עירובין 9 — Soncino English Talmud

¹was drawn away or suspended [at a distance of] less than three handbreadths [from the walls of the alley] there is no need to provide another beam, [but if the distance was] three handbreadths another beam must be provided. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: [If the distance was] less than four handbreadths there is no need to provide another beam [but if it was] four handbreadths another beam must be provided. Does not ‘drawn away’ [mean that the beam was altogether] outside [the alley], and ‘suspended’ [that it was] within? No; both [refer to a beam] within the alley, but by ‘drawn away [was meant that the beam was drawn away] from one side, and by ‘suspended’ [that it was drawn away] from both sides. [As] it might have been assumed [that the law of] labud is applied [only where the beam is removed] from one side but not [when it is removed] from the two sides, hence we were informed [that in the latter case also the law of labud applies]. R. Ashi replied: [The meaning is that the beam was] drawn away [from the walls] and also suspended. And how is this to be imagined? [That a man], for instance, inserted on the tops of the two side-walls of an alley respectively two slanting pins whose height is less than three handbreadths and whose slant also is less than three handbreadths. [Since] it might be assumed that we call apply either the law of labud or that of habut, but not that of both labud and habut, hence we were informed [that both may also be applied]. R. Zakkai recited in the presence of R. Johanan: [The space] between the side-posts and beneath the cross-beam is subject to the laws of a karmelith. ‘Go out’, the other told him, ‘recite this outside’. Said Abaye: It stands to reason that the view of R. Johanan [applies to the space] under the beam but [that] between the side-posts is forbidden. Raba, however, said: [The space] between the side-posts is also permitted. Said Rabbi: Why do I say this? Because when R. Dimi came he reported in the name of R. Johanan: In a place whose area is less than four by four [handbreadths] it is permissible for both the people of the public domain and those of the private domain to rearrange their burdens, provided only that they do not exchange them. And Abaye? — There [it is a case] where [the place] was three handbreadths in height. Said Abaye: Why do I say this? Because R. Hama b. Goria said in the name of Rab: [The space] within a gateway requires a special side-post to render it permissible. And should you suggest that [this is one] where the area is four handbreadths by four, surely, [it can be retorted] R. Hanin b. Raba stated on the authority of Rab: [The space] within a gateway, though it is less than four handbreadths by four, requires a special side-post to render its use permitted. And Raba? — There [it is a case where the alley] opens out into a karmelith. Is this, however, permitted [where the alley opens out] into a public domain? The native [then would be] in the earth and the stranger in the highest heavens? Yes, the like has found its like and is aroused. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to Raba: Do you not uphold the view that [according to R. Johanan, the space] between side-posts is forbidden? Surely, Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in the name of R. Johanan: If [a section of one side of] an alley was lined with side-posts [fixed within distances of] less than four [handbreadths between one another, the question of its use] is dependent on the dispute between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis. [Now this obviously means, does it not, that] according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who ruled [that in respect of such distances the law of] labud is applied, one is allowed to the [the alley from the interior thereof only] up to the inner edge of the innermost post and that according to the Rabbis, who ruled [that in respect of a distance of more than three handbreadths, the law of] labud is not applied, one is allowed to use [the alley] up to the inner edge of the outermost post, but [the use of the space] between side-posts is unanimously forbidden? And Raba? — There also [it is a case] where [the alley] opens out into a karmelith. Would this, however, be permitted [where the alley opened out] into a public domain? The native [then would be] in the earth and the stranger in the highest heavens? — Yes, the like has found its like and is aroused.65^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^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ

^ᵃnote:From the alley walls. If, for instance, it was resting on pins driven into the external extremities of the alley walls on either side of the entrance.
^ᵇnote:On a pole erected in the center of the entrance, the ends of the beam not reaching the walls, and hanging, so to speak, in the air.
^ᶜnote:The space between the beam and the walls being so small it is deemed to be non-existent (v. Glos. s.v. labud).
^ᵈnote:Cf. previous note. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel regards as labud (v. Glos.) any gap that is not wider than four handbreadths.
^ᵉnote:Cf. infra 14a, 16b, Suk. 22a.
^ᶠnote:Cf. supra p. 48, n. 9.
^ᵍnote:As explained supra p. 48, n. 10. An objection thus arises against Raba who ruled that the beam must rest within the alley walls.
^ʰnote:The expressions ‘drawn away’ and ‘suspended’.
^ⁱnote:Sc. it did not reach the wall of the alley on that side but its other end was supported on the opposite wall.
^ʲnote:The beam resting on a pole fixed in the center of the entrance (cf supra p. 48, n. 10).
^ᵏnote:V. Glos.
^ˡnote:Lit., ‘we say’.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘we do not say’.
^ⁿnote:Not being satisfied with the previous answer, since it was unnecessary to lay down a special law of labud for two sides when it could be easily inferred from that of one side where the very same principle is involved.
^ᵒnote:Sloping towards each other above the entrance of the alley.
^ᵖnote:From the top of the walls.
^ᵠnote:Lit., ‘there is not in their height’.
^ʳnote:According to the first Tanna.
^ˢnote:Sc. the distance between the walls and the extremity of the pin.
^ᵗnote:And the beam was placed upon these projections so that it is removed from the walls both vertically and horizontally.
^ᵘnote:V. Glos. Labud (‘junction’) might apply to the horizontal, and habut (‘beating down’) to the vertical gap.
^ᵛnote:V. Glos. Consequently the free movement of objects in that space is forbidden on the Sabbath.
^ʷnote:An expression of disapproval. R. Johanan holds the view that the space mentioned is regarded as a part of the alley in which the free movement of objects is permitted.
^ˣnote:Cf. previous note.
^ʸnote:Where no side-posts were erected at the entrance, his reason being that the outer edge of the beam constitutes the virtual partition between the alley and the public domain.
^ᶻnote:If no beam was put up.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit., ‘whence’.
^ᵃᵇnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᵃᶜnote:Situated between a public and a private domain.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘in which there is not’.
^ᵃᵉnote:Being so small it cannot be regarded as a separate domain and assumes, therefore, the legal status of a free area.
^ᵃᶠnote:Since it is regarded as a free spot.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., ‘to put on the shoulder’.
^ᵃʰnote:And thus lead people erroneously to assume that it is permitted to carry from a public domain into a private domain or vice versa. (Shab. 8b, infra 77a). For a similar reason (v. supra n. 10) the space between the side-posts, not being of sufficient size to constitute a domain of its own, assumes the same status as the spot spoken of by R. Johanan.
^ᵃⁱnote:How can he maintain his view against this principle of R. Johanan?
^ᵃʲnote:R. Johanan's ruling.
^ᵃᵏnote:Being a clearly defined spot it may be regarded as a ‘free area’. The space between side-posts, however, being comparatively small and level with the ground, is not in any way distinguishable from the domains adjoining it; and, if its use were permitted, people would erroneously assume that it is permitted to carry objects from a public domain into a private domain or vice versa. Hence the prohibition.
^ᵃˡnote:His explanation of R. Johanan's ruling supra.
^ᵃᵐnote:Formed by the wide side-posts of an alley.
^ᵃⁿnote:In addition to the side-posts mentioned which effect the ritual fitness of the alley itself.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘another’.
^ᵃᵖnote:Shab. 9a; from which it follows that where no special side-posts had been put up, the space within the gateway, formed by the side-posts, remains forbidden.
^ᵃᵠnote:The case spoken of by R. Hama b. Goria.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., large enough to constitute an independent domain to be Rabbinically forbidden.
^ᵃˢnote:Var. lec., ‘R. Hama b. Goria’ (Shab. 9a).
^ᵃᵗnote:Lit., ‘another’.
^ᵃᵘnote:How can he maintain his ruling in view of Abaye's argument?
^ᵃᵛnote:V. Glos., fields for instance; so that a side-post is necessary to separate the space within the entrance, which is Rabbinically forbidden from the karmelith which adjoins it and which is also Rabbinically forbidden.
^ᵃʷnote:To use the space within the entrance even if no side-post is provided.
^ᵃˣnote:A proverbial paradox. The reverse surely should be expected. If an opening to a karmelith which is only a Rabbinically forbidden domain, requires a side-post how much more so one that opens into a public domain which is Pentateuchally forbidden
^ᵃʸnote:Lit., ‘kind’.
^ᵃᶻnote:Sc. the space within the entrance is in fact a karmelith, but as it is less than the prescribed size, it loses all its independent existence if it is situated between a private and a public domain, to neither of which it is akin and to neither of which it can be joined. If, however, it adjoins a karmelith on one side it is deemed to have regained its existence as a karmelith by being regarded as a part of the larger domain.
^ᵇᵃnote:The first post being placed near the entrance, the second next to it, the third next to the second and so on.
^ᵇᵇnote:Lit., ‘less less’.
^ᵇᶜnote:But more than three handbreadths.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘we came’.
^ᵇᵉnote:Supra.
^ᵇᶠnote:Lit., ‘we say labud’ (v. Glos.).
^ᵇᵍnote:Since all posts are deemed to be united into one single unit the space between this edge and the entrance of the alley is subject to the law of the ‘space between the side-posts’.
^ᵇʰnote:So that each post is deemed to be a separate unit, and the alley's permissibility is consequently effected by means of the first post that is fixed nearest the entrance.
^ᵇⁱnote:Cf. previous note.
^ᵇʲnote:Lit., ‘that all the world’, sc. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis.
^ᵇᵏnote:Had this been permitted, the dispute on labud could not have had any bearing on the use of the alley mentioned.
^ᵇˡnote:How call he still maintain his ruling in view of the objection just raised?
^ᵇᵐnote:Cf. supra p. 51, nn. 8-11 mutatis mutandis.

²R. Ashi replied: [This may refer to a case] for instance where [one side of the alley] was lined with side-posts [placed at distances of] less than four handbreadths [from one another] along four cubits [of its length]. According to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who ruled [that in respect of such distances the law of] labud is applied [the space bordered by the side-posts] is deemed to be [a proper] alley which requires an additional side-post to render it permissible, and according to the Rabbis who ruled [that the law of] labud is not applied, no other side-post is required to render it permissible. But even according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel [why] should [not this alley be permitted] as [one having a side-post that may be] seen from without though it appears even within? — Is not this explanation required only in respect of a statement of R. Johanan? But, surely, when Rabin came he reported in the name of R. Johanan [that a post that may be] seen from without but appears even from within cannot be regarded as a valid side-post. It was stated: [A post that] is seen from within but appears even from without is regarded as a valid side-post; but if it is seen from without and appears even from within [there is a difference of opinion between] R. Hiyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi. One maintains that it is regarded as a valid side-post and the other maintains that it is not regarded as a valid side-post. You may conclude that it was R. Hiyya who maintained that ‘it is regarded as a valid side-post’; for R. Hiyya taught: A wall of which one side recedes more than the other, whether [the recess can be] seen from without and appears even from within or whether it can be seen from within and appears even from without, may be regarded as [being provided with] a side-post. This is conclusive. Did not R. Johanan, however, hear this? But [what you might contend is] that he did hear it and is not of the same opinion; [is it not then possible that] R. Hiyya also is not of the same opinion? — What [a comparison is] this! It might well [be contended that] R. Johanan does not hold the same opinion [and that it was] for this reason that he did not teach it; but as regards R. Hiyya if it is a fact that he does not hold the same opinion, what need was there for him to teach it? Rabbah son of R. Huna said: [A post that is] seen from without though it appears even from within is regarded as a valid side-post. Said Rabbah: We, however, raised an objection against this traditional ruling: [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 one but forbidden in the small one because the gap is regarded as an entrance to the former. Now, if this is valid, should not the movement of objects in the small courtyard also be permitted on [the principle that the entrance may be] seen without though it appears even from within? — R. Zera replied: [This is a case] where the walls of the small one project into the large one. But why should not the principle of labud be applied so that the use of the smaller courtyard also might be permitted? And should you reply that [the walls] were too far apart, surely, [it may be retorted] did not R. Adda b. Abimi recite in the presence of R. Hanina: [The ruling applies to a case where] the small courtyard was ten and the large one eleven cubits? — Rabina replied: [This is a case] where [the projections] were removed by two handbreadths from one wall and by four from the other. Then let labud be applied to one side and [thereby the smaller courtyard would] be permitted?^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^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ^ᶜʷ

^ᵇⁿnote:R. Johanan's statement that the question of the use of the alley under discussion is dependent on the dispute between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis.
^ᵇᵒnote:Since a wall of four cubits in length (v. supra 5a) is sufficient to constitute an alley.
^ᵇᵖnote:The permissibility of the interior of the alley between the inner edge of the innermost post and the back wall is a matter on which Rashi and others differ.
^ᵇᵠnote:Where a distance or gap is more than three handbreadths.
^ᵇʳnote:The outermost post forming, as in their opinion it does, a separate unit, serves as side-post for the entire alley including the four cubits length of space bordered by the other side-posts.
^ᵇˢnote:Granted that the space bordered by the side-post constitutes an alley on its own.
^ᵇᵗnote:Sc. the space bordered by the side-posts (v. previous note).
^ᵇᵘnote:Without an extra side-post for itself.
^ᵇᵛnote:Since a side-post (and in the case under discussion, the first side-post) is usually drawn slightly forward to distinguish it from the wall to which it is attached.
^ᵇʷnote:And cannot be distinguished from the alley wall.
^ᵇˣnote:This ruling is enunciated presently.
^ᵇʸnote:The one advanced by R. Ashi.
^ᵇᶻnote:Of course it is.
^ᶜᵃnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᶜᵇnote:I.e., the outer edge of the post is even with the outer edge of the wall of the alley so that to those viewing it from without, the post appears to form a part of the thickness of the wall, while by those within, the thickness of the inner edge that protrudes from the wall can well be seen.
^ᶜᶜnote:Where the inner edge of the post touches the outer edge of the wall, and the inner width of the post is even with the interior side of the wall, but receding from its outer side.
^ᶜᵈnote:Tosef. ‘Er. I, 10, infra 15a.
^ᶜᵉnote:That side-post being provided by the thicker projection of the wall that is formed by the receding of the remainder of the wall between it and the back of the alley or by the thinner projection formed by the receding of the wall at that point.
^ᶜᶠnote:The Baraitha just cited in the name of R. Hiyya. How then could he maintain supra that such a post cannot be regarded as a valid side-post?
^ᶜᵍnote:How then could the Baraitha cited be adduced as proof that the ruling it lays down is also the one upheld by R. Hiyya?
^ᶜʰnote:None whatever. Since, however, he did teach it, one may well conclude that he holds the same opinion.
^ᶜⁱnote:Cf. supra for notes.
^ᶜʲnote:Supra 8a q.v. notes, infra 92a.
^ᶜᵏnote:The ruling of Rabbah b. R. Huna.
^ᶜˡnote:Sc. from the larger courtyard.
^ᶜᵐnote:So that the remaining sections of the common wall on either side of the breach cannot possibly be regarded as side-posts of the entrance.
^ᶜⁿnote:If the ruling of Rabbah b. R. Huna is to be upheld.
^ᶜᵒnote:V. Glos.
^ᶜᵖnote:Lit., ‘and let him say labud and it shall be’.
^ᶜᵠnote:On the ground of labud the projections of the walls of the smaller yard would be deemed joined to the walls of the larger one and thus form side-posts.
^ᶜʳnote:Of the larger courtyard.
^ᶜˢnote:From the projections. The principle of labud call only be applied to distances of less than three handbreadths.
^ᶜᵗnote:Var. lec. Hiyya Papi (MS.M); Hanina b. Papi (Bah). Marginal note inserts, ‘and others say before R. Hanina b. Papa’.
^ᶜᵘnote:Sc. the common wall of the two courtyards was ten cubits in length and extended on either side, in the larger courtyard only, to a length of eleven cubits, so that the joint length of the remaining sections of this wall (cf. supra note 4) cannot be more than one cubit, or six handbreadths. This allows no more than about three handbreadths for each side, from which, again, allowance must be made for the thickness of the projections, leaving a space of less than three handbreadths, to which the principle of labud may well be applied.
^ᶜᵛnote:A total of one cubit only, but, as the gap on one side is more than the allowed maximum, labud on that side cannot be applied.
^ᶜʷnote:By the formation of some sort of doorway.