Eruvin

and pulled them out1 and R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua followed him and picked them up.2 On the following day, however, Rabina raised an objection against Raba: [The Sabbath limits of] a new town are measured from its inhabited quarter3 and of all old one from its town wall. What is meant by a ‘new [town]’ and what by an ‘old one’? A new [town is one] that was first surrounded [by a wall] and subsequently settled, and an old [town is one that was first] settled and subsequently surrounded [by a wall]. Now is not this [orchard] also4 like [a town that was first] surrounded [by a wall] and subsequently settled?5 R. Papa also said to Raba: Did not R. Assi rule that the screens used by master builders6 are not valid7 ones, from which it is obvious that as it is put up for the sake of privacy only, it is no valid partition? Now in this case8 also, since [the hall] was put up for the sake of privacy only,9 [its walls] cannot be regarded as valid partitions.10 R. Huna son of R. Joshua also said to Raba: Did not R. Huna rule that a partition that was intended to [protect objects] put [beside it] is no valid one?11 For, as a matter of fact, Rabbah b. Abbuha provided a separate ‘erub for each row of alleys throughout all Mahuza,12 on account of the cattle ditches13 [that separated one row from another]. Now [have not the screens protecting] the cattle ditches the same status as a partition intended to [protect objects] put [beside it]?14 The exilarch, thereupon, applied to them the Scriptural text: They are wise to do evil,15 but to do good they have no knowledge.16 R. ILA'I STATED: I HEARD FROM R. ELIEZER, EVEN IF IT IS AS LARGE AS A BETH KOR. Our Mishnah cannot be in agreement with the view of Hanania, for it was taught: Hanania ruled: Even if it was [as large as] forty beth se'ah [as big] as a royal rearcourt.17 And both,18 said R. Johanan, based their expositions on the same Scriptural text, for it is said: And it came to pass, before Isaiah was gone out of the inner court;19 [since] it was written ‘the city’20 and we read ‘court’21 it may be inferred22 that royal rearcourts were [as big] as moderately sized cities. On what principle do they18 differ? One Master is of the opinion that [the extent of] moderately sized cities is one beth kor, while the other Master holds that [their size] is that of forty se'ah. What, however, did Isaiah want there?23 — Rabbah b. Bar Hana replied in the name of R. Johanan: This24 teaches that Hezekiah was stricken with illness and Isaiah proceeded to hold a college at his door.25 From this [it may be inferred] that when a scholar falls ill a college is to be held at his door. This, however, is not [always the proper] course,26 since Satan might thereby be provoked. I LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE ‘ERUB, HIS HOUSE IS FORBIDDEN. Did we not, however, learn: His house is forbidden both to him and to them for the taking in or for the taking out of any object?27 — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied in the name of R. Shesheth: This is no difficulty; the entire area on account of the banqueting hall it contained, as a courtyard that was put up for dwelling purposes. should, therefore, be forbidden. An objection against Raba (v. supra n. 2). other were provided at the extremities of the alleys for the protection of the cattle ditches. the case of the hall in the orchard, since it was put up for the purpose of protecting objects deposited within it and not as a dwelling, the movement of objects in the orchard enclosure around it should consequently be forbidden. Again an objection against Raba (v. Supra p. 178, n. 2). The interpretation of the passage here adopted follows the lines of ohbutdv ,cua, (v. Rashi s.v. grvk 26a). Cf. Rashi's interpretation and Tosaf. s.v. tuvv 25b. the banqueting hall on that day.