Eruvin 24

Chapter 24

א הכא במאי עסקינן דאית ליה גידודי:

1 - Here we are dealing [with a fallen wall] stumps of which remained.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which has stumps', rising to a height of ten handbreadths but covered by the sea. As the stumps are a valid partition, movement within the courtyard is permitted (v. Rashi) . The interpretation not being free from difficulties, other interpretations have been suggested (cf. Tosaf. s.v. tfv , a.l.) .');">1 Rab Judah ruled: In the case of an alley [the residents of which] did not join together [in the provision of an 'erub],2 the man who throws anything into it3

ב אמר רב יהודה מבוי שלא נשתתפו בו הכשירו בלחי הזורק לתוכו חייב הכשירו בקורה הזורק לתוכו פטור

2 incurs guilt if its ritual fitness was effected by means of side-post,4 but if its fitness was effected by means of a cross-beam, no guilt is incurred by the man who throws anything into it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A cross-beam in his opinion is a mere distinguishing mark; and an alley cannot be regarded as a private domain unless, in accordance with the Pentateuchal law, it had four sides, or a valid partition at the entrance in addition to its three walls.');">5 R'Shesheth demurred against this: The reason then6

ג מתקיף לה רב ששת טעמא דלא נשתתפו בו הא נשתתפו בו אפילו הכשירו בקורה נמי חייב וכי ככר זו עשה אותו רשות היחיד או רשות הרבים

3 is that [the residents of the alley] did not join together [in the provision of an 'erub],7 but had they joined together [for the purpose], guilt would have been incurred even if its ritual fitness had been effected by a cross-beam only.8 Is it then this loaf9

ד והתניא חצירות של רבים ומבואות שאינן מפולשין בין עירבו ובין לא עירבו הזורק לתוכן חייב

4 that determines10 [whether it shall be] a private, or a public domain? Was it not in fact taught: In the case of common courtyards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of many people', sc. into which a number of private houses open out. As each house is a strictly private domain while the courtyard, though also a private domain, is the common property of all the residents, it is forbidden to carry objects on the Sabbath from any of the houses into the courtyard as a preventive measure instituted by the Rabbis against the possible assumption that it is also permitted to carry from a private domain into a public domain. In the courtyard itself, however, the movement of objects is permitted. (Cf. Shab. 130b) .');">11

ה אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב יהודה מבוי שאינו ראוי לשיתוף הכשירו בלחי הזורק לתוכו חייב הכשירו בקורה הזורק לתוכו פטור

5 and blind alleys,12 whether the residents have joined together in the provision of an 'erub or whether they have not joined, guilt is incurred by anyone who throws anything into them [on the Sabbath from a public domain]?13 If the statement, however, was at all made, it must have been as follows: Rab Judah ruled: As to an alley that is unfit for a joint 'erub,14

ו אלמא קסבר לחי משום מחיצה וקורה משום היכר וכן אמר רבה לחי משום מחיצה וקורה משום היכר ורבא אמר אחד זה ואחד זה משום היכר

6 guilt is incurred by the man who throws anything into it if its ritual fitness was effected by means of a side-post , but if its fitness was effe by a cross-beam no guilt is incurred by one who throws anything into it. Thus it is obvious that he is of the opinion that a side-post serves the purpose of a partition15 and a cross-beam that of a mere distinguishing mark.

ז איתיביה רבי יעקב בר אבא לרבא הזורק למבוי יש לו לחי חייב אין לו לחי פטור

7 And so did Rabbah say: A side-post serves the purpose of a partition and a cross-beam that of a mere distinguishing mark. Raba, however, ruled: The one as well as the other16 only serves the purpose of a distinguishing mark.

ח הכי קאמר אינו צריך אלא לחי הזורק לתוכו חייב לחי ודבר אחר הזורק לתוכו פטור

8 R'Jacob B'Abba raised an objection against Raba: [Was it not taught:] A man who throws17 into an alley incurs guilt if it was provided with a side-post but is exempt if it had no side-post?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a side-post thus converts an alley into a private domain, it must obviously serve the purpose of a partition. How then could Raba maintain that it was merely a distinguishing mark?');">18 - It is this that was meant: If it required only a side-post19

ט איתיביה יתר על כן אמר רבי יהודה מי שיש לו שני בתים בשני צידי רשות הרבים עושה לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע

9 then the man who throws anything into it incurs guilt,20 but if it required a side-post and something else,21 the man who throws anything into it is exempt.22

י אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך

10 He raised against him23 a further objection: [Was it not taught:]24 A more [lenient rule] than this did R'Judah lay down, [viz.] if a man had two houses on the two sides [respectively] of a public domain he may construct one side-post on the one side [of any of the houses] and another on the other side, or one cross-beam on the one side [of any of the houses] and another on its 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',' V. loc. cit., infra 95a, Shab. 6a, 117a. Now since the Rabbis objected to the recognition of a side-post on the sole ground that a public domain cannot be so provided, it follows that in the case of an alley, even though it was open at both ends, a side-post is admissible as a valid partition. How then could Raba maintain supra that a side-post can only be regarded as a distinguishing mark, contrary to the unanimous opinion of R. Judah and the Rabbis?');">25

יא התם קסבר רבי יהודה שתי מחיצות דאורייתא

11 [The explanation]26 there is that R'Judah maintains that Pentateuchally, two partitions27 [constitute a private domain].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the side-post only serves the purpose of a distinguishing mark. The Rabbis object even to such recognition of a side-post in the case of a public domain. Neither R. Judah nor the Rabbis, however, regard a side-post as a partition, in agreement with the view of Raba.');">28

יב אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מבוי שארכו כרחבו אינו ניתר בלחי משהו אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב מבוי שארכו כרחבו אינו ניתר בקורה טפח

12 Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: An alley whose length is equal to its width cannot be turned into a permitted domain29 by a mere fraction of a side-post.30 R'Hiyya B'Ashi said in the name of Rab: An alley whose length equals its width cannot be turned into a permitted domain by a cross-beam, [of the width of one] handbreadth.31

יג אמר רבי זירא כמה מכוונן שמעתא דסבי כיון דארכו כרחבו הוה ליה חצר וחצר אינה ניתרת בלחי וקורה אלא בפס ארבעה

13 R'Zera32 remarked: How exact33 are the traditions of the elders: Since an alley's length is equal to its width, it has [the status of] a courtyard whic cannot be converted into a permitted domain34

יד אמר רבי זירא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי ליהוי האי לחי כפס משהו ונשתרי

14 by means of a side-post or a cross-beam but only by means of a strip [of material of the width of] four handbreadths. If, however, R'Zera continued, I have any difficulty, it is this:35 Why should not that side-post36

טו אישתמיטתיה הא דאמר ר' אסי אמר ר' יוחנן פסי חצר צריכין שיהא בהן ארבעה

15 be regarded as a fraction of a strip and thus convert [the alley] into a permitted domain? - He overlooked the following ruling, which R'Assi had laid down in the name of R'Johanan, that the strips of a courtyard must consist of a width of four [handbreadths]. R'Nahman stated: 'We have a tradition that if [the movement of objects in] an alley is to be permitted [on the Sabbath] by means of a side-post and a cross-beam, its length must exceed its width and houses and courtyards must open out into it;37 and what kind of courtyard is it that cannot be converted into a permitted domain by means of a side-post and cross-beam but only by means of a strip of the width of four handbreadths?

טז אמר רב נחמן נקטינן איזהו מבוי שניתר בלחי וקורה כל שארכו יתר על רחבו ובתים וחצרות פתוחים לתוכו ואיזו היא חצר שאינה ניתרת בלחי וקורה אלא בפס ארבעה כל שמרובעת

16 One that is square shaped'. Only38 'one that is square shaped' but not one that is round?39

יז מרובעת אין עגולה לא הכי קאמר אי ארכה יתר על רחבה הוה ליה מבוי ומבוי בלחי וקורה סגיא ואי לא הוה לה חצר

17 - It is this that he40 meant: If its length exceeds its width, it is regarded as an alley, in which case a side-post and a cross-beam is sufficient, otherwise41 it is regarded as a courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a strip of material, four handbreadths in width, is required. The expression 'square shaped' was not intended to exclude a round shaped structure but one whose length exceeded its width.');">42

יח וכמה סבר שמואל למימר עד דאיכא פי שנים ברחבה אמר ליה רב הכי אמר חביבי אפילו משהו:

18 And [by] how much [must its length exceed its width]?43 - Samuel intended to rule: By no less than44 twice its width;45

יט משום רבי ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד כו':

19 but Rab said to him: Thus ruled my uncle46 'Even by one fraction'. A DISCIPLE, IN THE NAME OF R'ISHMAEL, STATED ETC.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter