Eruvin 156

חקק להשלים בכותל בכמה א"ל בעשרה

If grooves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On either side of the rungs of the ladder.');">¹</span> to supplement the width of the ladder,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the prescribed minimum of four handbreadths.');">²</span> were cut in the wall,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between two court yards, on which the ladder was leaning.');">³</span> up to what height must this be carried?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he cut to supplement in a wall, by how much'.');">⁴</span>

א"ל חקקו כולו בכותל בכמה א"ל מלא קומתו ומאי שנא א"ל התם מסתלק ליה הכא לא מסתלק ליה

- To ten handbreadths,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the ground. Whatever the height of the wall, valid steps on a width of four handbreadths and a height often handbreadths are regarded as a valid doorway between the courtyards (Rashi) . Aliter: The grooves must be cut to a height within ten handbreadths from the top of the wall');">⁵</span> the other replied. If, he again asked him, all the ladder was cut<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he cut it all'.');">⁶</span> in the wall,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. instead of a movable ladder, grooves were cut in the wall on a width of four handbreadths.');">⁷</span>

בעא מיניה רב יוסף מרבה עשאו לאילן סולם מהו

up to what height must this be carried? - Up to its<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wall's.');">⁸</span> full height, the other replied. Wherein, however, lies the difference?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the last two cases. Sc. why is a height of ten handbreadths sufficient in the former case while in the latter the grooves are required to reach to the very top of the wall?');">⁹</span> In the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the ladder reached the top of the wall and the grooves were only supplementary to its width.');">¹⁰</span>

תיבעי לרבי תיבעי לרבנן

the other replied, one can easily ascend<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of the ladder itself. As ascent is easy it is sufficient for the supplementary grooves to reach to a height of ten handbreadths only.');">¹¹</span> [to the top of the wall], while in the latter case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there was no ladder at all.');">¹²</span> this cannot be done.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless grooves are cut to the full height of the wall.');">¹³</span> R'Joseph enquired of Rabbah: What is the ruling if a tree was set aside as a ladder?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a wall that intervened between two courtyards whose tenants desired to have free access to each other.');">¹⁴</span>

תיבעי לרבי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי התם כל דבר שהוא משום שבות לא גזרו עליו ה"מ בין השמשות אבל כולי יומא לא

The enquiry is made with reference to the view of Rabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who laid down (supra 32b) that an 'erub of Sabbath limits deposited in a tree is valid.');">¹⁵</span> and it is also made with reference to that of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who regard such an 'erub as invalid.');">¹⁶</span> It is made with reference to the view of Rabbi' since It is possible that Rabbi applied the principle that 'any act that is forbidden as shebuth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁷</span> is not subject to that prohibition during twilight'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M.');">¹⁸</span>

או דילמא אפילו לרבנן פיתחא הוא ואריא הוא דרביע עליה

only there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of 'erub of Sabbath limits.');">¹⁹</span> where the crucial moment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The time the 'erub must take effect.');">²⁰</span> is at twilight,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Provided an 'erub of Sabbath limits was valid and effective at that moment its subsequent consumption or loss does not in any way deprive its owner of any of the privileges the 'erub had conferred upon him. Since the prohibition against the use of a tree is only Rabbinical, and since such a prohibition may be suspended at twilight, Rabbi may well have maintained that the 'erub was valid.');">²¹</span> but [not where]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of 'erub of courtyards under discussion.');">²²</span>

עשאו לאשירה סולם מהו תיבעי לרבי יהודה תיבעי לרבנן

the entire day [is involved];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since access through a closed door is obviously impossible the doorway between the two courtyards must remain open and be available for use throughout the day if the 'erub is to retain its validity until the termination of the Sabbath. Now since the use of a tree is forbidden on the Sabbath the tree appointed cannot possibly serve as a virtual 'doorway' even according to Rabbi.');">²³</span> or is it possible that even according to the Rabbis the tree may have the status of a doorway,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if one is appointed to serve as a ladder access between the courtyards is thereby permitted.');">²⁴</span> except that it is one at the side of whic a lion crouches?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Metaphor. The tree may be a valid 'doorway' that cannot be used on account of a Rabbinical prohibition as an ordinary open door that cannot be used on account of a lion that crouched beside it. As in the latter case, though debarred from the use of the doorway itself, the tenants are nevertheless permitted access to one another through any holes or crevices in the intervening wall so are they permitted in the former case even according to the Rabbis.');">²⁵</span> What again<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If in the last case the ruling is that a tree may be regarded as a proper ladder and valid 'doorway'.');">²⁶</span>

תיבעי לרבי יהודה ע"כ לא קאמר רבי יהודה התם דמותר לקנות בית באיסורי הנאה אלא התם דבתר דקנה ליה עירוב לא ניחא ליה דלינטר

is the ruling where an Asherah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tree or grove devoted to idol worship from which no benefit may be derived.');">²⁷</span> was set aside to serve as a ladder? The enquiry is made with reference to the view of R'Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who laid down (supra 31a) that an 'erub deposited on a grove is valid though one may derive no benefit from a grove.');">²⁸</span> and it is also made with reference to that of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, contrary to the view of R. Judah, consider an 'erub on a grove as invalid.');">²⁹</span>

או דילמא אפילו לרבנן פיתחא הוא ואריא דרביע עליה

It 'is made with reference to the view of R'Judah' since it is possible that R'Judah applied the principle that a house may be bought with objects the benefit from which is forbidden, only there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of 'erub of Sabbath limits whose validity is determined at the moment the Sabbath begins.');">³⁰</span> because after the 'erub had enabled hint to acquire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his Sabbath abode.');">³¹</span> the place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which it was deposited.');">³²</span> its owner derives no further satisfaction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Throughout the Sabbath.');">³³</span>

א"ל אילן מותר ואשירה אסורה מתקיף לה רב חסדא אדרבה אילן שאיסור שבת גורם לו ניתסר

from its preservation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He derives, therefore, no benefit from the grove. The benefit he may seem to derive at twilight, when the 'erub acquires validity, is in fact no benefit in the material sense, since an erub of Sabbath limits is allowed only for the purpose of enabling one to perform a religious act the benefit from which is purely spiritual. In the case of an 'erub of courtyards, however, which does serve the tenants' material benefits, and a doorway between courtyards the benefit of which is enjoyed throughout the Sabbath, R. Judah may well agree that an Asherah as a 'doorway' is invalid.');">³⁴</span> or is it possible that even according to the Rabbis an Asherah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the tenants do not use the Sabbath itself.');">³⁵</span> has the status of a doorway,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of which the tenants of both courtyards are enabled to merge their two domains into one.');">³⁶</span> except that a lion crouches at its side?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 546, n. 4 mut. mut.');">³⁷</span>

אשירה שאיסור דבר אחר גורם לו לא ניתסר

- A tree, the other replied, is permitted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be assigned as a ladder and to assume the status of a valid doorway.');">³⁸</span> but an Asherah is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.');">³⁹</span> R'Hisda demurred: On the contrary! A tree the restriction on the use of which is due to the incidence of the Sabbath should<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is desired to use it for the purpose of relaxing a Sabbath law.');">⁴⁰</span> be forbidden, while an Asherah the restrictions on which are due to an external<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'another', one not connected with the Sabbath but with idolatry.');">⁴¹</span>

איתמר נמי כי אתא רבין א"ר אלעזר ואמרי לה א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן כל שאיסור שבת גרם לו אסור כל שאיסור דבר אחר גרם לו מותר

cause should not be forbidden. So<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with R. Hisda's submission.');">⁴²</span> it was also stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By Amoras.');">⁴³</span> When Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon.');">⁴⁴</span>

ר"נ בר יצחק מתני הכי אילן פלוגתא דרבי ורבנן אשירה פלוגתא דרבי יהודה ורבנן:

he reported in the name of R'Eleazar or, as others say: R'Abbahu reported in the name of R'Johanan: Any object the restriction of the use of which is clue to the incidence of the Sabbath is forbidden, while in object the restriction on which is due to an external<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'another', one not connected with the Sabbath but with idolatry.');">⁴¹</span> cause is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be assigned as a ladder and to assume the status of a valid doorway.');">⁴⁵</span> R'Nahman B'Isaac taught thus: [The permissibility of] a tree is a question at issue between Rabbi and the Rabbis and that of an Asherah is a question at issue between R'Judah and the Rabbis. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A TRENCH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Separating them completely from each other.');">⁴⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חריץ שבין ב' חצירות עמוק י' ורוחב ד' מערבין שנים ואין מערבין אחד אפילו מלא קש או תבן מלא עפר או צרורות מערבין אחד ואין מערבין שנים

BETWEEN TWO COURTYARDS WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS DEEP AND FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE, TWO 'ERUBS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On for each courtyard.');">⁴⁷</span> MAY BE PREPARED BUT NOT ONE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jointly for the two courtyards. A trench of such dimensions is regarded as a complete separation between the two courtyards. One that was narrower than four handbreadths, since it is easy to step across it, is disregarded and the tenants of the two courtyards may join in one 'erub.');">⁴⁸</span> EVEN IF IT WAS FULL OF STUBBLE OR STRAW.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since these were not intended to remain there permanently.');">⁴⁹</span> IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS FULL OF EARTH OR GRAVEL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there was no substantial break between the courtyards.');">⁵⁰</span>

נתן עליו נסר שרחב ארבעה טפחים וכן ב' גזוזטראות זו כנגד זו מערבין שנים ואם רצו מערבין אחד פחות מכאן מערבין שנים ואין מערבין אחד:

ONLY ONE 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED, BUT NOT TWO.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, by so doing, the tenants of the one courtyard would impose restrictions on those of the other who (cf. prev. n.) 'virtually occupied the same courtyard.');">⁵¹</span> IF A BOARD FOUR HANDBREADTHS WIDE WAS PLACED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To form a sort of bridge between the courtyards.');">⁵²</span> ACROSS IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The trench.');">⁵³</span> AND SO ALSO WHERE TWO BALCONIES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Belonging to two different owners.');">⁵⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ותבן לא חייץ והא אנן תנן מתבן שבין שתי חצירות גבוה עשרה טפחים מערבין שנים ואין מערבין אחד

WERE OPPOSITE ONE ANOTHER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a board of the width mentioned connected them. [According to Rashi, the two balconies, it appears, were on the same side of the street, v. Strashun, a.l.].');">⁵⁵</span> THE TENANTS MAY PREPARE TWO 'ERUBS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One for each courtyard.');">⁵⁶</span> OR, IF THEY PREFER, ONLY ONE. IF THE BOARD WAS OF A LESSER WIDTH TWO 'ERUBS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One for each courtyard.');">⁵⁶</span>

אמר אביי לענין מחיצה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דהויא מחיצה אבל לענין חציצה אי בטלי' חייץ ואי לא בטלי' לא חייץ:

MAY BE PREPARED, BUT NOT ONE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>But does not straw constitute a proper filling seeing that we have learnt: If a heap of straw between two courtyards was ten handbreadths high two 'erubs may be prepared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One for each courtyard.');">⁵⁶</span> but not one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 79a; which proves that straw, though not intended to remain permanently in its position, constitutes nevertheless a valid partition. Why then does it not equally constitute a valid filling?');">⁵⁷</span> - Abaye replied: As regards the formation of a partition no one disputes the ruling that straw is regarded as a valid partition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So long as it remains in its place; as is the case with other movable objects which (cf. supra 15b) constitute a valid partition.');">⁵⁸</span>

מלא עפר: ואפילו בסתמא והתנן בית שמילאהו תבן או צרורות וביטלו בטל

with regard, however, to its serving as a valid filling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to be treated as a part of the ground.');">⁵⁹</span> it is only in the case where one completely abandoned it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By announcing his intention to leave it permanently in the trench.');">⁶⁰</span> that it constitutes a valid filling, but not otherwise. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS FULL OF EARTH.

ביטלו אין

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that ONLY ONE 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED because, obviously, the two courtyards are regarded as one.');">⁶¹</span> then applies<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no qualifying conditions were specified.');">⁶²</span> even where one's intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To keep the gravel permanently in the trench.');">⁶³</span> was not known. But have we not learnt: If a house was filled with straw or gravel and the owner announced his intention to abandon it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The straw or the gravel,');">⁶⁴</span> it is duly abandoned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the house is regarded as filled in respect of the laws of ohel. (Cf. Ohal. XV, 7 the contents of which is here quoted in a summarized form) .');">⁶⁵</span> from which it follows, does it not, that only if the owner expressly abandoned it is it regarded as abandoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'.');">⁶⁶</span>