Eruvin 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

One cubit and two-thirds of a cubit,

which are—

two herds of three cattle each—

approximately ten

cubits [one cubit and two-thirds multiplied by six],

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

either

approximately thirteen cubits

[which is short by another third],

or

approximately

fourteen cubits

[which is short by two-thirds].

That is to say: The measure of the space between one pas and the next is the measure of two herds of four cattle each, namely, thirteen and one-third cubits—more than thirteen and less than fourteen.

And we raise an objection against the words of Rabbi Meir: Why did he use the term of approximation,

“approximately ten”?!

But

it is exactly measured, and

ten

precisely

it is!

Since the width of each cow is one cubit and two-thirds, the width of six cows is exactly ten cubits?!

And we answer: The tanna used the expression “approximately ten” in the words of Rabbi Meir

because he needed to teach in the latter clause—

in the words of Rabbi Yehuda—

“approximately thirteen.”

He therefore taught

also

“approximately ten” in the first clause

[according to the Bach].

And we are surprised: How can you say that because he needed to teach “approximately thirteen” in the latter clause, he also taught “approximately ten” in the first clause?

After all, the wording of the latter clause itself is not well-founded.

How can he teach in it

“approximately thirteen”?

For

it is more

than thirteen

by

a third of a cubit!

Granted, if the measure had been less than thirteen, it would have been proper for the tanna to use the expression “approximately thirteen,” indicating a measure approaching thirteen but not actually thirteen.

In that case, it would have been possible to explain that he likewise taught “approximately ten” in the words of Rabbi Meir, parallel to Rabbi Yehuda’s wording.

But now that the wording of the latter clause itself is forced, it cannot be said that the tanna used an imprecise expression in the words of Rabbi Meir because of the latter clause!

And we answer: The fact that he taught “approximately thirteen” is

because he needed to teach

“approximately fourteen.”

With regard to fourteen, it was proper to say “approximately fourteen,” since the actual measure is less than fourteen—thirteen and one-third cubits. And because of that expression, he also taught “approximately thirteen.”

Now the statement that he also taught “approximately ten” because he needed to teach “approximately thirteen” in the latter clause is fully understandable.

And we object: The expression “approximately fourteen” is likewise not satisfactory.

And “approximately fourteen”—

is that really so?!

That is to say: Is the measure not far from fourteen, being only one-third more than thirteen? Thus, “approximately fourteen” is also a defective expression. How, then, can we say that because of it he taught “approximately thirteen,” and because of “approximately thirteen” he also taught “approximately ten” according to Rabbi Meir?!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

Granted, if the beraita had taught only “approximately thirteen,” or had taught only “approximately fourteen,” the wording would not have been precise.

But now that it teaches both together—“approximately thirteen and approximately fourteen”—this is its meaning:

They exceed thirteen and do not reach fourteen.

Consequently, the explanation that he taught “approximately ten” because he needed to teach “approximately thirteen” in the latter clause is entirely satisfactory.

[This passage is explained according to the interpretation of the Maharshal.]

We now return to explaining the Mishna:

Rav Pappa said

in explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir in our Mishna—Rabbi Yehuda holds that four deyomadin suffice, whereas according to Rabbi Meir four additional pasin are required—that they disagree with regard to the width of the well and the dimensions of the perimeter of the pasin:

With regard to a well

that is

eight

cubits by eight cubits,

everyone—

both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir—

agrees that

four deyomadin at the corners of the well suffice, and

we do not require simple boards

between them.

For even according to Rabbi Meir, one may leave ten cubits between one deyumad and the next, as Rabbi Meir says in the Mishna. When the well is eight cubits wide, there are only ten cubits between one deyumad and the next; if so, why would additional boards be needed?

How so? Add two cubits to the width of the well on each side—for the pasin must be set far enough from the well to accommodate the head and the majority of a cow—and the perimeter is twelve cubits by twelve cubits. Subtract two cubits for the deyumadin on each side, one cubit here and one cubit there, and you find ten cubits between the deyumadin.

Conversely,

with regard to a well

that is

twelve

cubits by twelve cubits,

everyone—

both Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda—

agrees that we require

an addition of

simple boards

to the deyumadin.

For even Rabbi Yehuda did not permit leaving more than thirteen and one-third cubits between one deyumad and the next, as Rabbi Yehuda says in the Mishna. When the well is twelve cubits by twelve cubits, there are more than thirteen and one-third cubits between the deyumadin, and simple boards are needed to reduce the space between them.

