Eruvin

If grooves1 to supplement the width of the ladder,2 were cut in the wall,3 up to what height must this be carried?4 — To ten handbreadths,5 the other replied. If, he again asked him, all the ladder was cut6 in the wall,7 up to what height must this be carried? — Up to its8 full height, the other replied. Wherein, however, lies the difference?9 In the former case10 the other replied, one can easily ascend11 [to the top of the wall], while in the latter case12 this cannot be done.13 R. Joseph enquired of Rabbah: What is the ruling if a tree was set aside as a ladder?14 The enquiry is made with reference to the view of Rabbi15 and it is also made with reference to that of the Rabbis.16 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 shebuth17 is not subject to that prohibition during twilight’18 only there19 where the crucial moment20 is at twilight,21 but [not where]22 the entire day [is involved];23 or is it possible that even according to the Rabbis the tree may have the status of a doorway,24 except that it is one at the side of which a lion crouches?25 What again26 is the ruling where an Asherah27 was set aside to serve as a ladder? The enquiry is made with reference to the view of R. Judah28 and it is also made with reference to that of the Rabbis.29 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,30 because after the ‘erub had enabled hint to acquire31 the place32 its owner derives no further satisfaction33 from its preservation;34 or is it possible that even according to the Rabbis an Asherah35 has the status of a doorway,36 except that a lion crouches at its side?37 — A tree, the other replied, is permitted38 but an Asherah is forbidden.39 R. Hisda demurred: On the contrary! A tree the restriction on the use of which is due to the incidence of the Sabbath should40 be forbidden, while an Asherah the restrictions on which are due to an external41 cause should not be forbidden. So42 it was also stated:43 When Rabin came44 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 external41 cause is permitted.45 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 TRENCH46 BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS DEEP AND FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE, TWO ‘ERUBS47 MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE,48 EVEN IF IT WAS FULL OF STUBBLE OR STRAW.49 IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS FULL OF EARTH OR GRAVEL,50 ONLY ONE ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED, BUT NOT TWO.51 IF A BOARD FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE WAS PLACED52 ACROSS IT,53 AND SO ALSO WHERE TWO BALCONIES54 WERE OPPOSITE ONE ANOTHER,55 THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO ‘ERUBS56 OR, IF THEY PREFER, ONLY ONE. IF THE BOARD WAS OF A LESSER WIDTH TWO ‘ERUBS56 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 prepared56 but not one?57 — Abaye replied: As regards the formation of a partition no one disputes the ruling that straw is regarded as a valid partition;58 with regard, however, to its serving as a valid filling59 it is only in the case where one completely abandoned it60 that it constitutes a valid filling, but not otherwise. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS FULL OF EARTH. This61 then applies62 even where one's intention63 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,64 it is duly abandoned,65 from which it follows, does it not, that only if the owner expressly abandoned it is it regarded as abandoned 66 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.). the grooves are required to reach to the very top of the wall? ten handbreadths only. 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. 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. 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. grove. 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. 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. n.) ‘virtually occupied the same courtyard. the same side of the street, v. Strashun, a.l.]. nevertheless a valid partition. Why then does it not equally constitute a valid filling? partition. one. quoted in a summarized form).