Eruvin 23b — the Talmud in English

:

Rabbi Akiva –

that is identical to the first tanna!

?!

:

The difference between them is: ‘a small amount,’

which is more than seventy cubits and fractions, as we will explain shortly.

.

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: There is a small amount beyond seventy cubits and fractions, and the Sages did not assign it a measure

The Sages were not particular about restricting it, but the measure includes that small amount—this is the view of Tosafot].

—

like the courtyard of the Tabernacle!

That is to say: The courtyard of the Tabernacle had an area one hundred cubits long by fifty cubits wide, which is five thousand square cubits.

If you square this area, you find that each side of the square is seventy cubits, plus “fractions,” which are two-thirds of a cubit [0.666 cubits], plus “a small amount,” which is approximately five-hundredths of a cubit [approximately √5000 = 70.710678; 70 × 0.710678].

Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis disagree regarding that “small amount”: whether or not it is to be included in the calculation [this has been explained according to the accepted method of calculation; see Rashi].

:

From where are these matters

—that Rabbi Akiva says that the area must be seventy cubits and fractions by seventy cubits and fractions, meaning specifically a square and not a long and narrow area—and from where do we derive that the courtyard of the Tabernacle is squared in order to measure the prohibition of Shabbat?

Rav Yehuda said: As the verse states: “The length of the courtyard shall be one hundred cubits, and the width fifty, by fifty.”

What is the meaning of the additional “by fifty” beyond the first “fifty”?

The Torah said: Take fifty

cubits by the second fifty cubits, which are in excess of the first square of fifty by fifty cubits,

and surround

with them [in a square] the first square of

fifty

by fifty that you had, and you will find a large square of seventy cubits and fractions and a small amount by seventy cubits and fractions and a small amount.

This is what the Torah said: “And the width of fifty [shall be surrounded] by fifty [other cubits].”

And

the plain meaning of the verse

refers to the Tabernacle itself, and it says “by fifty”—

why is this written?

:

Abaye said: Position the Tabernacle

—whose inner space was thirty cubits long [not including the thickness of the boards] and whose inner space was ten cubits wide—within the courtyard of the Tabernacle, whose area consisted of two squares of fifty by fifty [fifty square cubits in the east and fifty in the west], in such a manner that the Tabernacle would stand:

.

Along the edge

[at the end] of the square of

fifty

by fifty cubits on the western side, at the eastern edge of the western square.

b. The Tabernacle should stand in the center of the width of the square.

,

so that there will be:

Fifty cubits in front of it

—the Tabernacle. For we positioned it at the end of the western fifty cubits, leaving the eastern square of fifty cubits empty.

And twenty cubits

of the courtyard will extend beyond the Tabernacle

on every side

—for its width is ten cubits, leaving an excess of twenty cubits to the southern and northern edges of the courtyard; and since it is only thirty cubits long, an excess of twenty cubits remains behind the Tabernacle, up to the western edge of the courtyard.

[However, the excess was twenty cubits only in relation to the “inner space” of the Tabernacle; from the area of the courtyard itself, the thickness of the boards must be subtracted].

:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If its length

is greater than its width even by one cubit, one may not carry within it:

:

But was it not taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: If

its length is “greater than twice its width,” even by one cubit, one may not carry within it

—which implies that if its length is twice its width, or less than that, it is valid, unlike what is explicitly stated in the Mishna?!

:

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said: When our Mishna also teaches

that if its length is greater than its width, one may not carry within it, this means: “If its length is

greater than

twice its width”—

that is what it teaches!

And this is because the courtyard of the Tabernacle was twice as long as it was wide, and no more.

:

If so, this is identical to Rabbi Yosei,

who says in the Mishna: Even if its length is twice its width, one may carry within it. In what, then, do they disagree?!

And we answer:

The difference between them is the squaring that the Rabbis squared.

That is to say: The square that the Sages derived from the earlier textual support, “Take fifty and surround fifty” [Ritba]. This means: Rabbi Eliezer holds that ideally its length must be twice its width, but after the fact, even if one made it square, it is valid [according to Tosafot’s understanding of Rashi; the Ritba did not write this]. And Rabbi Yosei holds that ideally it must be square, but after the fact, even if one made its length twice its width, it is valid! [This has been explained according to Rashi].

:

Rabbi Yosei says:

Even if its length is twice its width, one may carry within it:

It was stated: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who holds that it need not be square, and even if its length is twice its width, it is valid.

And Rav Bibi said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

who holds that up to an area of two se'a it need not have been enclosed for dwelling purposes

! And both rulings are lenient

—as we explained.

And it is necessary

for Shmuel to teach us both of these rulings:

For if he had taught us

only

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, I would have said

that nevertheless it must be enclosed for dwelling purposes, and

until there is a watchtower or a dwelling

it is not permitted [as Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava maintains in the Mishna]. Therefore,

he teaches us

that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

who says in the Mishna that none of these is required.

And if he had taught us

only that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, I would have said

that the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva in all his statements, including his view that it must be square [as he says: “provided that it is seventy cubits and fractions by seventy cubits and fractions,” which implies a square].

But

long and narrow

[with its length greater than its width]

is not.

Therefore,

he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

that even if it is not square, after the fact it is valid even when it is long and narrow, provided that its length is no more than twice its width.

Summary of the views and the halakha, according to Rashi.

