Eruvin 22a — the Talmud in English

In whom ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

who rise early ["

black: from the expression “morning”]

and stay late ["

like a raven"]

over them for the bet midrash!

Rabba said,

and he explains: that you find them

in one who

afflicts himself and

blackens his face over them like a raven,

which is black [Maharsha, and see further there], and this is: “black as a raven”

”. Rava said,

and he explains: that you find them

in one who makes himself cruel toward his sons and toward the members of his household —

like a raven,

which is cruel toward its sons.

And he does not provide them with food, as it is written: “He gives the animal its food, to the young ravens that call” [that he provides them with gnats, and they enter their mouths].]

And

so is this

that we find that Rav Adda bar Mattana made himself cruel toward his sons,

for Rav Adda bar Mattana was going to the house of Rav

to study Torah,

[his wife]:

your little children

your small children,

what shall I do for them

what shall I do for them and for their food?!

He said to her: Have the vegetables in the marsh been exhausted [וכי אזלו הירקות באגם?! ויש גורסים "קוראמי", והוא גמי לח שאפשר להוציא ממנו הרך שבו, לטוחנו ולעשות ממנו לחם] [Have the vegetables in the marsh run out?! And some versions read “kuramei,” which is moist reed from which its soft part can be extracted, ground, and made into bread].

[Have the vegetables in the marshes been used up?! Some versions read “koremei,” meaning moist reeds from which the soft inner part can be removed, ground, and made into bread].

What is the meaning of that which is written:

“And He repays those who hate Him”

His good reward — Rashi in the Pentateuch

“to his face,” to destroy him

from the World to Come — Rashi in the Pentateuch; He will not delay repaying the one who hates Him; “to his face” He will repay him?

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Were it not written in Scripture

explicitly,

it would be impossible to say it

with regard to the Divine Presence,

as it were [אף כלפי שכינה הוזקקנו לומר כמו בבשר ודם - על פי רש"י חגיגה יג] [even with regard to the Divine Presence we are compelled to speak as with regard to flesh and blood — according to Rashi, Hagiga 13]:

[even with reference to the Divine Presence, we are compelled to speak as one does of a human being, according to Rashi, Chagiga 13]:

like a person who carries a burden before his face

from Rashi it slightly appears that we read:

before him,

and seeks to throw it away

and be rid of

it,

so that small amount of good which the wicked person performed is always before the Holy One, blessed is He, like this burden, in order to hasten to repay him in this world and destroy him in the World to Come — Maharsha.

“He will not delay for the one who hates Him”: Rabbi Ila said: It is only for those who hate Him that He will not delay

to repay him his good reward,

but He will delay

repaying

the completely righteous.

And this is what Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written:

“And you shall observe the mitzva and the statutes and the ordinances”

“which I command you today, to perform them”?

Today

in this world

to perform them, and not tomorrow

in the World to Come

to perform them [רש"י עבודה זרה דף ג.] [Rashi, Avoda Zara, page 3],

for after death, in the future to come, if he comes to perform mitzvot it is of no avail, for one who exerted himself on the eve of Shabbat [in this world] will eat on Shabbat [in the World to Come].

And we also expound:

“Today, to perform them”

and only

“tomorrow, to receive their reward!”

Rabbi Haggai said, and some say Rabbi Samuel bar Nahmani: What is the meaning of that which is written:

“A compassionate and gracious God,”

“slow to anger”

He prolongs His anger and does not hurry to exact punishment, lest he repent — Rashi in the Pentateuch; and he raises the question:

it should have said, “slow to anger”

to say it in the singular?!

Rather,

“slow to two angers” [faces]: a smiling face and an angry face.

“Slow to anger”

smiling

for the righteous,

for He delays paying them their reward in the future to come.

And “slow to anger”

angry

for the wicked,

after their punishment for their wickedness in the World to Come.

We learned in the Mishna: It is permitted to distance [the posts] any amount, etc.

Rabbi Judah says: up to a beit se'a of two seah:

They raised a question before them:

this statement that Rabbi Judah says that we permit up to a beit se'atayim, is it regarding the area of the

well and

the area between the

posts

which are outside the well together, that he

says Rabbi Judah that we permit up to a beit se'atayim and no more?

that we permit up to the area of two se'a but no more?

Or perhaps,

regarding the area of the

well

alone,

and not

regarding the area between the

posts

which are outside the well,

says Rabbi Judah that we permit up to a beit se'atayim, and if the area outside the well increases the entire perimeter to more than a beit se'atayim, it is of no consequence, [provided that they are not farther from the well than the head and most of the body of a cow — Tosafot]?

that we permit up to the area of two se'a; and if the area outside the well increases the entire enclosure to more than the area of two se'a, it does not matter, [provided that the corner posts are not farther from the well than the distance needed for the head and most of the body of a cow—Tosafot].

