Eruvin 59b — the Talmud in English

Was

originally a city of

many, and now it is

also

a city of many! And it has only one entrance

, which is not open through, and it is not like the public domain that was in the wilderness, which was open through from one side to the other—

one establishes an eruv for all of it.

And we raise it:

Who is the tanna

of the first part of the

beraita, who says that a public domain can be joined by an eruv?

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: It is Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda said, moreover: One who has two houses on the two sides of a public domain—

he makes a side-post here and a side-post here, or a beam here and a beam here.

And he carries and conducts business in the middle.

The Sages said to him

:

One does not join a public domain by this,

with two partitions alone.

The Master said

in the

beraita: And one does not establish an eruv for it by halves.

Rav Pappa said: They said

that one does not establish an eruv for it by halves

only

when they come to divide the city

along its length

of the city, since all the residents of the alleyways customarily pass through the public domain that runs along the length of the city; therefore, if we divide the city's eruv along its length, they will prohibit one another by their passing through.

But

if we divide the city

across its width

of the city, the residents of the alleyways on the two sides can confine themselves to themselves, so that each side chooses for itself its exit from the city, and their passing through will not prohibit the other side.

And therefore,

one establishes an eruv

for the two parts of the city, divided across the width of the city, separately.

In accordance with whom—

not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

For if it were in accordance with Rabbi Akiva—

he said:

even

“a leg that is permitted in its place”

, such as when the residents of an inner courtyard joined an eruv for themselves and are permitted to carry in their domain—

prohibits

the outer courtyard

even outside its place.

For since the residents of the inner courtyard have the right to walk through another courtyard, they prohibit it by walking through it, and we cannot say to them that they should confine themselves to the inner courtyard so that they should not prohibit, by their walking, the carrying of the residents of the outer courtyard.

And all the more so “a leg that is prohibited,” namely, if the residents of the inner courtyard did not join an eruv among themselves, we cannot come to them with the demand that they confine themselves to the inner courtyard so that they should not prohibit the outer courtyard.

And we reject this:

You may even say: Rabbi Akiva.

For

Rabbi Akiva said only there—

but in the case of two courtyards, one within the other,

where the residents of the inner courtyard have the right of exit through the outer courtyard,

for the inner one has no other entrance.

But here,

they can divide the city in such a way that they will not need to walk in the place of the others. Rather,

these go out

from the city

through this entrance, and these go out

from the city

through this entrance.

There are those who say: Rav Pappa said: Do not say that it is only along its length that one does not establish an eruv, but across its width one does establish an eruv—

rather, even across its width as well one does not establish an eruv.

In accordance with whom—

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva!

And we reject this:

You may even say: the Rabbis.

The Rabbis said only there,

in the case of two courtyards, each of which establishes an eruv for itself, and the residents of the inner one do not prohibit the outer one—

but in the case of two courtyards, one within the other.

Because

the inner one closes the door,

it is able to close its door before the residents of the outer courtyard and remove them from it,

and uses it

by itself without joining with them. Therefore, it is possible to compel them to confine themselves, by the rule that one compels concerning the measure of Sodom.

But here,

in dividing the city in two—

are they able to remove the public domain from here?

That is to say, how is it possible to separate the two sides of the city from one another, without any separating sign between them?

The Master said:

We learned in the

beraita: Either all of it, or each alleyway separately.

And we raise it:

What is different about by halves, that one does not

establish an eruv, because

they prohibit

the residents of the alleyways who did not join together

one another?

If so, when they establish an eruv

each alleyway

for

itself,

the residents of each alleyway also prohibit the other alleyway,

one another!

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? For example, they made a low threshold,

a low entrance at the head of each alleyway, which demonstrates that they withdraw from one another.

And this is like what Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rav Hisda: One of the residents of an alleyway who made a low threshold at his entrance—

does not prohibit the residents of the alleyway

if he does not participate with them.

We learned further in the

beraita: It was

a city of many, and it is a city of many.

Rabbi Zeira established an eruv for the city

for the city of

the school of Rabbi Hiyya,

which was a city of many originally and is also now a city of many,

and he did not leave

—he did not leave

a remnant for it,

a neighborhood that was not joined by an eruv with it.

Abaye said to him: What is the reason that the Master did this?

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira:

The elders of it,

the elders of that city,

said to me: Rav Hiyya bar Asi—

establishes an eruv for all of it. And I said

on the basis of their testimony:

Learn from this: It is a city of an individual that became a city of many,

which does not require a remnant.

Abaye said to him,

Abaye:

As for me, those elders said to me: That

city was a city of many continually. Rather,

it had a refuse heap on one side,

and therefore its alleyways were not open through and there was no public domain in it, and therefore it was possible to establish an eruv for all of it.

And now, once the refuse heap has been cleared away—

it has become like two entrances, and it is forbidden.

He said to him: It was not in my awareness.

Rav Ami bar Adda the Harpanaean asked Rabbah:

Since we permitted establishing an eruv for the entire city when it has only one entrance, what is the law if there were standing

a ladder

of steps

here,

adjacent to the city wall, at the end of the alleyway that cuts across the entire city, on the closed side, and it is possible to exit from the city by way of the ladder's steps,

and an entrance here

on the other side—

what is [the law]?

Does the ladder count as an entrance, and is it impossible to establish an eruv for all of it?

He said to him: This is what Rav said: A ladder—

the status of an entrance applies to it,

and the city has two entrances on its two sides, and it is impossible to establish an eruv for all of it.

Rav Nahman said to them: Do not listen to him!

This is what Rav Adda said in the name of Rav: A ladder—

also

the status of an entrance applies to it, and

also

the status of a partition applies to it.

The status of a partition applies to it—

as we said,

for it does not nullify the closure of the city wall, making it into an entrance.

The status of an entrance applies to it—

in the case of a ladder between two courtyards,

which have no entrance, and it is possible to pass from one to the other only by way of this ladder.

The status of an entrance applies to it, for if

they wish

the residents of the courtyards to be together and to carry between them by means of breaches in the wall,

one establishes an eruv.

That is, they have one eruv, since the ladder is considered an entrance between them, and without the entrance they cannot establish an eruv between them.

And the status of a partition applies to it, for it does not nullify the existing partition; if

they wish

to be separate—

two establish an eruv.

Each one establishes an eruv for itself.

And we wonder:

Did Rav Nahman really say this,

that the ladder has the status of a partition as a leniency, so that they can establish an eruv by means of it?

But Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: The residents of a courtyard and the residents of a balcony,

who live in an upper story, with a balcony extending along all the upper stories, through which they pass to the stairs [the ladder] and descend to the courtyard, and pass through it on their way to the alleyway. And if the residents of the balcony did not join with the residents of the courtyard, they prohibit carrying in it for them by their passing through the courtyard.