עירובין 76 — Soncino English Talmud

¹The one [outer house] thereby becomes a gate-house to the one [courtyard] and the other [outer house] becomes a gate-house to the other [courtyard] while the middle house, being the house in which the ‘erub is deposited, need not contribute any bread to the ‘erub. Rehaba tested the Rabbis: If there were two courtyards and between them two houses and a tenant of the one [courtyard] came through the one [house] and deposited his ‘erub in the other while a tenant of the other [courtyard] came through the latter [house] and deposited his ‘erub in the former, do they thereby acquire the privileges of ‘erub or not? Do we regard each house in relation to the one [courtyard] as a house and in relation to the other [courtyard] as a gate-house? — Both, they replied, do not acquire the privileges of ‘erub. For, whatever you assume, [this must be the result]. If you regard either house as a gate-house, ‘an ‘erub deposited in a gate-house, exedra or balcony is not a valid ‘erub’; and if you regard either as a proper house, the tenants would be carrying objects into a house which was not covered by their ‘erub. But why should this ruling be different from that of Raba, who laid down: If two persons said to a third party, ‘Go and prepare an ‘erub on our behalf’ and, after he had prepared an ‘erub for the one while it was yet day and for the other at twilight, the ‘erub of the man for whom it was prepared while it was yet day was eaten up at twilight while the ‘erub of the man for whom it was prepared at twilight was eaten up after dusk, both acquire the privileges of ‘erub? — What a comparison! There it is doubtful whether twilight is day-time or night-time, a point that cannot be definitely determined; but, in this case, if a house is to be regarded as a proper house in relation to the former it must be so regarded in relation to the latter also, and if it is regarded in relation to the latter as a gate-house it must also be so regarded in relation to the former. MISHNAH. IF BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS THERE WAS A WINDOW OF FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR, WITHIN TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND, THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ‘ERUBS OR, IF THEY PREFER, THEY MAY PREPARE ONE. IF [THE SIZE OF THE WINDOW WAS] LESS THAN FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR OR HIGHER THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND, TWO ‘ERUBS MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE. GEMARA. Must it be assumed that we have here learnt an anonymous Mishnah in a agreement with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who ruled that wherever a gap is less than four handbreadths it is regarded as labud? — It may be said to agree even with the Rabbis; for the Rabbis differed from R. Simeon b. Gamaliel only in regard to the laws of labud. As regards an opening, however, even they may agree that only if its size is four handbreadths by four is it regarded as a valid opening but otherwise it cannot be so regarded. LESS THAN FOUR etc. Is not this obvious? For, since it was said that the window must be FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR, WITHIN TEN HANDBREADTHS, would I not naturally understand that if it was less than four and higher than ten It is not valid opening? — It is this that we were informed: The reason is because all of it was higher than ten handbreadths from the ground, but if a part of it was within ten handbreadths from the ground, THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ‘ERUBS OR, IF THEY PREFER, THEY MAY PREPARE ONE. Thus we have learnt in a Mishnah what the Rabbis taught elsewhere: ‘If [almost] all the window was higher than ten handbreadths from the ground but a part of it was within ten handbreadths from it, or if [almost] all of it was within ten handbreadths and a part of it was higher than ten handbreadths, the tenants may prepare two ‘erubs or, if they prefer, they may prepare one’. Now then, where ‘[almost] all the window was higher than ten handbreadths from the ground but a part of it was within ten handbreadths’ you ruled that ‘the tenants may prepare two ‘erubs or, if they prefer, they may prepare one was it also necessary to mention the case where ‘[almost] all of it was within ten handbreadths and a part of it was higher than ten handbreadths’? — This is a case of anticlimax: This, and there is no need to say that. R. Johanan ruled: A round window must have a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths, two and a fraction of which must be within ten handbreadths from the ground, so that, when it is squared, a fraction remains within the ten handbreadths from the ground. Consider: Any object that has a circumference of three handbreadths is approximately one handbreadth in diameter: should not then twelve handbreadths suffice?45^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

^ᵃnote:In relation to the middle one.
^ᵇnote:Into which that house has a door. As a gate-house is exempt from ‘erub neither of the outer houses need contribute to the ‘erub of either courtyard.
