Eruvin 78b — the Talmud in English

Rav Yosef further asked Rabba: If a wall is very high, and one made a ladder for it, however wide, whose top reaches the top of the wall, and since it was not four handbreadths wide, as required,

one hollowed out to complete the wall

itself [which was sloping—Tosafot], in the form of rungs and steps, in order to complete a width of four handbreadths. [See illustration 3]

And he asked him:

To what

height of the wall must one complete the four [handbreadths]?

Rabba said to him:

It is sufficient for him to hollow out to complete four handbreadths

at

the height of

ten

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

Again

Rav Yosef said to him

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

hollowed it all out in the wall—

making something like rungs and steps in the wall, which was sloping—

to what

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

Rabba said to him:

In such a case, it is not sufficient to hollow out four [handbreadths] at a height of ten, but he must hollow out a width of four

for the full height

of the wall.

And Rav Yosef wondered at him:

And what is different

about hollowing out to complete a width of four handbreadths, for which a height of ten is sufficient?

Rabba said to him:

Rabba:

There—

where the ladder actually reaches the top of the wall—

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

она удобна для подъёма]. Поэтому для получения ширины в четыре ладони достаточно вырезать её только на десяти ладонях — на высоту «проема».

But

here,

where he has no ladder at all, but only hollowing out,

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

такая выемка в стене не настолько удобна для подъёма]. Поэтому выемка шириной в четыре ладони должна проходить на всю высоту стены.

Rav Yosef asked Rabba:

A wall between two courtyards, and

he made it into a tree-ladder—

what

is the ruling: Is it effective for making one eruv, since it is forbidden to ascend it on Shabbat, as “one may not use a tree”?

And we explain his question:

It is a question according to Rabbi

who holds above, in the chapter “With All [Kinds of Food] One May Make an Eruv,” that if one placed an “eruv techumin” in a tree, it is an eruv, since Rabbi holds that with regard to everything that is due to a rabbinic prohibition, they did not decree against it during twilight, and the eruv acquires its resting-place during twilight. Nevertheless, there is room for doubt; perhaps here it is not effective, as will be explained.

And

it is a question according to the Rabbis,

who disagree there with Rabbi and hold that it does not acquire a resting-place, since it is forbidden to use the tree even during twilight and he cannot take it from there; nevertheless, there is room for doubt; perhaps here it is effective, as will be explained.

And we explain:

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

и также следует спросить о мнении Мудрецов]:

Shall we say:

Rabbi said only this there,

because he holds:

They did not decree against everything that is due to a rabbinic prohibition

during twilight, and it is an eruv—

that applies

with regard to an eruv techumin, for it is during

twilight

that it acquires a resting-place, and since at that time it was fit for him, it is an eruv.

But

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

the entire day,

and since it is forbidden to ascend the ladder in the tree all day,

it does not

make the eruv effective, even according to Rabbi.

Or perhaps, even according to the Rabbis,

who hold with regard to an eruv techumin that it is not an eruv, that applies there because, since according to them he cannot take it even during twilight, it does not acquire a resting-place for him.

But here,

it is an opening,

for we require an opening to be between the two courtyards, and there is one. For this tree is fit to ascend upon during the week,

and

only the prohibition of Shabbat is like

a lion [a lion]

[a lion]

that crouches upon it [that crouches upon it]. Therefore, it does not cease to have the status of an opening, through which they can make one eruv together in order to use the holes between them, [Ritva].

[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 resolves it for Rav Yosef.

Rav Yosef further asked Rabba: He made

a

wooden

asherah [a tree that is worshipped and from which it is forbidden to derive benefit]

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

into a ladder

between two courtyards—

what is the ruling? [

If you conclude that as far as a tree is concerned we have no difficulty, here, since it is an asherah and deriving benefit from it is forbidden, what is the ruling? ]

And we explain his question:

It is a question according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds in the chapter “With All [Kinds of Food] One May Make an Eruv” that it is permitted to place an eruv techumin in a grave, from which deriving benefit is forbidden. And

it is a question according to the Rabbis,

who disagree there and hold that it is forbidden.

And we explain:

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

и также о мнении Мудрецов]:

Rabbi Yehuda said only this there, that it is permitted to acquire a dwelling-place

[a resting-place]

through objects from which deriving benefit is forbidden, but there,

since Rabbi Yehuda holds

that after the eruv acquired it for him, it is not pleasing to him that it be guarded

[that the eruv be guarded]. It follows that he derives no benefit from the grave except through acquiring the eruv alone—which is for the sake of a mitzva—and mitzvot were not given for enjoyment.

But an eruv of courtyards is for his benefit and not for the sake of a mitzva. And the benefit is that he makes an eruv and relies upon the tree.

Or perhaps

here it is permitted

even according to the Rabbis,

for although deriving benefit from the ladder is forbidden, he is not using it for anything.

And if it is because 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 comparable to

it

to a lion that

crouches upon it,

crouching 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 joined by means of an opening.

He said

[he answered]

to him,

Rabba to Rav Yosef:

a.

A tree—

it is permitted

to make it into a ladder, even though he does not ascend upon it, and if the two courtyards made one eruv together, it is an eruv, even according to the Rabbis of Rabbi.

b.

But an asherah—

it is forbidden

to serve as a ladder, because he derives benefit from it by doing so, even according to Rabbi Yehuda [Ritva].

Rav Hisda challenged it: On the contrary, a tree, whose prohibition

of rabbinic prohibition

of Shabbat causes it

not to be ascended,

should be forbidden

to serve on Shabbat as an opening.

But

an asherah, whose prohibition of another matter [of idolatry]

[of idolatry]

causes it

to be forbidden for use—

should not be forbidden

to serve as an opening.

It was also stated

in accordance with Rav Hisda’s reasoning:

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Elazar said—and some say that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Anything whose prohibition of Shabbat caused it, is forbidden

to serve as an opening.

Anything whose prohibition of another matter caused it, is permitted

to serve as an opening!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak taught it in this manner:

A tree—

the dispute of Rabbi and the Rabbis.

Just as they disagree concerning an eruv techumin, so they disagree here, whether it is effective.

An asherah—

the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis,

who disagree concerning an eruv techumin placed in a grave, and here too they disagree whether it is permitted.

Mishna:

A ditch between two courtyards,

with no partition between them, and the ditch is

ten deep

handbreadths

and four wide

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

they make two eruvin, but they do not make one.

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

And this ditch interrupts

even

if it was

filled with straw or hay.

For straw or hay is not a filling, since he does not nullify them in the ditch, as in the end he will remove them from there.

But if the ditch was

filled with earth or stones,

even without an explicit declaration they are nullified, and

they make one eruv, but they do not make two,

for it is a proper filling for the ditch, and it is regarded like one courtyard.

If he placed upon it [upon the ditch]

[upon the ditch]

a plank

from one edge to the other like a bridge,

which was four handbreadths wide,

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

And likewise,

if he placed a plank between

two balconies [balconies built upon planks that project from the edge of the ceiling of an upper story into the public domain],

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

one opposite the other,

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

Thus, if they wished,

they make two eruvin, and if they wished, they make one,

because the plank joins them like an opening.

But if the plank was

less than this [four handbreadths]

it is not an opening.

Therefore:

they make two eruvin, but they do not make one.

Gemara:

In the Sha'ar HaTziyun, concerning the matter of the balconies, it is brought that many wondered at Rashi’s interpretation; therefore, the matter is explained according to the Shulchan Arukh and the Mishna Berura.

And we challenge the Mishna:

And

if

hay does not partition [it does not seal the ditch]?!

[it does not fill the ditch],

But did we not learn

below:

A haystack between two courtyards,

which was

ten handbreadths high—

they make two eruvin, but they do not make one.

[See illustration]

And why did you say here that the hay does not seal?!

Abaye said

[he answered]:

With regard to a partition—

everyone agrees that

hay

is a partition.

For although he is destined to remove it from there, as long as it is there, it is a partition, since it is no worse than saddles and animals’ implements, which we learned above in the first chapter are a partition.

But with regard to partitioning [to block the air of the ditch and to be regarded as sealed because it has become like the ground],

[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 take it from here,” the hay is nullified to the ground, and

it partitions.

But if he did not nullify it

explicitly—

it does not partition.

We learned in the Mishna: The ditch was

filled with earth or stones; they make one eruv, but they do not make two:

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

And we considered this:

And

if

even without an explicit declaration,

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

But did we not learn

in tractate Oholot:

a. If there is a house in which there is corpse impurity, and the impurity is “compressed,” meaning that the impurity does not have an independently formed tent of a height of one handbreadth, then the impurity breaks through and rises up to the firmament.

And one who forms a tent over the roof of the house is impure.

But if the impurity has a tent of its own, meaning that there is a vacant height of one handbreadth between the impurity and the roof above it, the impurity does not break through and rise, and one who forms a tent over its roof is pure.

b.

A house

in which there is a corpse,

which he filled with straw or stones

over the corpse, with no vacant height of one handbreadth there, and

he nullified

the straw or the stones to the house explicitly, it is

nullified,

and it is compressed impurity, and it breaks through and rises up to the firmament.

We see, then, that only if he

nullified

the straw or the stones explicitly,

there is no

nullification.