Eruvin

R. Ashi replied: [This1 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] alley2 which requires an additional side-post to render it permissible,3 and according to the Rabbis who ruled [that the law of] labud is not applied,4 no other side-post is required to render it permissible.5 But even according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel6 [why] should [not this alley7 be permitted]8 as [one having a side-post that may be] seen from without9 though it appears even10 within?11 — Is not this explanation12 required only in respect of a statement of R. Johanan?13 But, surely, when Rabin came14 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 without15 is regarded as a valid side-post; but if it is seen from without and appears even from within16 [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:17 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.18 This is conclusive. Did not R. Johanan, however, hear this?19 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?20 — 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? 21 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.22 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.23 Now, if this24 is valid, should not the movement of objects in the small courtyard also be permitted on [the principle that the entrance may be] seen without25 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.26 But why27 should not the principle of labud28 be applied so that the use of the smaller courtyard also might be29 permitted?30 And should you reply that [the walls]31 were too far apart,32 surely, [it may be retorted] did not R. Adda b. Abimi recite in the presence of R. Hanina:33 [The ruling applies to a case where] the small courtyard was ten and the large one eleven cubits?34 — Rabina replied: [This is a case] where [the projections] were removed by two handbreadths from one wall and by four from the other.35 Then let labud be applied to one side and [thereby36 the smaller courtyard would] be permitted? R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis. matter on which Rashi and others differ. including the four cubits length of space bordered by the other side-posts. distinguish it from the wall to which it is attached. 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. interior side of the wall, but receding from its outer side. 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. regarded as a valid side-post? Hiyya? side-posts of the entrance. larger one and thus form side-posts. Papa’. 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. be applied.