עירובין 78:2 — Soncino English Talmud

If grooves to supplement the width of the ladder, were cut in the wall, up to what height must this be carried? — To ten handbreadths, the other replied. If, he again asked him, all the ladder was cut in the wall, up to what height must this be carried? — Up to its full height, the other replied. Wherein, however, lies the difference? In the former case the other replied, one can easily ascend [to the top of the wall], while in the latter case this cannot be done. R. Joseph enquired of Rabbah: What is the ruling if a tree was set aside as a ladder? The enquiry is made with reference to the view of Rabbi and it is also made with reference to that of the Rabbis. It is made with reference to the view of Rabbi’ since It is possible that Rabbi applied the principle that ‘any act that is forbidden as shebuth is not subject to that prohibition during twilight’ only there where the crucial moment is at twilight, but [not where] the entire day [is involved]; or is it possible that even according to the Rabbis the tree may have the status of a doorway, except that it is one at the side of which a lion crouches? What again is the ruling where an Asherah was set aside to serve as a ladder? The enquiry is made with reference to the view of R. Judah and it is also made with reference to that of the Rabbis. It ‘is made with reference to the view of R. Judah’ since it is possible that R. Judah applied the principle that a house may be bought with objects the benefit from which is forbidden, only there, because after the ‘erub had enabled hint to acquire the place its owner derives no further satisfaction from its preservation; or is it possible that even according to the Rabbis an Asherah has the status of a doorway, except that a lion crouches at its side? — A tree, the other replied, is permitted but an Asherah is forbidden. R. Hisda demurred: On the contrary! A tree the restriction on the use of which is due to the incidence of the Sabbath should be forbidden, while an Asherah the restrictions on which are due to an external cause should not be forbidden. So it was also stated: When Rabin came he reported in the name of R. Eleazar or, as others say: R. Abbahu reported in the name of R. Johanan: Any object the restriction of the use of which is clue to the incidence of the Sabbath is forbidden, while in object the restriction on which is due to an external cause is permitted. R. Nahman b. Isaac taught thus: [The permissibility of] a tree is a question at issue between Rabbi and the Rabbis and that of an Asherah is a question at issue between R. Judah and the Rabbis. MISHNAH. IF A TRENCH BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS DEEP AND FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE, TWO ‘ERUBS MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE, EVEN IF IT WAS FULL OF STUBBLE OR STRAW. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS FULL OF EARTH OR GRAVEL, ONLY ONE ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED, BUT NOT TWO. IF A BOARD FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE WAS PLACED ACROSS IT, AND SO ALSO WHERE TWO BALCONIES WERE OPPOSITE ONE ANOTHER, THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ‘ERUBS OR, IF THEY PREFER, ONLY ONE. IF THE BOARD WAS OF A LESSER WIDTH TWO ‘ERUBS MAY BE PREPARED, BUT NOT ONE. GEMARA. But does not straw constitute a proper filling seeing that we have learnt: If a heap of straw between two courtyards was ten handbreadths high two ‘erubs may be prepared but not one? — Abaye replied: As regards the formation of a partition no one disputes the ruling that straw is regarded as a valid partition; with regard, however, to its serving as a valid filling it is only in the case where one completely abandoned it that it constitutes a valid filling, but not otherwise. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS FULL OF EARTH. This then applies even where one's intention was not known. But have we not learnt: If a house was filled with straw or gravel and the owner announced his intention to abandon it, it is duly abandoned, from which it follows, does it not, that only if the owner expressly abandoned it is it regarded as abandoned 66^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^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ

^ᵃnote:On either side of the rungs of the ladder.
^ᵇnote:To the prescribed minimum of four handbreadths.
^ᶜnote:Between two court yards, on which the ladder was leaning.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘he cut to supplement in a wall, by how much’.
^ᵉnote:From the ground. Whatever the height of the wall, valid steps on a width of four handbreadths and a height often handbreadths are regarded as a valid doorway between the courtyards (Rashi). Aliter: The grooves must be cut to a height within ten handbreadths from the top of the wall (R. Tam.).
^ᶠnote:Lit., ‘he cut it all’.
^ᵍnote:Sc. instead of a movable ladder, grooves were cut in the wall on a width of four handbreadths.
^ʰnote:The wall's.
^ⁱnote:Between the last two cases. Sc. why is a height of ten handbreadths sufficient in the former case while in the latter the grooves are required to reach to the very top of the wall?
^ʲnote:Where the ladder reached the top of the wall and the grooves were only supplementary to its width.
^ᵏnote:By means of the ladder itself. As ascent is easy it is sufficient for the supplementary grooves to reach to a height of ten handbreadths only.
^ˡnote:Where there was no ladder at all.
^ᵐnote:Unless grooves are cut to the full height of the wall.
^ⁿnote:For a wall that intervened between two courtyards whose tenants desired to have free access to each other.
^ᵒnote:Who laid down (supra 32b) that an ‘erub of Sabbath limits deposited in a tree is valid.
^ᵖnote:Who regard such an ‘erub as invalid.
^ᵠnote:V. Glos.
^ʳnote:So MS.M.
^ˢnote:The case of ‘erub of Sabbath limits.
^ᵗnote:The time the ‘erub must take effect.
^ᵘnote:Provided an ‘erub of Sabbath limits was valid and effective at that moment its subsequent consumption or loss does not in any way deprive its owner of any of the privileges the ‘erub had conferred upon him. Since the prohibition against the use of a tree is only Rabbinical, and since such a prohibition may be suspended at twilight, Rabbi may well have maintained that the ‘erub was valid.
^ᵛnote:As in the case of ‘erub of courtyards under discussion.
^ʷnote:Since access through a closed door is obviously impossible the doorway between the two courtyards must remain open and be available for use throughout the day if the ‘erub is to retain its validity until the termination of the Sabbath. Now since the use of a tree is forbidden on the Sabbath the tree appointed cannot possibly serve as a virtual ‘doorway’ even according to Rabbi.
^ˣnote:And if one is appointed to serve as a ladder access between the courtyards is thereby permitted.
^ʸnote:Metaphor. The tree may be a valid ‘doorway’ that cannot be used on account of a Rabbinical prohibition as an ordinary open door that cannot be used on account of a lion that crouched beside it. As in the latter case, though debarred from the use of the doorway itself, the tenants are nevertheless permitted access to one another through any holes or crevices in the intervening wall so are they permitted in the former case even according to the Rabbis.
^ᶻnote:If in the last case the ruling is that a tree may be regarded as a proper ladder and valid ‘doorway’.
^ᵃᵃnote:A tree or grove devoted to idol worship from which no benefit may be derived.
^ᵃᵇnote:Who laid down (supra 31a) that an ‘erub deposited on a grove is valid though one may derive no benefit from a grove.
^ᵃᶜnote:Who, contrary to the view of R. Judah, consider an ‘erub on a grove as invalid.
^ᵃᵈnote:In the case of ‘erub of Sabbath limits whose validity is determined at the moment the Sabbath begins.
^ᵃᵉnote:As his Sabbath abode.
^ᵃᶠnote:In which it was deposited.
^ᵃᵍnote:Throughout the Sabbath.
^ᵃʰnote:He derives, therefore, no benefit from the grove. The benefit he may seem to derive at twilight, when the ‘erub acquires validity, is in fact no benefit in the material sense, since an erub of Sabbath limits is allowed only for the purpose of enabling one to perform a religious act the benefit from which is purely spiritual. In the case of an ‘erub of courtyards, however, which does serve the tenants’ material benefits, and a doorway between courtyards the benefit of which is enjoyed throughout the Sabbath, R. Judah may well agree that an Asherah as a ‘doorway’ is invalid.
^ᵃⁱnote:Since the tenants do not use the Sabbath itself.
^ᵃʲnote:By means of which the tenants of both courtyards are enabled to merge their two domains into one.
^ᵃᵏnote:Cf. supra p. 546, n. 4 mut. mut.
^ᵃˡnote:To be assigned as a ladder and to assume the status of a valid doorway.
^ᵃᵐnote:Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
^ᵃⁿnote:Since it is desired to use it for the purpose of relaxing a Sabbath law.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘another’, one not connected with the Sabbath but with idolatry.
^ᵃᵖnote:In agreement with R. Hisda's submission.
^ᵃᵠnote:By Amoras.
^ᵃʳnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᵃˢnote:To be assigned as a ladder and to assume the status of a valid doorway.
^ᵃᵗnote:Separating them completely from each other.
^ᵃᵘnote:On for each courtyard.
^ᵃᵛnote:Jointly for the two courtyards. A trench of such dimensions is regarded as a complete separation between the two courtyards. One that was narrower than four handbreadths, since it is easy to step across it, is disregarded and the tenants of the two courtyards may join in one ‘erub.
^ᵃʷnote:Since these were not intended to remain there permanently.
^ᵃˣnote:So that there was no substantial break between the courtyards.
^ᵃʸnote:Because, by so doing, the tenants of the one courtyard would impose restrictions on those of the other who (cf. prev. n.) ‘virtually occupied the same courtyard.
^ᵃᶻnote:To form a sort of bridge between the courtyards.
^ᵇᵃnote:The trench.
^ᵇᵇnote:Belonging to two different owners.
^ᵇᶜnote:And a board of the width mentioned connected them. [According to Rashi, the two balconies, it appears, were on the same side of the street, v. Strashun, a.l.].
^ᵇᵈnote:One for each courtyard.
^ᵇᵉnote:Infra 79a; which proves that straw, though not intended to remain permanently in its position, constitutes nevertheless a valid partition. Why then does it not equally constitute a valid filling?
^ᵇᶠnote:So long as it remains in its place; as is the case with other movable objects which (cf. supra 15b) constitute a valid partition.
^ᵇᵍnote:Sc. to be treated as a part of the ground.
^ᵇʰnote:By announcing his intention to leave it permanently in the trench.
^ᵇⁱnote:The ruling that ONLY ONE ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED because, obviously, the two courtyards are regarded as one.
^ᵇʲnote:Since no qualifying conditions were specified.
^ᵇᵏnote:To keep the gravel permanently in the trench.
^ᵇˡnote:The straw or the gravel,
^ᵇᵐnote:And the house is regarded as filled in respect of the laws of ohel. (Cf. Ohal. XV, 7 the contents of which is here quoted in a summarized form).
^ᵇⁿnote:Lit., ‘yes’.