Eruvin 78a — the Talmud in English

A. If a wall between two courtyards is ten handbreadths high, and a projection extends from the wall and stands in the air, measuring four by four handbreadths, but there are not ten handbreadths between the projection and the top of the wall, it does not make the wall considered conveniently usable, since a reduction in the air is not considered a reduction.

B. But

a projection extending from the wall, measuring four by four

handbreadths,

with a ladder placed upon it

, whose rungs are less than three handbreadths apart and whose lowest rung is less than three handbreadths above the ground, so that one can ascend by it to the projection—even though the ladder is only

of any width

2.]

And we said this only when he placed

the ladder

upon it

—the projection [i.e., he rested the ladder on the projection].

But if he placed

the ladder

beside it

—the projection [i.e., he rested the ladder against the wall beside the projection]—it is not effective, since the ladder and the projection do not become one reduction. Rather, it is as though

he merely widened it

—the projection [i.e., widened the projection]—and the projection itself is still considered a reduction in the air, which is not considered a reduction.

And Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

if the

wall

is up to

nineteen

handbreadths high,

one

[reduction]

projection is required to permit it

3.]

3] But if the

wall

is

twenty

generous handbreadths high—that is, slightly more than twenty handbreadths [Ritva]—since we require that there be neither ten handbreadths between the projection and the ground nor ten handbreadths between the projection and the top of the wall [since using it at a height of ten handbreadths is not convenient],

two projections are required

[and a ladder below, and between them]

to permit it

4.]

Rav Ḥisda said: And this is when he positioned them

—the projections—

not one directly above the other

[one not above the other], but to the side, so that he could rest a ladder from one projection to the other.

Rav Huna said: A pillar

standing

in the public domain, ten

handbreadths high, and

four

handbreadths by exactly four handbreadths wide, which is the measure of a private domain, so that one who throws an object from the public domain onto its roof is liable.

And he drove into it

, into the roof of the pillar,

a peg of any size

—

he thereby reduced it

below the measure of four handbreadths, and it is not a private domain. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: And

this applies

when

the

peg

is three handbreadths above the pillar.

But if it is not three handbreadths high, it is regarded as part of the roof of the pillar and does not reduce its area.

Abaye and Rava both said: Even though it is not three handbreadths high

—the

peg

—it reduces it.

What is the reason?

Since, because the peg has been driven into the surface of the pillar,

one cannot use it

across the entire four-handbreadth width, because of the peg driven into it. It follows that there is not here a usable area of four by four handbreadths.

Rav Ashi

disagrees with the fundamental statement of Rav Huna and

said: Even if it is three

handbreadths high—the

peg

—it nevertheless does not reduce it!

What is the reason?

One can hang something on it

[he can use the peg itself by hanging some object on it], “and since it is suitable for the pillar’s use, it is considered part of it and does not reduce it” [Rashi].

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava,

asked

Rav Ashi

, who held that even when it is three handbreadths high it does not reduce it, since one uses the peg:

If he filled

the surface of the pillar

entirely with pegs

placed close together, so that it is not convenient to hang anything on them [Beit HaBeḥira; see also Rashi]—

what is

the ruling?

He said to him: Have you not heard that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The pit and its surrounding embankment

[the earth removed when digging the pit, with which the opening of the pit was encircled]—

join to

complete a height of

ten

handbreadths around it, extending down into the pit, in order to make it a private domain?

For this is the meaning, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, of the Mishna in tractate Shabbat, as we learned:

“The embankment of a pit and a rock that are ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide: one who takes from them or places something upon them is liable” [as Rabbi Yoḥanan inferred in Shabbat 99a].

And since that Mishna also says, “and four handbreadths wide,” it follows that the embankment of the pit and the hollow of the pit likewise combine to form a width of four handbreadths.

But this objection can be raised to you:

And why?

One cannot use it

—the hollow of the pit—so how can it combine to form a width of four handbreadths?!

Rather, what can you say

? That there the reason is

that one places something

—such as a board from one side of the embankment to the opposite side, above the hollow of the pit—

and uses it.

Here too

, in the case where he filled it entirely with pegs,

if one places something

—such as a four-handbreadth board, or spreads a garment over the pegs—

and uses it

upon it, it is properly a private domain.

And now we return to the matter of reducing a wall:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A wall

that is

ten

handbreadths high, separating two courtyards, and one wishes to place a ladder upon it in order to reduce it [both to make it conveniently usable by the residents of one courtyard, and to give it the status of an “entrance” so that the two courtyards can be joined together for purposes of an eruv]—

requires a ladder

whose length is

fourteen

handbreadths in order

to permit it.

For he cannot position the ladder upright; rather, he must draw the feet of the ladder four handbreadths away from the wall. Therefore, fourteen handbreadths are required.

Rav Yosef said: Even

a ladder that is

thirteen

handbreadths

and something

—which does not reach the top of the wall, but is less than one handbreadth from its top—is sufficient. Since the gap is less than a handbreadth, we do not consider it significant.

Abaye said: Even

a ladder whose length is

eleven

handbreadths

and something

—so that the top of the ladder reaches to within less than three handbreadths of the top of the wall, which is considered lavud—is sufficient.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even

if the ladder is only

seven and something

handbreadths long, so that when it is positioned upright its top reaches to within less than three handbreadths of the top of the wall, it is sufficient. For he agrees with Rav, who follows, that even an upright ladder reduces it [since in any event it is suitable for climbing and ascending—Beit HaBeḥira].

Rav said: An upright ladder

that

reduces

—

the Gemara

reports: This is a tradition [I heard it from my teachers],

but I do not know the reason

why it is effective, since it is not convenient to ascend by it!

He

—Shmuel—

said

in astonishment: Does

Abba not know

the reason for this matter

—that an upright ladder is effective?!

The reason is obvious:

It is just like one platform atop another

[above, 77b]. Although they are aligned one above the other, and this is like an upright ladder, we said above that they reduce it.

Rabba said that Rabbi Ḥiyya said: If one wishes to reduce a wall ten handbreadths high by placing beside the wall beams of

из

Babylonian palm trees

, although they have the status of utensils, since they are fit for sitting and are not muktze, and are therefore objects that may be moved on Shabbat [which does not reduce it, as above, 77a]—even so,

they do not require being fixed

[fixed in the ground] so that they will not be taken away.

What is the reason?

Their heaviness fixes them

: Since they are heavy, no one will come and remove them, and they are considered fixed.

And this is similar to what we said above, on 77b, concerning a Tyrian ladder.

And Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The ladders of Babylonia

, although they are small and do not have four rungs, and we said above, on 77b, that an Egyptian ladder does not reduce it because it can be moved on Shabbat [the early authorities]—even so, since in Babylonia they were accustomed to making them thick and heavy,

they do not require being fixed!

What is the reason

—because

their heaviness fixes them.

And we explain:

The one who says

[Rabbi Oshaya] this law with regard to

ladders

—

all the more so with regard to palm-tree beams, since because of their heaviness they do not require being fixed.

But

the one who says

[Rabbi Ḥiyya] this law with regard to

palm-tree beams, but ladders

, which are lighter than them,

not

; rather, they require being fixed.

Rav Yosef asked Rabba: Since a ladder four handbreadths wide is required in order to reduce the wall, what is the ruling if he placed a

лестницу

ladder

of any width

here, and a ladder

of any width [on the same side of the wall]

here, and

to complete the required width of four handbreadths he placed

straw

from the grain

in the middle

, so that they would serve in place of the rungs—

what

is the ruling [is this sufficient]? [See illustration

1] He said to him: A ladder is ordinarily used with the feet stepping upon its middle. Since here

у лестницы ступни ставят на перекладины посередине. Но здесь

the sole of the foot cannot rise upon them

, because the straw is not sufficiently firm, it does not reduce the wall.

Rav Yosef asked Rabba further: He placed

straw here and straw here, and a ladder

less than four handbreadths wide

in the middle

, and together their widths amount to four handbreadths—

what

is the ruling? [See illustration

2] He said to him

—Rav Yosef—:

After all, the sole of the foot can rise upon them.

That is to say: Since the ladder is positioned where the feet step, the straw properly serves to complete the required width, so that one can grip it with one’s hands and ascend the ladder. [This is how Rashi explained it; the early authorities explained it differently.]