Eruvin 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

c.

One may distance

the posts from the well by

any

amount

whatsoever [the size of the enclosure — Ritva. Rashi implies: as much as one wishes to make a large enclosure].

Provided that he increases the number of posts, since whenever he distances the posts from the well and makes the enclosure larger, he also increases the space between the double-posts beyond the permitted measure, and must increase the number of posts.

The Gemara explains whether this means adding further posts or widening the double-posts, so that the space between them will not exceed ten cubits according to Rabbi Meir, or thirteen and one-third cubits according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

He may not enlarge the enclosure in which carrying around the well is permitted beyond

the

area of

a beit se’a.

The measure of a beit se’atayim is like the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which was one hundred cubits by fifty cubits, with an area of five thousand square cubits.

The Gemara explains how the enclosure is measured.

They said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Yehuda:

They did not say

that one may not enclose an area larger than

a beit se’atayim, except

for an enclosure made

for a garden

[a place where vegetables are grown for food],

or for a karpef

[a large enclosure outside the city where wood is stored], since these places are not enclosed for residential purposes, even if one makes complete partitions for them.

But if it was

an enclosure for

a pen

for animals, made in the fields, today here and tomorrow there, in order to fertilize the fields with the animals’ dung [and the shepherd sleeps there at night — Rashi 19b].

Or

for

a courtyard for animals

[an animal pen made in the city].

Or

one enclosed

a muktze

[an open area behind the houses. It is called “muktze” because it is not used regularly, and wood is stored there — Ritva in the name of Rashi].

Or

one enclosed

a courtyard

in front of the houses —

the enclosures of all these are enclosures for residential purposes.

in front of the houses—

Therefore,

even if one enclosed

five kor

[a beit se’a has an area of two thousand five hundred square cubits, and a kor contains thirty se’ah]. And

even an enclosure of ten kor —

it is permitted

to enclose it and carry within it.

And

therefore [Ra’avad and Tiferet Yisrael]:

it is permitted

even with posts for wells

to distance

them by

any

amount

whatsoever,

since the enclosure of the wells is also an enclosure for residential purposes, as the water of the wells is fit for human drinking.

It follows that the enclosed area is a place of genuine residential use.

And

provided that he increases the number of posts

in accordance with the size of the enclosure!

Gemara:

We raise a discussion concerning it:

Shall we say that the Mishna,

which teaches that one erects posts for wells,

is not in accordance with Hanania?

As it was taught:

Just as the Sages were lenient in permitting one to enclose wells with a weak partition, so too the Sages were lenient with a caravan traveling in the wilderness, permitting it to enclose itself with a weak partition [as explained above, 16b].

However, the first tanna and Hanania disagree about this:

One may erect posts for a pit

but not for a caravan;

and ropes

[an enclosure of three ropes, one above the other, with less than three handbreadths between them — as above, 16b — which is a weak partition because it consists only of horizontal ropes] may be made even

for a caravan

traveling in the wilderness, and all the more so for wells, since ropes are superior to posts — Ritva.

And Hanania says:

Just as in the case of a caravan they permitted only an enclosure of ropes and not posts, so too they were lenient only in permitting

ropes

around

the pit, but they did not

permit making

posts

around it.

Now, since our Mishna permits enclosing wells even with posts, shall we say that it is not in accordance with Hanania?

And we answer:

Even if you say that

our Mishna is

Hanania, it is possible to distinguish and say:

A pit is one matter —

a well is another matter!

That is, Hanania was stringent only with regard to making posts for a “pit,” which is a place where collected, non-flowing water accumulates.

But with regard to a well of living, flowing water, even Hanania agrees that one may make posts for it; and our Mishna likewise mentions only making posts for “wells,” and not for “pits.” The reason for the distinction between a well and a pit is that with regard to a pit we are concerned that the water might cease, and people would nevertheless continue carrying among the posts — whereas the Sages permitted this only for the sake of the animals of the pilgrims.

But in the case of a well, the water does not cease.

Some say that this was the Gemara’s inference:

Since it does not teach

in the beraita:

Hanania says: One may make ropes for a pit and posts for a well.

By inference,

you learn that

according to Hanania, it makes no difference whether it is a pit or whether it is a well —

only

ropes, yes,

may be made around them. But

posts, no,

may not be made around them.

We raise a discussion concerning it:

Shall we say that the Mishna

is

not in accordance with Hanania?

And we answer:

Even if you say that

the Mishna is

Hanania,

even Hanania agrees that one may make posts for a well.

But what of your statement: If so, why does it not teach, “And Hanania says: One may make ropes for a pit and posts for a well”?

That is not difficult.

