Eruvin 118

ואין לה אלא פתח אחד מערבין את כולה

but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being enclosed on all sides.');">¹</span> had only one gate,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus being short of the requirements of a public domain which must be wide open at both its ends.');">²</span> a single 'erub suffices for all of it. Who is it that learned that a public domain may thus be provided with an 'erub? - R'Huna son of R'Joshua replied: It is R'Judah; for it was taught: 'A more lenient rule than this did R'Judah lay down: If a man had two houses on the two sides respectively of a public domain he may construct one side-post on one side of any of the houses and another on the other side, or one cross-beam on the one side of any of the houses and another on its other side and then he may move things about in the space between them; but they said to him: A public domain cannot be provided with an 'erub in such a manner'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 6af q.v. notes.');">³</span>

מאן תנא דמיערבא רה"ר אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע רבי יהודה היא דתניא יתר על כן א"ר יהודה מי שיש לו שני בתים בשני צידי רה"ר עושה לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רה"ר בכך

The Master said: 'No 'erub, furthermore, may be provided for a half of it'. R'Papa explained: This was said only [in the case where the division was] longitudinal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if the division was made along the public domain which ran through the entire length of the town, from gate to gate, and divided it into two longitudinal halves. As the public domain is used by the inhabitants on both sides it forms a link between the two halves of the town and combines them into one inseparable unit.');">⁴</span> but if it was crosswise<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it cut the town into two halves across the middle of the public domain and left for either half of the town a half of the public domain with the gate at its end, so that it was possible for the inhabitants of either half to use their own gate as entrance and exit and to avoid entirely the use of the public domain in the other half of the town.');">⁵</span> an 'erub may be provided for each half separately.

אמר מר ואין מערבין אותה לחצאין אמר רב פפא לא אמרו אלא לארכה אבל לרחבה מערבין

In agreement with whose view has this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa's ruling.');">⁶</span> been laid down? It is contrary to that of R'Akiba, for if it were suggested that it was in agreement with his view [the objection would arise:] Did he not rule: A man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'foot', hence a man's right of passage.');">⁷</span> who is permitted freedom of movement in his own place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in his own courtyard where a valid 'erub had been prepared.');">⁸</span>

כמאן דלא כר"ע דאי כר"ע הא אמר רגל המותרת במקומה אוסרת אפי' שלא במקומה

causes the restriction of free movement on others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though they also prepared the prescribed 'erub.');">⁹</span> in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. insert 'even' which is deleted by Rashi and others.');">¹⁰</span> a place that is not his?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 75a. Sc. in an outer courtyard in which he did not reside but in which he was entitled to the right of passage by virtue of his residence in an inner courtyard whose one and only door opened out into it. Now, since according to R. Akiba the residents of the inner courtyard, on account of their right of passage through the outer one, impose restrictions on the free movement of its residents, the inhabitants of the two halves of the town under discussion should likewise, according to R. Akiba, impose upon one another the restrictions of free movement, since each of them is also entitled to a right of passage through the public domain that passed through the other half of the town in which he did not reside. As no such restrictions, however, are imposed, must R. Papa's ruling be said to be contrary to R. Akiba's view?');">¹¹</span> - It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa's ruling.');">⁶</span>

אפי' תימא ר' עקיבא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי עקיבא התם אלא בשתי חצירות זו לפנים מזו דפנימית לית לה פיתחא אחרינא אבל הכא הני נפקי בהאי פיתחא והני נפקי בהאי פיתחא

may be said to be in agreement even with the view of R'Akiba, since he maintained his view only there where it was a case of two courtyards one of which was behind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'within'.');">¹²</span> the other so that the inner one had no other door,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the one that opened into the outer courtyard. As no other door was available to them, the residents of the inner courtyard must perforce use the outer courtyard as their only passage to the street and, by this right of entry, must restrict the freedom of movement of its residents.');">¹³</span> but not here where the inhabitants in the one half could gain egress through one gate while those in the other half could gain egress through the other. Some there are who read: R'Papa explained: It must not be assumed [that only where the division was] longitudinal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 414, n. 2.');">¹⁴</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רב פפא לא תימא לארכה הוא דלא מערבין אבל לרחבה מערבין אלא אפילו לרחבה נמי לא מערבין

may no 'erub be prepared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the inhabitants of each half town separately.');">¹⁵</span> but that where it was crosswise<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 414, n. 3.');">¹⁶</span> an 'erub may be prepared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the inhabitants of each half town separately.');">¹⁵</span> The fact is that even where the division was crosswise no 'erub may be prepared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the inhabitants of each half town separately.');">¹⁵</span>

כמאן כר"ע אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא בשתי חצירות זו לפנים מזו דפנימית אחדא לדשא ומשתמשא אבל הכא מי מצו מסלקי רה"ר מהכא

In agreement with whose view is this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa's ruling.');">¹⁷</span> laid down? Is it only in agreement with that of R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. nn. Is it likely, however, that R. Papa would lay down a ruling that was contrary to the opinion of the majority of the Rabbis who differed from R. Akiba?');">¹⁸</span> - It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Papa's ruling.');">¹⁷</span>

אמר מר או כולה או מבוי מבוי בפני עצמו מ"ש דלחצאין דלא דאסרי אהדדי מבוי מבוי נמי אסרי אהדדי

may be said to be in agreement even with the view of the Rabbis, since they maintained their view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where each courtyard had prepared a separate 'erub the residents of the inner one, despite their right of passage through the outer one, do not restrict the freedom of movement of its residents.');">¹⁹</span> there only where it is a case of two courtyards one behind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., , 'within'.');">²⁰</span> the other so that the inner one can well lock its gate and use [its own area only].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the interests of the residents of the outer courtyard the inner ones might well be expected to forego their right of passage for that one day.');">²¹</span> but can the public domain here be shifted from its place?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not. As it must remain where it is and there is no gate, fence or any other distinguishing mark to separate the one half of the town from the other, the two halves must be regarded as one unit and, therefore, no separate 'erubs can be permitted.');">²²</span>

הב"ע כגון דעבוד דקה וכי הא דאמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב חסדא אחד מבני מבוי שעשה דקה לפתחו אינו אוסר על בני מבוי:

The Master said: 'Either one 'erub for all of it or one 'erub for each alley separately'. Now why is no separate 'erub allowed for either half? Obviously because they would cause one another to be forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As was explained supra.');">²³</span> but then would not the various alleys also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since originally when the town belonged to one owner they were allowed free movement between each other.');">²⁴</span>

היתה של רבים והרי היא כו': רבי זירא ערבה למתא דבי רבי חייא ולא שבק לה שיור א"ל אביי מאי טעמא עבד מר הכי

cause one another to be forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Despite the side-posts or cross-beams.');">²⁵</span> - Here we are dealing with a case where a barrier was provided,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the entrance to each alley, the residents thereby indicating that they desired to sever all connection between their previously united alleys.');">²⁶</span> and this ruling is in harmony with the following one that was laid down by R'Idi B'Abin in the name of R'Hisda: Any of the residents of an alley who had made a barrier to his courtyard entrance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus indicating his desire to be dissociated from his neighbours.');">²⁷</span> can no longer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By failing to join them in their 'erub.');">²⁸</span>

אמר ליה סבי דידה אמרי לי רב חייא בר אסי מערב כולה ואמינא ש"מ עיר של יחיד ונעשית של רבים היא

impose any restrictions on the freedom of movement of the other residents of the alley. BUT IF A TOWN BELONGED TO MANY AND WAS CONVERTED etc. R'Zera provided an 'erub for R'Hiyya's town<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which belonged to many.');">²⁹</span> and left no section out [of its provision]. Said Abaye to him, 'Why did the Master act in this manner? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. why did he not exclude at least a section OF THE SIZE OF THE TOWN OF HADASHAH?');">³⁰</span>

א"ל לדידי אמרו לי הנהו סבי ההיא אשפה הוה לה מחד גיסא והשתא דאיפניא לה אשפה הוה לה כשני פתחים ואסיר א"ל לאו אדעתאי

'Its elders', the other replied: 'told me that R'Hiyya B'Assi used to provide one 'erub for all t town and I have, therefore, concluded that it must have been a town that once belonged to a single owner and was later converted into one belonging to many'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case ONE 'ERUB MAY BE PROVIDED FOR ALL THE TOWN.');">³¹</span> 'The same elders', the first retorted, told me: "It formerly had a rubbish heap on one side";<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the heap blocked up one of the gates all the town, which was thus left with one gate only, could well be provided (as laid down supra) with a single 'erub.');">³²</span> but now that the rubbish heap has been removed the town must be regarded as possessing two gates in which [the preparation of a single 'erub only] is forbidden'.' I', the other admitted, 'was not aware of this'.

בעי מיניה רב אמי בר אדא הרפנאה מרבה סולם מכאן ופתח מכאן מהו א"ל הכי אמר רב סולם תורת פתח עליו

R.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wanting in MS.M.');">³³</span> Ammi B'Adda of Harpania enquired of Rabbah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. adds: 'b. Abbuha'.');">³⁴</span> 'What is the ruling where a town had a ladder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby the town wall could be scaled.');">³⁵</span> on one side and a gate on the other? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the town to be treated as having two gates?');">³⁶</span>

אמר להו רב נחמן לא תציתו ליה הכי אמר רב אדא אמר רב סולם תורת פתח עליו ותורת מחיצה עליו תורת מחיצה עליו כדאמרן תורת פתח עליו בסולם שבין שתי חצירות רצו אחד מערב רצו שנים מערבין

- 'Thus', the other replied, said Rab, 'A ladder has the legal status of a door'.' Do not pay heed to him', exclaimed R'Nahman, 'thus ruled R'Adda B'Ahabah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Bah. Cur. edd. omit the last two words.');">³⁷</span> in the name of Rab:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. omits, 'in the ... Rab'.');">³⁸</span> "A ladder has sometimes the status of a door and sometimes that of a wall".

ומי אמר רב נחמן הכי והאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל אנשי חצר ואנשי מרפסת ששכחו

It has the status of a wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is not regarded as a door.');">³⁹</span> as has just been laid down;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By R. Nahman, where the ladder was used as a means of entrance into, and exit from the town.');">⁴⁰</span> and it has the status of a door where a ladder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Four handbreadths wide.');">⁴¹</span> is put up between two courtyards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which had no door between them.');">⁴²</span> in which case the residents, if they wish, may<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of two courtyards between which a door communicated (cf. infra 76a) .');">⁴³</span> provide only one 'erub,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For both courtyards; and all the residents are, thereby, permitted to use both courtyards by way of the trip of the wall or through any holes or cracks in the wall.');">⁴⁴</span> and if they prefer, they may provide two separate 'erubs'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One for each courtyard, and the residents of the one do not in any way affect the freedom of movement of the other, each courtyard being regarded as a separate domain.');">⁴⁵</span> Could R'Nahman, however, have made such a statement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a ladder has the status of a wall where such status leads to a relaxation of the law.');">⁴⁶</span> Did not R'Nahman in fact lay down in the name of Samuel: If the residents of a courtyard and those of a balcony<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marpeseth, a balcony or gallery to which the doors of the dwellings of an upper storey open and which communicates with the courtyard below by means of a ladder.');">⁴⁷</span> above it forgot