עירובין 8 — Soncino English Talmud

¹According to our previous assumption, however, that [Rab and Samuel] are in disagreement irrespective of whether a joint ‘erub was made or not, on what principle do they differ where a joint ‘erub was made and on what principle do they differ where no such ‘erub was made? — Where no joint ‘erub was made they differ [on the question whether a gap] that has the appearance [of a door] from without but is even [with the walls] within [may be regarded as a door]; and where a joint ‘erub has been made they differ on a principle that underlies a statement of R. Joseph. For R. Joseph stated: This has been taught only [in respect of all alley] that terminated in the middle of the backyard but if it terminated at the side of the backyard [all movement of objects in the alley on the Sabbath is forbidden. Rabbah said: The statement [that termination] at the middle of a backyard is permitted, applies only [where the gaps were] not facing one another, but if they were facing one another [movement of objects in the alley on the Sabbath] is forbidden. R. Mesharsheya said: The statement [that where the gaps were] not facing one another [the use of the alley] is permitted, applies only to a backyard that belonged to many people, but [not to] a backyard of an individual who might sometimes reconsider [his attitude] towards it and build houses in it and the alley would thus be one that terminated at the sides of a backyard [in which the movement of objects on the Sabbath] is forbidden. Whence, however, is it inferred that a distinction is made between a backyard belonging to many people and one belonging to an individual? — From what Rabin b. R. Adda stated in the name of R. Isaac: It once occurred that one side of an alley terminated in the sea and the other terminated in a rubbish heap, and when the facts were submitted to Rabbi he neither permitted nor forbade [the movement of objects on the Sabbath] in that alley. [He did not declare it] forbidden because partitions in fact existed, [and he did not declare it] permitted since the possibility had to be considered that the rubbish heap might be removed or the sea might throw up alluvium. Now is it necessary to take into consideration the possibility that a rubbish heap might be removed? Have we not in fact learnt: ‘If a rubbish heap in a public domain was ten handbreadths high, objects from a window above it may be thrown on to it on the Sabbath’? Thus it clearly follows that a distinction is made between a public rubbish heap and a private one, and so here also a distinction may be made between a backyard that belonged to many people and one that belonged to one person. And what [was the view of] the Rabbis [on the question of the alley]? R. Joseph b. Abdimi replied: A Tanna taught that the Sages forbade it. R. Nahman stated: The halachah is in agreement with the ruling of the Sages. Some there are who say: R. Joseph b. Abdimi stated: A Tanna taught that the Sages permitted it, and R. Nahman said: The halachah is not in agreement with the ruling of the Sages. Meremar partitioned off Sura by means of nets, because, he said, the possibility must be considered that the sea might throw up alluvium. A certain crooked alley once existed at Sura [and the residents of one of its arms] folded up some matting and fixed it in its bend. This [arrangement], said R. Hisda, is neither in agreement with the view of Rab nor with that of Samuel. According to Rab, who ruled that the law of such [an alley] is the same as that of one that is open at both ends, [a structure in] the shape of a doorway is required; and [even] according to Samuel who ruled that it is subject to the law of a closed one [it must be understood that] his ruling applied only where a proper side-post [had been fixed], but such [matting], since the wind blows on it and throws it about, is useless. If a pin, however, was inserted therein and it was thus fastened [to the wall] it may be regarded as a proper partition. [Reverting to] the main text: ‘R. Jeremiah b. Abba laid down on the authority of Rab that if an alley was broken along its full [width] into a courtyard, and a breach was made in the courtyard [wall] over against it, the courtyard is ritually fit but the alley is forbidden.’ Said Rabbah b. ‘Ulla to R. Bebai b. Abaye, ‘Master, is not this ruling [one that already appeared in] a Mishnah of ours: [If the full width of a wall of] a small courtyard was broken down [so that the yard now fully opens out] into a large courtyard, [movement of objects on the Sabbath] is permitted in the large courtyard but forbidden in the small one because the gap is regarded as an entrance to the former’? — The other replied: If [our information had been derived] from there it might have been assumed that the ruling applied only where not many people tread, but that where many people tread even the courtyard also [is forbidden]. But did we not learn this also: A courtyard into which many people enter from one side and go out from the other [is deemed to be] a public domain in respect of levitical defilement and a private domain in respect of the Sabbath? — If [the ruling were to be derived] from there it might have been assumed to apply only where the gaps were not facing one another45^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

^ᵃnote:Between the residents of the alley and those of the courtyard.
^ᵇnote:Sc. that (a) Rab forbids the movement of objects in the alley, even if a joint ‘erub was made, on the ground of the exposure of the alley through the breach to a public domain; that (b) only the breach causes the prohibition but not the right of passage of the courtyard residents through the alley; that (c) Rab Judah's ruling (supra 7a ad fin.) represents the view of Samuel who, if a joint ‘erub was made, permits the use of the alley despite the breach (as is evident from his decision in the case of a backyard which has no residents and which in respect of the laws under discussion has the same status as a courtyard that has residents who joined those of the alley in their ‘erub) and that (d) where no joint ‘erub was made between the residents of the courtyard and the alley Samuel forbids the use of the latter even where there was no breach (as follows from the fact that in his permission he mentioned a backyard, which has no residents, and not a courtyard which has residents).
^ᶜnote:And the prohibition could be due to the breach only. Why does Rab regard the alley as exposed through that breach to the public domain and why does not Samuel regard it so?
^ᵈnote:Why, since no breach was made, does Samuel rule that the residents of the courtyard cause, and why does Rab rule that they do not cause the prohibition of the use of the alley?
^ᵉnote:Where, for instance, the courtyard is wider than the alley. The gap occasioned by the collapse of the complete wall of the latter appears as a doorway when viewed from the former.
^ᶠnote:Rab is of the opinion that, since the gap has the appearance of a door when viewed from the courtyard and since it is not wider than ten cubits, it may well be regarded as a door for the residents of the alley also; while Samuel, owing to the fact that when viewed from the alley it has the appearance of a breach, does not recognize it as a door.
^ᵍnote:And the question of permissibility arises on account of the gap in the wall of the courtyard.
^ʰnote:That no provision whatever is necessary in the case of an alley that terminated in a backyard (supra 7a ad fin.).
^ⁱnote:So that the shape of a door remained at least on the side facing the backyard.
^ʲnote:In which case one side of the yard appears like a continuation of the side of the alley, and no shape of a door remains even when viewed from the yard.
^ᵏnote:Lit., ‘that which you said’.
^ˡnote:In (a) the wall between the alley and the yard and (b) in the yard wall that adjoined the public domain.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘he did not say them, but’.
^ⁿnote:Against that portion of the wall which formed the side-post, and thus level the side of the yard with the side of the alley and give it the appearance of one extended wall.
^ᵒnote:The third side was closed and the fourth was open on a public domain and duly furnished with a side-post and cross-beam.
^ᵖnote:R. Judah l, compiler of the Mishnah.
^ᵠnote:Lit., ‘he did not say about it, either permission or prohibition.’
^ʳnote:The rubbish heap on the one side and the sea shore on the other, each of which was ten handbreadths high.
^ˢnote:I.e., it may recede, in consequence of which possibility either of the partitions might disappear. Infra 99b.
^ᵗnote:This is the conclusion of the argument that a distinction is made between the property of several people and that of one individual.
^ᵘnote:Infra 99b.
^ᵛnote:And is consequently subject to the laws of a private domain.
^ʷnote:The possibility of a reduction in its height, which would turn it into a public domain, not being considered.
^ˣnote:The possibility of reduction being taken into consideration in respect of the latter (with which case Rabbi had to deal) but not in that of the former (spoken of infra 99b).
^ʸnote:Rabbi's contemporaries.
^ᶻnote:From the river or canal (cf. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 294, n. 5 and text) which ran along the backs of alleys that at their other ends opened out into a public domain.
^ᵃᵃnote:The river, or canal bank was not regarded by him as a proper partition.
^ᵃᵇnote:And people might not be aware of the difference and would continue to use the alleys on the Sabbath day as before.
^ᵃᶜnote:Cf. supra 6a.
^ᵃᵈnote:While a side-post was fixed at their entrance, the residents of the other arm providing no such post to their entrance.
^ᵃᵉnote:At the entrance to each arm (Rashi). The view of Rashi's teacher is that a third side-post also must be fixed at the bend.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘he fastened it’.
^ᵃᵍnote:Supra 7b ab init. q.v. notes, where it was explained that this was a case where no joint ‘erub was made between the residents of the alley and those of the courtyard and that the prohibition of the use of the former was due to the right of passage through it of the residents of the latter.
^ᵃʰnote:Cf. previous note.
^ᵃⁱnote:V. infra 92a.
^ᵃʲnote:Since the gap, when viewed from the large court, is flanked on either side by the remaining portions of the fallen wall, which may be viewed as side-posts. It cannot be treated as an entrance of the small courtyard because the side portions of the wall cannot be seen from its interior where the opening has the appearance of a wide gap extending from wall to wall. Now, since it is obvious that the conditions of the alley and courtyard spoken of by Rab are analogous to those of the large and small courtyards dealt with in the Mishnah quoted, what need was there for Rab to issue a ruling that was a mere repetition of a Mishnah?
^ᵃᵏnote:The Mishnah quoted.
^ᵃˡnote:As in the case dealt with in the Mishnah where the breach occurred between two courtyards and the larger one remained closed on the side of the public domain.
