Eruvin 19b — the Talmud in English

one cubit and two-thirds of a cubit, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the folio")

which are -

two groups of three cattle each -

about ten

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

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

either

about thirteen cubits

[for one-third is lacking],

or

either

about fourteen cubits

[lacking by two-thirds].

That is to say: the measure of the space between one pas and another is the measure of two groups of four cattle each; it is thirteen and one-third cubits. More than thirteen and less than fourteen.

And we challenge the words of Rabbi Meir: Why did he use the letter of approximation

“about ten”?!

But

It is exact, by precise calculation, and

ten

exactly

they are!

For each cow is one cubit and two-thirds in width; there you have exactly ten cubits for six cows?!

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

because he needed to teach in the latter clause -

in the words of Rabbi Yehuda -

“about thirteen”;

the tanna

also

taught the first clause as “about ten” [Bach]!

And we are astonished: How did you say that since he needed to teach in the latter clause “about thirteen,” he also taught in the first clause “about ten”?

But the wording of the latter clause itself is not settled.

How does he teach there

“about thirteen”?

And

than

behold, they are more

than thirteen

they are,

by one-third of a cubit!

Granted, if the measure had been less than thirteen, it would be proper for the tanna to use the wording “about thirteen,” which enlarges the measure, but not actually thirteen.

And then it would have been possible to answer that he also taught, in the words of Rabbi Meir, “about ten,” as in the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

But now, since the wording of the latter clause itself is strained, it is not possible to say that the tanna used, in the words of Rabbi Meir, a measure that is not precise in wording because of the latter clause!

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

because he needed to teach

“about fourteen.”

And with regard to fourteen, he properly used “about fourteen,” since in truth the measure is less than fourteen [it is thirteen and one-third cubits]. And because of it he also taught “about thirteen.”

And now that which we say is properly resolved: he also taught “about ten” because he needed to teach in the latter clause “about thirteen.”

And we challenge this: Surely the wording “about fourteen” is also not satisfactory.

And “about fourteen” -

is it not so?!

That is to say: Is the measure not far from fourteen, being only one-third more than thirteen? It follows that even “about fourteen” is a garbled expression. And how can we say, “because of it he taught also ‘about thirteen,’” and because of “about thirteen” he also taught in the words of Rabbi Meir “about ten”?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

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

But now that he taught them together: “about thirteen and about fourteen,” this is its meaning:

more than thirteen and not reaching fourteen.

And now, of itself, that which we answered is properly resolved: he taught “about ten” because he needed to teach in the latter clause “about thirteen.”

This teaching has been explained according to the Maharshal.

And now we return to explain the Mishna:

Rav Pappa said

to explain the dispute of 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 - they disagreed concerning the width of the well and the size of the circumference 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 plain boards

between them.

For even according to Rabbi Meir, it is permitted to leave ten cubits between one dyomed and another, as Rabbi Meir said in the Mishna. And when the width of the well is eight cubits, you will find only ten cubits between one dyomed and another; if so, why do I need pasin?

How so? Add two cubits to the width of the well on each side, for the pasin must be distanced from the well by the space needed for the head and the greater part of a cow; the width of the circumference is found to be twelve cubits by twelve cubits. Remove two cubits of dyomed on each side - one cubit here and one cubit there - and you will find ten cubits between the deyomadin.

And 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

plain boards

to the deyomadin.

For even Rabbi Yehuda permitted leaving no more than thirteen and one-third cubits between one dyomed and another, as Rabbi Yehuda said in the Mishna. And when the width of the well is twelve cubits by twelve cubits, you find more than thirteen and one-third cubits between one dyomed and another, and plain boards are needed to reduce the space between them.

How so? Add two cubits to the width of the well on each side; there you have a circumference sixteen cubits wide. Remove from it two cubits for the deyomadin; there you have fourteen cubits between one dyomed and another, which we do not permit even according to Rabbi Yehuda.

When do they disagree:

with regard to a well that is wider by something more

than eight

cubits, so that the space between the deyomadin is something more than ten cubits, and

until

a well that is

twelve

cubits wide, so that the space between the deyomadin is fourteen cubits.

Not precisely: even if the well is eleven and one-third cubits wide and something more, they also do not disagree. For the space between the deyomadin is thirteen and one-third cubits and something more, greater than the space that Rabbi Yehuda permits. Rather, he was not exact - Tosafot.

According to Rabbi Meir -

who permits a space of ten cubits and no more -

we require

four additional

plain boards,

as it is stated in the Mishna.

But

according to Rabbi Yehuda -

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

we do not require plain boards.

And

we wonder about

Rav Pappa: What is he teaching us?

But

we already learned

all this in the Mishna!

For we hear it by itself from the latter clause: Rabbi Meir permits a space of ten cubits, and Rabbi Yehuda permits only thirteen and one-third cubits; and it teaches that the pasin must be distanced by two cubits - it is in the first clause, concerning a well wider than eight and up to twelve, that they disagree.

For it is obvious that a space up to ten does not require plain boards according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir said in the first clause that plain boards are required only with a space greater than ten cubits!

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

For the Mishna did not state the measure of the space between the pasin and the measure of the distance of the pasin from the well in cubits, but according to the width of a cow and the head and greater part of a cow.

And Rav Pappa explained to us: the measure according to Rabbi Meir is ten cubits; the measure according to Rabbi Yehuda is thirteen and one-third cubits; and the head and greater part of a cow is two cubits. It follows that we learn that they disagree concerning a well from eight up to twelve.

And although from the beraita we know properly the measure of its width and the measure of the head and greater part of a cow, and we do not need Rav Pappa, nevertheless

Rav Pappa -

from this

beraita he did not hear it,

but understood this on his own,

and Rav Pappa teaches us

that their measures are

as

it is stated in the

beraita.

And the Gemara brings a series of problems that Abaye asked Rabba, with a mnemonic for the problems:

A.

The

lengthened

B.

More

C.

In a mound

D.

A partition

E.

A courtyard

F.

It dried up -

a mnemonic.

A. The lengthened:

Abaye asked Rabba:

If the circumference of the deyomadin was large, so that there was more than ten cubits between the deyomadin - which requires Rabbi Meir to place a plain board between one dyomed and another - and

he lengthened the deyomadin by the measure of the plain boards.

[See illustration 1]

That is to say: He made the deyomadin broad, until no space of more than ten cubits remained between one dyomed and another, and did so instead of setting up the plain boards that he would have needed to place in order to make the breaches less than ten cubits.

According to Rabbi Meir,

who mentioned in his words the correction of “an addition of plain boards,”

what

is the ruling: Does even widening the deyomadin help? The explanation of the doubt is: It is possible to say that Rabbi Meir specifically said “plain boards,” since when he left them more than the measure of the Sages [namely, until there are ten cubits between one dyomed and another], a recognizable feature between the deyomadin is required, and lengthening the deyomadin is not enough; rather, one must leave a little distance from the dyomed and place a plain board there, and likewise on the other side, so that there will be recognition.

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

He said,

Rabbi

to him

Rabba gave Abaye a resolution:

You have learned it

in the Mishna:

It is permitted to distance [from the well] as much as one wishes [even if there is more than ten cubits between one dyomed and another],

provided that he increases the pasin.

Is it not so that

“he increases” is an expression of enlarging and adding [Ritva]? And this is what it says: “that he increase and lengthen the pasin” that are already standing at the corners of the well. And that is

that he lengthens the deyomadin.

We see that he may even lengthen the deyomadin!

And we reject this:

No,

not as you say.

Rather, “he increases” is an expression of increasing the number [Ritva].

And this is what it says:

that he increases,

that he increases

and makes

and sets up additional

plain 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 it satisfactory?!

But

“until he increases the pasin”

it should have been required of him

to teach!

For “he increases the pasin” means increasing the existing pasin, and not adding additional pasin?!

And we answer:

Teach

in the Mishna:

until he increases the pasin.

There are those who say

that

he said to him

Rabba to Abaye as follows:

You have learned it

in the Mishna, that one cannot lengthen the deyomadin. For it teaches:

provided that he increases the pasin.

Is it not so

This is what it says:

that he increases,

that he increases

and makes

and makes

plain boards.

And lengthening the deyomadin is not sufficient.

And we reject this as follows:

No.

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

that he lengthens the deyomadin

if he wishes.

This too is logically evident -

as we explained.

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

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

Conclude from it.

B. More:

Abaye asked Rabba:

The space between the deyomadin was

more than thirteen and one-third cubits

[which is ineffective according to everyone],

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who did not mention in his words the correction of plain boards -

what

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

Is it that

plain boards

specifically he

makes

between them, so that there will be a recognizable feature between them and the deyomadin?

Or

perhaps, on the contrary,

he lengthens the deyomadin

until the space is thirteen and one-third cubits. For if he makes plain boards between them, it is possible to say that the air on this side [between the dyomed and the plain board] and the air on that side [between the plain board and the dyomed] invalidate the plain board, and lengthening the deyomadin is preferable?

He said to him

Rabba to Abaye:

You have learned it

in a beraita:

How close

are the pasin

brought

to the well?

Not less than

the space needed for the head and the greater part of a cow.

And

up to

how far

are they

distant?

Even

a beit

kor and even

a beit

korayim, provided that he increases the pasin!

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the area of the circumference is up to

two beit seah -

it is permitted.

More than two beit seah -

it is prohibited.

For this is the measure everywhere for a circumference made not according to its proper arrangement.

The Sages said

to

Rabbi Yehuda:

But

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

that

even

if it is

of five kor, and even of ten

kor -

it is permitted

to carry within them?! And the same applies to wells, whose circumference is for dwelling, since their water is fit for human drinking on weekdays: a circumference is effective even when it is more than two beit seah.

Rabbi Yehuda said to them

the Sages:

This

that is in the pen, and all the rest:

a partition

is complete. And therefore it is effective even for more than two beit seah.

But these

that are around the wells:

plain boards

and not complete partitions!

For between each one and the next there are thirteen cubits and more, and there is standing area only one cubit between each thirteen and thirteen cubits; and therefore a circumference of pasin is not effective for more than two beit seah.

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.

And now Rabba resolves Abaye’s problem:

And if it is so

that according to Rabbi Yehuda he lengthens the deyomadin -

“this is a partition and this is a partition,” he should have said!

That is to say: Since it is speaking of an area of two beit seah, if he came to lengthen the deyomadin until there were only thirteen and one-third cubits between them, the standing area in it would be greater than the breached area [for the width of two beit seah is seventy cubits and fractions. For seventy cubits and a little by seventy cubits and a little amounts to five thousand cubits, the measure of the area of two beit seah], and even the pasin around the wells would be considered a complete partition; and both this and that are partitions!

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

Rather, one can reject this and say: In truth, according to Rabbi Yehuda he lengthens the deyomadin.

And this is what he says: “This” - that is in the pen and all the rest -

has the status of a partition,

since

its breaches

are wide

at ten

and not more, according to the measure of a “doorway.”

But these

that are around the wells

have the status of pasin, since

their breaches

between one pas and another are wide

thirteen and one-third cubits, which is more than the measure of a “doorway”; therefore it is not rendered fit for more than two beit seah!

since

C. In a mound:

Abaye asked Rabba:

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

A mound in the public domain that had a slope for ascending it from the public domain:

If its slope was properly inclined, and it was easy for those in the public domain to ascend it, the designation of private domain is nullified from the height of the pillar, since the slope is easy for public passage. But if the incline of the slope was steep, so that the slope was not easy for public passage, the designation of private domain is not nullified from its top.

And the measure of a steep slope is: if from its beginning in the public domain until it reaches a height of ten handbreadths, the slope does not extend more than four cubits [as it is on the diagonal - Meiri, Shabbat 100a, and Gaon Yaakov; and the Chazon Ish explained that the intention is the length of the base]. [See illustration 1]

But if its diagonal extends more than four cubits until it reaches a height of ten, this is not a steep slope.

A pillar or mound that was around the well, ten high and wider than one cubit by one cubit, is judged as a dyomed, even though it is solid. For we say: Any object that, if it were divided - that is, if the thickness of the pillar were removed and it were made like a gutter, a wall here and a wall there, with the width of each wall one cubit - is viewed as though it had been divided into a gutter, and is fit to serve as a dyomed of the pasin of wells. [See illustration 2]

And Abaye asked Rabba:

A mound that rises,

gathering to a height of

ten

handbreadths

within four

cubits, that is, whose slope extends no more than four cubits until it reaches a height of ten handbreadths, which is a steep slope not convenient for passage [and regarding private domain, it is considered a private domain at its top, since it is ten handbreadths high].

And its top is wide to such a measure that if its top were divided and made like a gutter, it would have one cubit here and one cubit there - can this mound, when it is beside a well, be

judged

as

a dyomed?

Or is it not

possible that it be

judged as a dyomed?

But if it rose ten only within five cubits, it is obvious that it would not be judged as a dyomed, but would be like the ground of the public domain.

He said to him

Rabba to Abaye:

You have learned it:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

If

there was there

around the well

a square stone

[and not round],

we view

the measure of the stone:

any object that, if it were divided,

and made like a gutter,

and it has one cubit here and one cubit there -

is judged as a dyomed.

And if not -

it is not judged as a dyomed.

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

Even

if there was there a round stone -

For although it requires double hewing:

A. To hew away and remove the protrusion of the circle onto the square within it, in order to equalize the width of its middle with the width of its sides, so that it will be square.

Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, says: Even if

Even if

there was a round stone—

For although it requires two acts of carving:

1. To carve away and remove the rounded projection from the square within it, so as to make the width of its middle equal to the width of its sides and make it square.

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

Nevertheless -

we regard it as if: anything that, if you were to carve it

the round stone, removing from it first the excess of the circle beyond the square,

and

afterward

divide it

so that it would be possible to make it like a channel,

and it has a cubit on this side and a cubit on that side -

is judged as a deyomed.

But if not, it is not judged as a deyomed.

And we explain their dispute:

Over what do they dispute?

One master -

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar -

holds:

only

one “we regard it as if” do we say,

and therefore only a square stone is suitable, for we say: “We regard it as if” it were divided.

But

two “we regard it as if” we do not say. And therefore, with a round stone, we do not say of it: “We regard it as if” it were carved, and “we regard it as if” it were divided, and it is not judged as a deyomed.

Therefore, with regard to a round stone, we do not say: “We view it as if it were carved,” and “we view it as if it were divided”; and it is not regarded as a diomed.

And one master -

Rabbi Yishmael -

holds: even two “we regard it as if” we also say.

And a mound as well, concerning which Abaye raised a question - it depends on the dispute of those tannaim!

For a mound is comparable to a round stone, since it is impossible for a mound to be square without there being in it an addition beyond the square, and we need to say two “we regard it as if”:

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

b. As if the inside of the square had been removed and it had been made like a channel.

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

d. A reed partition:

Abaye asked Rabbah:

He made at the corners of the well - in place of a deyomed -

a partition of reeds [

a partition of reeds] made of

reed after

reed,

standing one beside the other, and adjacent with

less than three

handbreadths between them, so that one may say lavud: is it

judged as a deyomed, or not?

And the explanation of the question is: since, in the pasei biraot, the breach is greater than the standing part, they permitted it only when the standing part is a partition of warp and woof; but a partition of reeds, which is a partition of warp, is an inferior partition [as above, folio 16b], and it is possible that they did not ease the rule for it in the pasei biraot - Ritva.

He said to him

Rabbah to Abaye:

You have learned it: If there was there

around the well

a tree

that it was possible to carve and divide it, and there would be a cubit on this side and a cubit on that side,

or a fence

of square stones [Rashi, Sukkah, folio 22b] that it was possible to divide it, and there would be a cubit in it on this side and a cubit on that side,

or a partition of reeds, it is judged as a deyomed.

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

source, meaning

reed after reed with

less than

less than three

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

And Abaye rejected it:

No, “a partition of reeds” is not speaking of reeds that are not joined at the bottom. Rather, it is

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

a gudrita de-kanei,

which is: many reeds joined to one tree at the bottom, close to the ground, up to a height of three handbreadths, while above three they separate into reed after reed, with less than three handbreadths between them; and since they are all joined to that same place, they are considered one reed [Rav Hai Gaon], whereas my question is concerning reeds completely separate from one another.

Rabbah wondered about this:

If so,

according to your words, that the meaning of “a partition of reeds” is that the reeds are joined at the bottom, like a tree, which has a trunk from which branches separate -

that is a tree,

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

And Abaye answered him:

But rather, what

do you wish to say by force of this difficulty - that “that is a tree” means that “a partition of reeds” means

reed after reed with less than three

handbreadths?

You have accomplished nothing by this.

For even if you interpret it so, the following difficulty remains: “a partition of reeds” -

that is a fence,

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

For he teaches “fence” without qualification, and even a fence of warp is also called a “fence” [for who says to us that the tanna is speaking of a fence of warp and woof]. If so, a fence is exactly a partition of reeds.

Rather,

necessarily

what do you have to say, that he teaches

two types of “fence”:

two types of “fence”:

a. A complete “fence” of warp and woof [and if you say: What does it come to teach us? It needed to teach us that even though “there was there” and it was not erected there for the sake of the partitions, it is also effective].

b. A partition of reeds, which is of warp.

And since this is so,

here too,

that is, even if we interpret “a partition of reeds” as a gudrita de-kanei, as I said, the difficulty “that is a tree” will not trouble you.

For

two types of tree

the beraita teaches:

a. A complete tree, concerning which one may say: It will be carved and divided, and there will be a cubit on this side and a cubit on that side.

b. A gudrita de-kanei, which is more inferior, because of two matters.

The first: one must say “we regard it as if” twice:

We regard it as if, if it were carved and divided at the bottom of the gudrita. And we regard it as if the middle reeds at the height of the gudrita were removed, and reeds made like a deyomed remained.

And the second: even after you say “we regard it as if,” above it is still a partition of warp.

And this is like two factors of inferiority, and the beraita teaches us that even in such a case it is effective.

There are those who say:

“Reed after reed with less than three handbreadths” was not what Abaye asked about, for it certainly is effective.

Rather, only

a gudrita de-kanei

is what

Abaye asked about

Abaye:

a gudrita de-kanei -

what is its law?

For a gudrita de-kanei is inferior, as it is like two factors of inferiority: we need to say “we regard it as if” the following: if it were carved and divided below, and we regard it as if the middle reeds above were removed and it were made like a deyomed. And even after “we regard it as if” is said, above there will remain only a partition of warp; and this is like two factors of inferiority, and therefore Abaye asked about it.

He said to him

Rabbah to Abaye:

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

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

a cluster of reeds

a gudrita de-kanei -

and it is effective.

And Abaye rejected it:

No, “a partition of reeds” means

reed by reed, with less than three

reed after reed with less than three

handbreadths, which, even according to me, is effective.

And Rabbah wondered about this:

If so, it is “a fence”,

which implies even a partition of warp, and reed after reed is also effective?!

And Abaye answered:

But rather, what

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

a gudrita de-kanei.

According to your words as well, there is a difficulty:

That is a tree!