עירובין 6 — Soncino English Talmud

¹[if it was made] in a side [wall, a gap] of ten cubits is permissible, [but if it was] in the front [wall, only a gap] of four cubits is allowed. Wherein, however, does a side wall differ [from the front wall] that [in the case of the former] a gap of ten cubits is allowed? [Presumably] because one can say [that the gap] is an entrance, [but then] could not one say also [when it is made] in the front wall that it is an entrance? R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: [The ruling applies to a case,] for instance, where the breach was made in a corner, since people do not make an entrance in a corner. R. Huna, however, ruled: The one as well as the other [is subject to the limit] of four cubits. And so, in fact, did R. Huna say to R. Hanan b. Raba: ‘Do not dispute with me, for Rab once happened to visit Damharia and actually gave a decision in accordance with my view’. ‘Rab’, the other replied, ‘found an open field and put a fence round it’. R. Nahman b. Isaac remarked: Reason is on the side of R. Huna. For it was stated: ‘A crooked alley, Rab ruled, is subject to the same law as one that is open on both sides, but Samuel ruled: ‘It is subject to the law of a closed one’. Now with what case are we dealing here? If it be suggested: with [one where the passage through the bend is] wider than ten cubits, would Samuel in such circumstances [it may be retorted] rule that ‘it is subject to the law of a closed one’? Consequently [it must be conceded that the width of the communication passage is] within [the limit of] ten cubits, and yet Rab ruled that it ‘is subject to the same laws as one that is open on both sides’ — From which it definitely follows that [the permissibility of] a breach in a side [wall] of an alley is limited to four cubits. And R. Hamn b. Raba? — There it is different, since many people make their way through it. [This] then implies that R. Huna is of the opinion that even if not many people make their way through it [a breach of no more than four cubits is allowed], but why should this be different from the ruling of R. Ammi and R. Assi? — There [it is a case] where ridges [of the broken wall] remained, but here, [it is one] where there were no ridges. Our Rabbis taught: How is a road through a public domain to be provided with an ‘erub? The shape of a doorway is made at one end, and a side-post and cross-beam, [are fixed] at the other. Hanania, however, stated: Beth Shammai ruled: A door is made at the one end as well as at the other and it must be locked as soon as one goes out or enters, and Beth Hillel ruled: A door is made at one end and a side-post and a cross-beam at the other. May an ‘erub, however, be lawfully provided for a public domain? Was it not in fact taught, ‘A more [lenient rule] than this did R. Judah lay down:^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

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘from its side by ten’; if the gap is not wider, the Sabbatic ritual fitness of the alley is not affected.
^ᵇnote:Sc. the wall that was built across a portion of the entrance to reduce its original width to the permitted maximum of ten cubits.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘from its top by four’. Cf. supra n. 1.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘that he said’.
^ᵉnote:That no larger gap than one of four cubits was allowed.
^ᶠnote:In whatever wall the breach was made.
^ᵍnote:Read Hanin b. Raba; cf. infra p. 31, n. 6.
^ʰnote:In the neighbourhood of Sura; Obermeyer, p. 298.
^ⁱnote:Metaph. The people of Damharia were ignorant and careless in the observance of the Sabbath laws, and, in order to keep them away from further transgression, additional restrictions were imposed upon them. Elsewhere, however, even a breach of ten cubits might be allowed.
^ʲnote:V. supra nn. 5 and 6.
^ᵏnote:One in the shape of an "L" each arm of which opens out into a public domain.
^ˡnote:Sc. as if both sides of each arm opened out into a public domain. Consequently, the side of each arm that actually opens out into the public domain must be furnished with side-posts or cross-beam while the opposite side terminating in the angle where the two arms meet must be furnished with a sort of framework that would give the passage of communication the shape of a doorway. (V. Rashi and cf. Tosaf. s.v. cr).
^ᵐnote:The bend or angle of contact between the arms being regarded as the termination and closure of each and the side-posts or cross-beam at the two main entrances from the public domain are sufficient to effect the Sabbatic ritual fitness of the alley.
^ⁿnote:Obviously not. Such a wide passage of communication could not possibly be treated as a closing wall.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘but, not?’
^ᵖnote:Since Rab regards an opening that is narrower than ten cubits as a breach that impairs the Sabbatic ritual fitness of an alley, though that opening is not in a front wall adjoining a public domain.
^ᵠnote:In agreement with the view of R. Huna.
^ʳnote:So Bomb. ed. and supra 5b ad fin. Cur. edd. ‘Hanan’.
