Eruvin

but not if he did not expressly do so?1 — R. Huna replied: Who is it that taught Ohaloth? R. Jose.2 But how could it be the view of3 R. Jose seeing that he was heard to give a reverse ruling, for it was taught: R. Jose ruled, straw4 that was not likely to be removed5 is on a par with ordinary earth6 and is deemed to be abandoned; earth4 that is likely to be removed is on a par with ordinary stubble6 and is not deemed to be abandoned?7 — Rather, said R. Assi, who is it that taught ‘Erubin?8 It is R. Jose.9 R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied:10 You are pointing out an incongruity between a law concerning levitical uncleanness and one concerning Sabbath; leave alone the restrictions of the Sabbath since on it a person abandons even his purse.11 R. Ashi replied:10 You are pointing out an incongruity between a ruling concerning a house and one concerning a trench; a trench might well be expected to be filled up,12 but is a house also expected13 to be filled up?14 IF A BOARD FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE WAS PLACED ACROSS IT. Raba explained: This15 was taught only in the case where it was laid across the width of it16 but if it was laid lengthwise17 even a board of the minutest width18 also suffices,19 since the width of the trench is thereby reduced to less than four handbreadths.20 AND SO ALSO WHERE TWO BALCONIES WERE OPPOSITE ONE ANOTHER. Raba explained: With reference to what we learned,21 AND22 SO ALSO WHERE TWO BALCONIES etc. the ruling23 applies only to such as are24 opposite each other but not to such as are not opposite each other or to such as are above each other: and even in the case of such as are above each other the ruling25 applies only where there was a distance of three handbreadths between them26 but if there was no such distance between them they may both be regarded as one crooked balcony. MISHNAH. IF A HEAP OF STRAW BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS YARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH,27 TWO ‘ERUBS28 MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE.29 THE TENANTS OF THE ONE COURTYARD MAY FEED THEIR CATTLE AT THEIR SIDE30 AND THOSE OF THE OTHER COURTYARD MAY FEED THEIRS ON THE OTHER SIDE.31 IF THE HEIGHT OF THE STRAW HEAP WAS REDUCED32 TO LESS THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS, ONE ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED33 BUT NOT TWO.28 GEMARA. R. Huna observed:34 Provided no tenant puts any straw35 into his basket and feeds his cattle.36 It is then permitted to put cattle37 there;38 but did not R. Huna lay down in the name of R. Hanina: A man may put his beast on a stretch of grass39 on the Sabbath day40 but not upon mukzeh?41 — He only stands42 near the beast43 which itself goes and eats.44 ‘Provided no tenant puts any straw into his basket’. But was it not taught: If a house45 was between two courtyards and was filled with straw, two ‘erubs may be prepared46 but not one,47 and each tenant may put some straw48 into his basket and feed his cattle therewith. If the height of the straw was reduced to less than ten handbreadths, both49 are forbidden.50 How is one to proceed?51 One of the tenants locks his house52 and renounces his right to his share, and thereby he53 remains under restrictions54 but his friend is permitted.55 And the same law56 applies to a pit57 of straw between two Sabbath limits.58 At any rate, was it not here stated: ‘each’ tenant may put some straw into his basket and feed his cattle therewith’?59 — I might reply: In the case of a house, since it has60 a ceiling, the reduction in the straw is quite noticeable,61 but here62 the diminution is not noticeable.63 ‘If the height of the straw was reduced to less than ten handbreadths both are forbidden’. But, it follows, if it was ten handbreadths high this is permitted even though the ceiling was much higher. May it not then be inferred that partitions that do not reach the ceiling are regarded as valid ones?64 — Abaye replied: We are here dealing with the case of a house that was thirteen handbreadths minus a fraction in height and that of the straw was ten handbreadths in height.65 R. Huna son of R. Joshua, however, replied: It may even refer to a house that was ten handbreadths high intention was lot known his gravel is deemed to be abandoned? effect. this effect has been made by its owner. How then could R. Huna maintain that the Mishnah of Ohal. cited represents R. Jose's view? did not declare his intention to leave it in its place. may not be moved on that day. Hence the lenient view in our Mishnah in the case of earth and gravel in a trench. As straw and stubble, however, may be handled on the Sabbath, since they are used for feeding the cattle, they cannot be regarded as abandoned unless the owner had explicitly indicated his intention to do so. In the case of levitical uncleanness, however, where the prohibition against the removal of either straw or gravel does not apply, neither can be regarded as abandoned unless the owner has made a definite announcement to that effect. known. specifically expressed his intention to leave it there. the trench run parallel to each other, the length of the former being no less than four handbreadths, the prescribed minimum for the width of a ‘doorway’. than four handbreadths. when the two courtyards would virtually become one and, in consequence of which, the tenants of the one courtyard would impose restrictions upon those of the other. As only a reduction in height that extended along more ten cubits of the junction would cause the courtyards to be merged into one (since a lesser width might be regarded as a doorway) and as cattle are not likely to eat so much in one day, the possibility mentioned need not be provided against. forbidden. possibility of his plucking the grass forgetfully on the Sabbath. forget it and so pick the mukzeh up with his own hands on the Sabbath, an act which is forbidden. Now since R. Huna forbids the putting of a beast upon mukzeh, how could he, according to his interpretation of our Mishnah, allow a beast to be put immediately in front of the straw heap which is definitely mukzeh? handling of the mukzeh. use from the other side. (5 ) Or ‘bundles’. of the other. The people on either side may use the straw on their side, no preventive measure having been instituted against the possibility of their using the straw from the other side. ten handbreadths would be clearly noticeable the use of the straw would cease as soon as that height was reached. Above that height the straw does not serve the purpose of a wall and is not, therefore, subject to the restrictions of mukzeh. handbreadths when the restrictions of mukzeh prevent its use. Hence R. Huna's ruling that no straw may be put into a tenant's basket for feeding his cattle. room.