Eruvin 3b — the Talmud in English

Rava said: Both this and that are fit, and because of

the

ד “the interior space of a sukka”

being above twenty cubits is what

we learned

is unfit, but whenever the interior space of the sukka is not above twenty, even though the sakhakh itself is not within twenty—it is fine.

And likewise,

“the interior space of a mavoy”

being higher than twenty is what

we learned

is unfit. [For it teaches, “above” twenty cubits, Torat Hayyim, see there].

Rav Pappa said to Rava: It was taught that supports you,

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

For it was taught:

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

one must reduce it!

And it is proven that if there is not in the interior space of the mavoy more than twenty, but there are exactly twenty, it is not disqualified. For

the Sanctuary itself—

its interior space

of its entrance is

twenty

cubits. And it implies that every entrance whose interior space is not 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 mavoy,” from what was taught:

If one came to repair a mavoy that is above twenty—

what does he do?

He places a crossbeam from the edge of twenty and below.

And it implies that the crossbeam must be within twenty.

But if “we learned the interior space of a mavoy,” there is no need for the crossbeam to enter within the interior space, since whenever the height of the interior space is not more than twenty, it is not disqualified!?

And we answer:

Say

this instead: He places the crossbeam from the edge of twenty

and above.

And it is not necessary for the crossbeam to enter within twenty.

And we challenge this:

But

the beraita teaches, “from the edge of twenty

and below,”

it teaches!

And it implies that the thickness of the crossbeam must be within twenty!? And we answer: In fact, an interior space of a mavoy of twenty cubits is fit, and the tanna of the beraita said this:

a. He places the crossbeam from the edge of an interior space of twenty and above, because it is sufficient that the interior space not be more than twenty.

b. And if he comes to lower it greatly and place it “below,” close to the bottom of the mavoy, in order to reduce the height of the interior space of the entrance, he should place it from the edge of ten handbreadths of the entrance of the mavoy and above, so that at least ten handbreadths remain in the height of the interior space of the mavoy, because with an interior space of less than ten it is not a mavoy.

And

this teaches us

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

below,

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

like above,

similar to the highest 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 crossbeam of the mavoy must be up to

twenty

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

So too below, its interior space

of the crossbeam of the mavoy must be at least

ten

high. This teaches you that if part of the crossbeam is within ten, it is unfit, since we require an interior space with a height of at least ten handbreadths.

In many places the Sages gave a measure according to cubits [such as in our Mishna: “A mavoy that is higher than twenty cubits.”] And now the Gemara explains by which cubits the Sages measured. For in some instances the Sages measured with a cubit of five handbreadths, and in some instances the Sages measured with a cubit of six handbreadths.

And everywhere, we follow the stringent view.

Abaye said in the name of Rav Naḥman:

“The cubit of a sukka,”

the cubit with which the Sages measured with regard to a sukka,

and

likewise

“the cubit of a mavoy”—

they measured with a cubit of five

handbreadths!

But

“the cubit of prohibited mixtures”—

they measured with a cubit of six

handbreadths!

And it follows from this statement of Rav Naḥman that everywhere we follow the stringent view. Therefore Rav Naḥman distinguished between the cubit of a sukka and the cubit of a mavoy, which are measured stringently with a constricted cubit of five handbreadths, as will be explained below, and the cubit of prohibited mixtures, which is measured with a cubit of six handbreadths in order to be stringent regarding the distancing of prohibited mixtures.

And the Gemara explains:

The cubit of a mavoy with a cubit of five—

for what halakhic purpose?

For which laws of a mavoy, concerning which the Sages measured in cubits, do we say that they measured with a cubit of five?

a.

For its height

of the mavoy—that it should not be higher than twenty small cubits of five handbreadths.

b.

And for the breach of a mavoy.

For it is established that if one of the walls of the mavoy was breached by an opening greater than ten cubits, it is forbidden to carry in the mavoy. And the breach is measured stringently with ten small cubits, of five handbreadths [that is, fifty handbreadths].

And they measure with small cubits, since with regard to these two laws, measuring with a small cubit of five handbreadths is stringent.

And we challenge: How did you say this without qualification, implying that in every matter the cubit of a mavoy is measured with a cubit of five?

But the Sages were lenient regarding a mavoy, permitting it with a side-post or a crossbeam [whereas in a courtyard one specifically requires a strip of four handbreadths]:

And

if so,

there is

a measure of

length [

length ]

of a mavoy,

which is at least

four cubits [

and if its length is less than this, it is not permitted with a side-post and a crossbeam, but its law is that of a courtyard, and it is permitted only with a strip of four handbreadths ],

which is lenient,

for if we measure the length of the mavoy with a small cubit of five handbreadths, it is lenient, since through this we will permit it with a side-post or a crossbeam.

But one should have been stringent and measure the length of the mavoy with a cubit of six!?

And we answer: Rav Naḥman holds

like the one who says

that the measure of the length of a mavoy is not four cubits, but is

four handbreadths,

that it is not measured in cubits at all [and it is a dispute of amoraim—below]!

And if you wish, say:

Rav Naḥman too can hold like the one who says that the measure of the length of a mavoy is

four cubits.

And in fact, they measure with a large cubit of six handbreadths, in order to be stringent.

And

Rav Naḥman did not say that they measure with a cubit of five handbreadths in every matter, but only with regard to

most

of the laws of a mavoy that the Sages measured in

cubits, he said,

Rav Naḥman, that they are with a cubit of five, but not all of them! The Gemara further explains: That which Rav Naḥman said,

the cubit of a sukka with a cubit of five—

for what halakhic purpose?

a.

For its height

of the sukka, that it should not be above twenty small cubits of five handbreadths.

b.

And for a bent wall.

For it is established that if one covered the sukka with unfit covering next to the walls of the sukka, within four cubits of the walls, and covered the center of the sukka with fit covering, the sukka is not disqualified by this, and one may sit beneath the fit covering, since the unfit covering is not considered something that separates between the fit covering and the walls of the sukka.

Rather, on the contrary, we consider the unfit covering as though it were part of the wall, and as though the wall had bent and reached the fit covering, and there is no separation here between the covering and the walls unless the measure of the unfit covering was four cubits.

And these four cubits are measured with a cubit of five handbreadths.

And the reason that the Sages measured with a cubit of five handbreadths in these two laws is because it is stringent.

And we challenge: How did Rav Naḥman say without qualification, “The cubit of a sukka with a cubit of five”?

But there is the length [

length ]

of a sukka,

which is

four cubits.

For

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

lenient.

For

so it was

taught,

that the measure of the length of a sukka is four cubits:

Rabbi says: I say: Every sukka that does not have 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 does not hold

the sukka

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

of the one sitting in it, which is seven handbreadths by seven handbreadths, the sukka is fit.

And if you wish, say: In fact,

the method of Rav Naḥman is according to the words of

Rabbi.

And we measure the length of a sukka with a cubit of six handbreadths.

And

Rav Naḥman:

most of the cubits

of a sukka is what he

said,

that we measure with a cubit of five, but not all of them.

The prohibition against sowing prohibited mixtures is divided into two separate prohibitions.

The first: to sow two different seeds close to one another.

The second: to sow seeds in a vineyard of grapevines.

Whereas in seed mixtures the prohibition is sowing close by, in vineyard mixtures the prohibition is sowing seeds in every place upon which the designation “vineyard” applies, even when the seeds are not close to the grapevines.

For example, the place designated for the work of the vineyard around it, which is four cubits, joins the designation “vineyard”; likewise, a vineyard that was enclosed all around by a fence—the vacant place between the grapevines and the fence is considered part of the vineyard, and it is forbidden to sow in it.

We further explain that which Rav Naḥman said:

The cubit of prohibited mixtures with a cubit of six

handbreadths—

for what halakhic purpose?

For the cubits mentioned in the measure of

a bald patch in a vineyard and the open area around a vineyard.

As we learned: The measure of

a

bald patch in a vineyard:

A bald patch in a vineyard is a designation for a place within the vineyard that is vacant of grapevines and is considered an independent place, upon which the designation “vineyard” does not apply, since it is called “a bald patch in a vineyard” [like a bald patch among hair], and one may sow seeds in it.

The House of Shammai say:

Only if the width of the bald patch was at least

twenty-four cubits,

does the designation bald patch in a vineyard apply to it, and the designation vineyard is removed from it, and one may sow within it.

And the House of Hillel say:

It is sufficient for it to be

sixteen cubits wide

for it to be permitted to sow seeds in it.

That is, they distance the seeds four cubits from the grapevines on each side, for the work of the grapevine, and a place for sowing remains measuring eight cubits by eight cubits.

And the measure of

an

open area [

surroundings ]

of the vineyard:

A vacant place between the grapevines and the fence surrounding the vineyard, when it contains a significant measure of vacant area that imposes upon it the designation “open area around a vineyard.”

The House of Shammai say:

If there were between the vineyard and the fence

sixteen cubits,

it is an independent place, called “the open area around a vineyard,” and the designation “vineyard” does not apply to it, and one may sow there.

And the House of Hillel say:

With

twelve cubits it is sufficient.

And the Mishna explains:

And the Mishna explains:

What is a bald patch in a vineyard?

A vineyard that was destroyed,

in which grapevines are not planted in

its middle,

but plantings remained on the four sides of the bald patch: [and the same law applies if it is planted only on two sides of the bald patch].

The House of Hillel hold: If

there is not

in the bald patch

sixteen cubits

in its length and its width,

he may not bring seed there.

For, as stated, the four cubits adjacent to the planted section, which are designated for “the work of the vineyard” [the place needed for the passage of cattle and wagons at the time of harvesting and plowing], are nullified to the vineyard and are like one sowing within the vineyard.

And the measure of the designation of an independent field, so that it should not be nullified to the vineyard at its side, is also four cubits, which constitute a significant place.

Therefore: If no eight cubits remained in the bald patch [apart from the place for the work of the vineyard], half of the field is nullified to the vineyard at its side, and its other half to the vineyard at its other side, and it is forbidden to sow there at all, because everything is called “vineyard.”

But if

there were

in the bald patch

sixteen cubits—

he gives it

to the vineyard, on each side, four cubits

for its work

of the vineyard, in which he does not sow,

and he sows the remainder.

And the House of Shammai hold: The measure of a field that is not nullified to the vineyard at its sides is eight cubits. Therefore we require twenty-four cubits, because of:

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

And sixteen cubits in between, so that half of the bald patch should 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. [

And some say: The reason of the House of Shammai is because they hold that the measure of “the work of the vineyard” is eight cubits, and they agree with the House of Hillel regarding the measure of “a field,” which is four cubits].

And what is

“the open area around a vineyard”?

Between a vineyard and a fence [and makhol means the surroundings of the vineyard, from the expression of dances in which women dance around].

And the House of Hillel hold: If

there

are not twelve cubits,

from the vineyard to the fence—

he may not bring seed

at all

there.

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

And, on the other hand, the four cubits adjacent to the fence, since people walk there, the owner of the vineyard despairs of sowing them. Therefore they do not join to make the remaining area an independent field.

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

But if

there were twelve cubits there, he gives it

to the vineyard

for its work,

which is four cubits,

and sows the remainder.

And the House of Shammai hold: We require sixteen cubits, for according to their method the measure of a field is eight cubits, plus four cubits according to the law of the work of the vineyard, and four cubits adjacent to the fence. [

And some say: Their reason is that we require eight cubits for the work of the vineyard, four for the measure of a field, and another four adjacent to the fence].

And in all these cubits that were mentioned, we measure with large cubits of six handbreadths—in order to be stringent!

And we challenge: How did Rav Naḥman say without qualification: “The cubit of prohibited mixtures with a cubit of six,” implying that in all matters of prohibited mixtures one measures with a cubit of six handbreadths?

But there are densely planted rows [

and it explains them shortly], whose measure is

four cubits, for

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

lenient?

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 between them, but planted

with less than four cubits

between one row and the next:

Rabbi Shimon says:

Since vineyards are not ordinarily planted in such a manner,

it is not

considered

a “vineyard”

at all, and one may sow seeds there.

And the Sages say: It is

a

vineyard, and

it is forbidden to sow there. Because they

see the middle rows [

the middle rows ]

as though they are absent,

and the proper measure remains between one row and the next.

And now it is difficult: According to Rabbi Shimon, one must measure with a small cubit, since we follow the stringent view.

And we answer: Rav Naḥman holds

like the Rabbis, who say

that even when they are densely planted, it

is a vineyard.

And

if you wish, say: In fact,

it is possible to say that Rav Naḥman holds like

Rabbi Shimon

holds.

And

only

most of the cubits

mentioned with regard to prohibited mixtures is what Rav Naḥman

said,

that we measure with a cubit of six in order to be stringent, but not all of them!

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

that the Sages stated, both regarding a sukka and a mavoy and regarding prohibited mixtures—

they measure with a cubit of six

handbreadths.

Rather, these,

the cubits regarding prohibited mixtures, we measure them with large cubits,

expanded [

when a person spreads his lips, they move apart from one another, Arukh]. That is, we measure with large handbreadths, which are measured when there is space between the fingers [for a handbreadth is four fingers], in order to be stringent.

And these,

those of a sukka and those of a mavoy, with cubits

contracted [

when a person is sad, his lips are joined to one another, Arukh], that is, they are measured with small handbreadths, when the fingers are joined to one another, in order to be stringent.

A refutation was raised

against Abaye in the name of Rav Naḥman: