Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 86

of the smaller are not allowed to do so." Said Abayi to them: " According to this then, a partition, which under ordinary circumstances should facilitate the observ- ance of laws, would prove a detriment ; for were there no parti- tion between the larger and smaller court and vines were planted anywhere within the two courts, a man would simpl)^ be obliged to measure off four ells whence the vines grew and could then plant whatever he chose." TRACT ERUBIN. Rabha, through R. Shmaiah ben Zera, sent the following query to Abayi: " Do we not find as a matter of fact that a partition at times proves a detriment ? Did we not learn in a Boraitha, that concerning the partitions of a vineyard there are instances where they make the observance of laws more lenient and on the other hand there are instances where they make it more rigorous." How so ? If the vines are planted hard by the partition, one may on the other side of the partition plant whatever he chooses. If there were no partition, however, he would have to measure off four ells whence the vines grew and then plant whatever he chose. This is an instance of leniency caused by the partition. When does it make the law more rig- orous ? If the vines were planted to within eleven ells of the partition, it is not allowed to plant other seed anywhere within those eleven ells ; but if there were no partition, four ells would suffice between the vineyard and the place where other seed was to be planted. Rejoined Abayi: " Why base thy query upon a Boraitha, if in thy opinion the partition is the main issue ? Why not cite the following Mishna ? (Kilaim, Chapter IV., Mishna 2 🙂 'If the space between the vineyard and the fence which surrounds it be less than twelve square ells, no other seed may be sown therein ; but if it measure that superficies, a vacant space must be allowed for the cultivation of the vines growing near it, and the rest of the ground may be used for saving (other seed).' " We must say, that because in the Mishna the partition is not the issue, but it is a question of the space between the four ells allowed for the cultivation of the vineyard and the four ells allowed to the hedge or fence, and if such space is four ells wide {i.e., if the whole is twelve) other seed may be sown therein, but if less than four, it is abandoned. Hence we might say, that the same issue is treated of in the Boraitha ? R. Jehudah said: " If there are three woodsheds opening into each other, of which the two outer are enclosed while the middle one is not 1 ^ ■■i wamwtA B I I (see illustration y4), and there is a man in each of the wood- ^ sheds, the men are considered as a caravan and are entitled to as much room as they desire. If the middle one, however, was enclosed, but the two outer ones were not (see illustration E), and there was a man in each of the three woodsheds, they are entitled to a space of six 222 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. saahs' capacity, i.e., two saahs to each man. (For the reason, that in the first instance the middle woodshed is smaller than either of the two outer ones and is virtually absorbed by them, while in the latter case, the middle woodshed is the larger, but cannot absorb the two outer ones, hence the men cannot be con- sidered as a caravan.)" The schoolmen propounded a question: " How is it if (in the latter instance of the woodsheds, illustration B) there were two men in the middle woodshed and one each in the outer sheds ? Shall we assume that the two men of the middle shed, having a right to either shed, are considered as being in either one of the two outer sheds, and three persons being in one place, thereby form a caravan, or shall we say, that as there are two men in the middle woodshed, each one of them can occupy either court, in which event there would be two people each in the outer courts and no caravan is formed — consequently they are entitled only to a space of two saahs' capacity for each man ? If the latter instance should apply, how would it be if there were two men in each of the outer sheds and one man in the middle shed ? Whichever court he might occupy, there would be three men, and thus a caravan would be formed, or, because there is doubt which he would occupy, having a right to either, it would not be considered as a caravan?" The answer was: "All ordinances pertaining to Erubin should be construed in their most lenient form." Said R. Hisda: " If a court was five spans higher at the edges than in the centre and a partition of five spans height was added to the edges, it does not constitute a valid partition ; for either the edges must be ten spans high to commence with or the partition must be made ten spans high." Mareimar, however, maintained, that the two may be counted together and constitute a legal partition. Rabhina met R. A'ha the son of Rabha and asked him : "Does the master teach anything pertaining to partitions?" and he answered : ' ' Nay. ' ' The Halakha prevails, that the edges of the court and the partitions are counted together and con- stitute a legal partition. R. Oshiya propoun,ded a question: " How is it if new habi- tations are added to a court on the Sabbath {i.e., if a wall between two courts had become broken and thus new dwellings were added); do they impede the inmates of that court or not ? " Said R. Hisda: Come and hear: (We have learned this in our TRACT ERUBIN, 223 Mishna:) " If a large court opens into a small one, through a breach in the wall, the inmates of the large court are permitted to carry things through the breach, but the inmates of the small court are prohibited to do so." Rejoined Rabba: " Perhaps the Mishna refers to a breach that was made before the Sab- bath set in." Said Abayi: " The Master should not say ' per- haps ' ; it is certain, that the breach was caused on the eve of Sabbath ; because didst not thou, Master, say thyself at one time, that thou didst ask of R. Huna and of R. Jehudah concerning an Erub which was made through an aperture or a door which had accidentally become closed up on the Sabbath and they told thee, that if that happened after the Sabbath set in, the Erub is valid for the whole Sabbath, having been valid at the beginning (and they certainly would not contradict a Mishna)! " It was taught : If a wall between two courts was destroyed on the Sabbath, Rabh said, that it is not permitted to carry things in either of the courts for a distance of over four ells, but Samuel maintains, that the inmates of each court may carry as far as the ruins of the wall. The statement herein attributed to Rabh was not made by him outright, but was inferred from the occurrence as follows : Rabh and Samuel were both sitting in one court on Sabbath and suddenly the wall of