Eruvin 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said: Both this one and that one are fit,

and because of

“the interior space of a sukka”

which is higher than twenty cubits is what

we learned

is unfit, but whenever the interior space of the sukka is not higher than twenty cubits, even though the sekhakh itself is not within twenty cubits, it is acceptable.

And likewise,

“the interior space of a mavoi”

which is higher than twenty cubits is what

we learned

is unfit. [For the Mishna explicitly teaches: “above” twenty cubits; Torat Chaim, see there.]

Rav Pappa said to Rava: There is a beraita that supports you,

that the matter depends on the height of the interior space:

For it was taught:

A mavoi that is higher than twenty cubits, more than the entrance of the Sanctuary—

one must reduce its height!

This proves that if the interior space of the mavoi is not more than twenty cubits, but is exactly twenty, it is not disqualified. For

the Sanctuary itself—

its interior space

of its entrance was

twenty

cubits. And it follows that any entrance whose interior space is no higher than the interior space of the entrance of the Sanctuary is not disqualified!

Rav Shimi bar Rav Ashi raised an objection to Rav Pappa

concerning what we said, “We learned the interior space of a mavoi,” from the following beraita:

If one comes to rectify a mavoi that is higher than twenty cubits—

what does he do?

He places a crossbeam from the level of twenty cubits downward.

This implies that the crossbeam must be within the twenty cubits.

But if “the interior space of a mavoi” is what we learned, there is no need for the crossbeam to enter within the interior space, since any mavoi whose interior space is no higher than twenty cubits is not disqualified!?

And we answer:

Say

this instead: He places the crossbeam from the level of twenty cubits

and upward.

There is no need for the crossbeam to enter within the twenty cubits.

And we challenge this:

But

the beraita says, “from the level of twenty cubits

downward,”

it teaches!

This implies that the thickness of the crossbeam must be within the twenty cubits!? And we answer: In fact, an interior space of a mavoi measuring twenty cubits is fit, and the tanna of the beraita is saying as follows:

1. He places the crossbeam from the level of an interior space of twenty cubits and upward, since it is sufficient that the interior space not be more than twenty cubits.

2. And if he wishes to lower it considerably and place it “downward,” near the bottom of the mavoi, in order to reduce the height of the entrance’s interior space, he should place it from the level of ten handbreadths of the mavoi’s entrance and upward, so that the interior space of the mavoi will remain at least ten handbreadths high, since a space of less than ten handbreadths is not considered a mavoi.

And

this teaches us

the tanna in this beraita: that the lowest measure of ten handbreadths established by the Sages for the entrance of a mavoi,

downward,

refers to the interior space of the entrance [and not to the place of the crossbeam],

just as upward,

with regard to the greatest measure of twenty cubits, which refers to the interior space and not to the location of the crossbeam.

Just as above, its interior space

of the mavoi’s crossbeam must be no more than

twenty

cubits, and there is no need for the crossbeam itself to be within twenty cubits,

so too below, its interior space

of the mavoi’s crossbeam must be at least

ten

handbreadths high. This teaches you that if part of the crossbeam is within the ten-handbreadth measure, it is unfit, because we require an interior space at least ten handbreadths high.

In several places the Sages gave measurements in cubits [such as in our Mishna: “A mavoi that is higher than twenty cubits”]. The Gemara now explains which cubits the Sages used for their measurements. For in some cases the Sages measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, while in other cases they measured with a cubit of six handbreadths.

And in every case, we follow the stringent measure.

Abaye said in the name of Rav Naḥman:

“The cubit of a sukka,

the cubit with which the Sages measured for purposes of sukka,

and

likewise

“the cubit of a mavoi”—

they measured with a cubit of five

handbreadths!

But

“the cubit of diverse kinds”—

they measured with a cubit of six

handbreadths!

It follows from this statement of Rav Naḥman that in every case we follow the stringent measure. Therefore Rav Naḥman distinguished between the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of a mavoi, which are measured stringently with a narrower cubit of five handbreadths, as will be explained below, and the cubit of diverse kinds, which is measured with a cubit of six handbreadths in order to be stringent regarding the required separation of diverse kinds.

And the Gemara explains:

The cubit of a mavoi with a cubit of five

for what halakhic purpose?

For which laws of a mavoi, whose measurements the Sages stated in cubits, do we say that they were measured with a cubit of five handbreadths?

1.

For its height

of the mavoi: It may not be higher than twenty small cubits, each of five handbreadths.

2.

And for a breach in a mavoi.

We have established that if one of the walls of the mavoi is breached by more than ten cubits, it is prohibited to carry in the mavoi. The breach is measured stringently as ten small cubits, each of five handbreadths [that is, fifty handbreadths].

We measure with small cubits because, with regard to these two laws, measuring with a small cubit of five handbreadths is stringent.

And we challenge this: How could you have said without qualification that in every matter involving the cubit of a mavoi, we measure with a cubit of five handbreadths?

But the Sages were lenient with regard to a mavoi, permitting it to be rendered fit with a leḥi or a crossbeam [whereas in a courtyard one specifically requires a four-handbreadth strip]:

And

if so,

there is

a measure of

the length

[that is, the length]

of a mavoi,

which is at least

four cubits

[and if its length is less than this, it is not rendered permitted by a leḥi or a crossbeam; rather, its status is that of a courtyard, and it is rendered permitted only by a four-handbreadth strip],

which is a leniency,

for if we measure the length of the mavoi with a small cubit of five handbreadths, this is lenient, since by doing so we will permit it with a leḥi or a crossbeam.

But one should have been stringent and measured the length of the mavoi with a cubit of six handbreadths!?

And we answer: Rav Naḥman holds

like the one who says

that the measure of the length of a mavoi is not four cubits; rather, it is

four handbreadths,

so it is not measured in cubits at all [and this is a dispute among the amoraim, below]!

And alternatively,

Rav Naḥman could also hold like the one who says that the measure of the length of a mavoi is

four cubits.

In fact, it is measured with a large cubit of six handbreadths, in order to be stringent.

And

Rav Naḥman did not say that a cubit of five handbreadths is used in every matter; rather, only with regard to the

majority

of the laws of a mavoi whose measurements the Sages stated in

cubits, he said,

Rav Naḥman, that they are measured with a cubit of five, but not in all of them! The Gemara further explains: As for what Rav Naḥman said,

the cubit of a sukka with a cubit of five—

for what halakhic purpose?

1.

For its height,

of the sukka: It may not be higher than twenty small cubits, each of five handbreadths.

2.

And for a curved wall.

For we have established that if one roofs the sukka with unfit roofing adjacent to the walls of the sukka, within four cubits of the walls, while the center of the sukka is roofed with fit roofing, the sukka is not thereby disqualified, and one may sit beneath the fit roofing, because the unfit roofing is not considered an interruption between the fit roofing and the walls of the sukka.

Rather, on the contrary, we consider the unfit roofing as though it were part of the wall, and as though the wall had bent and reached the fit roofing. There is therefore no interruption between the roofing and the walls unless the unfit roofing measures four cubits.

These four cubits are measured with a cubit of five handbreadths.

The reason the Sages measured these two laws with a cubit of five handbreadths is that this is stringent.

And we challenge this: How could Rav Naḥman have said without qualification, “The cubit of a sukka with a cubit of five”?

But there is the length

[that is, the length]

of a sukka,

which is

four cubits.

For

if we measure it with a small cubit of five handbreadths, it is

a leniency.

For

this is how it was

taught: The measure of the length of a sukka is four cubits:

that the required length of a sukka is four cubits:

Rabbi says: I say that any sukka that does not contain four cubits by four cubits—

is unfit!

And we answer: Rav Naḥman holds

like the Rabbis,

he holds,

who say

that the length of a sukka is not measured in cubits at all. For

even if it cannot contain

the sukka

anything but his head, most of his body, and his table,

which is seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, the sukka is fit.