And we explain our uncertainty: Do we say:

a person fixes his eyes upon his well,

that is, one who comes to learn a permission from here for another place fixes his eyes upon the well and learns from it! And since there is only a beit se'atayim in the well — even though the perimeter is larger —

we do not decree lest he come to carry

in a perimeter

larger than a beit se'atayim,

even

in a karpef [שלא הוקף לדירה]that was not enclosed for habitation.

[that was not enclosed for residential use].

Or perhaps, a person fixes his eyes upon his partition

as it is in its full size, and if he comes to learn a permission from here for another place, he will learn it from the partition,

and we decree lest he come to exchange

this case of the posts with a perimeter that is

larger than a beit se'atayim in a karpef [שלא הוקף לדירה]that was not enclosed for habitation.

[that was not enclosed for residential use].

And we resolve it:

Come and hear: how close are

the posts

to be

to the well,

as much as the head and most of the body of a cow.

And

how far are they

from the well,

even

a

kor, even

a

double-kor area.

Rabbi Judah says: a beit se'atayim is permitted; more than a beit se'atayim is forbidden!

They said

to him,

to Rabbi Judah: Do you not concede with regard to a pen, an enclosure, a fenced area

and

a courtyard,

that since they were enclosed for habitation,

even

if they are

five kor and ten kor, they are permitted,

and we do not decree on account of a perimeter that was not enclosed for habitation?! So too with posts that were enclosed for the use of a well, which is a complete habitation, since their water is fit for human drinking on weekdays, we do not decree on account of another perimeter that was not enclosed for habitation.

He said to them,

Rabbi Judah to the Rabbis:

this

which is in the pen, and all the rest,

is a partition

which is complete,

but these

which are at the wells

are merely posts,

they are merely [posts], for it is an inferior partition [whether because the breaches in it are numerous and the standing portions are few, or because the breaches of the posts are thirteen and one-third cubits wide and not ten cubits], and here it is more appropriate to decree, since when they see that they permitted, even with an inferior partition, a perimeter larger than a beit se'atayim, they will certainly come to exchange it and permit it in a karpef where there is a superior partition.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: a well

which is

a beit se'atayim by a beit se'atayim,

that is, whose length is that of a square beit se'atayim [namely, seventy and a remainder cubits [and a little more]. And the calculation is: go and calculate the square root of 5,000 cubits — which is the area of a beit se'atayim — and you will find: 70.6 cubits, seventy cubits. This is explained more fully in the Gemara below, page 23], over the width of a square beit se'atayim,

is permitted! And they said to distance

the perimeter and to add to the beit se'atayim of the width of the well

only by as much as the head and most of the body of a cow,

which are two cubits in each direction.

And now we resolve our question:

since Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says —

his disputant of Rabbi Judah in the beraita — that the perimeter of the posts is measured by the

well

alone

and not

by the area between the

posts

which are outside the well,

it follows that Rabbi Judah,

who disputes him,

the well and the posts

together

is referring to, and resolve our question!

and thus our question is resolved!

And we reject this:

It is not so!

Actually,

Rabbi Judah

also

is referring to a well without the posts,

and [he agrees] with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar!

Should you say:

if so, this is the same as Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

and in what do they disagree?! I can say to you: Rabbi Judah disputes the first part of the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar — that he says they permitted only a well that does not contain more than seventy and a remainder cubits by seventy and a remainder cubits — and

there is between them:

a well

long [אורכו ארוך משבעים אמה] [whose length is longer than seventy cubits]

and narrow [רחבו קצר משבעים אמה] [whose width is shorter than seventy cubits], whose total area does not exceed five thousand cubits. For according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, whenever its length on one side is more than seventy and a remainder cubits, its width and its area no longer matter, and it is forbidden. But according to Rabbi Judah, everything follows the area, and the measure of its length and the measure of its width do not matter; whenever its area is no greater than the area of a beit se'atayim, it is well.

[its width is less than seventy cubits], whose total area does not exceed five thousand square cubits. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, if its length in one direction is greater than seventy cubits and a fraction, it does not matter what its width and total area are; it is prohibited. According to Rabbi Yehuda, everything depends on the area, and the measurements of its length and width do not matter. As long as its area is no greater than the area of two se'a, it is acceptable.

And we conclude the entire beraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: every

perimeter made even for

air [מקום שאינו מקורה] [a place that is not roofed]

[a place without a roof]

whose use is for habitation

of a person, for constant entering and exiting,

such as a pen, an enclosure, a fenced area, and a courtyard, even [one of] five kor and [one of] ten kor —

is permitted.

And every

perimeter, even one of

a habitation [מקורה] [a roofed place]

[roofed],

whose use is for the air

outside it, which is not made for the needs of its interior, but for the air outside it, so that field guards may dwell there, and which is made to provide shelter from the sun,

such as huts [סוכת שומרי השדות] [the huts of field guards]

[the huts of field watchmen]

that are in the fields,

for it is not a habitation, since he dwells there against his will,

a beit se'atayim is permitted; more than a beit se'atayim is forbidden! [נתבאר על פי רש"י לעיל דף טו]. [Explained according to Rashi above, page 15].

[Explained according to Rashi above, 15a.]

Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: If the path of the public domain

passes between the posts [lengthwise and crosswise, according to the Ritba] and

cuts them off —

he shall move it

to the public domain

to the sides!

For otherwise, the passage of the public will come and nullify the partitions.

And the Sages say: it is not necessary

to move it, since the public does not come and nullify the status of four partitions.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar both said: Here they informed you [גירסת רש"י לעיל דף כ.] [Rashi’s version above, page 20]

the Sages how great

is the power of partitions,

for they are not nullified even by the passage of the public.

And we raise the following question concerning that which Rabbi Yohanan said, “Here they informed you”: does it imply:

here

they informed you,

and

he himself also

holds

this way [Ritba].

It cannot be said so. For:

But Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Jerusalem,

whose public domain runs directly from gate to gate, and in which six hundred thousand people tread, and whose width is sixteen cubits,

were it not that its doors were closed

every

night —

one would be liable on its account because of the public domain [נתבאר על פי רש"י לעיל דף ו:] [explained according to Rashi above, page 6], despite the fact that at the gates of Jerusalem there were doorframes that constituted partitions.

[explained according to Rashi above, 6a], despite the fact that the gates of Jerusalem had doorways formed by posts and lintels, which constitute partitions.

Thus it follows that Rabbi Yohanan holds that the passage of the public nullifies the status of partitions!

And we answer:

rather,

that which Rabbi Yohanan says, “Here they informed you,”

means here, but he does not hold this way,

that is the meaning!

And we ask:

and let us compare Rabbi Judah

who says in our Mishna that the passage of the public nullifies partitions,

with Rabbi Judah.

And let us likewise compare

also

the ruling of the Rabbis

who say in our Mishna that partitions are not nullified because of the passage of the public,

with the ruling of the Rabbis.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Judah said further:

One who had two houses on the two sides of the public domain —

he makes for it a side-post here and a side-post here

on the two sides of the house,

or a cross-beam here and a cross-beam here, and he carries and places [ומטלטל] [and transports]

[and moves objects]

in the middle.

And it now occurred to us that Rabbi Judah’s reason is that the side-post or the cross-beam is effective in place of the third partition that is required by Torah law to make it a private domain. For a side-post and a cross-beam are effective on account of a partition [in addition to the side-post and cross-beam required on the fourth side, by rabbinic law].

The Rabbis said to him

the Sages:

one cannot establish an eruv for a public domain in this manner.

That is: it is impossible to turn the public domain into a private domain in such a manner. [And consequently, a courtyard eruv is not effective in it to permit carrying there].

And their reason is: the public comes and nullifies the partition of the side-post or the cross-beam.

And now it is difficult:

Rabbi Judah holds in the Mishna that the passage of the public nullifies partitions, whereas here he holds that it does not nullify them.

And the Rabbis hold in the Mishna that the public does not come and nullify partitions, while on the other hand they hold here that it does nullify them?! And if so,

there is a difficulty from Rabbi Judah against Rabbi Judah.

And we answer: and there is a difficulty from the Rabbis against the Rabbis.

The difficulty from Rabbi Judah against Rabbi Judah —

is not difficult:

There,

with regard to the public domain,

where there are two superior partitions,

namely, the partitions of the houses, and therefore it is a private domain.

For Rabbi Judah holds that only two partitions are required by Torah law to make a private domain, and the public does not pass through these two partitions [and since the other partitions are only rabbinic, they were lenient — Ritba].

Alternatively, even if you should say that Rabbi Judah holds that three partitions are required by Torah law to make a private domain, nevertheless the public does not come and nullify the third partition, since there are two complete partitions [Tosafot].

But

here,

with regard to the posts of the wells,

there are not two superior partitions.

And the early authorities disagree about this:

Rabbeinu Jonathan explained: since in the posts of the wells the breached area is greater than the standing area, and they are not superior partitions, the passage of the public is effective to nullify the partitions.

And the Ritba explained: since the public passes between the posts even through the two partitions, for the public passes between the posts lengthwise and crosswise, therefore all the partitions are nullified.

And if indeed he placed two sides, either lengthwise or crosswise, on the two sides of the well without the passage of the public, it is well.

The difficulty from the Rabbis against the Rabbis

also

is not difficult:

Here

with regard to the posts of the wells,

there is the status [בצירי] [with a hiriq]

[with the vowel patah]

of four partitions,

for there are two cubits of wall on every side, and therefore the partitions are not nullified by the passage of the public.

But

there,

in the public domain that runs between the houses,

there is not the status of four partitions,

for there are only two partitions, and on the third and fourth sides there is only a side-post or a cross-beam; and even according to the one who holds that a side-post and a cross-beam are on account of a partition, they are not considered significant partitions for this matter [Ritba; and see Rashba and Ran].

Rabbi Isaac bar Joseph said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: With regard to the Land of Israel, one is not liable on its account because of a public domain

as the Gemara proceeds to explain!

Rav Dimi was sitting and saying this teaching

of Rabbi Yohanan.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: What is the reason

that there is no public domain in the Land of Israel?