Eruvin 11

Chapter 11

א מצידו בעשר מראשו בד'
1 [if it was made] in a side [wall, a gap] of ten cubits is permissible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from its side by ten'; if the gap is not wider, the Sabbatic ritual fitness of the alley is not affected.');"><sup>1</sup></span> [but if it was] in the front [wall,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the wall that was built across a portion of the entrance to reduce its original width to the permitted maximum of ten cubits.');"><sup>2</sup></span> only a gap] of four cubits is allowed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from its top by four'. Cf. supra n. 1.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב מאי שנא מצידו בעשר דאמר פתחא הוא מראשו נמי נימא פתחא הוא
2 Wherein, however, does a side wall differ [from the front wall] that [in the case of the former] a gap of ten cubits is allowed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from its side by ten'; if the gap is not wider, the Sabbatic ritual fitness of the alley is not affected.');"><sup>1</sup></span> [Presumably] because one can say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that he said'.');"><sup>4</sup></span> [that the gap] is an entrance, [but then] could not one say also [when it is made] in the front wall that it is an entrance?
ג א"ר הונא בריה דרב יהושע כגון שנפרץ בקרן זוית דפתחא בקרן זוית לא עבדי אינשי
3 R'Huna son of R'Joshua replied: [The ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no larger gap than one of four cubits was allowed.');"><sup>5</sup></span> applies to a case,] for instance, where the breach was made in a corner, since people do not make an entrance in a corner. R'Huna, however, ruled: The one as well as the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In whatever wall the breach was made.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד ורב הונא אמר אחד זה וא' זה בארבעה וכן א"ל רב הונא לרב חנן בר רבא לא תפלוג עלאי דרב איקלע לדמחריא ועבד עובדא כוותי א"ל רב בקעה מצא וגדר בה גדר
4 [is subject to the limit] of four cubits. And so, in fact, did R'Huna say to R'Hanan B'Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Read Hanin b. Raba; cf. infra p. 31, n. 6.');"><sup>7</sup></span> 'Do not dispute with me, for Rab once happened to visit Damharia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the neighbourhood of Sura; Obermeyer, p. 298.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כוותיה דרב הונא מסתברא דאיתמר מבוי עקום רב אמר תורתו כמפולש ושמואל אמר תורתו כסתום
5 and actually gave a decision in accordance with my view'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no larger gap than one of four cubits was allowed.');"><sup>5</sup></span> 'Rab', the other replied, 'found an open field and put a fence round it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Metaph. The people of Damharia were ignorant and careless in the observance of the Sabbath laws, and, in order to keep them away from further transgression, additional restrictions were imposed upon them. Elsewhere, however, even a breach of ten cubits might be allowed.');"><sup>9</sup></span> R'Nahman B'Isaac remarked: Reason is on the side of R'Huna.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra nn. 5 and 6.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו במאי עסקינן אילימא ביותר מעשר בהא לימא שמואל תורתו כסתום
6 For it was stated: 'A crooked alley,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One in the shape of an " l"="" each="" arm="" of="" which="" opens="" out="" into="" a="" public="" domain.');"=""><sup>11</sup></span> Rab ruled, is subject to the same law as one that is open on both sides,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. as if both sides of each arm opened out into a public domain. Consequently, the side of each arm that actually opens out into the public domain must be furnished with side-posts or cross-beam while the opposite side terminating in the angle where the two arms meet must be cr furnished with a sort of framework that would give the passage of communication the shape of a doorway. (V. Rashi and cf. Tosaf. s.v.) .');"><sup>12</sup></span> but Samuel ruled: 'It is subject to the law of a closed one'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bend or angle of contact between the arms being regarded as the termination and closure of each and the side-posts or cross-beam at the two main entrances from the public domain are sufficient to effect the Sabbatic ritual fitness of the alley.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ז אלא לאו בעשר וקאמר רב תורתו כמפולש אלמא פירצת מבוי מצידו בד'
7 Now with what case are we dealing here? If it be suggested: with [one where the passage through the bend is] wider than ten cubits, would Samuel in such circumstances [it may be retorted] rule that 'it is subject to the law of a closed one'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously not. Such a wide passage of communication could not possibly be treated as a closing wall.');"><sup>14</sup></span> Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but, not?'');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ח ורב חנן בר רבא שאני התם דקא בקעי בה רבים
8 [it must be conceded that the width of the communication passage is] within [the limit of] ten cubits, and yet Rab ruled that it 'is subject to the same laws as one that is open on both sides' - From which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Rab regards an opening that is narrower than ten cubits as a breach that impairs the Sabbatic ritual fitness of an alley, though that opening is not in a front wall adjoining a public domain.');"><sup>16</sup></span> it definitely follows that [the permissibility o a breach in a side [wall] of an alley is limited to four cubits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with the view of R. Huna.');"><sup>17</sup></span> And R'Hamn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Bomb. ed. and supra 5b ad fin. Cur. edd. 'Hanan'.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ט מכלל דרב הונא סבר אע"ג דלא בקעי בה רבים מ"ש מדר' אמי ורב אסי
9 B'Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Abba' (MS.M. and Asheri) . How, it is asked, could he, in view of R. Nahman b. Isaac's submission, maintain that in a side wall, a breach of ten cubits is permitted?');"><sup>19</sup></span> - There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A communication passage between the two arms of a crooked alley.');"><sup>20</sup></span> it is different,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a breach in a side wall.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
י התם דאיכא גידודי הכא דליכא גידודי:
10 since many people make their way through it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the limit to a width of four cubits. Through a breach in a side wall, however, not many people pass and the limit of permissibility is, therefore, extended to ten cubits.');"><sup>22</sup></span> [This]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reply just given on behalf of R. Hanin b. Raba. Since it was laid down that he limits the width of the communication passage in a crooked alley to four cubits only because many people pass through it, he presumably allows a breach of ten cubits where only few people pass.');"><sup>23</sup></span> then implies that R'Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who differed from him.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יא ת"ר כיצד מערבין דרך רה"ר עושה צורת הפתח מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן חנניה אומר ב"ש אומרים עושה דלת מכאן ודלת מכאן וכשהוא יוצא ונכנס נועל ב"ה אומרים עושה דלת מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן
11 is of the opinion that even if not many people make their way through it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the gap opened out, for instance, to broken ground or an unsanitary area.');"><sup>25</sup></span> [a breach of no more than four cubits is allowed], but why should this be different from the ruling of R'Ammi and R'Assi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who (supra 5a) do allow a breach of ten cubits.');"><sup>26</sup></span> - There [it is a case] where ridges [of the broken wall] remained,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wall did not collapse completely and a height of three or four handbreadths of it remained, so that it is not very easy to use the breach as an entrance.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
יב ורה"ר מי מיערבא והתניא יתר על כן א"ר יהודה
12 but here, [it is one] where there were no ridges.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage through such a gap being easy, people would be likely to use it if it were wide enough. Hence the limit to four cubits.');"><sup>28</sup></span> Our Rabbis taught: How is a road through a public domain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a road must pass from one end of the town to the other and must be sixteen cubits in width, while the town through which it passes must have no surrounding wall and be inhabited by no less than six hundred thousand people.');"><sup>29</sup></span> to be provided with an 'erub?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>30</sup></span> The shape of a doorway is made at one end,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., , 'from here'.');"><sup>31</sup></span> and a side-post and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'or' (Alfasi and Asheri) .');"><sup>32</sup></span> cross-beam, [are fixed] at the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., , 'from here'.');"><sup>31</sup></span> Hanania, however, stated: Beth Shammai ruled: A door is made at the one end<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., , 'from here'.');"><sup>31</sup></span> as well as at the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., , 'from here'.');"><sup>31</sup></span> and it must be locked as soon as one goes out or enters, and Beth Hillel ruled: A door is made at one end and a side-post and a cross-beam at the other. May an 'erub, however, be lawfully provided for a public domain? Was it not in fact taught,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 6a, 117a, infra 12a.');"><sup>33</sup></span> 'A more [lenient rule] than this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one mentioned earlier in the context (v. previous note) where a covered space was under consideration.');"><sup>34</sup></span> did R'Judah lay down: