Eruvin

— Here we are dealing [with a fallen wall] stumps of which remained.1 Rab Judah ruled: In the case of an alley [the residents of which] did not join together [in the provision of an ‘erub],2 the man who throws anything into it3 incurs guilt if its ritual fitness was effected by means of a side-post,4 but if its fitness was effected by means of a cross-beam, no guilt is incurred by the man who throws anything into it.5 R. Shesheth demurred against this: The reason then6 is that [the residents of the alley] did not join together [in the provision of an ‘erub],7 but had they joined together [for the purpose], guilt would have been incurred even if its ritual fitness had been effected by a cross-beam only.8 Is it then this loaf9 that determines10 [whether it shall be] a private, or a public domain? Was it not in fact taught: In the case of common courtyards11 and blind alleys,12 whether the residents have joined together in the provision of an ‘erub or whether they have not joined, guilt is incurred by anyone who throws anything into them [on the Sabbath from a public domain]?13 If the statement, however, was at all made, it must have been as follows: Rab Judah ruled: As to an alley that is unfit for a joint ‘erub,14 guilt is incurred by the man who throws anything into it if its ritual fitness was effected by means of a side-post , but if its fitness was effected by a cross-beam no guilt is incurred by one who throws anything into it. Thus it is obvious that he is of the opinion that a side-post serves the purpose of a partition15 and a cross-beam that of a mere distinguishing mark. And so did Rabbah say: A side-post serves the purpose of a partition and a cross-beam that of a mere distinguishing mark. Raba, however, ruled: The one as well as the other16 only serves the purpose of a distinguishing mark. R. Jacob b. Abba raised an objection against Raba: [Was it not taught:] A man who throws17 into an alley incurs guilt if it was provided with a side-post but is exempt if it had no side-post?18 — It is this that was meant: If it required only a side-post19 then the man who throws anything into it incurs guilt,20 but if it required a side-post and something else,21 the man who throws anything into it is exempt.22 He raised against him23 a further objection: [Was it not taught:]24 A more [lenient rule] than this did R. Judah lay down, [viz.] if a man had two houses on the two sides [respectively] of a public domain he may construct one side-post on the 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.25 [The explanation]26 there is that R. Judah maintains that Pentateuchally, two partitions27 [constitute a private domain].28 Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: An alley whose length is equal to its width cannot be turned into a permitted domain29 by a mere fraction of a side-post.30 R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rab: An alley whose length equals its width cannot be turned into a permitted domain by a cross-beam, [of the width of one] handbreadth.31 R. Zera32 remarked: How exact33 are the traditions of the elders: Since an alley's length is equal to its width, it has [the status of] a courtyard which cannot be converted into a permitted domain34 by means of a side-post or a cross-beam but only by means of a strip [of material of the width of] four handbreadths. If, however, R. Zera continued, I have any difficulty, it is this:35 Why should not that side-post36 be regarded as a fraction of a strip and thus convert [the alley] into a permitted domain? — He overlooked the following ruling, which R. Assi had laid down in the name of R. Johanan, that the strips of a courtyard must consist of a width of four [handbreadths]. R. Nahman stated: ‘We have a tradition that if [the movement of objects in] an alley is to be permitted [on the Sabbath] by means of a side-post and a cross-beam, its length must exceed its width and houses and courtyards must open out into it;37 and what kind of courtyard is it that cannot be converted into a permitted domain by means of a side-post and cross-beam but only by means of a strip of the width of four handbreadths? One that is square shaped’. Only38 ‘one that is square shaped’ but not one that is round?39 — It is this that he40 meant: If its length exceeds its width, it is regarded as an alley, in which case a side-post and a cross-beam is sufficient, otherwise41 it is regarded as a courtyard.42 And [by] how much [must its length exceed its width]?43 — Samuel intended to rule: By no less than44 twice its width;45 but Rab said to him: Thus ruled my uncle46 ‘Even by one fraction’. A DISCIPLE, IN THE NAME OF R. ISHMAEL, STATED ETC. partition, movement within the courtyard is permitted (v. Rashi). The interpretation not being free from difficulties, other interpretations have been suggested (cf. Tosaf. s.v. tfv, a.l.). private domain. unless, in accordance with the Pentateuchal law, it had four sides, or a valid partition at the entrance in addition to its three walls. was provided with a cross-beam only. one in guilt. domain while the courtyard, though also a private domain, is the common property of all the residents, it is forbidden to carry objects on the Sabbath from any of the houses into the courtyard as a preventive measure instituted by the Rabbis against the possible assumption that it is also permitted to carry from a private domain into a public domain. In the courtyard itself, however, the movement of objects is permitted. (Cf. Shab. 130b). guilt. How then could Raba maintain that it was merely a distinguishing mark? private domain. shape of a doorway at the other. ground that a public domain cannot be so provided, it follows that in the case of an alley, even though it was open at both ends, a side-post is admissible as a valid partition. How then could Raba maintain supra that a side-post can only be regarded as a distinguishing mark, contrary to the unanimous opinion of R. Judah and the Rabbis? of a side-post in the case of a public domain. Neither R. Judah nor the Rabbis, however, regard a side-post as a partition, in agreement with the view of Raba. valid strip. exclude a round shaped structure but one whose length exceeded its width. of a side-post.