Eruvin 87

Chapter 87

א או אין הלכה כר"ג או דילמא בדלא מלו גברי עסקינן וקא מבעיא ליה הלכה כרבי אליעזר או אין הלכה כר"א
1 or whether the halachah was not in agreement with R'Gamaliel or do we deal [here with a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,the human walls did not reach the Sabbath limit, and a gap of two cubits intervened between them and the limit.');"><sup>1</sup></span> and the point he raised was whether the halachah is in agreement with R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who (cf. Mishnah infra 52b) permits the return of a person who walked two cubits beyond the Sabbath limit.');"><sup>2</sup></span> or not? - It is obvious that we are dealing with [a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men, for were it to be imagined that we are dealing with one where it could be fully lined with men what was there for him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hisda.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב פשיטא בדלא מלו גברי עסקינן דאי סלקא דעתך בדמלו גברי עסקינן מאי תיבעי ליה האמר רב הלכה כר"ג בדיר וסהר וספינה אלא ודאי בדלא מלו גברי עסקינן ודר' אליעזר קמיבעיא ליה
2 to ask seeing that Rab has actually laid down, 'The halachah is in agreement with R'Gamaliel in respect of a cattle-pen, a cattle-fold and a ship'? We must consequently be dealing with [a case where the distance could] not be fully lined with men and the point he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hisda.');"><sup>3</sup></span> raised was in connection with the ruling of R'Eliezer.
ג דיקא נמי דקאמר ליה יכנס מאי יכנס לאו בלא מחיצה
3 This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the distance was not fully covered by the human walls and that a gap of two cubits remained.');"><sup>4</sup></span> is also borne out by an inference. For he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד איתיביה ר"נ בר יצחק לרבא נפל דופנה לא יעמיד בה אדם בהמה וכלים ולא יזקוף את המטה לפרוס עליה סדין לפי שאין עושין אהל עראי בתחילה ביו"ט ואין צריך לומר בשבת
4 said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hisda.');"><sup>6</sup></span> 'Let him re-enter'; but what [was the need for saying] 'Let him re-enter'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After he had already told him to arrange for human walls, was it not obvious that Nehemiah could re-enter by passing through them?');"><sup>7</sup></span> Does not this imply re-entry in the absence of a complete wall?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'without a wall'. Cf. supra n. 8. Had the walls reached as far as the Sabbath limit there would have been no need to add the last clause (cf. supra p. 302, n. 11) . Its addition, therefore, must imply re-entry despite the gap of the two cubits, in agreement with R. Eliezer.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה א"ל את אמרת לי מהא ואנא אמינא לך מהא עושה אדם את חבירו דופן כדי שיאכל וישתה וישן ויזקוף את המטה ויפרוס עליה סדין כדי שלא תפול חמה על המת ועל האוכלין
5 R'Nahman B'Isaac pointed Out the following objection to Raba: If its wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the walls of a sukkah (v. Glos.) .');"><sup>9</sup></span> collapsed it is not permitted to replace it by a human being, a beast or vessels, nor may one put up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In place of the fallen wall.');"><sup>10</sup></span> the bed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was already in the sukkah and the mere shifting of which from one place to another would not appear as the direct construction of a wall.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ו קשיין אהדדי ל"ק הא ר"א הא רבנן דתנן פקק החלון ר"א אומר בזמן שקשור ותלוי פוקקין בו ואם לאו אין פוקקין בו וחכ"א בין כך ובין כך פוקקין בו
6 to spread over it a sheet because even a temporary tent may not for the first time be built on a festival day, and there is no need to state [that this is forbidden] on a Sabbath day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then was it permitted supra to draw up walls of human beings on a Sabbath day.');"><sup>12</sup></span> 'You,' the other replied: 'quote to me from this statement; I can quote to you from the following: A man may put up his fellow as a wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a sukkah.');"><sup>13</sup></span> in order that he may thereby be enabled to eat, to drink and to sleep,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are the principal purposes for which a sukkah serves.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ז והא איתמר עלה אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הכל מודים שאין עושין אהל עראי בתחילה ביום טוב וא"צ לומר בשבת לא נחלקו אלא להוסיף שר' אליעזר אומר אין מוסיפין ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת וחכמים אומרים מוסיפין בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב
7 and he may put up the bed and spread over it a sheet to prevent the sun rays from falling upon a corpse or upon foodstuffs'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that a human being may constitute a wall.');"><sup>15</sup></span> Are then the two rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Quoted by R. Nahman b. Isaac and Raba respectively.');"><sup>16</sup></span> mutually contradictory?
ח אלא ל"ק הא כרבי מאיר הא כרבי יהודה דתניא עשאה לבהמה דופן לסוכה רבי מאיר פוסל ור' יהודה מכשיר
8 There is really no contradiction, since one represents the view of R'Eliezer and the other that of the Rabbis. For we learned: in the case of the stopper of a sky-light, R'Eliezer says that if it was tied and suspended one may close the sky-light with it; otherwise it may not be so used;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the closing up of the skylight, though only of a temporary character, has the appearance of a structural alteration which is forbidden on the Sabbath. This view is in agreement with that cited by R. Nahman b. Isaac.');"><sup>17</sup></span> but the Sages ruled: In either case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it was tied and suspended or not.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ט רבי מאיר דקא פסיל התם אלמא לא מחיצה היא הכא שרי דלאו מידי קא עביד
9 one may close the sky-light with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 125b, 137b, Suk. 27b; in agreement with the view cited by Raba.');"><sup>19</sup></span> Has it not, however, been stated in connection with this ruling: Rabbah B'Bar Hana said in the name of R'Johanan: All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the Sages.');"><sup>20</sup></span> agree that not even a temporary tent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'roof'.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
י ורבי יהודה דקא מכשיר התם אלמא מחיצה היא הכא אסר
10 may for the first time be made on a festival day, and there is no need to say that this may not be done on a Sabbath day; but they differ on the question of adding to a structure,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case when the stopper is inserted in the sky-light and the gap in the roof is closed up.');"><sup>22</sup></span> since R'Eliezer holds that no such structural addition may be made on a festival day, and there is no need to say that this may hot be done on a Sabbath day, while the Sages maintain that such structural additions' may be made on a Sabbath, and there is no need to say that this may be done on a festival day?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 125b. As the Baraitha quoted by Raba permits the putting up of a complete wall, and not merely an addition to an existing one, it cannot be in agreement even with the view of the Sages. The difficulty as to the contradiction between the two quoted Baraithas arises again.');"><sup>23</sup></span> - The fact is that there is really no contradiction, since one Baraitha represents the view of R'Meir and the other that of R'Judah.
יא ותיסברא אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי מאיר בהמה אדם וכלים מי שמעת ליה
11 For it was taught: If a man used a beast as a wall for a sukkah, R'Meir ruled it to be invalid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the beast might at any moment escape (cf. Suk. 21a) .');"><sup>24</sup></span> while R'Judah ruled it to be valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Suk. 23b.');"><sup>25</sup></span> Now, R'Meir who ruled the wall there to be invalid, from which it is evident that he does not regard it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it consisted of an animate being.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
יב ותו רבי מאיר אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבי אליעזר להוסיף נמי אסר
12 as a proper wall, would here permit the putting up of a similar wall,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A human being or a beast in agreement with the Baraitha quoted supra by R. Nahman b. Isaac.');"><sup>27</sup></span> since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wall being deemed to be non-existent as far as the sukkah is concerned.');"><sup>28</sup></span> thereby nothing improper is done, while R'Judah who regards the wall there as valid, from which it is evident that he regards it as a proper wall, would here forbid a similar wall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with the Baraitha quoted by Raba.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יג אלא אליבא דרבנן אימר דאמרי רבנן להוסיף לכתחילה מי אמור
13 Do you regard this as sound reasoning? Might it not be suggested that R'Meir was heard [to rule the wall to be invalid only in the case of] a beast,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the beast might at any moment escape (cf. Suk. 21a) .');"><sup>24</sup></span> was he, however, heard [to give the same ruling in respect of] a human being<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who has the sense to remain in his place.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יד אלא הא והא רבנן וכלים אכלים ל"ק הא בדופן שלישית הא בדופן רביעית
14 and vessels?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot even move.');"><sup>31</sup></span> Furthermore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it be granted that the sukkah, despite the added wall, remains invalid.');"><sup>32</sup></span> in agreement with whose view could that of R'Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That which permits the putting up of the wall on account of its invalidity.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
טו דיקא נמי דקתני נפל דופנה שמע מינה
15 be? If i be suggested: In agreement with that of R'Eliezer one could object that the latter forbade even the addition to a Structure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could he permit the addition of the wall?');"><sup>34</sup></span> Consequently it must be in agreement with that of the Rabbis; but could it not be objected: The Rabbis may only have permitted the addition to a structure,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case with he structure of the window.');"><sup>35</sup></span> did this, however, make it permissible to put up a full wall at the outset? - The fact is that both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The apparently contradictory Baraithas');"><sup>36</sup></span> are in agreement with the view of the Rabbis; yet there is no contradiction between the rulings regarding vessels,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the two cited Baraithas, the second of which does, and the first of which does not permit the putting up of a bed as a wall for a sukkah.');"><sup>37</sup></span> since the former relates to a third wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two walls constitute no hut and the putting up of a third one completes the structure. The Rabbis agree that not even a temporary hut may for the first time be put up on the Sabbath.');"><sup>38</sup></span> and the latter to a fourth one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As three walls constitute a hut the putting up of a fourth one is a mere addition to an already existing structure which the Rabbis permit.');"><sup>39</sup></span> The inference from the wording<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the first cited Baraitha.');"><sup>40</sup></span> leads to the same conclusion;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the prohibition refers to a third wall.');"><sup>41</sup></span> for it was stated: 'If its wall collapsed'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emphasis on 'its wall', sc. the third wall whereby the sukkah becomes valid. A fourth one does not in any way affect the sukkah's validity');"><sup>42</sup></span> This is conclusive.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter