Parallel
עירובין 59:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
but had only one gate, a single ‘erub suffices for all of it. Who is it that learned that a public domain may thus be provided with an ‘erub? — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: It is R. Judah; for it was taught: ‘A more lenient rule than this did R. Judah lay down: If a man had two houses on the two sides respectively of a public domain he may construct one side-post on 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 Master said: ‘No ‘erub, furthermore, may be provided for a half of it’. R. Papa explained: This was said only [in the case where the division was] longitudinal but if it was crosswise an ‘erub may be provided for each half separately. In agreement with whose view has this been laid down? It is contrary to that of R. Akiba, for if it were suggested that it was in agreement with his view [the objection would arise:] Did he not rule: A man who is permitted freedom of movement in his own place causes the restriction of free movement on others in a place that is not his? — It may be said to be in agreement even with the view of R. Akiba, since he maintained his view only there where it was a case of two courtyards one of which was behind the other so that the inner one had no other door, but not here where the inhabitants in the one half could gain egress through one gate while those in the other half could gain egress through the other. Some there are who read: R. Papa explained: It must not be assumed [that only where the division was] longitudinal may no ‘erub be prepared but that where it was crosswise an ‘erub may be prepared. The fact is that even where the division was crosswise no ‘erub may be prepared. In agreement with whose view is this laid down? Is it only in agreement with that of R. Akiba? — It may be said to be in agreement even with the view of the Rabbis, since they maintained their view there only where it is a case of two courtyards one behind the other so that the inner one can well lock its gate and use [its own area only]. but can the public domain here be shifted from its place? The Master said: ‘Either one ‘erub for all of it or one ‘erub for each alley separately’. Now why is no separate ‘erub allowed for either half? Obviously because they would cause one another to be forbidden; but then would not the various alleys also cause one another to be forbidden? — Here we are dealing with a case where a barrier was provided, and this ruling is in harmony with the following one that was laid down by R. Idi b. Abin in the name of R. Hisda: Any of the residents of an alley who had made a barrier to his courtyard entrance can no longer impose any restrictions on the freedom of movement of the other residents of the alley. BUT IF A TOWN BELONGED TO MANY AND WAS CONVERTED etc. R. Zera provided an ‘erub for R. Hiyya's town and left no section out [of its provision]. Said Abaye to him, ‘Why did the Master act in this manner?’ ‘Its elders’, the other replied: ‘told me that R. Hiyya b. Assi used to provide one ‘erub for all the town and I have, therefore, concluded that it must have been a town that once belonged to a single owner and was later converted into one belonging to many’. ‘The same elders’, the first retorted, told me: "It formerly had a rubbish heap on one side"; but now that the rubbish heap has been removed the town must be regarded as possessing two gates in which [the preparation of a single ‘erub only] is forbidden’. ‘I’, the other admitted, ‘was not aware of this’. R. Ammi b. Adda of Harpania enquired of Rabbah, ‘What is the ruling where a town had a ladder on one side and a gate on the other?’ — ‘Thus’, the other replied, said Rab, ‘A ladder has the legal status of a door’. ‘Do not pay heed to him’, exclaimed R. Nahman, ‘thus ruled R. Adda b. Ahabah in the name of Rab: "A ladder has sometimes the status of a door and sometimes that of a wall". It has the status of a wall as has just been laid down; and it has the status of a door where a ladder is put up between two courtyards in which case the residents, if they wish, may provide only one ‘erub, and if they prefer, they may provide two separate ‘erubs’. Could R. Nahman, however, have made such a statement? Did not R. Nahman in fact lay down in the name of Samuel: If the residents of a courtyard and those of a balcony above it forgot
—