Hanania, in response to what the first tanna said, “One may erect posts for a pit,”

responds to him that one does not make posts for a pit.

But a well, which was not mentioned in the words of the first tanna, was likewise not mentioned in Hanania’s words.

Nevertheless, as a matter of law, Hanania agrees that one may indeed make posts for wells, as stated in the Mishna.

This concludes the words of the “some say” explanation.

We raise another discussion:

Shall we say that the Mishna, which teaches that one makes posts for “wells” and does not teach “pits,”

—

is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva!

The Gemara further raises the question:

As we learned:

Whether a public well,

the water of which ordinarily does not cease,

or

a public pit,

since even if the water does cease, people will remind one another not to carry,

or

a

private well,

the water of which ordinarily does not cease —

one may erect posts for them.

But a private pit,

since at times its water ceases, one may not make posts for it.

Rather,

one makes a complete partition for it,

ten handbreadths high —

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Whereas here,

in our Mishna, it

teaches: One makes posts

for wells.

And it implies:

For wells, yes,

one indeed makes them, but

for pits,

not at all

does one

make posts, even for public pits.

If so, shall we say that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva?

And we answer:

Even if you say that

the Mishna is

Rabbi Akiva,

even for public pits one makes posts.

The reason that our Mishna teaches “wells” and not “pits” is that a

well of

living water [“

wells”] is

definitively permitted by the tanna of the Mishna in every case, since

there is no difference between a

well

of the public and no difference between a

well

of a private individual; one makes posts for both, because there is no concern that their water will cease —

it teaches

in the Mishna!

But a

pit of

collected water,

whose permission is not definitive, since one does not make posts for a private pit —

it does not teach!

We raise another discussion:

Shall we say that the Mishna, which permits making posts even around a private well [as the Gemara will infer below],

—

is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava!

As we learned: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: One makes posts only for a public well,

since it has two advantages: it is a well, and it belongs to the public [Rashi below, 22a].

Whereas

in our Mishna

here it teaches that one makes posts

for wells, in the plural, implying two wells —

there is no difference

between a public well

and no difference

between a private well.

If so, shall we say that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava? And we answer:

Even if you say that

our Mishna is

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava,

it is.

For what is meant by “wells,” as taught in the Mishna?

Wells

of the public

at large [those found throughout the world]. Therefore, it teaches “wells” in the plural, and the Mishna does not intend to include a private well.

The Gemara now explains the term “double-posts”:

What are

“double-posts”?

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: It is sufficient

[for there to be]

two posts.

Since the Gemara has cited the statement of Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar, it now records mnemonic signs for additional statements of Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar that will be explained below:

a.

It is sufficient, b.

excommunicated, c.

praise, d.

dove, e.

house, f.

two, g.

was cursed, h.

by measure, i.

three [the Vilna Gaon]

a. It is sufficient

We learned there

in tractate Kilayim:

Rabbi Yehuda says: All the shittin

[inferior figs] that are demai [produce of an am ha-aretz, which the Sages decreed must be tithed even though most amei ha-aretz tithe] —

are exempt

from tithes. Since they are an inferior type of fig, the am ha-aretz did not take care to preserve them, and certainly tithed them.

2.

excommunicated, 3.

3.

praise, 4.

4.

dove, 5.

5.

house, 6.

6.

two, 7.

7.

cursed, 8.

8.

measure, 9.

9.

three [the wording of the Vilna Gaon].

a. Two

1. Two

We learned there,

in tractate Kilayim:

Rabbi Yehuda says: All shitin

[inferior figs] that are demai [produce of an am ha'aretz, which the Sages required to be tithed even though most amei ha'aretz tithe]

are exempt

from tithing. Since they are an inferior type of fig, the am ha'aretz does not take care with them, and certainly tithes them.

except for the diofra,

which is a type of inferior fig, but more valuable, and there is concern that an am ha’aretz does not tithe them.

And we raise a question concerning this:

What is a diofra?

Ulla said: A tree

of figs

that produces two fruits [that bears fruit twice]

[that bears fruit twice]

in a year.

And similarly, we find in the statement of Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar, concerning another matter, that “dio” means two:

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: Dio [two]

[meaning two]

facial forms Adam had

when the Holy One, blessed be He, first created him: one in front and one behind. And the Holy One, blessed be He, divided him into two and made Eve from one of them [Rashi, Berakhot 61a],

as it is stated:

“Behind and before” —

from behind and from before —

You formed me.

You formed a facial form for me.”

And since the opinion of Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar was mentioned, that Eve was created from Adam’s doubled facial form, we cite the following, as Rav and Shmuel disagreed about it.

It is written: “And the Lord God built the side

that He had taken from the man into a woman.”

They disagreed concerning this verse,

Rav and Shmuel: One said: A facial form [meaning, a body — Arukh], which the Holy One, blessed be He, divided into two, as Adam was initially male on one side and female on the other.

[meaning a body—as explained by the Arukh], which the Holy One, blessed be He, divided into two: the first man originally had a male form on one side and a female form on the other.

And the other said: A tail

Adam had, and He removed it from him and created Eve from the tail.

And we raise a question concerning this:

Granted, according to the one who says facial form,

that man was created as a composite of male and female — this is understandable;

this is what is written:

“Behind and before You formed me.”

But according to the one who says tail —

what is the meaning of “Behind and before You formed me,”

which indicates that he had two forms?

And we answer: He interprets it

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami.

For Rabbi Ami said:

“Behind” refers to the work of Creation

— as it is explained below.

And “before” refers to punishment

— as it is explained below.

And we explain Rabbi Ami’s statement:

Granted, “behind” refers to the work of Creation —

for man was not created

until

the eve of Shabbat [Adam was not created until Friday], and he was last in the work of Creation.

[the first man was not created until Friday], and he was the last of the acts of Creation.

But “before” refers to punishment —

what does this mean?

If you say it is because of the curse,

as Adam was the first to be cursed, before the woman and the serpent, for eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge —

that cannot be so.

For

this

does not mean that Adam was first to be cursed. Rather:

First the serpent was cursed, afterward Eve was cursed, and afterward Adam was cursed [and in Berakhot 61a, this is cited from a beraita, which states that this is how it occurred]!

[and in Berakhot 61a a beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna—is brought to show that this is how it happened]!

Rather,

this is its meaning: “before” — man preceded all living creatures with regard

to

the punishment of the

Flood.

As it is written:

“And He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground —

from man to beast.”

Thus, man is mentioned first in connection with the punishment.

We raise another question:

Granted, according to the one who says facial form —

this is what is indicated by the writing: “And He formed

the Lord God the man” with

two yuds.

Since there were, from the very beginning of man’s creation, two formations, male and female.

But according to the one who says tail —

what is the meaning of “And He formed”

with two yuds? And we answer: He expounds the verse

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: “Vayyitzer,” its beginning, is an expression of “וי,” woe, and it contains two yuds, which are expounded as follows:

‘And He formed’ begins as an expression of ‘woe,’ and it contains two yuds, to expound it:

Woe is me because of my inclination

that troubles me [and torments me with thoughts — Rashi, Berakhot 61a] if I fulfill the will of my Creator.

Woe is me because of my Creator

if I fulfill the will of my inclination.

We raise another question:

Granted, according to the one who says facial form —

this is what is indicated by the writing: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day that God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God.

This is the book of the generations of man: On the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

Male and female He created them.”

This indicates that from the beginning of his creation he was male and female, male on one side and female on the other.

But according to the one who says tail —

what is the meaning of “Male and female He created them”?

And we answer: He interprets it

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abahu.

Rabbi Abahu raises a contradiction

between two verses:

It is written: “Male and female He created them”

in the plural.

And

on the other hand

it is written:

“In the image of God He created him”

in the singular, indicating one and not two.

And Rabbi Abahu explains it:

Initially, it arose in thought to create two

male and female.

But ultimately only one was created!

We raise another question:

Granted, according to the one who says facial form —

this is what is indicated by the writing: “And He took one of his sides

and

and closed flesh beneath it.

And the Lord God built the side that He had taken from the man into a woman.”

Since, after the Holy One, blessed be He, divided Adam, it was necessary to close flesh beneath it.

But according to the one who says tail —

what is the meaning of “and closed flesh beneath it”?

And we answer:

Rav Zevid said, and some say Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

It was necessary only for the place of the incision,

for after the tail was cut away from him, the Holy One, blessed be He, closed that place with flesh!

And now we raise the question from the opposite perspective:

Granted, according to the one who says tail, this is what is indicated by the writing: “And He built

the Lord God the side that He had taken from the man into a woman,” indicating that she required construction.

But according to the one who says facial form —

what is the meaning of “And He built”?

And we answer: He expounds it

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya expounded: “And the Lord

God built the side

that He had taken from the man into a woman, and He brought her to the man.”

This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, braided [an expression referring to braiding hair]

[an expression referring to braiding hair]

Eve’s hair and brought her to Adam. For in the coastal cities they call a braid [a braiding of hair]

[a braid of hair]

binyata.

And this is the meaning of “and He built”!

Alternatively: “And the Lord God built.”

Rav Ḥisda said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: The Holy One, blessed be He, constructed

Eve’s womb

like a building! !(pamud.bmp "location of precise column")

precise column location

a storehouse

of fruit: