עירובין 59 — Soncino English Talmud

¹GEMARA. Is THE EXTENDED LIMIT only observed but not the reduced limit? — Read: Even as far as the extended limit. IF THERE WAS A GREATER DISTANCE FOR ONE AND A LESSER DISTANCE FOR ANOTHER etc. What need again was there for this rule? Is it not practically identical with the previous one? — It is this that was meant: If one surveyor extended the limit and another reduced it, the one whose limit is the greater is to be obeyed. Abaye added: Provided the extended limit does not exceed the lesser one by more than the difference between the diagonal and a side of the town. SINCE THE SAGES DID NOT ENACT THE LAW IN ORDER TO ADD RESTRICTIONS BUT IN ORDER TO RELAX THEM. But was it not taught: The Sages did not enact the law in order to relax restrictions but in order to impose them? — Rabina replied. The meaning is: Not to relax restrictions in connection with Pentateuchal laws but to add restrictions to them; the laws of the Sabbath limits, however, are only Rabbinical. MISHNAH. IF A TOWN THAT BELONGED TO AN INDIVIDUAL WAS CONVERTED INTO ONE BELONGING TO MANY, ONE ‘ERUB MAY BE PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TOWN; BUT IF A TOWN BELONGED TO MANY AND WAS CONVERTED INTO ONE BELONGING TO AN INDIVIDUAL, NO SINGLE ‘ERUB MAY BE PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TOWN UNLESS A SECTION OF IT OF THE SIZE OF THE TOWN OF HADASHAH IN JUDEA, WHICH CONTAINS FIFTY RESIDENTS, IS EXCLUDED; SO R. JUDAH. R. SIMEON RULED: THREE COURTYARDS EACH OF WHICH CONTAINED TWO HOUSES. GEMARA. How is one to imagine A TOWN THAT BELONGED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AND WAS CONVERTED INTO ONE BELONGING TO MANY?- Rab Judah replied: The residential district, for instance, of the Exilarch. Said R. Nahman to him: What is your reason? If it be suggested: Because many people meet at the seat of authority they would remind each other, are not all Israel [it may be objected] assembled together on a Sabbath morning also? — Rather said R. Nahman: The private town, for instance, of Nitzwoi. Our Rabbis taught: If a town belonging to an individual was converted into one belonging to many, and a public domain passed through it, how is an ‘erub to be provided for it? A side post or a cross-bean, is fixed on either side and thereby one is enabled to move things about in the space between them. No erub, however, may be provided for a half of it, but either one erub for all of it or one ‘erub for each alley separately. If a town did, and still does belong to many^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

^ᵃnote:Since the Mishnah ruled: ‘THE EXTENDED LIMIT IS OBSERVED’.
^ᵇnote:Lit., , ‘yes’.
^ᶜnote:Is this likely? If it is permitted to walk the greater distance is it possible that the lesser one should be forbidden?
^ᵈnote:Sc. the lesser limit (cf. nn. on our Mishnah) is extended to that of the greater one.
^ᵉnote:IF ONE EXTENDED THE LIMIT AT ONE POINT MORE THAN AT ANOTHER.
^ᶠnote:Where it exceeded the difference between the measurements by a taut and a sagging rope.
^ᵍnote:In such a case it is possible to assume that one surveyor erroneously measured the perpendicular from the side while the other properly measured diagonally (v. supra 58b); cf. Rashi s.v. tka and cf. Tosaf. s.v. ouenk a.l.
^ʰnote:Of the Baraitha just cited.
^ⁱnote:Which may well be relaxed (cf. supra 36a. Sotah 30b). Hence the statement in our Mishnah.
^ʲnote:I.e., belonging to one individual from which all the inhabitants hold their houses in tenancy. The whole town is, therefore, treated like one huge courtyard.
^ᵏnote:As was the case before it has changed its character. The entire town is treated as one large courtyard, no independent provision being required for its alleys. This, as will be explained infra, applies to a town that has no public domain sixteen cubits in width.
^ˡnote:Though before it changed its character one ‘erub served for the whole town.
^ᵐnote:V. Josh. XV, 37.
^ⁿnote:From the benefits of the general ‘erub, and a separate ‘erub is provided for it. This exclusion serves as a reminder of the former public character of the town and provides the necessary precaution in case the town is re-converted into one belonging to many when separate provision would have to be made for each individual alley.
^ᵒnote:[Daskarta from the Persian "das’ = district, and Aramaic ‘Kartha’ = city; v. Obermeyer p. 146.]
^ᵖnote:For instancing just the Exilarch's town.
^ᵠnote:Harmana, metaph. for the Exilarch's office.
^ʳnote:Of the real character of the town and would not be likely, in consequence, to mistake the difference between a public town and a private one.
^ˢnote:For public worship or study.
^ᵗnote:MS.M., ‘Nishwor’, a certain individual who owned a town; and the same law applies to any town in private ownership that was converted into one belonging to many.
^ᵘnote:A road sixteen cubits wide.
^ᵛnote:Of the public domain.
^ʷnote:This applies only to a town that had no wall round it so that the two ends of the public domain terminated in the open country. Hence It is only in the case of a town that was originally in private ownership that the contrivances mentioned are sufficient. In the case of one that always belonged to the public such contrivances are invalid, all the town's alleys being subject to restrictions similar to those of the public domain.
^ˣnote:Since originally it constituted one domain it cannot now be broken up into two independent domains. The inhabitants of the one half (like the residents in one of the courtyards of an alley who failed to participate in the ‘erub of the other courtyards that cause the entire alley to be forbidden to all) cause the entire town to be forbidden to all.
^ʸnote:The objection will be raised infra as to why (cf. prev. n.) the alleys do not cause one another to be forbidden to all.

²but had only one gate, a single ‘erub suffices for all of it. Who is it that learned that a public domain may thus be provided with an ‘erub? — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: It is R. Judah; for it was taught: ‘A more lenient rule than this did R. Judah lay down: If a man had two houses on the two sides respectively of a public domain he may construct one side-post on 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’. The Master said: ‘No ‘erub, furthermore, may be provided for a half of it’. R. Papa explained: This was said only [in the case where the division was] longitudinal but if it was crosswise an ‘erub may be provided for each half separately. In agreement with whose view has this been laid down? It is contrary to that of R. Akiba, for if it were suggested that it was in agreement with his view [the objection would arise:] Did he not rule: A man who is permitted freedom of movement in his own place causes the restriction of free movement on others in a place that is not his? — It may be said to be in agreement even with the view of R. Akiba, since he maintained his view only there where it was a case of two courtyards one of which was behind the other so that the inner one had no other door, but not here where the inhabitants in the one half could gain egress through one gate while those in the other half could gain egress through the other. Some there are who read: R. Papa explained: It must not be assumed [that only where the division was] longitudinal may no ‘erub be prepared but that where it was crosswise an ‘erub may be prepared. The fact is that even where the division was crosswise no ‘erub may be prepared. In agreement with whose view is this laid down? Is it only in agreement with that of R. Akiba? — It may be said to be in agreement even with the view of the Rabbis, since they maintained their view there only where it is a case of two courtyards one behind the other so that the inner one can well lock its gate and use [its own area only]. but can the public domain here be shifted from its place? The Master said: ‘Either one ‘erub for all of it or one ‘erub for each alley separately’. Now why is no separate ‘erub allowed for either half? Obviously because they would cause one another to be forbidden; but then would not the various alleys also cause one another to be forbidden? — Here we are dealing with a case where a barrier was provided, and this ruling is in harmony with the following one that was laid down by R. Idi b. Abin in the name of R. Hisda: Any of the residents of an alley who had made a barrier to his courtyard entrance can no longer impose any restrictions on the freedom of movement of the other residents of the alley. BUT IF A TOWN BELONGED TO MANY AND WAS CONVERTED etc. R. Zera provided an ‘erub for R. Hiyya's town and left no section out [of its provision]. Said Abaye to him, ‘Why did the Master act in this manner?’ ‘Its elders’, the other replied: ‘told me that R. Hiyya b. Assi used to provide one ‘erub for all the town and I have, therefore, concluded that it must have been a town that once belonged to a single owner and was later converted into one belonging to many’. ‘The same elders’, the first retorted, told me: "It formerly had a rubbish heap on one side"; but now that the rubbish heap has been removed the town must be regarded as possessing two gates in which [the preparation of a single ‘erub only] is forbidden’. ‘I’, the other admitted, ‘was not aware of this’. R. Ammi b. Adda of Harpania enquired of Rabbah, ‘What is the ruling where a town had a ladder on one side and a gate on the other?’ — ‘Thus’, the other replied, said Rab, ‘A ladder has the legal status of a door’. ‘Do not pay heed to him’, exclaimed R. Nahman, ‘thus ruled R. Adda b. Ahabah in the name of Rab: "A ladder has sometimes the status of a door and sometimes that of a wall". It has the status of a wall as has just been laid down; and it has the status of a door where a ladder is put up between two courtyards in which case the residents, if they wish, may provide only one ‘erub, and if they prefer, they may provide two separate ‘erubs’. Could R. Nahman, however, have made such a statement? Did not R. Nahman in fact lay down in the name of Samuel: If the residents of a courtyard and those of a balcony above it forgot^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^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ

^ᶻnote:Being enclosed on all sides.
^ᵃᵃnote:Thus being short of the requirements of a public domain which must be wide open at both its ends.
^ᵃᵇnote:Supra 6af q.v. notes.
^ᵃᶜnote:Sc. if the division was made along the public domain which ran through the entire length of the town, from gate to gate, and divided it into two longitudinal halves. As the public domain is used by the inhabitants on both sides it forms a link between the two halves of the town and combines them into one inseparable unit.
^ᵃᵈnote:Sc. it cut the town into two halves across the middle of the public domain and left for either half of the town a half of the public domain with the gate at its end, so that it was possible for the inhabitants of either half to use their own gate as entrance and exit and to avoid entirely the use of the public domain in the other half of the town.
^ᵃᵉnote:R. Papa's ruling.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘foot’, hence a man's right of passage.
^ᵃᵍnote:Sc. in his own courtyard where a valid ‘erub had been prepared.
^ᵃʰnote:Even though they also prepared the prescribed ‘erub.
^ᵃⁱnote:Cur. edd. insert ‘even’ which is deleted by Rashi and others.
^ᵃʲnote:Infra 75a. Sc. in an outer courtyard in which he did not reside but in which he was entitled to the right of passage by virtue of his residence in an inner courtyard whose one and only door opened out into it. Now, since according to R. Akiba the residents of the inner courtyard, on account of their right of passage through the outer one, impose restrictions on the free movement of its residents, the inhabitants of the two halves of the town under discussion should likewise, according to R. Akiba, impose upon one another the restrictions of free movement, since each of them is also entitled to a right of passage through the public domain that passed through the other half of the town in which he did not reside. As no such restrictions, however, are imposed, must R. Papa's ruling be said to be contrary to R. Akiba's view?
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘within’.
^ᵃˡnote:But the one that opened into the outer courtyard. As no other door was available to them, the residents of the inner courtyard must perforce use the outer courtyard as their only passage to the street and, by this right of entry, must restrict the freedom of movement of its residents.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. supra p. 414, n. 2.
^ᵃⁿnote:By the inhabitants of each half town separately.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. supra p. 414, n. 3.
^ᵃᵖnote:R. Papa's ruling.
^ᵃᵠnote:Cf. prev. nn. Is it likely, however, that R. Papa would lay down a ruling that was contrary to the opinion of the majority of the Rabbis who differed from R. Akiba?
^ᵃʳnote:That where each courtyard had prepared a separate ‘erub the residents of the inner one, despite their right of passage through the outer one, do not restrict the freedom of movement of its residents.
^ᵃˢnote:Lit., , ‘within’.
^ᵃᵗnote:In the interests of the residents of the outer courtyard the inner ones might well be expected to forego their right of passage for that one day.
^ᵃᵘnote:Of course not. As it must remain where it is and there is no gate, fence or any other distinguishing mark to separate the one half of the town from the other, the two halves must be regarded as one unit and, therefore, no separate ‘erubs can be permitted.
^ᵃᵛnote:As was explained supra.
^ᵃʷnote:Since originally when the town belonged to one owner they were allowed free movement between each other.
^ᵃˣnote:Despite the side-posts or cross-beams.
^ᵃʸnote:For the entrance to each alley, the residents thereby indicating that they desired to sever all connection between their previously united alleys.
^ᵃᶻnote:Thus indicating his desire to be dissociated from his neighbours.
^ᵇᵃnote:By failing to join them in their ‘erub.
^ᵇᵇnote:Which belonged to many.
^ᵇᶜnote:Sc. why did he not exclude at least a section OF THE SIZE OF THE TOWN OF HADASHAH?
^ᵇᵈnote:In which case ONE ‘ERUB MAY BE PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TOWN.
^ᵇᵉnote:As the heap blocked up one of the gates all the town, which was thus left with one gate only, could well be provided (as laid down supra) with a single ‘erub.
^ᵇᶠnote:Wanting in MS.M.
^ᵇᵍnote:MS.M. adds: ‘b. Abbuha’.
^ᵇʰnote:Whereby the town wall could be scaled.
^ᵇⁱnote:Is the town to be treated as having two gates?
^ᵇʲnote:So Bah. Cur. edd. omit the last two words.
^ᵇᵏnote:MS.M. omits, ‘in the ... Rab’.
^ᵇˡnote:I.e., it is not regarded as a door.
^ᵇᵐnote:By R. Nahman, where the ladder was used as a means of entrance into, and exit from the town.
^ᵇⁿnote:Four handbreadths wide.
^ᵇᵒnote:Which had no door between them.
^ᵇᵖnote:As in the case of two courtyards between which a door communicated (cf. infra 76a).
^ᵇᵠnote:For both courtyards; and all the residents are, thereby, permitted to use both courtyards by way of the trip of the wall or through any holes or cracks in the wall.
^ᵇʳnote:One for each courtyard, and the residents of the one do not in any way affect the freedom of movement of the other, each courtyard being regarded as a separate domain.
^ᵇˢnote:That a ladder has the status of a wall where such status leads to a relaxation of the law.
^ᵇᵗnote:Marpeseth, a balcony or gallery to which the doors of the dwellings of an upper storey open and which communicates with the courtyard below by means of a ladder.