Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 71

courts may either prepare separate Erubin or combine in one. Hence if the aperture be less than four spans square and more than ten spans high, it is obvious that they cannot have their choice ? The Mishna means to teach us, that if the aperture was partly less than ten spans high from the ground and partly more than ten spans high the inmates of the court still have their choice of either making separate Erubin or combining in one, and only if the entire aperture was over ten spans high 179 i8o THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. from the ground, they are obliged to make each a separate Erub. This explanation of the Mishna has reference to the follow- ing teaching of the Rabbis, viz. ; If the entire aperture, with the exception of a small part, was higher than ten spans from the ground i^e.g., if the aperture was twelve spans square and was eight spans high from the ground, thus two spans of the aper- ture were within ten spans from the ground and ten spans were over ten spans from the ground), or if the entire aperture with the exception of a small part was less than ten spans from the ground {e.g., if it was twelve spans square and only two spans were over ten spans from the ground), the inmates of the courts may either each make a separate Erub or combine in one. If the entire aperture with the exception of a small part was higher than ten spans from the ground the inmates have their choice; why is it necessary to state, that if the entire aperture with the exception of a small part was within ten spans from the ground, the inmates have their choice, is this not self-evident ? After having stated the law in the former case, it applies the more to the latter. R. Na'hman said: " The case of where the aperture is less than four spans square or over ten spans from the ground, applies only to courts, but as for houses, the aperture may be at any distance from the ground, even over ten spans, and, nevertheless, the inmates are permitted to join in an Erub." Why so ? Because a house is considered solid, and every portion is regarded as occupied. R. Abba asked of R. Na'hman: " If in the attic of a house there was a hole fnr the purpose of fastening a ladder therein, may the inmate of the attic join in the Erub regardless of whether there was a ladder fastened in the hole of the attic or not, i.e., should the house be considered solid and occupied and no ladder is necessary, or is the house only considered solid as far as the walls are concerned but not the interior, and a ladder is essential ? " and he answered: " A ladder is not necessary." R. Abba understood R. Na'hman to say, that a permanent ladder was not necessary, but for the time that the Erub was to be combined it was necessary. It was taught, however, by R. Joseph bar Minyumi in the name of R. Na'hman that neither a permanent nor a temporary ladder was necessary. MISHNA: If there be a wall ten spans high and four spans wide between two courts, the inmates of each must prepare sep- TRACT ERUBIN. i8i arate Erubin and must not join in one. If fruit happen to lie on the wall, they may ascend from their respective sides and partake thereof, provided they do not bring any of it down with them. Should there be a breach in the wall, not wider than ten ells, they may prepare separate Erubin or if they prefer it join in one, because the breach is considered as a door. Should the breach, however, be wider than ten ells they must both join in one Erub but must not prepare two separate Erubin. GEMARA: How is it, if the wall did not measure four spans in width ? Said Rabh: " In that case, the atmosphere of two separate premises predominates at the wall and one must not handle anything even the size of a hair lying on the wall," R. Johanan, however, says to the contrary: " In that case the inmates of both courts may lay down fruit on the wall (or even take it down from the wall because it is regarded as ground under no jurisdiction)." R. Johanan will therefore explain the Mishna thus: " If the wall was four spans wide it is permitted to ascend on either side and partake of fruit lying on the wall, but it is not permitted to bring up any. If, however, the wall was less than four spans wide, one may carry fruit up on the wall and eat it there." This statement of R. Johanan is but in accordance with his own theory, as related by R. Dimi upon his arrival from Palestine in the name of R. Johanan, viz.: "An object less than four spans square, standing between public and private ground, may be used by both the occupants of the public and private ground as an aid on which to shoulder a burden on the Sabbath, but they should be careful not to confound the burdens placed on the object so that a burden placed by an occupant of public ground be taken up by an occupant of pri- vate ground and vice versa.'' Can Rabh dispute this assertion of R. Dimi ? Is it not iden- tical with the Boraitha concerning a man standing on the door- step and passing things to a mendicant in the street or to the master of a house (see Tract Sabbath, p. 8) ? Rabh does not dispute the Boraitha in that instance, because it concerns a bib- lical law, but in this case where rabbinical law is dealt with, the Rabbis assume the privilege of reenforcing ordinances so as to preclude the possibility of transgression. Rabba bar R. Huna in the name of R. Na'hman said: If between two courts there was a wall, which was ten spans high from the ground of one court, but on a level with the ground of i82 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. the other,* the wall is ceded to the latter court and considered part of its ground, but to the former court it is an ordinary wall ten spans high. Why so ? Because the use of the wall is more convenient for the latter than for the former, and where an object is more convenient for one than for another it is generally ceded to the former. Said R. Shezbi: " R. Na'hman rendered the same decision concerning a ditch that was situated between two courts and was on a level with the ground on one side." If a man comes to diminish the size of the wall referred to in the Mishna (either by heaping up earth at the bottom or by erecting posts or benches at its side; such was the original defi- nition of the manner by which the size of the M^all was dimin- ished) and this was done to the extent of four spans, or more, he may make use of the entire wall, but if less than four spans he can use only as much of the wall as has been diminished. What do you mean to say ? In either case there is an objection. If by diminishing the wall to the extent of less than four spans the wall is actually diminished, why should it not be allowed to use the entire wall, and if this does not constitute a diminution