Eruvin 16a

עירובין ט״ז ע״א

Learn Eruvin 16a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Eruvin 16a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

פרוץ כעומד: is a partition valid when the gaps equal the standing parts? The גמרא tests this using a ברייתא about enclosing with animals and objects, and a תוספתא about partitions in כלאים.

Overview

Earlier on the daf, רב פפא holds that פרוץ כעומד (gaps equal to the standing parts) is a valid partition, and רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע holds it is not. The amud opens with the end of a ברייתא about enclosing an area with camels, saddles and cushions. That ברייתא forbids a gap as wide as an item, but the גמרא answers that it means a gap wide enough to move the item in and out, which is slightly bigger. Next the גמרא quotes a תוספתא from כלאים that lists three measures for partitions, depending on how wide the boards are. Its words 'its full width' are again explained for רב פפא as 'room to slide in and out.' The גמרא then reads the תוספתא's 'greater than' wording both ways. One clause seems to support רב פפא and the other seems to support רב הונא, and each side explains away the clause against it as mere matching style (איידי). A further challenge asks why the תוספתא lists boards narrower than three טפחים separately from boards of three. The answer is that the two cases have different reasons for being invalid: a goat leaping through, versus פרוץ כעומד. Finally, the גמרא identifies the 'less than three' rule with רבנן's limit for לבוד, and it begins examining the next clause, a discussion that continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (19)

1. ProofProof from enclosing with cushions, sheaves and stalks
2. RejectionThe gaps must allow items in and out
3. ProofNew proof: three measures for partitions, first measure
4. ProofSecond measure: gaps must not equal the boards
5. ProofThe source continues with wider boards
6. ProofGaps over ten אמות and the doorway-frame fix
7. ChallengeThe first clause refutes רב פפא
8. Resolutionרב פפא explains 'full width' as room to slide in and out
9. ProofAn inference from the wording supports רב פפא
10. ChallengeIs this a refutation of רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע?
11. RejectionThe second clause gives the opposite inference
12. ChallengeEach view has one clause against it
13. ResolutionThe later clause just copies the first clause's style
14. ResolutionThe first clause is no problem for רב הונא either
15. ChallengeWhy does the boards ברייתא teach two separate clauses?
16. ResolutionThe two clauses have different reasons for being invalid
17. QuestionWhose opinion is the 'less than three' rule?
18. ResponseIt follows the Rabbis' view of לבוד
19. ChallengeQuoting the later clause about boards three to four wide