Eruvin — Daf 59b

ואין לה אלא פתח אחד מערבין את כולה

מאן תנא דמיערבא רה"ר אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע רבי יהודה היא דתניא יתר על כן א"ר יהודה מי שיש לו שני בתים בשני צידי רה"ר עושה לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רה"ר בכך

אמר מר ואין מערבין אותה לחצאין אמר רב פפא לא אמרו אלא לארכה אבל לרחבה מערבין

כמאן דלא כר"ע דאי כר"ע הא אמר רגל המותרת במקומה אוסרת אפי' שלא במקומה

אפי' תימא ר' עקיבא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי עקיבא התם אלא בשתי חצירות זו לפנים מזו דפנימית לית לה פיתחא אחרינא אבל הכא הני נפקי בהאי פיתחא והני נפקי בהאי פיתחא

איכא דאמרי אמר רב פפא לא תימא לארכה הוא דלא מערבין אבל לרחבה מערבין אלא אפילו לרחבה נמי לא מערבין

כמאן כר"ע אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא בשתי חצירות זו לפנים מזו דפנימית אחדא לדשא ומשתמשא אבל הכא מי מצו מסלקי רה"ר מהכא

אמר מר או כולה או מבוי מבוי בפני עצמו מ"ש דלחצאין דלא דאסרי אהדדי מבוי מבוי נמי אסרי אהדדי

הב"ע כגון דעבוד דקה וכי הא דאמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב חסדא אחד מבני מבוי שעשה דקה לפתחו אינו אוסר על בני מבוי:

היתה של רבים והרי היא כו': רבי זירא ערבה למתא דבי רבי חייא ולא שבק לה שיור א"ל אביי מאי טעמא עבד מר הכי

אמר ליה סבי דידה אמרי לי רב חייא בר אסי מערב כולה ואמינא ש"מ עיר של יחיד ונעשית של רבים היא

א"ל לדידי אמרו לי הנהו סבי ההיא אשפה הוה לה מחד גיסא והשתא דאיפניא לה אשפה הוה לה כשני פתחים ואסיר א"ל לאו אדעתאי

בעי מיניה רב אמי בר אדא הרפנאה מרבה סולם מכאן ופתח מכאן מהו א"ל הכי אמר רב סולם תורת פתח עליו

אמר להו רב נחמן לא תציתו ליה הכי אמר רב אדא אמר רב סולם תורת פתח עליו ותורת מחיצה עליו תורת מחיצה עליו כדאמרן תורת פתח עליו בסולם שבין שתי חצירות רצו אחד מערב רצו שנים מערבין

ומי אמר רב נחמן הכי והאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל אנשי חצר ואנשי מרפסת ששכחו

but1 had only one gate,2 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’.3 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] longitudinal4 but if it was crosswise5 an ‘erub may be provided for each half separately. In agreement with whose view has this6 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 man7 who is permitted freedom of movement in his own place8 causes the restriction of free movement on others9 in10 a place that is not his?11 — It6 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 behind12 the other so that the inner one had no other door,13 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] longitudinal14 may no ‘erub be prepared15 but that where it was crosswise16 an ‘erub may be prepared.15 The fact is that even where the division was crosswise no ‘erub may be prepared.15 In agreement with whose view is this17 laid down? Is it only in agreement with that of R. Akiba?18 — It17 may be said to be in agreement even with the view of the Rabbis, since they maintained their view19 there only where it is a case of two courtyards one behind 20 the other so that the inner one can well lock its gate and use [its own area only].21 but can the public domain here be shifted from its place?22 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;23 but then would not the various alleys also24 cause one another to be forbidden?25 — Here we are dealing with a case where a barrier was provided,26 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 entrance27 can no longer28 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 town29 and left no section out [of its provision]. Said Abaye to him, ‘Why did the Master act in this manner?’30 ‘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’.31 ‘The same elders’, the first retorted, told me: "It formerly had a rubbish heap on one side";32 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.33 Ammi b. Adda of Harpania enquired of Rabbah,34 ‘What is the ruling where a town had a ladder35 on one side and a gate on the other?’36 — ‘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. Ahabah37 in the name of Rab:38 "A ladder has sometimes the status of a door and sometimes that of a wall". It has the status of a wall39 as has just been laid down;40 and it has the status of a door where a ladder41 is put up between two courtyards42 in which case the residents, if they wish, may43 provide only one ‘erub,44 and if they prefer, they may provide two separate ‘erubs’.45 Could R. Nahman, however, have made such a statement?46 Did not R. Nahman in fact lay down in the name of Samuel: If the residents of a courtyard and those of a balcony47 above it forgot gate, and divided it into two longitudinal halves. As the public domain is used by the inhabitants on both sides it forms a link between the two halves of the town and combines them into one inseparable unit. the public domain with the gate at its end, so that it was possible for the inhabitants of either half to use their own gate as entrance and exit and to avoid entirely the use of the public domain in the other half of the town. virtue of his residence in an inner courtyard whose one and only door opened out into it. Now, since according to R. Akiba the residents of the inner courtyard, on account of their right of passage through the outer one, impose restrictions on the free movement of its residents, the inhabitants of the two halves of the town under discussion should likewise, according to R. Akiba, impose upon one another the restrictions of free movement, since each of them is also entitled to a right of passage through the public domain that passed through the other half of the town in which he did not reside. As no such restrictions, however, are imposed, must R. Papa's ruling be said to be contrary to R. Akiba's view? courtyard must perforce use the outer courtyard as their only passage to the street and, by this right of entry, must restrict the freedom of movement of its residents. majority of the Rabbis who differed from R. Akiba? through the outer one, do not restrict the freedom of movement of its residents. passage for that one day. the one half of the town from the other, the two halves must be regarded as one unit and, therefore, no separate ‘erubs can be permitted. previously united alleys. (as laid down supra) with a single ‘erub. wall or through any holes or cracks in the wall. each courtyard being regarded as a separate domain. communicates with the courtyard below by means of a ladder.