MISHNAH: An alley which is higher than twenty cubits should be reduced; Rebbi Jehudah says, this is not necessary¹ 1, Note 142. The status of an alley, a narrow public road bordered by walls of houses, essentially is that of a karmelit. Since such an alley is not a thoroughfare, it is customary that under certain circumstances the dwellers in houses opening on the alley can turn it into their common private domain. A prior condition is that the alley be a dead-end street; an alley open at both ends, while not a public domain in the technical sense, does not qualify directly. The second condition, mentioned only in Mishnah 2, is that the entrance to the alley must be well defined and immediately recognizable; this is done either by placing a horizontal beam over the entrance (קוֹרַה) or placing there a vertical lath (לֶחִי). The Mishnah presumes that a beam was used; the majority holds that a beam placed higher than 20 cubits is not noticed whereas R. Jehudah holds that it always is noticed.. If it is wider than ten cubits it should be reduced²; if there is a door-frame even though it is wider than ten cubits there is no need to reduce³.

footnotes: ¹ Cf. Šabbat ² The entrance to the alley should not be wider than 10 cubits. ³ If there are two door-posts and a beam from one to the other, even if there are no doors, it is clear that the domain is visibly separated from the thoroughfare onto which it opens.

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. ³⁵1:1 (ס). Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall³⁶ 6:2–3, 2Chr. 3:3–4) do not give measurements of the doors. Babli 2a.. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there³⁷ 3:4.: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits³⁸. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there³⁹, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.⁴⁰” As you are saying there, one considers the cross-beam⁴¹ as if it came down⁴² and closed, here also one considers the roof as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they do not compare⁴³ is accidental since the rules in both cases diverge widely.. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed stakes⁴⁴ are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah⁴⁵ by putting up four poles carrying a frame on which one thatches a roof on condition that the poles qualify as walls, i. e., each of them is at least 4 hand-breadths wide. Otherwise one would have to make makeshift walls between the poles as described in Mishnah 9. but disqualified for an alley⁴⁶. That is, if they are higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high⁴⁷. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified⁴⁸ 1:13. A sukkah must be at least 10 hand-breadths high and the sides have to be at least 7 hand-breadths wide..” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified⁴⁹. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions⁵⁰. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley⁵¹. “If he drew a vine or squash.⁵² 1:4 or to Tosephta Eruvin 1:7; shortened to leave out all of the argument. The thatched roof of a sukkah must be vegetal material not connected to the ground. Therefore vine or squash are disqualified to be used for thatching. But a vine growing in an arch over the entrance of an alley is as good as a beam to mark the entrance.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits⁵³. If its sunshine is more than its shadow it is disqualified as sukkah⁵⁴ 1:1. Since alleys usually have no roof, they are not expected to provide shade. but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified⁵⁵ is its makeshift thatched roof; it is not a sukkah if it has a waterproof roof. But if the entrance to an alley passes under a permanent roof at least 4 hand-breadths wide it does not need any other sign at the entrance. If the alley is open at both ends and one end is roofed, it is considered a dead-end alley. Cf. S. Liebermann, Tosephta ki-Fshutah part 3, p. 309, on Tosephta 1:7.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rav Oshaia:⁵⁶ Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted⁵⁷.

footnotes: ³⁵ The same text also is the introduction to Tractate Sukkah ³⁶ The rabbis hold that one does not realize that a beam is there to indicate a door if it is higher than 10 cubits since the entrance door to the Herodian Temple was 10 cubits. R. Jehudah disputes this since the inner door between the antechamber and the main room, visible only to the officiating priests, was larger. The biblical accounts of Solomon’s Temple (1K. ³⁷ Mishnah Middot ³⁸ He disputes any connection with Temple measurements since R. Jehudah rejects height limitations in general. Babli 2b. ³⁹ Mishnah 9:5. ⁴⁰ The bridge is supported by a structure of beams underneath with beams running lengthwise on both sides. R. Jehudah holds that the boundary of the space below the bridge is clearly indicated if there are virtual walls hanging down from the beams enclosing the space which therefore assumes the role of a house. The rabbis accept only real walls. ⁴¹ Greek μέλαθρον, τό. This is a substantial load-carrying beam used in construction. ⁴² As a virtual wall, Note 40. ⁴³ The fact that the rabbis take 20 cubits as upper height limit for both the entrance to an alleyway and a sukkah ⁴⁴ Greek δίκρανον, τό. ⁴⁵ One may make a sukkah ⁴⁶ The poles carrying the cross beam may not be much higher than the walls of the alley (or the cross beam cannot be fastened to the tops of the poles, Babli 9a top). ⁴⁷ If a pole qualifies as a wall it is clear that it may be 20 cubits high for the rabbis and arbitrarily high for R. Jehudah. ⁴⁸ Tosephta Sukkah ⁴⁹ As explained in Mishnah 9, a space of slightly less that 3 hand-breadths is disregarded. Therefore a wall qualifies as being 7 hand-breadths wide if the actual material wall extends to slightly more than 4 hand-breadths. ⁵⁰ It must have three actual walls and a symbolic door on the fourth side. ⁵¹ Mishnah 1 for the alley. There are no limitations on the surface area covered by a sukkah. ⁵² This may refer either to Mishnah Sukkah ⁵³ A vine used to designate the entrance to an alley may be used only if the total area of the alley does not exceed 5’000 square cubits since this is the maximal size of farming or ranching corrals permitted for Sabbath use. Babli 23b. ⁵⁴ Mishnah Sukkah ⁵⁵ The essence of a sukkah ⁵⁶ It is difficult to decide between this reading, quoting Babylonians, and ס “R. Aḥa in the name of R. Hoshaia”, quoting Galileans. In the Babli 3a the rule is given in the name of other Babylonian Amoraim. ⁵⁷ A cross-beam 4 hand-breadths wide is a roof and not subject to any restrictions imposed on beams or laths in order to permit carrying in an alley.

⁵⁸ to Eruvin Chapter 4 (col. 596–597 in the edition Jerusalem 1973); a parallel for the entire paragraph is in the Babli 46a. A defective copy (by the corrector) also is in Chapter 6, Note 33. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does [not]⁵⁹ follow Rebbi Jehudah. If it were not so what would we say? Rebbi Jehudah versus the Sages, practice should follow Rebbi Jehudah⁶⁰? But since Rebbi Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rebbi Naḥman bar Isaac⁶¹ said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri⁶². (We asked about it, did not Rebbi Jacob bar Idi say in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin, and Rav Naḥman bar Isaac said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri.)⁶³ We asked about it, we would think this⁶⁴ refers to an individual versus an individual but not an individual versus the Sages. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Jacob bar Idi said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri even though the Sages disagree with him. Why should practice not follow Rebbi Jehudah even though the Sages disagree with him⁶⁵? Samuel said, practice follows the lenient opinion in Eruvin. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, for example what we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it⁴⁰”? He told him, did I not say Eruvin but partitions⁶⁶ a common domain into private domain but whether the space under a bridge automatically has the status of a permanent dwelling which does not need any eruv.? Cahana shares Samuel’s opinion⁶⁷ one follows the lenient opinion but also that the principle does not apply to questions of partitions. In the matter of an alley he holds that turning it into a private domain needs two things, first the fixation of the entrance partition described in Mishnah 1:1 to which the principle does not apply, and the collection of an eruv as described in Chapter 2, to which the principle does apply.. Therefore it was necessary to say that practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ The text is copied by Nachmanides in his Novellae ⁵⁹ The scribe wrote “not” and then [erroneously] crossed it out. Therefore it is missing in the printed editions. ⁶⁰ It should not be necessary to mention that practice does not follow the lone dissenter. ⁶¹ Read with the later text and the quote in Nachmanides: R. Isaac bar Naḥman. ⁶² In Mishnah 4:5, about a person who fell asleep in an uninhabited area on Friday afternoon and was sleeping during twilight, the Sages hold that since he did not consciously determine his place of rest at sundown he only can move inside 4 cubits from the place where he slept, but R. Joḥanan ben Nuri lets him move 2’000 cubits in every direction. ⁶³ The text in parentheses is duplicated afterwards; it is not in Nachmanides. ⁶⁴ That one follows the lenient opinion. ⁶⁵ If practice follows R. Joḥanan ben Nuri as a matter of principle, it also should follow R. Jehudah in Mishnah 1:1. ⁴⁰ The bridge is supported by a structure of beams underneath with beams running lengthwise on both sides. R. Jehudah holds that the boundary of the space below the bridge is clearly indicated if there are virtual walls hanging down from the beams enclosing the space which therefore assumes the role of a house. The rabbis accept only real walls. ⁶⁶ The case of a bridge is not a case of turning ⁶⁷ He agrees with Samuel not only that in matters of eruv

They only said “higher than twenty”. Therefor at the end of twenty it is qualified. This follows Rav who said that the end of measurements is for leniency; Rebbi Joḥanan said that the end of measurements is for restriction⁶⁸ is qualified up to a limit a is read by Rav as “x less or equal to whereas R. Joḥanan reads it as “x strictly less than a”. In the Babli, 3a (last line), the position of Rav is represented by the Babylonian Rava, that of R. Joḥanan by the Galilean Ulla.. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For an alley whose beam is higher than twenty he puts another beam within twenty and this reduces to less than twenty⁶⁹. Rebbi Yose said, on condition that the entire qualification beam be within twenty⁷⁰. Rebbi Ḥilqiah said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even this comes following Rav, as Rav said that slaughter half by half is qualified, and why did they say that it is disqualified? Because of the visual impression⁷¹ 29a.. For if you say that he has to put it within twenty, he would put it higher than twenty⁷³.

footnotes: ⁶⁸ As a general principle, every rabbinic statement that a quantity x ⁶⁹ Babli 3b. ⁷⁰ The upper rim of the beam must be less than 20 cubits from the ground. ⁷¹ Even though Rav said that the upper bound is qualified in theory, in practice he will agree with R. Joḥanan that to avoid errors one has to be restrictive. His example is the rule that ritual slaughter requires that as biblical requirement half of both windpipe and esophagus of the animal have to be cut in slaughter. Nevertheless as a practical rule, since 50–50 is not exactly determinable by visual inspection, one requires that clearly more than half be cut in one stroke; Babli Ḥulin ⁷³ It is possible to read מסטבה.

“It should be reduced.” How does one reduce? He makes a platform⁷³ at the entrance of the alley and permits the alley. How much must it be? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Four hand-breadths for an alley⁷⁴ to Eruvin, first paragraph) reads: כדי מקים “as a space”, an expression also used in the next paragraph. An area of four by four hand-breadths is a space for itself; cf. Mishnah Šabbat 11:3. Babli 10a, top.. Rebbi Yose says, one hand-breadth corresponding to the beam⁷⁵. The colleagues say, anything, since here is no longer a height of twenty cubits in the widths of a hand-breadth⁷⁶.

footnotes: ⁷³ It is possible to read מסטבה. ⁷⁴ This statement is difficult. Rashba (Novellae ⁷⁵ Since the Mishnah only requires that the beam not be higher than 20 cubits above ground, it is necessary to lift the ground only directly below the beam. ⁷⁶ This follows R. Joḥanan in the preceding paragraph and refers to the case that the beam is exactly 20 cubits above ground everywhere. Then lifting the ground by an arbitrarily small amount at an arbitrarily small area satisfies the requirement of the Mishnah.

