Eruvin 185

סיכך על גבי אכסדרה שיש לה פצימין כשירה ואילו השוה פצימיה פסולה

If an exedra<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With two walls in the shape of an " l"="" (v.="" tosaf.="" a.l.="" contra="" rashi)="" .');"="">¹</span> that had side-posts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the width of a handbreadth, attached to the end of either wall.');">²</span> was covered with boughs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or similar materials suitable for a sukkah roof.');">³</span> it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since either post nay be deemed to be extended horizontally and to form a third wall.');">⁴</span>

א"ל אביי לדידי כשירה לדידך סילוק מחיצות היא

is valid as a sukkah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suk. 18a.');">⁵</span> but if its side-posts had been straightened,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By putting up walls that covered them (cf. diagram supra mut. mut.) so that only two walls remained.');">⁶</span> it would have been invalid, would it not? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is another case where a partition is the cause of a prohibition,');">⁷</span> 'According to my view, Abaye replied: 'it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the absence or concealment of the side-posts.');">⁸</span>

א"ל רבה בר רב חנן לאביי ולא מצינו מחיצה לאיסור והתניא בית שחציו מקורה וחציו אינו מקורה גפנים כאן מותר לזרוע כאן

is still valid, while according to your view it is a case of the removal of' partitions'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 5 mut. mut.');">¹⁰</span> Said Rabbah B'R'Hanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS. M., Raba b. R. Hanin.');">¹¹</span> to Abaye: Do we not find elsewhere that a partition may be the cause of a prohibition? Was it not in fact taught: If a house was half covered with a roof while its other half was uncovered, it is permissible to sow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Immediately outside the covered section.');">¹²</span>

ואילו השוה את קרויו אסור א"ל התם סילוק מחיצות הוא

in the uncovered part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'; because the edge of the roof is deemed to descend downwards and form a partition between the covered and uncovered sections of the house.');">¹³</span> though vines grew in the covered part;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 641, n. 18.');">¹⁴</span> but if all the house had been equally covered with a roof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he made his roof covering equal'.');">¹⁵</span> would not this have been forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is another case where a partition is the cause of a prohibition.');">¹⁶</span>

שלח ליה רבא לאביי ביד רב שמעיה בר זעירא ולא מצינו מחיצה לאיסור והתניא יש במחיצות הכרם להקל ולהחמיר כיצד כרם הנטוע עד עיקר מחיצה זורע מעיקר מחיצה ואילך שאילו אין שם מחיצה מרחיק ד"א וזורע וזה הוא מחיצות הכרם להקל

- There, the other replied: It is a case of the removal of partitions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The extension of the roof removes the virtual partition formed (cf. supra n. 2) by the edge of the half of the roof.');">¹⁷</span> Raba sent to Abaye by the hand of R'Shemaiah B'Ze'ira [the following message]: 'Do we not find a partition to be the cause of a prohibition? Was it not in fact taught: partitions in a vineyard may be either th cause of a relaxation of the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of kil'ayim.');">¹⁸</span> or one of a restriction of it.

ולהחמיר כיצד היה משוך מן הכותל י"א אמה לא יביא זרע לשם שאילמלי אין מחיצה מרחיק ד"א וזורע וזוהי מחיצות הכרם להחמיר

In what manner? If the plantation of a vineyar stretched to the 'very foundation of a fence one may sow from the very foundations of that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On its other side.');">¹⁹</span> fence and beyond it; whereas in the absence of a partition one may sow only at a distance of four cubits;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the vineyard. Lit., 'causes it to be four cubits far and sows'.');">²⁰</span> and this is an example of a partition in a vineyard that is the cause of a legal relaxation.

א"ל וליטעמיך אותבן ממתניתין דתנן קרחת הכרם ב"ש אומרים כ"ד אמות וב"ה אומרים ט"ז אמה מחול הכרם ב"ש אומרים ט"ז אמה וב"ה אומרים י"ב אמה

In what manner are they a cause of legal restriction? If a vineyard was removed eleven cubits from a wall no seed may be sown in the intervening space;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'shall not bring seed there'.');">²¹</span> whereas in the absence of a wall one may sow at a distance of four cubits;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the vineyard. Lit., 'causes it to be four cubits far and sows'.');">²⁰</span> and this is an example of a partition in a vineyard that is the cause of a legal restriction? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is another case where a partition is the cause of a prohibition.');">¹⁶</span>

ואיזו היא קרחת הכרם כרם שחרב אמצעיתו אם אין שם ט"ז אמה לא יביא זרע לשם היו שם ט"ז אמה נותן לו כדי עבודתו וזורע את המותר

- 'According to your view, however, the other replied: 'might you not raise an objection against me from a Mishnah, since we learned: A patch in a vineyard, Beth Shammai ruled, must measure no less than twenty-four cubits, and Beth Hillel ruled: Sixteen cubits; and the width of an uncultivated border of a vineyard, Beth Shammai ruled, must measure no less than sixteen cubits, and Beth Hillel ruled: Twelve cubits. And what is meant by a patch in a vineyard? The barren portion of the interior of the vineyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a vineyard whose middle was destroyed'.');">²²</span> If its sides do not measure sixteen cubits no seed may be sown there, but if they do measure sixteen cubits, sufficient space for the tillage of the vineyard is allowed and the remaining space may be sown.

אי זו היא מחול הכרם בין הכרם לגדר שאם אין שם י"ב אמה לא יביא זרע לשם היו שם י"ב אמה נותן לו כדי עבודתו וזורע את המותר

What is meant by the uncultivated border of a vineyard? The space between the actual vineyard and the surrounding fence. If the width is less than twelve cubits no seed may be sown there, but if it measures twelve cubits, sufficient space for the tillage of the vineyard is allowed and the remaining area may be sown'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kil. IV, 1; supra 3b q.v. notes. Now the ruling 'If the width (between the vineyard and the wall) is less than twelve cubits no seed may be sown there' proves that a partition may be the cause of a restriction,. Why then did not Raba raise his objection on the basis of this ruling that has the authority of a Mishnah and is much superior to that of a Baraitha on which his objection is based?');">²³</span> Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Raba did not cite this Mishnah in support of his objection.');">²⁴</span>

אלא התם לאו היינו טעמא דכל ד"א לגבי כרם עבודת הכרם לגבי גדר כיון דלא מזדרען אפקורי מפקר להו דביני ביני אי איכא ד' חשיבן ואי לא לא חשיבן

it must be assumed that the reason there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why no seed may be sown if the distance between the vineyard and the wall is less than twelve cubits.');">²⁵</span> is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but is not there this the reason'.');">²⁶</span> that all the space to the extent of four cubits that adjoins the vineyard is allotted for the tillage of th vineyard, and a similar space that adjoins the wall, since it cannot be sown,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sowing of seed near a wall undermining its foundations (cf. B.B. 19a) .');">²⁷</span> is renounced<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By its owner, as useless for cultivation.');">²⁸</span>

אמר רב יהודה ג' קרפיפות זה בצד זה ושנים החיצונים מגופפים והאמצעי אינו מגופף ויחיד בזה ויחיד בזה נעשה כשיירא ונותנין להן כל צורכן ודאי

so that the area intervening,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the four cubits for tillage on the side of the vineyard and the four cubits waste on the side of the wall.');">²⁹</span> if it measures four cubits,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The total distance between the vineyard and the wall would consequently be (cf. prev. n.) 4 + 4 + 4 = 12 cubits.');">³⁰</span> is deemed to be of sufficient importance, but not otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and if not they are not important'. As this Mishnah provides no basis for Raba's objection so does not the Baraitha which may be similarly explained.');">³¹</span> Rab Judah said: If three karpafs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose enclosure consisted of no proper fence (plaited lengthwise and crosswise) but of ropes drawn horizontally or reeds fixed in the ground vertically.');">³²</span>

אמצעי מגופף ושנים החיצונים אינן מגופפין ויחיד בזה ויחיד זה [ויחיד בזה] אין נותנין להם אלא בית שש

adjoined one another, and the two outer ones had projections<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. each one was wider than the middle karpaf and projected on both sides of the line of contact, so that the projections formed a sort of frame the space between which is regarded as a doorway to it.');">³³</span> while the middle one had none<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they were situated, for instance, in the following formation.');">³⁴</span> and one man occupied each,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marg. glos.');">³⁵</span> the group<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the three men, two of whom, on account of the bigger size of their karpafs, influence the rights of the third man in the middle one and who may, therefore, be deemed to be joint occupiers with him of that karpaf.');">³⁶</span>

