Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 3, scan section 73

Rabh said: "I have a tradition, that a ladder standing straight against a wall also diminishes its size, but I know no reason for it." Said Samuel to him: " Does Abba not know the reason for this ? Why should a ladder be worse than two benches placed one above the other ? Surely it is more diffi- cult to scale a wall by means of benches than by means of a ladder." Rabha in the name of R. Hyya said: " Trunks of Babylo- nian fig-trees when placed against a wall need not be fastened, because their weight is so great, that it is very difficult to remove them, although they may be handled on Sabbath." R. Josepli in the name of R. Oshiya said: " The same applies to Babylo- nian ladders, which are so heavy, that there is no fear of their being removed." R. Joseph asked Rabba: " If a man had a ladder which he desired to place against a wall and the ladder being too narrow, i.e., less than four spans wide, he hewed out in the wall itself, steps on each side of the ladder, how far up should those steps be hewn out?" Rabba answered: "For a distance of ten spans." Asked R. Joseph again: " How is it if a man hews out steps four spans wide in the wall itself ? How far up must he do this ? " and the answer was: "The entire height of the wall." " What is the difference between the case of the ladder where steps had to be hewn out additionally and this case where the steps were all hewn out of the wall ? " "In the first instance the ascent of the wall is so much easier because the ladder can be placed against the wall at an angle, while in this instance the ascent is much more difficult ; hence the steps should reach the entire height of the wall." R, Joseph asked Rabba again : " What is the law if a man used a tree, which grew right at the wall, for a ladder ? I ask thee, taking into consideration the difference of opinion between Rabbi and the sages. According to Rabbi, who holds, that rabbinical ordinances were not surrounded with precautionary measures for the sake of twilight, it may be said, that in this i86 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. case, where the tree will be used during the whole Sabbath day, even Rabbi might decide that it would not be allowed to make use of the tree; and on the other hand, even according to the sages, who disagree with Rabbi as regards the precautionary- measures for the sake of twilight, it may be said, that the tree might be considered as a door; which, however, cannot be used because it is regarded as if a lion lie across it ; nevertheless, it is a door, and being such, the wall may be used. Now, shouldst thou decide, that the wall may be used if a tree grow at its side, how would it be if a grove such as is used in idolatrous worship, grow alongside of the wall ? I ask thee in this instance taking into consideration the difference of opinion between R. Jehudah and the sages. We are aware that R. Jehudah permits the depositing of an Erub even in a grave, notwithstanding the fact that no benefit must be derived from a grave, but for the reason that after the Erub has been deposited for the moment of twi- light the grave is of no further use as the Erub need not be watched. In this case, however, R. Jehudah might prohibit the use of a grove, because it serves a distinct purpose, namely, that of a walk to the wall, and it is a law that no benefit must be derived from a grove used for idolatrous worship. On the other hand, even according to the sages, who prohibit the use of a grave for the depositing of an Erub, it might be permitted to use the grove because it is virtually a door to the wall and is merely regarded as if a lion were lying across it, which tempo- rarily makes it unfit for use." Rabba answered: " A tree may be used but a grove must not." R. Hisda opposed this: "On the contrary," said he, " the lion lying across the tree which renders it unfit for use tem- porarily is the rabbinical ordinance concerning the Sabbath-rest, i.e., the tree must not be used on account of the Sabbath, while the grove must not be used for another reason altogether, hence it should be permitted to use the grove and the use of the tree should be prohibited." It was also taught, that when Rabhin came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Elazar, according to another version, R. Abahu said in the name of R. Johanan : (This is the rule 🙂 Whenever the prohibition is based upon the Sabbath-rest laws, such prohibition must stand, but whenever the prohibition is based in some other law, it need not hold good. R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak taught: "Concerning a tree the same divergence of opinion as exists between Rabbi and the TRACT ERUBIN. 187 sages remains, and concerning a grove the same difference of opinion as exists between R. Jehudah and the sages remains." MISHNA: If two courts be separated by a ditch, ten spans deep and four wide, the inmates of each court should prepare separate Erubin and must not join in one, even though the ditch be filled with stubble or with straw. Should it however be filled with earth or pebbles, the inmates must join in one Erub and not prepare two separate ones. If a board four spans wide had been put across the ditch, and likewise, if two projecting balco- nies, one opposite the other, have been connected by means of such a board, or plank, the inmates of the courts may pre- pare separate Erubin, or if they prefer it, they may join in one; if the board, however, was less (than four spans) wide, they must each prepare a separate Erub, and not join in one. GEMARA: The Mishna states, that if the ditch was filled with stubble or straw, the inmates of each court must make a separate Erub, because the straw is not considered firm enough to afford a safe passage over the ditch, i.e., it does not consti- tute a solid filling for the ditch, but in the succeeding Mishna we learn, that if there be between two courts a straw-rick, the inmates of each court must prepare a separate Erub, thereby demonstrating that straw can form a solid partition ? Answered Abayi : As for a partition all agree that a straw-rick can form a partition, but as for straw serving as a filling for a ditch it depends upon whether the owner has devoted it entirely for that purpose. If he did and will not remove it, it may constitute a solid filling for the ditch, but if he did not and intends to subse- quently remove it, it cannot be considered such. " Shouldit however he filled with earth or pebbles.'' Even if the man who did this, does not declare that he has devoted the earth or the pebbles for that purpose entirely ? Have we not learned in a Mishna, that if a man filled a room (which had con- tained a corpse) with straw or pebbles and declared that he does not intend to make any further use of either the straw or the