Eruvin 31

בעביטין בשליפין בקנים בקולחות מטלטלין בתוכה ובלבד שלא יהא בין גמל לגמל כמלא גמל ובין אוכף לאוכף כמלא אוכף ובין עביט לעביט כמלא עביט

saddle-cushions, saddlebags, reeds or stalks [it is permitted to] move objects within it, provided there is no more than the space of one camel between any two camels, that of one saddle between any two saddles, and that of one saddle-cushion between any two saddle-cushions!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that where the gaps are equal to the built-up parts, the movement of objects is permitted. An objection against R. Huna.');">¹</span> - Here also [it is a case where each object can be easily] moved in and out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 1 mutatis mutandis.');">²</span>

הכא נמי כשנכנס ויוצא

Come and hear: Thus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is found'.');">³</span> you might say that there are three categories in the case of partitions.

תא שמע נמצאת אתה אומר שלש מדות במחיצות: כל שהוא פחות משלשה צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה שלשה כדי שלא יזדקר הגדי בבת ראש

Wherever [in a reed fence the width of each reed is] less than three handbreadths, it is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' if vines grow on one side of the fence and it is desired to sow corn in close proximity on the other side.');">⁴</span> that there shall be no [gap of] three handbreadths between any two reeds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this to this',');">⁵</span>

כל שהוא ג' ומג' עד ד' צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה כמלואו כדי שלא יהא פרוץ כעומד ואם היה פרוץ מרובה על העומד אף כנגד העומד אסור

so that a kid could not leap headlong [through it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of labud (v. Glos.) is applied in such a case even where the total area of the gaps exceeds that of the reeds. If a gap is wider than three handbreadths, a kid can leap headlong through it and the law of labud cannot consequently apply.');">⁶</span> Wherever [the width of each reed is] three, or from three to four<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not actually four.');">⁷</span>

כל שהוא ד' ומארבעה עד עשר אמות צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה כמלואו שלא יהא פרוץ כעומד ואם היה פרוץ כעומד כנגד העומד מותר כנגד הפרוץ אסור ואם היה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ אף כנגד הפרוץ מותר

handbreadths, it is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 104, n. 10.');">⁸</span> that [the gap] between any two reeds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this to this'.');">⁹</span>

נפרצה ביותר מעשר אסור היו שם קנים הדוקרנים ועושה להן פיאה מלמעלה אפילו ביותר מעשר מותר

shall not be as wide as the full width of a reed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like its fullness'.');">¹⁰</span> in order that the gaps shall not be equal to the standing parts; and if the gaps exceeded the standing parts it is forbidden [to sow corn]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If vines were planted on the other side of' the fence in close proximity.');">¹¹</span>

קתני מיהת רישא מג' ועד ד' ובלבד שלא יהא בין זה לזה כמלואו תיובתא דרב פפא

even over against the standing parts. Wherever [the width of each reed is] four handbreadths, or from four handbreadths to ten cubits,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inclusive, but not wider.');">¹²</span>

אמר לך רב פפא מאי מלואו נכנס ויוצא

it is necessary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 104, n. 10.');">⁸</span> that [the gap] between any two reeds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this to this'.');">⁹</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני אם היה פרוץ מרובה על העומד אף כנגד העומד אסור הא כעומד מותר שמע מינה

shall not be as wide as a reed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like its fullness'.');">¹⁰</span> in order that the gaps shall not be equal to the standing parts; and if the gaps were equal to the standing parts it is permitted [to sow seed]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If vines were planted on the other side of' the fence in close proximity.');">¹¹</span>

לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דר"ה בריה דרב יהושע אמר לך וליטעמיך אימא סיפא אם היה עומד מרובה על הפרוץ אף כנגד הפרוץ מותר הא כפרוץ אסור

over against the standing parts and forbidden over against the gaps.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus we have three categories: (i) It is not necessary for each gap to be less in width than a reed where the reeds are less than three handbreadths in width; and even if a gap is as wide as or wider than a reed, provided it is not wider than three handbreadths, all the fence is valid. (ii) It is necessary for each gap to be less in width than a reed where the reeds are three, or from three to four handbreadths in width. A gap of three or more handbreadths destroys the validity of the entire fence even that of its standing parts. (iii) Where the standing parts of a fence are considerable, their validity is not affected by the gaps, though it is forbidden to sow over against one side of the gaps if vines grow on the other.');">¹³</span> If, however, the standing parts exceeded the gaps it is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In any of three cases enumerated.');">¹⁴</span>

סיפא קשיא לרב פפא רישא קשיא לר"ה בריה דרב יהושע

[to sow seed] over against the gaps also. If there was a gap wider than ten cubits, [sowing]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 5.');">¹⁵</span>

סיפא לרב פפא לא קשיא איידי דתנא רישא פרוץ מרובה על העומד תנא סיפא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

is forbidden. If forked reeds were there and a plait was made above them, [sowing] is permitted even [if the gaps between the reeds] exceeded ten cubits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Kil. IV; because a gap in the shape of a doorway, even if it is wider than ten cubits, does not impair the validity of a fence.');">¹⁶</span>

רישא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא קשיא איידי דבעי למיתני סיפא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ תנא רישא פרוץ מרובה על העומד

In the first clause at any rate it was taught that [the fence is valid if the width of each reed was] three to four handbreadths provided the gap between any two reeds was not as wide as a reed. Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that the fence is valid only when the gaps are less than the standing parts.');">¹⁷</span>

בשלמא לרב פפא משום הכי לא עריב להו ותני להו

an objection against R'Papa?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled supra that even if the breaches in an enclosure were equal to its standing parts, the movement of objects within it on the Sabbath is permitted or, in other words, the fence of the enclosure is valid.');">¹⁸</span> - R'Papa can answer you: By the expression of 'as wide as' was meant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what its fullness?'');">¹⁹</span>

אלא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ליערבינהו וליתננהו כל שהוא פחות משלשה ושלשה צריך שלא יהא בין זה לזה שלשה

[the width of the space through which the reed can be easily] moved to and fro.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'enters and goes out', so that a gap equal to that width is really wider than the actual width of the reed. Where, however, the gaps are exactly equal to the standing parts, the fence is valid in agreement with the view of R. Papa.');">²⁰</span> Logical deduction also leads to the same conclusion.

משום דלא דמי פסולא דרישא לפסולא דסיפא פסולא דרישא כדי שלא יזדקר הגדי בבת אחת פסולא דסיפא שלא יהא פרוץ כעומד

For, since it was stated: 'If the gaps exceeded the standing parts it is forbidden [to sow corn] even over against the standing parts', it follows that if they were equal to the standing parts [the sowing] is permitted. This proves it.

פחות משלשה מני רבנן היא דאמרי פחות משלשה אמרינן לבוד שלשה לא אמרינן לבוד

Must it then be assumed that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha just discussed which provides support for R. Papa's ruling.');">²¹</span> presents an objection against R'Huna the son of R'Joshua?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who differed from R. Papa (supra 15b) .');">²²</span>

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'.