Eruvin 19
לְמַטָּעֵי כָרֶם״.
for planting vines” (Micah 1:6), which benefits all the surrounding inhabitants.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִדַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וְדָם. מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם, מִתְחַיֵּיב אָדָם הֲרִיגָה לַמַּלְכוּת — מְטִילִין לוֹ חַכָּה לְתוֹךְ פִּיו כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְקַלֵּל אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ.
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.
מִדַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אָדָם מִתְחַיֵּיב הֲרִיגָה לַמָּקוֹם — שׁוֹתֵק, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְךָ דוּמִיָּה תְהִלָּה״, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּשַׁבֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תְּהִלָּה״. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁדּוֹמֶה לוֹ כְּאִילּוּ מַקְרִיב קׇרְבָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְךָ יְשׁוּלַּם נֶדֶר״.
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: “For You silence is praise, O God in Zion, and to You shall the vow be performed” (Psalms 65:2). And what is more, he praises God for his sufferings, as it is stated: “Praise.” And what is more, it appears to him as though he were offering a sacrifice in atonement for his sin, as it is stated: “And to You shall the vow be performed.”
הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״עוֹבְרֵי בְּעֵמֶק הַבָּכָא מַעְיָן יְשִׁיתוּהוּ גַּם בְּרָכוֹת יַעְטֶה מוֹרֶה״.
And this is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Those who pass through the valley of weeping turn it into a water spring; moreover, the early rain covers it with blessings” (Psalms 84:7)?
״עוֹבְרֵי״ — אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁעוֹבְרִין עַל רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. ״עֵמֶק״ — שֶׁמַּעֲמִיקִין לָהֶם גֵּיהִנָּם. ״הַבָּכָא״ — שֶׁבּוֹכִין וּמוֹרִידִין דְּמָעוֹת כְּמַעְיָין שֶׁל שִׁיתִין. ״גַּם בְּרָכוֹת יַעְטֶה מוֹרֶה״ — שֶׁמַּצְדִּיקִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַדִּין, וְאוֹמְרִים לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, יָפֶה דַּנְתָּ, יָפֶה זִכֵּיתָ, יָפֶה חִיַּיבְתָּ, וְיָפֶה תִּקַּנְתָּ גֵּיהִנָּם לָרְשָׁעִים גַּן עֵדֶן לַצַּדִּיקִים.
“Those who pass through [overei],” these are people who transgress [overin] the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He. “Valley [emek]” indicates that their punishment is that Gehenna is deepened [ma’amikin] for them. “Of weeping [bakha]” and “turn it into a water spring [ma’ayan yeshituhu],” indicates that they weep [bokhin] and make tears flow like a spring [ma’ayan] of the foundations [shitin], meaning like a spring that descends to the foundations of the earth. “Moreover, the early rain covers it with blessings,” indicates that they accept the justice of God’s 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.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: רְשָׁעִים אֲפִילּוּ עַל פִּתְחוֹ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם אֵינָם חוֹזְרִין בִּתְשׁוּבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָצְאוּ וְרָאוּ בְּפִגְרֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הַפּוֹשְׁעִים בִּי וְגוֹ׳״, ״שֶׁפָּשְׁעוּ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״הַפּוֹשְׁעִים״ — שֶׁפּוֹשְׁעִים וְהוֹלְכִין לְעוֹלָם!
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say: The wicked do not repent, even at the entrance to Gehenna, as it is stated: “And 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” (Isaiah 66:24)? The verse does not say: Who rebelled, but rather: “Who rebel,” in the present tense, meaning they continue rebelling forever.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּפוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, הָא — בְּפוֹשְׁעֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, i.e., where it is said that they accept God’s 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.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִם כֵּן קַשְׁיָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין אוּר גֵּיהִנָּם שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶן, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמִּזְבַּח הַזָּהָב.
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.
מָה מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב, שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו אֶלָּא כְּעוֹבִי דִּינַר זָהָב, עָמַד כַּמָּה שָׁנִים וְלֹא שָׁלְטָה בּוֹ הָאוּר. פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁמְּלֵיאִין מִצְוֹת כְּרִמּוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כְּפֶלַח הָרִמּוֹן רַקָּתֵךְ״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״רַקָּתֵךְ״ אֶלָּא ״רֵיקָתֵיךְ״, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ רֵיקָנִין שֶׁבָּךְ מְלֵיאִין מִצְוֹת כְּרִמּוֹן — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
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: “Your temples [rakatekh] are like a split pomegranate behind your veil” (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.
