Eruvin 15

ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא בין שעירבו ובין שלא עירבו פליגי בעירבו במאי פליגי בשלא עירבו במאי פליגי

According to our previous assumption, however, that [Rab and Samuel] are in disagreement irrespective of whether a joint 'erub was made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the residents of the alley and those of the courtyard.');">¹</span> or not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that (a) Rab forbids the movement of objects in the alley, even if a joint 'erub was made, on the ground of the exposure of the alley through the breach to a public domain; that (b) only the breach causes the prohibition but not the right of passage of the courtyard residents through the alley; that (c) Rab Judah's ruling (supra 7a ad fin.) represents the view of Samuel who, if a joint 'erub was made, permits the use of the alley despite the breach (as is evident from his decision in the case of a backyard which has no residents and which in respect of the laws under discussion has the same status as a courtyard that has residents who joined those of the alley in their 'erub) and that (d) where no joint 'erub was made between the residents of the courtyard and the alley Samuel forbids the use of the latter even where there was no breach (as follows from the fact that in his permission he mentioned a backyard, which has no residents, and not a courtyard which has residents) .');">²</span>

בשלא עירבו פליגי בנראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים

on what principle do they differ where a joint 'erub was made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the prohibition could be due to the breach only. Why does Rab regard the alley as exposed through that breach to the public domain and why does not Samuel regard it so?');">³</span> and on what principle do they differ where no such 'erub was made?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, since no breach was made, does Samuel rule that the residents of the courtyard cause, and why does Rab rule that they do not cause the prohibition of the use of the alley?');">⁴</span>

בעירבו קמיפלגי בדרב יוסף דאמר רב יוסף לא שנו אלא שכלה לאמצע רחבה אבל כלה לצידי רחבה אסור

- Where no joint 'erub was made they differ [on the question whether a gap] that has the appearance [of a door] from without but is even [with the walls] within<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where, for instance, the courtyard is wider than the alley. The gap occasioned by the collapse of the complete wall of the latter appears as a doorway when viewed from the former.');">⁵</span> [may be regarded as a door];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab is of the opinion that, since the gap has the appearance of a door when viewed from the courtyard and since it is not wider than ten cubits, it may well be regarded as a door for the residents of the alley also; while Samuel, owing to the fact that when viewed from the alley it has the appearance of a breach, does not recognize it as a door.');">⁶</span>

אמר רבה הא דאמרת לאמצע רחבה מותר לא אמרן אלא זה שלא כנגד זה אבל זה כנגד זה אסור

and where a joint 'erub has been made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the question of permissibility arises on account of the gap in the wall of the courtyard.');">⁷</span> they differ on a principle that underlies a statement of R'Joseph.

אמר רב משרשיא הא דאמרת זה שלא כנגד זה מותר לא אמרן אלא רחבה דרבים אבל רחבה דיחיד זימנין דמימלך עלה ובני לה בתים וה"ל כמבוי שכלה לה לצידי רחבה ואסור

For R'Joseph stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no provision whatever is necessary in the case of an alley that terminated in a backyard (supra 7a ad fin.) .');">⁸</span> has been taught only [in respect of all alley] that terminated in the middle of the backyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the shape of a door remained at least on the side facing the backyard.');">⁹</span>

ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין רחבה דרבים לרחבה דיחיד דאמר רבין בר רב אדא אמר רבי יצחק מעשה במבוי אחד שצידו אחד כלה לים וצידו אחד כלה לאשפה ובא מעשה לפני רבי ולא אמר בה לא היתר ולא איסור

but if it terminated at the side of the backyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case one side of the yard appears like a continuation of the side of the alley, and no shape of a door remains even when viewed from the yard.');">¹⁰</span> [all movement of objects in the alley on the Sabbath is forbidden.

איסור לא אמר בה דהא קיימי מחיצות היתר לא אמר בה חיישינן שמא תינטל אשפה ויעלה הים שרטון

Rabbah said: The statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that which you said'.');">¹¹</span> [that termination] at the middle of a backyard is permitted, applies only [where the gaps<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In (a) the wall between the alley and the yard and (b) in the yard wall that adjoined the public domain.');">¹²</span>

ומי חיישינן שמא תינטל אשפה והתנן אשפה ברשות הרבים גבוה י' טפחים חלון שעל גבה זורקין לה בשבת

were] not facing one another, but if they were facing one another [movement of objects in the alley on the Sabbath] is forbidden. R'Mesharsheya said: The statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that which you said'.');">¹¹</span>

אלמא שני בין אשפה דרבים לאשפה דיחיד

[that where the gaps<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In (a) the wall between the alley and the yard and (b) in the yard wall that adjoined the public domain.');">¹²</span> were] not facing one another [the use of the alley] is permitted, applies only to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he did not say them, but'.');">¹³</span>

הכא נמי שני בין רחבה דרבים לרחבה דיחיד

a backyard that belonged to many people, but [not to] a backyard of an individual who might sometimes reconsider [his attitude] towards it and build houses in it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against that portion of the wall which formed the side-post, and thus level the side of the yard with the side of the alley and give it the appearance of one extended wall.');">¹⁴</span> and the alley would thus be one that terminated at the sides of a backyard [in which the movement of objects on the Sabbath] is forbidden.

ורבנן מאי

Whence, however, is it inferred that a distinction is made between a backyard belonging to many people and one belonging to an individual? - From what Rabin B'R'Adda stated in the name of R'Isaac: It once occurred that one side of an alley terminated in the sea and the other terminated in a rubbish heap,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third side was closed and the fourth was open on a public domain and duly furnished with a side-post and cross-beam.');">¹⁵</span> and when the facts were submitted to Rabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah l, compiler of the MISHNAH:');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב יוסף בר אבדימי תנא וחכמים אוסרין אמר רב נחמן הלכה כדברי חכמים איכא דאמרי אמר רב יוסף בר אבדימי תנא וחכמים מתירין אמר רב נחמן אין הלכה כדברי חכמים

he neither permitted nor forbade [the movement of objects on the Sabbath] in that alley.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he did not say about it, either permission or prohibition.'');">¹⁷</span> [He did not declare it] forbidden because partitions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rubbish heap on the one side and the sea shore on the other, each of which was ten handbreadths high.');">¹⁸</span>

מרימר פסיק לה לסורא באוזלי אמר חיישינן שמא יעלה הים שרטון

in fact existed, [and he did not declare it] permitted since the possibility had to be considered that the rubbish heap might be removed or the sea might throw up alluvium.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it may recede, in consequence of which possibility either of the partitions might disappear. Infra 99b.');">¹⁹</span> Now<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the conclusion of the argument that a distinction is made between the property of several people and that of one individual.');">²⁰</span>

ההוא מבוי עקום דהוה בסורא כרוך בודיא אותיבו ביה בעקמומיתיה אמר רב חסדא הא לא כרב ולא כשמואל לרב דאמר תורתו כמפולש צורת הפתח בעי לשמואל דאמר תורתו כסתום הני מילי לחי מעליא אבל האי כיון דנשיב ביה זיקא ושדי ליה לא כלום הוא

is it necessary to take into consideration the possibility that a rubbish heap might be removed? Have we not in fact learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 99b.');">²¹</span>

ואי נעיץ ביה סיכתא וחבריה חבריה:

'If a rubbish heap in a public domain was ten handbreadths high,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is consequently subject to the laws of a private domain.');">²²</span> objects from a window above it may be thrown on to it on the Sabbath'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The possibility of a reduction in its height, which would turn it into a public domain, not being considered.');">²³</span>

גופא אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב מבוי שנפרץ במלואו לחצר ונפרצה חצר כנגדו חצר מותרת ומבוי אסור

Thus it clearly follows that a distinction is made between a public rubbish heap and a private one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The possibility of reduction being taken into consideration in respect of the latter (with which case Rabbi had to deal) but not in that of the former (spoken of infra 99b) .');">²⁴</span> and so here also a distinction may be made between a backyard that belonged to many people and one that belonged to one person.

אמר ליה רבה בר עולא לרב ביבי בר אביי רבי לא משנתנו היא זו חצר קטנה שנפרצה לגדולה גדולה מותרת וקטנה אסורה מפני שהיא כפתחה של גדולה

And what [was the view of] the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi's contemporaries.');">²⁵</span> [on the question of the alley]?

אמר ליה אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי היכא דלא קא דרסי בה רבים אבל היכא דקא דרסי בה רבים אימא אפילו חצר נמי

R'Joseph B'Abdimi replied: A Tanna taught that the Sages forbade it. R'Nahman stated: The halachah is in agreement with the ruling of the Sages.

והא נמי תנינא חצר שהרבים נכנסין לה בזו ויוצאין לה בזו רה"ר לטומאה ורה"י לשבת

Some there are who say: R'Joseph B'Abdimi stated: A Tanna taught that the Sages permitted it, and R'Nahman said: The halachah is not in agreement with the ruling of the Sages. Meremar partitioned off Sura<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the river or canal (cf. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 294, n. 5 and text) which ran along the backs of alleys that at their other ends opened out into a public domain.');">²⁶</span>

אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי זה שלא כנגד זה

by means of nets,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The river, or canal bank was not regarded by him as a proper partition.');">²⁷</span> because, he said, the possibility must be considered that the sea might throw up alluvium.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And people might not be aware of the difference and would continue to use the alleys on the Sabbath day as before.');">²⁸</span> A certain crooked alley<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 6a.');">²⁹</span> once existed at Sura [and the residents of one of its arms] folded up some matting and fixed it in its bend.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While a side-post was fixed at their entrance, the residents of the other arm providing no such post to their entrance.');">³⁰</span> This [arrangement], said R'Hisda, is neither in agreement with the view of Rab nor with that of Samuel. According to Rab, who ruled that the law of such [an alley] is the same as that of one that is open at both ends, [a structure in] the shape of a doorway is required; and [even] according to Samuel who ruled that it is subject to the law of a closed one [it must be understood that] his ruling applied only where a proper side-post [had been fixed],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the entrance to each arm (Rashi) . The view of Rashi's teacher is that a third side-post also must be fixed at the bend.');">³¹</span> but such [matting], since the wind blows on it and throws it about, is useless. If a pin, however, was inserted therein and it was thus fastened [to the wall] it may be regarded as a proper partition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he fastened it'.');">³²</span> [Reverting to] the main text: R'Jeremiah B'Abba laid down on the authority of Rab that if an alley was broken along its full [width] into a courtyard, and a breach was made in the courtyard [wall] over against it, the courtyard is ritually fit but the alley is forbidden.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 7b ab init. q.v. notes, where it was explained that this was a case where no joint 'erub was made between the residents of the alley and those of the courtyard and that the prohibition of the use of the former was due to the right of passage through it of the residents of the latter.');">³³</span> Said Rabbah B''Ulla to R'Bebai B'Abaye, 'Master, is not this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note.');">³⁴</span> [one that already appeared in] a Mishnah of ours:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 92a.');">³⁵</span> [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 courtyard but forbidden in the small one because the gap is regarded as an entrance to the former'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the gap, when viewed from the large court, is flanked on either side by the remaining portions of the fallen wall, which may be viewed as side-posts. It cannot be treated as an entrance of the small courtyard because the side portions of the wall cannot be seen from its interior where the opening has the appearance of a wide gap extending from wall to wall. Now, since it is obvious that the conditions of the alley and courtyard spoken of by Rab are analogous to those of the large and small courtyards dealt with in the Mishnah quoted, what need was there for Rab to issue a ruling that was a mere repetition of a Mishnah?');">³⁶</span> - The other replied: If [our information had been derived] from there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah quoted.');">³⁷</span> it might have been assumed that the ruling applied only where not many people tread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case dealt with in the Mishnah where the breach occurred between two courtyards and the larger one remained closed on the side of the public domain.');">³⁸</span> but that where many people tread<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case spoken of by Rab, where the courtyard was broken both on the side of the alley and on that of the public domain. People in the public domain would naturally use the courtyard as a short cut and might thus turn it into a sort of public thoroughfare.');">³⁹</span> even the courtyard also [is forbidden].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the necessity for Rab's ruling.');">⁴⁰</span> But did we not learn this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the use of a courtyard by the public does not affect its status as a private domain in respect of the Sabbath laws.');">⁴¹</span> also: A courtyard into which many people enter from one side and go out from the other [is deemed to be] a public domain in respect of levitical defilement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. any uncertainty of defilement is to be regarded as clean.');">⁴²</span> and a private domain in respect of the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Toh. VII; cf. infra 22b.');">⁴³</span> - If [the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 7.');">⁴⁴</span> were to be derived] from there it might have been assumed to apply only where the gaps were not facing one another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'these words, when this is not opposite this'.');">⁴⁵</span>