Commentary for Eruvin 31:18

אימא סיפא כל שהוא שלשה ומשלשה ועד ארבעה

- He can answer you: According to your line of reasoning [how will you] explain the final clause, 'If, however, the standing parts exceeded the gaps it is permitted [to sow seed] over against the gaps also', from which it follows that if it was equal to the gaps, [sowing] is forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with the ruling of R. Huna son of R. Joshua and contrary to that of R. Papa.');">²³</span> Now then, the final clause is a contradiction to the ruling of R'Papa and the first one to that of R'Huna son of R'Joshua? - The final clause is really no contradiction to the ruling of R'Papa for, since the Tanna used the expression, 'If the gaps exceeded the standing parts [it is forbidden]'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An expression which was essential for the inference that if the gaps equalled the standing parts it is permitted to sow even over against the gaps.');">²⁴</span> in the first clause, he used the expression, 'If the standing parts exceeded the gaps [it is permitted]' in the final clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an antithesis; although the ruling here was really unnecessary in view of the statement, 'The gaps shall not be equal to the standing parts', i.e., (as explained supra) the space through which the reeds can move freely to and fro, from which it follows that if the gaps and the standing parts are equal, and much more so if the latter exceed the former, this is permitted. As the final clause is this a mere antithesis, no inference from it may be drawn.');">²⁵</span> The first clause presents no contradiction against R'Huna the son of R'Joshua for, as it was desired to state in the final clause, 'If the standing parts exceeded the gaps [ is permitted]',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A statement necessary for the purpose of the inference: But if they were equal to the gaps this is forbidden.');">²⁶</span> it was also taught in the first clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a mere antithesis.');">²⁷</span> 'If the gaps exceeded the standing parts [it is forbidden]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it was superfluous in view of the ruling that this is forbidden even where they were equal to the standing parts.');">²⁸</span> According to R'Papa<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who recognizes the validity of a fence where gaps and standing parts are equal.');">²⁹</span> it is quite well, for this reason,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. previous note.');">³⁰</span> that the two cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reeds of (i) less than three and (ii) of three handbreadths.');">³¹</span> were not included in one statement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he does not mix them and teach them', as, for instance, 'Wherever (the width of a reed is) three, or less than three, handbreadths it is necessary that the gap between any two reeds shall be less than three handbreadths'. Such a statement would be wrong since in the latter case');">³²</span> According to R'Huna son of R'Joshua,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does not recognize the validity of a fence where its gaps and standing parts are equal.');">³³</span> however, why should not the two cases be included in one statement thus:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'let him mix them and teach them'.');">³⁴</span> Wherever [the width of a reed is] less than three, or [as much as] three, handbreadths it is necessary that [the gap] between any two reeds shall be less than three handbreadths? - Because the cause of the restriction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'disqualification', 'invalidity'.');">³⁵</span> in the first clause is not like that in the second clause. The cause of t restriction in the first clause is that a kid shall not be able to leap headlong [through the gap]; while [the cause of] the restriction in the final clause is that the gaps shall not be equal to the standing parts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the reasons are different the two rulings could not be joined into one statement.');">³⁶</span> Whose [view is expressed in the principle that the gap must be] less than three handbreadths? [Is it not] that of the Rabbis who laid down that [to a gap of] less than three handbreadths the law of labud<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³⁷</span> is applied but that to one of three handbreadths the law of labud is not applied?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently it is.');">³⁸</span> Read, however, the final clause: 'Where [the width of each reed is] three, or from three to four'.

Explore commentary for Eruvin 31:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.