Eruvin

to prepare an ‘erub1 the latter does not restrict freedom of movement in the former if a barrier, four handbreadths in height, intervened between them,2 otherwise it does impose a restriction?3 — Here we are dealing with a case where the balcony was less than ten handbreadths high.4 But if the balcony was less than ten handbreadths high5 what is the use of making a barrier?6 — This is a case where it was enclosed [all along its length] up to ten cubits,7 so that if it was provided with a barrier they may be deemed to be entirely removed from there.8 Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If a wall9 was lined with ladders,10 even though they extended to a greater length than ten cubits, it nevertheless retains the status of a wall.11 R. Berona pointed out to Rab Judah the following incongruity at the schoolhouse12 of R. Hanina:13 Could Samuel have ruled that ‘it nevertheless retains the status of a wall’,14 seeing that R. Nahman citing Samuel ruled: If the residents of a balcony and those of a courtyard15 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?16 — Here we are dealing with a case where the balcony was less than ten handbreadths high.17 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.18 Some of the men of Kekunai19 once came to R. Joseph and said to him, ‘Send with us a man who might prepare an ‘erub for our town’.20 ‘Go’, he said to Abaye, ‘and prepare the ‘erub for them but see that there is no outcry against it at the schoolhouse’.21 Proceeding thither he observed that certain houses opened on to the river.22 ‘These’,23 he said: ‘might serve as the excluded section24 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,25 they could all join in one ‘erub’.26 I would, however, provide for then, windows,27 so that if desired they could be joined in the general ‘erub" of the town through those windows’.28 Then he said: ‘This29 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,30 where31 each row served as the statutory excluded section for the other32 though these could not join one another in a common ‘erub even if they had wished to do so’.33 Then again he said: ‘The two cases34 are really’ unlike, since there35 one could if desired prepare the ‘erub by way of roofs36 while these37 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 which38 he set aside for Pumbeditha as the statutory section that was to be excluded’.39 ‘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’.40 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];41 and this town itself served as the excluded section [of a larger town].42 The question was raised: What was the procedure in Hadashah itself?43 — Since Hadashah served as the excluded section of the large town42 the latter also obviously served as the excluded section of the smaller town; the question rather is: What is the procedure44 in a town that is similar in size to Hadashah?45 — 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].46 ‘One courtyard’! Is this conceivable?47 — 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?’48 MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS49 IN THE EAST50 INSTRUCTED HIS SON,51 ‘PREPARE FOR ME AN ‘ERUB51 IN THE WEST’,52 OR IF HE WAS IN THE WEST52 AND HE INSTRUCTED HIS SON51 ‘PREPARE FOR ME AN ‘ERUB51 IN THE EAST’,52 IF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HIM AND HIS HOUSE WAS NO MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS53 AND THAT BETWEEN HIM AND HIS ‘ERUB WAS MORE THAN THIS, HE IS PERMITTED TO PROCEED TO HIS HOUSE54 BUT FORBIDDEN TO PROCEED TO HIS ‘ERUB.55 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 HOUSE56 BUT PERMITTED TO PROCEED TO HIS ‘ERUB.57 IF A MAN DEPOSITS HIS ‘ERUB WITHIN THE [SABBATIC] EXTENSION OF A TOWN,58 HIS ACT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.59 IF HE DEPOSITED IT EVEN ONE CUBIT ONLY BEYOND THE Limit60 residents of the one can in no way affect those of the other. 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? which cannot be separated from each other in their ‘erub arrangements. 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. 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). 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. town (cf. our Mishnah). not obviously be set aside as the statutory section to be excluded. man belonged once to many. cross-beam. 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. tenants. outcry; v. Tosaf. ubhhv]. rest from where he is entitled to walk distances of two thousand cubits in all directions. 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.). Sabbath limit are measured. 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.