Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 18

van encamped in a valley and a fence was made with camels, with saddles, with the baggage, or with sticks, or with bundles of herbs, things may be carried inside the fence, providing the space between each camel does not exceed the size of another camel or the space between each saddle does not exceed the size of another saddle, etc." (Whence we see that if the space equals in extent the actual fence, the fence is not valid.) Here the case is, that the space between two camels should be large enough for a camel to go in and out, but not the exact size of a camel. Another objection was made: " Walls of which the greater part consists of windows and doors are valid, providing the wall proper is larger in extent than the space." If, however, the space and walls are equal, the walls are not valid ; this would be contradictory to R. Papa's opinion. It is contradictory, but the Halakha remains according to R. Papa. How can it be, that there should be a contradiction and still the Halakha should pre- vail according to R. Papa ? It is possible, because our Mishna states, that the open space should not exceed the fence proper, hence if space and fence are equal, the fence is valid. Conse- quently the Halakha prevails according to R. Papa. MISHNA : A fence may also be constructed with three ropes, one above the other; providing the space between each rope be less than three spans, and the measure (width or thickness) of the three ropes together exceed one span, so that the entire (fence) attain (the height of) ten spans. A fence may also be made of cane-laths, providing the space between the canes be less than three spans. All these regula- tions apply to a caravan only. So saith R. Jehudah, but the sages maintain, that the caravan (in the preceding Mishna) is par- ticularly spoken of in order to adduce therefrom that which is generally done. Any partition which is not constructed on the principle of warp and shoot is not a (lawful) partition. Such is the dictum of R. Jose bar Jehudah; but the sages hold, that constructing it according to either one of the two principles is sufficient. GEMARA: Said R. Hamnuna in the name of Rabh: " It TRACT ERUBIN. 35 was said, that the solid part of the partition must exceed the space of the partition when constructed on the principle of the shoot in order to make it valid ; the question, however, arises by me concerning a partition constructed on the principle of the warp. What is the law ?" Said Abayi to him: " Come and hear: Our Mishna states, that the width or thickness of the three ropes together must exceed one span in order to make the entire fence ten spans. If it were the same with a fence con- structed on the principle of the warp as with one constructed on the order of the shoot, why does the Mishna specify one which, including all the ropes, will bring the total up to ten spans." How can such an assertion be made ? Where should the space of four spans be placed ? Should it be placed at the bottom, i.e., between the ground and the first rope, then the space will be large enough to permit of goats passing through and the fence will be of no use. Should it be placed at the top, i.e., be- tween the second and third rope, then the space between the two ropes, together with the space above the third rope, will nullify the third rope entirely, because the third rope will have no connection whatever with the two lower. Should it be placed in the center, i.e., between the first and second rope, then there will be only a quasi-solid partition at the bottom and the same at the top, but between the two there will be virtually an empty space of four spans ; should it be assumed that such a partition can also be accounted lawful where the solid parts are disconnected, and an empty space exists between them ? (This question is not decided.) " Cane-laths." How can R. Jehudah say, that all these regulations apply to a caravan only, and not to individuals ? Have we not learned elsewhere, that R. Jehudah said: "It is not allowed for an individual to construct a partition for the Sabbath around a piece of ground, wherein more than two saahs of grain could be planted." Hence if the piece of ground is only so large that two saahs of grain can be planted therein, he may make the partition, (How then can he say in the Mishna, that these regulations apply only to a caravan ?) This can be explained in the same manner as R. Na'hman, and according to others R. Bibhi bar Abayi, explained the last clause of our Mishna, viz. : " Any partition, which is not constructed on the principle of warp and shoot, is not a (lawful) partition. Such is the dictum of R. Jose bar Jehudah." The question was made, whether such could be the dictum of R. Jose bar Jehudah. 36 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. Did we not learn in a Boraitha, that " no difference is made as far as a fence constructed with ropes is concerned between a caravan and an individual except that the space enclosed by the fence must not for one man or even for two exceed that in which two saahs of grain could be planted. For three men, however, who are regarded as a caravan, a space in which six saahs of grain can be planted is allowed. So said R. Jose bar Jehudah ; but the sages maintain, that there is absolutely no difference made between a caravan and an individual, and that they may enclose all the space they require, providing they do not enclose superfluous ground to the extent that two saahs of grain could be planted in such an empty space." How can R. Jose bar Jehudah state that a fence must be constructed according to the principles of warp and shoot ; does he not allow a fence made with ropes, which is only on the principle of the warp ? And R. Na'hman, according to others R. Bibhi bar Abayi, answered and said, that R. Jose bar Jehudah requires a partition to be con- structed on both principles only in order to allow even an indi- vidual all the space necessary. Now, the same can be said in answer to the question made concerning the contradictory state- ments of R. Jehudah. R. Na'hman related in the name of our master Samuel: " An individual or even two men are allowed to enclose as much space as would permit of the planting of two saahs of grain therein, but three men, who are regarded as a caravan, may have all the space necessary." How is this? The first part of this teaching is in accordance with R. Jose bar R. Jehudah, and the last according to the sages ? Yea; Abbahu is also of the same opinion. R. Gidel in the name of Rabh said: " There are instances when three men must not occupy space so large that five saahs of grain can be planted therein, and again, there are instances when they may occupy space in which even seven saahs of grain may be planted." (The instances were not quoted,