Eruvin 189

קורה ד' מתיר בחורבה ורב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה קורה ד' מתיר במים מני

that a cross-beam<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was supported on two stakes, one at either end.');">¹</span> of the width of four handbreadths<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That lay on its wide side. If the width was less, the partitions enclosing it, since the space enclosed is less than four handbreadths, would have had no validity.');">²</span> effects permissibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the movement of objects under it; because its four edges are deemed to descend and to form four walls.');">³</span>

להך לישנא דאמרת בעשר לא פליגי בעשר ודברי הכל להך לישנא דאמרת בעשר פליגי כרב

in a ruin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though fully exposed to a public domain.');">⁴</span> and that of R'Nahman who, citing Rabbah B'Abbuha, ruled that a cross-beam of the width of four handbreadths<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That lay on its wide side across the mouth of a cistern between two courtyards.');">⁵</span> effects permissibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the use of the water. The tenants of both courtyards may freely use the water as if a proper division had actually separated the water of the one courtyard from the water of the other.');">⁶</span>

לימא אביי ורבא בפלוגתא דרב ושמואל קמיפלגי דאיתמר סיכך על גבי אכסדרה שיש לה פצימין כשירה אין לה פצימין אביי אמר כשירה ורבא אמר פסולה

in the case of water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 86a.');">⁷</span> whose view is represented there? According to the version which reads<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which you stated'.');">⁸</span>

אביי אמר כשירה אמר פי תקרה יורד וסותם ורבא אמר פסולה לא אמר פי תקרה יורד וסותם לימא אביי כרב ורבא כשמואל

'where [a breach was not wider than] ten cubits there is no divergence of opinion' [these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rulings of Rab Judah and R. Nahman.');">⁹</span> would be a case where the cross-beam was no longer than] ten cubits and would represent the unanimous opinion; while according to the version which reads,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which you stated'.');">¹⁰</span> 'They only differ where it was not wider than ten cubits', these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rulings of Rab Judah and R. Nahman.');">¹¹</span>

אליבא דשמואל כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי אליבא דרב אביי כרב ורבא עד כאן לא קאמר רב התם אלא דהני מחיצות לאכסדרה עבידי אבל הכא דהני מחיצות לאו לסוכה עבידי לא:

would represent the view of Rab. Must it be assumed that Abaye and Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the dispute that follows.');">¹²</span> differ on the same principles as those on which Rab and Samuel differed?

רבי יוסי אומר אם מותרין: איבעיא להו רבי יוסי לאסור או להתיר

For it was stated: If an exedra<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With only two walls that met each other in the shape of am L (v. Tosaf. supra 93a) .');">¹³</span> that had side-posts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each attached to the end of either wall and less than three handbreadths but no less that one handbreadth wide.');">¹⁴</span> was covered with boughs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or any material that was suitable for the roof of a sukkah.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב ששת לאסור וכן אמר רבי יוחנן לאסור תניא נמי הכי אמר רבי יוסי כשם שאסורין לעתיד לבא כך אסורין לאותו שבת

it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since either side-post might be deemed to be extended horizontally and to form a third wall. A Sukkah that has three walls is valid.');">¹⁶</span> is valid as a sukkah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since either side-post might be deemed to be extended horizontally and to form a third wall. A Sukkah that has three walls is valid.');">¹⁶</span> but if it had no side-posts, Abaye ruled, it is still valid while Raba ruled: It is invali Abaye ruled that it was valid because the edge of the ceiling is deemed to descend and to close up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The side where there was no proper wall.');">¹⁷</span>

איתמר רב חייא בר יוסף אמר הלכה כרבי יוסי ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי יהודה

while Raba ruled that it was invalid because he does not uphold the principle that the edge of the ceiling is deemed to descend and to close up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 93a, Suk. 18b.');">¹⁸</span> Now must it be assumed that Abaye is of the same view as Rab while Raba is of the same view as Samuel? According to the view of Samuel there is no divergence of opinion between them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye and Raba; sc. even Abaye must admit that Samuel who did not accept, in the case of the Sabbath, the principle of the downward extension of the edges of an exedra (though these were expressly made for that structure) could not accept that principle in the case of a sukkah');">¹⁹</span>

ומי אמר שמואל הכי והתנן א"ר יהודה בד"א בעירובי תחומין אבל בעירובי חצירות מערבין בין לדעת בין שלא לדעת לפי שזכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין שלא בפניו

They differ only on the view of Rab. Abaye, of course, holds the same view as Rab, while Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose view seems to differ from that of Rab.');">²⁰</span> maintains that Rab upheld his view only there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until here, Rab did not say there, but'.');">²¹</span>

ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהודה ולא עוד אלא כל מקום ששנה רבי יהודה בעירובין הלכה כמותו

because the walls<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the beams that form the edges of the roof of the exedra and that are deemed to extend downwards to make up walls.');">²²</span> were expressly made for the exedra, but not here where the walls<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n.');">²³</span> were not expressly made for the sukkah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although in the case of proper walls it is not necessary for them to be expressly made for the sukkah, imaginary ones whose legal existence depends on a principle which is in itself a relaxation of the law cannot be regarded as valid by allowing a further relaxation of the law.');">²⁴</span>

וא"ל רב חנא בגדתאה לרב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו במבוי שניטל קורתו או לחייו וא"ל בעירובין אמרתי לך ולא במחיצות

R'JOSE RULED: IF THEY ARE PERMITTED. The question was raised: Did R'Jose intend to add restrictions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., did he, by his comparison, intend to forbid the use of the courtyard on the same Sabbath as it would presumably be forbidden on future Sabbaths?');">²⁵</span> or to relax them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To permit its use on future 'Sabbaths as it was presumably permitted on the same Sabbath?');">²⁶</span>

אמר רב ענן לדידי מיפרשא לי מיניה דשמואל כאן שנפרצה לכרמלית כאן שנפרצה לרשות הרבים:

- R'Shesheth replied: To add restrictions; and so too said R'Johanan: To add restrictions. So it was also taught: R'Jose ruled: As they are forbidden on future Sabbaths so are they forbidden on that Sabbath. It was stated: R'Hiyya B'Joseph<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., 'Ashi. Bah inserts, 'in the name of' Rab'.');">²⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הבונה עלייה על גבי שני בתים וכן גשרים המפולשים מטלטלין תחתיהן בשבת דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אוסרין

ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R'Jose, but Samuel ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R'Judah. But could Samuel have given such a ruling seeing that we have learnt: R'Judah ruled: This applies only to 'erubs of Sabbath limits but in the case of 'erubs of courtyards one may be prepared for a person irrespective of whether he is aware of it or not, since a benefit may be conferred on a man in his absence but no disability may be imposed on him in his absence';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 46b, 81b, q.v. notes.');">²⁸</span> and in connection with this Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: 'The halachah is in agreement with R'Judah; and, furthermore, wherever R'Judah taught a law concerning 'erub the halachah is in agreement with him';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 81b.');">²⁹</span>

ועוד א"ר יהודה מערבין למבוי המפולש וחכמים אוסרין:

and when R'Hana of Bagdad asked Rab Judah, 'Did Samuel say this even in respect of an alley whose cross-beam or side-post has been taken away? ' he replied: 'Concerning 'erubs did I tell you, but not concerning partitions'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Loc. cit. q.v. notes. Now, since R. Judah in our Mishnah deals with a question concerning partitions, how, in view of the reply Rab Judah gave to R. Hana, could it be maintained that Samuel pronounced the halachah here to be in agreement with R. Judah's ruling?');">³⁰</span> R'Anan replied: It was explained to me by Samuel that one statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the halachah agrees with12. R. Judah.');">³¹</span> referred to a courtyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'.');">³²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבה לא תימא היינו טעמא דרבי יהודה משום דקא סבר ב' מחיצות דאורייתא אלא משום דקסבר פי תקרה יורד וסותם

in which a breach was made towards a karmelith<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The movement of objects from a karmelith into another domain or from the latter into the former is only Rabbinically forbidden. As no Pentateuchal law would he infringed, even if an object were carried from the courtyard into the karmelith or vice versa, Samuel adopted the lenient rule of R. Judah in a case where the courtyard was a permitted domain when the Sabbath began.');">³³</span> while the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in the case of partitions the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah.');">³⁴</span> referred to one in which a breach was made towards a public domain.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where (cf. supra n. 9) a Pentateuchal law might be infringed.');">³⁵</span>

איתיביה אביי יתר על כן א"ר יהודה מי שיש לו שני בתים משני צידי רה"ר עושה לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רה"ר בכך

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE BUILDS AN UPPER ROOM ON THE TOP OF TWO HOUSES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Situated on opposite sides of a public domain the road passing under the floor of the upper room.');">³⁶</span> AND IN THE CASE OF VIADUCTS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'bridges that have a thoroughfare (beneath them) '.');">³⁷</span> THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS UNDER THESE ON THE SABBATH IS PERMITTED;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the edges above are deemed to descend to form walls encasing the space below.');">³⁸</span>

א"ל מההיא אין מהא ליכא למשמע מינה

SO R'JUDAH. BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS. R'JUDAH MOREOVER RULED: AN 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED FOR AN ALLEY THAT IS A THOROUGHFARE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it has walls on two sides and two walls are Pentateuchally sufficient, v. GEMARA:');">³⁹</span>

אמר רב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא מדקתני ועוד א"ר יהודה מערבין במבוי המפולש וחכמים אוסרין

BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Rabbah stated: Do not presume that R'Judah's reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his ruling in the first clause of our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁰</span> is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'because he holds the opinion'.');">⁴¹</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא משום דקא סבר פי תקרה יורד וסותם היינו דקתני ועוד

that Pentateuchally two walls<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The public domain and the viaduct have at least two walls on opposite sides.');">⁴²</span> are sufficient but rather that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'because he holds the opinion'.');">⁴¹</span> the edge of ceiling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the floor of the upper room or the superstructure of the viaduct.');">⁴³</span>

אלא אי אמרת משום דקא סבר שתי מחיצות דאורייתא מאי ועוד שמע מינה:

is deemed to descend downwards and to enclose the space below. Abaye raised an objection against him: 'A more lenient rule than this did R'Judah lay down: If a man had two houses on the two sides respectively of a public domain he may construct one side-post on one side of any of the houses, and another on the other side, or one cross-beam on one side of any of the houses and another on the other side, and then he may move things about in the space between them; but they said to him: A public domain cannot be provided with an 'erub in such a manner!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 6a q.v. notes. Now this distinctly proves that Pentateuchally two walls are sufficient. How then could Rabbah maintain that this must not be presumed to be R. Judah's reason?');">⁴⁴</span> - The other replied: Front that ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one just cited.');">⁴⁵</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כל גגות</strong></big><br><br>

your contention is justified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'yes'.');">⁴⁶</span> from this one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in the first clause of our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁷</span> however, you cannot derive it.

מתני׳ <big><strong>המוצא</strong></big> תפילין מכניסן זוג זוג ר"ג אומר שנים שנים בד"א בישנות אבל בחדשות פטור

R'Ashi observed: A deduction from the wording of our Mishnah also justified [Rabbah's explanation], since it was stated: R'JUDAH MOREOVER RULED: AN 'ERUB MAY BE PREPARED FOR AN ALLEY THAT IS A THOROUGHFARE; BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS. Now if you grant his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah's.');">⁴⁸</span> reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his first ruling.');">⁴⁹</span>

מצאן צבתים או כריכות מחשיך עליהן ומביאן

to be that the edge of the ceiling is deemed to descend and to enclose the space below, one can well see why the expression of MOREOVER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even where there were no edges that could be deemed to descend (cf. Rashi's second interpretation) .');">⁵⁰</span> was used; but if you maintain that his reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For his first ruling.');">⁴⁹</span> is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., , 'because he holds the opinion'.');">⁵¹</span> that Pentateuchally two walls are sufficient, what<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the ruling that follows is based on the same reason.');">⁵²</span> is the justification for the expression MOREOVER?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None whatever. Hence the support for Rabbah's explanation.');">⁵³</span> This is conclusive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'you hear from it'.');">⁵⁴</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN FINDS TEFILLIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath, in a held where they are exposed to dogs or to any other misuse.');">⁵⁵</span> HE SHAll BRING THEM IN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To town, into a safe place.');">⁵⁶</span> ONE PAIR AT A Time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One on his head and one on his arm in the same manner as they are worn on weekdays.');">⁵⁷</span> R'GAMALIEL RULED: TWO PAIRS AT A TIME.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One pair on the hand and one pair on the arm.');">⁵⁸</span> THIS APPLIES TO OLD ONES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. tefillin that show marks of wear or that have a proper knot, in which case there can be no doubt that they were proper tefillin.');">⁵⁹</span> BUT IN THE CASE OF NEW ONES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may be assumed to be mere amulets.');">⁶⁰</span> HE IS EXEMPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. he is under no obligation to pick them up and to carry them to a place of safety.');">⁶¹</span> IF HE FOUND THEM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Proper tefillin.');">⁶²</span> ARRANGED IN PACKETS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra.');">⁶³</span> OR TIED UP IN BUNDLES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra.');">⁶³</span> HE SHALL WAIT BY THEM UNTIL. IT IS DARK AND THEN BRING THEM IN.