MISHNAH: If a window between two courtyards is four-by-four [hand-breadths] within ten [hand-breadths], one makes two eruvin but if they wish they make one eruv¹. If less than four-by-four [hand-breadths] or higher than ten [hand-breadths], one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv².

footnotes: ¹ The window is simply a rectangular opening in the wall between two courtyards, not closed with glass or anything else. If the opening is at least 4 hand-breadths wide and 4 high it is usable as a door. If the lower rim of the hole is no more than 10 hand-breadths from the ground, the wall at that place is not considered an obstacle. The status of the two courtyards is as if they were connected by a real door; it is up to the dwellers in the courtyards to decide whether to treat them as one or two. ² A wall 10 hand-breadths high is a partition which separates the courtyards completely. In addition, an opening less than 4-by-4 in size is difficult to use; it cannot substitute for a door.

HALAKHAH: “If a window between two courtyards,” etc. Lattice work²² are required. diminishes it for the laws of Sabbath, but it does not diminish for the laws of presumed possession²³ 3:8.. Straw and provender do not diminish in it; pebbles and provender do diminish in it²⁴. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if grasses grew in it, they do not diminish it.

footnotes: ²² If the window was closed by vertical and horizontal bars it cannot be used as door and two separate eruvin ²³ A person may prove ownership by a claim of lawful acquisition combined with proof of undisturbed possession during three years; for the laws of real estate properties connected by a window with bars may still be counted as one; Mishnah Bava batra ²⁴ Anything which is disregarded for the rules of ditches (Mishnah 3) is disregarded for windows.

They asked before Rebbi Abba: Concerning what you are saying about a window between two courtyards, is it the same for a window between two houses? He told them, yes. Is it the same for a window between two roofs? He told them, yes. May one make an eruv across skylights²⁵? Rebbi Abba Mari said, it is a disagreement between Rav and Samuel, as we have stated there: “All roofs of a city are one domain.²⁶” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah; Rav said, one may move inside them even a kor, even two kor²⁷ would be ineffective; the roof cannot be part of the eruv domain of the house. But for Rav one is permitted to carry on connected roofs without limitations (even if the total area be larger than 2 bet kor, 60 bet se’ah); the eruv may be extended to the roof. The Babli has a very different tradition, 89a–90b..

footnotes: ²⁵ Between the living quarters and the flat roof. ²⁶ Mishnah 9:1. ²⁷ The Mishnah does not spell out what kind of domain is formed by the roofs. For Samuel, roofs are places which are not fenced in for dwellings; they follow the rule of corrals where carrying is only allowed if the surface area is at most 5’000 square cubits. If the total area of the roofs is larger, an eruv

Not only that the entire four-by-four [hand-breadths] must be within ten [hand-breadths] but even if part of four-by-four [hand-breadths] are within ten [hand-breadths]it is as if all four-by-four [hand-breadths] were within ten [hand-breadths]²⁸. If the circumference was 96 hand-breadths, if only the most minute amount was within ten [hand-breadths] it is as if all of four-by-four [hand-breadths] were within ten [hand-breadths]²⁹, each side is 24 hand-breadths, so that the total circumference is 96 hand-breadths. As S. Liebermann points out, the Yerushalmi implies that a window 4-by-4 hand-breadths must start visibly lower (“part of it”) than 10 hand-breadths from the ground but if it is 4-by-4 cubits the most minute amount, not visible by the naked eye, is sufficient.. If it was round of circumference 90, etc³⁰.

footnotes: ²⁸ Babli 76a. ²⁹ If the window is square, 4-by-4 cubits ³⁰ This sentence is a corrector’s addition to the ms. and probably should be deleted. A circular hole is a qualifying window if it contains an inscribed square of side lengths 4. A circumference has to be about 11% larger than 16 hand-breadths to qualify as a 4 hand-breadth window or 96 hand-breadths for the 4 cubits rule.

May one reduce using utensils³¹? As the Babli 77a points out the problem is that utensils may be moved on the Sabbath and therefore are disqualified as building materials.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, one may reduce using utensils. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Ṭevlai: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may not use utensils. There³², they said, it is a disagreement between the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. One said, it is forbidden; but one said, it is permitted. He who said that it is forbidden, maybe he would forget and move it³³; this may easily be overlooked.. Rebbi Joḥanan bar³⁴ Marius instructed to cover it with a heap of sand³⁵.

footnotes: ³¹ If the window in the wall is more than 10 hand-breadths from the ground, may one use utensils on the ground below the window to reduce the distance so that it would be permissible to make a common eruv ³² In Babylonia. ³³ As noted before, utensils may be moved but utensils used as part of the building become muqṣeh ³⁴ This is the scribe’s text, erroneously changed by the corrector into כד. ³⁵ Arabic كوفة.

It was stated³⁶: “One may use anything to reduce, stones, bricks, a Tyrian or an Egyptian ladder if it was fastened³⁷ 77a, col. 470) prefers to read in the text that only Egyptian ladders must be permanently fixed to the wall..” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even if it was not fastened. But was it not stated “if it was fastened”? Rebbi Abba said, if it was dedicated for this purpose³⁸. Rebbi La instructed following this Tanna, only if it was fastened. Both Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, one in the name of Mar Uqban, and one in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: It is necessary that between two steps³⁹ there be less than three [hand-breadths] and each be four hand-breadths wide; the posts complement the four⁴⁰. Yasa said, a block in which he carved steps reduces⁴¹.. In any case, the posts do not complement ten; it is like a high step⁴²; only the steps count and the uppermost step must be within ten hand-breadths of the lower rim of the window. A block of wood with carved steps is not under the 3 hand-breadths rule since the block itself is a high step.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: It must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as separate place. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: The step which reduces from ten must be stretched four hand-breadths from the wall as a separate place⁴³. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked: ⁴⁴ If one brought a board of seven hand-breadths and raised it less than three from the ground, is it permitted? There you are saying, everything less than three [handbreadths] is considered closed, and here you should be saying, everything less than four [handbreadths] is considered closed. If you want to object, object to the following: If one brought a wall of slightly more than four hand-breadths and raised it less than two hand-breadths from the ground, should it come following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and empty space combine for four hand-breadths, on condition that what is standing be more than the empty space?

footnotes: ³⁶ Tosephta 7:10. “Anything” seems to mean any building material. ³⁷ A Tyrian ladder is very heavy and not intended to being moved. Therefore the use of such a ladder to facilitate crossing from one courtyard to the other is unproblematic. But an Egyptian ladder is light and built to being moved; its use presents all problems connected with the use of utensils. Egyptian ladders are not mentioned in the Tosephta. Rashba (ad ³⁸ An Egyptian ladder is acceptable even unfastened if it is intended to be a permanent fixture at the wall. ³⁹ Of any ladder used to climb up to the window. ⁴⁰ The total width of the ladder, posts and steps, must be 4 hand-breadths. ⁴¹ A big stone or a block of wood into which steps are carved is an acceptable ladder for the rules of eruv ⁴² These are two different statements. The length of the posts of a ladder is irrelevant for the rules of eruv ⁴³ The statement of R. Ḥizqiah explains of the one of R. Yasa. Only the step which is counted as being less than 10 hand-breadths from the window must be a domain in its own right. ⁴⁴ This is from Chapter 1, Notes 253–255. In Mishnah 1:9 ropes represent a wall if they are less than 3 hand-breadths apart but in Mishnah 7:1 a hole is an opening only if it is at least 4 wide and high.

MISHNAH: If a wall between two courtyards is ten [hand-breadths] high and four wide, one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv². If produce was lying on top of it, both partiess may climb up and eat them; only they may not take them down³ of either side. In this case the food may not be taken down.. If a wall was torn down up to ten cubits, one makes two eruvin but if they wish they make one eruv. More than this, one makes one eruv but may not make two⁴.

footnotes: ² A wall 10 hand-breadths high is a partition which separates the courtyards completely. In addition, an opening less than 4-by-4 in size is difficult to use; it cannot substitute for a door. ³ If on the top of the wall there is any food, it may be taken from either side on the Sabbath if it is accessible by ladders before the start of the Sabbath. If the top of the wall is 4 hand-breadths wide it defines a domain by itself which cannot be included in the eruv ⁴ As mentioned in Note 1, any wall not higher than 10 hand-breadths may be (but need not be) disregarded.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. ⁴⁵“If a wall between two courtyards,” etc. Why does it have to be four [hand-breadths] wide? Even if it is not four [hand-breadths] wide? Because of what is stated later: “both sides may climb up and eat them.³ of either side. In this case the food may not be taken down.” If it is not four [hand-breadths] wide, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: it is forbidden for both sides. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: it is permitted for both sides. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted⁴⁶. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable⁴⁷. And here, he says so⁴⁸? There one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles. Here, what do you have? You should know this since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange⁴⁹ Chapter 1 Note 170, Babli Šabbat 8b, 99b.. Rebbi Joḥanan⁵⁰ emends to “R. Ḥanan”. asked. The argument of Rebbi Abba seems inverted. There Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If he threw it and it came to rest on top of a partition he is liable. And here, he says so? You are saying there, one considers it as if filled with dust and pebbles; here it is the same.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Mishnah 2. ³ If on the top of the wall there is any food, it may be taken from either side on the Sabbath if it is accessible by ladders before the start of the Sabbath. If the top of the wall is 4 hand-breadths wide it defines a domain by itself which cannot be included in the eruv ⁴⁶ Since there seems to be no reason to forbid taking the food in this case. ⁴⁷ If somebody stands in the public domain and throws something for more than 4 cubits and it come to rest on the narrow top of a fence of a private domain it is considered as coming to rest inside the private domain; the thrower is liable for a biblical Sabbath violation. ⁴⁸ Since he forbids access to the top of a narrow wall between private domains he must hold that this is a separate domain; then there is no difference whether the wall be four hand-breadths wide or not, against the statement of the Mishnah.The answer is that if one considers the private domain as filled up with dust or pebbles to the height of the fence, the top of the fence clearly belongs to the private domain. But here one is speaking of a wall between two private domains where the argument is inappropriate. ⁴⁹ Šabbat ⁵⁰ For reasons of chronology it is difficult to accept the reading “R. Joḥanan”. Pene Moshe

We heard about partitions in a private domain, we heard about partitions in a public domain⁵¹. ⁵² (Babli 60a). Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If a wall is surrounded by ladders on both sides, one makes two eruvin and may not make one eruv. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, since they are not at the same place, are they like doors?

footnotes: ⁵¹ The statement about partitions in private domains is Mishnah 2, about public domains is the one of Rav Jehudah quoted in the preceding paragraph. ⁵² Cf. Chapter 6 Note 178. Here one is forced to read אֵין. It is clear from the earlier discussion (Note 37) that two connecting ladders on a wall permit but do not require making a single eruv

It was stated: The raising of a ramp is one cubit when he progresses three except for the ramp of the altar which collects ten hand-breadths for three and one third fingers, since the altar was ten cubits [high] and its ramp thirty-two⁵³ 63a. The standard for building ramps was height: base = 1:3 except the altar where it was 10:32. The sentence “which collects ten hand-breadths for three and one third fingers” is corrupt. In Arukh, s. v. כבש the reading is וְכָל־תֵּל הַמִּתְלַקֵּט עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים מִתּוֹךְ חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת הוּא שְׁלִישׁ “any hill which rises 10 hand-breadths for 5 cubits (30 hand-breadths) is one third.”.

footnotes: ⁵³ Cf. Babli Zevaḥim

If one made a bench along the entire wall which is four hand-breadths wide one makes two eruvin and may not make one; with four cubits one makes one eruv and may not make two⁵⁴. The new statement of the baraita is that if the step was easy to use, being 4 cubits wide, the wall less than 10 hand-breadths high becomes a permanently open door and one eruv is mandatory..

footnotes: ⁵⁴ One might conjecture that for “and may not make one” one should read “and if they wish they may make one” since if the wall was not higher than 10 hand-breadths over the step which is 4 wide the Mishnah allows making one eruv

That is if it is large but if it is small by most of it. What is large and what is small? Any where most of it is at least ten, by ten; therefore less than ten by most of it. That is meant in the middle, but not from the side. What is on the side and what is in the middle? If what is standing is four [hand-breadths] it is in the middle, otherwise it is on the side⁵⁵. If the entire wall is only 11 cubits and 10 are missing there is no wall and it should be impossible to make 2 eruvin. Therefore the statement of the Mishnah may apply directly only to walls more than 20 cubits long..

footnotes: ⁵⁵ This is a direct commentary on the last statement of Mishnah 2 that if the wall is torn down up to 10 cubits one may make one eruv

MISHNAH: If a ditch between two courtyards is ten [hand-breadths] deep and four wide, one makes two eruvin but cannot make one eruv even if it is full of straw or provender. If it is full of dust or pebbles, one makes one eruv but cannot make two eruvin⁵.

footnotes: ⁵ A ditch 10 hand-breadths deep and 4 wide from wall to wall is treated as if it were a wall more than 10 hand-breadths high. If the ditch is used for storage but contents will be removed and used in the foreseeable future, it remains a separation for the rules of the Sabbath. But if it is filled with material which probably will not be removed, it does not divide from the moment that the actual ditch is no longer 10 hand-breadths deep.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. ⁵⁶ 9:2 Notes 79–87, Pesaḥim 7:7 34d l. 27. Therefore straw to be disregarded cannot be disregarded. Does the Mishnah not follow Rebbi Yose, since Rebbi Yose said, straw said to be disregarded is disregarded⁵⁷ 15:1,5,6). It is implied in Tosephta Ahilut 15:5 that R. Yose restricts “squeezed impurity” to material permanently deposited; but a storage of straw which is to be removed in the future is not counted as filler.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is everybody’s opinion. What Rebbi Yose said, if he mixed it with dust⁵⁸. “There is straw which is treated like dust and dust which is treated like straw. Straw not to be removed is like dust; dust to be removed is like straw.⁵⁹ 15:5; quoted in Eruvin 79a. “Straw” stands here for “material to be removed,” “dust” for “permanent filling.”” In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said: If he covered it with mats it is disregarded. Come and see: If he filled it with mats it is not disregarded⁶⁰, if he covered it with mats it is disregarded⁶¹. Šabbat 100a.. If he filled it with branches of date palms it is problematic⁶². Rebbi Zeriqan, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Even thin sheets⁶³ text, reading רַק. Neither the text here רוֹק “spittle” nor the one in Nazir רֵיק “emptiness” are appropriate..

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Commentary on Mishnah 3. The text is taken from a discussion of the impurity of the dead, Nazir ⁵⁷ This refers to the rules of the tent-impurity caused by a corpse. A “tent” is any covered space in which there is at least one hand-breadth of space between the corpse and the roof. If the space is enclosed, the impurity is restricted to the “tent”; anything above the ceiling and below the floor of the “tent” is pure. But if the entire space between floor and ceiling is filled with matter, there is no tent and the impurity extends indefinitely above and below the tent space. This is known as “squeezed impurity” (Mishnah Ahilut ⁵⁸ Not really “mixed with”, but “treated like,” as formulated in the Tosephta. ⁵⁹ Statement of R. Yose in Tosephta Ahilut ⁶⁰ Since the filling can easily be removed, the ditch still separates. ⁶¹ If a ditch is filled with any material, even straw, but this is covered with mats to create a floor from one side to the other, the courtyards become one and require one eruv ⁶² No ruling is available in this case. ⁶³ This translation is tentative; it follows the Pesaḥim

MISHNAH: If one put a plank of any kind over it⁶ are required. which is four [hand-breadths] wide, or two balconies⁷ 11:2, Note 3. The roadway between the two balconies represents a ditch. The statements of Note 6 apply here also. one opposite the other, one makes two eruvin but if they wish they make one eruv. Less than this, one makes two eruvin but cannot make one eruv.

footnotes: ⁶ Over the ditch. While there are no requirements for the thickness of the plank it must be strong enough to carry a person. If the plank is less than 4 hand-breadths wide, people are afraid to use it and therefore it cannot be counted as a connection between the two sides and two separate eruvin ⁷ Cf. Šabbat

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁶⁴. Some state “one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv.” Some state, “one makes one eruv and cannot make two eruvin.” For him who says “one makes two eruvin and cannot make one eruv”, “less than this” refers to the plank. For him who says, “one makes one eruv and cannot make two eruvin,” “less than this” refers to the space⁶⁵.

footnotes: ⁶⁴ This refers to Mishnah 4. ⁶⁵ If the ditch is not 10 hand-breadths deep or the balconies not 10 hand-breadths above the ground.

MISHNAH: If a straw-heap between two courtyards is ten [hand-breadths] high, one makes two eruvin but cannot make one eruv. Each feeds from his side. If the straw became less than ten [hand-breadths] high, one makes one eruv but cannot make two eruvin⁸. But if the temporary wall is no more than 10 hand-breadths high it must be disregarded and one eruv is obligatory..

footnotes: ⁸ It is assumed that the straw heap fills the entire space between the two courtyards from wall to wall. Then the straw acts as a temporary wall. If at the start of the Sabbath one cannot move from one side to the other one must make two eruvin

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Eleazar said, so is the Mishnah⁶⁶: “Each fills his pail and feeds from his side.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, when we were sitting before Menaḥem we used to say, lest you say that he is not like one taking down tents but one who supports tents, for if the straw was flattened he supports it by his pail⁶⁷, should taking straw from it not be classified as tearing down a wall, prohibited on the Sabbath? Even taking straw to smoothe the surface of the heap might be construed as prohibited activity. Therefore the statement of R. Eleazar is required; changing the shape of a straw heap is not a building activity since, as noted in the sequel, these are only temporary changes whereas building leaves long term results.. Rav Hoshaia asked: What if he used a sheet and supported it by a chair? It is meant here temporarily, but it is meant there for permanence.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ Mishnah 5. One should not read the Mishnah as requiring that the cattle be brought to feed from the straw; the straw may be taken in containers and carried to the animal barn. Rejected by the Babli 79a. ⁶⁷ Since the heap of straw acts as a wall between the courtyards, forcing two eruvin

It was stated:⁶⁸ “A straw heap between two courtyards. Each one opens his door and feeds. If the straw was less than ten hand-breadths, both are forbidden until they make an eruv. Therefore if one of them wants to block his door and cede his rights, he is forbidden but his neighbor is permitted.” (And so it is with a cistern) [A ditch]⁶⁹ between two courtyards. This implies that one may not cede from courtyard to courtyard⁷⁰. This implies, even if they did not make an eruv. ⁷¹ This implies, even if they did not intend to. This implies that two domains may not use one domain. This implies, if each of them uses his door, both are forbidden. And so it is with a house between two courtyards, not following Rebbi Meïr, who said that a locked house is forbidden⁷².

footnotes: ⁶⁸ Tosephta 6:17. ⁶⁹ The text in parentheses was originally written by the scribe; he himself then deleted it and replaced it by the text in brackets which makes the sentence a meaningless quote from Mishnah 3. The original statement seems to be that from a cistern between two houses, where in general one may not draw water on the Sabbath (Mishnah 8:7), if one of the owners locks his door and cedes his rights, the other party may use the cistern without problems. ⁷⁰ Since cession alone is not enough without locking the door. ⁷¹ Chapter 6, Notes 161,162. ⁷² Mishnah 8:5.

MISHNAH: How may one participate⁹ in an alley? One puts down an amphora and says, this shall be for all dwellers in the alley, and transfers rights through his adult son or daughter or his male or female Hebrew slave¹⁰ 1:2. or through his wife¹¹. But he cannot transfer rights through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite¹² 1:3. These and minor children have no independent legal standing and no property separate from that of their owner or father; therefore giving to them is like giving to oneself, without legal consequences. male or female slave because their hand is like his own.

footnotes: ⁹ How may one person arrange participation of all dwellers in an alley? This does not exclude that everyone may contribute his own share of food. ¹⁰ The institution of Hebrew slavery disappeared at the end of the First Commonwealth; cf. Qiddušin ¹¹ All these are legally persons in their own right; they may accept gifts from the owner in behalf of others. ¹² All slaves that could be held during the Second Commonwealth and later, cf. Qiddušin

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁷³. It was stated: He cannot transfer rights to the amphora which he has in the cellar⁷⁴. Rav Hoshaia said, lest he forget and drink from it.

footnotes: ⁷³ Referring to Mishnah 7:6. ⁷⁴ The amphora has to be kept separated lest it be accidentally used on weekdays. Babli 68a.

Where do we hold⁷⁵`aser Šeni 4:4, Notes 80–97. The problem is that the Mishnah enables a Hebrew slave girl to act as an agent. But a Hebrew woman can only be sold into slavery by her father (Ex. 21:7–11) while she is in his power and only for as long as she would be in his power. This means that when she is legally an adult she either is the wife of the man who bought her or she is a free woman. The inclusion of the female Hebrew slave seems to be inappropriate since the Mishnah explicitly excludes the owner’s own minor children.? If she is an adult, she becomes free by the signs [of puberty]. If she is underage, may an underage person transfer rights? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it following him who said that a minor may give heave⁷⁶ 1:1 Notes 56–59.. He answered him, but even according to him who says that a minor cannot give heave, the minor can acquire rights. ⁷⁷ 5:9 Notes 234–238. This is acceptable following the opinion of the rabbis there. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what one finds in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what one robs from him is robbery because of the ways of peace; a nut or a pebble and he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift, since it is written⁷⁸. 22:6., if a man give, a man’s gift is a gift, the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa]⁷⁹ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Robbing from him is never clear robbery⁸⁰ unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That which you say is to make one pay by a law suit; but to have to bring a sacrifice for a [false] oath everybody agrees only after he grew two pubic hairs⁸¹. But following to the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written⁷⁸. 22:6. to his neighbor, only if he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They came to it by the rules of school children as we have stated⁸² 5:9.: “School children’s buying is buying and their selling is selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “But he cannot transfer rights through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite¹² 1:3. These and minor children have no independent legal standing and no property separate from that of their owner or father; therefore giving to them is like giving to oneself, without legal consequences. male or female slave because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge⁸³, there a minor without knowledge.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ From here to the end of the discussion of Mishnah 6 the text is from Ma ⁷⁶ The status of a minor in matters of heave and tithes is a matter of dispute, Terumot ⁷⁷ The remainder of this paragraph also is in Giṭtin ⁷⁸ Ex ⁷⁹ Added from the parallels; missing here but necessary. ⁸⁰ Robbing a minor may be prosecutable under police law, not under biblical criminal law. ⁸¹ A minor might be able to bring a suit to recover what was taken from him but since he is not subject to criminal law in case of perjury he may not atone by a sacrifice. ⁷⁸ Ex ⁸² Mishnah Giṭtin ¹² All slaves that could be held during the Second Commonwealth and later, cf. Qiddušin ⁸³ A minor whose vows may be valid.

⁸⁴ 1:3, Notes 383–390. There, we have stated⁸⁵ 8:4. The borrower of livestock is responsible if the animal is injured or dies while in his custody (*Ex*. 22:13). The responsibility of the borrower starts the moment he takes control of the animal. As long as the animal is driven by the owner’s slave, it is in the owner’s hand and the borrower is not responsible. But (as stated in the part of the Mishnah not quoted here) if the borrower said, send it to me through your slave, and something happens on the way, the borrower is responsible.: “If somebody borrows a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his son, his slave, or his agent, in case it died he is not liable.” Does this not say that a slave is able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it about a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you can even explain it for a Canaanite slave, it he told him, open the gate for her and she will go by herself, as we have stated: If he led her, drew her, called her and she followed him, he is required to pay as a borrower. Rebbi Zeira understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated⁸⁶`aser šeni 4:7. The Babli Qiddušin 24a restricts the statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar to the case where the wife inherited Second Tithe. Since R. Meïr holds that Second Tithe is Heaven’s money, the Second Tithe does not become part of the estate. If the wife now redeems the tithe with household money, the money is the husband’s but the tithe is not; therefore, no additional fifth is due. The Babli rejects the conclusion of the Yerushalmi here.: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

footnotes: ⁸⁴ This paragraph also is in Qiddušin ⁸⁵ Mishnah Bava mesia ⁸⁶ Tosephta Ma

MISHNAH: If the food became less¹³ was lost by evaporation or because it was eaten by mice. he adds, transfers rights, but does not have to notify. If [dwellers] are added he adds, transfers rights, and has to notify¹⁴ or arranges the participation from his own money (Note 9) has to inform all dwellers benefiting from his act. Therefore he also has to inform the newcomers that they are included..

footnotes: ¹³ If part of the food of a valid eruv ¹⁴ This implies that the person who makes the eruv

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁸⁷. Why does he notify? By practice. Does this not imply that he does not transfers rights to the food proper⁸⁸. Therefore the case must be restricted to shrinkage by external causes and the first question also is moot.? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if rats dragged it away.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ Referring to Mishnah 7. Why does he have to notify in the second case but not in the first? Not by logical necessity but by rabbinic decree. ⁸⁸ If the food became less than the required quantity because he took from it, it would be theft if he did not retain full ownership of everything. But this contradicts the nature of eruv

MISHNAH: If a straw-heap between two courtyards is ten [hand-breadths] high, one makes two eruvin but cannot make one eruv. Each feeds from his side. If the straw became less than ten [hand-breadths] high, one makes one eruv but cannot make two eruvin⁸. But if the temporary wall is no more than 10 hand-breadths high it must be disregarded and one eruv is obligatory..

footnotes: ⁸ It is assumed that the straw heap fills the entire space between the two courtyards from wall to wall. Then the straw acts as a temporary wall. If at the start of the Sabbath one cannot move from one side to the other one must make two eruvin

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁸⁹. Rav said, many are seventeen, few are sixteen. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any if it were distributed there would be the volume of a dried fig for everybody are many, otherwise they are few⁹⁰. (Paragraph.⁹¹) They wanted to say that they do not disagree; what Rav said follows Rebbi Meïr, and he who follows Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa⁹² R. Meïr requires food for two weekday meals irrespective of numbers but R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa requires a loaf that can be bought for adupondius if 4 se’ah (24 qab) are a tetradrachma (4 denarii = 48 dupondii) (Qiddušin 1:1 Notes 100–107). Therefore his loaf has a volume of ½ qab or of 12 standard eggs which are 24 standard dried figs. Rebbi Simeon requires only ⅔ of this volume, 16 dried figs. Therefore one has to read “R. Simeon” instead of “R. Meïr” since the latter does not distinguish between the many and the few. In this interpretation “many” for R. Joḥanan are 25. The Babli disagrees, 80b..

footnotes: ⁸⁹ Referring to Mishnah 8. ⁹⁰ It is clear that the places of “many” and “few” have to be switched. ⁹¹ This note is misplaced; it should refer to discussion of Mishnah 9 but this is the next paragraph. ⁹² The basis of this discussion is Mishnah 8:2 where for a multi-party eruv teḥumim

What are remains of an eruv? Similar to what Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: A hyssop with which he sprinkled once is qualified; more that that are remains⁹³ 11:8).. And here it is the same.

footnotes: ⁹³ If a hyssop was qualified and used once to sprinkle water with ashes of the Red Cow it remains qualified even if some leaves fall off (Mishnah Parah

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When one starts an eruv. But remains of an eruv¹⁶ is used the correct amount is required. Once the eruv is valid, it remains so in future weeks as long as some of it is in existence. [are valid] in any quantity. They said to make eruv for courtyards only lest the children forget¹⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁶ The first week an eruv ¹⁷ The argument of R. Meïr in the preceding Chapter. Children may not be aware of participation in the alley and get the impression that carrying on the Sabbath is permitted everywhere.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁹⁴. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, why does one make eruv of courtyards? Because of peaceful relations. It happened that a woman was hostile to another and sent her her eruv through her son. She took him, embraced him, and kissed him. He went and told it before his mother. She said, obviously she loves me and I did not know it. As a consequence they made peace. That is what is written⁹⁵. 3:17. its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths peace.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ This paragraph is from Chapter 3, Notes 84–86. ⁹⁵ Prov

MISHNAH: Anything and participation except water and salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, an eruv is a loaf of bread. Even if a se’ah was baked but is sliced one may not use it for eruv; a loaf the size of an as¹⁸ which is complete may be used for eruv. A person may give an obolus¹⁹. to a grocer or a baker to acquire part in his eruv, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, his money did not acquire for him²⁰ 1:5) the person would have to tell the grocer to be his agent and deliver his part to a third person who then acquires it for him. The only thing he cannot do is give money to acquire part of the loaf which the baker will bake as eruv without any further action.. They agree for anybody else that his money does acquire for him, because one makes an eruv for a person only with his agreement. Rebbi Jehudah explained, when has this been said? For eruv of domains, but eruvin of courtyards one makes with or without his agreement since one may give benefits to a person in his absence but impose obligations on him only in his presence²¹ of domains loses the right to go in the opposite direction, such an eruv cannot be made for him without his agreement. But eruv of courtyards or participation in alleys gives him the right to carry there without imposing any obligations and therefore can be made without him being asked..

footnotes: ¹⁸ In Imperial Rome a small copper coin. ¹⁹ The smallest silver coin, ⅙ of a denar ²⁰ Since movables are not acquired until taken in possession (Mishnah Qiddušin ²¹ Since the person who makes an eruv

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁹⁶. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that money does not transfer title as word of the Torah. Then even if he comes to the grocer? There is a difference, maybe he would forget and sell it⁹⁷ with the grocer, in which case the taking possession by the grocer should transfer property as required, which seems to be excluded by the Sages’ opposition to R. Eliezer. The answer is that as a matter of biblical law this is permitted, only rabbinically it is prohibited since one is afraid that the grocer inadvertently might sell the loaf designated as eruv.. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena⁹⁸: My father did not say so but: “But the Sages say, his money did not acquire for him²⁰ 1:5) the person would have to tell the grocer to be his agent and deliver his part to a third person who then acquires it for him. The only thing he cannot do is give money to acquire part of the loaf which the baker will bake as eruv without any further action..” This implies that money does transfer title as word from the Torah⁹⁹ 47b, in the name of R. Joḥanan. Since the Mishnah states that in general money may be used to transfer title, this must be biblical law.. “They agree for anybody else that his money does acquire for him,” because the grocer will transfer title through a third person. “Because one makes an eruv for a person only with his agreement;” the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s¹⁰⁰ since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv, by participation. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa]⁷⁹ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Discussion of Mishnah 11. ⁹⁷ If money did transfer title by biblical standards, the Sages could not abolish a biblical law and decree that his money could not be effective. But then it should be possible to deposit the eruv ⁹⁸ He is R. Ḥanina, son of R. Abbahu (S. Liebermann.) ²⁰ Since movables are not acquired until taken in possession (Mishnah Qiddušin ⁹⁹ Babli 81b, Bava mesiˋa ¹⁰⁰ Chapter 6, Notes 99–102. ⁷⁹ Added from the parallels; missing here but necessary.

Rebbi Isaac Ḥaqula¹⁰¹ 80a, p. 313) reads: R. Jacob bar Idi. in the name of Rebbu Jehudah the Prince: One forcibly makes an eruv for a person¹⁰² they can appeal to the court to force the minority to participate.. It was stated thus¹⁰³ 11:18.: “The dwellers in an alley force one another to install lath or beam,” and it was stated: If they told him to make an eruv and he does not object¹⁰⁴ also for him without a problem. The question is whether R. Jehudah Nesia also allows to force a person who explicitly objects to making an eruv.. If he objects does one force him? Rebbi Yudan said, the baraita is Rebbi Meïr’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may explain it according to everybody if he is a Sadducee. But was it not stated¹⁰⁵: “If one forgot and did not make an eruv, whether in error or intentionally he forbids, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says intentionally he forbids, in error he does not forbid.” Intentionally he forbids; may one not make eruv for him forcibly? But it¹⁰⁶ for everybody without asking, why should anybody be forbidden? must be a fine. Then he should be forbidden but everybody else permitted. Since they could make an eruv and did not make it one fines him¹⁰⁷ and everybody else is forbidden since they did not make the eruv forcibly.. But does Rebbi Meïr not hold that one may make something in favor of another person without his knowledge, only one may not impose a disadvantage on him¹⁰⁸ 1:6.? Rebbi Meïr holds that this is not a favor; a person does not want that a neighbor may come to his house except on his invitation.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Meïri (ad ¹⁰² If the majority of the dwellers in a courtyard or alley decide to make an eruv ¹⁰³ Tosephta Bava meṣi`a ¹⁰⁴ In that case they can make the eruv ¹⁰⁵ Tosephta 5:15. ¹⁰⁶ Since the problem can be eliminated by making the eruv ¹⁰⁷ He is forbidden because he did not participate in the eruv ¹⁰⁸ A general principle, Mishnah 11 here and Giṭtin

Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: It happened that a woman made an eruv for her mother-in-law without her knowledge. The case came before Rebbi Ismael¹⁰⁹ who wanted to forbid. Rebbi Ḥiyya told him, I heard from your father that if you can be lenient in eruvin you should be lenient¹¹⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ R. Ismael ben R. Yose ben Ḥalaphta. ¹¹⁰ Babli 80a; there the roles are switched.