Eruvin 14

for if [it be maintained that it is] that of Rab, a twofold contradiction between Rab's statements would arise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment','(1) Lit., 'a difficulty of Rab upon Rab in two'.');">¹</span> For R'Jeremiah B'Abba laid down on the authority of Rab that if an alley was broken along its full [width]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. its entire back wall collapsed.');">²</span> into a courtyard, and a breach<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of less than ten cubits in width.');">³</span> was made in the courtyard [wall] over against it, the courtyard is ritually fit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'permitted', as regards the movement of objects on the Sabbath. The breach is regarded as an entrance since portions of the courtyard wall remained on both sides. The ritual unfitness of the alley cannot affect the courtyard since the residents of the former have no right of passage through the latter.');">⁴</span>

but the alley is forbidden. But why [should this be so]? Should it not rather be [subject to the same law] as that of an alley that terminated in a backyard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's reason, it is now assumed, is that the alley, owing to the breach in the courtyard, is exposed on two sides to public domains. Now since Rab Judah spoke of a backyard (which, as it has no inhabitants to claim right of passage through the alley, cannot affect its ritual fitness) and not of a courtyard (which is inhabited) , it follows that if an alley terminated in the latter, it becomes ritually unfit on account of the right of passage through it of the inhabitants of the courtyard. Rab, on the other hand, spoke of a courtyard and not of a backyard. And, since he does not mention the right of passage but the breach that was made, it follows that the exposure of the alley on two sides to public domains is the only reason for its unfitness, and that the right of passage of the inhabitants of the courtyard does not affect its fitness. The two principles then that were laid down by Rab Judah, viz. (a) that the opening out of an alley into a public domain through a backyard does not destroy its ritual fitness and (b) that the opening also of a courtyard into an alley does destroy its fitness, are thus opposed by those of Rab who maintains (a) that the opening out of an alley into a public domain through a courtyard or, for the same reason, through a backyard does destroy its ritual fitness and');">⁵</span> - The other replied: I do not know,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From whom Rab Judah received the ruling.');">⁶</span>

but it once happened that at Dura di-ra'awatha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shephardville. V. Rashi and Jast. Aliter: Diridotis, a famous commercial town on the Tigris (Wiesner, Scholien) .');">⁷</span> an alley terminated in a backyard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That had a breach in the wall that faced the alley. ht,tu t,tu');">⁸</span> and when I came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , so MS.M. Cur. edd. .');">⁹</span> to Rab Judah [to ask his opinion] he ruled that it required no contrivance whatsoever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and he did not cause it to require anything', at the backyard breach. The contrivance at the other end that abutted on the public domain was sufficient.');">¹⁰</span>

If, therefore, a contradiction [arises if Rab Judah's statement] is ascribed to Rab, let it be [conceded to have been made] in the name of Samuel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Another teacher of Rab Judah.');">¹¹</span> and no difficulty whatever would arise. Now, however, that R'Shesheth said to R'Samuel B'Abba or, as others say, to R'Joseph B'Abba: I may explain to you - [that Rab's ruling is dependent on whether] an 'erub has been prepared or not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here that they mixed; there that they did not mix'. Where the residents of the courtyard joined the residents of the alley in the 'erub (v. Glos.) , the latter is ritually fit, but if they did not join, the fitness of the latter is destroyed, not on account of the breach in the courtyard which exposed the alley to a public domain (as has been assumed supra) , but on account of the absence of the joint 'erub. The fitness of the courtyard, however, is not affected since the breach between it and the alley, though extending over the full width of the latter, extends only over a portion of its own width and may, therefore, be regarded as a doorway.');">¹²</span> no contradiction between the two statements of Rab does now arise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of Rab upon that of Rab also, there is no difficulty'.');">¹³</span> For one refers to a case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'.');">¹⁴</span> where the residents of the courtyard joined in an 'erub with those of the alley while the other refers to one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'.');">¹⁴</span> where they did not join them in an 'erub.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's ruling reported by R. Jeremiah b. Abba (supra 7b ab init.) would accordingly refer to a case where no joint 'erub was made; the incident at Dura di-ra'awatha would refer to one where such an 'erub was made; and Rab Judah's report in the name of Rab (supra 7a ad fin.) would be in agreement with Rab's view, even if no joint 'erub was made, since a backyard has no residents whose right of passage could affect the ritual fitness of the alley.');">¹⁵</span>