עירובין 60 — Soncino English Talmud

¹to prepare an ‘erub the latter does not restrict freedom of movement in the former if a barrier, four handbreadths in height, intervened between them, otherwise it does impose a restriction? — Here we are dealing with a case where the balcony was less than ten handbreadths high. But if the balcony was less than ten handbreadths high what is the use of making a barrier? — This is a case where it was enclosed [all along its length] up to ten cubits, so that if it was provided with a barrier they may be deemed to be entirely removed from there. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If a wall was lined with ladders, even though they extended to a greater length than ten cubits, it nevertheless retains the status of a wall. R. Berona pointed out to Rab Judah the following incongruity at the schoolhouse of R. Hanina: Could Samuel have ruled that ‘it nevertheless retains the status of a wall’, seeing that R. Nahman citing Samuel ruled: If the residents of a balcony and those of a courtyard forgot to prepare a joint ‘erub they do not impose any restrictions upon one another if there was a barrier of four handbreadths between them, otherwise they do impose restrictions upon one another? — Here we are dealing with a case where the balcony was less than ten handbreadths high. But if the balcony is ‘less than ten handbreadths high’ what is the use of making a barrier? This is a case where it was enclosed [all along its length] up to ten cubits, so that if a barrier is provided they may be deemed to be completely removed from that place. Some of the men of Kekunai once came to R. Joseph and said to him, ‘Send with us a man who might prepare an ‘erub for our town’. ‘Go’, he said to Abaye, ‘and prepare the ‘erub for them but see that there is no outcry against it at the schoolhouse’. Proceeding thither he observed that certain houses opened on to the river. ‘These’, he said: ‘might serve as the excluded section of the town’. Changing his mind he said: ‘We learned: NO SINGLE ‘ERUB MAY BE PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TOWN, from which it follows that if it were desired, they could all join in one ‘erub’. I would, however, provide for then, windows, so that if desired they could be joined in the general ‘erub" of the town through those windows’. Then he said: ‘This is not necessary, since Rabbah b. Abbuha in fact provided separate erubs for each row of alleys throughout all Mahuza on account of the cattle ditches that intervened between the rows, where each row served as the statutory excluded section for the other though these could not join one another in a common ‘erub even if they had wished to do so’. Then again he said: ‘The two cases are really’ unlike, since there one could if desired prepare the ‘erub by way of roofs while these could not possibly join in one general ‘erub: consequently let us provide for them windows’. Finally, however, he said: ‘Windows are not necessary either, for Mar b. Pupidetha of Pumbeditha had a store of straw which he set aside for Pumbeditha as the statutory section that was to be excluded’. ‘It is on account of this [group of houses]’. Abaye remarked: ‘that the Master warned me: See that there is no outcry against it at the schoolhouse’. UNLESS A SECTION OF IT OF THE SIZE OF THE TOWN OF HADASHAH . . . IS EXCLUDED. It was taught: R. Judah related, ‘There was a town in Judea whose name was Hadashah which had fifty inhabitants, men, women and children, by means of which the Sages determined [the statutory size of the sections to be excluded]; and this town itself served as the excluded section [of a larger town]. The question was raised: What was the procedure in Hadashah itself? — Since Hadashah served as the excluded section of the large town the latter also obviously served as the excluded section of the smaller town; the question rather is: What is the procedure in a town that is similar in size to Hadashah? — R. Huna and Rab Judah differ on this point — One holds that a section of it must be excluded while the other maintains that none need be excluded. R. SIMEON RULED: THREE COURTYARDS etc. R. Hama b. Goria citing Rab stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon. R. Isaac ruled: Even one house and one courtyard [are sufficient]. ‘One courtyard’! Is this conceivable? — Rather say: One house in one courtyard. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: ‘Is that ruling of R. Isaac a tradition or a logical deduction?’ — ‘ What’, the other retorted: ‘does this matter to us?’ — ‘Is then’, the first replied. ‘the study of Gemara to be a mere sing-song?’ MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS IN THE EAST INSTRUCTED HIS SON, ‘PREPARE FOR ME AN ‘ERUB IN THE WEST’, OR IF HE WAS IN THE WEST AND HE INSTRUCTED HIS SON ‘PREPARE FOR ME AN ‘ERUB IN THE EAST’, IF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HIM AND HIS HOUSE WAS NO MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS AND THAT BETWEEN HIM AND HIS ‘ERUB WAS MORE THAN THIS, HE IS PERMITTED TO PROCEED TO HIS HOUSE BUT FORBIDDEN TO PROCEED TO HIS ‘ERUB. IF THE DISTANCE TO HIS ‘ERUB WAS NO MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS AND THAT TO HIS HOUSE MORE THAN THIS, HE IS FORBIDDEN TO PROCEED TO HIS HOUSE BUT PERMITTED TO PROCEED TO HIS ‘ERUB. IF A MAN DEPOSITS HIS ‘ERUB WITHIN THE [SABBATIC] EXTENSION OF A TOWN, HIS ACT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. IF HE DEPOSITED IT EVEN ONE CUBIT ONLY BEYOND THE Limit60^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

^ᵃnote:Jointly for the balcony and the courtyard, but each was provided with a separate ‘erub.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘before them’, sc. at the foot of the ladder. The door forms a partition between the two courtyards so that the residents of the one can in no way affect those of the other.
