Eruvin

The one [outer house] thereby becomes1 a gate-house to the one [courtyard]2 and the other [outer house] becomes1 a gate-house to the other [courtyard]2 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 houses3 and a tenant4 of the one [courtyard] came through the one [house] and deposited his ‘erub in the other5 while a tenant6 of the other [courtyard] came through the latter [house] and deposited his ‘erub in the former, do they7 thereby acquire the privileges of ‘erub8 or not? Do we regard each house in relation to the one [courtyard]9 as a house and in relation to the other [courtyard]10 as a gate-house?11 — Both,12 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’;13 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.14 But why should this ruling be different from that of Raba,15 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 day16 and for the other at twilight,16 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, both17 acquire the privileges18 of ‘erub?19 — What a comparison!20 There21 it is doubtful whether twilight is day-time or night-time, a point that cannot be definitely determined;22 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.23 MISHNAH. IF BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS24 THERE WAS A WINDOW OF FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR, WITHIN TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND, THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ‘ERUBS25 OR, IF THEY PREFER, THEY MAY PREPARE ONE.26 IF [THE SIZE OF THE WINDOW WAS] LESS THAN FOUR HANDBREADTHS BY FOUR27 OR HIGHER THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND,28 TWO ‘ERUBS MAY BE PREPARED25 BUT NOT ONE.29 GEMARA. Must it be assumed that we have here learnt30 an anonymous Mishnah in a agreement with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who ruled31 that wherever a gap is less than four handbreadths it is regarded as labud?32 — 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 be33 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:34 The reason35 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.36 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’?37 — This is a case of anticlimax: This,38 and there is no need to say that.39 R. Johanan ruled: A round window33 must have a circumference of twenty-four handbreadths, two and a fraction of which40 must be within ten handbreadths from the ground, so that, when it41 is squared,42 a fraction remains within the ten handbreadths from the ground.43 Consider: Any object that has a circumference of three handbreadths is approximately one handbreadth in diameter: should not then twelve handbreadths44 suffice?45 the ‘erub of either courtyard. 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. deemed invalid. 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? ‘erub would become a farce. movement of objects from one courtyard into the other, however, remains forbidden. tenants are permitted the unrestricted use of both courtyards. tenants could gain access from one courtyard into the other. move objects between the courtyards either over the wall or through any small apertures or cracks in it. nonexistent (v. our Mishnah). agree with an individual opinion against that of the majority? 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.’ opposite (cf. Tosaf.). approx. 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. Johanan require a minimum circumference of twenty-four?