing new is being taught here; however, Rav Pappa did not hear this baraita, and he taught us on his own as was taught in the baraita.

讗专讬讱 讬讜转专 讘转诇 讞讬爪转 讞爪专 砖讬讘砖讛 住讬诪谉: 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讛讗专讬讱 讘讚讬讜诪讚讬谉 讻砖讬注讜专 驻砖讜讟讬谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讛讜

Extended, more, in a mound, a barrier of, a courtyard, that dried up; this is a mnemonic containing key words in a series of issues raised by Abaye before Rabba. Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: If the gaps between the double posts were more than ten cubits, and one extended the double posts, that is, he widened each arm of the corner pieces, adding the measure of an upright board, i.e., another cubit, on each side, so that the gaps were no longer more than ten cubits, what is the law according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Do we say that this suffices and it is no longer necessary to arrange upright boards between the two double posts, or must upright boards be positioned in the gaps?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬专讘讛 讘驻住讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诪讗专讬讱 讘讚讬讜诪讚讬谉 诇讗 讚诪驻讬砖 讜注讘讬讚 驻砖讜讟讬谉

Rabba said to him: We already learned it in the mishna: Provided that he increases the boards. Does this not mean that he extends the double posts, increasing them in width? Abaye refutes this: No, perhaps it means that he makes more upright boards, increasing them in number.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬专讘讛 讘驻住讬谉 注讚 砖讬专讘讛 驻住讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬 注讚 砖讬专讘讛 驻住讬谉

Rabba said to him: If so, this wording: Provided that he increases the boards, is imprecise, for it implies that one increases the boards themselves, and instead it should have stated: Provided that he increases the number of upright boards. Abaye answered: There is no need to be particular about this. Teach: Provided that he increases the number of upright boards.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬专讘讛 讘驻住讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诪驻讬砖 讜注讘讬讚 驻砖讜讟讬谉 诇讗 讚诪讗专讬讱 讘讚讬讜诪讚讬谉

The Gemara cites an alternative version of the previous discussion: There are some who say that Rabba said to Abaye as follows: We already learned it: Provided that he increases the boards. Does this not mean that he makes more upright boards, increasing them in number? Abaye refutes this: No, perhaps it means that he extends the double posts, increasing them in width.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬专讘讛 讘驻住讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say this, from the fact that the mishna teaches: Provided that he increases the upright boards, which implies that he extends the width of the boards themselves, in accordance with the second version. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the correct understanding.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 驻砖讜讟讬谉 注讘讬讚 讗讜 讘讚讬讜诪讚讬谉 诪讗专讬讱

Abaye raised another dilemma before Rabba: If the gaps are more than thirteen and a third cubits, what is the law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Does he bring upright boards and position them between the double posts, or does he extend the double posts, increasing them in width?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讻诪讛 讛谉 诪拽讜专讘讬谉 讻讚讬 专讗砖讛 讜专讜讘讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讻诪讛 诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专讬讬诐

Rabba said to him: We already learned the law in a similar case, for it was taught in a baraita: How close may the double posts be to the well? They can be as close as the length of the head and most of the body of a cow. And how far may they be from the well? If one wishes, the enclosed area may be expanded even to the area of a kor and even to two kor, provided that one increases the number of upright boards adequately to keep the gaps under the allowable limit.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 诪讜转专 讬讜转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 讗住讜专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 讘讚讬专 讜住讛专 讜诪讜拽爪讛 讜讞爪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 讞诪砖转 讻讜专讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘转 注砖专讛 讻讜专讬诐 砖诪讜转专

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: Up to an area of two beit se鈥檃, it is permitted to enclose the area in this manner; but expanding the enclosed area so it is more than an area of two beit se鈥檃 is prohibited. The other Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you not agree with regard to a pen, and stable, and a backyard, and a courtyard that even an area of five beit kor and even of ten beit kor is permitted for use?

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讝讜 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讗诇讜 驻住讬谉

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda said to them: There is a significant difference between these cases, for this one, i.e., the wall surrounding the courtyard and the like, is a proper partition, whereas these are merely upright boards.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讝讜 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讞讬爪讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabba鈥檚 statement: And if it is so that one extend the double posts, this means that he makes a proper partition of increasingly wider double posts in the area surrounding the well, this is equivalent to the partitions of a courtyard, he, Rabbi Yehuda, should have said: This is a partition and that is a partition.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讝讜 转讜专转 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇讬讛 讜驻专爪讜转讬讛 讘注砖专 讜讗诇讜 转讜专转 驻住讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜驻专爪讜转讬讛谉 讘砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖

The Gemara answers: No proof can be brought from here, for Rabbi Yehuda is saying as follows: This one, the walls of a courtyard, are governed by the laws of a partition, and therefore its breaches must not be more than ten cubits. Whereas these, which surround the well, are governed by the laws of upright boards, and their breaches may be up to thirteen and a third cubits. Consequently, only an area of two beit se鈥檃 can be enclosed in this manner. Therefore, no proof can be brought from this baraita to Abaye鈥檚 dilemma.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 转诇 讛诪转诇拽讟 注砖专讛 诪转讜讱 讗专讘注 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚

Abaye raised another dilemma before Rabba: Can a mound that rises to a height of ten handbreadths within an area of four cubits serve as a double post or can it not serve as a double post?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讬转讛 砖诐 讗讘谉 诪专讜讘注转 专讜讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 转讞诇拽 讜讬砖 讘讛 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 讜讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚

Rabba said to him: We already learned this in the following baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If a square stone was present, we see the stone as if it were altered: Wherever it can be divided in such a way that there would remain a cubit here in one direction and a cubit there at a right angle to it, it can serve as a double post; but if not, it cannot serve as a double post.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讛讬转讛 砖诐 讗讘谉 注讙讜诇讛 专讜讗讬谉 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 转讞拽拽 讜转讞诇拽 讜讬砖 讘讛 讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 讜讗诪讛 诇讻讗谉 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: If a round stone was present, we see the stone as if it were altered: Wherever it could be chiseled down into a square, and then divided in such a way that there would remain a cubit here in one direction and a cubit there at a right angle to it, it can serve as a double post; but if not, it cannot serve as a double post. In any case, it is learned from these two statements that anything can serve as a double post if it is of the requisite size and shape.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讞讚 专讜讗讬谉 讗诪专讬谞谉 转专讬 专讜讗讬谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 专讜讗讬谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉

With regard to the baraita itself, the Gemara asks: With regard to what do these two tanna鈥檌m disagree? The Gemara explains that one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, holds that we say: We see, once. However, we do not say: We see, twice. That is to say, while the stone can be considered as if it were divided, it cannot also be considered as though it were chiseled down into a square. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, holds that we even say: We see, twice. Since a mound is similar to a round stone, it can therefore serve as a double post.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 讗讜 诇讗讜

Abaye raised another dilemma before Rabba: With regard to a barrier of reeds in the shape of a double post, where each reed is less than three handbreadths apart from the next, so that they are considered connected by the principle of lavud, can it serve as a double post or not?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗讬诇谉 讗讜 讙讚专 讗讜 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛

Rabba said to him: We already learned this law in a baraita that states: If a tree, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds was present, it serves as a double post. Does this not refer to a barrier of reeds where each reed is less than three handbreadths from the next?

诇讗 讙讜讚专讬转讗 讚拽谞讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讬诇谉

The Gemara refutes this: No, it may perhaps refer to a thicket of reeds planted close together, forming a kind of post. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, it is equivalent to a tree, and the tanna would not repeat the same case twice.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讚专 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讚专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讗讬诇谉

The Gemara rejects this argument: What, then? Would you say that the baraita is referring to a barrier of reeds where each reed is less than three handbreadths apart? If so, it is a fence. Rather, what must you say is that the baraita teaches two types of fence; here too, then, you can say that it teaches two types of tree, and therefore no proof can be brought from this baraita.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讙讜讚专讬转讗 讚拽谞讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讙讜讚专讬转讗 讚拽谞讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讛讬讛 砖诐 讙讚专 讗讜 讗讬诇谉 讗讜 讞讬爪转 讛拽谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬讜诪讚 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讜讚专讬转讗 讚拽谞讬

The Gemara cites an alternative version of the previous discussion: There are some who say that the question was posed differently, and the dilemma Abaye raised before Rabba was about whether or not a dense thicket of reeds can serve as a double post. Rabba said to him: We already learned this law in the following baraita: If a tree, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds was present, it can serve as a double post. Does this not refer to a thicket of reeds?

诇讗 拽谞讛 拽谞讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讚专

The Gemara refutes this: No, it may perhaps refer to a barrier of reeds where each reed is less than three handbreadths apart from the next. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, it is exactly a fence.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讙讜讚专讬转讗 讚拽谞讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讬诇谉 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument: What, then? Would you say that the baraita refers to a thicket of reeds? If so, this is a tree. Rather, what must you say is

Scroll To Top