Eruvin 93a (צג.) — the Talmud in English

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

B.

If one roofed over an exedra—

a balcony without a roof, with two parallel walls on its eastern and western sides, so that the sukka is constructed like an open-ended alley—

that has sideposts

one handbreadth wide [two pillars, one at the end of each wall, one in the north and one in the south], to serve in place of the third and fourth walls,

the sukka is fit

.

But if

one added two parallel partitions inside the sukka, beyond the sideposts, and

aligned

thereby

its sideposts

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

unfit.

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

Abaye said to

Rava:

According to my view

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

the sukka is fit

, because in an ordinary exedra, beams are inserted along the length and width of the sukka, and they are considered the “edge of the roof” that descends and seals; consequently, it has four partitions [for ordinary beams are square, rather than round, and have an “edge”].

And

according to your view,

since you maintain [below, 95a] that in an exedra we do not say that “the edge of the roof descends and seals” to make them walls for the sukka, because they were not made for the sake of a sukka, the difficulty is likewise not difficult: for here there is no “addition of partitions” that causes the prohibition. Rather,

it is “removal of partitions”

, since through the additional partitions the earlier partitions were “removed,” and the sideposts, which are the walls of the sukka, were removed from inside the sukka; therefore the sukka became unfit.

Rabba bar Rav Hanan said to Abaye: And

indeed,

have we not found a partition that causes a prohibition?

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

a straight roof [not constructed at an angle], with an “edge”—

and half of which is not roofed

—we say: “the edge of the roof descends and seals,” and there is a partition between the two halves of the house.

Therefore, if there were

vines here,

in this half of the house,

it is permitted to sow here

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

But if he aligned its roof

—that is, he extended the roof across the entire house—

it is forbidden

to sow [if there are not four cubits between the seeds and the vineyard], for here there is no “edge” of a roof that can descend and seal.

Here, then, is a partition that causes a prohibition?!

He said to

Abaye:

There, it is removal of partitions

, for he removed the “edge” of the roof, and therefore the sukka became unfit.

Rava sent to Abaye through Rav Shemaya bar Zeira: And

indeed,

have we not found a partition that causes a prohibition?

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

that come in order

to facilitate

and bring about permission,

and

there are those that come

to be stringent

and bring about prohibition!

How

do they facilitate?

A vineyard planted up to

the point that it is adjacent and attached to the

base

[foundation] of a

partition,

one may sow on the other side

from the base of the partition onward.

For if

there were no partition there, one would

distance

from the vineyard

four cubits

and sow only beyond them.

And this is the partition of a vineyard

that comes

to facilitate,

so that he need not distance himself.

And how does it cause stringency?

If the vineyard was drawn back

[was distant]

from the wall

even

eleven cubits

or, all the more so, less,

he may not bring seed there

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

For were there no partition

[wall], he would

distance

only

four cubits

from the vineyard and sow,

and this is the partition of a vineyard that causes stringency!

We see explicitly that there are partitions that cause stringency and prohibition?!

Abaye said to him: According to your reasoning

—since you raise your difficulty from the ruling just stated, rather than challenging me from a beraita,

challenge me

[it would be proper for you to challenge me]

from the Mishna,

for it is stronger grounds for a challenge than a beraita!

As we learned: The bald patch of a vineyard

[as the Mishna proceeds to explain]—

Beit Shammai say:

If it was

twenty-four cubits

wide, one may sow within it.

And Beit Hillel say:

It is sufficient that it be

sixteen cubits wide!

The surrounding area

[around]

the vineyard

[as the Mishna proceeds to explain]—

Beit Shammai say:

If there were

sixteen cubits

between the vineyard and the fence, one may sow there.

And Beit Hillel say:

with

twelve cubits

it is sufficient.

And the Mishna explains:

What is the bald patch of a vineyard?

A vineyard

planted on four sides

whose

[unplanted]

center

[and the same law applies if it is planted only on two sides of the bald patch] has been destroyed!

And Beit Hillel maintain:

If there are not sixteen cubits

in width,

he may not bring seed

at all

there,

because the four cubits adjacent to the vineyard on each side, which are designated for the “work of the vineyard” [the space required for the passage of oxen and wagons at the time of harvesting and plowing], are nullified to the vineyard, and it is like sowing within the vineyard.

The measure of a field in its own right, so that it is not nullified to the vineyards on its sides, is likewise four cubits, for that is a significant area. Therefore, if eight cubits do not remain in the bald patch [apart from the work of the vineyard], half of the field, which is less than four cubits, is nullified to the vineyard on one side, and half to the vineyard on the other side, and it is forbidden to sow there at all, for the entire area 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,

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 vineyards on its sides is eight cubits; therefore, twenty-four cubits are required. They consist of four cubits on each side for the work of the vineyard, and sixteen cubits in between, so that half of the bald patch, which is less than eight cubits, will not be nullified to one side, and the other half to the second side.

What is the surrounding area of a vineyard?

The vacant area

between

the

vineyard and the fence

around it [and maḥol means around the vineyard, from the term for the circles in which women dance]!

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 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 their own right, and they are nullified to the vineyard adjacent to them, so it is forbidden 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, then, that the partition [the fence] causes a prohibition. Should you not challenge me from the Mishna?

Rather

[these are the continuation of Abaye’s words], there is no challenge from this ruling at all.

For

there

—regarding kilayim—

the reason is not

that it is forbidden because the partition causes a prohibition!

Rather,

the reason is this:

every four cubits adjacent to a vineyard

[those four cubits alongside the vineyard] are

the work of the vineyard,

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

And those four cubits

adjacent to

[opposite]

the fence, since they are not sown

[for one does not sow there because the plow damages the wall by loosening the soil beneath it]—

he abandons them “to the fence” [Rashi], and they do not combine to be considered a field in its own right.

And what remains

,

in between, if there are four

cubits,

is significant

and is not nullified.

But if not—

it is not significant,

and is nullified to the vineyard.

Rav Yehuda said:

A. We have established that a partition that is not made of both vertical and horizontal strands, but consists either only of vertical strands or only of horizontal strands, is an inferior partition.

Therefore, they did not permit enclosing an area with such partitions—to permit carrying within it—as large an area as one wishes.

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

But if there are three, they constitute a caravan, and they were lenient to allow them to enclose as much as they need, provided that within the enclosure there not be a complete beit se’a of two that does not serve them, as Rav Naḥman said above, 16b.

B. Three people who were traveling on the road and enclosed

three karpefs

with an inferior partition [one not made of both vertical and horizontal strands]

one beside the other.

And

they were

the two outer ones

wider than the middle karpef,

and had projecting sideposts

[they had additional projections beyond their entrances, making them narrower].

And the middle one

was a narrow karpef, and

did not have projecting sideposts,

but was entirely open on each side toward the outer karpefs.

And there was one individual in each, and one individual in each, and one individual in each.

That is, each of them lived alone in a karpef—

they became

all three

a caravan, and they are given

in the middle karpef

as much as they need, “for we say: the residents of the larger [areas are considered] in the smaller one” [Rashi’s wording], and all three are consequently considered to live in the middle karpef; therefore, the middle one combines them.

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

The middle one—which is as though it contains three people, who constitute a caravan—is permitted a large enclosure, even one larger than a beit se’a of two.

And the two outer ones: each one is permitted an enclosure of up to a beit se’a of two.

Certainly,

but if the middle karpef was

wider than both of them, and

had projecting sideposts

on both sides of the entrances opening toward the two narrow karpefs at its sides,

and the two outer ones did not have projecting sideposts,

and were entirely open toward the middle karpef,

and there was one individual in this one and one individual

[in]

this one

[and one individual in this one],

they are not given as much as they need, “for there are not three residences in one [karpef], since the residents of the middle one are in the outer ones; go to this side, there are only two, go to that side, there are only two, while in the middle one there is only one.”

Therefore,

they are given only a house of six

se’a. That is: a beit se’a of two for each karpef.

they are given only a house of six

They raised a dilemma before them: The middle karpef was wide and had projecting sideposts, while the outer ones were narrow and did not have projecting sideposts, and there was

one in this one [in one outer karpef]

and one in this one

[in the second outer karpef],

and two in the middle one—

what is

the ruling?

As the dilemma proceeds to explain.

Do we say:

if they go here

[to one of the small outer karpefs],

the two

who are in the large middle one,

there are three

in the outer karpef!

And if they go there

[to the second outer karpef],

the two

go out,

there are three

in that outer karpef; and if so, both are permitted an enclosure as large as they need, since we consider them as though the two left the large karpef and entered each of the small karpefs.

Or perhaps: “We are not so lenient as to cast them here and there.”

Therefore, we say that the two in the large karpef are considered divided:

one

—of the two in the large middle one—

goes out here, and one

of the two

goes out there, with the result that there are no more than two in any karpef, and two people are given only one beit se’a of two.

goes out here, and one

And if you should conclude: One goes out here and one goes out there:

If there are two in this one

in the small outer karpef,

and two in this one in the small outer karpef,

and one in the middle

large one—

what is

the ruling?

As the dilemma proceeds to explain.

Do we say:

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

and

if he goes out there, there are three.

That is, place him either here or there, and there will be three in each karpef, and they may enclose as much as they need there. Or, at the very least, place him in one of the karpefs.

Or perhaps:

One may place him in neither karpef, since we do not know:

perhaps he goes out here, and perhaps he goes out there; therefore, we do not give even one person as much as he needs.

And we conclude:

And the halakha

is that in all

the dilemmas

that were raised before us, we follow them

leniently!

Rav Ḥisda said:

questions

that were raised for us, we follow them

leniently!

Rav Hisda said: