Eruvin 188

וכגון שנפרצה בקרן זוית דפיתחא בקרן זוית לא עבדי אינשי:

but it was one, for instance, that occurred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not in two walls that were opposite each other.');">¹</span> in a corner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At which two adjacent walls meet.');">²</span>

וכן בית שנפרץ משתי רוחותיו: מאי שנא מרוח אחת דאמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם משתי רוחות נמי לימא פי תקרה יורד וסותם

where people make no doors.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'because people do not make a door in a corner'. As the breach cannot in consequence be treated as a door our Mishnah imposed the restrictions mentioned.');">³</span> AND SO ALSO IF A BREACH WAS MADE IN TWO SIDES OF A HOUSE.

אמרי דבי רב משמיה דרב כגון שנפרץ בקרן זוית וקירויו באלכסון דליכא למימר פי תקרה יורד וסותם

Wherein does a breach in one side<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where no restrictions have been imposed.');">⁴</span> differ [from breaches in two sides]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where our Mishnah imposes restrictions.');">⁵</span>

ושמואל אמר אפילו ביתר מעשר אי הכי מרוח אחת נמי

Is it in that it may be assumed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where only one side has a breach.');">⁶</span> that the edge of the ceiling is deemed to extend downward and to close the gap, why should it not be assumed in the case of breaches in two sides also that the edge of the beam extends and closes them up? - At the school of Rab it was explained on the authority of Rab: This is a case of a house whose breaches, for instance, occurred in a corner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where no doors are made and where the breaches cannot be treated as doorways.');">⁷</span>

משום בית

and whose ceiling was lying in a slanting position so that it cannot be said that the edge of the ceiling extends downwards and closes them up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 25b. V., however, Tosaf. a.l.');">⁸</span> Samuel, however, replied: The breach<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the two sides of the courtyard spoken of in our MISHNAH:');">⁹</span>

ובית גופיה תקשי מאי שנא מרוח אחת דאמרי' פי תקרה יורד וסותם מב' רוחות נמי נימא פי תקרה יורד וסותם

might have been even wider than ten cubits. If so, should not the same restrictions apply even where the breach was made in one side?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then did our Mishnah speak only of TWO SIDES.');">¹⁰</span>

ותו מי אית ליה לשמואל פי תקרה יורד וסותם והא אתמר אכסדרה בבקעה רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולה ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין בה אלא בד' אמות

- [This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A breach in one side of a courtyard.');">¹¹</span> was not mentioned] on account of the house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was dealt with in the same context. As in the latter case where a breach in one wall imposes no restrictions (on the principle of the downward extension of the beam which virtually closes up the breach) two sides had to be spoken of, two sides were spoken of in the first case also.');">¹²</span>

הא לא קשיא כי לית ליה בד' אבל בשלש אית ליה

But does not the same difficulty arise in respect of a house: Wherein does a breach in one side differ [from breaches in two sides]? If it is in the assumption that the edge of the ceiling descends downward and closes the breach, why should not the same assumption, that the edge of the ceiling extends downwards and closes up the breaches, be made where these breaches occurred in two sides?

מ"מ קשיא

Furthermore, it may be objected, does Samuel at all uphold the principle that the edge of a ceiling is deemed to descend downwards to close a gap,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was wider than ten cubits, as has just been explained to be the case according to Samuel, with the breach dealt with in our MISHNAH:');">¹³</span> seeing that it was stated: 'if an exedra was situated in a valley it is, Rab rule permitted to move objects within all its interior, but Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved within four cubits only'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . Supra 25a, which shows that the principle of the downward extension of a ceiling is not upheld by Samuel.');">¹⁴</span>

כדאמרי בי רב משמיה דרב כגון שנפרץ בקרן זוית וקירויו באלכסון הכא נמי כגון שנפרץ בקרן זוית וקירויו בארבע

- This is no difficulty: He does not uphold the principle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the downward extension of a ceiling.');">¹⁵</span> in respect of four walls<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. where the ceiling has to supply the place of four walls, as is the case in an exedra that has only a roof resting on poles.');">¹⁶</span>

שמואל לא אמר כרב אלכסון לא קתני ורב לא אמר כשמואל אם כן הויא ליה אכסדרה ורב לטעמיה דאמר אכסדרה מותר לטלטל בכולה

only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when does he not have? In four'.');">¹⁷</span> but in respect of three walls<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And much more so1 in that of two.');">¹⁸</span>

דאיתמר אכסדרה בבקעה רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולה ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין בה אלא בארבע אמות

he does.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his view that where a house had a breach in one wall only the edge of its ceiling is deemed to close it.');">¹⁹</span> Does not the first difficulty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Why should not the principle of the downward extension of the ceiling be applied where a breach was made in two walls?');">²⁰</span>

רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולה אמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין בה אלא בארבע אמות לא אמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם

at any rate, remain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's answer given supra, that the ceiling was slanting, cannot be given by Samuel, since the latter holds that the breach dealt with in our Mishnah 'might have been even wider than ten cubits', and such a wide gap which cannot be treated as a doorway would have caused the same restrictions even if it had occurred in one wall only.');">²¹</span> - As at the school of Rab it was explained in the name of Rab, 'This is a case of a house whose breaches, for instance, occurred in a corner and whose ceiling was in a slanting position',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as Rab explained that the ceiling was different from ordinary ones though no specific mention of this fact was made in our MISHNAH:');">²²</span>

בעשר כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי ביתר מעשר

so here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Samuel's view.');">²³</span> it may be explained: This is a case of a house whose breaches, for instance, occurred in a corner and whose ceiling presented<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though this is rather unusual (cf. supra n. 5) .');">²⁴</span>

ואיכא דאמרי ביתר כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בעשר

a four sided breach.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The breach having left a ceiling of this shape.');">²⁵</span> Samuel does not give the same explanation as Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the breach referred to in our Mishnah was not wider than ten cubits and that the ceiling was in a slanting position.');">²⁶</span>

והא דאמר רב יהודה

since it was not stated that the ceiling was slanting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And ordinary ceilings are flat. Breaches, on the other hand, may well assume any shape.');">²⁷</span> Rab, on the other hand, does not give the same explanation as Samuel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the breach in the walls of the house might be wider than ten cubits and that the ceiling presented a four sided breach.');">²⁸</span> for in that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That four walls had to be supplied on the principle of the downward extension of a ceiling.');">²⁹</span> the house would in this respect have been in the same legal position as an exedra,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where also four walls have to be supplied on the same principle.');">³⁰</span> and Rab follows his view that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who said'.');">³¹</span> it is permitted to move objects in all the interior of an exedra, for it was stated: If an exedra, was situated in a valley, Rab ruled, it is permitted to move objects within all its interior; but Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved within four cubits only. Rab ruled that it was permitted to move objects in all its interior because we apply the principle: The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up. But Samuel ruled that objects might be moved within four cubits only because we do not apply the principle: The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 25a q.v. notes.');">³²</span> [Where a breach was not wider than] ten cubits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'within ten'.');">³³</span> there is no divergence of opinion between them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab and Samuel. Both agree that no restrictions are to be imposed, since the gap may be treated as a doorway and the question of the principle of the downward extension of the edge of the ceiling does not arise (Rashi. Cf., however, Tosaf. a.l.) .');">³⁴</span> They only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when do they'.');">³⁵</span> differ where [the breach was] wider than ten cubits. Others read: Where it was wider than ten cubits there is no divergence of opinion between them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 3. Both agree that restrictions are imposed.');">³⁶</span> and they only differ [where it was not wider than] ten cubits. With reference, however, to Rab Judah's ruling