If its height was less than ten hand-breadths one has to dig out. How much does he have to dig? Rebbi Aḥa said, four cubits as an alley⁷⁷. Rebbi Yose said, four hand-breadths as a space. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yose⁷⁸ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he makes a ditch at the entrance of the alley, ten [hand-breadths] deep and four wide; this permits the alley from inside and out⁷⁹, on condition that it be within three [hand-breadths] of the walls of the alley⁸⁰. And even he who says there four, here he agrees with three. There it is outside of the alley, but here within the alley⁸¹.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Since 4 cubits is the maximum one is permitted to carry in the public domain, it is the minimum for an alley to require an eruv. ⁷⁸ For chronological reasons one has to read “Yasa” instead of “Yose”. ⁷⁹ From the outside the ditch hinders the access from the public domain; from the inside the ditch is as good as a fourth wall which would turn the alley into a courtyard. ⁸⁰ Since a distance of less than 3 hand-breadths always is disregarded. ⁸¹ The reference to 3 and 4 hand-breadths is to a text close to Tosephta 1:6, a case where there is not one beam crossing from one wall to the one on the other side of the alley but short beams sticking out from either wall. If the distance between these beams is less than 3 hand-breadths for the rabbis and 4 for Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, the beams are considered adjacent and qualify as one beam. It is noted that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel also will agree that a ditch, which is not dug as a marker but to qualify for the minimal height of the alley walls, cannot be farther than 3 hand-breadths from a wall.

If he made a stone fence at the entrance to the alley, ten [hand-breadths] high and four wide, it permits the alley from inside and out⁸² 100a.. If there had been a stone fence, if it reduces to ten hand-breadths within three⁸³ it needs a beam, otherwise it does not need a beam. There are Tannaim who state, within four [cubits]. He who says, within three [cubits], the rabbis. He who says, within four [cubits], Rebbi Meїr⁸⁴ without additional beam or lath. Ravia §271 (ed. A. Aptowitzer p. 401 Note 13.). If there was a slope in the middle of the alley, for those at the high end it acts as a ditch, for those at the low end as a stone fence⁸⁵ for the alley..

footnotes: ⁸² There had been a stone fence but it collapsed and now the heap is not 10 hand-breadths high on a basis 3 cubits wide; it does not qualify as a wall but is part of the alley. Cf. Babli Šabbat ⁸³ It is not known where to find a relevant statement of R. Meїr. ⁸⁴ If the incline covers a height of at least 10 hand-breadths the dwellers in the two parts of the alley may make separate eruvim ⁸⁵ A short pillar which reduces the width of the entrance to 10 cubits allows an eruv

“If it is wider than ten cubits it should be reduced.” How does one reduce? He puts a cross-beam⁴¹ on the entrance of the alley and permits the alley⁸⁵ for the alley.. This was said for width; the rabbis also apply it to height⁸⁶. Is it not as if opened in its length⁸⁷? It is turned into a porch⁸⁸. Rebbi permitted a porch in Bet Shearim. How many pillars did it have? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yose⁷⁸, one said, six, but the other one said, eight. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, they do not disagree. He who said six does not count the two outer ones⁸⁹, he who said eight does count the two outer ones. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Six is not important, eight is not important. But if it was used by the public even with two it will be forbidden⁹⁰, if it is not used by the public even with many it will be permitted. The case which happened was as it happened.

footnotes: ⁴¹ Greek μέλαθρον, τό. This is a substantial load-carrying beam used in construction. ⁸⁵ A short pillar which reduces the width of the entrance to 10 cubits allows an eruv ⁸⁶ A pillar at the entrance of the alley is a distinctive sign which separates the alley from the public domain and permits an eruv. ⁸⁷ If the entrance is too wide, what is the use of a vertical beam? The Babli 11a requires not only a vertical beam but a full door frame. It is impossible to read this into the Yerushalmi text. ⁸⁸ Greek ἐξέδρα, ἡ, a covered walkway. While this is a well-defined space, it has no walls. In order to treat it by the rules of an alley one has to hold that the beams which form the frame for the roofing (which may be either a full roof or simply lattice work) define virtual walls around the walkway. ⁷⁸ For chronological reasons one has to read “Yasa” instead of “Yose”. ⁸⁹ The two door posts with the beam connecting them which forms the entrance door frame and is necessary to define the space of the alley. ⁹⁰ Since an alley can be permitted as private space only if it is used exclusively by the inhabitants of the houses opening into it and their guests, the same must hold for a virtual alley.

If a porch was totally open to the public domain⁹¹, Rebbi La: [Rav]⁹² 1:1, 51d l. 13; Babli Eruvin 94b. and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, one may carry in its entirety; Samuel said, one may carry in it only four cubits. Rebbi Yose said, does not Samuel agree that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified⁹³? But Samuel must hold, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. There came Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, only if the qualifying beam be within twenty cubits. Rebbi Yose said, even if Samuel would think that an alley roofed higher than twenty cubits is qualified, an alley is not comparable to a porch. An alley is made for the use of the adjacent houses, a porch is made for the use (of a thing)⁹⁴ is made so one may sit outside in the shade.. If an alley is not roofed but there is a beam within twenty cubits, would it not be qualified? But if a porch is not roofed although there is a beam within twenty cubits, would that mean anything⁹⁵?

footnotes: ⁹¹ The Babli 94b calls this “a porch in an agricultural domain”. Since the porch has a roof it is a well-defined domain and should have the status of a house. ⁹² The word was written by the scribe but erroneously deleted by the corrector, as shown by the parallel in Sukkah ⁹³ Since in a house one does not require that the ceiling be lower than 20 cubits. ⁹⁴ Since this is difficult to understand, S. Liebermann proposes to read אבר “air” instead of דבר “thing”. The exedra ⁹⁵ A space delineated by four poles connected by horizontal beams is a private space only under very restricted circumstances, e. g., around a cistern or a well (Mishnah 2:1).

If it was wide within fifteen cubits, Rebbi Abba and Rav Huna in the name of Rav: He makes a plank of slightly more than three hand-breadths and removes it two cubits from the wall⁹⁶. The slight addition is treated as lath, and it is permitted⁹⁷ to Eruvin, ad 10a, col. 71) ושרי instead of והשאר “and the remainder.” on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space⁹⁸. Should he not make a plank four hand-breadths wide? Did we not state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide? Rebbi Abba bar Pappai said, in order to permit both parts without beam⁹⁹. Some Tannaim state, he puts up a stick and a double-pointed stake⁴⁴; some Tannaim state, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide. Rebbi Yose said, practice follows him who said, he makes a plank four hand-breadths wide.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ If the entrance to the alley is rather more than 10 cubits wide, up to 15 cubits one puts up a plank which divides the entrance into two parts. The main part is ten wide, the plank is chosen to be slightly wider than three cubits and the second opening is 2 cubits wide. Then since the width of the opening is less the width of the plank, the opening is disregarded. The small amount by which the plank is wider than 3 cubits is used as lath to qualify the larger opening as entrance to the alley. (One uses 3 and 2 cubits to be on the safe side. As explained in Note 71, as a precaution one does not say that the plank has to be 2+ε and the opening 2-ε for some arbitrarily small ε 0.) Babli 10b. ⁹⁷ Reading with Rashba (Novellae ⁹⁸ A general principle in constructing separations for the rules of the Sabbath, cf. Mishnah 1:8. ⁹⁹ If the plank is 4 cubits wide it can be put anywhere in the opening as long as no empty stretch is wider than 10 cubits. Then the rims of the plank on both sides act as laths; it no longer is necessary that the second opening be less than the width of the plank, and neither entrance needs a beam. ⁴⁴ Greek δίκρανον, τό.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if an alley has two entrances¹⁰⁰, he puts a beam over one of them and permits it. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Levi: Practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Abba said, only if he put up a stick and a doubly pointed stake; but if he made a plank four hand-breadths wide,¹⁰¹ practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated thus: If an alley has four entrances¹⁰² 10a, col. 93) reads: “4 hand-breadths”., he puts a beam over one of them and permits it. Rebbi Yose said, only if he does it for a middle one¹⁰³. But if he put it on an outer one could it be that what is standing here would permit what is open there? What would permit that which is open there? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it that it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and you cannot infer anything¹⁰⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Not that the alley had exits at opposite ends, since then it would be a thoroughfare which cannot be turned into a private domain, but at one end it is open to the public road and nearby it has a second entry point where a piece of side wall is missing. ¹⁰¹ The second entrance is partially blocked by a vertical plank 4 hand-breadths wide, so that it appears as a hole in the wall but not an entry point. ¹⁰² Rashba (ad ¹⁰³ The plank must be for the secondary opening, not for the outer opening to the road. The argument proves Rashba’s reading since if there are 4 openings there is no middle one. ¹⁰⁴ Practice still requires a beam or a lath for each of the entrances.

A curved and open alley¹⁰⁵ in its entirety since it is open at both sides. But it can be turned into two separate private domains, each for one straight leg.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he puts a beam or a lath there which permits¹⁰⁷. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, if they wanted to fix it so that each side may use it up to the closing wall, would not two domains use a common domain? But one may use it up to the bend and the other may use it up to the bend¹⁰⁸. Would not two domains use a domain forbidden to them? Rav and Samuel, Rav like Rebbi Joḥanan and Samuel like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁰⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ As S. Liebermann has pointed out, the correct interpretation is in Raviah §379, p. 401 (Notes 16 ff.). The alley is L-shaped but open at both ends. It cannot get an eruv ¹⁰⁶ A beam or lath at the entrance from the public road and a door frame at the bend, to indicate that the common area in the alley ends here. ¹⁰⁷ The sharp corner in itself is enough of a sign that the common area stops here. ¹⁰⁸ The square area at the bend which is common to both legs as straight rows is forbidden to the dwellers in both legs whereas in R. Joḥanan’s way of doing it the door-frame is the border between the two domains and all inhabitants may use their respective domains up to the door frame. ¹⁰⁹ Babli 6b.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were staying in Rebbi Isaac’s street¹¹⁰. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish carried, according to his opinion, Rebbi Joḥanan did not carry, according to his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan neither forbade nor carried; he said, let the dwellers in the alley be in error, lest they be intentional. What, did he carry or did he not carry? If you say that he carried, then Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion did change. If you say that he did not carry, it should be forbidden to the dwellers in the alley¹¹¹ illegal.. Rebbi Joḥanan annulled his rights¹¹² may be established without him.. Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish forced Rebbi Joḥanan and he carried. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason¹¹³ impossible even if that person either is a Gentile for whom the Sabbath rules do not exist or a Sadducee who objects to the notion of eruv as not biblical. Cf. Babli 62a.? They considered him as unintentional compared to intentional¹¹⁴. What is the rabbis’ opinion? Since they are suspected of carrying they are as if intentional. They told him, if this be so then the haters of Rebbi Joḥanan should be considered like a Sadducee for the dwellers in the alley and it should become forbidden for the dwellers in the alley¹¹⁵ he will be unable to contribute to it and thereby make the entire eruv impossible.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Sadducee is suspected of carrying¹¹⁶ as a rabbinic invention (CD xi), it is quite possible that he might consider a dead-end alley as not a public domain and permitted area for carrying without an eruv.; here what can you say? What is the difference between them? If it was built like a χ. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he puts a beam or a lath on one side and makes a door frame on the other side¹¹⁷. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even many beams do not make it permitted¹¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Which was an L-shaped alley, one leg of which was turned into a private domain for the purposes of the Sabbath following R. Simeon ben Laqish. ¹¹¹ As a matter of principle, a common courtyard or an alley may be turned into a private domain only if all residents there agree to the operation. A single dissent makes the eruv ¹¹² If the dissenting person agrees not to be counted as a dweller there, and therefore, not to use the common space, the eruv ¹¹³ This refers to Mishnah 6:1 where R. Meïr states that a single dissenting person makes an eruv ¹¹⁴ While a Sadducee willfully disregards rabbinical rules, it is not because he is intent of breaking them but because he does not accept their validity. Since for him breaking the rules excludes criminal intent, it cannot be considered as equivalent of intentionally breaking the rules. ¹¹⁵ If he refuses to recognize the eruv ¹¹⁶ Since the Sadducee does recognize only the biblical text as authoritative and strictly refrains from carrying anything in the public domain but objects to the notion of eruv ¹¹⁷ He considers an X-shaped configuration of alleys as a combination of two V-shaped ones, each one of which is treated according to the rules of L-shaped alleys where each leg can be turned into an private domain by putting a door frame at the bend. ¹¹⁸ The explanation follows Rashi to Babli 6a, top. The entrance to the alley is ten cubits wide; the alley itself is wider. If the wall reducing the entrance to 10 cubits is broken in the length of 4 hand-breadths the alley becomes one with two entrances and needs a beam over one and a door frame for the other. The same is true if one of the side walls of the alley is broken for more than 10 cubits (but not if there are framed entrances to courtyards opening into the alley.)