^ᵃᵐnote:The case spoken of by Rab, where the courtyard was broken both on the side of the alley and on that of the public domain. People in the public domain would naturally use the courtyard as a short cut and might thus turn it into a sort of public thoroughfare.
^ᵃⁿnote:Hence the necessity for Rab's ruling.
^ᵃᵒnote:That the use of a courtyard by the public does not affect its status as a private domain in respect of the Sabbath laws.
^ᵃᵖnote:Sc. any uncertainty of defilement is to be regarded as clean.
^ᵃᵠnote:Tosef. Toh. VII; cf. infra 22b.
^ᵃʳnote:V. supra note 7.
^ᵃˢnote:Lit., ‘these words, when this is not opposite this’.

²but not where they were facing each other. According to Rabbah, however, who ruled [that a courtyard is] forbidden where the gaps were facing each other, how would he explain Rab's ruling? [Obviously, that it referred to a case where the gaps were] not facing one another [but then the question arises again:] What need was there for two [rulings on the same subject]? — If [the rulings were derived] from there it might have been assumed to apply only to the throwing [of objects into it], but not to the moving [of them within it]; hence we were informed [of Rab's ruling]. It was stated: If an alley is constructed in the form of a centipede, the shape of a doorway, said Abaye, is made [at the entrance] of the major alley and all the others are rendered ritually fit by means of a side-post and cross-beam. Said Raba to him: In agreement with whose view [is your ruling]? [If it is] in agreement with that of Samuel who ruled that [a crooked alley] has the same law as one that is closed [at one end], why should it be necessary to have the shape of a doorway? And, furthermore, was there not once a crooked alley at Nehardea and [in providing for its ritual fitness] Rab's view also was taken into consideration? [The fact,] however, is, said Raba, that the shape of a doorway is made [at the entrance] of each minor alley on the one side while the other side [of each minor alley] is rendered ritually fit by means of a side-post and cross-beam. Said R. Kahana b. Tahlifa in the name of R. Kahana b. Minyomi in the name of Rab Kahana b. Malkio who had it from R. Kahana the teacher of Rab [others say that R. Kahana b. Malkio is the same R. Kahana who was Rab's teacher]: If one side of an alley was long and the other short, [and the shortage is] less than four cubits, the cross-beam may be laid in a slanting position, [but if it is] four cubits the cross-beam is laid only at right angles to the shorter side. Raba said: In either case the beam must be laid only at right angles to the shorter side; and I can give my reason and also theirs. My reason is: [The erection of] a cross-beam was enacted in order [to provide] a distinguishing mark, and [a beam] in a slanting position provides no such mark. Their reason is: [The object of] a cross-beam was to provide a partition, and [a beam] in a slanting position is also a partition. R. Kahana remarked: As the ruling is reported in the name of Kahanas, I would say something about it. The rule that the beam may be laid in a slanting position applies only where the slant was no longer than ten cubits, but if it was longer than ten cubits all agree that it is placed only at right angles to the shorter side. The question was asked: May the space under a cross-beam be used? Rab and R. Hiyya and R. Johanan replied: It is permitted to use the space under the beam; Samuel, R. Simeon b. Rabbi and R. Simeon b. Lakish replied: It is forbidden to use the space under the beam. May it be assumed that they differ on the following principle? One Master is of the opinion that a cross-beam serves the purpose of a distinguishing mark, while the other Master holds that the cross-beam serves the purpose of a partition? — No; all may agree that a beam serves the purpose of a partition, but it is this principle on which they differ here. One Master holds that the distinguishing mark [is to serve as such for those who are] from within, and the other Master holds that it is for those who are without. And if you prefer I would reply: All agree that it serves the purpose of a partition, but it is this on which they differ here: One Master holds that its inner edge [is deemed to] descend and close up [the entrance] while the other Master maintains that it is its outer edge [that is deemed to] descend and close it up. R. Hisda stated: All agree that [the use of the space] between side-posts is forbidden. Rami b. Mama enquired of R. Hisda: What is the ruling where one Inserted two pins [respectively] in the two [extremities of the] walls of an alley on the outside and placed a beam on them? The other replied: According to him who permits [elsewhere the use of the space under the cross-beam the use of the space here] is forbidden; and according to him who forbids [the use elsewhere of such space, the use of it here] is permitted. Raba said: According to him also who forbids [the use of the space under the cross-beam the use of the alley here] is forbidden, since we require the beam to rest above the alley and this is not the case here. R. Adda b. Mattena raised an objection against Raba: If its cross-beam^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ

^ᵃᵗnote:Rab, therefore, found it necessary to state that even where the gaps faced one another the courtyard is still regarded as a private domain.
^ᵃᵘnote:Supra 8a.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lit., ‘wherefore to me’.
^ᵃʷnote:Rab's and that of the Mishnah quoted.
^ᵃˣnote:The Mishnah.
^ᵃʸnote:Sc. that it is Pentateuchally regarded as a private domain and that consequently it is forbidden to throw any object from the public domain into it.
^ᵃᶻnote:Such movement being forbidden by an enactment of the Rabbis who imposed upon it the restrictions of a public domain.
^ᵇᵃnote:That the moving of objects within the courtyard is permitted.
^ᵇᵇnote:By Amoras.
^ᵇᶜnote:Sc. from a major alley that opens out into a public domain minor alleys branch out in the shape of the legs of a centipede, and these have two entrances each, one from the major alley and another from a public domain (Rashi), being built, however, in such a manner as to avoid the entrances of any two opposite alleys from facing one another (R. Tam). Should the entrances of two alleys be directly opposite each other they would be regarded as one long alley that opens out at both ends into public domains and would be subject to the more stringent laws that are applicable to such all alley. (V. Tosaf. s.v. hucn a.l.)
^ᵇᵈnote:Fixed at each of the entrances that open out into the public domains.
^ᵇᵉnote:Each of the minor alleys may be regarded as an arm of a crooked alley the other arm of which is formed by the major alley.
^ᵇᶠnote:At the entrance of the major alley. If the minor ones have the status of crooked alleys the major one also, for the same reason, should have the same status and be subject to the same laws.
^ᵇᵍnote:V. supra 6b.
^ᵇʰnote:How then could Abaye rule that only the lenient ruling of Samuel was to be followed?
^ᵇⁱnote:Lit., ‘to all of them’.
^ᵇʲnote:That terminates in the major alley (Rashi).
^ᵇᵏnote:Terminating in the public domain (Rashi). R. Han.: ‘on one side etc.’; i.e., the shape of the doorway and the side-post and cross-beam may respectively be set up on either side. V. Also Marginal Gloss.
^ᵇˡnote:One end on the longer and the other on the shorter side, and the alley may be used as far as the beam, i.e., to the termination of each side.
^ᵇᵐnote:Lit., ‘opposite’, ‘corresponding’.
^ᵇⁿnote:Whether the difference between the lengths of the two walls of an alley was four cubits or less.
^ᵇᵒnote:Lit., ‘and I say’.
^ᵇᵖnote:That of the authorities just mentioned.
^ᵇᵠnote:Lit., ‘what is the reason?’
^ᵇʳnote:Supra 5a.
^ᵇˢnote:Lit., ‘there is no recognition’, because the space adjoining the part of the longer wall which protrudes beyond the shorter one, not being enclosed by any wall on its other side, might be mistaken for a continuation of the public domain.
^ᵇᵗnote:That of the authorities just mentioned.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit., ‘and I say’.
^ᵇᵛnote:Between the alley and the public domain.
^ᵇʷnote:Lit., ‘that which you said’.
^ᵇˣnote:Since an entrance may not be wider than ten cubits.
^ᵇʸnote:Sc. in the same manner as the interior of the alley. This is a general question relating to any alley.
^ᵇᶻnote:The two groups of authorities just mentioned.
^ᶜᵃnote:Sc. each of the group.
^ᶜᵇnote:Between the alley and public domain. As the mark is there, it is permitted to use the space under it.
^ᶜᶜnote:The space under the beam being virtually covered so to speak with the imaginary downward extension of the beam, no use can be made of it.
^ᶜᵈnote:The residents of the alley. As they see only the inner side, no use may be made of the space beyond the inner edge.
^ᶜᵉnote:I.e.,the people in the public domain; so that the whole of the space under the beam belongs to the alley and consequently may be used by the residents of the alley.
^ᶜᶠnote:The space under the beam, being in consequence outside the alley, must be regarded as belonging to the public domain and its use must, therefore, be forbidden.
^ᶜᵍnote:Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis.
^ᶜʰnote:Where no cross-beam but only a side-post had been put up. The plural (ohhjk) in the text applies to alleys in general, each single alley requiring no more than one side-post at its entrance (V. Rashi).
^ᶜⁱnote:Sc. in the thicknesses of the walls, on either side of the entrance, that face the public domain.
^ᶜʲnote:So that the inner edge of the beam touches the walls of the alley while the rest of the beam lies outside. Is the alley, it is asked, rendered ritually fit for the Sabbath by such an arrangement?
^ᶜᵏnote:Since the very reason for the permission to use the space under the beam, viz., that the outer edge of the beam is deemed to descend to the ground, is a reason here for the prohibition of the use of the entire interior of the alley. For if the outer edge is the limit of the partition, the thickness of the beam separates it from the alley and so invalidates it as a partition of it.
^ᶜˡnote:Because he maintains that it is the inner edge of the beam that constitutes the partition.
^ᶜᵐnote:Since the inner edge does touch the walls of the alley and so forms a valid partition between the public domain and the alley.
^ᶜⁿnote:And also against R. Hisda (h",).
^ᶜᵒnote:Of an alley.