Eruvin 22

Chapter 22

א פיאה מותרת לענין כלאים אבל לא לשבת ור' יוחנן אמר כמחיצות לשבת דלא כך מחיצות לכלאים דלא
1 A plait [of rods trained on poles] is a valid partition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'permitted'.');"><sup>1</sup></span> in respect of kil'ayim but not in respect of the Sabbath; and R'Johanan stated: As it has no [validity as regards] partitions in connection with the Sabbath, so it has no [validity in respect of] partitions in connection with kil'ayim. One might well concede that there is really no incongruity between the two rulings of Resh Lakish, since the former might be his own while the latter might be that of his Master;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that his own; that of his Master', R. Judah son of R. Hanina.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב בשלמא דריש לקיש אדר"ל לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה אלא דרבי יוחנן אדר' יוחנן קשיא
2 but do not the two rulings of R'Johanan represent a contradiction? [Still] if you were to concede that there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first case of kil'ayim cited supra 11a.');"><sup>3</sup></span> [the rods were placed] on the tops of the poles while here [the plait was trained] on the sides [all would be] well.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is the position of the rods or plait that determines the question of the validity of the partition in respect of kil'ayim. (The distance between the poles in both cases must, of course, be assumed to exceed that of ten cubits since in the case of a lesser distance, R. Johanan would have recognized the validity of the construction even in respect of the Sabbath) .');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אי אמרת בשלמא התם על גבן הכא מן הצד שפיר אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי מן הצד מאי איכא למימר
3 If, however, you maintain that in both cases [the rods were attached] sideways, what can be said [in explanation]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the contradiction between the two rulings of R. Johanan.');"><sup>5</sup></span> - The fact is that it may be maintained that both cases refer [to rods attached] sideways, but there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first case of kil'ayim cited supra 11a.');"><sup>3</sup></span> [the distance between the poles was] within that of ten cubits while here it exceeded that of ten cubits.
ד לעולם אידי ואידי מן הצד התם בעשר הכא ביותר מעשר
4 But whence is it derived that we draw a distinction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of kil'ayim, where a rod was attached to the sides of the poles.');"><sup>6</sup></span> between [distances of] ten, and more than ten cubits? - [From the following] which R'Johanan said to Resh Lakish.' Did it not so happen [the former said to the latter] that R'Joshua went to R'Johanan B'Nuri to study the Torah; and, though he was well versed in the laws of kil'ayim, on finding that [the Master] was sitting among the trees, he stretched a rod from one tree to another and said to him: Master, if vines were growing on one side of the rod<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ה ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין עשר ליותר מעשר דאמר ליה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש לא כך היה המעשה שהלך רבי יהושע אצל ר' יוחנן בן נורי ללמוד תורה אף על פי שבקי בהלכות כלאים ומצאו שיושב בין האילנות ומתח זמורה מאילן לאילן ואמר לו רבי אי גפנים כאן מהו לזרוע כאן אמר לו בעשר מותר ביותר מעשר אסור
5 would it be permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is it'.');"><sup>8</sup></span> to sow corn on the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'.');"><sup>9</sup></span> [And the Master] told him: [If the distance between the trees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which the rod was stretched.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו במאי עסקינן אילימא על גבן יותר מעשר אסור והתניא היו שם קנין הדוקרנין ועשה להן פיאה מלמעלה אפי' ביותר מעשר מותר
6 is] within that of ten cubits it is permitted but if it exceeds ten cubits it is forbidden? ' Now, wh was the case under discussion? If it be suggested: [one where the rod was placed] on the tops of the trees, [why was it ruled, it could be objected, that] 'if it exceeds ten cubits it is forbidden' seeing that it was tau If forked reeds were there and a plait was made above them it is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To grow vines and corn on either side in close proximity.');"><sup>11</sup></span> even [if the distance between the reeds] exceeded that of ten cubits?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Kil. IV, infra 16a.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ז אלא לאו מן הצד וקאמר ליה בעשר מותר יותר מעשר אסור שמע מינה:
7 Must it not consequently [be one where the rod was attached] sideways?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it must.');"><sup>13</sup></span> And yet he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan b. Nuri.');"><sup>14</sup></span> told him, '[If the distance between the trees is] within that of ten cubits it is permitted but if it exceeds ten cubits it is forbidden' - This proves it.
ח גופא אמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שעשאה מן הצד לא עשה ולא כלום
8 [Reverting to] the [previous] text, R'Hisda ruled that the shape of a doorway that was made [with the cross-reed attached] sideways is of no validity. R'Hisda further ruled: The shape of the doorway of which they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis who recognize the validity of such a construction.');"><sup>15</sup></span> spoke must be sufficiently strong to support<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to cause to make (to fix) in it'. t,ect');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ט ואמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שאמרו צריכה שתהא בריאה כדי להעמיד בה דלת ואפילו דלת של קשין
9 a door [made of the lightest material] even if only a door of straw. Resh Lakish ruled in the name of R'Jannai: The shape of a doorway must have a mark for a hinge. What [is meant by] 'a mark for a hinge'?
י אמר ריש לקיש משום ר' ינאי צורת הפתח צריכה היכר ציר מאי היכר ציר אמר רב אויא אבקתא
10 R'Awia replied: A loop.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which to insert the hook of the door (Rashi) . Jast. regards as a noun pl., 'loops', 'leather rings'.');"><sup>17</sup></span> R'Aha the son of R'Awia, met the students of R'Ashi. He asked them, 'Did the master say anything in respect of the shape of a doorway? ' 'He,' they replied to him, 'said nothing at all [about it]'.
יא אשכחינהו רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לתלמידי דרב אשי אמר להו אמר מר מידי בצורת הפתח אמרו ליה לא אמר ולא כלום
11 It was taught: The shape of a doorway of which they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis who recognize the validity of such a construction.');"><sup>15</sup></span> spoke must have a reed on either side and one reed above. Must [the side-reeds] touch [the upper one] or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 48, n. 10.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יב תנא צורת הפתח שאמרו קנה מכאן וקנה מכאן וקנה על גביהן צריכין ליגע או אין צריכין ליגע רב נחמן אמר אין צריכין ליגע ורב ששת אמר צריכין ליגע
12 - R'Nahman replied: They need not touch it, and R'Shesheth replied: They must touch it. R'Nahman proceeded to give a practical decision<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'did a deed'.');"><sup>19</sup></span> in the house of the Exilarch in agreement with his traditional ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By fixing reeds at distances of more than ten cubits from one another and suspending one reed above each pair he constructed a number of doorways round an area and declared it to be a permitted domain though the cross-reeds did not touch the side-reeds.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יג אזל רב נחמן ועבד עובדא בי ריש גלותא כשמעתיה א"ל רב ששת לשמעיה רב גדא זיל שלוף שדינהו אזל שלף שדינהו אשכחוהו דבי ריש גלותא חבשוהו אזל רב ששת קם אבבא א"ל גדא פוק תא נפק ואתא
13 Said R'Shesheth to his attendant, R'Gadda,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., Gaddal.');"><sup>21</sup></span> 'Go pull them out and throw them away'. He accordingly went there, pulled them out and threw them away.
יד אשכחיה רב ששת לרבה בר שמואל אמר ליה תני מר מידי בצורת הפתח א"ל אין תנינא כיפה ר"מ מחייב במזוזה וחכמים פוטרין ושוין שאם יש ברגליה עשרה שהיא חייבת
14 He was found, however, by the people of the Exilarch's household and they incarcerated him. R'Shesheth thereupon followed him and, standing at the door [of his place of confinement], called out to him, 'Gadda, come out', and he safely came out. R'Shesheth met Rabbah B'Samuel and asked him, 'Has the Master learnt anything about the shape of a doorway? ' - 'Yes', the other replied, 'we have learnt: An arched [doorway], said R'Meir, is subject to the obligation of a mezuzah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
טו אמר אביי הכל מודים אם גבוהה עשרה ואין ברגליה שלשה אי נמי יש ברגליה שלשה ואין גבוהה עשרה ולא כלום
15 but the Sages exempt it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A doorway is not subject to the obligation of a mezuzah unless it has a minimum width of four handbreadths while an arch obviously narrows down at the top to less than that width.');"><sup>23</sup></span> They agree, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and equal'.');"><sup>24</sup></span> that if its lower section<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in its feet', sc. the section of the side-posts between the extremities of the arch and the ground.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
טז כי פליגי ביש ברגליה ג' וגבוהה עשרה ואין רחבה ארבעה ויש בה לחוק להשלימה לארבעה
16 was ten handbreadths in height [the doorway] is subject to the obligation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yoma 11b; provided it was four handbreadths wide. Since the lower section alone, independent of the arch, was ten handbreadths in height by four in width, it constitutes a valid doorway. V. infra p. 70, n. 2. hhct');"><sup>26</sup></span> And Abaye<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So according to a reading quoted by Rashi s.v. a.l. Cur. edd. omit 'and'. V. infra p. 70, n. 2.');"><sup>27</sup></span> stated: All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Meir and the Rabbis.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
יז ר' מאיר סבר חוקקין להשלים ורבנן סברי אין חוקקין להשלים
17 agree that, if [an arched doorway] was ten handbreadths high but its lower section<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 4.');"><sup>29</sup></span> was less than<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and there is not'.');"><sup>30</sup></span> three [handbreadths in height], or even if the lower section was three [handbreadths high] but its total height was less than ten handbreadths, the doorway is not valid at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and nothing', and therefore, no mezuzah is required. In the former case, because (a) side-posts that are lower than three handbreadths, though four handbreadths apart, are regarded as the mere thickness of the ground beneath and (b) the remaining portion consisting of an arch is less than four handbreadths wide, so that no valid doorway exists; and in the latter case because the minimum height of a doorway must be ten cubits.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
יח א"ל אי משכחת להו לא תימא להו לבי ריש גלותא ולא מידי מהא מתניתא דכיפה:
18 They only differ where [the height of] its lower section was three handbreadths, its total height<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. its lower section together with the arch.');"><sup>32</sup></span> was ten cubits and the width [of its arch] was less than four handbreadths, but [its sides are wide enough for the arch] to be cut to a width<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to complete it'.');"><sup>33</sup></span> of four handbreadths.
יט <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הכשר מבוי ב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה וב"ה אומרים או לחי או קורה רבי אליעזר אומר לחיין
19 R'Meir is of the opinion [that the sides are regarded as] cut for the purpose of completing [the prescribed width], while the Rabbis maintain [that they are not regarded as] cut for the purpose of completing [the prescribed width].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this it follows that the detachment of a cross-reed from the side reeds (corresponding to the detachment of the ceiling from the side-posts by the altitude of the arch) does not affect the validity of the doorway. According to the reading of cur. edd. (v. supra p. 69, n. 6) this ,chhj inference is derived from the cited Baraitha independent of Abaye's interpretation (cf. Rashi s.v. a.l.) .');"><sup>34</sup></span> 'If you meet the people of the Exilarch's house', he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Shesheth.');"><sup>35</sup></span> said to him, 'tell them nothing whatever of the Baraitha about the arched doorway'.
כ משום ר' ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד לפני ר"ע לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה על מבוי שהוא פחות מארבע אמות שהוא ניתר או בלחי או בקורה על מה נחלקו על רחב מארבע אמות ועד עשר שב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה וב"ה אומרים או לחי או קורה א"ר עקיבא על זה ועל זה נחלקו:
20 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE RENDERING OF AN ALLEY FIT [FOR THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS WITHIN IT ON THE SABBATH], BETH SHAMMAI RULED, REQUIRES A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spanning the entrance to the alley.');"><sup>36</sup></span> AND BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. R'ELIEZER RULED: TWO SIDE-POSTS.
כא <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> כמאן דלא כחנניה ולא כתנא קמא
21 A DISCIPLE IN THE NAME OF R'ISHMAEL, STATED IN THE PRESENCE OF R'AKIBA: BETH SHAMMAI AND BETH HILLEL DID NOT DIFFER ON [THE RULING THAT] AN ALLEY THAT WAS LESS THAN FOUR CUBITS [IN WIDTH]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At its entrance.');"><sup>37</sup></span> MAY BE CONVERTED INTO A PERMITTED DOMAIN EITHER BY MEANS OF A SIDE-POST OR BY THAT OF A BEAM. THEY ONLY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'concerning what'.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
כב אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר הכשר מבוי סתום כיצד ב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה וב"ה אומרים או לחי או קורה
22 DIFFER IN THE CASE OF ONE THAT WAS WIDER THAN FOUR, AND NARROWER THAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and until'.');"><sup>39</sup></span> TEN CUBITS, IN RESPECT OF WHICH BETH SHAMMAI RULED: BOTH A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM [ARE REQUIRED] WHILE BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. R'AKIBA MAINTAINED THAT THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.');"><sup>40</sup></span>
כג ב"ש אומרים לחי וקורה למימרא דקא סברי ב"ש ארבע מחיצות דאורייתא
23 DIFFERED IN BOTH CASES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'concerning this and concerning this', whether the entrance was less or more than four cubits in width.');"><sup>41</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>In accordance with whose [view was our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is now presumed to deal with an alley that opened out on two sides to a public domain.');"><sup>42</sup></span> taught]?
כד לא לזרוק משלש הוא דמיחייב לטלטל עד דאיכא ארבע
24 Is it in agreement neither with the view of Hanania nor with that of the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 6a.');"><sup>43</sup></span> - Rab Judah replied: It is this that was meant: How is a blind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'closed'.');"><sup>44</sup></span> ALLEY RENDERED FIT [FOR THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS WITHIN IT ON THE SABBATH]?
כה ב"ה אומרים או לחי או קורה לימא קא סברי ב"ה שלש מחיצות דאורייתא
25 BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [By the construction of] A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM AND BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM. Does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The requirement of a side-post as well as a cross-beam which jointly constitute a proper partition.');"><sup>45</sup></span>
כו לא לזרוק משתים הוא דמיחייב לטלטל עד דאיכא שלש:
26 then imply that Beth Shammai hold the opinion that Pentateuchally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. by oral tradition from Moses, and not merely by Rabbinic law.');"><sup>46</sup></span> four partitions [and no less, constitute a private domain]? - No; as regards throwing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');"><sup>47</sup></span> [into it from a public domain] one incurs guilt even if [the former had] only three walls,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., , 'from three', sc. a space enclosed by three walls only is Pentateuchally regarded as a private domain.');"><sup>48</sup></span>
כז ר' אליעזר אומר לחיין: איבעיא להו ר' אליעזר לחיין וקורה קאמר או דילמא לחיין בלא קורה קאמר
27 [but in respect] of moving [objects within it] only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until'.');"><sup>49</sup></span> where there are four walls [is this permitted].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbinically.');"><sup>50</sup></span> BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM.
כח ת"ש מעשה ברבי אליעזר שהלך אצל רבי יוסי בן פרידא תלמידו
28 Does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no proper partition is required for the closing of the entrance.');"><sup>51</sup></span> imply that Beth Hillel hold the view that Pentateuchally three partitions [are required to constitute a private domain]? No; as regards throwing [from a public domain into it] one incurs guilt even if [the former had] only two walls,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from two'.');"><sup>52</sup></span> [but in respect] of moving [objects within it], only where there are three walls [is this permitted].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbinically.');"><sup>50</sup></span> R'ELIEZER RULED: TWO SIDE-POSTS. A question was raised: Does R'Eliezer mean two side-posts and a beam or is it likely that he means two side-posts without a beam? - Come and hear: It once happened that R'Eliezer went to his disciple, R'Jose B'Perida,