Eruvin

while the use of the middle ruin is forbidden.1 R. Berona, sitting at his studies, was enunciating this ruling2 when R. Eleazar,3 a student at the college, asked him, ‘Did Rab actually say this?’4 — ‘Yes’, the other replied. ‘Will you’, the first asked: ‘show me his lodgings?’ When the other showed them to him he approached Rab and asked him, ‘Did the Master say this?’5 — ‘Yes’, the other replied. ‘But’, the first objected, ‘did not the Master state: Where it is accessible to one by means of lowering things and to the other by means of thrusting both are forbidden access’?6 — ‘You imagine’, the other replied: ‘that they7 stood in a straight line;8 but no, they stood in a triangle’.9 Said R. Papa to Raba: Must it be assumed that Samuel10 does not uphold the view of R. Dimi, seeing that when R. Dimi came11 posed even through the air. How, then, he wondered, could Rab allow each occupier to use the ruin adjacent to his house seeing that the occupier opposite should impose restrictions on its use through the air since he can use it by throwing his things into it? he stated in the name of R. Johanan: On a place12 whose area is less than four handbreadths by four13 it is permissible both for the people of the public domain and for those of the private domain14 to re-arrange their burdens, provided they do not exchange them?15 — There16 it is a case of domains,17 access between which is Pentateuchally forbidden,18 while here19 it is a case of domains,20 access between which is only Rabbinically forbidden, and the Sages have applied to their enactments, heavier restrictions than to those of the Torah.21 Said Rabina to Raba: Did Rab say this?22 Was it not in fact stated: If two houses23 stood on the two sides respectively of a public domain it is forbidden, said Rabbah son of R. Huna In the name of Rab, to throw any object from one into the other,24 and Samuel ruled: It is permitted to throw from one into the other?25 — Have we not explained,26 the other replied, that one27 was higher and the other28 lower so that29 it may sometimes happen that the object might drop and roll away and one might in consequence be tempted to carry it.30 MISHNAH. IF A MAN DEPOSITED HIS ‘ERUB31 IN A GATE-HOUSE, AN EXEDRA OR A GALLERY IT IS NOT A VALID ‘ERUB;32 AND NO ONE WHO DWELLS IN IT32 IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS.33 AN ‘ERUB31 DEPOSITED IN A STRAW-SHED, A CATTLE-SHED, A WOOD-SHED OR STOREHOUSE IS VALID;34 AND ANYONE35 WHO DWELLS IN IT IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS.36 R. JUDAH RULED: IF THE HOUSEHOLDER HAS THERE37 ANY HOLDING38 THE TENANT IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS.39 GEMARA. R. Judah son of R. Samuel b. Shilath stated: If concerning any place the Sages40 ruled that ‘No one who dwells in it imposes restrictions’ the ‘erub that is deposited [in such a place] is no valid ‘erub, the only exception being the gate-house of an individual owner;41 and if concerning any place the Sages ruled that ‘no ‘erub42 may be deposited in it’, shittuf43 may nevertheless be deposited in it,44 the only exception being the air space of an alley. But what does he45 teach us,46 seeing that we learned: IF A MAN DEPOSITED HIS ‘ERUB IN A GATE-HOUSE, AN EXEDRA ON A GALLERY IT IS NOT A VALID ‘ERUB, from which it follows only that it is NOT A VALID ‘ERUB but that it is nevertheless a valid shittuf. — He45 found it necessary to make his statement on account of the law relating to the ‘gate-house of an individual owner’41 and to the ‘air space of an alley’ which we have not learnt In our Mishnah. So47 it was also taught: ‘If a man deposited his ‘erub in a gate-house, an exedra, a gallery, a courtyard or an alley his ‘erub is valid’, but have we not learnt: IT IS NOT A VALID ‘ERUB?48 Read, therefore, ‘the shittuf is valid.’49 But can the food for shittuf be safely preserved in an alley?50 — Read: In a courtyard that is situated in the alley.51 Rab Judah citing Samuel52 ruled: If members of a party were dining when the sanctity of the Sabbath day overtook them, they may rely upon the bread on the table to serve the purpose of ‘erub or, as others say, the purpose of shittuf. Rabbah observed: There is really no divergence of opinion between them,53 since the former refers to a party dining in a house54 while the latter refer to one dining in a courtyard.55 Said Abaye to Rabbah, It was taught in agreement with your view: ‘Erubs of courtyards should be deposited in a courtyard and shittufs of alleys in an alley,’56 and when the objection was raised: How could it be said that ‘erubs of courtyards should be deposited in a courtyard’ seeing that we learned, IF A MAN DEPOSITED HIS ‘ERUB IN A GATE-HOUSE OR EXEDRA OR A GALLERY IT IS NOT A VALID ‘ERUB?57 [It was replied,] Read: ‘Erubs of courtyards should be deposited in a house that was situated in the courtyard, and food for the shittuf of an alley should be deposited in a courtyard that was in the alley. 58 R. JUDAH RULED: IF . . . HAS THERE ANY HOLDING etc. What is one to understand by a HOLDING? — One, for instance, like that in the courtyard of Bonyis.59 The son of Bonyis once visited Rabbi. ‘Make room’, the latter called out,60 ‘for the owner of a hundred maneh’. Another person entered, when he called out, houses may be used by the respective occupiers, despite the use that each is able on weekdays to make of the ruin adjacent to his neighbour's house by thrusting objects into it through the air, it follows that in the opinion of Rab no restrictions can be imposed by one person upon another through his use of the air. could use It except by throwing his things into it through the air, was of the opinion that restrictions are imposed through an open door, though that party's use by lowering is easier than the other party's use by thrusting, restrictions are nevertheless imposed. How then, seeing that according to Rab restrictions are imposed through the air (cf. prev. n.), could the use of a ruin be permitted to the occupier of the house nearest to it in view of the fact that his access to it is only less difficult than that of the occupier of the opposite house but not really convenient? were respectively adjacent to one of the houses and separated from the other by the ruin adjacent to it. The use of the central ruin is forbidden to both occupiers, not for the reason assumed by R. Eleazar, but because both, who through their windows have equally direct, though inconvenient, access to it, impose restrictions upon each other. The use of the other two ruins too is permitted respectively to both because in the case of either ruin one of the occupiers has direct access and the other has only indirect access by means of thrusting his things into it through the air through which no restriction can be imposed. domain into a public one and vice versa. Now, a place having an area so small as the one described has no legal existence in respect of the Sabbath laws and is, therefore, analogous to mere air space and, since it was ruled that it may be freely used, and that no provision such e.g. as a projection is necessary, Samuel who did prescribe a projection in the case of use through the air cannot very well agree with it. projection, was considered necessary. cannot impose restrictions through the air. being that the people of the public domain impose restrictions through the air of their domain through which the object must pass. he have ruled supra that restrictions through the air cannot be imposed? permitted’ to throw objects from one house into the other, it may be added, presents no contradiction against his ruling supra that restrictions are imposed through the air, since the former case relates to domains access between which is Pentateuchally forbidden while the latter relates to such as are only Rabbinically forbidden. Greater safeguards, as has been explained supra, were required in the case of a Rabbinical enactment than in that of a Pentateuchal one. courtyard. storage. while the tenant in question has no individual status but that of one of his household. common dwelling, that dwelling being the place in which the ‘erub is deposited. As in its essence it must constitute a ‘dwelling’, only a place or structure that is used as a dwelling is suitable for the purpose. Shittuf however, which combines only courtyards, in which people do not actually dwell, has no connection with the principle of ‘a dwelling’ and the food for it may, therefore, be deposited even in a place that is not used for dwelling purposes. holding in each room for the purpose of storing in it some of his own goods.