Eruvin

According to our previous assumption, however, that [Rab and Samuel] are in disagreement irrespective of whether a joint ‘erub was made1 or not,2 on what principle do they differ where a joint ‘erub was made3 and on what principle do they differ where no such ‘erub was made?4 — 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] within5 [may be regarded as a door];6 and where a joint ‘erub has been made7 they differ on a principle that underlies a statement of R. Joseph. For R. Joseph stated: This8 has been taught only [in respect of all alley] that terminated in the middle of the backyard9 but if it terminated at the side of the backyard10 [all movement of objects in the alley on the Sabbath is forbidden. Rabbah said: The statement11 [that termination] at the middle of a backyard is permitted, applies only [where the gaps12 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 statement11 [that where the gaps12 were] not facing one another [the use of the alley] is permitted, applies only to13 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 it14 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,15 and when the facts were submitted to Rabbi16 he neither permitted nor forbade [the movement of objects on the Sabbath] in that alley.17 [He did not declare it] forbidden because partitions18 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.19 Now20 is it necessary to take into consideration the possibility that a rubbish heap might be removed? Have we not in fact learnt:21 ‘If a rubbish heap in a public domain was ten handbreadths high,22 objects from a window above it may be thrown on to it on the Sabbath’?23 Thus it clearly follows that a distinction is made between a public rubbish heap and a private one,24 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 Rabbis25 [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 Sura26 by means of nets,27 because, he said, the possibility must be considered that the sea might throw up alluvium.28 A certain crooked alley29 once existed at Sura [and the residents of one of its arms] folded up some matting and fixed it in its bend.30 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],31 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. 32 [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.’33 Said Rabbah b. ‘Ulla to R. Bebai b. Abaye, ‘Master, is not this ruling34 [one that already appeared in] a Mishnah of ours:35 [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’?36 — The other replied: If [our information had been derived] from there37 it might have been assumed that the ruling applied only where not many people tread,38 but that where many people tread39 even the courtyard also [is forbidden].40 But did we not learn this41 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 defilement42 and a private domain in respect of the Sabbath?43 — If [the ruling44 were to be derived] from there it might have been assumed to apply only where the gaps were not facing one another45 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). to the public domain and why does not Samuel regard it so? that they do not cause the prohibition of the use of the alley? the latter appears as a doorway when viewed from the former. 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. remains even when viewed from the yard. alley and give it the appearance of one extended wall. cross-beam. one individual. deal) but not in that of the former (spoken of infra 99b). other ends opened out into a public domain. bend. 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. 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? remained closed on the side of the public domain. 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.