Eruvin 60a — the Talmud in English

And if it happened that

they forgot

exact page-column location

and did not make an eruv

the members of the balcony with the members of the courtyard.

If they have before them

before the balcony, at the foot of the ladder ascending from the courtyard to the balcony,

“a narrow ledge

a low form of an entranceway

four

—the members of the balcony have thereby withdrawn from the courtyard, and therefore the balcony

does not prohibit

the courtyard.

And if not—

it prohibits

the balcony prohibits the courtyard, since the residents of the balcony exit through the courtyard to the alley.

It follows that with regard to the ladder there is the status of an entranceway for stringency, but it does not have the status of a partition for leniency.

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here—

where the balcony is not higher than

the courtyard

ten

handbreadths, and therefore there is no partition here.

And we challenge: If so, that the balcony is open to the courtyard without a partition,

and if the balcony is not ten handbreadths high, when he makes a narrow ledge—

what is it!?

But there is no partition along the entire balcony between it and the courtyard!

And we answer:

Where it is enclosed,

where there are indeed partitions around the balcony ten handbreadths high, but there is an opening in it

up to ten cubits.

For since he makes

before the ladder

“a narrow ledge”—

the members of the balcony have withdrawn, withdrawn

the members of the balcony

from here.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A wall

between two courtyards,

which he paved

which he covered with a pavement

with ladders

adjacent to the wall—

even

if the ladders are placed continuously

for more than ten

cubits—

it has the status of a partition.

Rav Beruna raised this before Rav Yehuda,

when they were

at the “press”

of Rav Hanina:

But

did Shmuel say

that a ladder

has the status of a partition?

For Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: The people of a balcony and the people of a courtyard who forgot and did not make an eruv; if there is before it a narrow ledge four handbreadths wide—

it does not prohibit

the balcony does not prohibit the courtyard.

And if not—

it prohibits!

And it is proven that the ladder [the steps] between the courtyard and the balcony does not have the status of a partition.

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here—

where it is not high

the

balcony ten

handbreadths above the courtyard.

And we challenge:

And if the balcony is not ten handbreadths high—

when he makes

“a narrow ledge,”

what is it?

But the narrow ledge does not constitute a partition?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here,

in

a courtyard

enclosed

by a partition, and there is in the partition a breach

up to ten cubits.

For since he makes a narrow ledge

before the balcony’s ladder—

the members of the balcony have withdrawn

the members of the balcony

from here,

from the courtyard.

Those people of Kakonai came before Rav Yosef.

They said to him: Provide us with a man

appoint a man for us

who will make an eruv for us for two hundred

who will make an eruv for our city, which is a city of the many and became one of the individual, and it therefore requires a remnant.

He said to him

Rav Yosef

to Abaye: Go make an eruv for them, and see

but see to making it properly, so that

you do not cause them to cry out about it

so that they will not come with complaints [cries]

in the study hall

about your eruv.

He went

Abaye went,

he saw those houses

and saw several houses

that were open toward the river

which were open in the direction of the river, and not in the direction of the city.

Abaye said:

Abaye:

These

these houses, which are open toward the river—

let them be a remnant for the city

let them be the houses that must be left outside the eruv.

He reconsidered,

Abaye withdrew from this idea, because

Abaye said

Abaye said: Behold,

“One does not make an eruv for all of it,”

we learned.

By inference,

that the houses left outside must be houses such

that if they wished to make an eruv—

they could make an eruv,

but now he leaves them outside.

And these houses, which have no entrance to the city, cannot make an eruv with the people of the city, and consequently they are not fit to be a “remnant” for the city.

Rather, I will make

I will make

for them

for these houses

windows,

windows in the direction of the city,

so that if they wish

if they wish

to make an eruv by means of the windows—

they can make an eruv,

they will be able to make an eruv by means of the windows.

He reconsidered and said: Windows are also not needed,

I have no need to make windows for them.

