## Eruvin Daf 78b

###### Eruvin 78b:1
[Eruvin 78b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:1)

חָקַק לְהַשְׁלִים בַּכּוֹתֶל, בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּעֲשָׂרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef further asked: If the ladder resting against the wall was less than four handbreadths wide, and **one dug out** grooves **in the wall** as extensions of the rungs of the ladder **to complete** the measure, **how** high must this hollowed-out section be to consider the ladder a valid passageway between the two courtyards? Rabba **said to him:** If it is **ten** handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, it is considered a passageway.


###### Eruvin 78b:2
[Eruvin 78b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲקָקוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בַּכּוֹתֶל, בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְלֹא קוֹמָתוֹ. וּמַאי שְׁנָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם מִסְתַּלֵּק לֵיהּ, הָכָא לָא מִסְתַּלֵּק לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him:** If there was no ladder, and **one dug out the entire** ladder **in the wall,** so that all the steps are grooves in the wall, **how much** must he hollow out? Rabba **said to him:** Those steps must reach **the full height of** the wall. Rav Yosef asked: **And what is the difference** in this case? Why must the steps reach higher in this case than in the case where the hollowed-out section was merely an extension of an existing ladder? Rabba **said to him: There,** where there is a ladder, **it is easy to climb** to the top of the wall; however, **here,** where there are only grooves in the wall, **it is not easy to climb.** If one cannot reach the top of the wall, the steps are not considered a passageway between the courtyards.


###### Eruvin 78b:3
[Eruvin 78b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:3)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף מֵרַבָּה: עֲשָׂאוֹ לָאִילָן סוּלָּם, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef raised a dilemma before Rabba: If one designated a tree as a ladder, what is** the *halakha*? Given that it is prohibited to climb a tree on Shabbat, if a tree stands next to a wall and it is easy to climb, is it considered with regard to the *halakhot* of Shabbat as an opening in the wall that can serve as a passageway between the two courtyards?


###### Eruvin 78b:4
[Eruvin 78b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:4)

תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי, תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let the dilemma be raised** according **to** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that a joining of Shabbat boundaries [*eiruv teḥumin*] placed in a tree is valid; and **let the dilemma be raised** according **to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree.


###### Eruvin 78b:5
[Eruvin 78b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:5)

תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי הָתָם כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת לֹא גָּזְרוּ עָלָיו — הָנֵי מִילֵּי בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, אֲבָל כּוּלֵּי יוֹמָא — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Let the dilemma be raised** according **to** the previously stated opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **only stated there** that with regard to **anything that is** prohibited on Shabbat **due to a rabbinic decree [*shevut*],** the Sages **did not prohibit** it during twilight. Therefore, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, it is permitted to use an *eiruv* that was deposited in a tree, as the use of a tree is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree. However, **this applies only** in that case, as the *eiruv* takes effect **during the twilight period.** Since there is doubt with regard to whether that period is considered day or night, the decree is not in force, and the *eiruv* is therefore valid. **However,** in this case, where the opening must be valid for **the entire day,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would **not** rule that the decree does not apply. Since it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to climb a tree on Shabbat, a tree cannot be considered a valid passageway.


###### Eruvin 78b:6
[Eruvin 78b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:6)

אוֹ דִילְמָא אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן: פִּיתְחָא הוּא, וְאַרְיָא הוּא דִּרְבִיעַ עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** it may be argued that **even according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** this tree is considered an opening. They may have said that a joining of Shabbat boundaries placed in a tree is not valid only because the *eiruv* must actually be accessible during twilight, and in that case it is not, due to the rabbinic decree. However, in this case, where it is not necessary to make actual use of the tree, they would agree that a tree that serves as a ladder **is a** valid **entrance, but a lion crouches upon it.** Just as a lion crouching at an opening does not thereby nullify its status as an entrance, although in practice no one can pass through it, so too, in the case of the tree, the prohibition against climbing it does not nullify its status as a passageway.


###### Eruvin 78b:7
[Eruvin 78b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:7)

עֲשָׂאוֹ לַאֲשֵׁירָה סוּלָּם, מַהוּ? תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef further inquired: **If one designated a tree worshipped as part of idolatrous rites [*asheira*],** from which it is forbidden to derive benefit, **as a ladder, what is** the *halakha*? Is it considered a valid passageway in the wall with regard to the *halakhot* of Shabbat? Here, too, **let the dilemma be raised** according **to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** and **let the dilemma be raised** according **to** the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


###### Eruvin 78b:8
[Eruvin 78b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:8)

תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָתָם דְּמוּתָּר לִקְנוֹת בַּיִת בְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה, אֶלָּא הָתָם, דְּבָתַר דִּקְנָה לֵיהּ עֵירוּב לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּלִינְּטַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Let the dilemma be raised** according **to** the previously stated opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda only stated there** that **it is permitted to acquire,** i.e., make use of, **a house** for the purposes of establishing an *eiruv* even if it is among the **items** from which it is **prohibited to** derive **benefit,** such as a grave. This statement applies only **there,** with regard to acquiring an *eiruv* in that location, **since after the *eiruv* has acquired** a place of residence **for him, it is not important to him that it is guarded.** He requires the grave only for the moment of the acquisition of the *eiruv*, and what happens to it afterward is of no consequence to him. However, here, since one desires the continued presence of the ladder, it is possible that even Rabbi Yehuda would agree that one may not rely on an *asheira*, as one may not climb and make use of it, since it is prohibited to derive benefit from it.


###### Eruvin 78b:9
[Eruvin 78b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:9)

אוֹ דִילְמָא אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן: פִּיתְחָא הוּא, וְאַרְיָא דִּרְבִיעַ עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** it may be argued that **even** though according **to** the opinion of **the Rabbis** it is prohibited to use a grave to acquire an *eiruv*, here they would agree that the *asheira* **is an opening, but a lion crouches upon it,** and this does not nullify its status as an opening.


###### Eruvin 78b:10
[Eruvin 78b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילָן מוּתָּר, וַאֲשֵׁירָה אֲסוּרָה. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִילָן שֶׁאִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת גּוֹרֵם לוֹ — נִיתְּסַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: A tree is permitted** for use as a ladder, **but an *asheira* is prohibited. Rav Ḥisda strongly objects to this: On the contrary, a tree,** with regard to **which a Shabbat prohibition causes it** to be prohibited, **should be prohibited,** so that it will not be said that a Shabbat prohibition has been disregarded in a case involving the *halakhot* of Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 78b:11
[Eruvin 78b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:11)

אֲשֵׁירָה שֶׁאִיסּוּר דָּבָר אַחֵר גּוֹרֵם לוֹ — לָא נִיתְּסַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And the converse is also true: **An *asheira*,** with regard to **which something else,** a *halakha* unrelated to the *halakhot* of Shabbat, **causes it** to be prohibited, **should not be prohibited.** Rather, it should be considered an opening with regard to Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 78b:12
[Eruvin 78b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:12)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּל שֶׁאִיסּוּר שַׁבָּת גָּרַם לוֹ — אָסוּר, כֹּל שֶׁאִיסּוּר דָּבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לוֹ — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Indeed, **it was also stated: When Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Elazar said, and some say** that **Rabbi Abbahu said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anything** with regard to **which a prohibition of Shabbat causes it** to be prohibited **is prohibited;** and conversely, **anything** with regard to **which something else causes it** to be prohibited **is permitted.**


###### Eruvin 78b:13
[Eruvin 78b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:13)

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אִילָן — פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן. אֲשֵׁירָה — פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, in contrast to Rav Yosef, **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak taught as follows:** These questions are indeed dependent on the known disputes. Whether **a tree** serving as a ladder constitutes a valid opening **is** the subject of **a dispute** between **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and the Rabbis;** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits it and the Rabbis prohibit it. The debate with regard to whether or not **an *asheira*** is considered an opening **is** the subject of **a dispute** between **Rabbi Yehuda,** who permits using items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit for the sake of an *eiruv*, **and the Rabbis,** who prohibit making an *eiruv* with such items.


###### Eruvin 78b:14
[Eruvin 78b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** חָרִיץ שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת, עָמוֹק עֲשָׂרָה וְרוֹחַב אַרְבָּעָה — מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. אֲפִילּוּ מָלֵא קַשׁ אוֹ תֶּבֶן. מָלֵא עָפָר אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת — מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a ditch between** two **courtyards** that is **ten** handbreadths **deep and four** handbreadths **wide,** it is considered a full-fledged partition, and the residents of the courtyard **establish two *eiruvin*,** one for each courtyard, **but they** may **not establish one *eiruv*. Even** if the ditch is **filled** with **straw or hay,** it is not regarded as sealed and is therefore not nullified. However, if the ditch is **filled with dirt or pebbles,** the residents **establish one *eiruv*, but they** may **not establish two *eiruvin*,** as the ditch is nullified and considered nonexistent.


###### Eruvin 78b:15
[Eruvin 78b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:15)

נָתַן עָלָיו נֶסֶר שֶׁרָחָב אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים, וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי גְזוּזְטְרָאוֹת זוֹ כְּנֶגֶד זוֹ — מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, וְאִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן — מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one placed a board four handbreadths wide across** the ditch so that he could cross it, **and similarly,** if **two balconies [*gezuztraot*]** in two different courtyards are **opposite one another,** and one placed a board four handbreadths wide between them, the residents of the courtyards or balconies **establish two *eiruvin*, and if they desire, they** may **establish one,** as the board serves as an opening and a passageway between them. If the width of the plank is **less than** four handbreadths, the residents **establish two *eiruvin*, but they** may **not establish one *eiruv*.**


###### Eruvin 78b:16
[Eruvin 78b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:16)

**גְּמָ׳** וְתֶבֶן לָא חָיֵיץ? וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: מַתְבֵּן שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara wonders: Does **hay not** constitute **a** proper **filling** to seal the ditch? **Didn’t we learn** in the following mishna: With regard to **a haystack ten handbreadths high** that stands **between two courtyards,** the residents of the two courtyards **establish two *eiruvin*, but they** may **not establish one *eiruv*.** This indicates that hay can create a valid partition.


###### Eruvin 78b:17
[Eruvin 78b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:17)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְעִנְיַן מְחִיצָה — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּהָוְיָא מְחִיצָה, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן חֲצִיצָה, אִי בַּטְּלֵיהּ — חָיֵיץ, וְאִי לָא בַּטְּלֵיהּ — לָא חָיֵיץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** that the matter should be understood as follows: **With regard to a partition, everyone agrees that** hay **is a partition** and that it divides between the courtyards as long as it is placed there. **But with regard to filling** the ditch so that it is considered sealed, one must distinguish between two cases: **If one** explicitly **nullified** the hay and decided to leave it there, **it fills** and seals the ditch; **however, if he did not nullify it** but intends to remove the hay from the ditch, **it does not fill** it, and the ditch is not considered sealed.


###### Eruvin 78b:18
[Eruvin 78b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:18)

מָלֵא עָפָר. וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּסְתָמָא? וְהָתְנַן: בַּיִת שֶׁמִּילְּאָהוּ תֶּבֶן אוֹ צְרוֹרוֹת וּבִיטְּלוֹ — בָּטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is written in the mishna: If the ditch is **filled with dirt** or pebbles, it is considered sealed. The Gemara asks: Does this apply **even if one did not specify** his intention to leave it there? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna with regard to the ritual impurity of a corpse: If there is **a house that one filled with hay or pebbles, and he nullified** the hay or pebbles and decided to leave them in the house, then the house (Rambam) **is nullified** and is no longer considered a house with partitions? Generally, a house containing a corpse is ritually impure on the inside but does not impart impurity to the surrounding area. However, in this case, the house is considered an enclosed grave that imparts ritual impurity to its surroundings.


###### Eruvin 78b:19
[Eruvin 78b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/78b:19)

בִּיטְּלוֹ — אִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And one can infer from the mishna: **If he nullified** the hay or pebbles, **yes,** the house is nullified and considered sealed.