And alternatively: In fact,

Rav Naḥman’s method accords with the words of

Rabbi.

We measure the length of a sukka with a cubit of six handbreadths.

And

Rav Naḥman said that the

majority of the cubits

of a sukka are what he

said

are measured with a cubit of five, but not all of them.

The prohibition against sowing diverse kinds is divided into two separate prohibitions.

The first is sowing two different types of seeds adjacent to one another.

The second is sowing seeds in a vineyard of grapevines.

Whereas with diverse kinds of seeds the prohibition is sowing adjacent to one another, with diverse kinds in a vineyard the prohibition is sowing seeds anywhere that is designated as a “vineyard,” even when the seeds are not adjacent to the grapevines.

For example, the area designated for working the vineyard around it, which is four cubits, is included in the designation “vineyard.” Likewise, when a vineyard is enclosed by a surrounding fence, the unoccupied area between the grapevines and the fence is considered part of the vineyard, and it is prohibited to sow there.

We further explain what Rav Naḥman said:

The cubit of diverse kinds with a cubit of six

handbreadths—

for what halakhic purpose?

For the cubit measurements stated with regard to

an open area within a vineyard and the surrounding area of a vineyard.

As we learned: The measure of

an

open area within a vineyard:

An open area within a vineyard is an area inside the vineyard that is vacant of grapevines and is considered an independent area, to which the designation “vineyard” does not apply, since it is called “an open area within a vineyard” [like a bald spot among the hair], and it is permitted to sow seeds there.

Beit Shammai say: Only if the open area was at least

twenty-four cubits

wide

does the designation “open area within a vineyard” apply to it, thereby removing from it the designation “vineyard,” and one may sow within it.

And Beit Hillel say: It is sufficient for it to be

sixteen cubits

wide

for it to be permitted to sow seeds in it.

That is, one must distance the seeds four cubits from the grapevines on each side, for the work of the grapevines, leaving an area suitable for sowing measuring eight cubits by eight cubits.

And the measure of

the

surrounding area

[that is, the area surrounding]

the vineyard:

This is the unoccupied area between the grapevines and the fence surrounding the vineyard, when it contains a significant area of vacant land that gives it the designation “the surrounding area of a vineyard.”

Beit Shammai say: If there were

sixteen cubits

between the vineyard and the fence,

this is an independent area called “the surrounding area of a vineyard,” and it does not have the designation “vineyard”; one may sow there.

And Beit Hillel say:

Twelve cubits

are sufficient.

And the Mishna explains:

What is an open area within a vineyard?

A vineyard that was ruined,

with no grapevines planted in

its middle,

but plantings remaining on the four sides of the open area. [The same law applies if it is planted on only two sides of the open area.]

Beit Hillel maintain: If

there are not

in the open area

sixteen cubits

in length and width,

one may not bring seed there.

For, as stated, the four cubits adjacent to the planted area, which are designated for the “work of the vineyard” [the area required for the passage of oxen and wagons during harvesting and plowing], are nullified to the vineyard, and one who sows there is like one who sows inside a vineyard.

The measure required for an independent field, so that it will not be nullified to the vineyard on either side, is also four cubits, which constitutes a significant area.

Therefore, if eight cubits did not remain in the open area [in addition to the area designated for the work of the vineyard], half of the field is nullified to the vineyard on its side, and the other half to the vineyard on the other side, and it is entirely prohibited to sow there, because the entire area is called “vineyard.”

But if

there were

in the open area

sixteen cubits—

he gives it

to the vineyard, on each side, four cubits

for its work,

which one may not sow,

and he sows the remainder.

And Beit Shammai maintain: The measure of a field that is not nullified to the vineyard on either side is eight cubits. Therefore, twenty-four cubits are required, as follows:

Four cubits on each side for the work of the vineyard.

And sixteen cubits in between, so that half the open area will not be nullified, if it is less than eight cubits, to one side of the vineyard, and its other half to the other side of the vineyard.

[There are those who say: The reason for Beit Shammai is that they hold that the measure of the “work of the vineyard” is eight cubits, and they agree with Beit Hillel regarding the measure of a “field,” which is four cubits.]

And what is

“the surrounding area of a vineyard”?

Between a vineyard and a fence [and machol means the area surrounding the vineyard, from the term for the circles in which women dance].

Beit Hillel maintain: If

there are not twelve cubits,

from the vineyard to the fence—

one may not bring seed

there

at all.

Because four of those cubits, adjacent to the vineyard, are designated for the “work of the vineyard”; they are nullified to the vineyard, and the designation “vineyard” applies to them.

On the other hand, the four cubits adjacent to the fence, since people walk there, are abandoned by the owner of the vineyard as an area for sowing. Therefore, they do not combine to make the remaining area an independent field.

And since less than four cubits remain in the vacant area, that area is not significant enough to be called an independent field. Rather, it is nullified and joins the vineyard adjacent to it, and it is therefore prohibited to sow there.

But if

there were twelve cubits, he gives it

to the vineyard

for its work,

which is four cubits,

and sows the rest.

And Beit Shammai maintain: Sixteen cubits are required. According to their method, the measure of a field is eight cubits, in addition to four cubits for the work of the vineyard and four cubits adjacent to the fence.

[There are those who say that their reason is that eight cubits are required for the work of the vineyard, four for the measure of a field, and another four adjacent to the fence.]

And all these cubits that were mentioned are measured as large cubits of six handbreadths—in order to be stringent!

And we challenge this: How could Rav Naḥman have said without qualification, “The cubit of diverse kinds with a cubit of six,” implying that all matters of diverse kinds are measured with a cubit of six handbreadths?

But there are closely planted rows

[the Gemara explains them immediately], whose measure is

four cubits, for

if we measure them with a cubit of six, it is

a leniency?

As we learned: A vineyard that is planted

in continuous rows, with insufficient space between one row and the next for the passage of a wagon, but planted

with less than four cubits

between one row and the next:

Rabbi Shimon says:

Since vineyards are not ordinarily planted in this manner, it

is not

considered

a “vineyard”

at all, and it is permitted to sow seeds there.

And the Sages say: It is

a vineyard, and

it is prohibited to sow there. Because they

regard the middle rows

[the intermediate rows]

as though they are not there,

and sufficient space remains between each row as is appropriate.

The difficulty now arises: According to Rabbi Shimon, one should have to measure with a small cubit, since we follow the stringent measure.

And we answer: Rav Naḥman holds

like the Sages, who say

that even when the grapevines are planted in continuous rows, it

is a vineyard.

And alternatively: In fact,

it is possible to say that Rav Naḥman holds like

Rabbi Shimon.

And

only the

majority of the cubits

mentioned with regard to diverse kinds are what

he said

Rav Naḥman are measured with a cubit of six, stringently, but not all of them!

And Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman: All cubits

that the Sages stated, whether with regard to sukka and a mavoi or with regard to diverse kinds—

with a cubit of six

they are measured.

Rather, these,

the cubits relating to diverse kinds, are measured with large cubits that are

generous

[when a person smiles, his lips move apart, Arukh]. That is, they are measured with large handbreadths, measured with space between the fingers [since a handbreadth is four fingers], in order to be stringent.

handbreadths.

And these,

those relating to sukka and a mavoi, are measured with

contracted cubits

[when a person is sad, his lips are pressed together, Arukh]. That is, they are measured with small handbreadths, with the fingers pressed together, in order to be stringent.

Meytivi to Abaye in the name of Rav Naḥman:

, those concerning a sukka and an alleyway, are measured with

level

cubits [when a person is sad, his lips are pressed together, Arukh]. That is, they are measured with small handbreadths, with the fingers pressed together, in order to be strict.

They raise an objection

to Abaye, who transmitted this statement in the name of Rav Naḥman: