Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 16

created, but since that had happened, a man should always examine his actions, and according to another version, a man should always consider the deeds he is about to perform. MISHNA: The cross-beam in question must be wide enough to hold a half of a brick, three spans in length and in width. It is, however, sufficient, if the cross-beam be only one span wide, so as to hold the half of a brick lengthwise. The cross- beam must be wide enough to hold a half of a brick and sound enough to bear it. R. Jehudah saith: It must be wide enough, even if it be not sound enough. If the cross-beam be of straw or reed, it is (legally) regarded as if it were of metal ; if it be crooked, it is (legally) regarded as straight; if it be cylindrical, it is (legally) regarded as square. TRACT ERUBIN. 29 Anything (measuring) three spans in circumference, is one hand in width. GEMARA: Why does the Mishna say, that it is sufficient if the cross-beam be only one span wide; it should be one and a half, which is the width of a half brick ? Because if the cross- beam be one span wide the other half span which it should measure, can be added by the addition of a little loam on each side. Said Rabba bar R. Huna: The cross-beam alone must be sound enough to bear a half brick, but the supports upon which it rests need not be sound enough to bear both the cross-beam and the half brick {i.e., if the cross-beam was put up on sticks, the sticks need not be sound enough to support both the cross- beam and a half brick ; for the cross-beam being the sign of the entry, it is only essential that it be sound enough to support a half brick, although in reality it never serves the purpose, while the sticks are not part of the sign and need not be put to such a test). R. Hisda, however, states, that the cross-beam must be sound enough to bear half a brick, and its supports must be sound enough to bear both the cross-beam and the half brick. R. Shesheth said : If one put up a cross-beam over an entry, and hung a mat upon it, and this mat was distant from the ground three spans or more, it is considered, that there is neither a cross-beam nor a partition at the entry; no cross-beam, because it is covered up, and no partition, because goats can go through it. The Rabbis taught : If a cross-beam was put up over an entry, but did not reach the opposite wall, or if two cross-beams were put opposite each other, but did not meet, should the distance between the cross-beam and the wall in the first instance, or between the two cross-beams in the second instance, be three spans or over, another cross-beam must be erected. If it be less than three spans no other cross-beam is necessary. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, however, said, " If the distance be less than four spans, another cross-beam is not necessary, but if it be four spans or more, another cross-beam must be erected." The same is the case with two cross-beams that were laid parallel, neither one of which was sound enough to bear a half brick: If both together measured one span in width, which is sufficient to bear a half brick, another cross-beam is not neces- sary, but if the two together measured less, another cross-beam must be erected. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, however, said, that if the two cross-beams were sound enough for the length of 30 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. three spans to bear a half brick, another cross-beam is not neces- sary; otherwise, it is necessary. " If two cross-beams were put up across an entry, one of which was higher than the other, they are regarded as being on a level, provided the higher beam is not over twenty ells above ground and the lower one not less than ten spans above ground." Thus said R. Jose bar R. Jehudah. Said Abayi : " R. Jose bar R. Jehudah holds with his father in one instance only, that the two beams are regarded as being on a level, but he differs with him in the other, namely : that the higher beam must not be over twenty ells above the ground; for R. Jehudah declared in a previous Mishna, that even if it were over twenty ells in height, the entry is valid." " R. Jehudah saith : It must be wide enough, even if it be not sound enough.'' R. Jehudah taught Hyya bar Rabh in the pres- ence of Rabh: "It is sufficient, if the cross-beam be wide enough even if it be not sound enough." Said Rabh to him: " Teach him: ' It should be wide and strong enough.' " Did not, however, R. Ilai say in the name of Rabh: " It is sufficient, if it was four spans wide, even if it be not sound enough " ? Four spans' width makes a difference. " If the cross-beam be of straw or reed,'' etc. What does the Mishna mean to teach us by this decree ? That we regard cer- tain things in a different light ? This has already been taught us previously. In the former teachings, however, one certain kind of cross-beams was dealt with, namely, of wood ; hence we might assume, that with straw or reed it might be different. For this reason we are given to understand that straw or reed may be regarded as metal. " If it be crooked, it is regarded as straight." Is this not self-evident ? The Mishna wishes to impart to us the teaching of R. Zera as follows : " If the cross-beam was crooked only out- side of the entry across which it was laid, or was crooked above twenty ells from the ground ; or again, if the cross-beam was ten spans above the ground and the crooked part of it below the ten spans, the validity of the entry depends upon whether, if the crooked part of the cross-beam were removed, the straight part left would be distant three spans from the wall. If the dis- tance is less than three spans the entry is valid, but if it be over three spans another cross-beam must be erected." Is this teaching also not self-evident? Nay; it is necessary that we be instructed to this effect, lest we presume that the crooked TRACT ERUBIN. 31 part on the outside of the entry carry with it the straight part on the inside and thus the entry is invalidated; hence we are given to understand, that such is not the case. " If it be cylindrical^ it is regarded as square. ' ' For what purpose was it necessary to add this ? This was taught us on account of the last clause in the Mishna, which states, that any- thing measuring three spans in circumference is one hand in width. MISHNA: The side-beams in question must be ten spans high, be their breadth and thickness whatever they may. R. Jose saith: " They must be three spans wide." GEMARA : Shall we assume that the Mishna, which is ren- dered anonymously, is in accordance with the opinion of R. Eli- ezer, who holds that two side-beams are necessary ? Nay ; the side-beams in question refer to side-beams necessary for all entries. If this be the case, why did not the previous Mishna state cross-