Eruvin 44a — the Talmud in English

or perhaps the halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Gamliel,

and this was the question that he asked Rav Naḥman.

b.

Or perhaps,

if there had been enough people to make a partition all the way to the boundary itself, Rav Ḥisda would not have been uncertain, since it was obvious to him that the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel; rather,

we are dealing with a case in which there were not enough men

[there were not enough people to make a partition all the way to the boundary itself], and with the number of people who were present there were only enough to make a partition until within two cubits of the boundary. And we learned in the Mishna below [52b]: One who went outside the תחום, even one cubit, may not enter beyond his four cubits; Rabbi Eliezer says: two [if he went two [cubits] outside the תחום, he may enter the city’s תחום and will be like the inhabitants of the city [and his reason will be explained below, 45a]; but if he went three cubits outside the תחום, he may not enter. It follows that, according to Rabbi Eliezer, it is enough for Rav Neḥemya to walk within the partitions of the people until two cubits, and from there he may enter the city’s תחום by virtue of Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling; but according to the Sages, he may enter only if he has partitions all the way to the boundary itself].

And

since that is so, it may be said that

it was this that was in question

for Rav Ḥisda:

Is the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, or is the halakha not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

and this was the question that he asked Rav Naḥman.

And we resolve it:

It is obvious that we are dealing with a case in which there were not enough men,

and his uncertainty was whether the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

For if it enters your mind that we are dealing with a case in which there were enough men,

and his uncertainty was whether the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel or not, then

what would Rav Ḥisda need to ask

Rav Naḥman?!

But

Rav

[above, 42b]

said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen, an enclosure, and a ship?!

Rather, certainly we are dealing with a case in which there were not enough men, and it was Rabbi Eliezer that was in question for him.

This is also precise,

as we explained: that the partition of the people reaches only until near the boundary.

d.

Behold,

he said to him,

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Ḥisda: “Make for him a partition of people” [

and

he may enter ],

what does “he may enter” mean

[that is to say: Why did Rav Naḥman add the words “and he may enter”?] And is it

not

to say that Rav Naḥman meant as follows: “Make for him a partition of people, and within it he may come until near the boundary; ‘and he may enter’ from that place into the city’s תחום even

without a partition?!”

And now we return to the main statement of Rav Naḥman:

He raised an objection to him

again

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak to Rava

concerning the words of Rav Naḥman bar Yaakov, who permitted making a partition on Shabbat, from what we learned:

If the wall of a sukka fell

on a Festival,

one may not set up in it

in place of the wall

a person, an animal, or utensils, and

even

he may not stand up a bed in order to spread a sheet over it

in place of the wall, even though it appears only as though he intends to clear the sukka,

because one does not make a temporary tent initially

[that is to say: a new tent, and not an addition to an existing tent]

on a Festival, and needless to say on Shabbat,

and included in the prohibition of making a tent is also making a partition.

And since that is so, how did Rav Naḥman permit making a partition on Shabbat [Ritva]?!

He said to him,

Rava said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

You said to me from this

[you prove from this beraita] that it is forbidden to make a partition on a Festival or on Shabbat;

and I will say to you from this

beraita that it is permitted to make a partition on a Festival or on Shabbat [Ritva].

For we learned in a beraita:

A person may make his fellow a wall

of a sukka

so that he may eat, drink, and sleep

in the sukka [for the essential mitzva of a sukka is in these three matters, Rashi],

and he may stand up the bed and spread a sheet over it so that the sun will not fall upon the dead or upon the food,

behold, it is permitted to make a partition.

And the Gemara challenges: If so,

they are difficult

these two beraitot

to one another,

for one beraita implies that it is permitted to make a partition, while the other beraita implies that it is forbidden?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult,

the beraitot to one another, for according to everyone it is forbidden to make a partition; however, the beraitot disagree with regard to a temporary partition.

This

beraita—the one that permits—

is Rabbi Eliezer,

who permits a temporary partition.

And

this

beraita—the one that forbids—

is the Rabbis,

who forbid even making a temporary partition. [According to the explanation of the Ritva, according to the Gemara’s present reasoning the beraitot disagree with regard to a temporary partition. According to Rashi’s method below, it is possible that they disagree with regard to every partition].

As we learned:

Through their windows, when they wished to close them, they would close them with a piece of wood that they placed over the opening of the window, and this is called a “window stopper”; and we learned in the Mishna:

With regard to a window stopper: Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is tied

to the window before closing the window with it

and

also

hanging,

and it is not dragged along the ground, since the rope with which it is tied does not reach the ground,

one may stop [the window] with it, but if not, one may not stop [the window] with it,

even though this is only a temporary partition, since in the end he will open it again.

And the Sages say: In either case one may stop [the window] with it,

since it is only a temporary partition. Thus, Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed with regard to making a temporary partition on Shabbat. And we challenge this:

But it was said concerning it

that Mishna:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees that one does not make

even

a temporary tent initially on a Festival, and needless to say on Shabbat.

They disagreed

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages

only with regard to adding—

for example, a window stopper, which is merely an addition to an existing partition—

for Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add on a Festival, and needless to say on Shabbat; and the Sages say: One may add on Shabbat, and needless to say on a Festival.

And since that is so, it is impossible to say that the beraita permitting one to make his fellow a wall for a sukka and to stand up the bed is in accordance with the Rabbis, for even the Sages did not permit making a new partition, and the contradiction between the beraitot still remains?!

Rather—

by virtue of this difficulty—we explain the two beraitot

as not difficult

in another manner. That is, both beraitot hold that it is permitted to make a temporary partition on Shabbat and on a Festival; however, a sukka wall through which the sukka becomes fit is forbidden to make, and the two beraitot disagree whether a person may be fit to be a wall for a sukka [explained according to the implication of Rashi; below, in the note, it will be explained that this interpretation is very difficult].

This

beraita, which disqualifies a person from being a wall for a sukka,

is in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

and therefore it is permitted to set up a person in place of the wall.

And

this

beraita, which validates a person as being a wall for a sukka,

is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

.

As it was taught: If one made an animal a wall for a sukka, Rabbi Meir disqualifies it, and Rabbi Yehuda validates it.

And since that is so, the contradiction between the beraitot is resolved:

Rabbi Meir, who disqualifies there

an animal,

it follows that it is not a partition,

and therefore

here it is permitted

to set up a person as a wall for a sukka [a person and an animal are equal in this regard according to the Gemara’s present reasoning],

for he is not doing anything.

And Rabbi Yehuda, who validates there

an animal,

it follows that it is a partition,

and therefore

here it is forbidden

to set up a person or an animal, and all the more so utensils, as a wall for a sukka .

And we wonder about it:

Can you really understand it

that it is possible to explain the reason for the beraita that permits making one’s fellow a wall for a sukka and standing up the bed as being that the beraita follows Rabbi Meir, who disqualifies an animal as a wall for a sukka?!

But

say that you heard Rabbi Meir

disqualify, with regard to

an animal,

and because we are concerned lest it flee; but

a person [“A person may make his fellow a wall for a sukka”], who has the awareness to remain standing,

and

utensils [“and he may stand up the bed and spread a sheet over it”],

have you heard him say

that they are not valid as a wall for a sukka?!

that they are unfit to serve as a wall of a sukka?!

Furthermore,

this answer is difficult:

Rabbi Meir—

according to whose view we say that an animal, and likewise a person, who are disqualified for a sukka may be set up as a wall for a sukka, and there is no prohibition of making a partition in this—

according to whose view is it?

If according to Rabbi Eliezer,

in the beraita concerning the window stopper?

But

to add

to a temporary partition

he too forbids,

and all the more so he forbids making a temporary partition initially, even if the sukka does not thereby become fit.

Rather, according to the Rabbis,

who permit stopping the window because it is a temporary partition.

This too is not possible, for

say that the Rabbis said: To add

to a temporary partition, as with the window stopper, but

initially,

as with setting up a wall for a sukka,

did they say so?!

Rather,

this is how the contradiction between the beraitot is to be resolved:

Both this and that are the Rabbis

[in the beraita concerning the window stopper], who forbid making a temporary partition initially but permit adding to it.

And as for utensils and foods

[in one beraita it states: “And he may not stand up the bed to spread a sheet over it,” while in the second beraita it states: “And he may stand up the bed and spread a sheet over it”]

it is not difficult:

This

beraita, which forbids, is speaking

of the third wall

that fell [for with two walls it is not called a tent, and when he makes a third wall, it is a tent; and the Rabbis agree that one does not make a temporary tent initially, Rashi].

And

this

beraita, which permits, is speaking when he sets up the bed

in the

place of the

fourth wall,

since, as without this wall it is already a tent, it is merely an addition, and it is permitted.

This is also precise,

that the beraita which forbids setting up the bed is speaking when he sets it up as the third wall,

as it teaches: “Its wall fell”,

he may not set it up, and this implies a wall through which the sukka becomes fit, which is the third wall; for if it were the fourth wall, it is not needed for the sukka to be fit, since three walls are sufficient,

learn from it.