Eruvin 18a — the Talmud in English

3.

One may distance

the posts from the well by

any

amount

whatsoever [the size of the enclosure — Ritba. And from Rashi it follows: as much as he wishes to make a large enclosure].

that is, according to Ritva, the size of the enclosure; Rashi implies that one may make the enclosure as large as one wishes].

Provided that he increases the posts,

for whenever he distances the posts from the pit and the enclosure becomes larger, he also increases the space between the double-posts beyond the permitted measure of the space, and he must increase the posts.

And in the Gemara it explains whether the intention is to add additional posts, or to widen the double-posts, so that there will not be between them a space greater than ten cubits according to Rabbi Meir, and thirteen and one-third cubits according to Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Judah says:

He cannot enlarge the enclosure permitted for carrying around the pit except

up to

the point that he encloses an area of

a beit seah.

The measure of a beit seah is like the courtyard of the Tabernacle, which was one hundred cubits by fifty cubits, and its area was five thousand cubits.

And in the Gemara it explains how the enclosure is measured.

The Sages said to him,

to Rabbi Judah:

They did not say

that one may not enclose, for the permit of carrying, an area greater than

a beit seah, except

in an enclosure that one makes

for a garden

[a place where vegetables for eating are grown],

and for a karpef

[a large enclosure outside the city, where they bring wood for storage], since those places are not enclosed for the purpose of residence, even if one makes complete partitions for them.

But if the enclosure was

the enclosure of the partitions for a

pen

of animals that they make in the fields, today here and today there, in order to fertilize them with the dung of the animals [and the shepherd resides there at night — Rashi, 19b].

Or

for a

circular enclosure

[an animal pen made in the city].

Or

if he enclosed a

storage area

[an open area behind the houses. And it is called “storage area” because it is not used regularly, and wood is placed there for storage — Ritba in the name of Rashi].

Or

if he enclosed a

courtyard

in front of the houses —

the enclosure of all these is an enclosure for residence.

Therefore,

even

if he enclosed

a house of five kor

[in every beit seah there is an area of two thousand five hundred cubits, and in every kor there are thirty seah.] And

even a house of ten kor —

it is permitted

to enclose and carry in them.

And

therefore [Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro and Tiferet Yisrael]:

it is permitted

also with the posts of the wells

to distance

any

amount whatsoever,

for even the enclosure of the wells is an enclosure for residence, since their water is fit for human drinking.

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

And

provided that he increases the posts

according to the size of the enclosure!

Gemara:

And we raise an objection to it:

Shall we say that our Mishna,

which teaches that one makes posts for the wells, is

not in accordance with Hanania?

For it was taught:

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

But the first tanna and Hanania disagree concerning it:

One makes posts for a pit

and 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 is made only of horizontal elements] one makes even

for a caravan

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

And Hanania says:

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

ropes

around

the pit, but they did not

permit making

posts

around it.

And now, since our Mishna permitted enclosing the 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 so. For one may distinguish and say:

:

A pit is one matter —

a well is another matter!

That is to say: Hanania was stringent only to this point: not to make posts for a “pit,” which is a place where collected, nonflowing water gathers.

But in the case of a well of living, flowing water, even Hanania agrees that one makes posts for it, and our Mishna too mentioned only that one makes posts for “wells,” and not for “pits”! And the reason for the distinction between a well and a pit is: in the case of a pit we are concerned lest the water stop, and even then they will continue to carry between the posts — yet the Sages permitted it only because of the animals of the pilgrims.

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

Some say

that this was the Gemara’s inference:

Since it did not teach

in the beraita:

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

By implication

you learn this:

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

only

ropes, yes,

you make around them. But

posts, no,

you do not make around them.

And we raise an objection to it:

Shall we say that our Mishna —

is not in accordance with Hanania!

And we answer:

Even if you say

that our Mishna is

Hanania, it is so. For even Hanania agrees that one makes posts for a well.

And what you said — if so, why did it not teach: And Hanania says, one makes ropes for a pit and posts for a well!?

That is not difficult.

Hanania —

in response to what the first tanna said

“One makes posts for a pit,”

he 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, Hanania also did not mention in his words.

However, as a matter of law, Hanania agrees that for wells one indeed makes posts, as it is stated in the Mishna.

Thus far are the words of the “some say.”

We return to the matter:

We raise another objection to it:

Shall we say that our Mishna,

which teaches in it that one makes posts for “wells” and does not teach for “pits” —

is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva

?

For we learned:

One, a public well,

whose water does not ordinarily stop.

And one,

a public pit,

for even if the water stops, they will remind one another not to carry.

And one,

a

private well —

whose water does not ordinarily stop.

One makes posts for them.

But a private pit,

since sometimes its water stops, one does not make posts for it.

Rather,

one makes a partition for it

complete,

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,

indeed one makes them, but

for pits

at all

not

does one make posts, even for public pits.

And if so, shall we say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva?

And we answer:

Even if you say

that our Mishna is

Rabbi Akiva, it is so, and even for public pits one makes posts.

And the reason that our Mishna teaches “wells” and does not teach “pits” is that

a

well of

living water [“

wells”]

is certain for him

for the tanna of our Mishna to permit in every case, for

it makes no difference whether it is

a well

of the public

or whether it is

a well

of a private person: one makes posts for them, since there is no concern that their water will stop —

it teaches

in the Mishna!

But

a

pit

of water

that is collected, for it is not certain for him

to permit, since one does not make posts for a private pit —

it did not teach!

We raise another objection to it:

Shall we say that our Mishna,

which permits making posts even around a private well [as the Gemara will infer below] —

is not in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Bava!

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

since there are 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, which implies two wells —

it makes no difference whether

it is a public well

or whether

it is a private well.

And if so, shall we say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Judah ben Bava? And we answer:

Even if you say

that our Mishna is

Rabbi Judah ben Bava, it is so.

For what is “wells” that it teaches in our Mishna?

—

Wells of what

it teaches in our Mishna?

Wells

of the public

at large [of the world]; therefore it teaches “wells” in the plural, and the intention of the Mishna is not to include a private well.

And now the Gemara explains the concept of double-posts:

What

are

“double-posts”?

Rabbi Jeremiah ben Elazar said: Two

[two]

posts.

Since the Gemara brought the words of Rabbi Jeremiah ben Elazar, the Gemara now gives mnemonic signs for additional statements of Rabbi Jeremiah ben Elazar that will be explained below:

1.

Two,

2.

Excommunicated,

3.

Praise,

4.

Dove,

5.

House,

6.

Two,

7.

Cursed,

8.

By measure,

9.

Three [the Gaon of Vilna]

a. Two

We learned there

in tractate Kilayim:

Rabbi Judah says: All the shitin

[inferior figs] that are demai [produce of an ignoramus, which the Sages decreed must be tithed even though most ignoramuses tithe] —

are exempt

from the tithe. Since they are an inferior type of fig, the ignoramus did not take care over them, and certainly tithed them.

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 diufra,

which is a type of inferior fig, yet more significant, concerning which there is reason to fear that an am ha-aretz does not tithe them.

And we raised it:

What is diufra?

Ulla said: A tree

of figs

that produces two fruits [

bears fruit twice

a year ].

And likewise we find in the words of Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar, concerning another matter, that “diu” means two:

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: Diu [

two ]

facial forms did the first man have

when the Holy One, blessed is He, first created him: one in front of him and one behind him. And the Holy One, blessed is 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 for me the form of a face.”

And since the view of Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar was mentioned, that Eve was created from the doubled facial form of the first man, we bring [the following], for Rav and Shmuel dispute it.

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

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

They dispute this verse,

Rav and Shmuel: One said: A facial form [that is, a body — Arukh],

which the Holy One, blessed is He, divided into two, the first man having originally been male on one side and female on the other.

And one said: A tail

the first man had, and He took it from him, and from the tail He created Eve.

And we raised it:

Granted, according to the one who says: A facial form

the man was created doubled, male and female — it is satisfactory;

this is what is written

“Behind and before You formed me.”

But according to the one who says: A tail —

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

which implies that he had two forms?

And we answer: He interprets it

in accordance with Rabbi Ami.

For Rabbi Ami said:

“‘Behind’ refers to the work of Creation

as he explains below.

And ‘before’ refers to punishment

as he explains below.

And we explain this statement of Rabbi Ami:

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

for man was not created

the man

until the eve of Shabbat [

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

But “‘before’ refers to punishment” —

what is it?

If you say, because of the curse,

that the first man was the first to be cursed, before the woman and the snake, for eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge?

This is not so.

For

indeed

the first man was not the first to be cursed. Rather:

At first the snake was cursed, afterward Eve was cursed, and afterward the man was cursed [

and in Berakhot 61a he cites a beraita that this is how it was]!

Rather,

this is its explanation: “and before” — that man preceded all living creatures with regard to

the

punishment of the

Flood.

For it is written

“And He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the earth —

from man to animal.”

Thus man is mentioned first in the punishment.

We raise another objection:

Granted, according to the one who says: A facial form —

this is what is written, “And He formed

the Lord God, the man,” with

two yuds.

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

But according to the one who says: A tail —

what is the meaning of “And He formed”

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

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: “

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

Woe is me because of my inclination

which troubles me [wearies 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 objection:

Granted, according to the one who says: A facial form —

this is what is written: “

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.”

For it implies that from the beginning of his creation he was male and female, male on this side and female on that side.

But according to the one who says: A tail —

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

And we answer: He interprets it

in accordance with Rabbi Abbahu.

For Rabbi Abbahu juxtaposed

two verses against one another:

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, implying one and not two?

And Rabbi Abbahu explains it:

At first, it arose in thought to create two

male and female.

But in the end only one was created!

We raise another objection:

Granted, according to the one who says: A facial form —

this is what is written: “

And He took one of his ribs

and closed flesh beneath it.

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

for after the Holy One, blessed is He, divided him, it was necessary to close flesh beneath it.

But according to the one who says: A tail —

what is the meaning of “and He 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 cut,

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

And now we raise an objection from the other side:

Granted, according to the one who says: A tail, this is what is written, “And He built

the Lord God the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman,” for it implies that it required building.

But according to the one who says: A facial form —

what is the meaning of “And He built”?!

And we answer: He expounds it

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya.

For Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya expounded: “And the Lord

God built the rib

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

This teaches that He braided [

an expression of braiding hair ]

Eve, and brought her to the first man. For in the coastal cities, they call a braid [

a braid of hair ]

a building.

And this is “And He built”!

Another matter: “And the Lord God built.”

Rav Hisda said, and some say, it was taught in a beraita: This teaches that the Holy One, blessed is He, built the

womb of

Eve like a building!

precise column location

storehouse

of fruits: