Eruvin

[if it was made] in a side [wall, a gap] of ten cubits is permissible,1 [but if it was] in the front [wall,2 only a gap] of four cubits is allowed.3 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?1 [Presumably] because one can say4 [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 ruling5 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 other6 [is subject to the limit] of four cubits. And so, in fact, did R. Huna say to R. Hanan b. Raba:7 ‘Do not dispute with me, for Rab once happened to visit Damharia8 and actually gave a decision in accordance with my view’.5 ‘Rab’, the other replied, ‘found an open field and put a fence round it’.9 R. Nahman b. Isaac remarked: Reason is on the side of R. Huna.10 For it was stated: ‘A crooked alley,11 Rab ruled, is subject to the same law as one that is open on both sides,12 but Samuel ruled: ‘It is subject to the law of a closed one’.13 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’?14 Consequently15 [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 which16 it definitely follows that [the permissibility of] a breach in a side [wall] of an alley is limited to four cubits.17 And R. Hamn18 b. Raba?19 — There20 it is different,21 since many people make their way through it.22 [This]23 then implies that R. Huna24 is of the opinion that even if not many people make their way through it25 [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?26 — There [it is a case] where ridges [of the broken wall] remained,27 but here, [it is one] where there were no ridges.28 Our Rabbis taught: How is a road through a public domain29 to be provided with an ‘erub?30 The shape of a doorway is made at one end,31 and a side-post and32 cross-beam, [are fixed] at the other.31 Hanania, however, stated: Beth Shammai ruled: A door is made at the one end31 as well as at the other31 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,33 ‘A more [lenient rule] than this34 did R. Judah lay down: ten cubits. keep them away from further transgression, additional restrictions were imposed upon them. Elsewhere, however, even a breach of ten cubits might be allowed. 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). 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. an alley, though that opening is not in a front wall adjoining a public domain. maintain that in a side wall, a breach of ten cubits is permitted? limit of permissibility is, therefore, extended to ten cubits. 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. easy to use the breach as an entrance. to four cubits. through which it passes must have no surrounding wall and be inhabited by no less than six hundred thousand people.