אֶלָּא הָא דִּכְתִיב: ״עוֹבְרֵי בְּעֵמֶק הַבָּכָא״, הָהוּא דִּמְחַיְּיבִי הָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא בְּגֵיהִנָּם, וְאָתֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וּמַסֵּיק לְהוּ וּמְקַבֵּל לְהוּ. בַּר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּא עַל הַגּוֹיָה, דְּמָשְׁכָה עׇרְלָתוֹ וְלָא מְבַשְׁקַר לֵיהּ.
However, that which is written: “Those who pass through the valley of weeping” (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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״הַפּוֹשְׁעִים״ — דְּפָשְׁעִי וְאָזְלִי, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה דִּכְתִיב ״הַמּוֹצִיא״ וְ״הַמַּעֲלֶה״ — דְּמַסֵּיק וּדְמַפֵּיק הוּא?! אֶלָּא דְּאַסֵּיק וְאַפֵּיק, הָכִי נָמֵי — דְּפָשְׁעִי הוּא.
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: “He Who brings out” (see Exodus 6:7) and “He Who raises up” 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.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה (בַּר) אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁלֹשָׁה פְּתָחִים יֵשׁ לַגֵּיהִנָּם, אֶחָד בַּמִּדְבָּר וְאֶחָד בַּיָּם וְאֶחָד בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. בַּמִּדְבָּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּרְדוּ הֵם וְכׇל אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם חַיִּים שְׁאוֹלָה״.
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: “And they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit [She’ol], and the earth closed upon them, and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33).
בַּיָּם, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִבֶּטֶן שְׁאוֹל שִׁוַּעְתִּי שָׁמַעְתָּ קוֹלִי״.
In the sea there is a second entrance to Gehenna, as it is written about Jonah in the fish’s belly: “Out of the belly of the netherworld [She’ol] I cried, and You did hear my voice” (Jonah 2:3).
בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״נְאֻם ה׳ אֲשֶׁר אוּר לוֹ בְּצִיּוֹן וְתַנּוּר לוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלִָים״. וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״אֲשֶׁר אוּר לוֹ בְּצִיּוֹן״ — זוֹ גֵּיהִנָּם, ״וְתַנּוּר לוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם״ — זוֹ פִּתְחָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם.
And there is a third entrance to Gehenna in Jerusalem, as it is written: “Says the Lord, Whose fire is in Zion, and Whose furnace is in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 31:9). And it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: “Whose fire is in Zion,” this is Gehenna; and “Whose furnace is in Jerusalem,” this is an entrance to Gehenna.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי מָרִיּוֹן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ תָּנָא רַבָּה בַּר מָרִיּוֹן בִּדְבֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: שְׁתֵּי תְמָרוֹת יֵשׁ בְּגֵי בֶּן הִנּוֹם וְעוֹלֶה עָשָׁן מִבֵּינֵיהֶן, וְזוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: צִינֵי הַר הַבַּרְזֶל כְּשֵׁירוֹת, וְזוֹ הִיא פִּתְחָהּ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנָּם! — דִּילְמָא הַיְינוּ דִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
The Gemara asks: Are there no more entrances? Didn’t 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 Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: שִׁבְעָה שֵׁמוֹת יֵשׁ לְגֵיהִנָּם, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: שְׁאוֹל, וַאֲבַדּוֹן, וּבְאֵר שַׁחַת, וּבוֹר שָׁאוֹן, וְטִיט הַיָּוֵן, וְצַלְמָוֶת, וְאֶרֶץ הַתַּחְתִּית.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Gehenna has seven names, and they are as follows: She’ol, Avadon, Be’er Shaḥat, Bor Shaon, Tit HaYaven, Tzalmavet, and Eretz HaTaḥtit.
שְׁאוֹל, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִבֶּטֶן שְׁאוֹל שִׁוַּעְתִּי שָׁמַעְתָּ קוֹלִי״. אֲבַדּוֹן, דִּכְתִיב: ״הַיְסוּפַּר בַּקֶּבֶר חַסְדֶּךָ אֱמוּנָתְךָ בָּאֲבַדּוֹן״. בְּאֵר שַׁחַת, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא תַעֲזוֹב נַפְשִׁי לִשְׁאוֹל לֹא תִתֵּן חֲסִידְךָ לִרְאוֹת שָׁחַת״. וּבוֹר שָׁאוֹן וָטִיט הַיָּוֵן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲלֵנִי מִבּוֹר שָׁאוֹן מִטִּיט הַיָּוֵן״. וְצַלְמָוֶת, דִּכְתִיב: ״יוֹשְׁבֵי חוֹשֶׁךְ וְצַלְמָוֶת״. ״וְאֶרֶץ הַתַּחְתִּית״ — גְּמָרָא הוּא.
She’ol, as it is written: “Out of the belly of the netherworld [she’ol] I cried and You did hear my voice” (Jonah 2:3). Avadon, as it is written: “Shall Your steadfast love be reported in the grave or Your faithfulness in destruction [avadon]?” (Psalms 88:12). Be’er Shaḥat, as it is written: “For You will not abandon my soul to the netherworld; nor will You suffer Your pious one to see the pit [shaḥat]” (Psalms 16:10). And Bor Shaon and Tit HaYaven, as it is written: “He brought me up also out of the gruesome pit [bor shaon], out of the miry clay [tit hayaven]” (Psalms 40:3). And Tzalmavet, as it is written: “Such as sat in darkness and in the shadow of death [tzalmavet], bound in affliction and iron” (Psalms 107:10). And with regard to Eretz Taḥtit, i.e., the underworld, it is known by tradition that this is its name.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא ״גֵּיהִנָּם״! — גֵּיא שֶׁעֲמוּקָּה (בְּגֵיהִנָּם), שֶׁהַכֹּל יוֹרֵד לָהּ עַל עִסְקֵי הִנָּם.
The Gemara poses a question: Are there no more names? Isn’t 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 ḥinnam, meaning for naught.
וְהָאִיכָּא ״תׇּפְתֶּה״, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי עָרוּךְ מֵאֶתְמוּל תׇּפְתֶּה״, הָהוּא שֶׁכׇּל הַמִּתְפַּתֶּה בְּיִצְרוֹ יִפּוֹל שָׁם.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t there also the name Tofte, as it is written: “For its hearth [tofte] is ordained of old” (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.
גַּן עֵדֶן. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אִם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא — בֵּית שְׁאָן פִּתְחוֹ, וְאִם בַּעֲרַבְיָא — בֵּית גֶּרֶם פִּתְחוֹ, וְאִם בֵּין הַנְּהָרוֹת הוּא — דּוּמַסְקְנִין פִּתְחוֹ. בְּבָבֶל — אַבָּיֵי מִשְׁתַּבַּח בְּפֵירֵי דְּמַעֲבַר יַמִּינָא, רָבָא מִשְׁתַּבַּח בְּפֵירֵי דְהַרְפַּנְיָא.
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’an, 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.
וּבֵינֵיהֶן כִּמְלוֹא שְׁתֵּי וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא, כֵּיוָן דִּתְנָא לֵיהּ דִּקְשׁוּרוֹת הָווּ — אֲנַן יָדְעִינַן דְּלָא הָווּ מוּתָּרוֹת!
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.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: קְשׁוּרוֹת — כְּעֵין קְשׁוּרוֹת, אֲבָל מַמָּשׁ לָא — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן וְלֹא מוּתָּרוֹת.
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.
אַחַת נִכְנֶסֶת וְאַחַת יוֹצֵאת. תָּנָא: רִבְקָה נִכְנֶסֶת וְרִבְקָה יוֹצֵאת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כַּמָּה רֹאשָׁהּ וְרוּבָּהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה — שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת, וְכַמָּה עוֹבְיָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה — אַמָּה וּשְׁנֵי שְׁלִישֵׁי אַמָּה.
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,
שֶׁהֵן כְּעֶשֶׂר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה וּכְאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה.
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.
״כְּעֶשֶׂר״? הָא עֶשֶׂר הָוְיָין! מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא ״כִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה״.
The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the baraita say: Approximately ten cubits in Rabbi Meir’s statement? Isn’t it exactly ten cubits? The Gemara answers: Since he wanted to teach: Approximately thirteen, in the last clause, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, he therefore also taught: Approximately ten, in the first clause.
״כִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה״ — טְפֵי הָוְיָין? מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי לְמִתְנֵי ״כְּאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה״. ״וּכְאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה״ — הָא לָא הָוְיָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: יְתֵירוֹת עַל שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה, וְאֵינָן מַגִּיעוֹת לְאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה.
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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּבוֹר שְׁמוֹנֶה דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא בָּעִינַן פְּשׁוּטִין.
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.
בְּבוֹר שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָעֵינַן פְּשׁוּטִין.
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.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי — מִשְּׁמוֹנֶה עַד שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בָּעִינַן פְּשׁוּטִין. לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא בָּעִינַן פְּשׁוּטִין.
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.
וְרַב פָּפָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא?!
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.
רַב פָּפָּא בָּרָיְיתָא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ, וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כְּבָרַיְיתָא.
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.
אֲרִיךְ יוֹתֵר בְּתֵל חִיצַת חָצֵר שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה סִימָן. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: הֶאֱרִיךְ בִּדְיוֹמְדִין כְּשִׁיעוּר פְּשׁוּטִין, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מַהוּ?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין״. מַאי לָאו דְּמַאֲרִיךְ בִּדְיוֹמְדִין? לָא, דְּמַפֵּישׁ וְעָבֵיד פְּשׁוּטִין.
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.
אִי הָכִי, הַאי ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין״, ״עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה פַּסִּין״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי ״עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה פַּסִּין״.
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.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין״. מַאי לָאו דְּמַפֵּישׁ וְעָבֵיד פְּשׁוּטִין? לָא, דְּמַאֲרִיךְ בִּדְיוֹמְדִין.
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.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה וּשְׁלִישׁ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַהוּ? פְּשׁוּטִין עָבֵיד, אוֹ בִּדְיוֹמְדִין מַאֲרֵיךְ?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ. כַּמָּה הֵן מְקוֹרָבִין — כְּדֵי רֹאשָׁהּ וְרוּבָּהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה. וְכַמָּה מְרוּחָקִין — אֲפִילּוּ כּוֹר וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוֹרַיִים.
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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בֵּית סָאתַיִם מוּתָּר, יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם אָסוּר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה בְּדִיר וְסַהַר וּמוּקְצֶה וְחָצֵר, אֲפִילּוּ בַּת חֲמֵשֶׁת כּוֹרִים וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּת עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִים שֶׁמּוּתָּר?
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: Up to an area of two beit se’a, 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’a 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?
אָמַר לָהֶן: זוֹ מְחִיצָה, וְאֵלּוּ פַּסִּין.
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.
וְאִם אִיתָא, זוֹ מְחִיצָה וְזוֹ הִיא מְחִיצָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
The Gemara asks with regard to Rabba’s 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.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: זוֹ תּוֹרַת מְחִיצָה עָלֶיהָ — וּפִרְצוֹתֶיהָ בְּעֶשֶׂר, וְאֵלּוּ תּוֹרַת פַּסִּין עֲלֵיהֶן — וּפִרְצוֹתֵיהֶן בִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה וּשְׁלִישׁ.
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’a can be enclosed in this manner. Therefore, no proof can be brought from this baraita to Abaye’s dilemma.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: תֵּל הַמִּתְלַקֵּט עֲשָׂרָה מִתּוֹךְ אַרְבַּע, נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד אוֹ אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הָיְתָה שָׁם אֶבֶן מְרוּבַּעַת רוֹאִין, כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ תְּחַלֵּק וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ אַמָּה לְכָאן וְאַמָּה לְכָאן נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד, וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד.
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.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: הָיְתָה שָׁם אֶבֶן עֲגוּלָּה, רוֹאִין כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ תֵּחָקֵק וְתֵחָלֵק וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ אַמָּה לְכָאן וְאַמָּה לְכָאן — נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד, וְאִם לָאו — אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד.
Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: חַד רוֹאִין אָמְרִינַן, תְּרֵי רוֹאִין לָא אָמְרִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ תְּרֵי רוֹאִין נָמֵי אָמְרִינַן.
With regard to the baraita itself, the Gemara asks: With regard to what do these two tanna’im 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 Yoḥanan 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.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: חִיצַת הַקָּנִים קָנֶה קָנֶה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד אוֹ לָאו?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הָיָה שָׁם אִילָן אוֹ גָּדֵר אוֹ חִיצַת הַקָּנִים נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד. מַאי לָאו, קָנֶה קָנֶה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה?
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?
לָא, גּוּדְרְיָתָא דִּקְנֵי. אִי הָכִי — הַיְינוּ אִילָן.
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.
וְאֶלָּא מַאי: קָנֶה קָנֶה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה — הַיְינוּ גָּדֵר! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר, תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי גָּדֵר? הָכָא נָמֵי — תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי אִילָן.
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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: גּוּדְרְיָתָא דִּקְנֵי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ. גּוּדְרְיָתָא דִּקְנֵי מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הָיָה שָׁם גָּדֵר אוֹ אִילָן אוֹ חִיצַת הַקָּנִים נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד. מַאי לָאו, גּוּדְרְיָתָא דִּקְנֵי?
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?
לָא, קָנָה קָנֶה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ גָּדֵר!
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.
וְאֶלָּא מַאי: גּוּדְרְיָתָא דִּקְנֵי — הַיְינוּ אִילָן! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר,
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
