Eruvin 93a — the Talmud in English

A. A sukka that has two walls, and in the third wall there is only a handbreadth, this is a valid sukka.

B.

Roofed over an akhsadra —

a veranda that has no roof, and has two parallel walls in the east and west, so that the sukka is made like an open-ended alley —

that has posts

a handbreadth wide [two posts, a post at the end of each wall, one in the north and one in the south], to be in place of a third wall and a fourth wall,

the sukka is valid.

.

But if

he added two parallel partitions inside the sukka, beyond the posts, and

equalized

by doing so

its posts.

That is, he “removed them” outside the sukka, so that they are not visible within it, the sukka is

invalid.

It follows that the additional partitions caused the sukka to become invalid!

Abaye said

to Rava:

According to me [according to my view, below, 95a], even if he equalized its posts,

[in accordance with my approach, below, 95a], even if he aligned its sideposts,

the sukka is valid

because in an ordinary akhsadra, beams are inserted along its length and width, and they are considered like the “mouth” of a ceiling that descends and closes; thus it has four partitions [for ordinary beams are square, and not round, and they have a “mouth”].

And

according to you,

who maintain [below, 95a] that in an akhsadra we do not say “the mouth of the ceiling descends and closes” to make them walls for the sukka, since they were not made for the sake of a sukka, this too is not difficult: for here there is no “addition of partitions” that causes a prohibition, but

it is “removal of partitions,”

for through the additional partitions the earlier partitions were “removed,” and the posts, which are the partitions of the sukka, were removed from within the sukka; therefore the sukka became invalid.

Rabba bar Rav Hanan said to Abaye: And

even

have we not found a partition that causes a prohibition?

And it was taught in a beraita: A house half of which is roofed —

a straight roofing [which is not made on a slant], and it has a “mouth” —

and half of which is not roofed —

we say: “the mouth of the ceiling descends and closes,” and there is a partition between the two halves of the house.

Therefore, if

there are vines here,

in this half of the house,

it is permitted to sow here

in its other half, even within four cubits, since the partition separates them.

But if he equalized its roofing,

so that he extended the ceiling across the entire house, it is

prohibited

to sow [if there are not four cubits between the seeds and the vineyard], for there is no “mouth” of a ceiling here that descends and closes.

And this is a partition that causes a prohibition?!

He said to him

Abaye:

There, it is removal of partitions.

For he removed the “mouth” of the ceiling, and therefore the sukka became invalid.

Rava sent to Abaye, through Rav Shemaya bar Zeira: And

even

have we not found a partition that causes a prohibition?

And it was taught in a beraita: There are partitions of a vineyard

that come in order

to make lenient

and to cause permission.

And

there are those that come

to make stringent

and to cause a prohibition!

How

do they make lenient?

A vineyard planted up to

where it is adjacent and attached to the

main

[foundation] of a

partition,

he sows on the other side

from the main part of the partition and onward.

For if

there were no partition there, he would

distance himself

from the vineyard

four cubits

and sow only beyond them.

And this is the partition of a vineyard

that comes

to make lenient,

so that he need not distance himself.

And how does it make stringent?

If it was drawn away [distant]

the vineyard

from the wall

even

eleven cubits

and certainly less,

he may not bring seed there [between the vineyard and the wall, and the reason will be explained below].

[between the vineyard and the wall, and the reason will be explained below].

For were there no partition [a wall], he would

[wall], he would

distance himself

only

four cubits

from the vineyard, and sow,

and this is the partition of a vineyard to make stringent!

We see explicitly that there are partitions that make stringent and prohibit?!

Abaye said to him: According to your reasoning —

that you are raising an objection from this stated law — rather than raising an objection to me from a beraita,

raise it against me [it would be fitting for you to raise an objection against me]

[it would have been proper for you to challenge me]

from the Mishna,

for it is stronger to raise an objection from it than from a beraita!

As we learned: The bald area of a vineyard [as it explains and proceeds] —

[as it will be explained]:

Beit Shammai say:

If it was

twenty-four cubits

wide, he may sow within it.

And Beit Hillel say:

It is sufficient that it be

sixteen cubits!

The surrounding area

[around]

of the vineyard [as it explains and proceeds] —

[as it will be explained]:

Beit Shammai say:

If there were between the vineyard and the fence

sixteen cubits

he may sow there.

And Beit Hillel say:

With

twelve cubits

is sufficient.

And the Mishna explains:

And which is the bald area of a vineyard?

A vineyard

planted on four sides

whose

middle

middle

[is unplanted] [and the same law applies if it is planted only on two sides of the bald area]!

And Beit Hillel maintain:

If there are not sixteen cubits there

in width,

he may not bring seed

at all

there, because four cubits adjacent to the vineyard on every side, which are designated for “the work of the vineyard” [the place required for the passage of cattle and wagons at the time of harvesting and plowing], are nullified to the vineyard, and it is like one who sows within the vineyard.

because the four cubits adjacent to the vineyard on every side, which are designated for “the work of the vineyard” [the area needed for the passage of cattle and carts during harvesting and plowing], are considered part of the vineyard. Sowing there is therefore like sowing inside a vineyard.

And the measure of a field in its own right, so that it is not nullified to the vineyard on its sides, is also four cubits, which is a significant area. Therefore, if eight cubits did not remain in the bald area [apart from the work of the vineyard], half of the field, which is less than four cubits, is nullified to the vineyard at its side, and the other half to the vineyard on the other side, and it is prohibited to sow there at all, for the whole is called a “vineyard.”

But

if there were sixteen cubits there —

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 Beit Shammai maintain: The measure of a field so that it is not nullified to the vineyard on its sides is eight cubits, and therefore we require twenty-four cubits. They are: four cubits on each side for the work of the vineyard, and sixteen cubits in between, so that half of the bald area, which is less than eight cubits, will not be nullified to one side, and half to the other side.

Which is the surrounding area of a vineyard?

The vacant place

between

the

vineyard and the fence

around it [and mahol means around the vineyard, from the expression meholot, where women dance around]!

And Beit Hillel maintain:

If there are not twelve cubits there

from the vineyard to the fence,

he may not bring seed

at all

there, because four of them, those adjacent to the vineyard, which are for “the work of the vineyard,” are nullified to the vineyard; whereas the four cubits adjacent to the fence—the reason that they do not join to make the remainder a field in its own right—will be explained below.

because four of those cubits, the ones adjacent to the vineyard, which are for the “work of the vineyard,” are nullified to the vineyard; whereas concerning the four cubits adjacent to the fence, the reason they do not combine to make the remainder a field in its own right will be explained below.

And since, after deducting the four cubits adjacent to the vineyard and the four cubits adjacent to the fence, less than four cubits remain, they are not significant enough to be called a field in its own right, and they are nullified to the vineyard adjacent to them, and it is prohibited to sow them!

But

if there were twelve cubits there, he gives it

to the vineyard for

its work,

which is four cubits,

and he sows the remainder.

We see that the partition [the fence] causes a prohibition. Should you not have raised an objection against me from the Mishna?

Rather [these are the continuation of Abaye’s words],

there is no objection at all from this law.

For

there —

with regard to prohibited mixtures —

this is not the reason

that it is prohibited, because the partition causes a prohibition!

Rather,

this is the reason:

for every four cubits that are beside a vineyard

[those four cubits alongside the vineyard] are

the work of the vineyard,

and since they are needed by it, they are considered the vineyard itself.

And those four cubits

that are beside

[opposite]

the fence, since they are not sown

[for one does not sow there, because the wall is damaged by the plow, which loosens the soil beneath it],

he declares them ownerless “with regard to the fence” [Rashi], and they do not join to be considered a field in its own right.

And what remains

And what remains,

which is between them, if there are four

cubits,

they are significant

and are not nullified.

But if not —

they are not significant,

and are nullified with regard to the vineyard.

Rav Yehuda said:

A. It is established for us that a partition that is not made of vertical and horizontal strands, but is either only vertical, or only horizontal, is an inferior partition.

Therefore, they did not permit surrounding with them—as a means of carrying within them—as much as they wish.

Rather, if one individual comes to surround an area, they allow him to surround an area of a “two-se'a house” [an area of five thousand square cubits] only. And even if there are two people, they allow them to surround only one two-se'a house.

But if there are three, they become a “caravan,” and they were lenient to allow them to surround as much as all their needs, provided that within the enclosure there not be a complete two-se'a house that does not serve them, as Rav Naḥman said above, page 16b.

B. Three people who were walking on the road, and surrounded

three karpeifot

with an inferior partition [which is not made of vertical and horizontal strands]

one alongside the other.

And

there

were the two outer ones

wider than the middle karpef,

and enclosed [they have projections extending beyond their openings toward the smaller one].

[they had extra side walls extending beyond their entrances, narrowing the openings].

And the middle one,

is a narrow karpef, and

is not enclosed,

but is completely breached on every side, toward the outer karpeifot.

And one in this, and one in this, and one in this.

That is, each of them dwells alone in his karpef —

they became

all three

a caravan, and they are given

in the middle one

all their needs, “for we say: the inhabitants of the large [area] are in the small one” [the wording of Rashi], and it is found that all three dwell in the middle one; therefore the middle one joins them.

And the law of the karpefs [according to Rashi]:

And the law of the karpeifot [according to Rashi]:

The middle one—as though there are three in it, who are a caravan—is permitted with a large enclosure, even more than a two-se'a house.

And the two outer ones—each one is permitted with an enclosure up to a two-se'a house.

Certainly,

but if the

middle

karpef was wider than both of them, and

enclosed

on both sides of the openings that were open toward the two narrow karpeifot at its sides,

and the two outer ones were not enclosed,

and were completely breached toward the middle karpef,

and one in this and one

in

in this

[and one in this],

they are not given all their needs, “for there are not three dwellings in one, since the inhabitants of the middle one are in the outer ones; go here, there are only two, and go there, there are only two, while in the middle there is only one.”

Therefore:

they are given only a house of six

se'ah. That is: a two-se'a house for each karpef.

They raised a dilemma before them:

The middle karpef was wide and enclosed, while the outer ones were narrow and not enclosed, and there was

one in this [in one outer karpef]

[in one outer area] and

and one in this [in the second outer karpef],

[in the other outer area],

and two in the middle one —

what is the law?

And the dilemma is explained and proceeds.

Do we say:

if to here [to one of the small outer karpeifot]

[toward one of the small outer areas]

the two who are in the large middle one go out,

the two who are in the large middle area,

there are three

in the outer one!

And if to here [to the second outer karpef]

[toward the second outer area]

the two go out,

the two

there are three

in that outer one; and if so, both are permitted with an enclosure of all their needs, for we consider them as though both went out from the large karpef, each to one of the small karpeifot.

Or perhaps, “we are not so lenient as to cast them both here and here.”

—of the two in the large middle one—

Therefore we say: it is as though the two in the large karpef were divided:

one —

of the two in the large middle one —

goes out here, and one

of the two

goes out here, and it follows that there are no more than two in each karpef, and two are given only one two-se'a house.

in the small outer karpef,

And if you should say: one goes out here and one goes out here:

If there are two in this

in the small outer one,

and two in this

in the small outer one,

and one in the middle one

the large one —

what is the law?

And it is explained and proceeds.

Do we say:

here certainly, if he goes out here there are three,

and

if he goes out here there are three.

That is: assign him either here or here, and there will be three in each karpef, and they may enclose there all their needs. Or, at the least, assign him to one of the karpeifot.

Or perhaps:

do not assign him to either of the karpeifot, since we do not know: for

say that he goes out here, and say that he goes out here,

therefore we do not give even one [group] all its needs.

And we conclude:

And the law is:

in all the

dilemmas

that we raised—we follow them

leniently!

Rav Ḥisda said: