Eruvin 16b — the Talmud in English

And since we distinguish in significance between four and less than four, it necessarily follows that

we have arrived at Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

For

this reason

he said:

Until

less than four

we say

lavud, but with four, which is significant, we do not say lavud, [Ritva].

For if

the end also follows

the Rabbis,

how do we say and distinguish

from three “and up to” four

[but not including four], with regard to permitting [carrying] opposite the standing part?

And in the end we also explicitly say that four and more than four are distinct from the measure of three up to four in the beginning?!

But according to

the Rabbis,

are three and four not one and the same?!

And now the contradiction between the beginning and the end is difficult: the beginning is the Rabbis, and the end is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?!

And we answer:

Abaye said: Since the beginning is the Rabbis,

as we have precisely established,

the end too is the Rabbis.

And the Rabbis agree that everything which is to permit

[with regard to permitting]

opposite it

of the standing part—even though the breach is greater—only

if there is four

is it

significant.

But if not,

it is not significant!

Rava said: Since the end is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

as we have precisely established,

the beginning,

which teaches that if there are three between one reed and another we do not say lavud,

is also Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

itself.

For when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that we say lavud

even with more than three, because it is not significant,

that applies above,

such as with a crossbeam.

But

here, which is

below,

it becomes

[when the gap is three]

like a partition through which goats pass.

And for this reason

we do not say lavud,

because the goat’s passing through it at once and without delay nullifies it as a lavud!

And now we return to the dispute concerning a breach equal to the standing part:

Come and hear: These partitions, most of which are entrances and windows—

it is permitted, provided that the standing part is greater than the breach.

And we inquire about it: Is it possible that

most of them

are entrances and windows,

you might think

[as a question]?!

But since most of them are entrances and windows, the breach is greater, and how could it then teach: “provided that the standing part is greater than the breach”?!

Rather,

this is what it says: These partitions

in which one increased the entrances and windows—

it is permitted.

Provided that the standing part is greater than the breach!

In any event, the beraita teaches: “provided that the standing part is greater than the breach.” This implies,

but if

the standing part is

equal to the breach

equally,

it is forbidden.

And this is

a refutation of Rav Pappa!

And we conclude:

A refutation!

And

nevertheless,

the halakha is in accordance with Rav Pappa!

And we wonder about this: How can you say that there is

a refutation

of Rav Pappa,

and

nevertheless

the halakha

is in accordance with him?!

And we answer:

Yes,

although there is a refutation of Rav Pappa, we accept his view.

Because our Mishna is precise

in this matter

in accordance with him.

For we learned:

And

the breaches shall not exceed the built-up part!

And it implies:

but if it is equal to the built-up part

equally—

it is permitted.

And this is as we concluded above at the beginning of the discussion with “it is difficult” against Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, from this Mishna.

Mishna:

This Mishna is the end of the Mishna above, concerning a caravan that encamped in an open plain.

They surround

the caravan with

three ropes, one above the other, and one above the other,

on stakes, and they carry within the enclosure. Even though it is a partition only of horizontal elements [horizontal].

Provided that there are not three handbreadths between one rope and the other,

for now one can say lavud from rope to rope, [and the law of an individual is explained later in the Mishna].

The measure of the ropes: their thickness

of all three ropes together must be

more than a handbreadth

[by three slight amounts],

so that everything

together will be

ten handbreadths.

That is, the combination of three spaces measuring three handbreadths less a slight amount, together with the thickness of the ropes, will total ten handbreadths.

And likewise,

they surround with reeds

standing, driven into the ground, for it is a partition only of vertical elements [vertical],

provided that there are not three handbreadths between one reed and the other.

There are four approaches in this matter:

a.

The Sages spoke concerning a caravan,

and they were lenient with it, in that it does not require a partition made of vertical and horizontal elements [which is strong and sound and can withstand much. Rabbeinu Yehonatan]. Rather, either vertical elements, such as reeds, or horizontal elements, such as ropes. But they were not lenient for an individual, until the partition has vertical and horizontal elements—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

b.

And the Rabbis say:

Whether a caravan or an individual, they are permitted to carry within a partition of vertical or horizontal elements. For

the Sages did not speak

in our Mishna

concerning a caravan except because it is the usual case,

since a caravan traveling in the wilderness requires such a partition.

c.

Any partition that is neither of vertical nor of horizontal elements is not a partition,

whether for a caravan or for an individual—

the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda.

And he disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda, his father! d.

And the Rabbis say:

Whether for a caravan or for an individual, a partition made of

one of two things

[either vertical or horizontal elements] is a valid partition.

[And in the Gemara it explains what difference there is between the first Rabbis and the later Rabbis. The explanation of all the approaches will be given at the end of the discussion].

Gemara:

Rav Hamnuna said in the name of Rav: They have said

in the Mishna above: A caravan that encamped in an open plain and surrounded itself with animal utensils—and ordinary animal utensils are of vertical elements, standing on the ground—that

the standing part is greater than the breach with vertical elements—

is considered standing!

And as it teaches there: “The breaches shall not exceed the built-up part.” If the built-up part is greater than the breaches, it is indeed valid!

Therefore,

Rav Hamnuna asked

in the name of Rav: If the standing part is greater than the breach

with horizontal elements,

what [is the law]?

Abaye said: Come and hear

from what our Mishna teaches:

The measure of the ropes—

their thickness is more than a handbreadth, so that everything will be ten handbreadths.

And

if it is so

that a standing part greater than a breach with horizontal elements is valid,

why do I need

the thickness of the ropes

to be more than a handbreadth?!

Let him make

one space

less than three, and a rope of a slight amount;

and let him make another space

less than three, and a rope of a slight amount;

and let him make another space

less than four

by a slight amount,

and a rope of a slight amount! For the lower six handbreadths, which are considered lavud, are “standing.” And the breach of four would be made valid by a standing part greater than the breach—with horizontal elements?!

For the lower six handbreadths, which are considered closed by virtue of lavud, constitute “standing,” and the breach of four handbreadths would be rendered valid by the standing area being greater than the breached area—in a partition of horizontal strands?!

Rather, learn from this: A standing part greater than a breach with horizontal elements is not considered standing! Therefore, it is necessary that there not be three handbreadths between one rope and another, for it is entirely “standing,” since it is considered lavud.

And we reject this:

Can you really say so,

and is it possible to do this [Ritva]?!

But

this less-than-four—

how does he place it

[how and where does he position it]?!

If he places it below

[at the bottom, close to the ground],

it becomes like a partition through which goats pass—

since it is three handbreadths or more, it is not a partition even if the “standing” were ten complete handbreadths, for we hold that a suspended partition does not permit!

If he places it—

opposite the breach of four—

above

[at the upper height of the partition],

the air on this side comes

from the rope to the sky,

and

the air

on this side

beneath the upper rope, which is more than three handbreadths [and is not lavud], and

nullifies it

the upper rope, and it is no longer possible to permit it through a standing part greater than the breach!

If he places it in the middle, the standing part is greater than the breach

by combining

two directions—

for below the breach there is a standing part smaller than the breach, and above the breach there is a standing part smaller than the breach, each of them being three handbreadths wide and no more.

And shall we say:

Learn from this

from Abaye, who resolved Rav Hamnuna’s uncertainty from our Mishna, that

a standing part greater than a breach from two directions is considered standing?!

But it is obvious to us that it is not considered standing!

And since this is so, one cannot prove from our Mishna in order to resolve Rav Hamnuna’s uncertainty. For even if we say that a standing part greater than a breach is also considered standing with horizontal elements, he cannot reduce the measure of the ropes and make a standing part greater than the breach from one direction.

And we had a difficulty: If so, Rav Hamnuna’s essential question cannot arise, for it would always become a standing part greater than the breach from two directions?!

[And some versions read:

And what was Rav Hamnuna asking—see Rashba and Ritva].

And we answer:

Rather, this is what Rav Hamnuna was asking:

Rather, Rav Hamnuna’s question was this,

in a case where the standing part above is greater than the breach in the middle.

For example: he brought a mat that was seven

handbreadths

and a slight amount.

And he cut into it

across its width, at the bottom of the mat, to a height of

three

handbreadths.

And he left

a remainder

in it

above, of a height of

four.

handbreadths.

And

another

slight amount

he left at the bottom of the mat beneath the cut.

And he positioned it

the mat

at a

height

less than three

handbreadths above the surface of the ground.

And it emerges:

a. Up to a height of three [together with the slight amount at the bottom of the mat], it is sealed by the law of lavud.

b. Above it there is a breach of three.

c. Above it there is a sealed part of four.

Thus the standing part above is greater than the breach beneath it, and it is a standing part greater than the breach from one direction, which is considered standing!

And likewise, it is impossible to say that the standing part above is nullified because the air on this side [the cut], and the air on this side [above the mat], come and nullify it, since the standing part is greater than the air beneath it!

