Eruvin 30

ור' מאיר מטהר וכותבין עליו גיטי נשים ור' יוסי הגלילי פוסל:

BUT R'MEIR RULED THAT IT WAS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEFILEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason, v. Suk. 24a.');">¹</span> WOMEN'S LETTERS OF DIVORCE TOO MAY BE WRITTEN ON IT, BUT R'JOSE THE GALILEAN DECLARED IT TO BE UNFIT. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It was taught: R'Meir ruled: No animate object may be used either as a wall for a sukkah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא ר' מאיר אומר כל דבר שיש בו רוח חיים אין עושין אותו לא דופן לסוכה ולא לחי למבוי לא פסין לביראות ולא גולל לקבר משום רבי יוסי הגלילי אמרו אף אין כותבין עליו גיטי נשים

or as a side-post for an alley, [or as one of the] partitions for watering stations or as a covering for a grave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was used, the wall, the side-post or the partition is invalid and the covering remains insusceptible to levitical uncleanness.');">³</span> In the name of R'Jose the Galilean it was laid down: Women's bills [of divorce] also may not be written on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suk. 23a. rpx');">⁴</span> What is R'Jose the Galilean's reason? - Because it was taught: [From the Scriptural expression of] 'letter'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1. 'book', 'letter' or 'scroll'.');">⁵</span>

מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי הגלילי דתניא (דברים כד, א) ספר אין לי אלא ספר מניין לרבות כל דבר ת"ל (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה מכל מקום אם כן מה ת"ל ספר לומר לך מה ספר דבר שאין בו רוח חיים ואינו אוכל אף כל דבר שאין בו רוח חיים ואינו אוכל

one would only learn that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I have only'.');">⁶</span> a letter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1. 'book', 'letter' or 'scroll'.');">⁵</span> [may be used]; whence, however, [can it be deduced that] all other things are also included?

ורבנן מי כתיב בספר ספר כתיב לספירות דברים בעלמא הוא דאתא

[From] the explicit statement:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is taught to say'.');">⁷</span> That he writeth her<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 1, emphasis on writeth.');">⁸</span> [which implies:] On any object whatsoever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from any place'.');">⁹</span>

ורבנן האי וכתב לה מאי דרשי ביה ההוא מבעי ליה בכתיבה מתגרשת ואינה מתגרשת בכסף סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואיתקש יציאה להויה מה הויה בכסף אף יציאה בכסף קמ"ל

If so, why was the expression of 'letter' used? To tell you that as a letter is an inanimate obje and does not eat, so must any other object [used for the purpose be] one that is inanimate and does not eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence R. Jose's ruling that no letter of divorce may be written on an animate object.');">¹⁰</span> And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of this deduction, can they allow the use of an animate object as a writing material for a letter of divorce? rpxc');">¹¹</span>

ור' יוסי הגלילי האי סברא מנא ליה נפקא ליה מספר כריתות ספר כורתה ואין דבר אחר כורתה

- Is it written: 'In a letter'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (with prefix) which would have implied that the noun referred to the material on which the divorce is written. rpx');">¹²</span> Surely only 'letter'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' without any prefix.');">¹³</span> is written, and this refers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.,'that it came'. ,urhpx');">¹⁴</span>

ורבנן האי ספר כריתות מיבעי ליה לדבר הכורת בינו לבינה לכדתניא הרי זה גיטך על מנת שלא תשתי יין על מנת שלא תלכי לבית אביך לעולם אין זה כריתות כל שלשים יום הרי זה כריתות

merely to the recording<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , lit., 'enumeration'. rpx ,urhpx');">¹⁵</span> of the words.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' and being of the same rt. The kind of material, however, on which the wording must be recorded was not prescribed. Hence the permissibility to use any writing material or any other object. rpx');">¹⁶</span> As to the Rabbis, however, what exposition do they make of the expression: That he writeth her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it was deduced supra that a divorce may be written on any object. Since the expression sefer () has no bearing on the question of the writing material, it is obvious that any object is admissible for the purpose. What need then was there to use the expression of 'writeth' (Deut. XXIV, 1) when that of giveth (ibid.) viz., 'That he giveth her the letter of divorcement in her hand' etc., would have been sufficient?');">¹⁷</span>

