Parallel
עירובין 76:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
The one [outer house] thereby becomes a gate-house to the one [courtyard] and the other [outer house] becomes a gate-house to the other [courtyard] while the middle house, being the house in which the ‘erub is deposited, need not contribute any bread to the ‘erub. Rehaba tested the Rabbis: If there were two courtyards and between them two houses and a tenant of the one [courtyard] came through the one [house] and deposited his ‘erub in the other while a tenant of the other [courtyard] came through the latter [house] and deposited his ‘erub in the former, do they thereby acquire the privileges of ‘erub or not? Do we regard each house in relation to the one [courtyard] as a house and in relation to the other [courtyard] as a gate-house? — Both, they replied, do not acquire the privileges of ‘erub. For, whatever you assume, [this must be the result]. If you regard either house as a gate-house, ‘an ‘erub deposited in a gate-house, exedra or balcony is not a valid ‘erub’; and if you regard either as a proper house, the tenants would be carrying objects into a house which was not covered by their ‘erub. But why should this ruling be different from that of Raba, who laid down: If two persons said to a third party, ‘Go and prepare an ‘erub on our behalf’ and, after he had prepared an ‘erub for the one while it was yet day and for the other at twilight, the ‘erub of the man for whom it was prepared while it was yet day was eaten up at twilight while the ‘erub of the man for whom it was prepared at twilight was eaten up after dusk, both acquire the privileges of ‘erub? — What a comparison! There it is doubtful whether twilight is day-time or night-time, a point that cannot be definitely determined; but, in this case, if a house is to be regarded as a proper house in relation to the former it must be so regarded in relation to the latter also, and if it is regarded in relation to the latter as a gate-house it must also be so regarded in relation to the former. MISHNAH. IF BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS THERE WAS A WINDOW OF FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR, WITHIN TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND, THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ‘ERUBS OR, IF THEY PREFER, THEY MAY PREPARE ONE. IF [THE SIZE OF THE WINDOW WAS] LESS THAN FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR OR HIGHER THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND, TWO ‘ERUBS MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE. GEMARA. Must it be assumed that we have here learnt an anonymous Mishnah in a agreement with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who ruled that wherever a gap is less than four handbreadths it is regarded as labud? — It may be said to agree even with the Rabbis; for the Rabbis differed from R. Simeon b. Gamaliel only in regard to the laws of labud. As regards an opening, however, even they may agree that only if its size is four handbreadths by four is it regarded as a valid opening but otherwise it cannot be so regarded. LESS THAN FOUR etc. Is not this obvious? For, since it was said that the window must be FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR, WITHIN TEN HANDBREADTHS, would I not naturally understand that if it was less than four and higher than ten It is not valid opening? — It is this that we were informed: The reason is because all of it was higher than ten handbreadths from the ground, but if a part of it was within ten handbreadths from the ground, THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ‘ERUBS OR, IF THEY PREFER, THEY MAY PREPARE ONE. Thus we have learnt in a Mishnah what the Rabbis taught elsewhere: ‘If [almost] all the window was higher than ten handbreadths from the ground but a part of it was within ten handbreadths from it, or if [almost] all of it was within ten handbreadths and a part of it was higher than ten handbreadths, the tenants may prepare two ‘erubs or, if they prefer, they may prepare one’. Now then, where ‘[almost] all the window was higher than ten handbreadths from the ground but a part of it was within ten handbreadths’ you ruled that ‘the tenants may prepare two ‘erubs or, if they prefer, they may prepare one was it also necessary to mention the case where ‘[almost] all of it was within ten handbreadths and a part of it was higher than ten handbreadths’? — This is a case of anticlimax: This, and there is no need to say that. R. Johanan ruled: A round window must have a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths, two and a fraction of which must be within ten handbreadths from the ground, so that, when it is squared, a fraction remains within the ten handbreadths from the ground. Consider: Any object that has a circumference of three handbreadths is approximately one handbreadth in diameter: should not then twelve handbreadths suffice?45
—