Eruvin 78b (עח:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Yosef further asked Rabba: If a wall is very high, and one placed against it a ladder of any width whose top reaches the top of the wall—and since it was not four handbreadths wide, as required,

one hollowed out the wall to complete

the width of four handbreadths within the wall itself [which was sloping—Tosafot], in the form of rungs and steps. [See illustration 3]

And he asked him:

How much

of the height of the wall must be completed to reach a width of four handbreadths?

He said to him:

It is sufficient for him to hollow out an area four handbreadths wide

at a

height of

ten

handbreadths, as the measure of an “opening,” which is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, is sufficient, since the ladder reaches the top of the wall.

Again,

Rav Yosef said

to Rabba: Suppose one did not lean a ladder against the high wall at all, but

hollowed it out entirely in the wall—

making rungs and steps in the sloping wall—

how much

of the height of the wall must he hollow out to a width of four handbreadths, if the remainder of the hollowing up to the top of the wall is less than four handbreadths wide? [See the illustration on the previous page]

He said to him:

In such a case, hollowing out a width of four handbreadths for a height of ten is not sufficient. Rather, he must hollow out a width of four handbreadths

for the full height

of the wall.

Rav Yosef was puzzled by this:

And what is the difference

between hollowing out the wall to complete a width of four handbreadths, for which a height of ten is sufficient,

Rabba

said

there:

where the ladder itself reaches the top of the wall,

it is easy for him to ascend it [it is convenient to climb it]. Therefore, to complete a width of four handbreadths, it is sufficient for him to hollow out only ten handbreadths, the measure of an “opening.”

But

here,

where he has no ladder at all, but only a hollowing in the wall,

it is not easy for him to ascend it [the hollowing in the wall is not so convenient to climb]. Therefore, the hollowing must be four handbreadths wide for the full height of the wall.

Rav Yosef asked Rabba:

In the case of a wall between two courtyards, and

he made a tree into a ladder,

what is

the ruling as to whether it is effective for permitting one eruv, since it is prohibited to climb it on Shabbat, as “one may not make use of a tree”?

And we explain the question:

It is a question according to Rabbi

who holds earlier, in the chapter “With All One May Combine,” that if one placed an eruv teḥumin in a tree, it is a valid eruv, since Rabbi holds that anything prohibited as a rabbinic shevut [such as making use of a tree] was not prohibited during twilight, and the eruv acquires its place of residence during twilight. Nevertheless, the matter remains doubtful: perhaps here it is not effective, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And

it is a question according to the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi there and hold that it does not acquire its place of residence, since it is prohibited to make use of the tree even during twilight and he cannot take it from there. Nevertheless, the matter remains doubtful: perhaps here it is effective, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And we explain:

It is a question according to Rabbi [and it is a question according to the Rabbis]:

Shall we say:

Rabbi stated that principle there only

because he holds:

Anything prohibited as a rabbinic shevut was not prohibited

during twilight, and it is therefore a valid eruv—

that applies

to an eruv teḥumin, for it is

during twilight

that it acquires its place of residence, and since at that time it was available to him, it is a valid eruv.

But

here, with regard to an eruv ḥatzerot, although the eruv permits carrying during twilight, nevertheless the eruv permits only two courtyards that have an opening between them for

the entire day,

and since it is prohibited to climb the ladder made from the tree all day,

it does not

make the eruv effective, even according to Rabbi.

Or perhaps, even according to the Rabbis,

who hold that there, with regard to an eruv teḥumin, it is not a valid eruv, that applies only there, since according to them he cannot take it even during twilight, and therefore it does not acquire a place of residence for him.

But here,

it is an opening,

for we require an opening between the two courtyards, and there is one here. For this tree is fit to be climbed on a weekday,

and

it is only the prohibition of Shabbat that lies upon it like

a lion

[a lion]

crouching upon it

[lying upon it]. Therefore, it does not cease to have the status of an opening, enabling them to combine through the opening between them [Ritva].

And below Rabba resolved the question for Rav Yosef.

Rav Yosef further asked Rabba: If one made

a

wooden

asherah

[a tree that is worshipped, and from which it is prohibited to derive benefit] into a

ladder

between two courtyards,

what is the ruling?

[If you say that the fact that it is a tree is not a concern, here, where it is an asherah and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it, what is the ruling?]

And we explain the question:

It is a question according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds in the chapter “With All One May Combine” that it is permitted to place an eruv teḥumin in a grave, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. And

it is a question according to the Rabbis,

who disagree there and hold that it is prohibited.

And we explain:

It is a question according to Rabbi Yehuda [and it is a question according to the Rabbis]:

Rabbi Yehuda stated there that it is permitted to acquire a place of residence

[for an eruv]

with an item prohibited for benefit only there,

since Rabbi Yehuda holds

that once the eruv has acquired a place of residence for him, he is not pleased for it to remain guarded

[that the eruv be guarded]. Consequently, he derives no benefit from the grave except through the acquisition of an eruv alone—which is for the purpose of a mitzva—and mitzvot were not given for enjoyment.

But an eruv ḥatzerot is for his benefit and not for the sake of a mitzva. The benefit is that he establishes an eruv and relies on the tree.

Or perhaps

here it is permitted

even according to the Rabbis,

because although it is prohibited to derive benefit from the ladder, he is not making any use of it.

And if the reason is that he cannot use the ladder, that does not prevent the fact that by means of the ladder

it is an opening.

Rather,

the lion,

the prohibition against using the ladder is analogous

to

a lion that

crouches upon it,

lying before it and preventing passage through it: he cannot use it because of the lion, but he need not actually use the opening for it to be called an opening.

That is to say, in any event, the courtyards are connected by means of an opening.

He said,

he answered

him,

Rabba to Rav Yosef:

1.

A tree—it is

permitted

to make it into a ladder, even though one does not climb it, and if the two courtyards established one eruv together, it is a valid eruv, even according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi.

2.

But an asherah—it is

prohibited

to use it as a ladder, because one derives benefit from it thereby, even according to Rabbi Yehuda [Ritva].

Rav Ḥisda raised an objection: On the contrary, a tree, whose prohibition

of rabbinic shevut

of Shabbat causes it

not to be climbed,

should be prohibited

from serving as an opening on Shabbat.

But

an asherah, whose prohibition of another matter

[of idolatry]

causes it

to be prohibited for use—

should not be prohibited

from serving as an opening.

It was also stated

in accordance with Rav Ḥisda’s reasoning:

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Elazar said, and some say that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anything whose prohibition of Shabbat causes it, is prohibited

from serving as an opening.

Anything whose prohibition of another matter causes it, is permitted

to serve as an opening!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak taught it this way:

A tree—

it is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis.

Just as they disagree with regard to an eruv teḥumin, so too they disagree here as to whether it is effective.

An asherah—

it is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis,

who disagree with regard to an eruv teḥumin placed in a grave, and here too they disagree as to whether it is permitted.

Mishna:

A ditch between two courtyards,

with no partition between them, where the ditch

is ten

handbreadths

deep and four

handbreadths wide and extends along the entire length of the courtyard—

they establish two eruvin, but may not establish one.

But if it is less than four handbreadths wide [along its entire length—Mishna Berura], so that it is easy to step from one edge of the ditch to the other, it does not separate the courtyards, and they establish one eruv.

And this ditch separates the courtyards

even

if it

is filled with straw or hay.

For straw or hay do not constitute a filling, since one does not nullify them in the ditch, as he will ultimately remove them from there.

But if the ditch

was filled with earth or stones,

even without an explicit declaration, they are nullified, and

they establish one eruv, but may not establish two,

as this constitutes a proper filling of the ditch, and it is considered like a single courtyard.

If one placed upon it

[upon the ditch]

a board—

from one edge to the other, like a bridge—

four handbreadths wide,

then it is like an opening between two courtyards. [See illustration 1]

And likewise,

if one placed a board between

two balconies

[porches built on boards that project from the edge of the roof of an upper story toward the public domain],

one opposite the other,

with one extending from north to south and the other from south to north, it is like an opening between two courtyards. [See illustrations 2–3]

Thus, if they wish,

they establish two eruvin, and if they wish, they establish one,

because the board connects them like an opening.

But if the board is

less wide than this

[four handbreadths], it is not an opening.

Therefore,

they establish two eruvin, but may not establish one.

Gemara:

In the section explaining the balconies, the Sha’ar HaTziyun notes that many were perplexed by Rashi’s interpretation; therefore, the matter is explained according to the Shulḥan Arukh and the Mishna Berura.

And we raise a difficulty from the Mishna:

And

if

hay does not form a barrier

[it does not fill the ditch],

but did we not learn

below:

A haystack between two courtyards,

which was

ten handbreadths high—

they establish two eruvin, but may not establish one.

[See illustration]

And why did you say here that hay does not constitute a filling?!

He

answered,

Abaye: With regard to a partition—

everyone agrees that

hay

constitutes a partition.

For although it is destined to be removed from there, as long as it is there, it is a partition, as it is no worse than saddles and animals’ utensils, which we learned earlier in the first chapter constitute a partition.

But with regard to blocking

[blocking the airspace of the ditch so that it is considered filled because it has become like the ground],

if he nullified it

explicitly and said, “I will not remove it from here,” the hay is nullified to the ground, and

it blocks.

But if he did not nullify it

explicitly,

it does not block.

We learned in the Mishna: If the ditch

was filled with earth

or stones, they establish one eruv, but may not establish two:

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

And

if

even without an explicit declaration,

when it is not known whether he intends to remove it or not, the ditch is likewise considered filled?!

But did we not learn

in tractate Ohalot:

1. If there is a house containing corpse impurity, and the impurity is “compressed,” meaning that the impurity does not have an independent tent one handbreadth high, the impurity breaks through and rises all the way to the heavens.

One who forms an ohel over the roof of the house becomes impure.

But if the impurity has an independent tent, meaning that there is an empty height of one handbreadth between the impurity and the roof above it, the impurity does not break through and rise, and one who forms an ohel over its roof remains pure.

2.

A house

containing a corpse,

which one filled with straw or stones

over the corpse, with no empty height of one handbreadth, and

he nullified

the straw or stones to the house explicitly, is

nullified,

and the impurity is compressed and breaks through and rises all the way to the heavens.

We see, then, that only if he

nullified

the straw or stones explicitly

is there no

nullification otherwise.