ורבי יוסי הגלילי נפקא ליה מכרת כריתות

- They require that text [for the deduction that a woman] may be divorced only by writing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A written letter of divorce.');">¹⁸</span> but not by money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By saying, on the analogy of the formula for betrothal, 'Be thou divorced from me by this money'. vtmhu');">¹⁹</span> For it might have been presumed that since divorce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'departing' () ; 'and she departeth' (Deut. XXIV, 2) . vhuv');">²⁰</span>

ורבנן כרת כריתות לא דרשי:

was compared with betrothal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'becoming' () ; 'and becometh' (ibid.) .');">²¹</span> as betrothal [may be effected] by means of money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 2a'');">²²</span> so may divorce [also be effected] by means of money;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 16.');">²³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שיירא שחנתה בבקעה והקיפוה כלי בהמה מטלטלין בתוכה ובלבד שיהא גדר גבוה עשרה טפחים ולא יהו פירצות יתרות על הבנין

hence we were informed [that only by writing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A written letter of divorce.');">¹⁸</span> can divorce be effected]. And whence does R'Jose the Galilean derive this logical conclusion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a divorce cannot be effected except by means of a written document. ,u,hrf rpx');">²⁴</span>

כל פירצה שהיא כעשר אמות מותרת מפני שהיא כפתח יתר מכאן אסור:

- He derives it from [the expression of] 'A letter of divorcement'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , Deut. XXIV, I. rpx ,u,hrf');">²⁵</span> [which implies:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since ('letter') stands in close proximity to ('divorcement') . v,ruf ,rf');">²⁶</span> The letter causes her divorcement but no other thing may cause it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (rt. 'to cut') , lit., 'cuts her off (from her husband) '.');">²⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר פרוץ כעומד רב פפא אמר מותר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר אסור

And the Rabbis? - They require the expression of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that'.');">²⁸</span> 'A letter of divorcement'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , Deut. XXIV, I. rpx ,u,hrf');">²⁵</span> to [indicate that the divorce must be] one that completely separates the man from the woman;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that cuts (cf. supra n. 4) between him and her'.');">²⁹</span>

רב פפא אמר מותר הכי אגמריה רחמנא למשה לא תפרוץ רובה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר אסור הכי אגמריה רחמנא למשה גדור רובה

as it was taught: [Should a husband say to his wife,] 'Here is your divorce on condition that you never drink any wine' or 'on condition that you never go to your father's house' [such a divorce] is no complete separation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the woman might at any time throughout her life break the condition and consequently annul the divorce.');">³⁰</span> [if he said,] 'During<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all'.');">³¹</span> thirty days'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. he set a limit to the period during which the woman should drink no wine or keep away from her father's house.');">³²</span>

תנן ולא יהו פירצות יתרות על הבנין הא כבנין מותר

is it regarded as a complete separation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the moment the woman has received the document; because at the end of the specified period the divorce is free from all conditions and the separation between husband and wife is complete. Suk. 24b, Yoma 13a, Git. 21b, 83b.');">³³</span> And R'Jose the Galilean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence does he derive this ruling? ,u,hrf ,rf');">³⁴</span> - He derives it from [the use of] kerituth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , in the opinion of R. Jose, is a longer or more forcible expression than .');">³⁵</span>

לא תימא הא כבנין מותר אלא אימא אם בנין יתר על הפירצה מותר

[instead of] kareth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , in the opinion of R. Jose, is a longer or more forcible expression than .');">³⁵</span> And the Rabbis? - They base no expositions [on the distinction between] kareth and kerituth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note.');">³⁶</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A CARAVAN CAMPED IN A VALLEY AND IT WAS SURROUNDED BY THE TRAPPINGS OF THE CATTLE IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT, PROVIDED [THE TRAPPINGS] CONSTITUTE A FENCE TEN HAND BREADTHS IN HEIGHT AND THE GAPS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though each one is less than ten cubits.');">³⁷</span>

אבל כבנין מאי אסור אי הכי ליתני לא יהו פירצות כבנין קשיא

DO NOT EXCEED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their total area.');">³⁸</span> THE BUILT-UP PARTS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their total area.');">³⁸</span> ANY GAP WHICH [IN ITS WIDTH DOES NOT EXCEED] TEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. Cur. edd. 'like ten'.');">³⁹</span>

ת"ש המקרה סוכתו בשפודין או בארוכות המטה אם יש ריוח ביניהן כמותן כשירה

CUBITS IS PERMITTED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Provided the area of the built-up parts exceeds that of the gaps.');">⁴⁰</span> BECAUSE IT IS LIKE A DOORWAY. IF IT EXCEEDS THIS [MEASUREMENT] IT IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though all the remainder of the fence is built up.');">⁴¹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כשנכנס ויוצא

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It was stated: If the breaches [in an enclosure] are equal [in area to its] standing parts, the [movement of objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">⁴²</span> in the space within the enclosures], R'Papa ruled, is permitted, and R'Huna the son of R'Joshua ruled: It is forbidden. R'Papa ruled: 'It is permitted', because the All Merciful taught Moses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he imparted to him the laws concerning partitions (v. supra 4a) .');">⁴³</span>

והא אפשר לצמצם

thus: 'Thou must not allow the greater part of a fence to consist of gaps'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thou shalt not break its greater part'.');">⁴⁴</span> R'Huna the son of R'Joshua ruled, 'it is forbidden for it is this that the All Merciful taught Moses: 'Its greater part [must fence'. We learned: AND THE GAPS DO NOT EXCEED THE BUILT-UP PARTS, but, [it follows, does it not, that if they were] equal to the built-up parts [movement of objects within the enclosure] is permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An objection against R. Huna.');">⁴⁵</span>

אמר רבי אמי במעדיף

- Do not infer: 'But [if they were] equal to the built-up parts [the movement of objects] is permitted', but infer: ' the built-up parts exceed the gaps [the movement of objects] is permitted'. But [if the gaps are] equal to the built-up parts, what [is the law]? [Is the movement of objects]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">⁴²</span>

רבא אמר אם היו נתונין ערב נותנו שתי שתי נותנו ערב

forbidden? If so, however, should not the reading have been, 'The gaps are not equal to the built-up parts'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it would have been obvious that if they were equal to, and much more so if they exceeded the built-up parts, the movement of objects would be forbidden; and all ambiguity would thus be avoided.');">⁴⁶</span> - This is indeed a difficulty.

ת"ש שיירא שחנתה בבקעה והקיפוה בגמלין באוכפות

Come and hear: If a man covered the roof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'laid the roof-beams'.');">⁴⁷</span> of his sukkah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos.');">⁴⁸</span> with spits or with the long [sides] of a bed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such objects, since they are proper 'instruments', are susceptible to levitical uncleanness and consequently unfit for the roof covering of a sukkah.');">⁴⁹</span> [the sukkah is] valid if there is as much space between them as that of their own [width]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suk. 15a; because the intervening spaces can be filled up with suitable and ritually fit roofing. This Mishnah then seems to show that where the measurement of the suitable and the unsuitable parts are equal, the structure is valid; and, since the same principle would obviously apply also to the validity of an enclosure, in respect of the Sabbath laws, where its built-up parts equal its gaps, does not an objection arise against R. Huna?');">⁵⁰</span> Here we are dealing [with such] as can be easily moved in and out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when it (freely) enters and goes out', sc. between the parts to be covered with the suitable roofing, so that the width of each spit or bed-side is inevitably less than that of each properly covered intervening space. xhrd har');">⁵¹</span> Is it, however, possible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So R. Han. Cur. edd., 'surely it is possible', is a different reading (as pointed out by Tosaf. s.v. a.l.) .');">⁵²</span> to be exact?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. is it possible that by supplying a quantity of suitable material equal in width to that of the unsuitable one, the air spaces intervening between the two materials will be duly covered? The answer obviously being in the negative, the question arises: How, in view of the fact that the space of the proper material does not even equal that of the improper one plus the intervening air spaces, could the sukkah be valid? This raises an objection against R. Huna but also against R. Papa (cf. Tosaf. l.c.) .');">⁵³</span> - R'Ammi replied: One might supply more [of the proper roofing].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus cover up the intervening air spaces also.');">⁵⁴</span> Raba replied: If they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The spits etc.');">⁵⁵</span> were placed crosswise, one puts the suitable material lengthwise, [and if they were placed] lengthwise, one puts it crosswise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that all the spaces between the improper material are fully covered with the proper one which, according to R. Papa, thus covers as much space as the improper one; and according to R. Huna, since the spits etc. can be easily moved in and out, the proper roofing covers the larger area.');">⁵⁶</span> Come and hear: If a caravan camped in a valley and it was surrounded by camels, saddles,