Eruvin 187

זה מטלטל עד עיקר מחיצה וזה מטלטל עד עיקר מחיצה

The tenants on either side<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this . . and this'.');">¹</span> may move their objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even such as were in the houses when the Sabbath began.');">²</span>

והא דרב לאו בפירוש אתמר אלא מכללא אתמר דרב ושמואל הוו יתבי בההוא חצר נפל גודא דביני ביני אמר להו שמואל שקולו גלימא נגידו בה

to the very foundation of the wall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike Rab, he holds that once the movement of objects in a certain place has been permitted when the Sabbath began the permissibility remains in force until the conclusion of the day.');">³</span> The ruling of Rab, however, was not explicitly stated but was arrived at by implication.

אהדרינהו רב לאפיה אמר להו שמואל אי קפיד אבא וקטרו בה

For Rab and Samuel were once sitting in a certain courtyard when a parting wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which (was) between between'.');">⁴</span> collapsed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the courtyard in which they sat was thus exposed to the adjoining courtyard.');">⁵</span>

ולשמואל למה לי הא הא אמר זה מטלטל עד עיקר מחיצה וזה מטלטל עד עיקר מחיצה

'Take a cloak', said Samuel to the people, 'and spread it across,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To form a partition at the gap, in order that the tenants of the adjoining courtyards shall not impose restrictions upon each other.');">⁶</span> and Rab turned away his face.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a mark of his displeasure. Presumably because in his opinion the collapse of the wall, which exposed the courtyards to one another, caused also the respective tenants to impose restrictions upon each other, in consequence of which it was forbidden to move the cloak from its place to the gap.');">⁷</span>

שמואל עביד לצניעותא בעלמא

'If Abba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was Rab's proper name. 'Rab' ('great', 'master') was a title of distinction.');">⁸</span> objects', Samuel told them, 'take his girdle and the with it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cloak, to secure the partition. This he said in disregard of Rab's disapproval.');">⁹</span>

ורב אי סבירא ליה דאסיר לימא ליה אתריה דשמואל הוה

Now according to Samuel's view, what need was there for this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cloak, to secure the partition. This he said in disregard of Rab's disapproval.');">⁹</span> seeing that he ruled: 'The tenants on either side may move their objects to the very foundation of the wall'? - Samuel did that merely for the sake of privacy.

אי הכי מאי טעמא אהדרינהו לאפיה דלא נימרו כשמואל סבירא ליה (והדר ביה משמעתיה):

If Rab, however, held that this was forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 10.');">¹⁰</span> why did he not say so to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Samuel.');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חצר שנפרצה לרשות הרבים המכניס מתוכה לרה"י או מרה"י לתוכה חייב דברי רבי אליעזר

The place was under Samuel's jurisdiction. If so, why did he turn away his face? - In order that it might not be said that he held the same opinion as Samuel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'and he withdrew from his ruling'. MS.M., 'and it was (done) with his approval'.');">¹²</span>

וחכמים אומרים מתוכה לרשות הרבים או מרשות הרבים לתוכה פטור מפני שהיא ככרמלית:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THERE WAS A BREACH IN A WALL BETWEEN A COURTYARD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., a courtyard that was broken into'; the breach extending along the full length of the courtyard, or being no more than ten handbreadths wide.');">¹³</span> AND A PUBLIC DOMAIN, ANY MAN WHO BRINGS ANY OBJECT FROM THE LATTER INTO A PRIVATE DOMAIN OR FROM A PRIVATE DOMAIN INTO IT IS GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the breach changes the status of the courtyard from that of a private into that of a public domain. This will be further discussed in the Gemara infra.');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ורבי אליעזר משום דנפרצה לרשות הרבים הויא לה רשות הרבים אין רבי אליעזר לטעמיה

SO R'ELIEZER'THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: WHETHER A MAN CARRIED AN OBJECT FROM IT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or a private' domain.');">¹⁵</span> OR FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAin INTO IT HE IS EXEMPT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex post facto; ab initio, however, this is forbidden.');">¹⁶</span>

דתניא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי אליעזר רבים שבררו דרך לעצמן מה שבררו בררו

