Eruvin

If it be suggested: Because the Ladder of Tyre1 surrounds it on one side and the declivity of Geder2 on the other side,3 Babylon too [it could be retorted] is surrounded by the Euphrates on one side and the Tigris on the other side; the whole world, in fact, is surrounded by the ocean.4 Perhaps you mean the ascents and descents [of Palestine].5 ‘Genius’,6 the other replied: ‘I saw your chief7 between the pillars8 when R. Johanan discoursed on this traditional ruling’. So it was also stated: When Rabin came9 he stated in the name of R. Johanan (others say: R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Johanan): No guilt is incurred for [the carrying of objects in] a public domain [in the case of] the ascents and descents of the Land of Israel, because they are not [as accessible] as [the domain on which] the standards10 in the wilderness [marched].11 Rehaba enquired of Raba: In the case of a mound that rises to a height of12 ten handbreadths on a base of13 four cubits, across which many people make their way, does one incur the guilt of [carrying in] a public domain or is no guilt incurred? This question does not arise according to the view of the Rabbis,14 for15 if there,16 where the use [of the road] is quite easy, the Rabbis ruled that the public do not impair the validity of the enclosure, how much more is that the case here17 where the use [of the road] is not easy. The question arises only according to R. Judah. Does he18 [maintain his view only] there16 because the use [of the road] is easy, but here, where its use is not easy, the public [he maintains] do not impair the validity of the [legal] partition,19 or is there perhaps no difference? — The other replied: Guilt is incurred. ‘Even’ [the first asked,] ‘if people ascend by means of a rope?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied. [‘Is this the ruling’, the first asked,] ‘even in respect of the ascents of Beth Maron?’20 — ‘Yes’, the other replied. He raised an objection against him: A courtyard into which many people enter21 from one side and go out21 from the other [is regarded as] a public domain in respect of levitical defilement and as a private domain in respect of the Sabbath.22 Now whose [view is here expressed]? If it be suggested: [That of the] Rabbis; it might be objected:23 If there,24 where the use [of the road] is easy, the Rabbis25 ruled that the public cannot come and impair the validity of the partition, how much more is that the case here26 where its use is not easy.27 Consequently28 it [must be, must it not, the view of] R. Judah?29 — No; it may in fact [represent the view of] the Rabbis, but30 the statement was required [on account of the ruling], ‘And a public domain in respect of levitical defilement’. 31 Come and hear: Alleys that open out in cisterns, ditches or caves [have the status of] a private domain in respect of Sabbath and that of a Public one in respect of levitical defilement.32 Now can you imagine [a reading] ‘in cisterns’?33 [The reading must] consequently be, ‘towards34 cisterns’35 [and about such alleys it was ruled that they have the status of] ‘a private domain in respect of Sabbath and that of a public one in respect of levitical defilement’. Now, whose [view is here expressed]? If it be suggested: That of the Rabbis; it could be objected:36 If there,37 where the use [of the road] is easy, they ruled that the public cannot come and annul its validity, how much more should this be the case here where its use is not easy. Consequently [it must be, must it not, the view of] R. Judah?38 — No; it may in fact [be the view of] the Rabbis,39 but40 the statement was required [on account of the ruling,] ‘And a public domain in respect of levitical defilement’.41 Come and hear: The paths of Beth Gilgul42 and such as are similar to them [have the status of] a private domain in respect of the Sabbath and that of a public domain in respect of levitical defilement. And what [paths may be described as] the ‘paths of Beth Gilgul’? At the school of R. Jannai it was laid down: Any [path along] which a slave carrying a se'ah of wheat is unable to run before an officer.43 Now, whose view [is this]? If it be suggested [that it is that of] the Rabbis, it might be objected: If there, where the use [of the road] is easy, the Rabbis ruled that the public cannot come and impair the validity of the partition, how much more would that be the case here where the use [of the paths] is not easy. Consequently [it must be, must it not, the view of] R. Judah?38 — The other replied: You speak of the paths of Beth Gilgul [which have a status of their own, for] Joshua, being a friend of Israel, undertook the task of providing44 for them roads and highways,45 and those46 that were easy of access47 he assigned for public use and those that were not easily accessible he assigned for private use.48 MISHNAH. STRIPS [OF WOOD] MAY BE PROVIDED FOR A PUBLIC CISTERN,49 A PUBLIC WELL49 AS WELL AS A PRIVATE WELL, BUT FOR A PRIVATE CISTERN50 A PARTITION TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH MUST BE PROVIDED; SO R. AKIBA. R. JUDAH B. BABA RULED: STRIPS [OF WOOD] MAY BE SET UP ROUND A PUBLIC WELL ONLY51 WHILE FOR THE OTHERS52 A [ROPE] BELT TEN HANDBREADTHS IN HEIGHT MUST BE PROVIDED. s.v. rusd II and rsd n. 1. valid walls. not easily accessible and are consequently unsuitable as public thoroughfares. What need then was there to state what was so obvious? easy. An objection against Raba. beth (c) to lamed (k). of the cistern. the former. The paths of Beth Gilgul were steep and narrow and difficult to traverse and consequently were avoided by the general public. Cf. Horowitz, op. cit. s.v. kdkd III. other ascents and descents in the Land of Israel. This, therefore, provides no proof for difficult roads in other countries which did not come under Joshua's enactments. use the enclosure as a private domain though it had lost the status on account of the disappearance of the water. In the case of a well no provision was necessary against the remote possibility of its drying up, while in the case of a public cistern the people would remind one another of the absence of the water should it ever all be used up. status.