Eruvin 18

R'Ashi replied: [This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan's statement that the question of the use of the alley under discussion is dependent on the dispute between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis.');">¹</span> may refer to a case] for instance where [one side of the alley] was lined with side-posts [placed at distances of] less than four handbreadths [from one another] along four cubits [of its length]. According to R'Simeon B'Gamaliel who ruled [that in respect of such distances the law of] labud is applied [the space bordered by the side-posts] is deemed to be [a proper] alley<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a wall of four cubits in length (v. supra 5a) is sufficient to constitute an alley.');">²</span>

which requires an additional side-post to render it permissible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The permissibility of the interior of the alley between the inner edge of the innermost post and the back wall is a matter on which Rashi and others differ.');">³</span> and according to the Rabbis who ruled [that the law of] labud is not applied,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a distance or gap is more than three handbreadths.');">⁴</span> no other side-post is required to render it permissible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The outermost post forming, as in their opinion it does, a separate unit, serves as side-post for the entire alley including the four cubits length of space bordered by the other side-posts.');">⁵</span>

But even according to R'Simeon B'Gamaliel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Granted that the space bordered by the side-post constitutes an alley on its own.');">⁶</span> [why] should [not this alley<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the space bordered by the side-posts (v. previous note) .');">⁷</span> be permitted]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without an extra side-post for itself.');">⁸</span>

as [one having a side-post that may be] seen from without<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a side-post (and in the case under discussion, the first side-post) is usually drawn slightly forward to distinguish it from the wall to which it is attached.');">⁹</span> though it appears even<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And cannot be distinguished from the alley wall.');">¹⁰</span> within?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This ruling is enunciated presently.');">¹¹</span>

- Is not this explanation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one advanced by R. Ashi.');">¹²</span> required only in respect of a statement of R'Johanan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it is.');">¹³</span> But, surely, when Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon.');">¹⁴</span>

he reported in the name of R'Johanan [that a post that may be] seen from without but appears even from within cannot be regarded as a valid side-post. It was stated: [A post that] is seen from within but appears even from without<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the outer edge of the post is even with the outer edge of the wall of the alley so that to those viewing it from without, the post appears to form a part of the thickness of the wall, while by those within, the thickness of the inner edge that protrudes from the wall can well be seen.');">¹⁵</span> is regarded as a valid side-post; but if it is seen from without and appears even from within<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the inner edge of the post touches the outer edge of the wall, and the inner width of the post is even with the interior side of the wall, but receding from its outer side.');">¹⁶</span>

[there is a difference of opinion between] R'Hiyya and R'Simeon B'Rabbi. One maintains that it is regarded as a valid side-post and the other maintains that it is not regarded as a valid side-post. You may conclude that it was R'Hiyya who maintained that 'it is regarded as a valid side-post'; for R'Hiyya taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. 'Er. I, 10, infra 15a.');">¹⁷</span>

A wall of which one side recedes more than the other, whether [the recess can be] seen from without and appears even from within or whether it can be seen from within and appears even from without, may be regarded as [being provided with] a side-post.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That side-post being provided by the thicker projection of the wall that is formed by the receding of the remainder of the wall between it and the back of the alley or by the thinner projection formed by the receding of the wall at that point.');">¹⁸</span> This is conclusive. Did not R'Johanan, however, hear this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha just cited in the name of R. Hiyya. How then could he maintain supra that such a post cannot be regarded as a valid side-post?');">¹⁹</span>

But [what you might contend is] that he did hear it and is not of the same opinion; [is it not then possible that] R'Hiyya also is not of the same opinion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could the Baraitha cited be adduced as proof that the ruling it lays down is also the one upheld by R. Hiyya?');">²⁰</span> - What [a comparison is] this! It might well [be contended that] R'Johanan does not hold the same opinion [and that it was] for this reason that he did not teach it; but as regards R'Hiyya if it is a fact that he does not hold the same opinion, what need was there for him to teach it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None whatever. Since, however, he did teach it, one may well conclude that he holds the same opinion.');">²¹</span> Rabbah son of R'Huna said: [A post that is] seen from without though it appears even from within is regarded as a valid side-post.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra for notes.');">²²</span>

Said Rabbah: We, however, raised an objection against this traditional ruling: [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 one but forbidden in the small one because the gap is regarded as an entrance to the former.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 8a q.v. notes, infra 92a.');">²³</span> Now, if this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling of Rabbah b. R. Huna.');">²⁴</span> is valid, should not the movement of objects in the small courtyard also be permitted on [the principle that the entrance may be] seen without<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. from the larger courtyard.');">²⁵</span>

though it appears even from within? - R'Zera replied: [This is a case] where the walls of the small one project into the large one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the remaining sections of the common wall on either side of the breach cannot possibly be regarded as side-posts of the entrance.');">²⁶</span> But why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the ruling of Rabbah b. R. Huna is to be upheld.');">²⁷</span> should not the principle of labud<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">²⁸</span>

be applied so that the use of the smaller courtyard also might be<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and let him say labud and it shall be'.');">²⁹</span> permitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the ground of labud the projections of the walls of the smaller yard would be deemed joined to the walls of the larger one and thus form side-posts.');">³⁰</span> And should you reply that [the walls]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the larger courtyard.');">³¹</span>

were too far apart,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the projections. The principle of labud call only be applied to distances of less than three handbreadths.');">³²</span> surely, [it may be retorted] did not R'Adda B'Abimi recite in the presence of R'Hanina:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. Hiyya Papi (MS.M) ; Hanina b. Papi (Bah) . Marginal note inserts, 'and others say before R. Hanina b. Papa'.');">³³</span> [The ruling applies to a case where] the small courtyard was ten and the large one eleven cubits?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the common wall of the two courtyards was ten cubits in length and extended on either side, in the larger courtyard only, to a length of eleven cubits, so that the joint length of the remaining sections of this wall (cf. supra note 4) cannot be more than one cubit, or six handbreadths. This allows no more than about three handbreadths for each side, from which, again, allowance must be made for the thickness of the projections, leaving a space of less than three handbreadths, to which the principle of labud may well be applied.');">³⁴</span>

- Rabina replied: [This is a case] where [the projections] were removed by two handbreadths from one wall and by four from the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A total of one cubit only, but, as the gap on one side is more than the allowed maximum, labud on that side cannot be applied.');">³⁵</span> Then let labud be applied to one side and [thereby<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the formation of some sort of doorway.');">³⁶</span> the smaller courtyard would] be permitted?