How so? Add two cubits to the width of the well on each side, giving a perimeter sixteen cubits wide. Subtract two cubits for the deyumadin, leaving fourteen cubits between one deyumad and the next, which is not permitted even according to Rabbi Yehuda.

They disagree

with regard to a well that is somewhat wider than

eight

cubits, where the space between the deyumadin is somewhat more than ten cubits,

up to

a well that is

twelve

cubits wide, where the space between the deyumadin is fourteen cubits.

[This is not precise, for even if the well is eleven and one-third cubits plus a little wider, they likewise do not disagree. The space between the deyumadin would then be thirteen and one-third cubits plus a little, more than the space Rabbi Yehuda permits. The statement was simply not exact—Tosafot.]

According to Rabbi Meir—

who permits a space of ten cubits but no more—

we require

four additional

simple boards,

as stated in the Mishna.

But

according to Rabbi Yehuda—

who permits a space of up to thirteen and one-third cubits—

we do not require simple boards.

And

we ask Rav Pappa:

What is he teaching us?

But

we already learned

all of this in the Mishna!

It can be inferred from the latter clause: Rabbi Meir permits a space of ten cubits, while Rabbi Yehuda permits only thirteen and one-third cubits, and it teaches that the pasin must be set two cubits away from the well. Thus, it is in the first clause—where the well is wider than eight cubits and up to twelve cubits—that they disagree.

For it is obvious that a space of up to ten cubits does not require simple boards according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir says in the first clause that simple boards are required only when the space is more than ten cubits!

And we answer: Rav Pappa came to explain the Mishna!

For the Mishna does not state the measure of the space between the pasin or the distance of the pasin from the well in cubits, but in terms of the width of a cow and the head and majority of a cow.

Rav Pappa explained to us: Rabbi Meir’s measure is ten cubits; Rabbi Yehuda’s measure is thirteen and one-third cubits; and the space required for the head and majority of a cow is two cubits. It follows that they disagree with regard to a well wider than eight cubits and up to twelve cubits.

Although from the beraita we clearly know the measure of the cow’s width and the measure of the head and majority of a cow, and therefore Rav Pappa’s statement is seemingly unnecessary, nevertheless,

Rav Pappa

was not

familiar with this beraita,

but understood this independently,

and he teaches us

that their measures are

as

stated in the

beraita.

The Gemara now presents a series of questions that Abaye asked Rabba, with a mnemonic for the questions:

a.

He

lengthened; b.

B.

more; c.

C.

mound; d.

D.

partition; e.

E.

courtyard; f.

F.

dried up—

a mnemonic.

a. He lengthened:

Abaye asked Rabba:

If the perimeter of the deyumadin was large, so that there were more than ten cubits between one deyumad and the next—requiring Rabbi Meir to place a simple board between them—and

he lengthened the deyumadin by the measure of the simple boards

[see illustration 1]

That is: He made the deyumadin wide enough that no space greater than ten cubits remained between one deyumad and the next, doing so instead of setting up the simple boards that would have been required to make the breaches less than ten cubits.

According to Rabbi Meir,

who mentioned in his statement the remedy of “adding simple boards,”

what

is the law: Is widening the deyumadin also effective? The uncertainty is explained as follows: It is possible to say that Rabbi Meir specifically said “simple boards,” because once the deyumadin have been set farther apart than the measure established by the Sages—that is, so that there are ten cubits between one deyumad and the next—there must be a recognizable feature between the deyumadin. Lengthening the deyumadin is not sufficient; rather, one must leave a small space from the deyumad and place a simple board there, and likewise on the other side, so that it will be recognizable.

Or perhaps, since in the end there is only a space of ten cubits between one deyumad and the next, it is not prohibited.

He

gave a definitive answer

to

Abaye.

You have learned it

in the Mishna:

One may set them any distance [from the well—even with more than ten cubits between one deyumad and the next],

provided that he increases the pasin.

Is it not

the case that “he increases” denotes enlargement and addition [Ritva]? This is what it means: “He increases and lengthens the pasin” that already stand at the corners of the well. This is

lengthening the deyumadin.

We see, then, that one may even lengthen the deyumadin!

And we reject this:

No,

that is not what it means.

Rather, “he increases” denotes an increase in number [Ritva].

This is what it means:

He increases,

that is, he adds,

and makes

and sets up additional

simple boards,

and these are the “pasin” of the Mishna.

And we challenge this:

If so,

this

“provided

that he increases the pasin”

that the Mishna teaches—is that satisfactory?!

But

it should have taught

“until he increases the pasin”

rather!

For “he increases the pasin” means that he enlarges the existing pasin, not that he adds additional pasin?!

And we answer:

Read

in the Mishna:

“Until he increases the pasin.”

There are those who say

that this is

what

Rabba said to Abaye:

You have learned it

in the Mishna, which indicates that one may not lengthen the deyumadin. For it teaches:

“Provided that he increases the pasin.”

Is it not

This is what it means:

He increases,

that is, he adds,

and makes

and sets up

simple boards. It is not sufficient to lengthen the deyumadin.

And we reject this as well:

that is not the meaning.

No.

Rather, when it teaches, “provided that he increases the pasin,” this means

that he lengthens the deyumadin

if he wishes.

This too is evidently so—

as we explained.

Since it teaches: “provided that he increases the pasin,”

and it does not teach that he increases “pasin.”

Conclude from this.

b. More:

Abaye asked Rabba:

If the space between the deyumadin was

more than thirteen and one-third cubits

[which is ineffective according to everyone],

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who did not mention in his statement the remedy of simple boards,

what

does one place in order to reduce the space between them?

Does he specifically

make simple boards

only

between

them, so that there will be a recognizable feature between the simple board and the deyumadin?

Or

perhaps, on the contrary,

he lengthens the deyumadin

until the space is thirteen and one-third cubits. For if he makes simple boards between them, one might say that the air on this side [between the deyumad and the simple board] and the air on that side [between the simple board and the deyumad] combine to nullify the simple board; therefore, lengthening the deyumadin is preferable?

Rabba said

to Abaye:

You have learned it

in a beraita:

How close

are the pasin

placed

to the well?

Not less

than the space required for the head and majority of a cow.

And

up to

how far

are they

set apart?

Even

a beit

kor, and even

a beit

korayim, provided that he increases the pasin!

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If the area of the perimeter is up to

two beit se’a,

it is permitted.

More than two beit se’a—

it is prohibited,

since this is the measure everywhere for an enclosure that is not made in the proper manner.

The Sages said

to

to

Rabbi Yehuda:

But

do you not concede with regard to a pen, an enclosure, a livestock enclosure, and a courtyard,

that

even

if it is

five kor, and even ten

kor,

it is permitted

to carry within them?! The same law should apply to wells, since their enclosure is for residential purposes: Their water is fit for human drinking on weekdays, and therefore an enclosure is effective even when it is larger than two beit se’a.

Rabbi Yehuda said

to the Sages:

This

one in a pen, and all the others, has

a complete partition

and therefore it is effective even for an area larger than two beit se’a.

But these

in the wells have

poles

and not complete partitions!

For between each one and the next there are thirteen cubits or more, and there is solid area of only one cubit for every thirteen cubits. Therefore, an enclosure of pasin is not effective for an area larger than two beit se’a.

[See what was explained in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter, in the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages.]

Rabba now resolves Abaye’s question:

And if it is so

that according to Rabbi Yehuda one may lengthen the deyumadin,

he should have said: This is a partition and this is a partition!

That is: Since the discussion concerns an area of two beit se’a, if one came to lengthen the deyumadin until there were only thirteen and one-third cubits between them, the solid area would be greater than the breached area [for the width of two beit se’a is approximately seventy cubits by slightly more than seventy cubits; seventy cubits and a little by seventy cubits and a little amounts to five thousand square cubits, the area of two beit se’a], and even the pasin around the wells would be considered a complete partition. Thus, both this and that are partitions!

However, one can reject this and say: In fact, according to Rabbi Yehuda one may lengthen the deyumadin.

And

this is what he means: “This”

—the one in a pen and all the others—

has the status of a partition,

since

its breaches

are no wider than

ten

cubits, the measure of an “entrance.”

But these

in the wells

have the status of pasin,

since

their breaches,

between one pas and the next, are

thirteen and one-third cubits,

which is greater than the measure of an “entrance.” Therefore, an area larger than two beit se’a cannot be rendered fit!

c. On a mound:

Abaye asked Rabba:

A pillar in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide is a private domain at its top.

A mound in the public domain that has a slope by which one ascends it from the public domain:

If its slope is gently inclined and it is convenient for those in the public domain to ascend it, the designation of private domain is nullified at the top of the pillar, since the slope is convenient for public traffic.

