## Eruvin Daf 19b

###### Eruvin 19b:1
[Eruvin 19b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:1)

שֶׁהֵן כְּעֶשֶׂר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה וּכְאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**so that** the total width of six oxen **is approximately ten** cubits; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda said** the following, in accordance with his own opinion that the gap may be the size of two teams of four oxen each: The total width is **approximately thirteen cubits or approximately fourteen cubits.**


###### Eruvin 19b:2
[Eruvin 19b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:2)

״כְּעֶשֶׂר״? הָא עֶשֶׂר הָוְיָין! מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא ״כִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why does the *tanna* of the *baraita* say: **Approximately ten** cubits in Rabbi Meir’s statement? **Isn’t it** exactly **ten** cubits? The Gemara answers: **Since he wanted to teach: Approximately thirteen, in the last clause,** i.e., Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, he therefore also taught: Approximately ten, in the first clause.


###### Eruvin 19b:3
[Eruvin 19b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:3)

״כִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה״ — טְפֵי הָוְיָין? מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי לְמִתְנֵי ״כְּאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה״. ״וּכְאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה״ — הָא לָא הָוְיָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: יְתֵירוֹת עַל שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה, וְאֵינָן מַגִּיעוֹת לְאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But how could he say: **Approximately thirteen,** when **it is more?** The Gemara answers: **Since he wanted to teach: Approximately fourteen,** he therefore also teaches: Approximately thirteen. The Gemara continues this line of questioning: **But they are not approximately fourteen,** but rather are less. **Rav Pappa said:** It is a third of a cubit **more than thirteen** cubits, **and** it does **not reach fourteen** cubits.


###### Eruvin 19b:4
[Eruvin 19b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:4)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּבוֹר שְׁמוֹנֶה דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא בָּעִינַן פְּשׁוּטִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: With regard to** a water **cistern** whose own width is **eight** cubits, **everyone agrees,** both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, **that there is no need** to position **upright** boards between the double posts. In such a case, the width of the enclosed area, which is the width of the cistern together with the space required for the cows, i.e., two cubits on each side, is twelve cubits. Since the width of each double post is one cubit, the gap between the double posts is ten cubits, and a gap of this size is permitted even according to Rabbi Meir.


###### Eruvin 19b:5
[Eruvin 19b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:5)

בְּבוֹר שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָעֵינַן פְּשׁוּטִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to a cistern** whose width is **twelve** cubits, **everyone agrees that there is a need for upright** posts. In this case, even if only two cubits are added on each side for the cows, the enclosed area will be sixteen cubits, and the gap between the double posts will be fourteen cubits, which must be closed off even according to Rabbi Yehuda.


###### Eruvin 19b:6
[Eruvin 19b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:6)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי — מִשְּׁמוֹנֶה עַד שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בָּעִינַן פְּשׁוּטִין. לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא בָּעִינַן פְּשׁוּטִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Where they disagree** is in the case of a cistern whose width is **between eight** and **twelve** cubits. **According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, one must** add **upright** posts, whereas **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, one need not** add **upright** posts.


###### Eruvin 19b:7
[Eruvin 19b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:7)

וְרַב פָּפָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is Rav Pappa teaching us? We** already **learned** in the *baraita* that according to Rabbi Meir the gap may not be more than ten cubits, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda it may be up to thirteen and a third cubits.


###### Eruvin 19b:8
[Eruvin 19b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:8)

רַב פָּפָּא בָּרָיְיתָא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ, וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כְּבָרַיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Indeed, for us nothing new is being taught here; however, **Rav Pappa did not hear** this ***baraita*, and he taught us** on his own **as** was taught in the ***baraita*.**


###### Eruvin 19b:9
[Eruvin 19b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:9)

אֲרִיךְ יוֹתֵר בְּתֵל חִיצַת חָצֵר שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה סִימָן. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: הֶאֱרִיךְ בִּדְיוֹמְדִין כְּשִׁיעוּר פְּשׁוּטִין, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Extended, more, in a mound, a barrier of, a courtyard, that dried up;** this is a **mnemonic** containing key words in a series of issues raised by Abaye before Rabba. **Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba:** If the gaps between the double posts were more than ten cubits, and **one extended the double posts,** that is, he widened each arm of the corner pieces, adding **the measure of an upright** board, i.e., another cubit, on each side, so that the gaps were no longer more than ten cubits, **what** is the law **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir?** Do we say that this suffices and it is no longer necessary to arrange upright boards between the two double posts, or must upright boards be positioned in the gaps?


###### Eruvin 19b:10
[Eruvin 19b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין״. מַאי לָאו דְּמַאֲרִיךְ בִּדְיוֹמְדִין? לָא, דְּמַפֵּישׁ וְעָבֵיד פְּשׁוּטִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba said **to him: We** already **learned it** in the mishna: **Provided that he increases the boards. Does** this **not** mean **that he extends the double posts,** increasing them in width? Abaye refutes this: **No,** perhaps it means **that he makes more upright** boards, increasing them in number.


###### Eruvin 19b:11
[Eruvin 19b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:11)

אִי הָכִי, הַאי ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין״, ״עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה פַּסִּין״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי ״עַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה פַּסִּין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba said to him: **If so, this** wording: **Provided that he increases the boards,** is imprecise, for it implies that one increases the boards themselves, and instead **it should have** stated: **Provided that he increases the** number of upright **boards.** Abaye answered: There is no need to be particular about this. **Teach: Provided that he increases** the number of upright **boards.**


###### Eruvin 19b:12
[Eruvin 19b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:12)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין״. מַאי לָאו דְּמַפֵּישׁ וְעָבֵיד פְּשׁוּטִין? לָא, דְּמַאֲרִיךְ בִּדְיוֹמְדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an alternative version of the previous discussion: **There are** some **who say** that Rabba **said to** Abaye as follows: **We** already **learned it: Provided that he increases the boards. Does** this **not** mean **that he makes more upright** boards, increasing them in number? Abaye refutes this: **No,** perhaps it means **that he extends the double posts,** increasing them in width.


###### Eruvin 19b:13
[Eruvin 19b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:13)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **So too, it is reasonable** to say this, **from the fact that** the mishna **teaches: Provided that he increases the** upright **boards,** which implies that he extends the width of the boards themselves, in accordance with the second version. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from this** that this is the correct understanding.


###### Eruvin 19b:14
[Eruvin 19b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:14)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה וּשְׁלִישׁ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַהוּ? פְּשׁוּטִין עָבֵיד, אוֹ בִּדְיוֹמְדִין מַאֲרֵיךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised** another **dilemma before Rabba:** If the gaps are **more than thirteen and a third cubits, what** is the law **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda? Does he bring upright** boards and position them between the double posts, **or does he extend the double posts,** increasing them in width?


###### Eruvin 19b:15
[Eruvin 19b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ. כַּמָּה הֵן מְקוֹרָבִין — כְּדֵי רֹאשָׁהּ וְרוּבָּהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה. וְכַמָּה מְרוּחָקִין — אֲפִילּוּ כּוֹר וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוֹרַיִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: We** already **learned** the law in a similar case, for it was taught in a *baraita*: **How close** may the double posts be to the well? They can be **as** close as the length of **the head and most** of the body **of a cow. And how far** may they be from the well? If one wishes, the enclosed area may be expanded **even** to the area of **a *kor* and even** to **two *kor*,** provided that one increases the number of upright boards adequately to keep the gaps under the allowable limit.


###### Eruvin 19b:16
[Eruvin 19b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:16)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בֵּית סָאתַיִם מוּתָּר, יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם אָסוּר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה בְּדִיר וְסַהַר וּמוּקְצֶה וְחָצֵר, אֲפִילּוּ בַּת חֲמֵשֶׁת כּוֹרִים וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּת עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִים שֶׁמּוּתָּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Yehuda says:** Up to an area of **two *beit se’a*, it is permitted** to enclose the area in this manner; but expanding the enclosed area so it is **more than** an area of **two *beit se’a* is prohibited.** The other Rabbis **said to Rabbi Yehuda: Do you not agree with regard to a pen, and stable, and a backyard, and a courtyard that even** an area **of five *beit kor* and even of ten *beit kor* is permitted** for use?


###### Eruvin 19b:17
[Eruvin 19b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:17)

אָמַר לָהֶן: זוֹ מְחִיצָה, וְאֵלּוּ פַּסִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Rabbi Yehuda **said to them:** There is a significant difference between these cases, for **this** one, i.e., the wall surrounding the courtyard and the like, **is a** proper **partition, whereas these are** merely upright **boards.**


###### Eruvin 19b:18
[Eruvin 19b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:18)

וְאִם אִיתָא, זוֹ מְחִיצָה וְזוֹ הִיא מְחִיצָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks with regard to Rabba’s statement: **And if it is so** that one extend the double posts, this means that he makes a proper partition of increasingly wider double posts in the area surrounding the well, this is equivalent to the partitions of a courtyard, **he,** Rabbi Yehuda, **should have** said: **This is a partition and that is a partition.**


###### Eruvin 19b:19
[Eruvin 19b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:19)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: זוֹ תּוֹרַת מְחִיצָה עָלֶיהָ — וּפִרְצוֹתֶיהָ בְּעֶשֶׂר, וְאֵלּוּ תּוֹרַת פַּסִּין עֲלֵיהֶן — וּפִרְצוֹתֵיהֶן בִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה וּשְׁלִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: No proof can be brought from here, for Rabbi Yehuda **is saying as follows: This** one, the walls of a courtyard, are governed by **the laws of a partition, and** therefore **its breaches** must not be more than **ten** cubits. **Whereas these,** which surround the well, are governed by **the laws of** upright **boards, and their breaches** may be up to **thirteen and a third cubits.** Consequently, only an area of two *beit se’a* can be enclosed in this manner. Therefore, no proof can be brought from this *baraita* to Abaye’s dilemma.


###### Eruvin 19b:20
[Eruvin 19b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:20)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: תֵּל הַמִּתְלַקֵּט עֲשָׂרָה מִתּוֹךְ אַרְבַּע, נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד אוֹ אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised** another **dilemma before Rabba: Can a mound that rises** to a height of **ten** handbreadths **within** an area of **four** cubits **serve as a double post or can it not serve as a double post?**


###### Eruvin 19b:21
[Eruvin 19b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:21)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הָיְתָה שָׁם אֶבֶן מְרוּבַּעַת רוֹאִין, כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ תְּחַלֵּק וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ אַמָּה לְכָאן וְאַמָּה לְכָאן נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד, וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: We** already **learned this** in the following *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:** If **a square stone was present, we see** the stone as if it were altered: **Wherever it can be divided** in such a way that **there would remain a cubit here** in one direction **and a cubit there** at a right angle to it, **it can serve as a double post; but if not, it cannot serve as a double post.**


###### Eruvin 19b:22
[Eruvin 19b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:22)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: הָיְתָה שָׁם אֶבֶן עֲגוּלָּה, רוֹאִין כׇּל שֶׁאִילּוּ תֵּחָקֵק וְתֵחָלֵק וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ אַמָּה לְכָאן וְאַמָּה לְכָאן — נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד, וְאִם לָאו — אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says:** If **a round stone was present, we see** the stone as if it were altered: **Wherever it could be chiseled** down into a square, **and then divided** in such a way that **there would remain a cubit here** in one direction **and a cubit there** at a right angle to it, **it can serve as a double post; but if not, it cannot serve as a double post.** In any case, it is learned from these two statements that anything can serve as a double post if it is of the requisite size and shape.


###### Eruvin 19b:23
[Eruvin 19b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:23)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: חַד רוֹאִין אָמְרִינַן, תְּרֵי רוֹאִין לָא אָמְרִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ תְּרֵי רוֹאִין נָמֵי אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the *baraita* itself, the Gemara asks: **With regard to what do** these two *tanna’im* **disagree?** The Gemara explains that one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, **holds** that **we say: We see, once.** However, **we do not say: We see, twice.** That is to say, while the stone can be considered as if it were divided, it cannot also be considered as though it were chiseled down into a square. **And** the other **Sage,** Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, **holds** that **we even say: We see, twice.** Since a mound is similar to a round stone, it can therefore serve as a double post.


###### Eruvin 19b:24
[Eruvin 19b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:24)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: חִיצַת הַקָּנִים קָנֶה קָנֶה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד אוֹ לָאו?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised** another **dilemma before Rabba:** With regard to **a barrier of reeds** in the shape of a double post, where **each reed is less than three** handbreadths apart from the next, so that they are considered connected by the principle of *lavud*, **can it serve as a double post or not?**


###### Eruvin 19b:25
[Eruvin 19b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:25)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הָיָה שָׁם אִילָן אוֹ גָּדֵר אוֹ חִיצַת הַקָּנִים נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד. מַאי לָאו, קָנֶה קָנֶה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: We** already **learned this** law in a *baraita* that states: If **a tree, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds was present, it serves as a double post. Does** this **not** refer to a barrier of reeds where **each reed is less than three** handbreadths from the next?


###### Eruvin 19b:26
[Eruvin 19b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:26)

לָא, גּוּדְרְיָתָא דִּקְנֵי. אִי הָכִי — הַיְינוּ אִילָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this: **No,** it may perhaps refer to **a thicket of reeds** planted close together, forming a kind of post. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so, it is** equivalent to **a tree,** and the *tanna* would not repeat the same case twice.


###### Eruvin 19b:27
[Eruvin 19b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:27)

וְאֶלָּא מַאי: קָנֶה קָנֶה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה — הַיְינוּ גָּדֵר! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר, תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי גָּדֵר? הָכָא נָמֵי — תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי אִילָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **What, then?** Would you say that the *baraita* is referring to a barrier of reeds where **each reed is less than three** handbreadths apart? If so, **it is a fence. Rather, what must you say** is that the *baraita* **teaches two types of fence; here too,** then, you can say that it teaches **two types of tree,** and therefore no proof can be brought from this *baraita*.


###### Eruvin 19b:28
[Eruvin 19b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:28)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: גּוּדְרְיָתָא דִּקְנֵי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ. גּוּדְרְיָתָא דִּקְנֵי מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הָיָה שָׁם גָּדֵר אוֹ אִילָן אוֹ חִיצַת הַקָּנִים נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד. מַאי לָאו, גּוּדְרְיָתָא דִּקְנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an alternative version of the previous discussion: **There are** some **who say** that the question was posed differently, and the **dilemma** Abaye **raised before** Rabba was about whether or not a dense **thicket of reeds** can serve as a double post. Rabba **said to him: We** already **learned this** law in the following *baraita*: If **a tree, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds was present, it can serve as a double post. Does** this **not** refer to **a thicket of reeds?**


###### Eruvin 19b:29
[Eruvin 19b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:29)

לָא, קָנָה קָנֶה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ גָּדֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this: **No,** it may perhaps refer to a barrier of reeds where **each reed is less than three** handbreadths apart from the next. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so, it is** exactly **a fence.**


###### Eruvin 19b:30
[Eruvin 19b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/19b:30)

וְאֶלָּא מַאי: גּוּדְרְיָתָא דִּקְנֵי — הַיְינוּ אִילָן! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **What, then?** Would you say that the *baraita* refers to **a thicket of reeds?** If so, **this is a tree. Rather, what must you say** is