Eruvin 22b — the Talmud in English

If you say it is because a rock ladder surrounds it

Tzur = a place-name

on this side,

which surrounds the Land of Israel on two sides in the form of the letter khaf, a rock, a mountain cliff that is ten handbreadths high, surrounding it, by which one ascends to the Land of Israel [that is, on two sides, the northern and eastern, the Land of Israel is surrounded by mountains that are ten handbreadths high and upright, forming a partition around it],

and the descent

a slope

of Geder

a place-name

on this side

the southern side, surrounds it—a slope, a trench that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide—and since it is surrounded by partitions, it is not a public domain.

This cannot be said.

For if so,

Babylonia also

should not be liable for it on account of a public domain.

For indeed,

the river

the

Euphrates surrounds it on this side

that is, on two sides, like the letter khaf

and

the river

Tigris

surrounds it

on this side!

And it is even more difficult according to your words: many domains

of everyone else also—

indeed,

the

ocean

surrounds them

and they should not be liable for them on account of a public domain!

Rather, inevitably, partitions within which the one standing inside them does not see himself as surrounded by partitions are not partitions; and if so, one should likewise be liable for the public domains in the Land of Israel?! [This has been explained on the basis of the Ritva; see Tosafot and Gaon Yaakov].

And Abaye added and said:

Perhaps

this is not your intention: that throughout the Land of Israel there is no public domain, but concerning

ascents and descents

[ups and downs] in the Land of Israel—which are upright and not convenient for use—it is that you

said

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that one is not liable for them on account of a public domain [and the reason will be explained further on in the Gemara].

He said to him

Rav Dimi said to Abaye:

Karkefana

[master of the skull], that is, an important person,

I saw your head among the pillars

[I saw your head among the pillars of the study hall of Rabbi Yohanan]

when he said

[when he said]

Rabbi Yohanan this teaching!

And the early authorities differed concerning the explanation and intention of the matter:

The Tosafot explained: “Your head” means Rabbah, Abaye’s teacher and head, and Rav Dimi said to him: Since he was Abaye’s teacher in the study hall, he is astonished that Abaye did not hear this statement of Rabbi Yohanan from his teacher [according to the Maharshal in the name of Rashbam].

And the Ritva explained [and wrote that the preceding explanation is not from Rabbi Yehuda, the author of Tosafot]: He said to him in a witty manner that, since Abaye was confirming this on his own authority, it seemed to Rav Dimi that Abaye had been in Rabbi Yohanan’s study hall when he said this teaching.

And we support this explanation:

It was also stated: When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said—and some say, Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yohanan said: As for the ascents and descents in the Land of Israel, one is not liable for them on account of a public domain, because they are not like the banners of the wilderness

that is, the labors of Shabbat and carrying are derived from the labors of the Tabernacle, which were in the wilderness—for Israel encamped there according to its banners—and this is not like the banners of the wilderness.

And the early authorities differed concerning the explanation of the matter:

Rashi wrote: In the wilderness the land was smooth, for the cloud smoothed all the ascents and descents for the Children of Israel; and since ascents and descents are not similar to it, one is not liable for it on account of a public domain.

Rakhava asked Rabbah

[Mishkenot Yaakov]:

A mound

ten handbreadths high or more, whose status is that of one surrounded by partitions by virtue of the sides of the mound, and the mound had a slope for many to ascend it, which was extremely steep, until it

gathers

[accumulates] to a height of

ten

handbreadths

within four

cubits [until the length of the slope reaches four cubits, the mound rises to a height of ten handbreadths or more, and this is the measure of an upright mound that is not convenient for the walking of many]

and

nevertheless

many pass through it,

do we say that the many who pass along the slope nullify the partitions at the top of the mound and

one is liable for it on account of a public domain,

since they have nullified the partitions? [This is speaking of a case in which the top of the mound is sixteen cubits wide, the measure of a public domain, and six hundred thousand pass there—Ritva; see Gaon Yaakov].

Or one is not liable for it

on account of a public domain, because the passage of many along a path that is not convenient for walking does not nullify the partitions.

And we explain Rakhava’s question:

According to the Rabbis

who say in the Mishna that public passage does not nullify the partitions of the posts [since there are four partitions there, as we explained above],

you need not ask

concerning a mound [which also has four partitions, since every height of ten handbreadths is considered a partition—Ritva], that the passage of many does not nullify the partitions of the mound, and one is not liable for it on account of a public domain, by a kal va-chomer:

Now,

and

just as there

concerning the posts,

where its use is convenient, the Rabbis say: The many do not come and nullify its partition; here

concerning a mound,

where its use is not convenient, is it not all the more so that the many do not come and nullify the partitions of the mound, and it is not a public domain.

Therefore, if you ask, it is

according to Rabbi Judah

who says in the Mishna concerning the posts that the many come and nullify the partitions of the posts [since they pass through it from all its directions—according to the Ritva cited above]; concerning this, you should ask concerning a mound [in which they likewise pass through from four directions—Ritva],

what is the law?

May we say:

There

concerning the posts, Rabbi Judah holds that the partitions are nullified because

its use is convenient

for the public road, but

here

concerning a mound,

where its use is not convenient, the many do not come and nullify the partition,

or perhaps it makes no difference?

He said to him

Rabbah said to Rakhava:

They are liable

for the mound on account of a public domain, for the partitions are nullified.

And Rakhava again asked Rabbah:

Even

if the mound is so upright that

one ascends it by means of a rope—

are they liable?

He said to him

Rabbah said to Rakhava:

Yes,

[that is, they are liable for it on account of a public domain].

And Rakhava again asked Rabbah:

Even

if they ascend upon the mound in the manner in which they would ascend

the ascents of Beit Meron

[a place-name], whose steps were extremely upright and the width of each step was narrow, so that two could not ascend them at once, but only one after the other?

He said to him

Rabbah said to Rakhava:

Yes

[that is, they are liable for it].

And see the analyses and the introduction concerning the law of a mound that gathers.

He raised an objection to him: A courtyard into which the many enter through

an opening or a breach

this one

on one side,

and exit through this one

on the other side [on all the sides of the courtyard—Tosafot], its status is

that of a public domain

for

impurity,

for if a doubt concerning impurity arose in it, it is pure, according to the law of a doubt concerning impurity in a public domain, which is pure, since the many walk there.

And

its status is

that of a private domain

for it,

with regard

to

Shabbat,

since it is surrounded by partitions, and we see that the many do not come and nullify partitions.

And this beraita—

whose view is it?

If you say it is the Rabbis

of the Mishna concerning the posts, this cannot be,

for

now, just as there

concerning the posts

where its use is convenient, the Rabbis say: The many do not come and nullify the partition; here

concerning a courtyard

that

has stubs [for the wall was not breached down to its base, and a remnant of the wall that had been there remained below], and because of this

its use is not convenient, all the more so,

and it is obvious, so why was it necessary to teach it?!

Rather, is it not Rabbi Judah,

who, although he holds concerning the posts that the many come and nullify the partitions, here, concerning a courtyard whose use is not convenient, the partitions are not nullified by virtue of the passage of the many. And this is difficult: How did you say that they are liable for the mound, whose use is not convenient, on account of a public domain, and the partitions are nullified?!

And we reject this:

No.

It is actually the Rabbis

and it follows their method, that the partitions are not nullified.

And

as for what is difficult for you, that it is obvious, it is not difficult, for

a public domain with regard to impurity

is what

was necessary for him

to teach, but that it is a private domain with regard to Shabbat is obvious!

Come and hear: Alleys that are open through pits, cisterns, and caves are a private domain

they

with regard to Shabbat, and a public domain with regard to impurity.

And we are astonished at it in order to explain the beraita: alleys that are open

“in” pits—

which implies that the alley is inside the pit—

could it enter your mind

as a question?!

Rather

this is what it says: alleys that are open [crosswise and lengthwise—Ritva], which on one side face a public domain, and on their other side are open

“to” pits,

and one who wishes to pass must restrict himself to walking along the edge of the pit, or which are open “to cisterns and caves,”

are a private domain

they

with regard to Shabbat,

for the many do not come and nullify the partitions of the alley,

and a public domain with regard to impurity,

since many walk there. We see that the many do not come and nullify partitions where use is not convenient, as here, where upon exiting they pass narrowly along the edge of the pit.

And this beraita—

whose view is it?

If you say it is the Rabbis,

is it not obvious?! For

now, just as there

concerning the posts

where its use is convenient, the Rabbis say

the Rabbis:

the many do not come and nullify it

the partitions,

here

in the alleys open to pits

where its use is not convenient, all the more so!

Rather, is it not Rabbi Judah,

and because its use is not convenient Rabbi Judah concedes that the partitions are not nullified. But this is difficult: How did Rabbah say that they are liable for the mound on account of a public domain?!

And we reject this:

No, it is actually the Rabbis

it is,

and a public domain with regard to impurity was what was necessary for him

to teach; and it should not be difficult for you—its being obvious.

Come and hear: The paths of Beit Gilgul

[a steep and high ascending road, which is not convenient for the walking of many—in the Land of Israel]

and the like are a private domain

they

with regard to Shabbat,

for the many do not nullify the partitions that are there [since it is an ascending road],

and a public domain with regard to impurity,

since many walk there.

And which are the paths of Beit Gilgul

that are considered a private domain with regard to Shabbat?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: Any [path] on which a slave cannot carry a seah of wheat

in his hands or on his shoulders

and

could

run before a magistrate

[a policeman].

And this beraita, which establishes it as a private domain with regard to Shabbat, and the many do not come and nullify the partitions—

whose view is it?

If you say it is the Rabbis,

why was it necessary to say so? It is obvious,

for

now, just as there

concerning the posts

where its use is convenient, the Rabbis say: The many do not come and nullify its partition; here, where its use is not convenient, all the more so

that they do not nullify the partition!

Rather, is it not Rabbi Judah,

who holds concerning the posts that the many come and nullify the partitions since its use is convenient, but here, since its use is not convenient, they do not nullify the partitions; and this is difficult for Rabbah, who said that even though its use is not convenient, the many come and nullify the partitions—according to Rabbi Judah?!

And we answer:

He said to him

Rabbah said to Rakhava:

The paths of Beit Gilgul

that are in the Land of Israel

are you saying—

as a question?!

In the Land of Israel, it is obvious that they are a private domain and the many do not nullify the partitions, for

Joshua loved Israel; he arose and instituted for them

for Israel

roads and public thoroughfares

[a way of human passage—Rashi above 7a],

wherever its use was convenient, he gave it over to the public.

Wherever its use was not convenient, he gave it over to an individual,

and if the owners of the fields adjacent to a road whose use was not convenient wished to take it for themselves, they had the authority to do so; and since this is so, it is considered only like a valley, which is a karmelit—Ritva.

Mishna:

Since the pasei biraot were permitted only for the water of pilgrims ascending [to Jerusalem] for the Festival, the Sages were concerned lest the water cease after they made posts for them, and they would come to rely upon them and carry even without water. Therefore:

Whether a public pit

[water collected from rainwater] of

the public, and a public well, and a private well, they make posts for them,

for there is no concern in the case of a well that the water will cease, since it is not their way to cease. And likewise a public pit is permitted, since if the water in the pit ceases, they will remind one another not to carry.

But for a private pit,

where there is concern that the water will cease, they do not make posts for it, but

they make for it

a partition ten handbreadths high

and not posts,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Judah ben Bava says: They make posts only for a public well,

since it has two advantages: there is no usual possibility that its water will cease, and even if it does cease, the public will remind one another.

And for the rest, they make a belt

an enclosure of ropes with fewer than three handbreadths between them [but according to Rabbi Akiva, we permit ropes only as a partition of warp and woof—Ritva]

ten handbreadths high,

as with that which Hanania taught at the beginning of our chapter: that they make “ropes” for a pit [Ritva].