But if the slope is steep, so that it is not convenient for public traffic, the designation of private domain is not nullified at its top.

The measure of a steep slope is as follows: If, from its beginning in the public domain until it reaches a height of ten handbreadths, the slope extends no more than four cubits [as measured along the diagonal, according to the Meiri, Shabbat 100a, and the Gaon Yaakov; the Hazon Ish explains that the reference is to the length of the base]. [See illustration 1]

But if the diagonal of the slope extends more than four cubits before reaching a height of ten handbreadths, it is not a steep slope.

A pillar or mound near the well that is ten handbreadths high and wider than one cubit by one cubit is treated as a deyumad, even though it is solid. For we say: Any object that, if divided—that is, if the thickness of the pillar were removed and it were made into a channel, with one wall here and one wall there, each wall one cubit wide—is regarded as though it were divided into a channel and is fit to serve as a deyumad for the pasei biraot. [See illustration 2]

And Abaye asked Rabba:

A mound that rises gradually,

which reaches a height of

ten

handbreadths

within four

cubits—that is, its slope extends no more than four cubits before reaching a height of ten handbreadths, making it a steep slope that is not convenient for walking [and with regard to private domain, its top is considered a private domain, since it is ten handbreadths high].

And its top is wide enough that if it were divided and made into a channel, there would be one cubit on this side and one cubit on that side—is it possible for

this mound to be considered

when it is beside a well

as a deyumad?

Or is it not

possible for it to be

considered a deyumad?

[But if it rose ten handbreadths only within five cubits, it is obvious that it would not be considered a deyumad, but would be like the ground of the public domain.]

Rabba said

to Abaye:

You have learned it:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

If

there was

near the well

a square stone

[and not a round one],

we examine

the dimensions of the stone:

Any stone that, if divided

and made into a channel,

has one cubit here and one cubit there—

it is considered a deyumad.

And if not—

it is not considered a deyumad.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says:

Even if

there was a round stone—

Although it requires two acts of carving:

1. To carve away the protruding circular portion from the square within it, so as to equalize the width of its middle with the width of its sides and make it square.

b. To take from it the thickness of the square and make it like a trough.

Nevertheless -

we regard it as though: if it could be hollowed out

the round stone, so that the excess of the circle beyond the square would first be removed from it,

and

afterward

it could be divided

and it would be possible to make it like a trough,

and it has one cubit in this direction and one cubit in that direction -

it is deemed a deyomed.

And if not, it is not deemed a deyomed.

And we explain their dispute:

With regard to what do they disagree?

One Sage -

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar -

held:

only

do we apply one “we regard it as though”

and therefore only a square stone is satisfactory, as we say: “We regard it as though” it had been divided.

But

we do not apply two “we regard it as though” principles.

And therefore, with regard to a round stone, we do not say: “We regard it as though” it had been hollowed out, and “we regard it as though” it had been divided; and it is not deemed a deyomed.

And the other Sage -

Rabbi Yishmael -

held: We also apply even two “we regard it as though” principles.

And the same applies to a mound, concerning which Abaye raised a question: It depends on the dispute between these tannaim!

For a mound is comparable to a round stone, since it is impossible for a mound to be square without there being an addition beyond the square, and we must apply two “we regard it as though” principles:

a. As though the excess of the mound beyond the square within it had been removed.

b. As though the interior of the square had been removed and it had been made like a trough.

This was explained on the basis of Rashi, with the addition of the words of the Ritva.

d. A partition

Abaye asked Rabba:

If one made at the corners of the well - in place of a deyomed -

a partition of reeds

[a partition of reeds] from

reed

to reed

standing beside one another, with

less than three

handbreadths between them, so that one could invoke the principle of lavud, is it

deemed a deyomed or not?

The explanation of the question is as follows: Since, in the partitions of the wells, the breached area is greater than the standing area, they permitted it only when the standing area is a partition consisting of both vertical posts and horizontal crossbars. But a partition of reeds is a partition consisting only of vertical posts, and it is therefore an inferior partition [as above, on 16b]. It is possible that they were not lenient with regard to it in the partitions of the wells - Ritva.

He said to him

Rabba to Abaye:

You have learned it:

If there was around the well

a tree

that could be hollowed out and divided, so that it would have one cubit in this direction and one cubit in that direction,

or a fence

of square stones [Rashi, Sukka 22b] that could be divided, so that it would have one cubit in this direction and one cubit in that direction,

or a partition of reeds, it is deemed a deyomed.

Is it not so that “a partition of reeds,” which appears in the beraita, means

source, meaning

reed to reed

with

less than three

handbreadths between them, and it teaches that it is deemed a deyomed!

Abaye rejected this:

No, “a partition of reeds” does not refer to reeds that are unattached at the bottom. Rather, it refers to

The term “partition of reeds” does not refer to reeds that are unconnected at the bottom. Rather, it refers to

a cluster of reeds (gudrita de-kanei),

which consists of many reeds attached to a single trunk at the bottom, close to the ground, up to a height of three handbreadths; above three handbreadths they separate into individual reeds, with less than three handbreadths between them. Since they are all attached to the same place, they are considered one reed [Rav Hai Gaon]. My question, however, concerns reeds that are entirely separate.

Rabba was astonished at this:

If so, according to you, that the meaning of “a partition of reeds” is that the reeds are attached at the bottom, like a tree, which has a trunk from which branches separate -

according to your explanation, that the term “partition of reeds” means that the reeds are joined at the bottom, like a tree whose trunk gives rise to separate branches,

that is a tree,

and why did the tanna add “a partition of reeds” after stating the law of a tree!?

Abaye answered him:

Rather, what

do you wish to say on the basis of this difficulty - that “that is a tree” - that “a partition of reeds” means

reed to reed, less than three

handbreadths?

That does not resolve anything for you.

For even if you explain it in this manner, the following difficulty remains: A partition of reeds -

that is a fence,

so why did the tanna need to repeat “a partition of reeds”?

After all, it simply states “a fence,” and even a fence consisting only of vertical posts is called a “fence” [for who says that the tanna is speaking of a fence consisting of both vertical posts and horizontal crossbars]. If so, a fence is exactly a partition of reeds.

Rather,

necessarily,

what can you say? The beraita

teaches

two types of “fence”:

a. A complete fence consisting of both vertical posts and horizontal crossbars [and if you ask, what is it teaching us? It needed to teach us that even though there was already a fence there and it had not been erected for the sake of the partitions, it is nevertheless effective].

b. A partition of reeds, which consists only of vertical posts.

And since that is so,

here too,

meaning: even if we explain that “a partition of reeds” means a gudrita de-kanei, as I said, the difficulty “that is a tree” will not be raised against you.

For

two types of trees

are taught in the beraita:

a. An entire tree, concerning which it is possible to say: It could be hollowed out and divided, and it would have one cubit in this direction and one cubit in that direction.

b. A gudrita de-kanei, which is more inferior, for two reasons.

The first is that one must apply “we regard it as though” twice:

We regard it as though the bottom of the gudrita de-kanei had been hollowed out and divided. And we regard it as though the middle reeds at the height of the gudrita had been removed, leaving reeds arranged as a deyomed.

The second is that even after one says “we regard it as though,” it is still a partition consisting only of vertical posts above.

This is like two disadvantages, and the beraita teaches us that even in such a case it is effective.

Some say:

Abaye had no question concerning reeds placed individually with less than three handbreadths between them, for they are certainly effective!

Rather, only

a cluster of reeds (gudrita de-kanei)

is what

Abaye was asking

about:

A cluster of reeds (gudrita de-kanei) -

what is its status?

For a gudrita de-kanei is inferior, as it is like two disadvantages: We need to say “we regard it as though” the bottom had been hollowed out and divided, and “we regard it as though” the middle reeds above had been removed and it had been made similar to a deyomed. And even after we say “we regard it as though,” only a partition consisting of vertical posts will remain above. This is like two disadvantages, and therefore Abaye raised his question.

He said to him

Rabba to Abaye:

You have learned it: If there was a fence or a tree or a partition of reeds, it is deemed a deyomed.

Is it not so that “a partition of reeds” means

a cluster of reeds

a cluster of reeds (gudrita de-kanei) -

and it is effective.

Abaye rejected this:

No, “a partition of reeds” means

reed by reed, with less than three

reed to reed, less than three

handbreadths, which is effective even according to me.

Rabba was astonished at this:

If so, that is “a fence”,

which implies even a partition consisting only of vertical posts, and reed to reed is also effective?!

Abaye answered:

Rather, what

do you wish to say, that “a partition of reeds” means

a cluster of reeds (gudrita de-kanei)?

According to you as well, the following difficulty can be raised:

That is a tree!