Eruvin

A strip of boarding of the height of ten handbreadths by four cubits may be constructed, and this is placed [in the middle of the entrance] parallel to the length of the alley.1 Or else [one may proceed] in accordance with the advice of Rab Judah, who laid down that where [an entrance to] an alley was fifteen cubits wide a strip of boarding of three cubits [in length] may be constructed at a distance of2 two cubits [from one of the walls of the alley].3 But why?4 [Could not one] put up a strip [of the width] of one cubit and a half [adjoining the wall] and at a distance of5 two cubits [from it, another] strip [of the width] of one cubit and a half?6 May then one infer from this7 that standing [portions of a wall] on the two sides [of a breach in it, though jointly] exceeding [the width of] the breach,8 are not [to be regarded as valid] standing?9 — In fact it may be maintained [that standing portions separated by a breach] are elsewhere [regarded as] a valid wall10 but here [the law] is different, since the space on the one side [of the intermediate strip] and the space on its other side unite11 to destroy its legal existence. Then [why should not one] put up [adjoining one of the walls] a strip one cubit wide, and, at a distance of12 one cubit [from that strip, another] strip one cubit wide, and at a distance of one cubit [from the second strip, a third] strip one cubit wide? May then one infer from this13 [that where] the standing [portions of a wall are] equal [in size] to its breaches14 [the space it enclosed is] forbidden?15 — In fact it may be maintained that elsewhere this is permitted, but here [the law] is different, since the space on the one side [of the third strip]16 and the space on its other side17 unite to destroy18 its legal existence. [Why then could not] a strip of one cubit and a half in width be put up at a distance of one cubit [from one of the walls] and another strip of the width of one cubit and a half at a distance of one cubit [from the first strip]?19 — This could indeed be done,20 but the Rabbis did not put a man to so much trouble. But should not the possibility be taken into consideration that one might neglect the bigger opening21 and enter by the smaller one?22 R. Adda b. Mattenah23 replied: There is a legal presumption that no man would forsake a big opening and enter by a small one. But wherein does this case differ from that of R. Ammi and R. Assi?24 — There one might use [the smaller opening]25 as a short cut26 but here27 it cannot be used as a short cut. Elsewhere28 it was taught:29 The leather seat of a stool and its hole combine to [constitute the minimum of] a handbreadth.30 What [is meant by] ‘the leather seat of a stool’? — Rabbah b. Bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan explained: The leather covering a privy stool. And how much [must the respective areas of the leather and the hole be]? — When R. Dimi came31 he stated: [An area of] two fingers [of leather] on the one side [of the hole] and [an area of] two fingers on the other side, and a hole32 [of the size of] two fingers in the center. When Rabin came31 he stated: [The area of] one finger and a half on one side and of one finger and a half on the other, and a hole [of the size of one] finger in the center. Said Abaye to R. Dimi: Are you33 in dispute? — No, the other replied, one of us referred to34 the thumb35 and the other34 to the small finger, and there is no real difference of opinion between us.36 Indeed, retorted the former, you do differ, and your difference emerges in [the case where] the standing [portions of a wall jointly] exceed its breach on both sides [of which they stand]. According to your view the standing [portions situated] on the two sides [of the breach] do combine; but according to Rabin's view they must be on one side only37 [but if they are] on the two sides [of the breach] they cannot combine.38 For, if it be imagined that you have no difference of opinion [on this point], the statement of Rabin should have run thus: ‘[The area of] a finger and a third on one side [of the hole] and that of a finger and a third on its other side, and a hole of one finger and a third in the center’.39 What then [do you suggest, said R. Dimi,] that we differ? [Should not in that case] my statement have run thus: ‘[The area of] a finger and two thirds on one side [of the hole] and that of a finger and two thirds on the other side, and a hole of the size of two fingers and two thirds in the center’?40 If, however, it must be said41 that we differ, our difference would apply to the case where the breach is equal to [either of] the standing [portions].42 BUT IF IT HAS THE SHAPE OF A DOORWAY THERE IS NO NEED TO REDUCE IT EVEN THOUGH IT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS. Thus we find that the shape of a doorway is effective43 in respect of the width [of an entrance]44 and a cornice in respect of its height.45 narrower entrances, one serving a smaller alley and one serving a larger one. two cubits between the boarding and the first mentioned wall is deemed to be closed and forming together with the boarding a virtual wall five cubits in length, the validity of such a wall being recognized on the ground that the standing portion of this wall (three cubits) is larger than its gap (two cubits). Likewise where the entrance is twenty cubits wide, a similar boarding is also set up near the other wall. of R. Joshua (infra 15b), may it be concluded that Rab Judah is of the same opinion as R. Huna? unite with the entrance on the other side to destroy the existence of that strip. This would be preferable to the first procedure which involves a gap of two cubits. longer used as an entrance (v. previous note) loses its status as a side-post, the alley would remain unprovided for by any valid side-post, and movement of objects in it on the Sabbath would be forbidden. bigger one. than a handbreadth (six fingers) are utensils lying under it defiled by the prescribed minimum of a portion of a corpse lying under the same ohel (cf. Oh. III, 7; Suk. 18a). Rabin, however, required the leather on each side singly to exceed the hole he must obviously differ from R. Dimi. two sides are combined. This law, however, cannot be derived from the actual wording used since all it implies is that only where each of the standing portions on either side is equal to the breach, the two sides may be combined, but not when either of them is smaller than the breach.