BECAUSE IT HAS THE SAME STATUS AS A KARMELITH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is neither a public, nor a private domain.');">¹⁷</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>As to R'Eliezer, does it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The courtyard spoken of in our MISHNAH:');">¹⁸</span>

איני והאמר רב גידל אמר רב והוא שאבדה להן דרך באותו שדה

become a public domain because there was a breach between it and the public domain? Yes; R'Eliezer follows his view, it having been taught: R'Judah citing R'Eliezer said: If the public chose a path for themselves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though it ran through private property and the land-owner's consent had not been obtained.');">¹⁹</span>

וכי תימא הכא נמי כגון שאבדה לה דרך באותה חצר והאמר רבי חנינא עד מקום מחיצה מחלוקת

that which they have chosen is theirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 100a, lit., 'chosen'; and the owner of the property may not close up the path. As the public here acquire the path so do they acquire the courtyard.');">²⁰</span> But this cannot be right,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I am not'.');">²¹</span>

אימא על מקום מחיצה מחלוקת

for did not R'Giddal citing Rab explain: This applies only to a case where their path had been lost<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being impossible to ascertain its exact position.');">²²</span> in that field?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 100a. While all individual in such a case cannot make the choice without the land-owner's consent or the authorization of a court, the public are entitled to make their own choice. This, however, does not prove that they can also appropriate a courtyard in which they have lost nothing.');">²³</span>

ואיבעית אימא בצידי רשות הרבים קמיפלגי דרבי אליעזר סבר צידי רשות הרבים כרשות הרבים דמו ורבנן סברי צידי רשות הרבים לאו כרשות הרבים דמו

And Should you reply that here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The courtyard spoken of in our MISHNAH:');">²⁴</span> it is a case where their path<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a path to her'.');">²⁵</span>

וליפלוג בצידי רשות הרבים בעלמא אי איפליגו בצידי רשות הרבים בעלמא הוה אמרינן כי פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר הני מילי היכא דאיכא חיפופי אבל היכא דליכא חיפופי אימא מודו ליה קא משמע לן

had been lost in that courtyard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the exact position of the former wall having been lost the men of the public domain claimed that their domain extended beyond the limits which the tenants of the courtyard claim as the original position of the wall, and it is this spot, not all the courtyard, that R. Eliezer regards as a public domain.');">²⁶</span> surely, [it could be retorted], did not R'Hanina state, 'The dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Eliezer and the Sages in our MISHNAH:');">²⁷</span>

והא מתוכה קאמר

referred to [all the courtyard] as far as the position of its walls'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus including the entire courtyard and not merely the original position of the broken wall.');">²⁸</span> Read: The dispute concerned only the position of the wall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of 'ad ('until', 'as far as') read 'at ('concerning') .');">²⁹</span>

איידי דאמור רבנן מתוכה אמר איהו נמי מתוכה

And if you prefer I might reply: Their dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Eliezer and the Sages in our MISHNAH:');">²⁷</span> refers to the status of the sides of a public road, R'Elieze holding that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the position of the wall is known.');">³⁰</span>

ורבנן אמר רבי אליעזר צידי רשות הרבים ומהדרו ליה אינהו מתוכה

the sides of a public road are like the public road while the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' THE SAGES.');">³¹</span> hold that the sides of a public road are not like the public road.

הכי קאמרי ליה רבנן לרבי אליעזר מי לא קא מודית לן היכא דטילטל מתוכה לרשות הרבים ומרשות הרבים לתוכה דפטור מפני שהיא כרמלית צידי נמי לא שנא

Why then did they not express their difference of opinion in respect of the sides of public roads generally? - If they had expressed their difference of view in respect of the sides of public roads generally it might have been assumed that the Rabbis; differed from R'Eliezer only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when do the Rabbis differ . . these words'.');">³²</span> where there were border-stones<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'stakes' that formed a division between the public domain proper and the wall. This space being frequented by fewer people can only be regarded, as a karmelith.');">³³</span>

ורבי אליעזר התם לא קא דרסי לה רבים הכא קא דרסי לה רבים:

but where there were no border-stones they agree with him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the public domain extends to the very walls.');">³⁴</span> hence we were informed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the form of the dispute in our MISHNAH:');">³⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חצר שנפרצה לרה"ר משתי רוחותיה וכן בית שנפרץ משתי רוחותיו וכן מבוי שנטלו קורותיו או לחייו מותרים באותו שבת ואסורים לעתיד לבא דברי רבי יהודה

[that even in the latter case they also differ from him]. But did he not say: FROM IT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from its midst', which obviously refers to the entire courtyard and not merely to the position of the former wall.');">³⁶</span>

רבי יוסי אומר אם מותרין לאותו שבת מותרין לעתיד לבא ואם אסורין לעתיד לבא אסורין לאותו שבת:

- As the Rabbis used the expression FROM IT he also used a similar expression. As to the Rabbis however, how is it that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the explanation here given.');">³⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> במאי עסקינן אילימא בעשר מאי שנא מרוח אחת דאמר פיתחא הוא משתי רוחות נמי פיתחא הוא אלא ביתר מעשר א"ה אפילו מרוח אחת נמי

R'Eliezer speaks of the sides of a public road and they retort to him FROM IT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from its midst', which obviously refers to the entire courtyard and not merely to the position of the former wall.');">³⁶</span> - It is this that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus'.');">³⁸</span>

אמר רב לעולם בעשר

the Rabbis said to R'Eliezer: You agree with us, do you not, that where a man moved an object from it into a public domain or from a public domain into it he is exempt because it is a karmelith, well the same law should apply to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., ' (there should be) no difference'.');">³⁹</span> the sides<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the public road.');">⁴⁰</span> also. And R'Eliezer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of the objection, does he justify his view?');">⁴¹</span> There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within the courtyard.');">⁴²</span> not many people tread on the spot but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the side of public road.');">⁴³</span> they do. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A BREACH WAS MADE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">⁴⁴</span> IN TWO SIDES OF A COURTYARD TOWARDS A PUBlic DOMAIN, AND SO ALSO IF A BREACH WAS MADE IN TWO SIDES OF A HOUSE, OR IF THE CROSS-BEAM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc, MS.M. and Rashi (cf. Tosaf. supra 17a and Rashi a.l.) . Cur. edd. use the plural.');">⁴⁵</span> OR SIDE-POST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc, MS.M. and Rashi (cf. Tosaf. supra 17a and Rashi a.l.) . Cur. edd. use the plural.');">⁴⁵</span> OF AN ALLEY WAS REMOVED, THE OCCUPIERS ARE PERMITTED THEIR USE FOR THAT SABBATH BUT FORBIDDEN ON FUTURE SABBATHS; SO R'JUDAH. R'JOSE RULED: IF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra.');">⁴⁶</span> THEY ARE PERMITTED THEIR USE ON THAT SABBATH THEY ARE ALSO PERMITTED ON FUTURE SABBATHS AND IF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra.');">⁴⁶</span> THEY ARE FORBIDDEN (IN FUTURE SABBATHS THEY ARE ALSO FORBIDDEN ON THAT SABBATH. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>With what kind of breach do we deal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah where the BREACH is assumed to have been made IN TWO SIDES.');">⁴⁷</span> If it be suggested: With one that was not wider then ten cubits,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'within ten'.');">⁴⁸</span> wherein, then, [it may be objected, does a breach] in one side differ [in such a case from breaches in two sides? Is it] that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being no wider than ten cubits.');">⁴⁹</span> may be regarded as a<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that one says'.');">⁵⁰</span> doorway, [should not breaches]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being no wider than ten cubits.');">⁴⁹</span> in two sides also be regarded as doorways?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then are restrictions imposed?');">⁵¹</span> If, however, the breach spoken of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah where the BREACH is assumed to have been made IN TWO SIDES.');">⁴⁷</span> was<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but'.');">⁵²</span> wider than ten cubits, [should not the same restrictioss<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That are imposed when the breach was made in two sides.');">⁵³</span> apply] even where it was only in one side? Rab replied: The fact is [that the breach spoken off was] not wider than ten cubits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'within ten'.');">⁵⁴</span>