Rav Ashi said: A suspended partition

is what

Rav Hamnuna was asking

Rav Hamnuna.

For example: He set up a mat ten [handbreadths high], three handbreadths above the surface of the ground.

And he asks: Does the standing part above nullify the breach of three beneath the mat?

And this question of Rav Hamnuna was

like

that question

that Rabbi Tavla asked Rav:

A suspended partition,

which we found permits drawing water from the sea, which is a karmelit, into a private domain [see above, page 12a]—

what is the law: does it permit

also

in a ruin,

where suspended partitions are ordinarily found [Rashi above, page 12a]?

He said to him,

Rav to Rabbi Tavla:

A suspended partition permits only with water,

to permit drawing from it, because

the Sages were lenient with water.

We learned in the Mishna:

They surround with reeds,

provided that there are not three handbreadths between one reed and another. “They spoke concerning a caravan,” the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And we inquire about it: It implies from our Mishna that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, only

with a caravan, yes

[a partition that is only of vertical elements is permitted]. But

with an individual—

no,

a partition of vertical elements alone is not permitted at all, even if the circumference of the partition is less than two beit seah.

But it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: All the partitions of Shabbat

that are flimsy, being only of vertical or only of horizontal elements, which they permitted for a caravan of many people under pressure—

they did not permit for an individual,

when the circumference of the partition is

more than two beit seah!

And it implies: Up to two beit seah it is permitted, unlike what is implied by our Mishna?!

Two beit seah: an area in which two seah of seed are sown, and its area is like the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which was one hundred by fifty cubits, that is, an area of five thousand cubits.

And we answer: The intention of Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna is not to exclude an individual completely.

Rather:

as

we find

that Rav Naḥman said, and some say Rav Bibi son of Abaye: It was necessary only

[and shortly below it explains what Rav Naḥman is referring to]

to give them all their needs

even more than two beit seah!

Here too,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, “They spoke concerning a caravan,” refers to what the Sages permitted

to give them

the caravan, to surround itself with a flimsy partition of vertical elements,

all their needs.

And concerning this Rabbi Yehuda said that for an individual they did not permit all his needs!

But up to two beit seah it is indeed valid even for an individual.

And

where was this statement of Rav Naḥman, and some say Rav Bibi son of Abaye, said?

Concerning this which we learned

in our Mishna:

Any partition that is neither of vertical nor of horizontal elements is not a partition, the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda.

And we inquire about it:

Did Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda really say this?!

But it was taught: Both an individual and a caravan are

permitted a partition of

ropes,

which is only of horizontal elements.

And what is the difference between an individual and a caravan?

For an individual they give him

to surround himself with a partition of ropes

two beit seah

and no more.

For two they give them one beit seah

even though they are two.

But

three

people

become a caravan, and they give them

to surround

six beit seah

of seah, which are two beit seah for each one.

The words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Rabbis say: Both an individual and a caravan, they give them

to surround themselves with partitions of ropes

all their needs.

Provided that they do not

surround an excessively large area, until

there is two beit seah

within the entire enclosure

free

without their needing that place for use.

We see that even according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda it is permitted to surround oneself with a partition of horizontal elements—and the same applies to vertical elements—alone?!

And concerning this he answers and

Rav Naḥman said, and some say Rav Bibi son of Abaye: It was necessary only—

the statement that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda made in our Mishna, that a partition which is neither of vertical nor of horizontal elements is not a partition—

rather,

not

to give them

to surround themselves with this partition

all their needs.

It is only with regard to this that it is not a partition.

But for two beit seah for an individual, and two beit seah for each person in a caravan, it is indeed a partition.

Rav Naḥman expounded in the name of Rabbeinu Shmuel:

An individual—

who comes to surround himself with a partition that is neither of vertical nor of horizontal elements—

they give him two beit seah

one.

Two—

they give them two beit seah

one.

Three—

they become a caravan, and they give them six beit

seah!

And we challenged Rav Naḥman:

But have you

abandoned the Rabbis

of the Mishna and the beraita,

and acted in accordance with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

for this is his view, as it appears in the beraita?!

Afterward,

Rav Naḥman retracted, and

Rav Naḥman appointed an interpreter over him

[he appointed a translator, as was customary in public teaching] and expounded:

The things that I said before you

in an earlier exposition

are an error on my part.

However, this is what they said:

An individual—

they give him two beit seah.

Two—

they give them two beit seah.

Three—

they become a caravan. And they give them all

their needs!