Eruvin 60
וְלֹא עֵירְבוּ, אִם יֵשׁ לִפְנֵיהֶם דַּקָּה אַרְבָּעָה — אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת, וְאִם לָאו — אוֹסֶרֶת.
and did not establish a joint eiruv, if there is a partition four handbreadths wide in front of the entrance to the balcony, the balcony does not prohibit the residents of the courtyard from carrying, as each area is considered to be independent. And if not, the balcony prohibits the residents of the courtyard from carrying in the courtyard. This indicates that a ladder between two courtyards is always considered an entrance, even when that policy leads to a stringent ruling, unless the two areas are separated by a partition.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, בִּדְלֹא גְּבוֹהָ מִרְפֶּסֶת עֲשָׂרָה.
The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the balcony is not ten handbreadths high from the ground. Consequently, it does not constitute a domain in its own right, and it is part of the courtyard.
וְאִי לֹא גְּבוֹהָ מִרְפֶּסֶת עֲשָׂרָה, כִּי קָא עָבֵיד דַּקָּה, מַאי הָוֵי? בִּמְגוּפֶּפֶת עַד עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת, דְּכֵיוָן דְּעָבֵיד דַּקָּה — אִיסְתַּלּוֹקֵי אִיסְתַּלּוּק לֵיהּ מֵהָכָא.
The Gemara asks: If the balcony is not ten handbreadths high and is therefore part of the courtyard, when one places a partition, what of it? The balcony should nevertheless be considered part of the courtyard. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a balcony that is entirely fenced off except for a section up to ten cubits wide, which serves as an entrance. In that case, since the residents of the balcony place a partition at this entrance, they thereby remove themselves entirely from the courtyard.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כּוֹתֶל שֶׁרְצָפָהּ בְּסוּלָּמוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ בְּיָתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר — תּוֹרַת מְחִיצָה עָלָיו.
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to a wall that one lined with ladders, even along a length of more than ten cubits, it still retains the status of a partition. The ladders do not constitute an opening that is more than ten cubits wide, which would cause the wall to be regarded as breached and would invalidate the wall as a partition.
רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַב בְּרוֹנָא לְרַב יְהוּדָה בְּמַעְצַרְתָּא דְּבֵי רַב חֲנִינָא: מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל תּוֹרַת מְחִיצָה עָלָיו? וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אַנְשֵׁי מִרְפֶּסֶת וְאַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכְחוּ וְלֹא עֵירְבוּ, אִם יֵשׁ לְפָנֶיהָ דַּקָּה אַרְבָּעָה אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת, וְאִם לָאו — אוֹסֶרֶת.
Rav Beruna raised a contradiction to Rav Yehuda in the winepress at Rav Ḥanina’s house: Did Shmuel actually say that such a wall has the status of a partition? Didn’t Rav Naḥman say that Shmuel said: With regard to the residents of a balcony and the residents of a courtyard who forgot and did not establish a joint eiruv, if there is a partition four handbreadths wide in front of the entrance to the balcony, the balcony does not prohibit the residents of the courtyard to carry; and if not, it prohibits the residents of the courtyard from carrying? This indicates that a ladder is considered an entrance, as the courtyard and the balcony are considered connected.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּלֹא גְּבוֹהָ מִרְפֶּסֶת עֲשָׂרָה. וְאִי לֹא גְּבוֹהָ מִרְפֶּסֶת עֲשָׂרָה, כִּי עָבֵיד דַּקָּה מַאי הָוֵי? בִּמְגוּפֶּפֶת עַד עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת, דְּכֵיוָן דְּעָבֵיד דַּקָּה — אִיסְתַּלּוֹקֵי אִיסְתַּלַּק מֵהָכָא.
Rav Yehuda replied in the same manner as above: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the balcony is not ten handbreadths high, and that is why it is regarded as connected to the courtyard. The Gemara asks: If the balcony is not ten handbreadths high, when he places a partition, what of it? The balcony should nevertheless be considered part of the courtyard. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a balcony that is entirely fenced off except for a section up to ten cubits wide, which serves as an entrance. In that case, since the residents of the balcony place a partition at this entrance, they thereby remove themselves entirely from the courtyard.
הָנְהוּ בְּנֵי קָקוּנָאֵי דְּאָתֵי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הַב לַן גַּבְרָא דְּלִיעָרֵב לַן מָאתִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְאַבָּיֵי: זִיל עָרֵב לְהוּ, וַחֲזִי דְּלָא מְצַוְוחַתְּ עֲלַהּ בְּבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא. אֲזַל, חֲזָא לְהָנְהוּ בָּתֵּי דִּפְתִיחִי לְנַהֲרָא. אָמַר: הָנֵי לֶהֱוֵי שִׁיּוּר לְמָתָא.
The Gemara relates that certain residents of the city of Kakunya came before Rav Yosef and said to him: Provide us with someone who will establish an eiruv for our city. The city had originally been a public city and had turned into a private one, requiring that part of the city be excluded from the eiruv. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Go, establish an eiruv for them, and see to it that there is no outcry against it in the study hall, i.e., make sure the eiruv is valid beyond any doubt. He went and saw that certain houses opened to the river and not to the city. He said: Let these houses serve as the section excluded from the eiruv for the city.
הֲדַר אָמַר: ״אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶת כּוּלָּהּ״ תְּנַן, [מִכְּלָל] דְּאִי בָּעֵי לְעָירוֹבֵי, מָצֵי מְעָרְבִי. אֶלָּא אֶיעְבֵּיד לְהוּ כַּוֵּוי, דְּאִי בָּעוּ לְעָירוֹבֵי דֶּרֶךְ חַלּוֹנוֹת מָצוּ מְעָרְבִי.
Abaye subsequently retracted and said: This cannot be done, as we learned in the mishna: One may not establish an eiruv for all of it; by inference, if they wanted to establish an eiruv for the entire city, they would have been able to establish such an eiruv, if not for the requirement to exclude a section of the city from the eiruv. However, these houses, which do not open to the city, could not have joined in an eiruv with the rest of the city in any case, and therefore they cannot serve as the excluded section. Rather, I will create windows for them between the courtyards of their houses and the rest of the city, so that if they want to establish an eiruv with the rest of the city by way of the windows, they can establish such an eiruv, and then these houses will be fit to serve as the excluded section.
הֲדַר אָמַר: לָא בָּעֵי, דְּהָא רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ מְעָרֵב לַהּ לְכוּלַּהּ מָחוֹזָא עַרְסְיָיתָא עַרְסְיָיתָא מִשּׁוּם פֵּירָא דְּבֵי תוֹרֵי, דְּכׇל חַד וְחַד הָוֵי שִׁיּוּר לְחַבְרֵיהּ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִי בָּעוּ לְעָרוֹבֵי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, לָא מָצוּ מְעָרְבִי.
He subsequently retracted again and said: This is not necessary, as Rabba bar Avuh established an eiruv for the entire city of Meḥoza, which was a public city that had become a private one, neighborhood by neighborhood, due to the fact that the neighborhoods were separated by ditches from which the cattle would feed. In other words, Rabba bar Avuh established a separate eiruv for each neighborhood without excluding any of them, as he maintained that each one was an excluded section for the other. And although the neighborhoods would not have been able to establish an eiruv together even if they wanted to, due to the ditches separating them, the neighborhoods were still able to serve as excluded areas for each other.
הֲדַר אָמַר: לָא דָּמֵי. הָתָם, אִי בָּעֵי — לְעָרוֹבֵי דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת, וְהָנֵי לָא מְעָרְבִי, הִילְכָּךְ נַעְבְּדַן כַּוֵּוי.
He subsequently retracted once again and said: The two cases are not really comparable. There, in Meḥoza, if they wanted, they could have established a single eiruv by way of the roofs; but these houses cannot establish an eiruv with the other houses of the city, and therefore we must create windows for them.
הֲדַר אָמַר: כַּוֵּוי נָמֵי לָא בָּעֵי, דְּהָהוּא בֵּי תִיבְנָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמָר בַּר פּוֹפִידְתָּא מִפּוּמְבְּדִיתָא, וְשַׁוְּיַהּ שִׁיּוּר לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.
He subsequently retracted yet again and said: Windows are also not necessary. As, that storehouse of straw which belonged to Mar bar Pofidata from Pumbedita was designated as the section excluded from the eiruv arranged for the city of Pumbedita, which proves that it is not necessary for the excluded section to be one that could have been included in an eiruv with the rest of the city.
אֲמַר, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר לִי מָר: ״חֲזִי דְּלָא מְצַוְוחַתְּ עֲלַהּ בְּבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא״.
Abaye said to himself: This is what the Master meant when he said to me: See to it that there is no outcry against it in the study hall. Abaye now understood the many factors that had to be considered and how wary one must be of reaching a hasty conclusion.
אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשָׂה חוּצָה לָהּ כָּעִיר חֲדָשָׁה. תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: עִיר אַחַת הָיְתָה בִּיהוּדָה וַחֲדָשָׁה שְׁמָהּ, וְהָיוּ בָּהּ חֲמִשִּׁים דָּיוֹרִים אֲנָשִׁים וְנָשִׁים וָטַף, וּבָהּ הָיוּ מְשַׁעֲרִים חֲכָמִים, וְהִיא הָיְתָה שִׁיּוּר.
The mishna stated that if a public city becomes a private city, one may not establish an eiruv for all of it unless he maintains an area outside the eiruv which is like the size of the city of Ḥadasha in Judea. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: There was a certain city in Judea and its name was Ḥadasha, and it had fifty residents including men, women, and children. And the Sages would use it to measure the size of the section that must be excluded from an eiruv, and it itself was the excluded section of the eiruv of a larger city that was adjacent to it.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: חֲדָשָׁה מַהוּ? חֲדָשָׁה, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּאִיהִי הָוְיָא שִׁיּוּר לִגְדוֹלָה — גְּדוֹלָה נָמֵי הָוְיָא שִׁיּוּר לִקְטַנָּה.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: As for Ḥadasha, what is the halakha? Is it permissible to establish an eiruv for Ḥadasha itself without excluding a section of the city from the eiruv? The Gemara answers: With regard to Ḥadasha, just as it was the excluded section of the larger city, the larger city was also the excluded section of the smaller city.
אֶלָּא כְּעֵין חֲדָשָׁה, מַהוּ? רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יְהוּדָה, חַד אָמַר: בָּעֲיָא שִׁיּוּר, וְחַד אָמַר: לָא בָּעֲיָא שִׁיּוּר.
Rather, the question pertains to a small city like Ḥadasha that stands by itself, not in proximity to a larger city: What is the halakha? Does a small city require an excluded section or not? Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagreed about this issue. One said: It requires an excluded section; and one said: It does not require an excluded section.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ חֲצֵירוֹת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּיִת אֶחָד וְחָצֵר אַחַת. חָצֵר אַחַת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בַּיִת אֶחָד בְּחָצֵר אַחַת.
It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Shimon says: The excluded area must be large enough to include at least three courtyards with two houses each. Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Even one house and one courtyard suffice. The Gemara expresses surprise at the wording of this statement: Can it enter your mind that one courtyard even without a house is sufficient? Rather, correct it and say as follows: One house in one courtyard.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק, גְּמָרָא אוֹ סְבָרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי נָפְקָא לַן מִינַּהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גְּמָרָא גְּמוֹר, זְמוֹרְתָּא תְּהֵא?!
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that ruling of Rabbi Yitzḥak based on oral tradition or his own logic? Rav Yosef said to him: What practical difference does Rabbi Yitzḥak’s source make to us? Abaye said to him, quoting a well-known adage: When you study Talmud is it merely a song?; Is the material you study like the lyrics of a song that you do not understand? It is proper to investigate all aspects of the statements of the Sages, regardless of the practical ramifications.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁהָיָה בַּמִּזְרָח וְאָמַר לִבְנוֹ: ״עָרֵב לִי בַּמַּעֲרָב״, בַּמַּעֲרָב וַאֲמַר לִבְנוֹ: ״עָרֵב לִי בַּמִּזְרָח״, אִם יֵשׁ הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְבֵיתוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, וּלְעֵירוּבוֹ יוֹתֵר מִכָּאן — מוּתָּר לְבֵיתוֹ, וְאָסוּר לְעֵירוּבוֹ.
MISHNA: One who was to the east of his home when Shabbat began, and he had said to his son before Shabbat: Establish an eiruv for me to the west; or, if he was to the west of his home and he had said to his son: Establish an eiruv for me to the east, the halakha is as follows: If there is a distance of two thousand cubits from his current location to his house, and the distance to his eiruv is greater than this, he is permitted to walk to his house, and from there he may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, but it is prohibited for him to walk to the spot where his son had deposited his eiruv.
לְעֵירוּבוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה, וּלְבֵיתוֹ יָתֵר מִכָּאן — אָסוּר לְבֵיתוֹ, וּמוּתָּר לְעֵירוּבוֹ.
If the distance from one’s current location to his eiruv is two thousand cubits, and the distance to his house is greater than this, he is prohibited from walking to his house, and he is permitted to walk to the spot of his eiruv, and from there he may walk two thousand cubits in every direction. In other words, with regard to the Shabbat limit, one’s place of residence for Shabbat cannot be more than two thousand cubits from his physical location when Shabbat begins.
הַנּוֹתֵן אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ בְּעִיבּוּרָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.
One who places his eiruv in the outskirts of the city, i.e., within an area of slightly more than seventy cubits surrounding the city, it is as though he has not done anything. The two thousand cubits of one’s Shabbat limit are measured from the edge of the outskirts of the city even if there is no eiruv, and one therefore gains nothing from placing an eiruv within this area.
נְתָנוֹ חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת —
If, however, he placed his eiruv outside the city’s boundary, even if he placed it only one cubit beyond the city,
מַה שֶּׁנִּשְׂכַּר הוּא מַפְסִיד.
what he gains in distance through his eiruv on one side of the city he loses on the other side.
גְּמָ׳ קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ: ״לַמִּזְרָח״, לְמִזְרַח בֵּיתוֹ. ״לַמַּעֲרָב״, לְמַעֲרַב בֵּיתוֹ.
GEMARA: It might enter your mind to say that when the mishna states that one was standing to the east, it means that he was standing to the east of his house and that he had instructed his son to establish an eiruv to the west of his house. Similarly, when it states that he was standing to the west, it means that he was positioned to the west of his house and that he had instructed his son to establish an eiruv to the east of his house. In such a case, the person’s house is located between him and his eiruv.
בִּשְׁלָמָא ״הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְבֵיתוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה וּלְעֵירוּבוֹ יָתֵר מִכָּאן״ — מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, דְּמָטֵי לְבֵיתֵיהּ וְלָא מָטֵי לְעֵירוּבוֹ, אֶלָּא ״הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְעֵירוּבוֹ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה וּלְבֵיתוֹ יָתֵר מִכָּאן״ — הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
If so, the question arises: Granted, the mishna’s case where there is a distance of two thousand cubits from his current location to his house, and the distance to his eiruv is greater than this, you can find, as it is possible that he can reach his house without traveling two thousand cubits and he cannot reach his eiruv. But where do you find a case where there is a distance of two thousand cubits between him and his eiruv, and the distance to his house is greater than this? The person’s house is located between him and his eiruv.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִי סָבְרַתְּ ״לַמִּזְרָח״ — לְמִזְרַח בֵּיתוֹ, ״לַמַּעֲרָב״ — לְמַעֲרַב בֵּיתוֹ?! לֹא, ״לַמִּזְרָח״ — לְמִזְרַח בְּנוֹ, ״לַמַּעֲרָב״ — לְמַעֲרַב בְּנוֹ.
Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Do you think that to the east means that he was standing to the east of his house, and to the west means that he was standing to the west of his house? No, to the east means to the east of his son, who is depositing his eiruv for him, and to the west means to the west of his son.
רָבָא בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא ״לַמִּזְרָח״ — לְמִזְרַח בֵּיתוֹ, וְ״לַמַּעֲרָב״ — לְמַעֲרַב בֵּיתוֹ, כְּגוֹן דְּקָאֵי בֵּיתֵיהּ בַּאֲלַכְסוֹנָא.
Rava bar Rav Sheila said: Even if you say that to the east means to the east of his house and to the west means to the west of his house, the mishna can be understood as referring to a case where his house stood along a diagonal line in relation to the person and his eiruv. In that case, although he is to the west of his house and the eiruv is located to its east, he can still be closer to his eiruv than he is to his house.
הַנּוֹתֵן עֵירוּבוֹ בְּתוֹךְ עִיבּוּרָהּ וְכוּ׳. חוּץ לַתְּחוּם סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: חוּץ לְעִיבּוּרָהּ.
We learned in the mishna: One who places his eiruv within the outskirts of the city has not accomplished anything. However, if he places it outside the city limits, it is effective. The Gemara expresses surprise: Can it enter your mind that the mishna is dealing with a case where one placed his eiruv outside the Shabbat limit? If the eiruv is outside the Shabbat limit as measured from his physical location at the onset of Shabbat, he cannot access it on Shabbat; it is therefore ineffective in establishing his Shabbat residence. Rather, correct it and say as follows: If one placed his eiruv outside the city’s outskirts, i.e., beyond the area of slightly more than seventy cubits surrounding the city, the eiruv is effective in establishing his Shabbat residence at that location.
מַה שֶּׁנִּשְׂכַּר הוּא מַפְסִיד. מָה שֶּׁנִּשְׂכַּר וְתוּ לָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹתֵן אֶת עֵירוּבוֹ בְּתוֹךְ עִיבּוּרָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. נְתָנוֹ חוּץ לְעִיבּוּרָהּ שֶׁל עִיר אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת, מִשְׂתַּכֵּר אוֹתָהּ אַמָּה וּמַפְסִיד אֶת כָּל הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּדַּת הָעִיר עוֹלָה לוֹ בְּמִדַּת הַתְּחוּם!
We learned in the next clause of the mishna concerning one who places his eiruv even one cubit beyond the city’s boundary: That which he gains on one side of the city he loses on the other. The Gemara expresses surprise: Does that mean that only that which he gains on one side he loses on the other, and no more? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who places his eiruv within the outskirts of the city, he has not done anything; if, however, he placed it outside the outskirts of the city, even one cubit outside, he gains that cubit and loses the entire city because the measure of the city is included in the measure of his Shabbat limit? If one’s Shabbat residence had been in the city, the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit would have been measured from the edge of the city’s outskirts; now that he has established his Shabbat residence outside the city, the city itself is included in the two thousand cubits, and he may lose far more on that side than he will gain on the other side.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן שֶׁכָּלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ בַּחֲצִי הָעִיר, כָּאן שֶׁכָּלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ בְּסוֹף הָעִיר.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the baraita is referring to a case where his measure of two thousand cubits terminated in the middle of the city; whereas there the mishna is referring to a case where his measure terminated at the far end of the city.
וְכִדְרַבִּי אִידִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִידִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הָיָה מוֹדֵד וּבָא וְכָלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ בַּחֲצִי הָעִיר — אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא חֲצִי הָעִיר. כָּלְתָה מִדָּתוֹ בְּסוֹף הָעִיר — נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ כְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וּמַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר.
And this is in accordance with the opinion stated by Rabbi Idi, as Rabbi Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If one was measuring the two thousand cubits of his Shabbat limit from the location of his Shabbat residence outside the city, and his measure terminated in the middle of the city, he has only half the city, i.e., he may walk only to the end of his two thousand cubits. If, however, his measure terminated at the far end of the city, the entire city is regarded as four cubits, and he completes the rest of the Shabbat limit on the other side of the city.
אָמַר רַבִּי אִידִי: אֵין אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא דִּבְרֵי נְבִיאוּת. מָה לִי כָּלְתָה בַּחֲצִי הָעִיר, מָה לִי כָּלְתָה בְּסוֹף הָעִיר?
Rabbi Idi said: These are nothing more than words of prophecy, i.e., I do not see the logic behind this statement. What difference is it to me if the measure terminated in the middle of the city, or if it terminated at the far end of the city?
אָמַר רָבָא, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ תְּנַנְהִי: אַנְשֵׁי עִיר גְּדוֹלָה מְהַלְּכִין אֶת כׇּל עִיר קְטַנָּה.
Rava said: They are not words of prophecy, as both cases were taught in the following mishna: The residents of a large city may walk through an entire small city that is fully included within its Shabbat limit; the small city is considered as though it were four cubits, and the rest of the Shabbat limit is measured from the other side of the city.
