Eruvin

some of the leaves uncovered,1 he2 need not fear the possible transgression of the laws of kil'ayim3 or of tithe or of the Sabbatical year,4 and they may be removed on the Sabbath?5 — This6 was required in that case only where a hoe or pickaxe is necessary. 7 An Egyptian ladder8 effects no reduction9 but a Tyrian ladder10 does. What is to be understood by an ‘Egyptian ladder’? — At the school of R. Jannai it was explained: One that has less than four rungs. R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi: What is the reason why an Egyptian ladder8 effects no reduction? — Did you not hear, the other replied, what R. Aha b. Adda stated in the name of R. Hamnuna who had it from Rab: Because it is an object that may be moved about on the Sabbath and which, like all such objects,11 causes no reduction? — If so, should not the same ruling apply to a Tyrian ladder also?12 — In the latter case13 it is its weight that imparts to it a permanency of position.14 Abaye ruled: If a wall between two courtyards was ten handbreadths high, and one ladder four handbreadths wide was placed on the one side15 and another of the same width was placed on the other side,16 and there is less than a distance of three handbreadths between them,17 a valid reduction is effected,18 but if there was a distance of three handbreadths between them,19 no valid reduction is effected. This, however, applies only where the wall was less than four handbreadths thick but if it was four handbreadths thick20 the reduction is valid21 even if the ladders were far removed from one another.22 R. Bebai b. Abaye ruled: If23 one balcony was built24 above another balcony a valid reduction is thereby effected if either the lower one had an area25 of four handbreadths [by four handbreadths]26 or, where it was smaller,27 if the upper one had an area of four handbreadths and there was no space of three handbreadths between them.28 Similarly29 R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha ruled: A step-ladder30 effects31 a reduction if the length of the lower rung was four handbreadths or, where it was shorter, if the upper one was four handbreadths long and there was no space of three handbreadths between them. R. Nahman further stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: the ground, so would the bowl spoken of by R. Yehiel be allowed to be removed on the Sabbath. How then could the bowl be regarded as an effective reduction. the Sabbath the bowl would have to remain in its position throughout the Sabbath day, and consequently may also be regarded as ‘a valid reduction’. its weight. wall by means of the one ladder, to stride over the top and to descend into the next courtyard by means of the other ladder. The two ladders may, therefore, be regarded as a valid opening between the courtyards. wall to the other ladder. this case the upper balcony may be completely disregarded. a greater distance than three handbreadths, however, separated them from each other they cannot be regarded as one unit and the reduction is invalid.