Eruvin 29

Chapter 29

א איתמר לחי העומד מאליו אביי אמר הוי לחי רבא אמר לא הוי לחי

1 It was stated: A side-post put up accidentally,1 Abaye ruled, is a valid side-post, but Raba ruled: It is no valid side-post. Where [the residents] did not rely on it from the previous day,2

ב היכא דלא סמכינן עליה מאתמול כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא הוי לחי כי פליגי היכא דסמכינן עליה מאתמול אביי אמר הוי לחי דהא סמכינן עליה מאתמול רבא אמר לא הוי לחי כיון דמעיקרא לאו אדעתיה דהכי עבידי לא הוי לחי

2 no one disputes that it is no valid side-post. They differ only where [the residents] did rely upon it on the previous day.3 Abaye ruled: 'It is a valid side-post', since the residents relied on it from the previous day.

ג קא סלקא דעתך כי היכי דפליגי בלחי פליגי נמי במחיצה

3 But Raba ruled: 'It is no val side-post', because owing to the fact that originally it was not made for that purpose,4 it cannot be regarded as a valid side-post. It has been assumed5

ד ת"ש העושה סוכתו בין האילנות ואילנות דפנות לה כשירה הכא במאי עסקינן שנטען מתחילה לכך אי הכי פשיטא מהו דתימא ליגזור דילמא אתי לאישתמושי באילן קמ"ל

4 that as they6 differed in the case of a side-post, so they differed in that of a partition.7 Come and hear:8

ה ת"ש היה שם אילן או גדר או חיצת הקנים נידון משום דיומד

5 If a man made his sukkah9 among trees and the trees serve as its walls, it is ritually fit!10 Here we are dealing [with trees] that were originally planted for the purpose.11

ו הכא נמי במאי עסקינן שעשאן מתחילה לכך אי הכי מאי קמ"ל [קמ"ל] חיצת הקנים קנה קנה פחות משלשה טפחים כדבעא מיניה אביי מרבה

6 If so, is this2 not obvious? - It might have been presumed that a preventive measure should be enacted as a precaution against the possibility of using the tree [for other purposes also],13 hence we were informed [that no such precaution was deemed necessary].

ז ת"ש אילן המסיך על הארץ אם אין נופו גבוה מן הארץ ג' טפחים מטלטלין תחתיו הכא נמי במאי עסקינן שנטעו מתחילה לכך

7 Come and hear: If there was present14 a tree or a wall or a fence of [growing] reeds it may be treated as a corner-piece!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 19b; which shows that a wall is ritually valid though it had not been specially made for the purpose, and presents an objection against snuhs sung uhs Raba. = 'two pillars'; cf. Gr. **, 'forked'. A deyomad, or corner-piece consists of two boards, or the like, meeting at their ends at right angles to one another and forming all L shaped construction. Four deyomads of the prescribed size, placed respectively at the four corners of a watering station, constitute a ritually valid partition within which it is permitted to carry on the Sabbath.');">15 - Here also we are dealing with one that was originally intended for the purpose.

ח אי הכי ליטלטל בכולו אלמה אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אין מטלטלין בו אלא בית סאתים

8 If so, what need was there to tell us this? - We were told that a fence of reeds [is valid if the distance between] any two reeds was less than three handbreadths, as [was explained in] the enquiry that Abaye addressed to Raba.16 Come and hear: Where a tree overshadows the ground,17 it is permitted to move objects under it18

ט משום דהוי דירה שתשמישה לאויר וכל דירה שתשמישה לאויר אין מטלטלין בה אלא בית סאתים

9 if [the top of] its branches is not higher than three handbreadths from the ground!19 - Here also we are dealing with one that was originally planted for the purpose. If so, it should be permissible to move objects under it in all cases; why then did R'Huna the son of R'Joshua state that movement of objects under it is permissible only [where its area was no larger than] two beth se'ah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Such a restriction is applicable to enclosures that are only partially valid (cf. infra 16b, 24a) . Now if the tree in question had been planted for the purpose, its branches, surely, constitute a valid enclosure; why then should the restriction mentioned apply?');">20

י ת"ש שבת בתל שהוא גבוה עשרה והוא מארבע אמות ועד בית סאתים וכן בנקע שהוא עמוק עשרה והוא מארבע אמות ועד בית סאתים וקמה קצורה ושיבולות מקיפות אותה מהלך את כולה וחוצה לה אלפים אמה

10 - Because it is a dwelling that serves the [outside] air21 and no movement of objects is permitted in a dwelling that serves the outside air unless [its area is no larger than] two beth se'ah.22 Come and hear: If a man received the Sabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is forbidden to walk on the Sabbath beyond two thousand cubits from one's home, the term being defined as the spot (four cubits by four) , the house or the town where a person was at the time the Sabbath had set in. Within the four cubits, or within the house or town however big it may be, it is always permitted to walk.');">23

יא וכי תימא הכא נמי שעשה מתחילה לכך בשלמא קמה לחיי אלא תל ונקע מאי איכא למימר

11 on a mound that was ten handbreadths high24 and between four cubits and two beth se'ah in area, or25 in the cleft [of a rock] that was ten handbreadths deep26

יב אלא במחיצות כולי עלמא לא פליגי דהויא מחיצה כי פליגי בלחי אביי לטעמיה דאמר לחי משום מחיצה ומחיצה העשויה מאליה הויא מחיצה ורבא לטעמיה דאמר לחי משום היכר אי עבידא בידים הויא היכר ואי לא לא הוי היכר

