Eruvin 60a (ס.) — the Talmud in English

And if it happened that

they forgot

and did not establish an eiruv

the residents of the balcony with the residents 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 “threshold”

—a low tzurat ha-petah—

four

handbreadths high, the residents of the balcony have thereby withdrawn from the courtyard, and therefore the balcony

does not prohibit

the courtyard.

But if not—

it prohibits

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

Apparently, then, the ladder is regarded as an entrance for purposes of stringency, but it is not regarded as a partition for purposes of leniency.

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here

with a case where the balcony is not higher

than the courtyard by

ten

handbreadths, and therefore there is no partition here.

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

and if the balcony is not ten handbreadths higher, what effect does making a threshold have

—what does it accomplish!?

After all, there is no partition along the entire length of the balcony separating it from the courtyard!

And we answer:

The case is one where it is enclosed

, meaning that there are indeed partitions ten handbreadths high surrounding the balcony, but there is an opening in it

up to ten cubits.

For since he makes

before the ladder

a “threshold,”

the residents of the balcony have withdrawn

from

here.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A wall

between two courtyards,

which he paved

—which he covered

with ladders

leaning against the wall—

even if

the ladders are placed continuously

for more than ten

cubits,

it is regarded as a partition.

Rav Baruna raised an objection to Rav Yehuda

while they were

at the “press”

of Rav Hanina:

But

did Shmuel say

that a ladder

is regarded as a partition?

Didn’t Rav Naḥman say in the name of Shmuel: If the residents of a balcony and the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not establish an eiruv, if there is before it a threshold of four handbreadths

—

the balcony does not prohibit

But if not

—

it prohibits!

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here

with a case where it is not high

the

balcony ten

handbreadths above the courtyard.

And we challenge this:

And if the balcony is not ten handbreadths higher

—

when he makes

a “threshold,” what does it accomplish?

After all, the threshold does not constitute a partition.

And we answer: The case here is

a

courtyard

enclosed

by a partition, and there is an opening in the partition

up to ten cubits.

For since he makes a threshold

before the balcony’s ladder,

the residents of the balcony have withdrawn

from here

from here,

from the courtyard.

Certain residents of Kakonai came before Rav Yosef.

They said to him: Provide us with a person

to appoint for us a person

who will establish an eiruv for us in our city,

who will establish an eiruv for our city, which is a city of many residents that has become the domain of an individual, and therefore requires a remnant.

He said to

Rav Yosef

Abaye: Go and establish an eiruv for them, and take care

to do it properly, so that

they will not lodge a complaint about it

—so that they will not come with complaints

in the house of study

about your eiruv.

He went

Abaye went,

and saw those houses

and saw several houses

that opened toward the river

, which were open toward the river and not toward the city.

Abaye said:

Abaye:

These

houses, which open toward the river,

shall constitute a remnant for the city

; they shall be the houses that must be left outside the eiruv.

He reconsidered

—Abaye withdrew from this idea, because

Abaye said

: Behold,

“one may not establish an eiruv for all of it,”

we learned.

By inference

, the houses that are left outside must be houses such

that, if they wished to establish an eiruv

they could establish an eiruv,

but at present they are being left outside it.

These houses, however, which have no entrance to the city, cannot establish an eiruv with the residents of the city, and consequently are not fit to serve as a “remnant” for the city.

Rather, I will make

I will make

for them

for these houses

windows

, windows facing the city,

so that if they wish

to do so

to establish an eiruv through the windows

they can establish an eiruv,

they will be able to establish an eiruv through the windows.

He reconsidered and said: Windows are also not necessary

, I have no need to make windows for them.

For Rabba bar Avuha established an eiruv for all of

the neighborhoods of the city

of Meḥoza

neighborhood by neighborhood,

each neighborhood separately, and he did not establish one eiruv for all of them together

because of

the ditch between them, in which they would place

fodder

for

the oxen.

for the oxen.

And in this manner he established an eiruv for all the neighborhoods of Meḥoza,

for each and every one

of the neighborhoods that did not establish an eiruv with the other neighborhoods

was

a “remnant”

for its fellows,

by virtue of their not establishing one eiruv together.

And although, if they wished to establish an eiruv with one another

they could not establish an eiruv

because of the ditches between them. This proves that even a neighborhood that cannot join in an eiruv with its fellows is considered a “remnant.”

Abaye reconsidered and said

:

This is not comparable

; the city before us is not comparable to Meḥoza.

There—

if they wished

the residents of the separate neighborhoods

to establish an eiruv,

they could establish one

by way of the roofs

of the houses.

But

if

these

houses, whose entrances face the river,

could not

—

establish an eiruv

at all.

Therefore, let us make

for them

windows

through which they can establish an eiruv with the residents of the city.

He reconsidered and said: Windows are also not necessary.

For there was a barn

—a hay barn—

that belonged to Mar bar Pupideta of Pumבדita, and he designated it as a remnant for Pumבדita.

Abaye said

:

This is what my master told me

Rav Yosef:

Take care

to review all the aspects of the alley’s permit so that they will conform to halakha,

so that they will not lodge a complaint about it in the house of study.

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 it had fifty dwelling units, men, women, and children. And the Sages would use it as a measure,

and it served as a remnant.

They raised a dilemma before them:

That neighborhood

“New”

, which is not joined in an eiruv with the city because it serves as a remnant—

what is the law

regarding establishing an eiruv for all of it by itself, without leaving a remnant?

And we challenge this: Why is the neighborhood

“New”

different from the city?

For

just as it serves as a remnant for the larger city

by not joining an eiruv with it,

the larger city as well,

by not joining an eiruv with it,

serves as a remnant for the smaller one.

Rather: This is what we are asking: Can one establish an eiruv for an entire city that is

this is what we are asking: To establish an eruv for an entire town that is

similar to

the city

“New,”

a small city containing only fifty dwelling units, where there is no additional neighborhood in the city—

what is the law?

Did they also decree that an eiruv may not be established in such a city without a remnant?

Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disputed this.

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

constitute a remnant.

Rav Hama bar Gurya said in the name of Rav: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Even one house and one courtyard.

And we challenge this:

One courtyard

without a house—

could it enter your mind

that it constitutes a remnant? After all, it is not a residence.

And we answer:

Rather, say: One house in one courtyard.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak

—is it

a received tradition,

or an inference

?

He said to him: What difference does it make to us?

He said to him: Is it possible that

But

a fully learned Gemara

—the study of Gemara—

should be mere song

, like an ordinary song,

and nothing more?

That is, it is important to know whether the matter is something received by tradition or derived through reasoning.

Mishna:

One who was

in the field when Shabbat began

east

of the city

and said to his son: Establish an eiruv for me in the

side

west

of the city;

or if he was in the field

west

of the city,

and said to his son: Establish an eiruv for me in the east.

The following applies:

If from his location to his home there are two thousand cubits, and from

his location

to his eiruv

on the opposite side of the city there are

more than this

, since he cannot reach the place of the eiruv from his location, the eiruv does not take effect.

Therefore, he is

permitted in

the domain of

his home

, as though he had not established an eiruv,

but prohibited in

the domain of

his eiruv,

since his eiruv, which is more than two thousand cubits distant from him, did not benefit him at all.

If from his location

to his eiruv there are two thousand cubits, and to his home there are more than this

, the eiruv takes effect.

Therefore, he is

prohibited

to him

in

the domain of

his home, and permitted in

the domain of

his eiruv.

One who places his eiruv in the extension

—in the middle

of a city

in which he resides—

has accomplished nothing.

If they placed it outside the תחום, even one cubit

his eiruv acquires for him there a place of residence,