Parallel
עירובין 12
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
at Obelin, and found him dwelling in an alley that had only one side-post. He said to him, ‘My son, put up another side-post’. ‘Is it necessary for me’, the other asked: ‘to close it up?’ — ‘Let it be closed up’, the first replied: ‘what does it matter?’ R. Simeon b. Gamaliel stated: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ on [the ruling that] an alley that was less than four cubits [in width] required no provision at all. They only differed in the case of one that was wider than four, but narrower than ten cubits, in respect of which Beth Shammai ruled: Both a side-post and a beam, [are required) while Beth Hillel ruled: Either a side-post or a beam. At all events it was stated: ‘Is it necessary for me to close it up’ — Now, if you concede that both side-posts and a beam [are required] it is quite intelligible why he said: ‘Is it necessary for me to close it up’; but if you contend that side-posts without a beam [are sufficient], what [can be the meaning of] ‘to close it up’? — It is this that he meant: Is it necessary for me to close it up with side-posts?’ The Master said: ‘R. Simeon b. Gamaliel stated: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ on [the ruling that] an alley that was less than four cubits [in width] required no provision at all’. Did we not learn, however, ‘A DISCIPLE IN THE NAME OF R. ISHMAEL STATED IN THE PRESENCE OF R. AKIBA: BETH SHAMMAI AND BETH HILLEL DID NOT DIFFER ON [THE RULING THAT] AN ALLEY THAT WAS LESS THAN FOUR CUBITS [IN WIDTH] MAY BE CONVERTED INTO A PRIVATE DOMAIN EITHER BY MEANS OF A SIDE-POST OR BY THAT OF A BEAM’? — R. Ashi replied: It is this that he meant: It required neither a side-post and a beam as Beth Shammai ruled nor two side-posts as R. Eliezer ruled, but either a side-post or a beam in agreement with the ruling of Beth Hillel. And how much, [is the minimum]? — R. Ahli, or it might be said R. Yehiel, replied: No less than four handbreadths. R. Shesheth, in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba, who had it from Rab stated: The Sages agree with R. Eliezer in the case of the side-posts of a courtyard. R. Nahman, however, stated: The halachah is in agreement with the ruling of R. Eliezer in respect of the side-posts of a courtyard. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Who [are they that] ‘agree’ [with R. Eliezer]? Rabbi. [But since R. Nahman said,] ‘The halachah is’, it follows that some differ; who is it that differs from his view? — The Rabbis. For it was taught: A courtyard may be converted into a permitted domain by means of one post, but Rabbi ruled: Only by two posts. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: A courtyard requires two side-posts. Said R. Zera to R. Assi: Did R. Johanan give such a ruling? Did not you yourself state in the name of R. Johanan that the side-posts of a courtyard must have [a width of] four handbreadths? And should you suggest [that the meaning is] four [handbreadths] on one side and four on the other, surely [it may be retorted], did not R. Adda b. Abimi recite in the presence of R. Hanina or, as some say, in the presence of R. Hanina b. Papi: [The ruling applies to a case where] the small courtyard was ten, and the large one eleven cubits? — When R. Zera returned from his sea travels, he explained this [contradiction]: [A side-post] on one side [of an opening must have a width] of four handbreadths, [but side-posts] on the two sides [of an opening] need be no wider than a fraction each; and that which R. Adda b. Abimi recited is [the view of] Rabbi who holds the same view as R. Jose. R. Joseph laid down in the name of Rab Judah who had it from Samuel that a courtyard may be converted into a permitted domain by means of one side-post. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Did Samuel lay down such a ruling? Did he not in fact say to R. Hananiah b. Shila, ‘Do not you permit the use [of a courtyard] unless [there remained] either the greater part of the wall or two strips of it’! — The other replied: I know only of the following incident that occurred at Dura di-ra'awatha where a wedge of the sea penetrated into a courtyard and [when the question] was submitted to Rab Judah, he required the gap [to be provided with] one strip of board only. ‘You’, [Abaye] said to him, ‘speak of a wedge of the sea; but in the case of water, the Sages have relaxed the law. As [you may infer from the question] which R. Tabla asked of Rab: Does a suspended partition convert a ruin into a permitted domain? And the other replied: A suspended partition can effect permissibility of use in the case of water only, because it is only in respect of water that the Sages have relaxed the law’. Does not the difficulty at any rate remain? — When R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua returned from the academy they explained it: [A side-post] on one side [of a gap] must be four [handbreadths wide but where there is one] on either side, any width whatever is enough. R. Papa said: If I had to point out a difficulty it would be this. For Samuel said to R. Hananiah b. Shila, ‘Do not you permit the use [of a courtyard] unless [there remained] either the greater part of the wall or two strips of it’. Now what was the need for ‘the greater part of the wall’? Is not a strip of four handbreadths [in width] enough? And should you reply that ‘the greater part of the wall’ referred to a wall of seven [handbreadths in width] where four handbreadths constitute the greater part of the wall, [the objection might be raised,] why should it be necessary to have four handbreadths, when three and a fraction are enough, since R. Ahli, or it might be said R. Yehiel, ruled [that no provision was necessary where a gap is] less than four [handbreadths in width]? — If you wish I might reply: One ruling deals with a courtyard and the other with an alley. And if you prefer I might reply: [The ruling] of R. Ahli himself [is a point in dispute between] Tannas. Our Rabbis taught: From a wedge of the sea that ran into a courtyard no water may be drawn on the Sabbath unless it was provided with a partition that was ten handbreadths high. This applies only where the breach was wider than ten cubits but [if it was only] ten [cubits wide] no provision whatever is necessary. ‘No water may be drawn’ [you say] but the movement of objects is inferentially permitted; [but why?] Has not the courtyard a gap that opens it out in full on to a forbidden domain?
—
— Here we are dealing [with a fallen wall] stumps of which remained. Rab Judah ruled: In the case of an alley [the residents of which] did not join together [in the provision of an ‘erub], the man who throws anything into it incurs guilt if its ritual fitness was effected by means of a side-post, but if its fitness was effected by means of a cross-beam, no guilt is incurred by the man who throws anything into it. R. Shesheth demurred against this: The reason then is that [the residents of the alley] did not join together [in the provision of an ‘erub], but had they joined together [for the purpose], guilt would have been incurred even if its ritual fitness had been effected by a cross-beam only. Is it then this loaf that determines [whether it shall be] a private, or a public domain? Was it not in fact taught: In the case of common courtyards and blind alleys, whether the residents have joined together in the provision of an ‘erub or whether they have not joined, guilt is incurred by anyone who throws anything into them [on the Sabbath from a public domain]? If the statement, however, was at all made, it must have been as follows: Rab Judah ruled: As to an alley that is unfit for a joint ‘erub, guilt is incurred by the man who throws anything into it if its ritual fitness was effected by means of a side-post , but if its fitness was effected by a cross-beam no guilt is incurred by one who throws anything into it. Thus it is obvious that he is of the opinion that a side-post serves the purpose of a partition and a cross-beam that of a mere distinguishing mark. And so did Rabbah say: A side-post serves the purpose of a partition and a cross-beam that of a mere distinguishing mark. Raba, however, ruled: The one as well as the other only serves the purpose of a distinguishing mark. R. Jacob b. Abba raised an objection against Raba: [Was it not taught:] A man who throws into an alley incurs guilt if it was provided with a side-post but is exempt if it had no side-post? — It is this that was meant: If it required only a side-post then the man who throws anything into it incurs guilt, but if it required a side-post and something else, the man who throws anything into it is exempt. He raised against him a further objection: [Was it not taught:] A more [lenient rule] than this did R. Judah lay down, [viz.] if a man had two houses on the two sides [respectively] of a public domain he may construct one side-post on the one side [of any of the houses] and another on the other side, or one cross-beam on the one side [of any of the houses] and another on its other side, and then he may move things about in the space between them; but they said to him: A public domain cannot be provided with an ‘erub in such a manner. [The explanation] there is that R. Judah maintains that Pentateuchally, two partitions [constitute a private domain]. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: An alley whose length is equal to its width cannot be turned into a permitted domain by a mere fraction of a side-post. R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: An alley whose length equals its width cannot be turned into a permitted domain by a cross-beam, [of the width of one] handbreadth. R. Zera remarked: How exact are the traditions of the elders: Since an alley's length is equal to its width, it has [the status of] a courtyard which cannot be converted into a permitted domain by means of a side-post or a cross-beam but only by means of a strip [of material of the width of] four handbreadths. If, however, R. Zera continued, I have any difficulty, it is this: Why should not that side-post be regarded as a fraction of a strip and thus convert [the alley] into a permitted domain? — He overlooked the following ruling, which R. Assi had laid down in the name of R. Johanan, that the strips of a courtyard must consist of a width of four [handbreadths]. R. Nahman stated: ‘We have a tradition that if [the movement of objects in] an alley is to be permitted [on the Sabbath] by means of a side-post and a cross-beam, its length must exceed its width and houses and courtyards must open out into it; and what kind of courtyard is it that cannot be converted into a permitted domain by means of a side-post and cross-beam but only by means of a strip of the width of four handbreadths? One that is square shaped’. Only ‘one that is square shaped’ but not one that is round? — It is this that he meant: If its length exceeds its width, it is regarded as an alley, in which case a side-post and a cross-beam is sufficient, otherwise it is regarded as a courtyard. And [by] how much [must its length exceed its width]? — Samuel intended to rule: By no less than twice its width; but Rab said to him: Thus ruled my uncle ‘Even by one fraction’. A DISCIPLE, IN THE NAME OF R. ISHMAEL, STATED ETC.
—