For Rabba bar Avuha made an eruv for all of

all the neighborhoods of the city

Meḥoza—

neighborhood by neighborhood,

one neighborhood separately, and he did not make an eruv for them together

because of

the ditch that was between them, in which they would place

produce

the fruits

for the oxen,

for the oxen.

And he thus made an eruv for all the neighborhoods of Meḥoza,

so that each and every one

of the neighborhoods that did not make an eruv with the other neighborhoods

was

a “remnant”

for its fellows,

in that they did not make an eruv for them together.

And even though, if they wished to make an eruv with one another—

they could not make an eruv

because of the ditches between them. And it is proven that even a neighborhood that cannot make an eruv with its fellows is considered a “remnant.”

He reconsidered and said,

Abaye:

It is not comparable

the city before us is not comparable to Meḥoza.

There,

if they wished

the residents of the separate neighborhoods

to make an eruv,

they could make an eruv

by means of the roofs

of the houses.

But

if

these

houses whose entrances face the river,

not

could they

make an eruv

at all.

Therefore, let us make them

for them

windows

windows by means of which they can make an eruv with the people of the city.

He reconsidered and said: Windows are also not needed.

For that straw house

a straw house

that belonged to Mar bar Pupideta of Pumbedita, and he made it a remnant for Pumbedita.

Abaye said

Abaye:

This is what my master told me

Rav Yosef:

See

to review all the aspects of permitting the alley so that they will be in accordance with the halakha,

so that you do not cause them to cry out about it in the study hall.

We learned in the Mishna:

Unless he made outside it something like a new city.

It was taught in a beraita; Rabbi Yehuda said: There was one city in Judea, and “New”

was its name, and there were in it fifty dwelling-units, men, women, and children. And by it the Sages would estimate,

and it was a remnant.

They raised a question before them:

that neighborhood

“New”

which is not included in the eruv with the city because of the remnant—

what is

to make an eruv for all of it by itself, without a remnant?

And we challenge: What is different about the neighborhood

“New”

from the city?

For

just as it is a remnant for the larger one

in that it did not join with it—

the larger one also,

which is not joined with it,

is a remnant for the smaller one.

Rather:

This is what we are asking: To make an eruv for an entire city that is

like

the city

“New,”

which is a small city containing only fifty dwelling-units, and in this city there is no additional neighborhood—

what is

the law? Did they also decree with regard to it that without a remnant one does not make an eruv? They disagree about it,

Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda.

One said: It requires a remnant, and one said: It does not require a remnant.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: Three courtyards

are a remnant.

Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Even one house and one courtyard.

And we challenge:

One courtyard

without a house—

would it enter your mind

that it constitutes a remnant? But it is not a dwelling.

And we answer:

Rather, say: One house in one courtyard.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak—

is Gemara

that he received by tradition,

or is it reasoning

that he arrived at himself?

He said to him: What difference is there to us?

He said to him:

But is it so that

if it is a completed Gemara

the study of Gemara—

a song

like mere singing

shall it be?

And that is to say, it is important to know whether the matter is something that came by tradition or by reasoning.

Mishna:

One who was

in the field when Shabbat was entering

in the east

of the city,

and said to his son: Make an eruv for me in the

side

west

of the city.

Or he was in the field

in the west

of the city,

and said to his son: Make an eruv for me in the east.

Behold:

If from him and to his house there are two thousand cubits, and from him

from him

to his eruv

which is on the opposite side of the city

there is more than this—

then, since he cannot reach from his place to the place of the eruv, the eruv does not take effect.

And therefore—he is

permitted to the

domain of

his house,

as though he had not made an eruv,

and forbidden to the

domain of

his eruv,

since his eruv, which is farther than two thousand cubits from him, accomplished nothing for him.

If from him

to his eruv there are two thousand cubits, and to his house there is more than this—

the eruv takes effect.

And therefore—he is

forbidden

he

to the

domain of

his house, and permitted to the

domain of

his eruv.

One who places his eruv in its extension

in its middle

of a city

in which he resides—

has done nothing.

If they placed it outside the domain, even one cubit

his eruv acquired for him there a place of residence,