איבעיא להו אחד בזה ואחד בזה ושנים באמצעי מהו אי להכא נפקי תלתא הוו ואי להכא נפקי תלתא הוו

is treated as a caravan who are allowed as much space as they require.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Certainly' of cur. edd. is deleted with Bah.');">³⁷</span> If the middle one had projections<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf supra p. 643, n. 11. mut. mut.');">³⁸</span> while the two outer ones had none<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The karpafs having been situated with the largest in the middle and flanked on both of its sides by a smaller one.');">³⁹</span> and one man occupied each, the three men together<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the man of the middle karpaf, which is bigger than those occupied by the other two men and which has virtual doorways opening towards them, now has the influence over the others, in consequence of which the latter cannot be treated as the occupiers off his karpaf to form with him a joint group of three (the minimum required to constitute a caravan) , while he himself, despite his influence on the two, can only be regarded as the occupier of the one or the other of the outer karpafs so that no more than two men (a number less than the minimum required for a caravan) ever occupy any one of the karpafs.');">⁴⁰</span>

או דילמא חד להכא נפיק וחד להכא נפיק

are allowed no more space<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they are only given'.');">⁴¹</span> than six [beth se'ah].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two beth se'ah for each. If either of the outer karpafs is bigger than two beth se'ah the occupier's use of it is restricted; but if the middle one is bigger than two beth se'ah the use of all the three karpafs is restricted since each of the two side ones is now fully exposed on one of its sides to the restricted domain of the middle karpaf');">⁴²</span> The question was raised: What is the ruling where one person occupied each of the outer karpafs and two occupied the middle one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one in this and one in this and two in the middle one', which was bigger than the others and which, owing to its projections on either side of each, is deemed to be provided with a doorway and to have influence over them.');">⁴³</span> Is it held that if these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two occupiers of the middle karpaf');">⁴⁴</span>

ואם תימצי לומר חד להכא נפיק וחד להכא נפיק שנים בזה ושנים בזה ואחד באמצעי מהו הכא ודאי אי להכא נפיק תלתא הוו ואי להכא נפיק תלתא הוו או דילמא אימר להכא נפיק ואימר להכא נפיק

were to go<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they are well entitled to do on account of the size and position of their karpaf');">⁴⁵</span> to the one karpaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to here', to one of the side karpafs that were each occupied by one man.');">⁴⁶</span> there would be in it three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Occupiers, in consequence of which they constitute a caravan and are, therefore, entitled to as much space as they require.');">⁴⁷</span> and if they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two occupiers of the middle karpaf');">⁴⁴</span>

והלכתא בעיין לקולא

were to go to the other karpaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to here', to one of the side karpafs that were each occupied by one man.');">⁴⁶</span> there would be in it three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Occupiers, in consequence of which they constitute a caravan and are, therefore, entitled to as much space as they require.');">⁴⁷</span> , or is it rather held th only one of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, in order to avoid being in each other's way, the two are not likely to use the same karpaf at the same time.');">⁴⁸</span> is deemed to be going to each karpaf?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'or perhaps one goes there' (repeat) ; and the restriction of the size to two beth se'ah, therefore, remains.');">⁴⁹</span>

אמר רב חסדא

And were you to find Some ground for the assumption that only one of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 644, 11. 12.');">⁵⁰</span> is deemed to be going to each karpaf,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n');">⁵¹</span> the question arises: What is the decision where two persons occupied each of the outer karpafs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 644, n. 7.');">⁵²</span> and only one occupied the middle one? Is it certain that the view is here: If he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The occupant of the middle karpaf.');">⁵³</span> were to go to the one karpaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 644, n. 10.');">⁵⁴</span> there would be in it three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 644, n. 11.');">⁵⁵</span> and if he were to go to the other karpaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 644, n. 10.');">⁵⁴</span> there would be in it three,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 644, n. 11.');">⁵⁵</span> or is the view rather that it is doubtful in whic direction he would go?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I might say he would go towards here' (repeated) ; and since It is uncertain which karpaf he would use the size of both remains restricted to two beth se'ah.');">⁵⁶</span> The law is that in these questions the more lenient rule is adopted. R'Hisda said: