Eruvin 16a — the Talmud in English

In camel-pads

[a cushion placed beneath a camel’s saddle],

in burdens

[loads],

in reeds, in vegetable stalks

[stalks of vegetables]—

they may be moved within it. Provided

that there shall not be

an open space

between one camel and another

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

“as much as a saddle,” and between one camel-pad and another

“as much as a camel-pad.”

Behold, we see that even if in the breach there is only “as much as” the standing part, it is nevertheless forbidden. And this is a difficulty against Rav Pappa!

And we answer:

here too,

when we say “as much as a camel,” that means that there is as much as a camel

when

the camel

enters and exits,

which is slightly more than “as much as a camel”; and it follows that the breached area is greater than the standing area.

Come and hear,

from that which was taught in the Tosefta of Kilayim:

You thus find that there are three measures

[divisions of laws]

in partitions

of reeds, which are distant 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, and the width of each of the reeds is

less than three

handbreadths!

Behold, even if between one reed and another there was air equal to the full width of a reed, and even more, it is possible that this partition will be valid by virtue of lavud.

Therefore,

it is necessary that there not be between

one reed

and

another reed

three

handbreadths.

For with a separation of three handbreadths, the law of lavud does not apply, and it is considered a breach, and it nullifies the standing part.

But with less than three, we say lavud, and it is not called that there is air between them sufficient to nullify the standing part because of the breach.

And that which we require that there not be three handbreadths between them is

so that a kid shall not leap headlong

[all at once, without delay] between one reed and another.

That is to say: when there are three handbreadths between them, and it is consequently significant for the passage of a kid explicitly, without delay, it is impossible to say lavud. Ritba.

The second measure:

Any

fence

that

is made of reeds, each of which is as wide as

three

handbreadths,

and from three to four

handbreadths, but not including four!

It is necessary that there not be between one and the other as much as its full width

of a reed—

so that the breached area shall not be equal to the standing area.

For since the full width of a reed is greater than the measure of lavud, it is called air, and it is consequently a breach.

And if the breached area was greater than the standing area,

then the breach nullifies the standing area, and

even opposite the standing area it is forbidden

to sow. [And below we challenge: at first it appeared that a breach equal to the standing area is forbidden, whereas at the end it appears that a breach equal to the standing area is permitted].

The third measure:

Any

fence

that

is made of reeds, each of which is as wide as

four

handbreadths,

and from four

handbreadths

to ten cubits,

with ten included!

It is necessary—

in order to permit sowing even opposite the air—

that there not be between one and the other as much as its full width

of a reed, in order

that the breached area shall not be equal to the standing area.

And if the breached area was equal to the standing area,

since the reeds are four handbreadths wide and the standing part is consequently significant, the breach does not nullify the standing part.

Therefore:

opposite the standing part it is permitted

to sow [even if the breached area is greater than the standing area].

But

opposite the breached area it is forbidden,

since the standing part is not greater than the breached area.

And if the standing part

—of the reeds in all the measures—was

greater than the breached area,

since the standing part is greater than it, there is no basis to say that the air on this side and the air on that side come and nullify it, the standing part; and therefore the breaches are openings. Consequently,

even opposite the breached area it is permitted

to sow!

If

the partition was breached

by more than ten

cubits—and even if all the rest of the partition is standing—

it is forbidden

to sow opposite the breach.

If there were there pointed reeds

[reeds sharpened like a thorn and stuck into the ground]

and he makes

[and made]

a crosspiece for them

[a braided branch]

above,

which extends from reed to reed—and it is consequently a form of a doorway—

even

if the breach

was more than ten

cubits,

it is permitted

to sow even opposite the breach. For a form of a doorway permits in Kilayim—for everyone—even a breach greater than ten [as above, page 11b].

And now this is a difficulty against Rav Pappa, who permits a breach equal to the standing area:

In any event, it teaches

in the

first clause

[in the second measure]:

“From three until four, provided that there shall not be between one and the other as much as its full width

so that the breached area shall not be equal to the standing area.”

A refutation

of

Rav Pappa?!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa can say: What

is this that it teaches in the baraita: it is necessary that there not be between one and the other “

its full width”?—

that there shall not be between them “its full width when it

enters and exits”!

That is, there shall not be air there greater than its full width, so that there would be room in the air to insert and remove the full width of a reed.

And likewise, that which it teaches: so that the breach shall not be “equal to the standing area,” means—according to the measure of “the standing area entering and exiting,” which consequently makes the breached area greater than the standing area.

This too is evidently so,

as we have explained the baraita.

Since it teaches

in the end of the first clause:

“And if the breached area was greater than the standing area, even opposite the standing area it is forbidden.”

And if that which it teaches, “so that the breached area shall not be equal to the standing area,” did not mean a breached area greater than the standing area, but rather a breach equal to the standing area, and even so it is forbidden, why do I need the end to prohibit when the breached area is greater than the standing area? Is this not a kal va-chomer?!

And necessarily, it is to reveal that only a breached area greater than the standing area is forbidden.

But

a breach

equal to the standing area is permitted.

And we conclude:

Learn from this! [It has been explained according to the meaning of the Gemara, Rav Hai and Rashi below].

Shall we say that this

—this inference from the baraita—

is a refutation of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua,

who said: even a breach equal to the standing area is also forbidden?!

And we reject this:

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua can say:

and

according to your reasoning,

for you infer from the first clause that a breach equal to the standing area is permitted.

Say the latter clause:

which teaches, “that the breached area shall not be equal to the standing area.”

That is—according to you—that the breach shall not be “greater” than the standing area, and it teaches afterward,

“And if the standing area was greater than the breached area, even opposite the breached area it is permitted,”

and why do I need this? Is this not a kal va-chomer:

If a breach equal to the standing area is permitted—for we are concerned only that the breach not be greater than the standing area—is it necessary to state that when the standing area is greater than the breached area it is permitted?

And necessarily, it comes for an inference and to teach: specifically, when the standing area is greater than the breached area is it permitted;

but

if the standing area was

equal to the breached area, it is forbidden! [It has been explained according to the meaning of the Gemara and Rashi below].

And we challenge: 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 standing area is greater than the breached area, it is permitted,” which you said is superfluous in order to teach that a breach equal to the standing area is forbidden—

for Rav Pappa it is not difficult.

For I can always say to you that even though it is superfluous, nevertheless it teaches it.

For

since it taught in the first clause

“the breached area is greater than the standing area

and it is forbidden,” after it had already taught that the breach should not be equal to the standing area, in order to teach that what we say, “the breach shall not be equal to the standing area,” means a breach greater than the standing area, and that which it teaches “its full width” deals with entering and exiting—

it

also taught

the

latter clause after it had taught “that the breached area shall not be equal to the standing area,” that

the standing area greater than the breached area

is permitted, although we already know it from that which it teaches, “that the breached area shall not be equal to the standing area,” and it implies that when it is equal, it is permitted, and all the more so when the standing area is greater than the breached area.

And likewise, the

first clause,

which teaches, “and if the breached area is greater than the standing area, it is forbidden,” is superfluous, for it already taught, “that the breached area shall not be equal to the standing area,” and all the more so a breached area greater than the standing area—

for Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua it is not difficult.

For

since it wanted to teach the latter clause—

after it had already taught that the breach should not be equal to the standing area—that

the standing area greater than

the

breached area

is permitted [which is not superfluous for Rav Huna, for it comes to inform us that a breach equal to the standing area is forbidden, which we do not hear from the first clause, since it is possible to explain that the forbidden breach equal to the standing area is one in which it enters and exits, whereas a breach equal to the standing area is permitted]—it

also taught

the

first clause,

that

the breached area is greater than the standing area,

and it is forbidden, although it had already taught, “that the breached area shall not be equal to the standing area,” and all the more so a breached area greater than the standing area.

Again we challenge Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua:

Granted according to Rav Pappa,

this is understandable, that the baraita divides into two measures: 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 shall not be three between one reed and another,” applies only to a reed less than three handbreadths wide, for then, when there are three between them, the breached area is greater than the standing area, which is forbidden. But with a reed three handbreadths wide, we do not care if there are three between one reed and another, for it is a breach equal to the standing area, which Rav Pappa permits.

And

for this reason he did not combine them—

the three and the less than three—

and teach them

in the first measure. Rather, he taught three in the second measure, where we say: provided that there shall not be between one and the other its full width. That is, when it enters and exits, so that the breach is greater than three, and it also forbids a reed three handbreadths wide!

But according to Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua

it is difficult:

let him combine them

—the three and the less than three in the first measure—

and teach them

thus:

any width less than three and also

three, it is necessary that there not be three 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 between them it is forbidden, since it is a breach equal to the standing area, which is forbidden according to Rav Huna?!

And we answer: Yes, it is indeed so, that this law which it teaches in the first measure, “provided that there shall not be three between one and the other,” also applies to a reed three handbreadths wide.

And even so he did not combine them,

because the disqualification

of a reed less than three, with a gap of three between them,

is not similar to the disqualification

of a reed three handbreadths wide, with a gap of three between them, which it teaches in the

first clause

in the first measure, as opposed to the

disqualification

of a reed three handbreadths wide, with a gap of three between them, which it teaches in the

latter clause

in the second measure.

For the

disqualification of the first clause

is:

so that a kid shall not leap headlong.

That is to say: its validity and its disqualification depend only on the measure of the kid’s leaping. And had the measure of a kid’s leaping been less than three handbreadths, it would have been disqualified, since the breached area is not less than the standing area!

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

But

if the

disqualification of the latter clause

is:

that the breached area shall not be equal to the standing area,

and it does not depend on the measure of the kid’s leaping, but on the measure of the breach, that it 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, that which it teaches in the first measure, “it is necessary that there not be three between one and the other”; if there were three between them, it is forbidden—

who is it?

It must necessarily be, according to

the Rabbis, who say: with less than three we say lavud,

but

with three we do not say lavud.

And for this reason it is forbidden when there are three between them, and it is not like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that lavud applies whenever it is less than four.

Say the latter clause

of the baraita:

anything that is three, and from three “until” four

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.

And it explicitly teaches as well in the third measure that with four, even if the breached area is equal to the standing area—and the same is true if the breached area is greater than the standing area—opposite the standing area it is permitted. And the reason that with four it is permitted opposite the standing area and is not nullified because of the breach is that the standing part is significant.

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.