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: An alley which was broken at its end into four [hand-breadths], at a side more than ten [cubits]¹¹⁸. The colleagues in the name of Rav, there is no difference, whether at its end or at a side four [hand-breadths]. They wanted to say, he who says that “at a side more than ten [cubits],” therefore ten are permitted if it is four [hand-breadths] wide¹¹⁹. He who says, “whether at its end or at a side four [hand-breadths],” if it is not four hand-breadths wide¹²⁰. Were we not of the opinion that Rav is like Rebbi Joḥanan¹²¹? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to unify the entire domain¹²² for both legs of the L. But here we have a breach, not a door, and if it is larger than 10 cubits there is no way of turning the alley into a private domain..

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ The explanation follows Rashi to Babli 6a, top. The entrance to the alley is ten cubits wide; the alley itself is wider. If the wall reducing the entrance to 10 cubits is broken in the length of 4 hand-breadths the alley becomes one with two entrances and needs a beam over one and a door frame for the other. The same is true if one of the side walls of the alley is broken for more than 10 cubits (but not if there are framed entrances to courtyards opening into the alley.) ¹¹⁹ If the additional wall at the entrance is at least 4 hand-breadths wide, any breach at a side wall up to 10 cubits can be left untreated.. ¹²⁰ If the standing wall at the entrance is less than 4 hand-breadths wide, the breach at the side follows the rules of a breach in the front. ¹²¹ Since R. Joḥanan always requires a beam or a lath at the main entrance and a door frame at the other entrance, how can Rav make it dependent on the size of the breach? ¹²² In the case of the L-shaped alley he requires a door frame to equally permit eruvim

An alley which was broken at its side towards the entrance¹²³, the rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yose⁷⁸. If four [hand-breadths] wide was standing it needs a beam¹²⁴, otherwise it does not need one. What is the difference between this and an alley which has two openings¹²⁵? If an alley has two openings, does he not put a beam over one of them and permits? Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, if an alley has two openings, is it not usual that people enter by one and leave by the other? But is it usual that people enter by one and leave by the breach?

footnotes: ¹²³ The entrance is ten cubits wide; near the entrance there is a hole in one of the walls bordering the alley. ⁷⁸ For chronological reasons one has to read “Yasa” instead of “Yose”. ¹²⁴ Because it is a separate entrance it does not follow the rules of a breach in the wall further away from the entrance. ¹²⁵ The rules for an L-shaped alley do not depend on width or length.

May one beam permit two alleys? Rebbi Jereniah said, Rebbi Zeˋira¹²⁶ and Rebbi Abbahu, one said, it is forbidden, the other said, it is permitted. He who said, it is forbidden, if it was put higher than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley; he who said, it is permitted, if it was put lower than three [hand-breadths] than the walls of the alley¹²⁷.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ This is the Babylonian spelling. Since in the next paragraph his name is spelled in the original Galilean form זעורה, the spelling here probably is a copyist’s mistake. ¹²⁷ Two diverging alleys whose entrances are close to one another but whose walls have different heights. If the walls have equal heights there is no problem since then one very long beam simply can be considered as two beams, one for each alley. The only problem arises if the beam is appropriate for one alley but not quite so for the other. Then one follows the principle stated earlier (cf. Note 22) that distances of less than three hand-breadths are disregarded.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, by what can a courtyard become permitted¹²⁸? It was found stated, with one plank¹²⁹. בפסי). On both ends of the breach one has to put up planks as a minimal indication of a door., the words of Rebbi, but the Sages say, with two planks. Rav¹³⁰ Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, practice follows him who said, by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows him who said, by two planks, but I am saying, by one plank. On condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side? But there are only planks of three hand-breadths on each side¹³¹, and what he said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, a plank of any thickness on each side¹³².

footnotes: ¹²⁸ A courtyard wall separating it from the public road was breached. The length of the breach must be less than 10 cubits; otherwise one may not carry in the courtyard on the Sabbath until the wall is repaired. ¹²⁹ The practical difference between a lath לחי and a plank פס is that a lath has a minimal length but no minimal width or thickness whereas the plank has minimal length and width (4 hand-breadths) but no minimal thickness (cf. Tosephot 12a, s. v ¹³⁰ Read: “Rebbi”. The R. Ḥiyya quoted here is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. ¹³¹ In keeping with the requirement of R. Yose in Mishnah 6. ¹³² As for the laths used to permit an alley. Babli 12a.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: An alley whose length and width are equal is not permitted by lath or beam but by planks like a courtyard¹³³. Samuel heard this from him and exerted himself after him 40 times¹³⁴. The rabbis of Caesarea do not say so but rather that Samuel asked Rav, by how much must their length exceed their width? He responded and told him, anything¹³⁵. For this he exerted himself after him 40 times, for one might need Rav and not find him.

footnotes: ¹³³ Babli 12b. ¹³⁴ He repeated in order to memorize. ¹³⁵ In the Babli Rav attributes the ruling to his uncle R. Ḥiyya.

There we have stated¹³⁶: “Because the relation of the alley to courtyards is like that of a courtyard to houses.” How many courtyards must there be for an alley¹³⁷? Rav and Samuel both are saying, there cannot be less than two. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even one courtyard on each side. Rebbi Aha, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, even a courtyard on one side and a house on the other side, a house on one side and a store on the other side. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob (asked) [in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan]¹³⁸ 12b, col. 97) but the second by the Ashkenazic Sefer Miṣwot Gadol (Hilkhot Eruvin, fol. 245a in the Venice edition). R. Naḥman bar Jacob is not known to have had contact with R. Joḥanan.: An alley cannot have less than two courtyards, a courtyard cannot have less than two houses¹³⁹. An alley whose length and width are equal is not permitted by lath or beam but by planks like a courtyard¹³³. Samuel asked Rav, by how much must its length exceed its width? He told him, anything¹³⁵. The dwellers of the Land of Israel make theirs square. If five alleys open into one alley. Whether what is standing is more than what is breached or what is breached is more than what is standing, it does not need a beam¹⁴⁰) even if the total length of the openings into the side alleys is larger than the total length of the walls bordering the main alley., if they are distant four cubits¹⁴¹.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ Mishnah 6:8. The rules which make a multi-party courtyard accessible to all parties are completely parallel to those which make a multi-courtyard alley accessible to all courtyard dwellers. ¹³⁷ That the alley can be turned into private domain for the rules of the Sabbath. ¹³⁸ The text in parentheses was written by the scribe; it was changed into the text in brackets by the corrector. The first text is quoted by the Sephardic Rashba (ad ¹³⁹ There is a difference in that an alley with only one courtyard cannot be turned into a private domain but a courtyard belonging to only one one-family dwelling automatically is private domain. ¹³³ Babli 12b. ¹³⁵ In the Babli Rav attributes the ruling to his uncle R. Ḥiyya. ¹⁴⁰ A dead-end alley with five side arms becomes permitted by beam or lath at the entrance from the public road and does not need anything for the side arms (assuming that all dwellers there participate in the eruv ¹⁴¹ The meaning of this clause is unknown.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Doors which open on the public road, if they are open their place becomes public domain, if they are locked their place becomes private domain¹⁴² 1, Notes 172–173.. Alleys that open on the sea are like alleys open to an agricultural area¹⁴³, not the public domain. Therefore it can become permitted on the Sabbath if it receives a beam or lath at the opening to the public road and a door frame towards the sea like any other alley open on both sides.. The street of Rebbi Ḥanin does not need a door frame since it descends ten hand-breadths within three [cubits]¹⁴⁴. They made an arrangement to allow the lower-lying houses.

footnotes: ¹⁴² This is another way to describe a platform in front of a door opening to the public road; cf. Šabbat ¹⁴³ The alley is not a dead-end street since the sea does not act as a wall. On the other hand it is not a thoroughfare since it ends in karmelit ¹⁴⁴ His alley did open to the sea and it did descend 10 hand-breadths within 3 cubits. The dwellers in the upper part can use the declivity as a wall (Note 85) but then the lower part of the alley is not private domain for the Sabbath. But a door frame at the end pointing to the sea together with a beam at the entrance from the street turns the entire length of the alley into potential private domain.

“If there is a door-frame even though it is wider than ten cubits there is no need to reduce³.” Ḥananiah bar Shelemia was sitting stating this to Ḥiyya, Rav’s son. Rav put out his head from the window and said, it is not so. He told him, but was it not stated so? He said to him, if you state this to him you have to inform him that it is not so¹⁴⁵.

footnotes: ³ If there are two door-posts and a beam from one to the other, even if there are no doors, it is clear that the domain is visibly separated from the thoroughfare onto which it opens. ¹⁴⁵ Babli 2b/3a, 11a.

Abba bar Huna¹⁴⁶ said, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yannai the son of Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ A Babylonian Amora of the second generation, student of his father Rav Huna. He exemplifies the Babylonian tradition, in contrast to the restrictive Galilean tradition which requires a door frame which is ready to have a door placed in it.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: How does one permit public domain¹⁴⁷ 6a, 117a) but rejected.? Rebbi Jehudah says, a lath on each side or a beam on each side, but the Sages say, a lath and a beam on one side and he makes a door frame on the other side. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: A hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door. Rebbi Jeremiah said this before Rebbi Zeˋira, who told him, what do you have in your hand¹⁴⁸? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis here follow their opinion and the rabbis there follow their opinion. Since the rabbis there are saying, the door frame about which they spoke is a stick on each side and bast over them; they are those who say, it is not so¹⁴⁹. But the rabbis here who are saying, a hinge and its fastener; nothing should be missing but the door, they are those who say, it is so.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ This refers to an alley between walls which is open at both ends. Turning parts of a public road into private domain, for the owner of houses opposite one another on a street, is mentioned in the Babli (6a/b, Šabbat ¹⁴⁸ This is nothing new since it already was stated by R. Simeon ben Laqish and is rejected by the Babylonian R. Zeˋira who quotes R. Joḥanan as adopting the Babylonian position. ¹⁴⁹ They follow Rav in rejecting the Mishnah since their “door frame” is flimsy. The Mishnah is accepted as practice in Galilee where a solid frame is required.

Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother¹⁵⁰ says, the House of Shammai say, a door on each side. When he enters he closes and locks. But the House of Hillel say, a door on one side and a door frame on the other side. Samuel said, practice follows Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother¹⁵¹. Is that not the same as the earlier statement? Rebbi Abba said, if there is a door it can be locked¹⁵². Rebbi Aḥa instructed one who made a door frame that he had to make it inside of four cubits¹⁵³. Rebbi Aybun instructed in this sense.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ His name was Ḥanania ben Ḥanania, the unlucky form indicating a posthumous child. ¹⁵¹ Babli 6b. ¹⁵² The difference between the rule of Ḥanania following the House of Hillel and the rule stated earlier in the name of the Sages is that Ḥanania requires a door on one side which could be locked even if actually it never will be locked. ¹⁵³ The door frame has to be made between walls, not at their end.

Rebbi Zeˋira¹⁵⁴ in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If pegs stick out from the walls of an alley, a person places a beam on them and allows the alley¹⁵⁵, on condition that they be within three [hand-breadths] of the alley. Two Amoraim, one said, only if they are strong enough to carry the beam and its tiles, but the other said, even if they are not strong enough to carry the beam and its tiles¹⁵⁶. Rebbi Zeˋira asked: under the beam it is forbidden but it permits the alley¹⁵⁷? Rebbi Aḥa ben Rebbi Ulla said, why did one not say to him,¹⁵⁸ did we not find this for Samuel? As Samuel said, under the beam¹⁵⁹ it is forbidden but it permits the alley. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: Under the beam and between the laths it is judged like a threshold¹⁶⁰ 1, Note 66..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ The great variability of the spelling of this name, זעירה, זעירא, זירא raises questions about the homogeneity of the following portion. ¹⁵⁵ The pegs stick out in front of the alley into the public road. A beam placed there indicates that the alley should be considered a private road even though under the beam there is public road. Only the beam must be within 3 hand-breadths of the alley walls so it may be considered having no distance from them. Babli 8b. ¹⁵⁶ This is a question which can be raised for all beams, whether they only have to be wide enough to support a tile or also strong enough. Babli 14a. ¹⁵⁷ Since the beam is clearly outside the alley, lying over public domain, how can it serve to turn the alley into a quasi-private domain? ¹⁵⁸ This is the corrector’s text. The scribe’s was ולמה לא. ולא אשכחנן “why not? Did we not find …”. This is a better text. ¹⁵⁹ This now refers to a normal beam lying between the walls of the alley. Since the beam represents the lintel of an imaginary door at the inside of the beam, the space under the beam belongs to the outside. Babli 8b. ¹⁶⁰ Cf. Šabbat

Rebbi Zeˋira asked, what kind of threshold¹⁶¹? Like a permitted threshold or a forbidden threshold? Rebbi Zeˋira said, when I was still there it was questionable for me, but when I came here I heard Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a threshold is ten [hand-breadths] high but less than four wide it is permitted for both domains; only one should not exchange¹⁶². Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose, look what he is saying! He only said, if it is less than four wide. But if it is four wide it is forbidden. He said to him, is that not the case of a cross-beam¹¹⁶³ Babli 3a). Then the space under it is roofed, clearly not in the public domain and, therefore, permitted to the dwellers in the alley.? Is it not permitted under a cross-beam? Rebbi Zeˋira said, Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan. Samuel said, under the beam it is forbidden¹⁵⁹, but Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Everybody agrees that between laths it is forbidden¹⁶⁴, and it was stated thus: If an alley is made of laths, if between one and the next are four hand-breadths one carries up to the outer one; otherwise one carries up to the inner one¹⁶⁵. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Uqba, unless the outer one is wider. But if the outer one was wider one carries up to the outer one¹⁶⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁶¹ If the threshold is ten hand-breadths above street level and is large enough to be a domain in its own right, it would be forbidden to carry there both from inside the house of from the outside. ¹⁶² One may not carry anything from the inside to the threshold, put it down, and take it up again moving to the public domain. ¹ Greek μέλαθρον, τό. This is a substantial load-carrying beam used in construction. ¹⁶³ It is implied here that a μέλαθρον is at least four hand-breadths wide (quoted by R. Hananel ad ¹⁵⁹ This now refers to a normal beam lying between the walls of the alley. Since the beam represents the lintel of an imaginary door at the inside of the beam, the space under the beam belongs to the outside. Babli 8b. ¹⁶⁴ Since this is a flimsy sign and is neither roof nor door, it belongs to the outside. Babli 9a. ¹⁶⁵ There is a path but not between walls. If the walls are represented by laths and between one lath and the next are less than 4 hand-breadths, then according to what had been said before the laths are virtually touching, they all form one lath and by the rule just stated the entire length belongs to the outside. But if the distances are larger, only the lath designating the exit to the public road falls under this rule. Cf. Babli 9a. ¹⁶⁶ If the width of the alley at the outermost lath is larger than at the nearby inner laths, it is separate and cannot be counted with the others.

MISHNAH: The legitimization of an alley: the House of Shammai say by lath and beam⁴; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam; Rebbi Eliezer says, two laths⁵. A student⁶ said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Ismael that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel did not disagree about an alley which is less that four [cubits wide] that it is [permitted] either by lath or by beam; about what did they disagree? About one wider than four [cubits] up to ten⁷ where the House of Shammai say by lath and beam; but the House of Hillel say, either by lath or by beam. Rebbi Aqiba said, they disagree in both cases.

footnotes: ⁴ A beam must have a minimal width as indicated in Mishnah 3, there is no requirement of minimal thickness or strength for the lath, which is only needed to indicate the place up to where the dwellers in the alley may carry on the Sabbath. ⁵ On both sides of the alley. ⁶ According to the Babli, this was R. Meїr, the only Sage of whom it is known that he studied first under R. Ismael and then under R. Aqiba. ⁷ Since for alleys wider than 10 cubits both Houses agree that one needs “a shape of a door,” i. e., two laths and a beam over them.

HALAKHAH: “The legitimization of an alley,” etc. What laths¹⁶⁷? Two laths and beam following the House of Shammai? Laths but no beam following the House of Hillel? Three [hand-breadths wide] following Rebbi Yose? Arbitrarily small following the rabbis? Let us hear from the following¹⁶⁸: “It happened that Rebbi Eliezer went to his student Rebbi Yose ben Perora at Oblin. He showed him an alley where there was only one lath. He told him, make it two laths. He said to him, what? Are you telling me to close it off? He told him, let it be closed; there is an argument for the domains of the Sabbath in this respect¹⁶⁹?” This implies three following Rebbi Yose. If you would say, arbitrarily small following the rabbis, does arbitrarily small close off¹⁷⁰?

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ This refers to R. Eliezer who in Mishnah 2 requires two laths to permit an alley. The first question is whether he also requires a beam following the House of Shammai or no beam following the House of Hillel. Even though in the Babli R. Eliezer is called a Shammaite, it seems that in general he was extremely conservative and objected to all innovations. Therefore his opinion might show what practice was before schools developed in Pharisaic Judaism. The second question refers to Mishnah 6, where R. Yose sets minimal standards for the width of laths but is opposed by the majority. ¹⁶⁸ Tosephta 1:2, Babli 1 11b/12a. In the Babli and one Tosephta ms. the name is ben Perida; the other sources have פריה, פירה, פריד. ¹⁶⁹ The objection was that since the alley, while not a thoroughfare, is public property, it is not possible to close it off as private property. R. Eliezer’s answer is that property rights are no argument for the rules of the Sabbath which are only based on use. ¹⁷⁰ Since R. Eliezer agrees that two laths put at right angles to the roadway would in effect close it off it is clear that these cannot be of negligible width.

It was stated, practice follows the student, for if it were not so, would we say following the House of Shammai¹⁷¹? Could practice follow the House of Shammai rather than the House of Hillel? But since it was stated¹⁷², “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, an alley which is not four hand-breadths deep does not need a beam.” The words of the Sages? Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav: An alley which is less than four cubits does not need anything¹⁷³.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ Since the student in Mishnah 2 affirms the tradition of the House of Hillel and only gives a new interpretation of the position of the House of Shammai, there should be no question of practice which is not supposed to follow the House of Shammai. ¹⁷² Babli 12a (middle). In Tosephta 1:3 (and the first version in the Babli) the reading is “four cubits”. The reference is to the width of the alley. ¹⁷³ In general the majority of the Sages has to be followed against Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel (in the theory of the Babli, except for Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel quoted in the Mishnah); but in this case it was stated that practice follows the student who required either lath or beam for any alley irrespective of width.

MISHNAH: The beam about which they spoke must be wide enough to carry a tile which is half a brick of three hand-breadths⁸; therefore it is sufficient for a beam to be one hand-breadth wide to accept the tile lengthwise⁹.

footnotes: ⁸ Therefore the tile is 1.5׳3 hand-breadths2. ⁹ Since a hand-breadth is counted as 4 thumb-breadths, the tile will extend over the beam by one thumb-breadth on each side.

HALAKHAH: “The beam about which they spoke,” etc. Rebbi Abba said, to accommodate a row¹⁷⁴ of tiles lengthwise. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, to accommodate a row of tiles crosswise. What is the difference between them? Rebbi Ashian said, strength is between them. In the opinion of the rabbis, forty tiles. In the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, twenty tiles¹⁷⁵ 13b, ed. Warsaw 22a) switches the places of 40 and 20. The same is true for Meïri (ed. Herschler, col. 68a) but since he gives a paraphrase rather than a copy of the text it is not clear how he read it. In any case, the Babli disagrees, 14a..

footnotes: ¹⁷⁴ Greek δόμος, ὁ. ¹⁷⁵ The formulation seems self-contradictory. The length of the beam is assumed to be the standard 10 cubits which is 60 hand-breadths. A tile is 3 hand-breadths long and 1.5 hand-breadths wide. If the tiles are put on the beam lengthwise, the beam has to carry 20 tiles, if crosswise, there are 40 tiles. Of the medieval commentators, Rashba (col. 105, Note 446) quotes the text as given here but adds “it seems that the formulation is slightly corrupt.” His student Ritba (ad

Two beams, on each one half of a hand-breadth; how much can be between them? Rebbi Zeˋira said, half a hand-breadth. What is the difference between half a hand-breadth on either side and half a hand-breadth in the middle¹⁷⁶? Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a hand-breadth. Two beams, on each a little more than a third of a hand-breadth and between them less than a third of a hand-breadth¹⁷⁷. This parallels what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four [hand-breadths], on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space¹⁷⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁶ This follows the rabbis in the preceding paragraph. If two beams protrude from the walls on each side, they can be counted as one only if 20 tiles can be put on them. Therefore the gap between them must be bridged by one tile which according to R. Zeˋira must lie safely on both sides but according to R. Hoshaia only minimally. ¹⁷⁷ This is a more restrictive interpretation of the preceding. As explained in the following sentence, we have a general rule that gaps can be disregarded if they are minor (for walls less that 3 or 4 hand-breadths) and in addition the solid material is wider than the gap. When applied to beams, the author of the present statement holds that on each side the solid part must be larger than the gap. To accommodate one hand-breadth, on each side one needs 1/3+ε of solid material to justify a gap of 1/3 -ε for arbitrary ε0. ¹⁷⁸ This refers to walls; cf. Chapter 7(24b l.55), Chapter 8(25a l.32), Babli 16a.

If a beam protrudes from one wall but does not touch the second wall, or there were two opposite ones, if the gap between one and the other is three hand-breadths it needs another beam, otherwise it does not need another beam. There are Tannaim who state, four. He who says three, that a human may pass through. He who says four, that it be a place¹⁷⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ This explains the general disagreement whether one may disregard a gap only up to 3 or up to 4 hand-breadths, cf. Notes 80,81. 3 hand-breadths is the minimum width of an adult; 4 hand-breadth everywhere is the minimal size of a domain in the rules of the Sabbath, cf. Note 74. Babli 14a.

If one of the heads of a beam is higher that twenty cubits and the other lower than twenty cubits, one looks that if one would cut within three hand-breadths it would be seen lower than twenty cubits it is permitted¹⁸⁰ are rabbinic, the possibility alone is sufficient for qualification., otherwise it is forbidden. If one of the heads of a beam is lower than ten hand-breadths and the other higher than ten hand-breadths, one looks that if one would cut within three hand-breadths it would be seen lower¹⁸¹ than ten hand-breadths it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ If the beam except the last 3 hand-breadths near the second wall is below 20 cubits the beam is acceptable since the higher part could be cut and it still would be qualified under the rule of the preceding paragraph. Since the rules of Eruvin ¹⁸¹ Obviously one has to read: higher. Then the argument is parallel to that of the preceding sentence.

If two beams are one on top of the other. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths¹⁸². It was found stated that Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows his father’s argument and disagrees with him. He follows his fathers argument since he says, one looks at the lower one as if it were higher or the higher one as if it were lower¹⁸³. He disagrees with him since he says, on condition that the upper one not be higher than twenty cubits and the lower not be lower than ten hand-breadths. If you would say that he follows his father’s opinion it could be arbitrarily high¹⁸⁴. Rebbi Yose, Ḥinena bar Shelemiah, Rebbi Yudan; Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: Only if the upper one be within three hand-breadths of the lower one¹⁸⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁸² Babli 14a, Tosephta 1:5. Mishnah 3 requires that the beam be wide enough for a tile to be placed there. The case considered here is of two beams, each one too narrow, but which would be acceptable if they were parallel on the same level. R. Yose ben R. Jehudah asserts that if the beams could be imagined to be moved vertically to become parallel they are acceptable even if on different height levels. ¹⁸³ Since R. Jehudah in Mishnah 4 is explicit that the beams do not have to be strong he is the author of Mishnah 5 which introduces the principle of “one looks as if” used by his son. ¹⁸⁴ Mishnah 1. ¹⁸⁵ He permits the argument of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah if the difference in level of the two beams is negligible, i. e., smaller than 3 hand-breadths.

MISHNAH: Wide enough to carry a tile and strong enough to carry a tile. Rebbi Jehudah says, wide enough even if not strong enough¹⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁰ Since the only function of the beam is to indicate the boundary of the private domain in the alley, only size but not structural stability is required.

HALAKHAH: “Wide enough to carry a tile,¹⁸⁶” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, strong even if it is not wide. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr¹⁸⁷. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, since you are saying that practice follows this one and that one, one may follow this one or that one without worry. Rebbi Mana said, since it was said that practice follows the rabbis, one disregards individuals and acts following the rabbis.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ Mishnah 4. ¹⁸⁷ The presumed author of the anonymous Mishnah. Since the editor of the Mishnah formulated it without mentioning a name, he indicated that his opinion was practice to be followed.

Rav went to a certain place; he saw a certain alley, he understood that [the beam] was [rotten]¹⁸⁸ 15a, col. 112) read בלייה. The action must have been on a Sabbath; Rav prohibited carrying in the alley., he hit it with a stick and felled it. Rav Ḥuna said to him, the date palm stands¹⁸⁹. Rav told him, the eyes of Rav Ḥuna are high, the eyes of Rav are not high; but I am forbidding it for them because of a beam¹⁹⁰ to start with. and the next Sabbath I am permitting it to them because of a lath¹⁹¹ can be made on the day of Sabbath., that they should know that if the palm tree were removed they would be forbidden to carry. Some want to say, that they should not think following Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, “wide enough even if not strong enough.¹⁸⁶”

footnotes: ¹⁸⁸ With Rashba (ad ¹⁸⁹ A date palm was standing at the entrance of the alley; it could be used as lath following Mishnah 7. ¹⁹⁰ Since he stated that practice follows R. Meïr there was no valid eruv ¹⁹¹ The date palm can be used as lath but it must be so in the preparation for the Sabbath. No eruv ¹⁸⁶ Mishnah 4.

Rebbi Ḥinena did not say so but: ¹⁹² Rav went to a certain place; he saw a certain alley whose beam had been removed, and forbade it. Rav Ḥuna said to him, the date palm stands. Rav told him, the eyes of Rav Ḥuna are high, the eyes of Rav are not high; but I am forbidding it for them because of a beam, and the next Sabbath I am permitting it to them because of a lath, that they should know that if the palm tree were removed they would be forbidden to carry. Some want to say, that they should not think following Rebbi Jehudah, ¹⁹³ 4:2 (62c l. 17) and has no connection with the present topic. The problem is that in Mishnah 2:6 R. Jehudah allows carrying in a corral only if it contains at least a cistern, or a water ditch, or a cave, but in Mishnah Beṣah 4:2 he permits taking anything from any corral which is defined as fenced-in area close to a village. as we have stated there, “what is a corral? Anything close to a village, the words of Rebbi Jehudah.” And here he says so? Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Jehudah treated it¹⁹⁴ as a house.

footnotes: ¹⁹² This is the version alluded to in the Babli, 15a. ¹⁹³ The following should be replaced by the text of the preceding paragraph. The text here is taken from Chapter 2 (Note 93) and Beṣah ¹⁹⁴ The cistern or cave is treated as a house and the corral as the house’s yard where carrying is permitted.

MISHNAH: If it was made of straw or reeds, one considers it as if of metal¹¹, curved as if it were straight¹²; round one considers it as if square¹³. If its circumference is three hand-breadths its width is one hand-breadth¹⁴ 7:23 (presuming that עָגוֹל means “circular” not “oval”)..

footnotes: ¹¹ This Mishnah follows R. Jehudah in the previous Mishnah which thereby is declared practice to be followed. The beam does not need to be able to carry any load. ¹² If the beam is not a straight log but is curved. ¹³ If the beam is a round log then while it might be strong enough to carry a tile it is impossible to fasten one on it permanently. ¹⁴ This defines π as 3, from an interpretation of 1K.

HALAKHAH: “If it was made of straw or reeds,¹⁹⁵” etc. For whom was this needed? For Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, “wide enough even if not strong enough.¹⁹⁶”

footnotes: ¹⁹⁵ Mishnah 5. ¹⁹⁶ Since for the majority a bundle of straw never can carry the load of tiles.

“Curved one considers it as if it were straight.¹⁹⁵” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: This is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: It is everybody’s opinion, but only if the curvature be at the side, a curvature which does not obstruct the alley. But a curvature which impedes the alley makes it forbidden. What is a curvature which obstructs¹⁹⁷ the alley? Any which if you excise it there is less than three [hand-breadths] between the pieces¹⁹⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁵ Mishnah 5. ¹⁹⁷ Obviously one has to read: “does not obstruct”. Noted by Rashba, col. 109. ¹⁹⁸ If one eliminates the curved parts the gap created in the straight segment is less than 3 hand-breadths. Babli 14a.

“Round, one considers it as if square.¹⁹⁵” Again this is Rebbi Jehudah’s¹⁹⁹. They inferred it from the sea²⁰⁰. He made the sea cast, ten cubits²⁰¹. 7:23.. It is impossible to say “circular” since already it was said “square”²⁰². It is impossible to say “square” since already it was said “circular”. If you said circular, it would turn out to contain 160 times the measure of purity. If you said square, it would turn out to contain 122 times the measure of purity. Therefore you have to say that the upper two cubits were circular, the lower three cubits were square and it turns out that it contained 150 times the measure of purity²⁰³ which is 3(cubits)³. If the “sea” were cubical, the outer volume would be 500(cubits)³ = 166⅔ miqwaot. Since the verse asserts that the walls were 1 hand-breadth wide (1/6 cubit) the actual inner volume was 4 5/6 (9⅔)² = 451.6481 (cubits)3 = 150.54 miqwaot. The fractional part should be disregarded. If the “sea” were a right circular cylinder, with the prescribed value of π=3 the outer volume would be 375(cubits)3 = 125 miqwaot; the inner volume 338.7361 (cubits)3 = 122.91 miqwaot. In v. 26 it is stated that the volume contained in the “sea” was 2’000 bat which is 6’000 seˋah or 150 miqwaot (Babli 14a, Pesaḥim 109b). This volume also is the sum of the volumes of a rectangular solid of edge legths 3,10,10 and a right circular cylinder of radius 5 and height 3, as stated in the text. The problem is that these are outer measures; the inner measures are consistently disregarded.. One verse says, it contained 2’000 bat204. 7:26., but another verse says, it contained a volume of 3’000 bat²⁰⁵. 4:5.. It is impossible to say 2’000 since already it says 3’000 and it is impossible to say 3’000 since already it says 2’000. Therefore you have 2’000 in fluid measure which are 3’000 in dry measure. From here the Sages learned that 40 seah in fluid measure are two kor in dry measure²⁰⁵. 4:5..

footnotes: ¹⁹⁵ Mishnah 5. ¹⁹⁹ Since tiles cannot be laid on a round beam, the round beam is unacceptable for the majority. ²⁰⁰ The water container in Solomon’s temple. Since the verse there states that its diameter was 10 cubits and its circumference 30, it is inferred that for halakhic computations the ratio of circumference of a circle to diameter is 3 (even though it is obvious that for other computations this cannot be correct since it is the ratio of the circumference of the regular hexagon to the diameter). ²⁰¹ 1K ²⁰² The verse notes that the “sea” at the top was circular, diameter 10 and circumference 30. But in v. 24 it says that below it was adorned by flower buds, 10 cubits at each side. This implies that the bottom was square. ²⁰³ The numbers are impossible; to make them approximately intelligible one has to switch the positions of “square” and “circular”. The height of the “sea” was 5 cubits. The “measure of purity” is the minimum size of a miqweh ²⁰⁵ 2Chr ²⁰⁵ 2Chr

MISHNAH: The laths¹⁵ about which they spoke, their height ten hand-breadths, their width and thickness arbitrarily small; Rebbi Yose said, their width three hand-breadths.

footnotes: ¹⁵ The plural indicates that the statement is valid also in R. Eliezer’s opinion.

HALAKHAH: “The laths¹⁵ about which they spoke,” etc. The Mishnah if they were distant from the wall. But if they were leaning against the wall even Rebbi Yose will agree²⁰⁷. And it was stated thus: If one made laths for an alley, if they are less than three [hand-breadths] from the ground or they were within three [hand-breadths] from the wall, it is permitted. Three only if what is standing be more than the empty space²⁰⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁵ The plural indicates that the statement is valid also in R. Eliezer’s opinion. ²⁰⁷ A lath plastered on the wall may be narrower than 3 hand-breadths. ²⁰⁸ In the tradition of the Babli 14b a space of full 3 hand-breadths never is negligible.

Building stones which protrude from the building, if between one and the other is less than three hand-breadths they are considered as laths²⁰⁹. Corners sticking out at each side are considered as laths²¹⁰. A wall which is indented and looks like a plank from inside but even on the outside or looks like a plank from outside but even on the inside is considered as laths²¹¹. If it was prolonged, Abba bar Rav Huna said, one looks at it as if indented²¹². Rav Ḥisdai objected, did we not state²¹³ of the large one., “if a large courtyard collapsed into a small one, the large one is permitted but the small one forbidden.” Should not the walls of the large one be like laths for the walls of the small one and the small one be permitted? Abba bar Rav Huna told him, explain it if they were extended more than ten²¹⁴ should continue to be valid. If more of the wall is standing the total sum of the standing wall has to be more than 10 cubits.. Rebbi Ashian stated before Rebbi Aḥa, if the large one is eleven but the small one ten. The baraita was searched for but not found.

footnotes: ²⁰⁹ Babli 15a, Tosephta 1:9. ²¹⁰ The entrance to the alley is slightly narrower than the alley itself because on both sides the walls of the alley end in convex corners. This is enough of a hint of a door frame. ²¹¹ Babli 15a, Tosephta 1:10; the thin wall is considered as door frame. ²¹² A small continuation of a wall of the alley is built into the street into which the alley opens. The extension represents a door frame. ²¹³ Mishnah 9:2. The breach happened on the Sabbath. The large courtyard may continue to be used to move things since the breach acts like a door and is not open into public domain. The small yard cannot be used since the breach turns it into an appendix of the large one and its dwellers did not contribute to the eruv ²¹⁴ It is clear that the breach can be at most 10 cubits wide since it is considered a door. If only one cubit of the wall is left standing, 3 hand-breadths on each side, they should be considered as laths for the small one and its eruv

²¹⁵[Rebbi] Aḥa told him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One does not use as support any Mishnah which is not accepted by a group²¹⁶. Rebbi Yose said, it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side¹²⁹. בפסי). On both ends of the breach one has to put up planks as a minimal indication of a door.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, even you have to say that it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on either side. (Rav) [Rebbi Mar]²¹⁷ Uqba in the name of the rabbis there: They are considered only for the large one but are not considered for the small one²¹⁸.

footnotes: ²¹⁵ Here starts a Genizah fragment edited by Ginzberg, p. 93 (G). The title in brackets is added from G. ²¹⁶ The explanation of R. Ashian is without foundation. ¹²⁹ The practical difference between a lath לחי and a plank פס is that a lath has a minimal length but no minimal width or thickness whereas the plank has minimal length and width (4 hand-breadths) but no minimal thickness (cf. Tosephot 12a, s. v ²¹⁷ The text in parentheses is the Leiden ms.’s, the one in brackets from G. ²¹⁸ The Babylonian rabbis essentially accept R. Ashian’s objection that the smaller courtyard also be permitted but explain that the Mishnah refers to a special configuration where the walls of the large courtyard could not be used for the smaller one. Babli 9b.

If a wall on one side is extended and on the other side is shortened. Cahana said, he puts the beam obliquely and uses it obliquely²¹⁹. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Cahana: he puts the beam in the diagonal and uses in the diagonal, but only on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten? (From) Rebbi Yose [said]²²⁰, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it, on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten²²¹. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits]²²²? [Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Aḥa²²³ in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits].] You conclude to say, what was problematic for the one was obvious for the other [and what was problematic for the other was obvious for the one].

footnotes: ²¹⁹ If the walls bordering on the alley do not end at equal distances from the road, one may use a beam going from the end of the wall at one side to the end of the wall at the other. Greek λοξός,-ή, -όν “oblique”. ²²⁰ The text of the Leiden ms. in parentheses, of G in brackets. ²²¹ Since the beam represents the entrance door and no door may be more than 10 cubits wide, the restriction also applies to the oblique beam. It needed the inquiry of an emigrant to Babylonia to ascertain the tradition of the Babylonian Cahana. ²²² May the longer wall extend more than 4 cubits over the shorter one, or do more than 4 cubits at one side define a domain different from the alley? ²²³ If one does not read the additions from G, the preceding question was declarative, not a question, and in the end only the first question of R. Aḥa was obvious for R. Yose. If one reads the additions, the name tradition here is thoroughly garbled since R. Aḥa, a contemporary of R. Yose, cannot have been the source of the earlier R. Ila. In addition, at the end it is asserted that what was problematic for R. Aḥa was obvious for R. Yose and vice-versa. Therefore in the previous sentence one has to replace “Aḥa” by “Yose”, and read here “R. Aḥa, R. Ila” as recognized by S. Liebermann.

²²⁴ Rebbi Ulla said, the Mishnah is from three to four [hand-breadths]. Less than three even more than ten [cubits] is permitted, four even less than ten [cubits] is prohibited. Where do we hold? From three to four.

footnotes: ²²⁴ The meaning of this is totally unknown. Similar language is used in Chapter 8, on Mishnah 3 (25a l.36).

MISHNAH: One may use anything for laths, even living things¹⁶; Rebbi Meїr forbids this. And it makes impure because of a cover stone¹⁷, but Rebbi Meїr declares it pure. One writes on it divorce documents¹⁸ 2:3, where R. Yose the Galilean also rejects foodstuffs as writing material for divorce documents. but Rebbi Yose the Galilean disqualifies.

footnotes: ¹⁶ One may tie an animal which is at least ten hand-breadths high to the entrance of an alley as a symbolic lath. R. Meїr requires the lath to be permanently fixed. ¹⁷ If an animal is used to cover a grave, it acts as a grave stone and touching it transmits the severe impurity of the dead. For R. Meїr a living animal cannot play the role of a grave stone, therefore its body is a roof over the corpse and acts as a shield against transmission of impurity. ¹⁸ The husband may write the text of the divorce document and have the witnesses sign on the horns of a cow and hand over the cow to the wife, Mishnah Giṭṭin

HALAKHAH: “One may use anything for laths,” etc. It was stated: Anything alive one makes into a sidewall²²⁵ but one does not make it into a lath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Rebbi Aḥa said, there is one Tanna; for him who says that one makes it into a sidewall one makes it into a lath, and for him who says that one does not make it into a sidewall one does not make it into a lath²²⁶ and Eruvin as far as use of animals is concerned; their only difference is whether such use is permitted or not. One statement covers both cases.. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. Why could one make it into a sidewall? For if it would slip off, would he not notice? Why does one not make it into a lath? For if it would slip off, would he notice²²⁷ and Eruvin. A person using the booth will immediately notice if a wall is missing; if the animal runs away he will not use the booth. But a person using the alley may not see the place of the lath; if the animal runs away he might use the alley to carry when it is forbidden to do so.? Rebbi Joshua the Southerner was standing with students of Rebbi Aḥa. (They said to him) [He said to them]²²⁸, it is said at the end what disagrees with your teacher: But the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Since in a situation where he would not notice in case it slipped off you are saying that it is permitted, here where he would notice in case it slipped off not so much more? Therefore there must be two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa²²⁹, the only question is whether the use is permitted for a sukkah or not.. Since you are saying that there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Yose, so you also have to say here, there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa.

footnotes: ²²⁵ The wall of a booth for Tabernacles. ²²⁶ He asserts that both for R. Meïr and for the Sages there is no difference between the rules for Sukkah ²²⁷ There is a reason to differentiate between the rules of Sukkah ²²⁸ The reading of [G] is preferable over that of (the Leiden ms.) ²²⁹ Since R. Yose has shown that it is unreasonable to allow animals to be used for eruvin

²³⁰ 2:4 (52d l.60, ס). Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, all three said the same. Rebbi Meïr of the laths, “it makes impure because of a cover stone¹⁷, but Rebbi Meïr declares it pure.²³¹” Rebbi Yose of Ahilut, “Rebbi Yose said, the house on a ship does not transmit impurity²³².” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba came in a ship, and Rebbi Aqiba made himself a sukkah on the ship’s deck. There came a wind which blew it away. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, Aqiba, where is your sukkah²³³ on the ship since he holds that since such a sukkah is not guaranteed to stay for the 8 days of Tabernacles it is not qualified even if the wind does not blow it away.?

footnotes: ²³⁰ This paragraph also is in Sukkah ¹⁷ If an animal is used to cover a grave, it acts as a grave stone and touching it transmits the severe impurity of the dead. For R. Meїr a living animal cannot play the role of a grave stone, therefore its body is a roof over the corpse and acts as a shield against transmission of impurity. ²³¹ As explained in the previous paragraph, an animal may run away and therefore is not under the rules of a stone in any way. ²³² Since the house is built to be moved all the time it does not qualify as “tent” and the rules of “tent impurity” do not apply to it. ²³³ R. Eleazar ben Azariah did not make a sukkah

²³⁴ 2:3, explained there in Notes 83–97. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll Since a scroll is detached, so everything being detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath²³⁵ it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rebbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written²³⁶. 11:34., any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.

footnotes: ²³⁴ The entire paragraph, dealing with divorce documents, is from Gittin ²³⁵ Greek νάρθηξ, -ηκος, ὁ. ²³⁶ Lev

MISHNAH: If a caravan rested in an area of difficult access¹⁹ where carrying is forbidden only rabbinically and which therefore can be turned into a kind of private domain by an improvised wall. which they surrounded by the implements of animals²⁰ one may move things inside on condition that the fence be ten hand-breadths high and the openings not be more than the built-up part²¹. Any opening up to ten cubits is permitted since it is like a door; more than that is forbidden.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Which therefore is karmelit, ²⁰ The bags on the beasts of burden may be used as temporary walls for the Sabbath. ²¹ The bags used for the wall need not touch one another but the openings must be smaller than the lengths of the bags, and no opening may be more than 10 cubits.

HALAKHAH: “If a caravan rested in an area of difficult access¹⁹ where carrying is forbidden only rabbinically and which therefore can be turned into a kind of private domain by an improvised wall.,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of (Rebbi Ḥasdai) [Rav Ḥisda]²³⁷: For whom was this needed? For Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says²³⁸, any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, (the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehuda.)²³⁹ But he agrees here, and it was stated thus²⁴⁰: One makes partition with everything, even camel saddles, even tubs, even camels, on condition that between two saddles there not be space for a saddle, between two tubs there not be space for a tub, between two camels there not be space for a camel, and on condition that no standing wall be opposite standing wall and breach opposite breach²⁴¹, but a standing wall opposite a breach and a breach opposite a standing wall.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Which therefore is karmelit, ²³⁷ Since no R. Ḥasdai is otherwise known in the Talmudim, the reading of [G} is preferable to that of the (Leiden ms.). ²³⁸ Mishnah 10. ²³⁹ This quote from the Mishnah is inappropriate here; it was deleted by the corrector in the ms. But G shows that it belongs to the original text. ²⁴⁰ Babli 15b/16a. ²⁴¹ Not only is it required that the length of the wall be strictly greater than the opening (a matter of dispute in the Babli 15b) but also, and this is accepted in the Babli, that there can be no straight path from an opening on one side to that on the other side. This implies that if the caravan is camping on a road, the roadway has to be blocked at least on one side.

²⁴⁶ 4:4 (Notes 82–87,כ), it also is found in Sukkah 1:1 (52a l. 74,ס) The baraita is similar to Tosephta Kilaim 4:6 quoted also in Babli Eruvin 16a. The main difference between Yerushalmi and Babli-Tosephta is that in the latter source, each breach has to be smaller than the surrounding wall whereas in the Yerushalmi only the total length of standing wall has to be larger than the total length of the missing parts. The problem of kilaim addressed here is that grain must be separated from vines by at least 4 cubits. If the farmer wants to sow grain close to his vineyard, he has to fence off the vineyard by a wall. The question is, what is called a wall? It turns out that concerning kilaim everything less than three [hand-breadths] is considered closed²⁴⁷. From three to four, if what is standing is more than what is torn down it is permitted, but if what is torn down is more than what is standing, it is forbidden. From four [hand-breadths] to ten [cubits], if what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted; but if what is torn down is more than what is standing it is permitted where it is standing²⁴⁸, forbidden where it is torn down.

footnotes: ²⁴⁶ This paragraph from Kilaim ²⁴⁷ As noted before, an opening of less than three hand-breadths in a wall is disregarded; in computing the total length of the torn-down parts, breaches smaller than three hand-breadths in width are disregarded. ²⁴⁸ The Babli notes that not only are breaches up to three hand-breadths long disregarded as holes, but also standing pieces of wall up to three hand-breadths wide are disregarded as walls. This is the background of the discussion later in this paragraph.

Concerning the Sabbath, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed. From three to four, and from four [hand-breadths] to ten [cubits], it is permitted if what is standing is more than what is torn down, but forbidden if what is torn down is more than what is standing. More than ten, it is forbidden even though what is standing is more than what is torn down. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Judah bar Pazi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no “from three to four.²⁴⁹” There is a hole of three and no place of four! Rebbi Mana objected: Did we not state: “One surrounds with sticks,” does a stick form a place²⁵⁰? He said to him, do not object to me from a breach less than three hand-breadths, since anything less than three is considered closed! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: In any case, since what is standing is more than what is torn down, it is permitted²⁵¹.

footnotes: ²⁴⁹ R. Joḥanan wants to eliminate the middle part of the baraita, the one dealing with breaches of between three and four hand-breadths, in case that the standing walls also are in pieces less than four hand-breadths wide. While a hole wider than three hand-breadths is considered a breach, a wall narrower than four hand-breadths is not a wall. In that case, there are only holes and no wall at all; the entire wall should be considered as non-existent! He requires in this case that any sown field should be at least four cubits distant from the vineyard. ²⁵⁰ Mishnah 1:10. Since the sticks are counted and no stick is even one hand-breadth wide, any piece of wall should be considered a wall. The answer is that as long as no two sticks are three hand-breadths distant from each other, the entire dividing fence is considered a solid wall. ²⁵¹ This explicitly rejects the text of Babli/Tosephta, that no single hole may be wider than both adjacent pieces of standing wall; the wall is valid as long as the combined length of standing wall (of at least 4 hand-breadths length) is larger than the combined length of the breaches.

MISHNAH: One may surround by three ropes, one higher than the other, on condition that the distance between one rope and the next be less than three hand-breadths and the measure and their thickness be more than a hand-breadth so that together it be more than ten hand-breadths²².

footnotes: ²² Instead of making a wall of camel or donkey bags the caravan may delineate its resting place by putting up some poles and stretching ropes from one to the other. This then is considered a wall if the distances from the ground to the first rope and between the ropes each are less than 3 hand-breadths. If such a distance is denoted by 3-ε, the entire open space is 9–3ε. Therefore the ropes have to cover a width of at least l+3ε to insure that the top of the third rope be 10 hand-breadths above ground.

HALAKHAH: “One may surround by three ropes,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said, they said this only about ten or more than ten²⁵² 1:10 requires walls of a least 10 hand-breadths. R. Zeˋira states that in contrast to the rules of the Sabbath where only slightly more than 50% actually must be wall, the rules for a sukkah for which walls are hanging down actually require 10 hand-breadths. The consensus of all commentators is to read here “10” in the masculine even though it is written in the feminine since “10 cubits” would make no sense at all.; therefore no less than ten. But was it stated thus? If one brought a wall of seven hand-breadths and raised it less than three from the ground, is it permitted²⁵³, the baraita refers to a sukkah. It is stated that if the wall almost reaches to the roof but is almost 3 hand-breadths from the ground, it is considered a wall standing on the ground since distances of less than 3 hand-breadths are disregarded. The text is repeated in Chapter 7, Note 44.? There you are saying, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed, and here you should be saying, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed. If you want to object, object to the following: If one brought a wall of slightly more than (four) [seven]²⁵⁴ hand-breadths and raised it less than two hand-breadths from the ground²⁵⁵, this should qualify as a wall since its upper rim is 7 hand-breadths from the ground, and be acceptable for a roof 10 hand-breadths high. R. Zeˋira disqualifies it since the rules were meant only for the ground, not the roof., should it come following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four hand-breadths, on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space⁹⁸.

footnotes: ²⁵² The Mishnah requires a wall for the Sabbath to be at least 10 hand-breadths high; similarly Mishnah Sukkah ²⁵³ Since דוֹפָן always is used for walls of a sukkah ²⁵⁴ The text in (parentheses) was written by the scribe, the one in [brackets] is the corrector’s. The correction is erroneous. ²⁵⁵ If the rules of the Sabbath were applicable to Sukkah ⁹⁸ A general principle in constructing separations for the rules of the Sabbath, cf. Mishnah 1:8.

²⁵⁷ 4:4 (Notes 51–81,כ) and in Sukkah 1:1 (52a l. 50,ס). Cf. Babli 11a. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah ben Ḥaninah²⁵⁸: If one put in four poles at the four corners of a vineyard and connected them with a bast string on top, this saves as a symbolic fence²⁵⁹ and Eruvin the word פֵּיאָה does not mean “corner” as in biblical Hebrew and in Tractate Peah but a wire or string strung as a symbolic fence around a field or a vineyard to separate it from the neighboring one, or around a town to make it a “walled” town for the rules of the Sabbath. The imaginary fence represented by the string “saves” from the prohibition of kilaim.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the rules of separation walls for the Sabbath are the rules for kilaim²⁶⁰. R. Simeon ben Laqish is reported there to accept for himself the statement attributed here to R Joḥanan, that the rules for Sabbath and kilaim are identical, whereas R. Joḥanan rejects this in general. The position of the Babli is that R. Simeon ben Laqish only reports the opinion of R. Judah ben Ḥaninah without accepting it himself, and that R. Joḥanan prohibits the use of a rope for openings wider than 10 cubits, see Note 262. The Yerushalmi accepts R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement as describing his own position.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥah went to Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri at Nagnigar²⁶¹; he showed him a field called bet ḥaverata whose wall had parts torn down more than ten [cubits] wide. He took wood to insert, forked poles⁴⁴ to insert, until he reduced to less than ten. He said, just like that is a dividing wall for the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeˋira said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that on the Sabbath, a symbolic fence does not save more than ten²⁶². Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the Mishnah says so: “One may surround by three ropes one higher than the other.” If you say that the string saves, one rope would be sufficient²⁶³.

footnotes: ²⁵⁷ The following text is both in Kilaim ²⁵⁸ This is the correct name as given in the parallels. ²⁵⁹ In Tractates Kilaim ²⁶⁰ In the Babli 11a/b, the statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the name of R. Judah ben Ḥaninah explicitly excludes the expedient of the bast rope for the Sabbath, but R. Joḥanan excludes it also for kilaim ²⁶¹ A place in lower Galilee of unknown location. ⁴⁴ Greek δίκρανον, τό. ²⁶² The string represents a gate, not a wall. ²⁶³ The caravan clearly wants more space for animals and people than 10 by 10 cubits; if they park some camel loads at the four corners of their camp, they need a surrounding wall, not a surrounding gate. If it is possible to symbolize a wall with one rope, why does one need three?

Rebbi Jonah said: Rebbi Hoshaia asked, what do you say²⁶⁴ about that symbolic fence, on top or at the sides²⁶⁵? If you say on top, so much more on the sides. If you say on the sides, then not on the top. If you say on the top, Rebbi Ḥaggai said it correctly²⁶⁶. If you say from the sides, Rebbi Ḥaggai did not say anything²⁶⁷. What do you want to say²⁶⁸, if on top, it must be on top. Or from the sides, it is on the sides. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Explain it if they were strung on forked poles¹⁴⁴.

footnotes: ²⁶⁴ The translation follows the parallel sources. איתאמר is Babli spelling. ²⁶⁵ If four poles are put up at the four sides of the vineyard, does the string have to go from top to top, to create the impression of a gate, or is it strung at half height between the poles, to give the impression of a wall? ²⁶⁶ Since Mishnah 9 does not require the lowest rope to be within three hand-breadths of the ground, it is clear that even if the rows are strung high one needs three ropes rather than just one. ²⁶⁷ If the rope must be low, the case of פֵּיאָה is different from that of the Mishnah. ²⁶⁸ A technical term, indicating that the desired result can be inferred from both hypotheses. The inference here is that R. Ḥaggai is correct in both cases, since the Mishnah is formulated to apply to both of them. ¹ If the poles have separate hooks so that each side has a complete arrangement of poles and rope, then even R. Zeˋira will admit that the rope forms a valid enclosure for the Sabbath. In this case, by necessity the rope is on top only. In this, the Yerushalmi parallels the final explanation of the Babli 11b, rejecting symbolic walls but accepting symbolic gates. ⁴⁴ Greek δίκρανον, τό.

Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Eudaimon of Haifa, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: In height even one hundred cubits²⁷⁰. Rebbi Judan said, that is, for kilaim, but as regards the Sabbath, a symbolic fence should not be better than a beam. Rebbi Yose said (in the name of Rebbi)²⁷¹, it is the same for kilaim and Sabbath. According to Rebbi [Yose]²⁷², what is the difference between a beam and a symbolic fence? A beam saves in one direction²⁷³; a symbolic fence does not save from one side unless it is used to close all four sides;. This follows what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Hamnuna: A symbolic fence does not save unless it seals all four sides²⁷⁴.

footnotes: ²⁷⁰ If a rope is drawn from the top of one pole to the next, there are no height limitations (except, naturally, that it cannot be lower than 10 hand-breadths.) ²⁷¹ An addition of the text here, missing in the parallels, to be deleted. ²⁷² Necessary addition from the parallels, missing here. ²⁷³ Beam or lath are needed only at the entrance to the alley. ²⁷⁴ The problem is not discussed in the Babli.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, it is forbidden to carry under the four-gated bowers²⁷⁶ in vineyards²⁷⁷ since they form the end of the roof and the end of a roof cannot save as a symbolic fence. Rebbi Phineas said, a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah of four pillars and on them four beams²⁷⁸; he permitted to carry under them because of a symbolic fence. Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Abun²⁷⁹ “R. Bun and the rabbis.” S. Liebermann points out that in Terumot 11:4 (Note 88) for the Leiden text “R. Abun asked (verb in plural)” the Rome ms. reads: “R. Abun and R. Abin asked”. This probably should be read here also. asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, does a symbolic fence save in a sukkah²⁸⁰? He said to them, a symbolic fence saves in a sukkah. Does the end of the roofing save in a sukkah²⁸¹ must have some connection on which the roofing may rest. Can these connections be considered as peah, following R. Jeremiah in the preceding case?? He said to them, the end of the roofing does not save in a sukkah. What is the difference between them? One is made for the purpose, the other one is [not]²⁸¹ must have some connection on which the roofing may rest. Can these connections be considered as peah, following R. Jeremiah in the preceding case? made for the purpose. Rebbi Abbahu said, all these things²⁸³ is a positive commandment but neglecting it is not punishable in court. But desecrating the Sabbath is a capital crime. are for discussion’s sake, but as far as teaching, it is forbidden to teach it. If this is forbidden for the minor commandment of sukkah, so much more for the strict commandment of Sabbath! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Is not the Tanna, according to whom a symbolic fence saves, Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri? He said to him, that is the Tanna²⁸⁴.

footnotes: ²⁷⁶ Greek τετράπυλον, τό, “archway entered from four sides.” Bowers erected at the crossing of two paths, with only the posts and the connecting beams built, and the roof formed by plants climbing on the poles. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal considers these beams as קוֹרָה under which one may not carry in a dead-end street (Note 159). ²⁷⁷ The vineyard in question is not enclosed by a wall, or it is enclosed but too large (larger than 5000 square cubits) to be considered a courtyard for the rules of Sabbath; hence, one may carry under the roof of the bower but not outside. ²⁷⁸ Greek ἐπιστύλιον, τό, “architrave.” ²⁷⁹ In Kilaim ²⁸⁰ The hut one builds to live in on the festival of Tabernacles must have roofing of plant material. The walls may be made of any material. The question is whether a virtual wall is permitted. ²⁸¹ Since the roofing must have some support, the four corner posts of the sukkah ²⁸¹ Since the roofing must have some support, the four corner posts of the sukkah ²⁸³ The rulings of R. Zeˋira. Building a sukkah ²⁸⁴ Hence, in regard to the Sabbath this is the opinion of a minority of one, which cannot be operational practice.

MISHNAH: One surrounds with sticks, on condition that between one stick and the next there be less than three hand-breadths²³. They spoke about a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah²⁴, but the Sages say that the Sages mentioned a caravan only as an example. Any partition which is not woof and warp is no partition, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah; but the Sages say, one of these two²⁵. Of four matters they freed a military camp²⁶: One may bring wood from anywhere²⁷, and they are not liable for washing their hands²⁸, and from demay²⁹, and from making an eruv³⁰ situation one may carry freely once the boundary fence was established without going through an eruv ceremony as explained in Chapter 3..

footnotes: ²³ Instead of using horizontal ropes one may use vertical sticks following the same rules. ²⁴ He accepts the imitation of a fence by either horizontal or vertical components only for a caravan camping in an uninhabitated area; whereas the majority accepts the rules as universally valid. ²⁵ R. Yose ben R. Jehudah disagrees with his father and rejects any fence not showing material in two directions perpendicular to one another. ²⁶ In wartime. ²⁷ They can collect fire wood from anywhere and it is not considered robbery. ²⁸ Before eating profane food (with bread). ²⁹ Provisions delivered to the army by not strictly observant persons may be eaten by strictly observant soldiers without setting heave of the Tithe apart, since it is only a suspicion, not a fact, that tithes were not taken from the provisions; cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. ³⁰ In a camp in a karmelit

HALAKHAH: “One surrounds with sticks, on condition,” etc. One surrounds with sticks for a caravan, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. This implies that an individual needs woof and warp²⁵. So Rebbi Jehudah differentiates between an individual and a caravan; do the rabbis not differentiate between an individual and a caravan²⁸⁵? Let us hear from the following:²⁸⁶ “If a caravan rested on a hill ten [hand-breadths] high, or in a depression ten [hand-breadths] deep²⁸⁷, or in a garden fenced in by a stone wall, one carries in it even if it is a kor²⁸⁸ is a measure of dry volume, of 30 se’ah. What it really should have said is “bet kor”, the area which can be sown with a kor of seed grain. Based on the standard definition of a bet se’ah as 2500 square cubits, a bet kor is 75’000 square cubits. or two kor, (one carries in it up to two bet se’ah)²⁸⁹ seah is the maximal area allowed for carrying on the Sabbath in a corral which is not used for human dwelling. But the camping caravan is temporary home to the travelers, therefore its domain is used for human dwelling., on condition that they do not leave an area of two bet se’ah unoccupied.” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena: even with camel saddles, even with tubs. The word of Rav Huna implies, only by humans. For Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Ḥuna, to one or two one gives two bet se’ah, to three one gives six bet se’ah, from there on by proportion²⁹⁰ travelers can spend the Sabbath in a camp measuring 2n bet se’ah (in fact, it can be 2(*n+*1)-ε since an additional (2-ε) bet se’ah is authorized in the Tosephta.).

footnotes: ²⁵ R. Yose ben R. Jehudah disagrees with his father and rejects any fence not showing material in two directions perpendicular to one another. ²⁸⁵ In Mishnah 10 the majority permits walls of sticks also for individuals; do they never differentiate between rules for individuals and for groups? ²⁸⁶ Tosephta 2:3. ²⁸⁷ Since these places are naturally separated from their surroundings, they do not need to be fenced in to become separate domains for the Sabbath. ²⁸⁸ Kor ²⁸⁹ The clause in parentheses is not in the Tosephta. Since it contradicts the statements preceding and following it should be deleted. One may conjecture that the sentence originally was a marginal gloss by a reader who did not understand the thrust of the argument, which then was copied into the text.Two bet ²⁹⁰ The statement of the Tosephta is qualified (cf. Babli 16b). As noted in the next paragraph, groups of 3 or more people are defined as caravans. A caravan of n

A caravan is no less than three people²⁹¹. The Gentile does not complement a caravan²⁹². Does an underage person complement a caravan²⁹³? ²⁹⁴ se’ah, if on the Sabbath a Gentile came and enlarged that area they could not carry in the enlarged area since it already was forbidden to them at the start of the Sabbath (a matter of controversy in the Babli, 17a). The next case belongs to Chapter 6. People in adjacent courtyards made separate eruvim. If on the Sabbath a Gentile opened a passage between the two domains, they continue using their courtyards since the legal status cannot be changed on the Sabbath even though if the passage had existed before the Sabbath they would not have been able to have separate eruvim. In these situations the Gentile is mentioned not because he is not obligated but because he is able to do work forbidden to Jews on the Sabbath. How is this? If there were two and they established one eruv, and a Gentile came and added; the Sabbath already had started in prohibition. If there were three but they established two eruvim and a Gentile came and opened; the Sabbath already had started in permission. ²⁹⁵ 1:9 Note 202, 2:7 Note 101). The configuration envisaged seems to be that of three triangular domains sharing a common vertex. By the rules of Kilaim, fields sown with different crops but sharing only a vertex do not need any real or symbolic separation. The question is raised whether the same holds true for the rules of the Sabbath. Since the question is not answered, the details of the configuration are not discussed. Rebbi Redifa said that Rebbi Nisa asked, may they have three ox heads so that each of them may enter the two se’ah of another?

footnotes: ²⁹¹ In the language of the Babli 16b three people travelling together automatically form a caravan. ²⁹² Since he is not obligated to keep the Sabbath he cannot be a mitigating influence. ²⁹³ He is not obligated now but his parents are obligated to teach him the laws of the Sabbath. The question is not resolved. ²⁹⁴ This is copied word by word in Chapter 6, discussion of Mishnah 4. The first case refers to the situation here. If two people were in an uninhabited area at the start of the Sabbath and enclosed an area of two bet ²⁹⁵ “Ox head” or “top of the line” means “vertex of a triangle” (Kilaim

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father and disagrees with his father. The argument of his father, about an individual more than two bet se’ah²⁹⁶. And disagrees with his father, about a caravan less than two bet se’ah²⁹⁷. It is asserted here that for smaller domains R. Jehudah authorizes one-directional fences for individuals while it is clear from the Mishnah that his son never admits them. Babli 17a Did we not hear that Rebbi Jehudah said, an individual for more than two bet se’ah needs woof and warp²⁹⁸? Let us hear from the following, that Rebbi Aḥa the Tanna, Rebbi Ḥanin, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Sheshet: Just as they differ here so they are differing about kilaim. And in Kilaim not even if it is a bet rova²⁹⁹ˋ is a quarter qab, a qab being a sixth of a se’ah. If they disagree for kilaim it follows that R. Jehudah must permit one-directional fences for small domains.?

footnotes: ²⁹⁶ In Mishnah 10 they agree that an individual only may fence in an area appropriate for a caravan only by a fence with both vertical and horizontal material. ²⁹⁷ R. Jehudah only says that the one-directional fence is authorized only for a caravan, which gets several bet se’ah ²⁹⁸ In Mishnah 10. ²⁹⁹ The rova

How many form a camp? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, one hundred. Gideon came with the hundred men who were with him to the border of the camp³⁰⁰. 7:19.. Rebbi Abuna asked, if it had said, “the camp of a hundred men who were with him” it would be acceptable³⁰¹. Rebbi Joḥanan said, ten: David’s servants came and spoke to Nabal³⁰². 25:9. It had been stated in v. 5 that they were ten., etc. What means and they rested³⁰². 25:9. It had been stated in v. 5 that they were ten.? Rebbi Justus bar Shune said, they made a camp. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, ten: Until the camp was large like God’s camp³⁰³. 12:22.. How many are “God’s camp”? Ten³⁰⁴. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: 12’000 who are marching off as camp of Israel in a war of choice are permitted to rob moist wood but are forbidden to rob dry wood. Those who march out in a war of obligation are permitted to rob both dry and moist wood³⁰⁵ Shemuel (ed. Buber 23(9)) the quote is “12’000 like the camp of Midyan.” This cannot be correct since the escapees from Gideon’s attack were about 15’000 (Jud. 8:10). Our text is confirmed by R. Ḥananel (ad 17a).. Rebbi Daniel the son of Rav Qatina in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If they were made into bundles it is forbidden. So far if it was not close to a forest; even if it was close to a forest. So far if it was not close to a spring; even if it was close to a spring. ³⁰⁶. It is specified that food delivered to the camp is not liable even in a town but food acquired in town remains liable even if taken out to camp. If they brought it with them to a town, they already are freed from liability. What they took out with them from a town already is liable for demay. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Ḥizqiah said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi: Demay was put in order or not in order³⁰⁷ 2, Note 238..

footnotes: ³⁰⁰ Jud ³⁰¹ Since the camp was the enemy’s the quote does not prove anything. ³⁰² 1S ³⁰² 1S ³⁰³ 1Chr ³⁰⁴ The source of this statement is unknown. Rashba col. 124, who quotes this statement, does not comment on it. ³⁰⁵ Details of the statement in Mishnah 10. The Babli disagrees about the kind of wood, 17a, Tosephta 2:6.The source of the number 12’000 is unknown. In Midrash ³⁰⁶ This refers to the statement in Mishnah 10 that in a camp one is not liable for demay ³⁰⁷ Cf. Šabbat

“And from making an eruv”. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this refers to eruv of courtyards³⁰ situation one may carry freely once the boundary fence was established without going through an eruv ceremony as explained in Chapter 3.. But eruv of ranges is a matter of biblical law³⁰⁸. 16:29 implies that leaving one’s place on the Sabbath, even if one does not carry anything, is prohibited. It is only the definition of “one’s place” which is a matter of rabbinic interpretation.. Are there courtyards in a camp? To disassemble³⁰⁹ tents in a camp, as it was stated: “³¹⁰ an eruv, tents of a caravan need an eruv. While the Medieval authors agree in substance with the majority of the Tosephta mss., the explicit quotes of Meïri and Rashba (loc. cit. Note 309) confirm the Yerushalmi text; only Ritba reads the Tosephta text in the Yerushalmi. Maimonides in Hilkhot Eruvin 1:3 follows the Yerushalmi text but in Hilkhot Melakhim 6:13 he only requires that the camp be enclosed by a fence 10 hand-breadths high without eruv following the Babli. There is no reason to emend the text. Tents in a camp need an eruv, tents of a caravan do not need an eruv. “Jehudah ben Tema says, also they may camp anywhere and at the place where they are killed they are buried, lest you say that they should be treated like war³¹¹ dead.” There are Tannaim who state that it is forbidden to remove them; there are Tannaim who state that it is permitted to remove them. He who said that it is permitted to remove them, if they are together³¹² Semaḥot 14:4: “In times of war there is no permanence to graves”; it is implied that they always may be re-buried in a Jewish cemetary.; he who said that it is forbidden to remove them, if they are dispersed. Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the following³¹³. 7:3.: Anybody who is fearful and anxious should return and sneak away from Mount Gilead. Why did they have to return sneaking? Because of the enemies³¹⁴. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: Just as they are exempt from four matters when they are marching out, so they are exempt from four matters when they are returning.

footnotes: ³⁰ In a camp in a karmelit ³⁰⁸ Babli 17b. It is agreed that Ex ³⁰⁹ It is unclear what this means. Meïri (79b), Rashba (col. 125) and Ritba (28a) read “to permit”. ³¹⁰ Tosephta 2:5–6, partially quoted in Babli 17a. In the Tosephta (ed. Liebermann p. 93) 3 out of 4 sources read: Tents in a camp do not need ³¹¹ Greek πόλεμος, ὁ. This must refer to Gentile fallen soldiers. ³¹² A mass grave. In Masekhet ³¹³ Jud ³¹⁴ Since there always is danger, there is no reason to abrogate the exemption.