^ᶜnote:Cf. supra n. 1 mut. mut.
^ᵈnote:Cf. supra n. 2 mut. mut.
^ᵉnote:That opened into the other courtyard.
^ᶠnote:Cf. supra n. 4.
^ᵍnote:The tenants of the respective courtyards who have no desire hat their courtyards should be joined by one ‘erub.
^ʰnote:Each group of tenants in its own courtyard.
^ⁱnote:Into which it had no door and from which it is separated by the other house.
^ʲnote:Into which its door opens.
^ᵏnote:And both ‘erubs are consequently valid. If both houses had been regarded as gate-houses neither ‘erub (cf. infra 85b) would have been valid, and even if both houses had been regarded as proper houses neither ‘erub would have been valid since in the case of each house the other that was lot covered by the ‘erub intervened between it and the courtyard for which the ‘erub had been prepared.
^ˡnote:The tenants of both courtyards.
^ᵐnote:Infra 85b; consequently neither ‘erub is valid.
^ⁿnote:Since a house cannot be regarded as both a gate-house and a proper house at the same time both ‘erubs must be deemed invalid.
^ᵒnote:MS.M. and Asheri, ‘Rabbah’.
^ᵖnote:Of the Sabbath eve.
^ᵠnote:Since it is uncertain whether twilight is to be regarded as day or as night.
^ʳnote:In the former case it is assumed that twilight is night and, since the ‘erub was in existence before twilight when the Sabbath commenced, the ‘erub is valid. In the latter case it is assumed that twilight is still day and, since the ‘erub was prepared before twilight and was still in existence when the Sabbath commenced, the ‘erub is valid. Now why, it is asked, if twilight is here assumed to be day for one individual and night for another could not a house also be assumed to be a gate-house for one and a proper house for another?
^ˢnote:Shab. 34a.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘thus now’.
^ᵘnote:The case dealt with by Raba.
^ᵛnote:As ‘erub is only a Rabbinical institution the more lenient course may be followed in favour of each individual.
^ʷnote:Were the same house at the same time to be regarded as both a gate-house and a proper house the whole law of ‘erub would become a farce.
^ˣnote:In the wall that divided one from the other.
^ʸnote:One for each courtyard, to enable the respective tenants to have the unrestricted use of their courtyard. The movement of objects from one courtyard into the other, however, remains forbidden.
^ᶻnote:Jointly. The tenants of one courtyard deposit their ‘erub in the other and, by thus joining together, both groups of tenants are permitted the unrestricted use of both courtyards.
^ᵃᵃnote:A size that cannot be regarded as a valid opening.
^ᵃᵇnote:So that a portion of the dividing wall to a height of ten handbreadths contained no valid opening through which the tenants could gain access from one courtyard into the other.
^ᵃᶜnote:Since the wall (cf. prev. n.) constitutes a solid partition between the courtyards. It is consequently forbidden to move objects between the courtyards either over the wall or through any small apertures or cracks in it.
^ᵃᵈnote:In the ruling that if A WINDOW WAS LESS THAN FOUR HANDBREADTHS square it is deemed to be nonexistent (v. our Mishnah).
^ᵃᵉnote:Supra 9a.
^ᵃᶠnote:v. Glos. Is it likely, however, that an anonymous Mishnah, which usually represents the accepted halachah, would agree with an individual opinion against that of the majority?
^ᵃᵍnote:If it is to be regarded as a valid opening that enables the tenants of both courtyards to join in a single ‘erub.
^ᵃʰnote:By the apparently superfluous ruling.
^ᵃⁱnote:Why the window is regarded as an invalid opening.
^ᵃʲnote:This could not have been inferred from the first clause of our Mishnah which might have been taken to imply that the entire window must be within ten handbreadths from the ground; and since ‘HIGHER THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS’ has to be stated, it incidentally states also ‘LESS THAN FOUR, etc.’
^ᵃᵏnote:Apparently not, since the latter may be deduced from the former a minori ad majus.
^ᵃˡnote:The first case where a window was only partly within ten handbreadths from the ground.
^ᵃᵐnote:The second case where almost all of it was within the ten handbreadths.
^ᵃⁿnote:Measured from the lowest point of the circumference along the diameter joining this point to the highest one opposite (cf. Tosaf.).
^ᵃᵒnote:The window whose diameter (being approx. a third of its circumference) is equal to (24/3 =) eight handbreadths approx.
^ᵃᵖnote:And thus reduced on each side oft he square by two handbreadths, leaving a square window of the size of 8 — (2 + 2) by 8 — (2 + 2) = 4 X 4 handbreadths. He assumed that the area of a square constructed within a circle is half the area of the circle itself, v. infra.
^ᵃᵠnote:This fraction being the only part of the square window within the prescribed distance from the ground.
^ᵃʳnote:A third of twelve being four.
^ᵃˢnote:For the purpose of obtaining a square of four handbreadths by four within the circumference. Why then did R. Johanan require a minimum circumference of twenty-four?

²— This applies only to a circle, but where a square is to be inscribed within it a greater circumference is required. But observe: By how much does the perimeter of a square exceed that of a circle? By a quarter approximately; should not then a circumference of sixteen handbreadths suffice? — This applies only to a circle that is inscribed within the square, but where a square is to be inscribed within a circle it is necessary [for the circumference of the latter] to be much bigger. What is the reason? In order [to allow space for] the projections of the corners. Consider, however, this: Every cubit in [the side of] a square [corresponds to], one and two fifths cubits in its diagonal; [should not then a circumference] of sixteen and four fifths handbreadths suffice? — R. Johanan holds the same view as the judges of Caesarea or, as others say, as that of the Rabbis of Caesarea who maintain [that the area of] a circle that is inscribed within a square Is [less than the latter by] a quarter [while that of] the square that is inscribed within that circle [is less than the outer square by] a half. IF THE SIZE OF THE WINDOW WAS LESS THAN FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR etc. R. Nahman explained: This was learnt only in respect of a window between two courtyards but in the case of a window between two houses, even though It was higher than ten handbreadths from the ground, the residents may, if they wish, prepare one ‘erub jointly. What is the reason? — A house is regarded as filled. Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman: A window, irrespective of whether it was between two courtyards, between two houses, between two upper rooms, between two roofs, or between two rooms, must be of the size of four handbreadths by four within ten handbreadths from the ground? — The interpretation is [that the limitation applies] to the courtyards. But was it not stated: ‘irrespective of whether’? — The interpretation is that this refers to the prescribed four handbreadths by four’. R. Abba enquired of R. Nahman: If an aperture led from a room to an upper room, is a permanent ladder necessary for the purpose of allowing the movement of objects or not? Do we apply the principle, that ‘a house is regarded as filled’ only when the aperture is at the side but not when it is in the middle or is it possible that there is no difference? — The other replied: It is not necessary. He understood him to mean that only a permanent ladder is not necessary but that a temporary one is necessary. It was, however, stated: R. Joseph b. Minyomi citing R. Nahman laid down: Neither a permanent, nor a temporary ladder is necessary. MISHNAH. IF A WAIL BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH AND FOUR HANDBREADTHS THICK, TWO ‘ERUBS MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE. IF THERE WAS FRUIT ON THE TOP OF IT, THE TENANTS ON EITHER SIDE MAY CLIMB UP AND EAT THEM PROVIDED THEY DO NOT CARRY THEM DOWN. IF A BREACH TO THE EXTENT OF TEN CUBITS WAS MADE IN THE WALL, THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ‘ERUBS OR, IF THEY PREFER, ONLY ONE, BECAUSE IT IS LIKE A DOORWAY. IF THE BREACH WAS BIGGER, ONLY ONE ‘ERUB AND NOT TWO MAY BE PREPARED. GEMARA. What is the ruling where it was not FOUR HANDBREADTHS wide? — Rab replied: The air of two domains prevails upon it and no object on it may be moved even as far as a hair's breadth.^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^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ

^ᵃᵗnote:That a figure with a perimeter of twelve handbreadths has a diameter of four handbreadths approx.
^ᵃᵘnote:Of given dimension, as in this case one of four handbreadths by four.
^ᵃᵛnote:As the window under discussion must be four handbreadths square the diameter of the circle in which such a square can be inscribed must have, as laid down by R. Johanan, a minimum circumference of twenty-four hand breadths.
^ᵃʷnote:Since sixteen exceeds twelve by a quarter of the former figure.
^ᵃˣnote:For the window under discussion.
^ᵃʸnote:That the perimeter of a square exceeds the circumference of a circle by one quarter.
^ᵃᶻnote:Lit., ‘that goes out from’.
^ᵇᵃnote:Than three quarters of the given square. Hence R. Johanan's requirement that the circumference of the window must be no less than twenty-four handbreadths.
^ᵇᵇnote:Within the circle.
^ᵇᶜnote:Of the square. A circular window with a circumference that is less than twenty-four handbreadths would not contain the area that is required.
^ᵇᵈnote:Since the diameter of the circle forms the diagonal of the inscribed square.
^ᵇᵉnote:Which has a diameter of (16 4/5)/3 = 84/(3 X 5) = 28/5 handbreadths approximately and in which a square each side of which is equal to (5/7 of its diagonal or 28/5 X 5/7 =) four handbreadths, may be inscribed.
^ᵇᶠnote:Why then did R. Johanan require a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths?
^ᵇᵍnote:Of that square.
^ᵇʰnote:That was inscribed in the other square.
^ᵇⁱnote:Cf. Rashi, Tosaf., R. Han. and Rashal one or other of whom the interpretation here partly follows. While the rule laid down in Caesarea seems to bear on the area of the circle and the squares, R. Johanan applied it also to the circumference of the circle and thus required a much bigger circumference than is actually necessary for an inscribed square of four handbreadths by four.
^ᵇʲnote:That the window must not be higher than TEN HANDBREADTHS from the ground.
^ᵇᵏnote:The window is consequently within the prescribed ten handbreadths.
^ᵇˡnote:Lit., ‘one to me’.
^ᵇᵐnote:According to the Rabbis who ruled that as the residents are divided in their domains below so are they divided on their roofs above and, consequently, no movement of objects from one person's roof to that of another is permitted unless a proper ‘erub is prepared.
^ᵇⁿnote:Lit., ‘all of them’.
^ᵇᵒnote:‘Within ten handbreadths’.
^ᵇᵖnote:Not to the houses.
^ᵇᵠnote:Which implies that houses are subject to the same restrictions as the courtyards mentioned in the same context.
^ᵇʳnote:MS.M. ‘Raba’.
^ᵇˢnote:In the roof of a lower room which is the floor of the upper one.
^ᵇᵗnote:Jast., ‘a small room opening (leading) from the ground floor to the upper room’, the two rooms having been occupied by two residents respectively.
^ᵇᵘnote:Leading from the lower to the upper room through the aperture.
^ᵇᵛnote:Between the two rooms.
^ᵇʷnote:As in the case of the window spoken of by R. Nahman.
^ᵇˣnote:Hence no ‘erub is valid unless a ladder (cf. supra 59b) joined the lower and the upper rooms.
^ᵇʸnote:R. Abba.
^ᵇᶻnote:R. Nahman.
^ᶜᵃnote:Var. lec., ‘Rab Judah in the name of R. Joseph’ (Asheri).
^ᶜᵇnote:Separate ones for each courtyard.
^ᶜᶜnote:Sc. the two courtyards are not allowed to prepare a joint ‘erub on account of the wall that intervened between then,. The prescribed thickness of four handbreadths, which has no bearing on this restriction since it applies to all walls whatever their thickness, was mentioned on account of the ruling that follows which is applicable only where the thickness of the wall was no less than four handbreadths. A lesser thickness does not constitute a separate domain.
^ᶜᵈnote:The wall of the prescribed thickness (cf. prev. n.).
^ᶜᵉnote:Since it is forbidden to carry from one domain into another (cf. prev. two notes).
^ᶜᶠnote:Jointly.
^ᶜᵍnote:A gap that is not bigger than ten cubits.
^ᶜʰnote:A gap so great converts the two courtyards into one; and the tenants, like those of the same courtyard, may not break up into two parties for ‘erub. If they do they impose restrictions of movement upon each other.
^ᶜⁱnote:The WALL.
^ᶜʲnote:That of the two courtyards between which it is situated.
^ᶜᵏnote:Since it constitutes no independent domain and every fraction of its space is dominated (cf. prev. n.) by two domains.