Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 22

even though they be large enough to accommodate five or even ten kurs of grain, are permitted ? " R. Jehudah answered : ' ' Here the case is different ; for here we have partitions, while in the case of a well we have only enclosures." Now, if the length of the corner-boards should be increased, then R. Jehudah would say that the boards around a well also constitute a partition. Rejoined Abayi : Around a cattle-pen or a fold, a bleaching- ground or a courtyard, according to R. Jehudah, the law of a 46 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. partition is applied and that must not contain a space larger than ten ells, and it matters not whether that space have a capac- ity large enough to permit of planting one or five kur of grain; but the space between the corner-boards was fixed at thirteen and one-third ells because the law of enclosures is applied, hence it should not have a capacity larger than would permit of the planting of two saahs of grain, even if the length of the boards be increased. Abayi asked Rabba again : "Can a sandheap four ells wide and sloping up to a height of ten spans take the place of the corner-boards at a well ?" Answered Rabba: " This is taught in a Tosephta: ' R. Simeon ben Elazar said: If there was a square rock standing at the corner of a well, which if divided would form an angle, each side of which would be one ell, it may take the place of corner-boards, otherwise it cannot.' " R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan ben Berokah said : " Even if the rock was round and when made square and divided would form an angle each side of which would be one ell, it may also take the place of the corner-boards." On what point do they differ ? According to the former Tana there is only one supposition allowed regarding the rock, whereas according to the latter, even two suppositions concerning the rock are permitted. He asked him again: " May a bush take the place of cor- ner-boards ? " and Rabba answered : " We have learned this in a Boraitha: If there was a fence, a tree, or a number of cane-laths on the spot, they may serve as corner-boards." What is meant by cane-laths ? In all probability a bush. Nay ; we might assume, that they were really cane-laths and less than three spans apart ? Then, by application of the law of " lavud " it would be a fence, and the Boraitha mentions a fence in the first place; why should the repetition be made ? If it is a bush, it is the same as a tree; why the repetition in this instance ? It might be said, then, that two kinds of a tree are mentioned; why should not two kinds of fences be mentioned ? ' Abayi asked him again : May things be carried from a court- yard opening into the enclosure around a well and vice versa? Rabba answered: " They may." " How is it if there were two adjoining courtyards opening into the enclosure ? " " Then one must not carry from the courtyards into the enclosure." Said R. Huna: "If there were two courtyards, even an Erub will not make it lawful to carry things from the courtyards into the enclosure as a precaution, lest it be said, that the law of Erub TRACT ERUBIN. 47 applies also to enclosures." Rabha, however, said : " If an Erub was made, it is lawful." Said Abayi : " I know of a Boraitha, which supporteth thy opinion, viz, : If a courtyard opened into an enclosure around a well, things may be carried to and from the courtyard and the enclosure, but if two courtyards opened into the enclosure, this is not allowed, provided an Erub was not made. If an Erub was made, it is lawful." Abayi asked Rabba again : " What is the law concerning the enclosures of a well which had gone dry on Sabbath ?" and he answered: " Were not the enclosures made merely for the sake of the water ? If the water gave out, the enclosures are void." Now asked Rabin of Abayi: " What is the law if the well went dry on the Sabbath and was filled again on the same day?" Answered Abayi : Concerning the law of a well that had gone dry I asked Master and he told me that the enclosures were void ; hence if the well filled up again on the same day the enclosure must be regarded as one constructed on the Sabbath and it was decided that [in Tract Sabbath, page 2CXD] a partition constructed on the Sabbath is valid. R. Elazar said: "If one throw something (from public ground) within the enclosures around a well, he is culpable." Is this not self-evident ? If the enclosures were not regarded as a partition, how would it be allowed to draw water from the well on Sabbath ? R. Elazar means to tell us, that if such enclos- ures were erected in pubhc ground without having a well, it also makes one culpable to throw a thing within the enclosures. Is this not self-evident ? If such enclosures were not regarded as a partition elsewhere, how could they be thus considered when erected around a well ? He lets us know, that even if the space surrounded by the enclosures is used as a public thoroughfare, it is nevertheless regarded as private ground. Then he means to tell us, that the public who pass through the enclosures do not nullify the validity of the enclosures ? This we have also been taught [in Tract Sabbath, page lo]. The ordinance there is derived from his dictum above, " // is permitted to place the enclosures quite close to the well." We have learned in a Mishna [Sabbath, xi.] : A man must not, standing in private ground, drink in public ground, nor, stand- ing in public ground, drink in private ground, unless he place his head and the greater part of his body within the place in which he drinks. Such is likewise the law regarding a vine-press. Shall we assume, that it is sufficient for a man to have his head and ^8 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. the greater part of his body in the place in which he drinks, but does this also apply to cattle or not ? If the man hold the ves- sel from which the cattle drink and holds also the cattle (so that they cannot turn around), there is no question but that it is suf- ficient if they have their heads and the larger part of their bodies within the enclosures ; but if the man hold the vessel only, and not the cattle, what is the law ? Replied one of the schoolmen to the questioner: We have learned this in our Mishna, viz. : *' Providing the head and the greater part of the body of the animal be within the enclosure while it drinks." Must we not assume, that in this case the man holds only the vessel and not the animal ? Nay ; he holds both the vessel and the animal and the law seems to apply to the latter instances ; for had he not held the animal also, how could this be allowed ? Did we not learn in a Boraitha : A man must not fill a vessel with water to give to his cattle, but he may fill up the vessel and let his cattle drink