Parallel
עירובין 76:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
— This applies only to a circle, but where a square is to be inscribed within it a greater circumference is required. But observe: By how much does the perimeter of a square exceed that of a circle? By a quarter approximately; should not then a circumference of sixteen handbreadths suffice? — This applies only to a circle that is inscribed within the square, but where a square is to be inscribed within a circle it is necessary [for the circumference of the latter] to be much bigger. What is the reason? In order [to allow space for] the projections of the corners. Consider, however, this: Every cubit in [the side of] a square [corresponds to], one and two fifths cubits in its diagonal; [should not then a circumference] of sixteen and four fifths handbreadths suffice? — R. Johanan holds the same view as the judges of Caesarea or, as others say, as that of the Rabbis of Caesarea who maintain [that the area of] a circle that is inscribed within a square Is [less than the latter by] a quarter [while that of] the square that is inscribed within that circle [is less than the outer square by] a half. IF THE SIZE OF THE WINDOW WAS LESS THAN FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR etc. R. Nahman explained: This was learnt only in respect of a window between two courtyards but in the case of a window between two houses, even though It was higher than ten handbreadths from the ground, the residents may, if they wish, prepare one ‘erub jointly. What is the reason? — A house is regarded as filled. Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman: A window, irrespective of whether it was between two courtyards, between two houses, between two upper rooms, between two roofs, or between two rooms, must be of the size of four handbreadths by four within ten handbreadths from the ground? — The interpretation is [that the limitation applies] to the courtyards. But was it not stated: ‘irrespective of whether’? — The interpretation is that this refers to the prescribed four handbreadths by four’. R. Abba enquired of R. Nahman: If an aperture led from a room to an upper room, is a permanent ladder necessary for the purpose of allowing the movement of objects or not? Do we apply the principle, that ‘a house is regarded as filled’ only when the aperture is at the side but not when it is in the middle or is it possible that there is no difference? — The other replied: It is not necessary. He understood him to mean that only a permanent ladder is not necessary but that a temporary one is necessary. It was, however, stated: R. Joseph b. Minyomi citing R. Nahman laid down: Neither a permanent, nor a temporary ladder is necessary. MISHNAH. IF A WAIL BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH AND FOUR HANDBREADTHS THICK, TWO ‘ERUBS MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE. IF THERE WAS FRUIT ON THE TOP OF IT, THE TENANTS ON EITHER SIDE MAY CLIMB UP AND EAT THEM PROVIDED THEY DO NOT CARRY THEM DOWN. IF A BREACH TO THE EXTENT OF TEN CUBITS WAS MADE IN THE WALL, THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ‘ERUBS OR, IF THEY PREFER, ONLY ONE, BECAUSE IT IS LIKE A DOORWAY. IF THE BREACH WAS BIGGER, ONLY ONE ‘ERUB AND NOT TWO MAY BE PREPARED. GEMARA. What is the ruling where it was not FOUR HANDBREADTHS wide? — Rab replied: The air of two domains prevails upon it and no object on it may be moved even as far as a hair's breadth.
—