12 and between four cubits and two beth se'ah in area, or reaped corn that was surrounded by [growing] ears,27 he may walk in all the area,28 and outside it for two thousand cubits!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suk. 25a; which proves that walls or partitions apparently not made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the Sabbath laws are nevertheless regarded as valid walls, and an objection thus again arises against Raba.');">29

יג ת"ש אבני גדר היוצאות מן הגדר מובדלות זו מזו פחות משלשה אין צריך לחי אחר שלשה צריך לחי אחר

13 And should you reply that there also it is a case where one had originally made them for the purpose, [your submission] might be quite agreeable as regards the corn;30 what, however, could be said as regards the mound or the cleft?31 - The fact, however, is that in respect of partitions, no one32

יד הכא נמי שבנאן מתחילה לכך אי הכי פשיטא מהו דתימא למיסר בניינא הוא דעבידא קמ"ל

14 disputes that [one put up accidentally] is a valid partition. They only differ in respect of a side-post - Abaye33 follows his own point of view, for he has laid down that a side-post represents34

טו ת"ש דתני ר' חייא כותל שצידו אחד כנוס מחברו בין שנראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים ובין שנראה מבפנים ושוה מבחוץ נדון משום לחי

15 a partition, and a partition set up accidentally is a valid partition. Raba, on th other hand, follows his own point of view, for he has laid down that a side-post serves34 the purpose of a distinguishing mark,35

טז הכא נמי שעשאו מתחילה לכך אי הכי מאי קמ"ל הא קמ"ל נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים נדון משום לחי

16 and only where it is made for that purpose,36 is it a distinguishing mark, otherwise37 it is no distinguishing mark.

יז תא שמע דרב הוה יתיב בההוא מבואה הוה יתיב רב הונא קמיה אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל אייתי לי כוזא דמיא עד דאתא נפל לחיא אחוי ליה בידיה קם אדוכתיה אמר ליה רב הונא לא סבר לה מר לסמוך אדיקלא אמר דמי האי מרבנן כמאן דלא פרשי אינשי שמעתא מי סמכינן עליה מאתמול

17 Come and hear: If stones38 that project from a wall39 are separated from each other by less than three handbreadths, no other side-post is required;40

יח טעמא דלא סמכינן הא סמכינן הוי לחי

18 [if they are separated by] three handbreadths, another side-post is required!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it follows that the projecting stones, where the distance between them is less than three handbreadths, constitute a valid side-post though, apparently, they were not put there for that purpose. All objection against Raba.');">41 Here also it is a case where they were originally built for that purpose.42 If so, is no this43

יט לימא אביי ורבא בדלא סמכינן עליה פליגי הא סמכינן עליה הוה לחי לא ס"ד דההוא ברקא דהוה בי בר חבו דהוו פליגי בה אביי ורבא כולי שנייהו:

19 obvious?44 - It might have been presumed that [projections] are made solely as building connections,45 hence we were informed [that no other side-post is required].

כ <big>מתני׳</big> בכל עושין לחיין אפילו בדבר שיש בו רוח חיים ורבי מאיר אוסר ומטמא משום גולל

20 Come and hear what R'Hiyya taught: A wall of which one side recedes more than the other, whether [the recess can be] seen from without and appears even from within or whether it can be seen from within and appears even from without, may be regarded as [being provided with] a side-post!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 9b, q.v. notes. The recession being presumably accidental, does not the recognition of the validity of the side-post present an objection against Raba? lh,fust oue vh,fust oe');">46 - Here also it is a case where it was originally constructed for the purpose. If so, what need was there to tell us [the obvious]? - It is this that we were informed: [If the recess can be] seen from without though it appears even from within, [the wall] may be regarded as [provided with] a side-post. Come and hear [of the incident] where Rab was sitting in a certain alley and R'Huna sat before him when he said to his attendant, 'Go, bring me a jar of water'. By the time the latter returned, the side-post fell dow and he motioned to him with his hand to remain in his place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So according to MS.M. and R. Han. 'remain in your place'. According to cur. edd., 'he remained in his place', render, 'He motioned to him with his hand and (the latter) remained in his place'.');">47 Said R'Huna to him, 'Is not the Master of the opinion that one may rely upon the palm-tree? '48 'This young Rabbi', he replied: 'seems to think that people cannot explain a ruling they have heard! Did we rely upon it since yesterday? '49 The reason then50 is that no one had relied on it;51 but if they had relied on it,51 it would have been regarded as a valid side-post.52 Might not one suggest that Abaye and Raba differed only where [the residents] did not rely on it,53 but that where they did rely on it, it is regarded as a valid side-post?54 - This cannot be entertained at all; for there was a certain piazza at the house of Bar Habu,55 about which Abaye and Raba were always56 in dispute.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former regarding it as a valid side-post and the latter denying its validity. From which it follows that the dispute between Abaye and Raba as to the validity of a side-post of accidental origin extends also to one upon which the residents had relied.');">57 <big>MISHNAH: </big>SIDE-POSTS MAY BE MADE OF ANYTHING, EVEN OF AN ANIMATE OBJECT, BUT R'MEIR58 FORBIDS THIS. IT59 ALSO CAUSES DEFILEMENT60 AS THE COVERING OF A TOMB,61

Previous Chapter Next Chapter