לְהַרְחִיק כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם. 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.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא אָמְרוּ בֵּית סָאתַיִם אֶלָּא לְגִנָּה וּלְקַרְפֵּף, אֲבָל אִם הָיָה דִּיר אוֹ סַהַר אוֹ מוּקְצֶה אוֹ חָצֵר — אֲפִילּוּ בֵּית חֲמֵשֶׁת כּוֹרִין, אֲפִילּוּ בֵּית עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹרִין מוּתָּר. וּמוּתָּר לְהַרְחִיק כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּרְבֶּה בְּפַסִּין. 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.
גְּמָ׳ לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כַּחֲנַנְיָא, דְּתַנְיָא: עוֹשִׂין פַּסִּין לְבוֹר וַחֲבָלִין לִשְׁיָירָא. וַחֲנַנְיָא אוֹמֵר: חֲבָלִין לְבוֹר, אֲבָל לֹא פַּסִּין. 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.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא חֲנַנְיָא בּוֹר לְחוּד בְּאֵר לְחוּד. 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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״חֲנַנְיָא אוֹמֵר: עוֹשִׂין חֲבָלִין לְבוֹר וּפַסִּין לִבְאֵר״, מִכְּלָל דְּלַחֲנַנְיָא לָא שְׁנָא בּוֹר וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּאֵר — חֲבָלִין אִין, פַּסִּין לָא. לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כַּחֲנַנְיָא? 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.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא חֲנַנְיָא, לְמַאי דְּקָאָמַר תַּנָּא קַמָּא — קָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ. 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.
לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דִּתְנַן: אֶחָד בְּאֵר הָרַבִּים וּבוֹר הָרַבִּים וּבְאֵר הַיָּחִיד עוֹשִׂין לָהֶן פַּסִּין. אֲבָל בּוֹר הַיָּחִיד — עוֹשִׂין לוֹ מְחִיצָה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. 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.
וְאִילּוּ הָכָא קָתָנֵי: לְבֵירָאוֹת. לְבֵירָאוֹת — אִין, לְבוֹרוֹת לָא. 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.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בְּאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים דִּפְסִיקָא לֵיהּ, לָא שְׁנָא דְּרַבִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא דְּיָחִיד — קָתָנֵי. בּוֹר מְכוּנָּסִין דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ — לָא קָתָנֵי. 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.
לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין עוֹשִׂין פַּסִּין אֶלָּא לִבְאֵר הָרַבִּים בִּלְבַד, וְאִילּוּ הָכָא קָתָנֵי לְבֵירָאוֹת — לָא שְׁנָא דְּרַבִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא דְּיָחִיד! 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.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא, מַאי בֵּירָאוֹת — בֵּירָאוֹת דְּעָלְמָא. 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.
מַאי דְּיוֹמְדִין? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: דְּיוֹ עַמּוּדִין. 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.
דְּיוֹ לִמְנוּדֶּה שֶׁבַח זוֹנִית נִתְקַלְקֵל בְּמִידָּה שְׁלֹשָׁה סִימָן. 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.
תְּנַן הָתָם, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל הַשִּׁיתִין פְּטוּרִין, חוּץ מִן הַדְּיוֹפְרָא. מַאי דְּיוֹפְרָא? אָמַר עוּלָּא: אִילָן הָעוֹשֶׂה דְּיוֹ פֵּירוֹת בַּשָּׁנָה. 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: דְּיוֹ פַּרְצוּף פָּנִים הָיָה לוֹ לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״. כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע וְגוֹ׳״, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר פַּרְצוּף, וְחַד אָמַר זָנָב. 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף — הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי״? 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”?
כִּדְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אָחוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית, וָקֶדֶם לְפוּרְעָנוּת. 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא אָחוֹר לְמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית — דְּלָא אִיבְּרִי עַד מַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא, אֶלָּא וָקֶדֶם לְפוּרְעָנוּת מַאי הִיא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם קְלָלָה — הָא בַּתְּחִילָּה נִתְקַלֵּל נָחָשׁ, וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְקַלְּלָה חַוָּה, וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְקַלֵּל אָדָם! 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?
אֶלָּא לַמַּבּוּל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּמַח אֶת כׇּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה מֵאָדָם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה וְגוֹ׳״. 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּיצֶר״ תְּרֵין יוֹדִין. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״וַיִּיצֶר״? 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?
כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: אוֹי לִי מִיִּצְרִי, אוֹי לִי מִיּוֹצְרִי. 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״? 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”?
לְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ. דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם״, וּכְתִיב: ״(כִּי) בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אוֹתוֹ״. בַּתְּחִלָּה עָלְתָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה לִבְראוֹת שְׁנַיִם, וּלְבַסּוֹף לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא אֶחָד. 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּסְגּוֹר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב — מַאי ״וַיִּסְגּוֹר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה״? 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”?
אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְקוֹם חֲתָךְ. 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זָנָב, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּבֶן״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פַּרְצוּף — מַאי ״וַיִּבֶן״? 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?
לְכִדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא. דְּדָרֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁקִּילְּעָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁכֵּן בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם קוֹרִין לְקַלָּעִיתָא בַּנָּיְיתָא. 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.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים״, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבְּנָאָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה כְּבִנְיָין 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