Talmud - Eruvin 18a עירובין י״ח א׳

to distance the boards from the well and expand the enclosed area by any amount, i.e., as much as one wishes, provided that he increases the number of upright boards between the double posts. Rabbi Yehuda says: The partitioned area may be expanded up to an area of two beit se’a, which is an area of five thousand square cubits.

The Rabbis said to him: They only spoke of an area of two beit se’a with regard to a garden or an enclosure used for storing wood, scrap, and the like [karpef]. But if it was a pen [dir], or a stable [sahar], or a backyard, or a courtyard in front of the house, even if it had an area of five beit kor or even ten beit kor, it is permitted. And it is permitted to distance the boards and expand the enclosed area by any amount, provided that one increases the upright boards between the double posts.

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, as it was taught in a baraita: One may arrange upright boards around a water cistern and ropes around a caravan. Ḥananya disagrees and says: One may set up ropes for a cistern, but not upright boards.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, a cistern of collected rain water has a discrete law, as the water will eventually be consumed and the upright boards will become unnecessary; and a well of spring water has a discrete law, as the water is constantly renewed and the upright boards will remain useful.

Some say a different version of the previous passage: From the fact that the baraita does not teach: Ḥananya says: One may set up ropes around a water cistern and boards around a well, by inference, according to the opinion of Ḥananya, there is no difference between a cistern and a well. In both cases, ropes are indeed permitted, whereas upright boards are not. Let us say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya.

The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, he was only replying to that which the first tanna had said; since the first tanna had spoken only of a cistern, there was no need for Ḥananya to fully clarify his own position and distinguish between a cistern and a well.

The Gemara further suggests: Let us say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we learned in a mishna: In each of the cases of a public well, a public cistern, and a private well, one may arrange upright boards for them, but in the case of a private cistern, one must establish a proper partition for it ten handbreadths high; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

Whereas here in the mishna it teaches: One may arrange upright boards for a well, from which one may infer that for a well, yes, it is permitted to use posts, but for a cistern, no, it is not permitted. This is opposed to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, which maintains that posts may be arranged for a public cistern.

The Gemara rejects this argument as well: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the tanna of the mishna teaches the case of a well of spring water, which he can teach in a distinct manner because there is no difference whether it belongs to the public and there is no difference whether it belongs to an individual, as it is always permitted. However, he did not teach the case of a cistern containing collected rain water, which he could not teach in a distinct manner because there is a difference between a public cistern and a private one. However, it cannot be proven from here that he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva.

The Gemara further suggests: Let us say the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says: One may only arrange upright boards for a public well, whereas here the mishna states: For wells. The plural term implies that there is no difference if the well belongs to the public, and there is no difference if the well belongs to an individual.

The Gemara also rejects this line of reasoning: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, to what is the mishna referring when it says wells? It is referring to wells in general, but the tanna means to include only public wells.

The mishna had mentioned double posts [deyomadin]: The Gemara asks: What are deyomadin? Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: Two [deyo] posts [amudin], which are put together to create a single corner piece.

Having cited Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar’s statement with reference to the prefix deyo, the Gemara cites other statements of his. Two, to one who was ostracized, praise, nourishment, ruin, attribute, three, are mnemonics for the following statements by Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar.

We learned there in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: All inferior figs are exempt from being tithed, even if they are of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], as even if the seller is an am ha’aretz, he must certainly have already separated tithes from them, since the loss incurred by tithing is negligible, except for deyufra. The Gemara asks: What is deyufra? Ulla said: A tree that yields two [deyo] harvests of fruit [peirot] each year.

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Adam was first created with two [deyo] faces, one male and the other female. As it is stated: “You have formed me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me” (Psalms 139:5). Similarly, it is written: “And the tzela, which the Lord, God, had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22). Rav and Shmuel disagree over the meaning of the word tzela: One said: It means a female face, from which God created Eve; and one said: Adam was created with a tail [zanav], which God removed from him and from which He created Eve.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that tzela means face; it is understandable that it is written: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before.” However, according to the one who says that tzela means tail, what is meant by the verse: “You have formed me [tzartani] behind and before”?

The Gemara answers that this verse is to be understood as bearing a moral message, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: Behind means Adam was created at the end of the act of creation; and before means that he was first for punishment.

The Gemara asks: Granted, it is understandable that Adam was behind, or last, in the act of creation, meaning that he was not created until the sixth day, Shabbat eve. However, before, or first, for punishment, what does this mean? If you say that he was punished first because of the curse pronounced in the wake of the sin involving the Tree of Knowledge, there is a difficulty. Wasn’t the snake was cursed first, and afterward Eve was cursed, and only at the end was Adam cursed?

Rather, this refers to the punishment of the Flood, as it is written: “And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man and cattle, creeping things and fowl of the heaven” (Genesis 7:23). This indicates that the punishment began with man.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was originally a face or side of Adam; it is understandable that it is written: “Then the Lord God formed [vayyitzer] man” (Genesis 2:7). Vayyitzer is written with a double yod, one for Adam and one for Eve. However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is conveyed by spelling vayyitzer with a double yod?

The Gemara responds: This is interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, as Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: This comes to emphasize that which one says to himself in every circumstance: Woe unto me from my evil inclination [yetzer] if I perform the will of my Maker, and woe to me from my Maker [Yotzri] if I perform the will of my inclination.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, it is understandable that it is written: “Male and female, He created them, and blessed them, and called their name Man in the day when they were created” (Genesis 5:2), which indicates that from the very beginning of their creation, He fashioned two faces, one for the male and the other for the female. However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is the meaning of the verse: “Male and female, He created them”?

The Gemara answers: It can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raised a contradiction between the verses: On the one hand it is written: “Male and female, He created them,” in the plural, and on the other hand it is written: “So God created man in His own image, for in the image of God He created him” (Genesis 1:27), in the singular. At first, the thought entered God’s mind to create two, and ultimately, only one was actually created.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was a face, it is understandable that it is written: “And He took one of his sides and closed up the flesh in its place” (Genesis 2:21). However, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail, what is meant by the verse: “And He closed up the flesh in its place”?

Rav Zevid said, and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: It was necessary to say that the fleshed closed up only with regard to the place of the incision.

The Gemara challenges the other opinion: Granted, according to the one who said that Eve was created from a tail; it is understandable that it is written: “And the Lord God built the tzela” (Genesis 2:22), as it was a completely new building. However, according to the one who said that Eve was a complete face or side, what is the meaning of: “And He built”? What needed to be built?

The Gemara responds: This must be interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interpreted homiletically the verse: “And the Lord God built the tzela.” This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided for Eve her hair, and then brought her to Adam, as in the coastal towns, they call braiding hair building.

Alternatively, the verse: “And the Lord God built,” can be understood as a description of Eve’s basic shape, as Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it is taught in a baraita: This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, built Eve like the structure

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Eruvin 18a examines expanding partitioned enclosures around wells with upright boards versus ropes, weighing Rabbi Yehuda's size limits against Hananya's dissenting view.