Eruvin 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

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

we have arrived at the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

For

this reason

he said:

until

less than four

we apply

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

For if

the latter clause too follows the opinion of

the Rabbis,

how can we say that we distinguish

from three “until” four [but not including four], with regard to permitting carrying opposite the standing section?

[three is not included], with regard to permitting carrying opposite the standing section?

And furthermore, the latter clause explicitly states that four and more than four are distinct from the measure of three until four mentioned in the first clause?!

But according to the Rabbis,

three and four—

are they not one and the same?! And now the contradiction between the first and latter clauses is difficult: The first clause follows the Rabbis, whereas the latter clause follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?!

And now this would raise a contradiction between the first clause and the latter clause: the first clause would be according to the Sages, and the latter clause according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?!

And we answer:

Abaye said: Since the first clause follows the Rabbis,

and as we have precisely inferred,

the latter clause too follows the Rabbis.

And the Rabbis agree that anything that is to permit [with regard to permitting

permitting]

opposite it—the standing section—although the breached area is greater, only

the standing section—even when the breached area is larger than the standing area—it is only

if there is four

that it is

is it considered significant.

And if not—

it is not considered significant!

Rava said: Since the latter clause follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

as we have precisely inferred,

the first clause, which teaches that if there are three handbreadths between one reed and another we do not apply lavud,

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

also follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

it does.

For when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that we apply lavud,

even when the gap is greater than three, because it is not significant,

that applies only above,

such as in the case of a crossbeam.

But

here, where it is

below—

it is [when the gap is three]

when the gap is three

like a partition through which young goats can pass.

And for this reason

we do not apply lavud,

because the goat can pass through at once and without hindrance, thereby depriving it of the status of lavud!

And now we return to the dispute concerning whether the breached area may equal the standing area:

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

it is permitted, provided that the standing area is greater than the breached area.

And we raise an objection: Is it conceivable that

most of them

are entrances and windows,

could this enter your mind—[rhetorically]?!

[as a question]?!

For since most of them are entrances and windows, the breached area is greater; so how could it then teach, “provided that the standing area is greater than the breached area”?!

Rather,

this is what it means: These partitions

in which one increased the number of entrances and windows—

it is permitted.

Provided that the standing area is greater than the breached area!

In any event, the beraita teaches: “provided that the standing area is greater than the breached area,” implying that

if

the standing area is

equal to the breached area

exactly,

it is prohibited.

And this is

a refutation of Rav Pappa!

And we conclude:

It is 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 nevertheless accept his ruling.

although there is a conclusive refutation of Rav Pappa, we accept the halakha in accordance with him.

Because our Mishna precisely indicates

our Mishna

in accordance with him.

As we learned:

And

the breaches shall not exceed the standing structure!

And it implies:

if they equal the standing structure

exactly,

it is permitted.

As we concluded earlier at the beginning of the sugya, with the “difficulty” raised against Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, from this Mishna.

Mishna:

This Mishna is the latter clause of the preceding Mishna, concerning a caravan that encamped in an open plain.

They may enclose

the caravan with

three ropes, one above the other,

stretched over stakes, and they may carry within the enclosed area, even though this is a partition consisting only of horizontal strands [horizontal].

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

for then one may apply lavud from one rope to the next, [and the law concerning an individual is explained later in the Mishna].

The measure of the ropes: Their combined thickness

of all three ropes together must be

more than one handbreadth [by three slight amounts],

by three slight amounts,

so that the total

together is

ten handbreadths.

That is, the combination of three spaces, each measuring slightly less than three handbreadths, together with the thickness of the ropes, totals ten handbreadths.

And likewise

they may enclose the area with reeds

standing upright and inserted into the ground, so that this is a partition consisting only of vertical strands [vertical],

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

There are four opinions concerning this:

a.

The Sages spoke with regard to a caravan,

and were lenient concerning it, so that it does not require a partition made of both vertical and horizontal strands [which is strong and sturdy and can withstand much pressure; Rabbeinu Yehonatan]. Rather, either vertical strands, such as reeds, or horizontal strands, such as ropes, suffice. But they were not lenient for an individual, who requires a partition made of both vertical and horizontal strands—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

b.

And the Sages say:

Both a caravan and an individual may carry within a partition consisting of either vertical or horizontal strands. For

the Sages did not speak

in our Mishna

specifically of a caravan, but only of the usual case,

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

c.

Any partition that is not made of both vertical and horizontal strands is not a partition,

whether for a caravan or for an individual—

the words of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

And he disputes his father, Rabbi Yehuda! d.

And the Sages say:

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

one of two things is valid—[either vertical or horizontal strands].

[either vertical or horizontal elements] is a valid partition. [The Gemara explains what the difference is between the first Sages and the latter Sages. All the opinions are explained at the end of the discussion.]

The Gemara explains the difference between the earlier Sages and the later Sages. All the opinions will be explained at the end of the sugya.

Gemara:

Rav Hamnuna said in the name of Rav: They said

in the preceding Mishna: A caravan that encamped in an open plain and enclosed itself with animal utensils—and ordinary animal utensils consist of vertical strands, standing upon the ground—when

the standing area is greater than the breached area in a partition of vertical strands—

it is considered standing!

As it teaches there: “The breaches shall not exceed the standing structure.” If the standing structure exceeds the breaches, it is certainly permitted!

Therefore,

Rav Hamnuna asked

in the name of Rav: If the standing area is greater than the breached area

in a partition of horizontal strands—

what is the ruling?

Abaye said: Come and hear

from what our Mishna teaches:

The measure of the ropes—

their thickness must be more than one handbreadth, so that the total is ten handbreadths.

And

if it is so

that a standing area greater than a breached area is valid in a partition of horizontal strands,

why do I need

the thickness of the ropes to be

more than one handbreadth?!

Let him make

one space

slightly less than three handbreadths, and a rope of any slight thickness;

and let him make another space

slightly less than three handbreadths, and a rope of any slight thickness;

and let him make another space

slightly less than four

by a slight amount,

and a rope of any slight thickness!

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, infer from this that a standing area greater than the breached area in a partition of horizontal strands is not considered standing. Therefore, it is necessary that there not be three handbreadths between one rope and the next, so that the entire partition is considered “standing,” since it is treated as lavud.

We reject this:

Can this be so,

is it possible to do this [Ritva]?!

But

this space of slightly less than four—

where and how could one position it [how and where could it be placed]?!

[how and where can it be positioned]?!

If he positions it below [near the ground],

below, near the ground,

it is like a partition through which young goats can pass—

since it is three handbreadths or more, it is not a partition even if the “standing” area were a full ten handbreadths, as we maintain that a suspended partition does not permit carrying!

If he positions it—

at the breach of four—

above [at the upper height of the partition],

above, at the height of the partition,

the air on this side comes

from the rope up to the sky,

and

the air

on this side

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

nullifies it

the upper rope, and it is no longer possible to permit the arrangement on the basis that the standing area is greater than the breached area!

If he positions it in the middle, the standing area is greater than the breached area

when combining

the two sides—

for beneath the breach the standing area is less than the breached area, and above the breach the standing area is less than the breached area, each being three handbreadths wide and no more.

And should we say:

Can one infer from this

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

a standing area greater than the breached area on two sides 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 question. For even if we say that a standing area greater than the breached area is considered standing even in a partition of horizontal strands, one cannot reduce the required measure of the ropes and create a standing area greater than the breached area on only one side.

And it was difficult for us: If so, Rav Hamnuna’s essential question can never arise, since it would always constitute a standing area greater than the breached area on two sides?!

Some versions read:

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

See Rashba and Ritba.

And we answer:

Rather, this is what Rav Hamnuna was asking,

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

For example: He brought a mat that was seven

handbreadths

and a slight amount long.

And he cut out of it

across its width, at the bottom of the mat, a section with a height of

three

handbreadths.

And he left

he left

in it

above a height of

four

handbreadths.

And

in addition

a slight amount

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

And he positioned it

the mat

at a

height

of less than three

handbreadths above ground level.

And it follows:

a. Up to a height of three [including the slight amount at the bottom of the mat], it is closed by virtue of lavud.

b. Above it is a breach of three.

c. Above that is a closed section of four.

Thus, the standing area above is greater than the breach beneath it, and there is a standing area greater than the breached area on one side, which is considered standing!

Moreover, it is impossible to say that the standing area above is nullified because the air on this side [the cutout] and the air on that side [above the mat] come and nullify it, since the standing area is greater than the air beneath it!

Rav Ashi said: It is a suspended partition that

was

what Rav Hamnuna was asking

Rav Hamnuna.

For example: He positioned a mat ten handbreadths high, three handbreadths above ground level.

And he asked whether the standing area above nullifies the breach of three beneath the mat.

And this question of Rav Hamnuna is

like

that question

that Rabbi Tavla asked Rav:

A suspended partition,

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

does it permit

also

in a ruin,

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

Rav said to Rabbi Tavla

Rav to Rabbi Tavla:

A suspended partition permits only with regard to water,

to permit drawing water from it, since

the Sages were lenient with regard to water.

We learned in the Mishna:

They may enclose the area with reeds,

provided that there are not three handbreadths between one reed and the next. “They spoke with regard to a caravan”—the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And we raise an objection: It follows from our Mishna that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, only

with regard to a caravan, yes [a partition consisting only of vertical strands was permitted]. But

[was a partition consisting only of vertical elements permitted]. But

for an individual—

no,

a partition consisting only of vertical strands was not permitted at all, even if the enclosed area of the partition was less than two se’a.

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: All the partitions of Shabbat,

the flimsy partitions, consisting only of vertical or horizontal strands, which they permitted for a caravan of many people under pressing circumstances—

they did not permit for an individual,

when the area enclosed by the partition is

more than two se’a!

And it follows that up to two se’a it is permitted, unlike what is implied by the Mishna?!

Two se’a: An area in which two se’a of seed can be sown. Its area is like that of the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which was one hundred cubits by fifty cubits, that is, an area of five thousand square cubits.

And we answer: Rabbi Yehuda’s intention in the Mishna was not to exclude an individual entirely.

Rather:

As

we find

that Rav Naḥman said, and some say Rav Bibi bar Abaye: It was necessary only [the Gemara explains shortly what Rav Naḥman was referring to]

[the Gemara explains shortly what Rav Naḥman was referring to]

to provide them with all their needs,

even more than two se’a!

Here too,

when Rabbi Yehuda said, “They spoke with regard to a caravan,” he was referring to what the Sages permitted

to provide them

for a caravan to enclose itself with a flimsy partition of vertical strands

to the full extent of its needs.

And it is concerning this that Rabbi Yehuda said that they did not permit an individual to enclose an area to the full extent of his needs!

But up to two se’a, it is certainly permitted even for an individual.

And

where was the statement of Rav Naḥman, and some say Rav Bibi bar Abaye, said?

It was said with regard to that which we learned

in our Mishna:

Any partition that is not made of both vertical and horizontal strands is not a partition, the words of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

And we raise an objection:

Did Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, actually say this?!

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

to use a partition of

ropes,

which consists only of horizontal strands.

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

For an individual, they provide him

with a rope partition enclosing

two se’a

and no more.

For two people, they provide them with two se’a

one, although they are two.

But

three

people,

become a caravan, and they are provided with

an area to enclose measuring

six

se’a, which is two se’a for each person.

The words of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Sages say: Both an individual and a caravan are provided with

an area to enclose with rope partitions

to the full extent of their needs.

Provided that they do not

enclose an excessively large area, until

there is an area of two se’a—

within the entire enclosed area—

unused,

without their needing that space for use.

We see, then, that according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted to enclose an area with a partition consisting only of horizontal strands—and likewise with vertical strands—alone?!

And it is concerning this that

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

the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, in our Mishna, that a partition not made of both vertical and horizontal strands is not a partition—

only

not

to provide them

with an area to enclose using this partition

to the full extent of their needs.

Only with regard to this matter is it not considered a partition.

But for two se’a for an individual, and two se’a for each member of a caravan, it is certainly considered a partition.

Rav Naḥman expounded in the name of Rabbeinu Shmuel:

An individual—

who comes to enclose an area with a partition that is not made of both vertical and horizontal strands—

is provided with two se’a

one.

Two—

are provided with two se’a

one.

Three—

become a caravan, and are provided with six

se’a!

And we challenge Rav Naḥman:

Is it possible that

you abandon the Rabbis

of the Mishna and beraita

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

who holds this view, as stated in the beraita?!

He then

Rav Naḥman retracted, and

Rav Naḥman appointed an interpreter over him [he appointed an interpreter, as was customary for public lectures] and expounded:

[as was customary for public lectures] and expounded:

The things that I said before you

in an earlier lecture

were mistaken.

Rather, this is what they said:

An individual—

is provided with two se’a.

Two—

are provided with two se’a.

Three—

become a caravan. And they are provided with all

their needs!