Yerushalmi Eruvin 1:6 ירושלמי עירובין א׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: The laths¹⁵The plural indicates that the statement is valid also in R. Eliezer’s opinion. about which they spoke, their height ten hand-breadths, their width and thickness arbitrarily small; Rebbi Yose said, their width three hand-breadths.

HALAKHAH: “The laths¹⁵The plural indicates that the statement is valid also in R. Eliezer’s opinion. about which they spoke,” etc. The Mishnah if they were distant from the wall. But if they were leaning against the wall even Rebbi Yose will agree²⁰⁷A lath plastered on the wall may be narrower than 3 hand-breadths.. And it was stated thus: If one made laths for an alley, if they are less than three [hand-breadths] from the ground or they were within three [hand-breadths] from the wall, it is permitted. Three only if what is standing be more than the empty space²⁰⁸In the tradition of the Babli 14b a space of full 3 hand-breadths never is negligible..

Building stones which protrude from the building, if between one and the other is less than three hand-breadths they are considered as laths²⁰⁹Babli 15a, Tosephta 1:9.. Corners sticking out at each side are considered as laths²¹⁰The entrance to the alley is slightly narrower than the alley itself because on both sides the walls of the alley end in convex corners. This is enough of a hint of a door frame.. A wall which is indented and looks like a plank from inside but even on the outside or looks like a plank from outside but even on the inside is considered as laths²¹¹Babli 15a, Tosephta 1:10; the thin wall is considered as door frame.. If it was prolonged, Abba bar Rav Huna said, one looks at it as if indented²¹²A small continuation of a wall of the alley is built into the street into which the alley opens. The extension represents a door frame.. Rav Ḥisdai objected, did we not state²¹³Mishnah 9:2. The breach happened on the Sabbath. The large courtyard may continue to be used to move things since the breach acts like a door and is not open into public domain. The small yard cannot be used since the breach turns it into an appendix of the large one and its dwellers did not contribute to the eruv of the large one., “if a large courtyard collapsed into a small one, the large one is permitted but the small one forbidden.” Should not the walls of the large one be like laths for the walls of the small one and the small one be permitted? Abba bar Rav Huna told him, explain it if they were extended more than ten²¹⁴It is clear that the breach can be at most 10 cubits wide since it is considered a door. If only one cubit of the wall is left standing, 3 hand-breadths on each side, they should be considered as laths for the small one and its eruv should continue to be valid. If more of the wall is standing the total sum of the standing wall has to be more than 10 cubits.. Rebbi Ashian stated before Rebbi Aḥa, if the large one is eleven but the small one ten. The baraita was searched for but not found.

²¹⁵Here starts a Genizah fragment edited by Ginzberg, p. 93 (G). The title in brackets is added from G.[Rebbi] Aḥa told him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One does not use as support any Mishnah which is not accepted by a group²¹⁶The explanation of R. Ashian is without foundation.. Rebbi Yose said, it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on each side¹²⁹The practical difference between a lath לחי and a plank פס is that a lath has a minimal length but no minimal width or thickness whereas the plank has minimal length and width (4 hand-breadths) but no minimal thickness (cf. Tosephot 12a, s. v. בפסי). On both ends of the breach one has to put up planks as a minimal indication of a door.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, even you have to say that it follows him who said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks on condition that there be a plank of four hand-breadths on either side. (Rav) [Rebbi Mar]²¹⁷The text in parentheses is the Leiden ms.’s, the one in brackets from G. Uqba in the name of the rabbis there: They are considered only for the large one but are not considered for the small one²¹⁸The Babylonian rabbis essentially accept R. Ashian’s objection that the smaller courtyard also be permitted but explain that the Mishnah refers to a special configuration where the walls of the large courtyard could not be used for the smaller one. Babli 9b..

If a wall on one side is extended and on the other side is shortened. Cahana said, he puts the beam obliquely and uses it obliquely²¹⁹If the walls bordering on the alley do not end at equal distances from the road, one may use a beam going from the end of the wall at one side to the end of the wall at the other. Greek λοξός,-ή, -όν “oblique”.. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Cahana: he puts the beam in the diagonal and uses in the diagonal, but only on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten? (From) Rebbi Yose [said]²²⁰The text of the Leiden ms. in parentheses, of G in brackets., Rav Eudaimon the emigrant confirmed it, on condition that the beam not be extended more than ten²²¹Since the beam represents the entrance door and no door may be more than 10 cubits wide, the restriction also applies to the oblique beam. It needed the inquiry of an emigrant to Babylonia to ascertain the tradition of the Babylonian Cahana.. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits]²²²May the longer wall extend more than 4 cubits over the shorter one, or do more than 4 cubits at one side define a domain different from the alley?? [Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Aḥa²²³If one does not read the additions from G, the preceding question was declarative, not a question, and in the end only the first question of R. Aḥa was obvious for R. Yose. If one reads the additions, the name tradition here is thoroughly garbled since R. Aḥa, a contemporary of R. Yose, cannot have been the source of the earlier R. Ila. In addition, at the end it is asserted that what was problematic for R. Aḥa was obvious for R. Yose and vice-versa. Therefore in the previous sentence one has to replace “Aḥa” by “Yose”, and read here “R. Aḥa, R. Ila” as recognized by S. Liebermann. in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: On condition that the wall not be extended more than four [cubits].] You conclude to say, what was problematic for the one was obvious for the other [and what was problematic for the other was obvious for the one].

²²⁴The meaning of this is totally unknown. Similar language is used in Chapter 8, on Mishnah 3 (25a l.36). Rebbi Ulla said, the Mishnah is from three to four [hand-breadths]. Less than three even more than ten [cubits] is permitted, four even less than ten [cubits] is prohibited. Where do we hold? From three to four.