עירובין 5 — Soncino English Talmud

¹while he who said ‘four handbreadths’, is of the opinion that it is forbidden to make use [of the floor space] under the beam? — No; all may agree that it is permissible to make use [of floor space] under the cross-beam, but here they differ on the following principles: One Master holds the opinion that a cross-beam [is required] on account [of the necessity for] a distinguishing mark; while the other Master holds that a cross-beam [is required] on account [of the necessity for] a partition. If you prefer I might reply that all agree that a cross-beam [is required] on account [of the necessity for] a distinguishing mark; but here they differ on [the question whether] the distinguishing mark below [must be of the same dimensions as] the one above. One Master is of the opinion that we say that a distinguishing mark below [is provided by the same width] as the one above, and the other Master holds that we do not say that a distinguishing mark below [is provided by the same dimensions] as the one above. And if you prefer I might reply that all agree that a distinguishing mark below [is provided by the same width] as the one above, but their point of difference here is [the question whether a wider space was ordered] as a preventive measure against the possibility of its being trodden down. [If an entrance to an alley] was less than ten handbreadths [in height] and it was desired to dig up the ground so as to bring up the altitude to ten [handbreadths] how much must one excavate? — [You ask] , ‘How much must one excavate’? As much [of course] as one requires! — Rather [this is the question:] To what extent in width [must one excavate]? — R. Joseph replied: To four [handbreadths]. Abaye replied: To four cubits. Might it be suggested that they differ on the principle laid down by R. Ammi and R. Assi? For it was stated: If a breach was made in a side-wall of an alley close to its entrance, it was ruled in the name of R. Ammi and R. Assi, if a strip of [the width of] four [handbreadths] was there it is permissible [to regard the alley as ritually fit], provided the breach is not wider than ten [cubits]. If, however, [there was] no [such strip there] it is permissible [to regard the alley as ritually fit, if the breach was] less than three [handbreadths wide], [but if it was] three [handbreadths wide] this is not permissible. [Might it then be suggested that] R. Joseph adopts the principle of R. Ammi and that Abaye does not hold the principle of R. Ammi? Abaye can answer you: There [it is a question of] destroying the ritual fitness of an alley, but here [it is a case of] creating one. [Consequently] if the excavation extends [to a width of] four cubits [the entrance becomes] ritually fit, but if not, it is not [fit]. Said Abaye: Whence do I derive my ruling? From what was taught: ‘[The movement of objects in] an alley cannot be permitted [on the Sabbath] by means of a sidepost and a crossbeam unless houses and courtyards open out into it’. Now if [a strip of the width] of four [handbreadths were to constitute a proper alley wall) how could this be possible? And should you reply that the doors might open in the middle wall, the fact is [it could be retorted] that 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 crossbeam, its length must be more than its width and houses and courtyards must open out into it. And R. Joseph? — Each door might open in a corner. Abaye further stated: Whence do I derive my ruling? From what Rami b. Hama said in the name of R. Huna: If a projection from [the end of a side] wall of an alley is less than four cubits [in width] it may be regarded as a side-post and no other post is required to effect the ritual fitness of the alley, [but if it is] four cubits [wide] it is deemed to be [a part of the structure of the] alley, and another post is required to effect its ritual fitness. And R. Joseph? — To deprive [a projection] of its status as a post there must be [a width of] four cubits but as regards constituting [a wall in] an alley, even [a width] of four handbreadths is also [enough] to constitute an alley. [Reverting to] the above text, ‘Rami b. Hama said in the name of R. Huna: If a projection from [the end of a side] wall of an alley^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ

^ᵃnote:Abaye.
^ᵇnote:The inner edge of the beam forming the boundary line of the alley, while all the space under the beam itself is regarded as outside the alley. Since no one would consequently use that space no one would notice the beam which, from the level of the general floor of the alley, would be higher than twenty cubits. The raised ground must, therefore, be extended into the alley to form a substantial area; and the minimum of such an area is four handbreadths.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘for all the world hold the opinion’.
^ᵈnote:Cf. Supra n. 7 first clause.
^ᵉnote:Abaye and R. Joseph.
^ᶠnote:That people might distinguish between the alley and the public domain into which it opens out, and would thus remember that what is permitted in the former is not permitted in the latter. A level of the width of one handbreadth which the residents must pass on their way from and into the alley is, therefore, quite sufficient for the purpose.
^ᵍnote:Between the alley and the public domain. No partition is valid unless it is made for a floor space of no less than four handbreadths (v. infra 86b and cf. supra n. 9 final clause).
^ʰnote:Sc. the raised ground under the cross-beam.
^ⁱnote:So that a raised level of only one handbreadth in width suffices.
^ʲnote:Abaye.
^ᵏnote:Below a mark of wider width is required, viz., of four handbreadths.
^ˡnote:Only one handbreadth.
^ᵐnote:Abaye's and R. Joseph's.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘he or it will diminish’, sc. the raised ground, if it were to be allowed to consist of the minimum width of one handbreadth only, might in the course of time be worn down to less than a handbreadth. R. Joseph holds that this possibility was not provided against while Abaye holds that it was. Hence, according to Abaye, the necessity for a width of more than a handbreadth. And since a width above the minimum was required, it was fixed at four handbreadths. (cf. supra p. 23, n. 9 final clause).
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘and he engraved in it’.
^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘to complete it’.
^ᵠnote:To raise the altitude to ten handbreadths.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘its drawing (from the entrance into the interior) by how much’.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘in’, ‘by’.
^ᵗnote:R. Joseph and Abaye.
^ᵘnote:Lit., ‘from its side’.
^ᵛnote:Lit., ‘toward its head or top’.
^ʷnote:Of wood, especially put up for the purpose, or a remnant of the original wall.
^ˣnote:At the original termination of the wall, adjoining the cross-beam.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘it (sc. the strip) permits’.
^ᶻnote:In respect of the movement of objects on the Sabbath. The breach is treated as an additional entrance to the alley and does not, therefore, affect its ritual fitness, while the validity of the main entrance is retained owing to the strip of wood or building structure which, complying with the prescribed size, serves the purpose of the original wall and, together with the wall opposite and the cross-beam above them, constitutes a valid alley to which the main entrance serves as doorway.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit., ‘in the breach until’.
^ᵃᵇnote:A gap wider than ten cubits cannot be regarded as a doorway and destroys, therefore, the Sabbatic ritual validity of the alley.
^ᵃᶜnote:Sc. if it was either wanting altogether or of less than four handbreadths in width.
^ᵃᵈnote:Such a narrow breach may be regarded as non-existent (v. Glos. s.v. labud) and the wall is deemed to be virtually intact.
^ᵃᵉnote:And people are consequently likely to use the gap as a short cut thus neglecting the use of the main entrance.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘it does not permit’, since (v. previous note) the ritual validity of the main entrance has thereby been destroyed.
^ᵃᵍnote:Who ruled supra, in the case of an excavation at the foot of an entrance, that a width of four handbreadths is sufficient.
^ᵃʰnote:Who regards a strip of four handbreadths in width to be sufficient to constitute a wall as a support for a cross-beam. MS.M. adds: ‘and R. Assi’.
^ᵃⁱnote:Who required for the excavation a width of four cubits.
^ᵃʲnote:MS.M. adds: ‘and of R. Assi’. This is also the reading of Rashi.
^ᵃᵏnote:The case dealt with by R. Ammi and R. Assi.
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘end’. Before the breach occurred the alley was in a condition that was ritually fit.
^ᵃᵐnote:Hence it is sufficient for a width of four handbreadths to retain its ritual fitness.
^ᵃⁿnote:In the matter of the excavation.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., , ‘the beginning of an alley’. Owing to the low altitude of the entrance, the alley was never before ritually fit.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit.,’there is’.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., ‘yes’.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘I say it’.
^ᵃˢnote:Shab. 130b, infra 73b.
^ᵃᵗnote:‘, lit., ‘cheek’, ‘jaw’.
^ᵃᵘnote:Cf. Mishnah infra 11b.
^ᵃᵛnote:Sc. the houses open out into the courtyards and the latter into the alley (Rashi).
^ᵃʷnote:That ‘courtyards’ should open out into it’?
^ᵃˣnote:The prescribed minimum width of a door being four handbreadths, the doorway of one courtyard alone would cover the full width of the alley wall.
^ᵃʸnote:Lit., ‘that he opens it’.
^ᵃᶻnote:The back wall of the alley which is enclosed by the two side walls. While the latter might be as narrow as four handbreadths the former might be long enough to admit of more than one courtyard door.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lit., ‘which is an alley that is’.
^ᵇᵇnote:Sc. the length of the side walls.
^ᵇᶜnote:Lit., ‘all of which its length is’.
^ᵇᵈnote:The length of the middle, or back wall.
^ᵇᵉnote:Infra 12b (cf. Shab. 131a). If courtyards (i.e., a minimum of two) were to open out from the middle wall, its width would be (cf. supra note 8) no less than eight handbreadths exclusive of the doorposts; and it would thus be twice as big as either of the side walls.
^ᵇᶠnote:How, in view of Abaye's quotation and inference, could he maintain that four handbreadths are sufficient for the width of an alley wall?
^ᵇᵍnote:Lit., ‘that he opens it’.
^ᵇʰnote:Though the back wall is less than four handbreadths in length it is possible, where the side walls are four handbreadths in length, to open a door that is four handbreadths wide in each corner where the two side walls respectively meet the back wall.
^ᵇⁱnote:So MS.M. reading rntu.
^ᵇʲnote:Var. lec., Abba (Asheri).
^ᵇᵏnote:Into the alley.
^ᵇˡnote:Lit., ‘to permit it’.
^ᵇᵐnote:Cf. supra p. 26, n. 16.
^ᵇⁿnote:Lit., ‘until there is’.

²is less than four cubits [in width] it may be regarded as a side-post and no other post is required to effect the ritual fitness of the alley, [but if it is] four cubits [wide] it is deemed to be [a part of the structure of the] alley, and another post is required to effect its ritual fitness’. Where, however, does one put up that ‘[other] post’? If it be attached to the projection, would not one be merely adding to it? — R. Papa replied: One puts it upon the other side. R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: It may even be maintained that it is attached to the projection but it is made bigger or smaller. R. Huna son of R. Joshua stated: This has been said only in respect of [an entrance to] an alley [that was no less than] eight [cubits in width], but where [the entrance to] an alley is seven [cubits wide], Sabbatic ritual fitness is effected because the portion built-up is longer than the breach. [This ruling is inferred] a minori ad majus from [the law relating to] a courtyard: If a courtyard [the movement of objects in which on the Sabbath] cannot be rendered permissible by means of a side-post and a cross-beam is nevertheless deemed fit [for such movements] where its built-up portions are larger than its broken [parts], how much more then should an alley, where [such movements] may be rendered permissible by means of a side-post and a crossbeam, be deemed fit when the built-up portion [across its entrance] is larger than its open [part]. But is not a courtyard, however, different [from an alley] since a gap of ten cubits [was also allowed in it]? Then how can one apply [the same ruling] to an alley where only a gap of four cubits [was allowed]? — R. Huna son of R. Joshua holds the opinion that in an alley also a gap of ten cubits is allowed. But whose view has been under discussion? [Obviously that] of R. Huna; and R. Huna, surely, is of the opinion, [is he not,] that only a gap of four cubits [is allowed in an alley]? R. Huna son of R. Joshua only stated his own view. R. Ashi said: It may be maintained that even [where the entrance to] an alley was eight [cubits wide] no side-post is required, since, whatever your assumption [might be, the ritual fitness of the alley cannot be affected]. For if the built portion is bigger [the movement of objects in the alley would] be permitted by [reason of the fact that] the built portion [across the entrance] is larger than the opening; and if the open section is bigger [the projection] might be regarded as a side-post. What [other possible objection can] you submit? That both might be exactly alike? [But such an assumption] would amount to an uncertainty in respect of a Rabbinical enactment, and in any uncertainty appertaining to a Rabbinical enactment the more lenient course is followed. R. Hanin b. Raba stated in the name of Rab: As to a breach that was made in an alley^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ^ᶜˣ^ᶜʸ^ᶜᶻ^ᵈᵃ^ᵈᵇ^ᵈᶜ

^ᵇᵒnote:Even if originally it was put there for some other purpose.
^ᵇᵖnote:Unless that projection was especially constructed to serve as a side-post to the entrance.
^ᵇᵠnote:v. supra 5a for notes.
^ᵇʳnote:Lit., ‘put up with it’.
^ᵇˢnote:Thus merely extending the projection further along the width of the alley and giving it a much greater resemblance to a proper wall.
^ᵇᵗnote:The side wall opposite.
^ᵇᵘnote:The side-post.
^ᵇᵛnote:Longer or wider than the front of the projection, so that its nature cannot be mistaken and no one could regard it as an extension of the projection.
^ᵇʷnote:Shorter or narrower (cf. previous note).
^ᵇˣnote:The ruling of Rami b. Hama in the name of R. Huna, supra 5a ad fin.
^ᵇʸnote:In which case a projection of the width of four cubits would cover no more than half of its width.
^ᵇᶻnote:So that a projection of the size mentioned (v. previous note) would cover its greater part.
^ᶜᵃnote:Lit., ‘is permitted’.
^ᶜᵇnote:Though the projection cannot be regarded as a side-post.
^ᶜᶜnote:Lit., ‘(which) stands’.
^ᶜᵈnote:Sc. a square enclosure into which houses open out (v. Tosaf. s.v. , and cf. Rashi).
^ᶜᵉnote:Where its wall that faced a public domain collapsed completely.
^ᶜᶠnote:Though these means are effective in the case of an alley.
^ᶜᵍnote:Even though the gaps are many and distributed among all its walls, the court remains ritually fit if the total length of the unbroken parts exceeds that of the gaps.
^ᶜʰnote:If placed at the entrance that faced a public domain (cf. supra n. 8).
^ᶜⁱnote:In the absence of a side-post and cross-beam.
^ᶜʲnote:Lit., ‘what of the courtyard’.
^ᶜᵏnote:Sc. some of the laws relating to the former are much less restrictive than those of the latter.
^ᶜˡnote:Lit., ‘its breach by ten’.
^ᶜᵐnote:Of course it is; the freedom of movement in the courtyard is not affected by such a gap.
^ᶜⁿnote:Lit., ‘wilt thou say’.
^ᶜᵒnote:Lit., ‘whose breach by four’.
^ᶜᵖnote:As in the case of an alley, the law was restricted in respect of the size of a gap so it might also have been restricted as regards permissibility of movement where the built portion is larger than the gap. How then (cf. supra note 14) could a law relating to an alley be inferred from one relating to a courtyard?
^ᶜᵠnote:Lit., ‘according to whom do we say’, sc. to whose ruling was the argument, a minori ad majus, applied?
^ᶜʳnote:A disciple of Rab and teacher of R. Huna son of R. Joshua who (supra 5a) quoted his master.
^ᶜˢnote:Infra. How then could this view be reconciled with the inference of R. Huna son of R. Joshua?
^ᶜᵗnote:Sc. while accepting R. Huna's ruling in the case of an entrance that was no less than eight cubits in width he disagreed with it on the strength of the argument he advanced in the case of one of the width of seven.
^ᶜᵘnote:Where there was a projection of four cubits in width from one of the side walls across a part of the entrance.
^ᶜᵛnote:I.e., if the measurement of the projection was on a generous scale so that the so-called ‘four cubits’ really represented a higher figure, and the remaining space was in fact less than four cubits in width.
^ᶜʷnote:Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis.
^ᶜˣnote:Since it is in reality less than four cubits.
^ᶜʸnote:And the movement of objects would again be permitted.
^ᶜᶻnote:The width of the projection and that of the opening.
^ᵈᵃnote:So that (a) the projection is four cubits wide and, therefore, unsuitable as a side-post and (b) the built section is not larger than the gap which is also four cubits wide.
^ᵈᵇnote:The prohibition to move objects in an alley on the Sabbath day is not Pentateuchal but Rabbinical.
^ᵈᶜnote:Consequently, ‘no side-post is required’.