^ᶜnote:As if the ladder were a proper door communicating between the balcony above and the courtyards below. From this it follows that, according to R. Nahman, a ladder has the status of a door where such status leads to a restriction of the law; how then could it be said supra that he held a ladder to have the status of a wall where the law is thereby relaxed?
^ᵈnote:It is in such a case only that a ladder cannot be regarded as a wall whereby the law might be relaxed.
^ᵉnote:And consequently fully open to the courtyard.
^ᶠnote:Balcony and courtyard, being so close to each other, would be like two courtyards between which no wall intervened which cannot be separated from each other in their ‘erub arrangements.
^ᵍnote:I.e., leaving only a gap not exceeding ten cubits as a doorway.
^ʰnote:I.e., the residents of the balcony and courtyard respectively may be deemed as having withdrawn themselves from the use of each other's domain. In the absence of such a barrier, however, the balcony, owing to its close proximity to the courtyard below, and its two cubits doorway, must inevitably be regarded as forming one domain with that courtyard even though the law must be restricted as a consequence.
^ⁱnote:Between two courtyards.
^ʲnote:Sc. a number of ladders were placed against the wall, one next to the other.
^ᵏnote:The ladders, though they afford access from one courtyard into the other, are not necessarily regarded as a breach of more than ten cubits that causes the two courtyards to be regarded as one requiring a joint ‘erub, but can also be treated, if it is so desired, as a wall separating the two domains necessitating an ‘erub for each domain (Rashi).
^ˡnote:Aliter: press-room.
^ᵐnote:Var. lec. ‘Sata’ (MS.M.) ‘bar Senina’ (Bomb. ed.).
^ⁿnote:Sc, that the law is not restricted to deprive a wall of its status on account of a ladder that was placed against it.
^ᵒnote:Situated in close proximity below the former.
^ᵖnote:Since the height of the balcony was not stated the ruling presumably applies also to one that was ten handbreadths high and that had the status of a wall; which shows that a ladder (the usual means of communication between balcony and courtyard) does deprive a wall of its status and imparts to it the character of one that has a door in it.
^ᵠnote:So that even in the absence of thee ladder it could not be regarded as a valid wall.
^ʳnote:V. supra p. 418, nn. 1-2.
^ˢnote:Or ‘Korkunia’; identified with Kirkesium or Circesium on the Euphrates.
^ᵗnote:Which belonged originally to one man and was now the possession of many.
^ᵘnote:On account of the requirement for a certain section to be excluded from the provisions of the general ‘erub of the town (cf. our Mishnah).
^ᵛnote:That flowed behind the town, the houses having possessed no other doors opening towards the town.
^ʷnote:Which, owing to the position of the doors, could not in any case be included in the general ‘erub of the town.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘remainder’.
^ʸnote:To include those that were once excluded, and to exclude instead other houses.
^ᶻnote:As the houses by the river, however, could not in any case be included (cf. supra n. 6) in the town's ‘erub they could not obviously be set aside as the statutory section to be excluded.
^ᵃᵃnote:That will face the town, and the size of each of which would be four handbreadths by four.
^ᵃᵇnote:And consequently night well serve also as the statutory section to be excluded.
^ᵃᶜnote:The provision of windows.
^ᵃᵈnote:Supra, 26a q.v. diagram and notes.
^ᵃᵉnote:Since many alleys in each row were allowed to join in one erub despite the fact that the town that belonged to one man belonged once to many.