With regard to an enclosure

that

was not enclosed

for

dwelling purposes—

there are three views:

.

According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava:

An enclosure larger than an area of two se'a is not permitted, even if it was enclosed for dwelling purposes.

Up to an area of two se'a, if it was not enclosed for dwelling purposes, it is not permitted.

But if it was enclosed for dwelling purposes, it is permitted.

This is also the view of

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ilai,

but he adds:

An enclosure for dwelling purposes is considered to exist even with a pit, cistern, or cave, and it is valid up to an area of two se'a. But when it is larger than two se'a, even if it was genuinely enclosed for dwelling purposes, it is not permitted.

.

According to the Sages at the beginning of the chapter and Rabbi Akiva:

Up to an area of two se'a, an enclosure for dwelling purposes is not required; for an area larger than two se'a, an enclosure for dwelling purposes is required.

And this is the halakha!

.

According to Rabbi Ilai in the name of Rabbi Eliezer and Hanania

[below, 26a]:

Even when it was not enclosed for dwelling purposes, it is permitted, even when it is larger than an area of two se'a.

However, they disagree whether it is permitted up to forty se'a, or up to a kor [as stated below, 26a].

With regard to an enclosure

that is

square or long and narrow, there are three views:

a. According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava and Rabbi Akiva, it must be square.

[Regarding the view of Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ilai, the early authorities disagree:

The view of Tosafot, 23b, s.v. “Rabbi Akiva,” is that just as with regard to the partitions around wells Rabbi Yehuda permitted an area that is long and narrow—as stated above, 22a—so too with regard to an enclosure that was not made for dwelling purposes.

But the view of the Ritba, above, 22a, is that Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ilai agrees, with regard to an enclosure for dwelling purposes, with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who requires it to be square].

b. According to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosei, the enclosure is valid even when it is long and narrow,

and this is the halakha!

c. According to Rashi, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosei disagree whether ideally it must be square or its length must be twice its width.

When its length is greater than twice its width:

All the tannaim mentioned above hold that it is not valid. But Rabbi Ilai in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, and Hanania [below, 26a], permit even this, Ritba below, 26a.

A karpef larger than an area of two se'a that was enclosed for dwelling purposes,

and afterward

most of it was sown,

the status of its enclosure as one for dwelling purposes is nullified, since people do not dwell in the sown area, and

it is

[the entire karpef, including even the part that was not sown]

like a garden, and it is prohibited

to carry throughout it, because the minority is nullified in relation to the majority, and it is as though the entire area had been sown. But if it was initially enclosed for dwelling purposes and

trees were planted

in

most of it,

its status as a dwelling area is not nullified, because it is normal to take shelter in the shade of trees, and

it is like an ordinary courtyard

that is enclosed for dwelling purposes,

and it is permitted

to carry within it.

And we explain that which we said:

When most of it was sown,

it is prohibited:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We stated this only

when the area that was sown, considered by itself, is

larger than an area of two se'a,

so that the sown area is a karmelit, like an enclosure larger than two se'a that was not enclosed for dwelling purposes. Consequently, the remainder of the karpef—even though it was enclosed for dwelling purposes—is open to a karmelit, and therefore it is prohibited to carry within it.

But

if the area of the sowing, considered by itself, has an area of

two se'a

or less,

it is permitted

to carry throughout the entire area, since it is merely an enclosure smaller than two se'a that was not enclosed for dwelling purposes, and such an area is not a karmelit [but below this is rejected, since the minority is nullified in relation to the majority, as stated above].

We hold that it is prohibited to carry between two “types” of domains [as will be explained below], from one to the other, even when both are fully private domains. And if the partition between the two domains is breached, it is entirely prohibited to carry within them, since each has been opened to a domain that is prohibited to it.

Therefore, here, since part of the karpef is enclosed for dwelling purposes and is consequently a “courtyard,” while the other part, which is not enclosed for dwelling purposes, is consequently a “karpef”—two “types” of domains that have been “opened” into one another—we should have to prohibit carrying within them.

And since Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says that if the part not enclosed for dwelling purposes is no larger than two se'a, it is permitted to carry throughout the entire karpef, it necessarily follows:

In accordance with whom

did Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, state this?

In accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that a courtyard [which is like a karpef enclosed for dwelling purposes] and a karpef [which is not enclosed for dwelling purposes and is no larger than two se'a] are one domain.

As we learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: Whether roofs

of houses,

or courtyards, or karpefot

that were not enclosed for dwelling purposes,

are one domain with regard to vessels that rested

[that were in them at the onset of Shabbat]

within them,

meaning within the roofs, courtyards, or karpefot, and it is permitted to carry them from one to another.

But not with regard to vessels that rested inside the house

and were subsequently taken out to the courtyard; it is prohibited to take these from the courtyard to the karpef.

For if he follows the Rabbis, they hold [below, 89a] that a courtyard and a karpef are two “types” of domains, and it is prohibited to carry from one to the other even vessels that rested in the courtyard and not in the house.

According to the Rabbis, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, should have prohibited carrying throughout the entire karpef [this has been explained according to Rashi].

:

Even according to Rabbi Shimon

it should be prohibited to carry throughout the entire karpef—even though the part that was sown and was not enclosed for dwelling purposes is no larger than two se'a—because

since

the case here involves an area

whose majority was sown,