Eruvin

GEMARA. Is1 THE EXTENDED LIMIT only observed2 but not the reduced limit?3 — Read: Even as far as the extended limit.4 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?5 — 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 limit6 does not exceed the lesser one by more than the difference between the diagonal and a side of the town. 7 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 meaning8 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.9 MISHNAH. IF A TOWN THAT BELONGED TO AN INDIVIDUAL WAS CONVERTED INTO ONE BELONGING TO MANY,10 ONE ‘ERUB MAY BE PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TOWN;11 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 TOWN12 UNLESS A SECTION OF IT OF THE SIZE OF THE TOWN OF HADASHAH13 IN JUDEA, WHICH CONTAINS FIFTY RESIDENTS, IS EXCLUDED;14 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,15 for instance, of the Exilarch. Said R. Nahman to him: What is your reason?16 If it be suggested: Because many people meet at the seat of authority17 they would remind each other,18 are not all Israel [it may be objected] assembled together on a Sabbath morning also?19 — Rather said R. Nahman: The private town, for instance, of Nitzwoi.20 Our Rabbis taught: If a town belonging to an individual was converted into one belonging to many, and a public domain21 passed through it, how is an ‘erub to be provided for it? A side post or a cross-bean, is fixed on either side22 and thereby one is enabled to move things about in the space between them.23 No erub, however, may be provided for a half of it,24 but either one erub for all of it or one ‘erub for each alley separately.25 If a town did, and still does belong to many the other properly measured diagonally (v. supra 58b); cf. Rashi s.v. tka and cf. Tosaf. s.v. ouenk a.l. therefore, treated like one huge courtyard. 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. 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. public town and a private one. ownership that was converted into one belonging to many. 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. 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.