Talmud - Eruvin 60a עירובין ס׳ א׳

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If, however, he placed his eiruv outside the city’s boundary, even if he placed it only one cubit beyond the city,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Eruvin 60a examines when a balcony counts as a separate domain from a courtyard and whether ladder-lined walls still function as valid partitions.