Eruvin 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

In camel-feed troughs

a cushion placed beneath a camel’s saddle],

with loads

burdens],

with reeds and vegetable stalks

stalks of vegetables]—

one may carry objects within it. Provided

there is not

an open place

between one camel and another

“as wide as a camel,” and between one saddle and another

“as wide as a saddle,” and between one trough and another

“as wide as a trough.”

We see, then, that even if the open area is only “as wide as” the solid portion, it is nevertheless prohibited. This poses a difficulty to Rav Pappa!

And we answer:

Here too,

when we say “as wide as a camel,” this means that there is an opening as wide as a camel

when

the camel

enters

and exits, which is slightly wider than “the width of a camel”; consequently, the open area is greater than the solid portion.

Come and hear

from that which was taught in the Tosefta of Kilayim:

You therefore find that there are three measures

divisions of halakhot]

with regard to partitions

of reeds, whose individual reeds are separated from one another with regard to permitting sowing on one side of the partition when vines are planted on its other side]:

The first measure:

Any

fence

that is

made of reeds, where the width of each reed is

less than three

handbreadths!

Even if the space between one reed and the next is as wide as the reed itself, or even wider, it is possible that this partition is valid by means of the principle of lavud.

Therefore,

there must not be three

handbreadths between

this

reed and

this one

handbreadths.

For when the separation is three handbreadths, the law of lavud does not apply, and the space is considered an open area, which nullifies the solid portion.

But when the separation is less than three, we apply lavud, and the space between them is not considered an opening that nullifies the solid portion because of the open area.

And the reason that it is necessary that there not be three handbreadths between them is:

so that a kid goat will not leap headlong

at once, without hindrance] between one reed and the next.

That is to say: When there are three handbreadths between them, and the gap is therefore significant enough for a kid goat to break through it plainly, without hindrance, it is impossible to invoke “lavud.” Ritba.

The second measure:

Any

fence

that is

made of reeds, each of which is three

handbreadths

wide,

and from three to four

handbreadths, but not including four!

There must not be between one and the other a space as wide as the reed itself

—

so that the open area will not equal the solid portion.

For since a space as wide as the reed itself is greater than the measure of “lavud,” it is considered an open area, and is therefore an opening.

And if the open area is greater than the solid portion,

the open area nullifies the solid portion, and

it is prohibited to sow even opposite the solid portion

And below we challenge this: at first it was understood that an open area equal to the solid portion is prohibited, whereas subsequently it appears that an open area equal to the solid portion is permitted].

The third measure:

Any

fence

that is

made of reeds, each of which is

four

handbreadths wide,

and from four

handbreadths

to ten cubits

including ten!

It is necessary—

in order to permit sowing even opposite the open area—

that there not be between one and the other a space as wide as the reed itself

so

that the open area will not equal the solid portion.

And if the open area equals the solid portion,

since the reeds are four handbreadths wide and the solid portion is significant, the open area does not nullify the solid portion.

Therefore,

it is permitted to sow opposite the solid portion

even if the open area is greater than the solid portion].

But

it is prohibited opposite the open area,

since the solid portion is not greater than the open area.

And if the solid portion—

of the reeds in all the measures—

is greater than the open area,

since the solid portion is greater than it, we cannot say that the air on this side and the air on that side combine to nullify the solid portion; rather, the openings are considered entrances. Therefore,

it is permitted to sow even opposite the open area

as well!

If

the partition

is breached by more than ten

cubits—even if the entire rest of the partition is solid—

it is prohibited

to sow opposite the breach.

If there were sharpened reeds

reeds pointed like a spike and driven into the ground]

and he makes

or made]

a pe’a for them

a woven branch]

above,

which extends from one reed to the next—thus constituting the form of an entrance—

even if

the breach

is more than ten

cubits,

it is permitted

to sow even opposite the open area, because the form of an entrance permits with regard to Kilayim, according to everyone, even a breach greater than ten [as above, on folio 11b].

And now this poses a difficulty to Rav Pappa, who permits an open area equal to the solid portion:

In any event, it teaches

in the

first clause

in the second measure]:

“From three to four, provided that there is not between one and the other a space as wide as the reed itself

so that the open area will not equal the solid portion.”

A refutation

of

Rav Pappa?!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa could say: What

is the meaning of that which the baraita teaches: There must not be between one and the other a space “as

wide as the reed itself”?—

There must not be between them a space “as wide as the reed when it

enters and exits”!

That is, there must not be a space larger than the width of the reed, until there is enough room in the opening to insert and remove a reed of that width.

And likewise, that which it teaches: so that the open area will not be “equal to the solid portion,” means a measure of “solid portion entering and exiting,” which consequently makes the open area greater than the solid portion.

This is also evident

from the way we explained the baraita.

As it teaches

in the latter part of the first clause:

“And if the open area is greater than the solid portion, it is prohibited even opposite the solid portion.”

And if the statement “so that the open area will not equal the solid portion” did not mean that the open area is greater than the solid portion, but rather meant that the open area equals the solid portion and is nevertheless prohibited, why would it need to teach in the latter clause that it is prohibited when the open area is greater than the solid portion? That follows all the more so!

It must be to reveal that only when the open area is greater than the solid portion is it prohibited.

But

when the open area is

equal to the solid portion, it is permitted.

And we conclude:

Learn from this!

This has been explained according to the meaning of the Gemara, R. Hananel, and Rashi below].

Shall we say that this—

this inference from the baraita—

is a refutation of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua,

who says that even when the open area equals the solid portion it is also prohibited?!

And we reject this:

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua could say:

And

if you follow your reasoning,

that you infer from the first clause that when the open area equals the solid portion it is permitted,

come and consider the latter clause:

which teaches, “so that the open area will not equal the solid portion.”

That is, according to you, it means that the open area must not be “greater” than the solid portion; and it then teaches,

“And if the solid portion is greater than the open area, it is permitted even opposite the open area,”

so why is this necessary? It follows all the more so:

If an open area equal to the solid portion is permitted—for we are concerned only that the open area not be greater than the solid portion—is it necessary to state that a solid portion greater than the open area is permitted?

It must be brought for an inference, to teach that it is specifically when the solid portion is greater than the open area that it is permitted.

But

if the solid portion was

equal to the open area, it is prohibited!

This has been explained according to the meaning of the Gemara and Rashi below].

And we challenge this: Ultimately, the inference from the

latter clause is difficult for Rav Pappa,

as we said; and the inference from the

first clause is difficult for Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua,

as we said?!

And we answer: The inference from the

latter clause,

from that which it teaches, “And if the solid portion is greater than the open area, it is permitted,” which you said is superfluous and was stated to teach that an open area equal to the solid portion is prohibited—

is not difficult for Rav Pappa.

For I can always tell you that although it is superfluous, it was nevertheless taught.

For

since the first clause teaches

“the open area is greater than the solid portion

is prohibited,” after it had already taught that the open area must not equal the solid portion—and in order to teach that when we say “the open area must not equal the solid portion,” this means that the open area is greater than the solid portion, and that the statement concerning “a space as wide as the reed itself” refers to a reed entering and exiting—

it also taught

the

latter clause,

after it had taught that the open area must not equal the solid portion, that

a solid portion greater than the open area

is permitted, even though we already know this from the statement “the open area must not equal the solid portion,” which implies that an open area equal to the solid portion is permitted, and certainly a solid portion greater than the open area is permitted.

And likewise, the

first clause,

which teaches, “And if the open area is greater than the solid portion, it is prohibited,” is superfluous, since it had already taught “so that the open area will not equal the solid portion,” and certainly an open area greater than the solid portion is prohibited—

is not difficult for Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua.

For

since it wanted to teach the latter clause—

after it had already taught that the open area must not equal the solid portion—

that a solid portion greater than

the

open area

is permitted which is not superfluous for Rav Huna, since it comes to teach that when the open area equals the solid portion it is prohibited, a point not established from the first clause, for one can explain that the prohibited case of an open area equal to the solid portion refers to a case of entering and exiting, whereas an ordinary open area equal to the solid portion is permitted]—

it also taught

the

first clause,

that

when the open area is greater than the solid portion,

it is prohibited, even though it had already taught “so that the open area will not equal the solid portion,” and certainly an open area greater than the solid portion is prohibited.

We further challenge Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua:

Granted, according to Rav Pappa,

the division in the baraita into two measures is understandable: the measure of a reed less than three handbreadths wide, and the measure of a reed three handbreadths wide.

For that which it teaches in the first measure, “provided that there are not three handbreadths between one reed and the next,” applies only to a reed less than three handbreadths wide, since when there are three handbreadths between them, the open area is greater than the solid portion, which is prohibited. But with a reed three handbreadths wide, it does not matter if there are three handbreadths between one reed and the next, since this makes the open area equal to the solid portion, which Rav Pappa permits.

And

for this reason it did not combine them—

the three-handbreadth reeds with those less than three handbreadths—

and teach them

in the first measure. Rather, it taught the three-handbreadth reeds in the second measure, saying: provided that there is not between one and the other a space as wide as the reed itself. That is, a space of entering and exiting, which makes the open area greater than three handbreadths, and consequently prohibits even a reed three handbreadths wide!

But according to Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua,

there is a difficulty:

let it combine them—

the three-handbreadth reeds with those less than three handbreadths in the first measure—

and teach them

as follows:

Any reed that is less than three and

even

three handbreadths wide must have no three handbreadths between one and the other!?

For according to Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, even with a reed three handbreadths wide, if there are three handbreadths between them it is prohibited, since the open area equals the solid portion, which Rav Huna prohibits?!

And we answer: Yes, indeed, this law taught in the first measure—“provided that there are not three handbreadths between one and the other”—also applies to a reed three handbreadths wide.

Even so, it did not combine them,

because the disqualification is not the same

for a reed less than three handbreadths wide, with a three-handbreadth space between them,

as

that which it teaches in the

first clause

in the first measure,

as the disqualification

of a reed three handbreadths wide, with a three-handbreadth space between them,

as

that which it teaches in the

latter clause

in the second measure.

For the

disqualification in the first clause

is:

so that a kid goat will not leap headlong.

That is to say: Its validity or disqualification depends solely on the measure required for a kid goat to leap through. If the measure required for a kid goat to leap through were less than three handbreadths, it would be disqualified, since the open area would be no less than the solid portion!

And this applies only to reeds less than three handbreadths wide.

But

if

the disqualification in the latter clause

is:

“so that the open area will not equal the solid portion,”

then it does not depend on the measure required for a kid goat to leap through, but on the measure of the breach, which must not be three handbreadths wide!

And this applies only to reeds three handbreadths wide.

And now we challenge the body of the baraita:

“Less than three,”

that is, the statement taught in the first measure, “There must not be three handbreadths between one and the other”—if there were three handbreadths between them, it is prohibited—

whose opinion is this?

It must necessarily be

the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: With less than three, we apply lavud,

but

with three, we do not apply lavud. Therefore, it is prohibited when there are three handbreadths between them, unlike Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who maintains that we apply lavud whenever the distance is less than four handbreadths.

handbreadths, but not including four, if the breached area is greater than the standing area, even opposite the standing area it is forbidden. But four itself is not.

Come and consider the latter clause

of the baraita:

“Whenever it is three, and from three ‘up to’ four”

handbreadths, but not including four, if the open area is greater than the solid portion, it is prohibited even opposite the solid portion. But when it is exactly four, it is not prohibited.

And it explicitly teaches likewise in the third measure that with four handbreadths, even if the open area equals the solid portion—and the same is true if the open area is greater than the solid portion—it is permitted to sow opposite the solid portion. The reason that with four it is permitted opposite the solid portion and it is not nullified because of the open area is that the solid portion is significant.