^ᵃᶠnote:For if that had not been the case each alley would have required a separate ‘erub to itself and a side-post air cross-beam.
^ᵃᵍnote:On account of intervening cattle ditches which cut off the approaches between the various rows. Similarly in the case of the houses by the river, though they could not he included in the provision of the general ‘erub of the town, they might we;; serve as the statutory section to be excluded.
^ᵃʰnote:The houses by the river and the rows of alleys that were separated by the cattle ditches.
^ᵃⁱnote:The last mentioned (v. prev. n.).
^ᵃʲnote:Connected by balconies with one another.
^ᵃᵏnote:In the absence of the windows mentioned.
^ᵃˡnote:Since (as laid down infra) the halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon that it is not necessary to exclude fifty tenants.
^ᵃᵐnote:As the exclusion of this store-house satisfied the statutory requirements so should the houses by the river.
^ᵃⁿnote:[Had he insisted on the people providing this group of houses with windows unnecessarily, he would have raised an outcry; v. Tosaf. ubhhv].
^ᵃᵒnote:Cf. our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵖnote:In its vicinity.
^ᵃᵠnote:Sc. could all the inhabitants of Hadashah join in one ‘erub?
^ᵃʳnote:Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
^ᵃˢnote:But which, unlike Hadashah, was not near to a large town.
^ᵃᵗnote:To constitute the statutory section.
^ᵃᵘnote:A courtyard without a house, surely, could not be regarded is a dwelling.
^ᵃᵛnote:A monotonous droning where no one is interested in sources or origins.
^ᵃʷnote:At the time the Sabbath had set in.
^ᵃˣnote:Sc. in the open country in an easterly direction from his house or HIS SON (v. Gemara infra).
^ᵃʸnote:Prior to the commencement of the Sabbath.
^ᵃᶻnote:Cf. supra n. 5.
^ᵇᵃnote:The permitted Sabbath limit.
^ᵇᵇnote:Sc. his house, with whose Sabbath limit he was when the Sabbath had begun is regarded as the place of his Sabbath rest from where he is entitled to walk distances of two thousand cubits in all directions.
^ᵇᶜnote:Because at the time the Sabbath had begun he was more than a Sabbath limit away from it (cf. prev. n. mut. mut.). The place of an ‘erub which one is unable to reach during the Sabbath between this be regarded as one's place of Sabbath rest. (On the distinction between this else and the one supra 50b, v. Rashi a.l.).
^ᵇᵈnote:Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
^ᵇᵉnote:Cf. supra n. 9, mut. mut.
^ᵇᶠnote:I.e., within the area of seventy and two thirds cubits around the town from which the two thousand cubits of the Sabbath limit are measured.
^ᵇᵍnote:Lit., ‘he has not done anything’, since in the absence of the ‘erub also he (cf. prev. n.) is permitted to move within that area as well as a Sabbath limit of two thousand cubits beyond it in all directions on any side of the town; while all the town itself is in this respect regarded as an area of no more than four cubits by four within which its inhabitants may freely move in addition to the limits mentioned.
^ᵇʰnote:I.e., , (cf. Gemara infra) beyond the Sabbatic extension of seventy and two thirds cubits around the town.

²HE LOSES WHAT HE GAINS. GEMARA. Assuming that EAST means the east side of his house and that WEST means the west of his house, one can well understand how it is possible that THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HIM AND HIS HOUSE WAS NO MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS AND THAT BETWEEN HIM AND HIS ERUB WAS MORE THAN THIS, since he would reach his house before he could reach his ‘erub, but how is it possible that THE DISTANCE between him and HIS ‘ERUB should be NO MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS AND THAT TO HIS HOUSE MORE THAN THIS? — R. Isaac replied: Do you think that EAST means east of his house and WEST the west of his house? The meaning in fact is not so; EAST denotes the east of the position of HIS SON and WEST denotes the west position of HIS SON. Raba son of R. Shila replied: One may even explain EAST as the east of his house and WEST as the west of his house where, for instance, his house stood in a diagonal direction. IF A MAN DEPOSITS HIS ‘ERUB WITHIN THE [SABBATIC] EXTENSION etc. How can you possibly assume that an ‘erub would be deposited BEYOND THE LIMIT? — Rather read: Outside the Sabbatic extension. HE LOSES WHAT HE GAINS. Only WHAT HE GAINS and no more? Was it not in fact taught: If a man deposits his ‘erub within the [Sabbatic] extension of a town, his act is of no consequence. If he deposited it even one cubit only beyond the [Sabbatic] extension of the town, he gains that cubit and loses all the town because the extent of the town is included in the extent of the Sabbath limit? — This is no difficulty, since the latter refers to a case where his measure terminated within the town, while the former deals with one where his measure terminated at the far end of the town; this being in agreement with a ruling of R. Idi who laid down in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If a man was measuring [the two thousand cubits distance from his acquired Sabbath abode] and advancing towards a town, and his measure terminated in the middle of the town he is allowed to proceed no further than half the town, but if his measure terminated at the far end of the town, all the town, as far as he is concerned, is regarded as four cubits and the remainder of the Sabbath limit may be made up for him. These, exclaimed R. Idi, are nought but prophetic utterances; for what is the difference whether the measure terminated in the middle of the town or at the end? — Said Raba: We have learnt both these cases: The people of a large town may walk through the whole of a small town,^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ

^ᵇⁱnote:In one direction of the town.
^ᵇʲnote:In the other direction. If the ‘erub, for instance, was deposited at a distance of one thousand cubits in an easterly direction of the town the man, since the ‘erub entitles him to walk distances of two thousand cubits from it in all directions, is entitled to walk a total distance of (1000 + 2000 = ) 3000 cubits from the town in an easterly direction but only one thousand cubits in the westerly direction. The entire area of the town itself, as mentioned supra is, in this respect regarded as no bigger than four cubits by four and, in consequence, is not to be deducted from the extent of the permitted limits.
^ᵇᵏnote:So MS.M. (agreeing with the reading in our Mishnah). Cur. edd. here add lamed, ‘to the’.
^ᵇˡnote:The house being situated between him on the one side of it and his son on the opposite side.
^ᵇᵐnote:Lit.,’and not’.
^ᵇⁿnote:The position of his house, however, may well have been much further away than that of his ‘erub.
^ᵇᵒnote:MS.M., ‘Rabbah b. Shila’.
^ᵇᵖnote:In relation to him and his ‘erub.
^ᵇᵠnote:Such an ‘erub, which is unapproachable on the Sabbath, would surely be useless.
^ᵇʳnote:Of seventy and two thirds cubits around the town. Cf. relevant note on our Mishnah.
^ᵇˢnote:On the side of the town where the ‘erub was deposited.
^ᵇᵗnote:When the Sabbath limit from the ‘erub across the town in the opposite direction (cf. prev. n.) is measured, [the town is included in tile extent of the Sabbath limit].
^ᵇᵘnote:And deducted from it. How then is this to be reconciled with our Mishnah?
^ᵇᵛnote:Of the two thousand cubits prescribed for a Sabbath limit.
^ᵇʷnote:Either because the town was very big or because the ‘erub lay at a considerable distance from it. In such a case only is the town included in the extent of the Sabbath limit and the man is forbidden to move beyond the far side of the town.
^ᵇˣnote:In this case all the town is regarded as being no bigger than four cubits by four, and the Sabbath limit is extended beyond the town to a distance of two thousand cubits minus the distance between the ‘erub and the side of the town near it.
^ᵇʸnote:Who was overtaken by dusk underway and, being unaware of tie proximity of a town, had acquired his Sabbath abode at the spot where he happened to be at the time the Sabbath had set in (cf. supra 45a); (and the same law applies to a man who deposited an ‘erub outside his own town).
^ᵇᶻnote:V. p. 423, n. 7.
^ᶜᵃnote:Sc. the end opposite the one that was near his ‘erub.
^ᶜᵇnote:The difference between two thousand cubits and the distance of the ‘erub from the side of the town nearest to it.
^ᶜᶜnote:By extending the Sabbath limit beyond the far side of the town (cf. supra n. 3).
^ᶜᵈnote:n. Joshua b. Levi's rulings.
^ᶜᵉnote:Sheer imagination. V. however, Rash and Tosaf.
^ᶜᶠnote:Apparently none.
^ᶜᵍnote:Infra 61a.
^ᶜʰnote:That was situated within its Sabbath limit. Now this must imply that the whole of the small town is regarded as no bigger than four cubits and that the remainder of the Sabbath limit may be made up by extending the limit beyond the far side of the small town, in agreement with R. Joshua b. Levi's second ruling.