^ˢnote:Var. lec. ‘Abba’ (MS.M. and Asheri). How, it is asked, could he, in view of R. Nahman b. Isaac's submission, maintain that in a side wall, a breach of ten cubits is permitted?
^ᵗnote:A communication passage between the two arms of a crooked alley.
^ᵘnote:From a breach in a side wall.
^ᵛnote:Hence the limit to a width of four cubits. Through a breach in a side wall, however, not many people pass and the limit of permissibility is, therefore, extended to ten cubits.
^ʷnote:The reply just given on behalf of R. Hanin b. Raba. Since it was laid down that he limits the width of the communication passage in a crooked alley to four cubits only because many people pass through it, he presumably allows a breach of ten cubits where only few people pass.
^ˣnote:Who differed from him.
^ʸnote:If the gap opened out, for instance, to broken ground or an unsanitary area.
^ᶻnote:Who (supra 5a) do allow a breach of ten cubits.
^ᵃᵃnote:The wall did not collapse completely and a height of three or four handbreadths of it remained, so that it is not very easy to use the breach as an entrance.
^ᵃᵇnote:The passage through such a gap being easy, people would be likely to use it if it were wide enough. Hence the limit to four cubits.
^ᵃᶜnote:Such a road must pass from one end of the town to the other and must be sixteen cubits in width, while the town through which it passes must have no surrounding wall and be inhabited by no less than six hundred thousand people.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., , ‘from here’.
^ᵃᶠnote:Var. lec. ‘or’ (Alfasi and Asheri).
^ᵃᵍnote:Shab. 6a, 117a, infra 12a.
^ᵃʰnote:The one mentioned earlier in the context (v. previous note) where a covered space was under consideration.

²If a man had two houses on the two sides [respectively] of a public domain he may construct one side-post [on any of the houses] on one side and another on its 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’? And should you reply that it cannot be provided with an ‘erub ‘in such a manner’, but that it may be provided with one by means of doors, surely, [it can be retorted,] did not Rabbah b. Bar Hana state in the name of R. Johanan that Jerusalem, were ‘it not that its gates were closed at night, would have been subject to the restrictions of a public domain; and ‘Ulla too has stated that the city gateways of Mahuza, were it not for the fact that their doors were closed at night, would have been subject to the restriction of a public domain? — Rab Judah replied: It is this that was meant: How is an ‘erub to be provided for alleys that open out at both ends into a public domain? The shape of a doorway is made at one end and a side-post and cross-beam, at the other. It was stated: Rab said: The halachah is in agreement with the first Tanna, and Samuel said: The halachah is in agreement with Hanania. The question was raised: According to Hanania's ruling in the name of Beth Hillel , is it necessary to lock [the single door of the alley] or not? — Come and hear what Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: It is not necessary to lock it; and so also said R. Mattenah in the name of Samuel: It is not necessary to lock it. Some there are who read: R. Mattenah stated: ‘I myself was once concerned in such a case and Samuel told me that there was no need to lock [the door]’. R. ‘Anan was asked: Is it necessary to lock [the door of an alley] or not? He replied: Come and see the [alley] gateways of Nehardea which are half buried in the ground and Mar Samuel continually passes through [these gates] and yet never raised any objection. R. Kahana said: Those were [partially] closed. When R. Nahman came he ordered the earth to be removed. Does this then imply that R. Nahman is of the opinion that [alley doors] must be locked? — No; provided they are capable of being closed [Sabbatic ritual fitness is effected] even though they are not actually closed. There was a certain crooked alley at Nehardea upon which were imposed the restriction of Rab and the restriction of Samuel, and doors were ordered [to be fixed at its bends]. ‘The restriction of Rab’ who ruled that [a crooked alley] ‘is subject to the same law as one that is open on both sides’; but [as] Rab in fact stated: ‘The halachah is in agreement with the first Tanna’ [the second restriction was applied] in agreement with Samuel who stated: ‘The halachah is in agreement with Hanania’. And [as] Samuel in fact ruled [that a crooked alley] ‘is subject to the law of a closed one’ [the first restriction was applied] in agreement with Rab who ruled that ‘[a crooked alley] is subject to the same law as one that is open at both ends’. Do we, however, adopt the restrictions of two [authorities who differ from one another]? Was it not in fact taught: The halachah is always in agreement with Beth Hillel, but he who wishes to act in agreement with the ruling of Beth Shammai may do so, and he who wishes to act according to the view of Beth Hillel may do so; [he, however, who adopts] the more lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and the more lenient rulings of Beth Hillel is a wicked man, [while of the man who adopts] the restrictions of Beth Shammai and the restrictions of Beth Hillel Scripture said: But the fool walketh in darkness. A man should rather act either in agreement with Beth Shammai both in their lenient and their restrictive rulings or in agreement with Beth Hillel in both their lenient and their restrictive rulings? (Now is not this self-contradictory? You said: ‘The halachah is always in agreement with Beth Hillel, and then you [proceed to] say: ‘But he who wishes to act in agreement with the ruling of Beth Shammai may do so’! — This is no difficulty; the latter statement [was made] before [the issue of] the bath kol while the former [was made] after [the issue of] the bath kol. And if you prefer I might reply: Both the former and the latter statements [were made] after [the issue of] the bath kol^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^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ

^ᵃⁱnote:Since the area in question is already bordered by the two walls provided by the two opposite houses.
^ᵃʲnote:As in a private domain.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., , ‘in the middle’.
^ᵃˡnote:The Rabbis.
^ᵃᵐnote:How then is this ruling of the Rabbis to be reconciled with the statement, ‘How is a road etc.’, (supra 6a ad fin.)?
^ᵃⁿnote:The one prescribed in the Baraitha just cited.
^ᵃᵒnote:Var. lec., ‘R. Huna’ (Asheri).
^ᵃᵖnote:Its public road stretched from one end of the town to the other and it had all the other characteristics of a public domain (cf. supra note 1).
^ᵃᵠnote:So that it assumed the nature of a ‘courtyard’.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘guilty concerning it’.
^ᵃˢnote:A Jewish trading center. One of the ‘neighbouring towns’ or ‘dependencies’ of Babylon.
^ᵃᵗnote:Cf. supra p. 32, nn. 14f. How then could this be reconciled with the ruling of Beth Hillel that no closing if doors is necessary?
^ᵃᵘnote:Var. lec. ‘or’ (Alfasi and Asheri).
^ᵃᵛnote:So MS.M. vfkv Cur. edd. t,fkv.
^ᵃʷnote:V. supra 6a ad fin.
^ᵃˣnote:Asheri adds: ‘In accordance (with the ruling) of Beth Hillel’ (v. supra 6a ad fin.).
^ᵃʸnote:Of the alley. Its Sabbatic ritual fitness is not affected even if the door always remains open.
^ᵃᶻnote:Cf. previous note.
^ᵇᵃnote:Nehardea was a town on the Euphrates, situated at its junction with the Royal Canal about seventy miles north of Sura, and famous for its great academy in the days of Samuel, which was rivalled only by that of Sura. Nehardea also had the characteristics of a public domain (v. supra p. 32, n. 14).
^ᵇᵇnote:Lit., ‘hidden unto their half in earth’, and cannot possibly be moved from their open positions.
^ᵇᶜnote:Lit., ‘and goes in and goes out’. I.e., and saw that the gates were not closing, whilst the people were relying on them as providing an ‘erub.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘and he did not tell them anything’.
^ᵇᵉnote:R. Anan's example, therefore, proves nothing.
^ᵇᶠnote:To Nehardea.
^ᵇᵍnote:Lit., ‘he said: Remove their earth’, the accumulated debris which prevented the closing of the gates.
^ᵇʰnote:Contrary to the general opinion expressed supra?
^ᵇⁱnote:Lit., ‘and they made it require’.
^ᵇʲnote:In addition to the side-posts or cross-beams fixed at the ends of the arms adjoining the public domain.
^ᵇᵏnote:Who required no door at all, but only a sort of frame in the shape of a doorway.
^ᵇˡnote:Which required no contrivance.
^ᵇᵐnote:Lit., ‘do we do like two restrictions’.
^ᵇⁿnote:I.e., where one relaxes the law and the other restricts it and vice versa.
^ᵇᵒnote:Tosef. Suk. II, ‘Ed. II, R.H. 14b.
^ᵇᵖnote:Eccl. II, 14.
^ᵇᵠnote:Lit., ‘but’.
^ᵇʳnote:Why then were the restrictions of both Rab and Samuel imposed on the crooked alley of Nehardea?
^ᵇˢnote:The Baraitha just cited.
^ᵇᵗnote:Lit., ‘here’.
^ᵇᵘnote:V. Glos. and cf. infra 13b. The bath kol announced that the halachah was always in agreement with Beth Hillel.
^ᵇᵛnote:Lit., ‘that and that’.