Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

August 19, 2020 | 讻状讟 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Eruvin 10

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Rebecca Schwarzmer In memory of Toby Schwarzmer, Toibe Gittel bat Moshe Tzvi Hirsch z鈥漧. Her love of Torah was evident in the way she lived her life, her career as an educator, her welcoming kiruv and her loving compassion. I was a granddaughter, not just by marriage, but in her heart. And by Onnie and Andy Schiffmiller in memory of Andy鈥檚 father, Tzvi ben Moshe Zeev and Frieda z鈥漧.

The gemara brings a question from a braita regarding the mishna about the small and large courtyards that put the measurements of each at 10 and 11 cubits. If that number was given, that would raise a question against the opinion that a post viewed from the outside but not the inside would work. The gemara explains why this would not work with that approach. In any case the gemara holds by that approach that it would work as a post even if not noticeable to the people inside the alley. In the mishna, it was stated that if the entrance to the alley is wider than 10, one needs to make the entrance smaller. Just as Rabbi Yehuda disagrees regarding the maximum height, does he disagree about this. If so, what is his limit? Can it be derived from laws about the barriers made around wells that are limited to 13 and a third? According to tanna kama, how does one fix a 20 cubit opening – is it enough to put up a beam in the center or is a proper a wall needed that juts into the alley by 4 cubits or goes along the opening of the alley to make the area smaller? Rav Yehuda gave an example of a 15 cubit space – one can add a wall of 3 and leave 2 cubits open at the end. This works because if the standing part is greater than the opening, we view it as if it were a solid wall. The gemara tries to make assumptions about how this principle would work if there were two beams together that covered a together greater amount of space than one opening – would that work? Can one assume it wouldn’t since Rav Yehuda didn’t bring that case? Several details regarding this principle are attempted to be derived from here but in the end are rejected. The gemara brings the case of a leather toilet cover regarding impurity as the hole is included in the measurement. Rav Dimi and Ravin debate the exact size of the solid sides and of the hole – do they debate in what cases two solid parts can override something empty as discussed above in the alley?

 

专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 砖谞讬 驻住讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讞爪专 谞讬转专转 讘驻住 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 驻住讬谉


The Gemara answers: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that in order to permit carrying in a courtyard that was breached, we require two upright boards, one on either side of the breach. As it was taught in a baraita: If a courtyard was breached and opens into the public domain, and the width of the breach does not exceed ten cubits, it becomes permitted to carry there, even with only one upright board remaining on one side of the breach. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is permitted only with two upright boards remaining, one on each side of the breach.


讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讚专讘讬谞讗 诇讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讟谞讛 讘注砖专 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


The Gemara rejects this entire explanation: What is this comparison? Granted, if you say that the legal status of a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall from the inside is not considered like that of a side post; and that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a side post or an upright board in a courtyard must be at least three handbreadths wide; and that the explanations of the mishna offered earlier by Rabbi Zeira and Ravina are not accepted; that is why there is significance to the fact that the small courtyard is ten cubits wide and the large one is eleven cubits wide. It is due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Since Rabbi Yosei holds that a side post must be three handbreadths wide, we require that the two upright boards together measure six handbreadths, i.e., one cubit, which is the minimal difference in size between the two courtyards.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讚专讘讬谞讗 讗讬转讗 讜专讘讬 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛 诇诪讛 诇讬


However, if you say that the legal status of a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall from the inside is considered like that of a side post; and that Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 and Ravina鈥檚 explanations are accepted as halakha; and that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold in accordance with the opinion Rabbi Yosei, why do I need to explain that the large courtyard measures eleven cubits?


诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诇诪砖专讬讬讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 拽讗转讬 讘注砖专 讜砖谞讬 讟驻讞讬诐 住讙讬讗 讜讗讬 诇诪讬住专讛 诇拽讟谞讛 拽讗转讬 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚诪驻诇讙讬 讟讜讘讗


Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: If the baraita is coming to permit one to carry in the large courtyard, then a width of ten cubits and two handbreadths suffices. These two handbreadths can be considered the upright boards that render the courtyard fit for one to carry within it. And if it is coming to teach a novel halakha according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and prohibit one to carry in the small courtyard, it should teach us a case where the walls of the two courtyards are much farther removed from each other, rather than a case where they are only one cubit apart. Therefore, the second explanation cannot be accepted.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rather, can we not conclude from the baraita that a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall from the inside is not considered to have the legal status of a side post? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转转讗


Rav Yosef said: I did not hear this halakha of Rabba bar Rav Huna from my teachers. Rav Yosef had become ill and forgotten his learning, which is why he could not recall the halakha that a side post that is visible from the outside is considered to have the legal status of a side post.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讚讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讞讬 讛诪讜砖讱 注诐 讚驻谞讜 砖诇 诪讘讜讬 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜诪砖转诪砖 注诐 讞讜讚讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讘讜讬 讜讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘讻讜诇讜


His student Abaye said to him: You yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to this that you told it to us. As Rami bar Abba said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a side post that extends along the wall of an alleyway and beyond, in which case it appears from the inside to be a continuation of the wall but due to its narrow width it is clearly visible as a side post from the outside, if that side post is less than four cubits long it is considered to have the legal status of a side post. And one may use the alleyway up to the inner edge of the side post. However, if the side post itself extends four cubits, the alleyway has no side post and it is considered to have the legal status of an alleyway, and it is prohibited to utilize the entire alleyway.


讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讗住讜专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讱 诪讘讜讬 讘讗专讘注 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬


And you said to us about this: Learn from this statement three halakhot with regard to eiruvin. Learn from it that in the area between the side posts it is prohibited to carry, as Rav Huna rules that one may use the alleyway only up to the inner edge of the side post. And learn from it that the minimal length of an alleyway is four cubits. And learn from it that a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall of the alleyway from the inside is considered to have the legal status of a side post.


讜讛诇讻转讗 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讜讛诇讻转讗


The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall from the inside is considered to have the legal status of a side post. The Gemara asks: It is possible that there is a conclusive refutation of this opinion, and it is also the halakha? This opinion was refuted earlier. Can the halakha then be decided in accordance with it?


讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛:


The Gemara answers: Yes, it can because Rabbi 岣yya taught a baraita in accordance with it. Although the deductive analysis of the statements of other tanna鈥檌m led to different conclusions, the halakha relies on Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 explicit statement.


讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讬诪注讟: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讗 讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讬诪注讟 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟 讜注讚 讻诪讛


The opening mishna states: If the entrance to an alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width. Abaye said that a Sage taught in the Tosefta: If the entrance to an alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not diminish it. The question arises: Until what width does Rabbi Yehuda still permit carrying in the alleyway?


住讘专 专讘 讗讞讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 注讚 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转


Initially, Rav A岣i thought to say before Rav Yosef: Up to thirteen and a third cubits. And he derived this figure through an a fortiori argument from upright boards surrounding a well. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that if one placed upright boards up to thirteen and a third cubits apart from one another, he may consider the partitioned area around the well as a private domain and therefore carry within it.


讜诪讛 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 砖讛转专转讛 讘讛谉 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讗 讛转专转讛 讘讛谉 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 讛转专转讛 讘讜 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转转讬专 讘讜 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖


Rav A岣i explains: Just as in the case of upright boards surrounding a well, where you permitted carrying, even though the boards form a partition where the breached segment is greater than the standing segment, you did not permit carrying within them if the gap between the boards is more than thirteen and a third cubits wide; in the case of an alleyway, where you did not permit carrying if the breached segment of its walls is greater than the standing segment, is it not right that you will not permit carrying within it if there is a gap more than thirteen and a third cubits wide?


讜讛讬讗 讛谞讜转谞转 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 砖讛转专转讛 讘讛谉 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讗 转转讬专 讘讛谉 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 讛转专转讛 讘讜 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 转转讬专 讘讜 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讜砖诇讬砖


But that reasoning provides support for a contrary conclusion as well. Just as in the case of upright boards surrounding a well, where you permitted carrying within them, even though the boards form a partition where the breached segment is greater than the standing segment, you will not extend the leniency and permit carrying within them, when the gap between the boards is more than thirteen and a third cubits; in an alleyway, where you were stringent and did not permit carrying when the breached segment is greater than the standing segment, in a case where most of the walls are standing, you will certainly permit carrying, even when the gap is more than thirteen and a third cubits.


讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 讚讗拽讬诇转 讘讛讜 讞讚 拽讜诇讗 讗拽讬诇 讘讛讜 拽讜诇讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪讘讜讬 讻诇诇 讻诇诇 诇讗


Alternatively, one may argue to the contrary. One should be more stringent in the case of an alleyway. In the case of upright boards surrounding a well, with regard to which you were lenient and issued one leniency, be lenient and issue another leniency and maintain that a gap of up to thirteen and a third cubits still be considered an entrance. However, in the case of an alleyway, you should not be lenient at all. Therefore, there is no way to determine Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion with regard to the width of an alleyway entrance.


转谞讬 诇讜讬 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 专讞讘 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 谞讜注抓 拽谞讛 讘讗诪爪注讬转讜 讜讚讬讜 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讛 诪砖谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讛 诪砖谞讛


Levi taught a baraita with regard to reducing the width of an alleyway in order to render it fit for one to carry within it. If an alleyway is twenty cubits wide, one may stick a reed in the center of its entrance and that is sufficient to create two separate alleyways, each ten cubits wide. He taught this baraita, and he said about it that the halakha is not in accordance with that teaching, as the insertion of a reed is not effective in reducing the width. Some say that Shmuel said in the name of Levi: The halakha is not in accordance with that teaching.


讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬


The Gemara asks: Rather, how should one act in order to render an alleyway of that sort fit for one to carry within it? Shmuel said in the name of Levi:


注讜砖讛 驻住 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讘诪砖讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪注诪讬讚讜 诇讗专讻讜 砖诇 诪讘讜讬


One prepares a board ten handbreadths high with a length of four cubits and stands it lengthwise down the middle of the alleyway, and thereby forms two small alleyways at the entrance to the alleyway, neither of which is more than ten cubits wide.


讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 专讞讘 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪专讞讬拽 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讜注讜砖讛 驻住 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转


Alternatively, one can act in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda said: If an alleyway is fifteen cubits wide, how does one reduce its width? He distances himself two cubits from one of the walls of the alleyway and prepares a board three cubits wide, thereby leaving an opening of only ten cubits.


讜讗诪讗讬 讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讬专讞讬拽 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜诪讞爪讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚


The Gemara asks: And why must one reduce the width in this manner? One could also prepare a board a cubit and a half wide, and distance himself two cubits, and then prepare another board a cubit and a half wide, leaving the alleyway with an opening of only ten cubits. Apparently, one may conclude from the fact that Rav Yehuda did not suggest this possibility that if the standing segment of a wall is greater than the breached segment only when one combines the standing segments from two directions, i.e., both sides of the breach, it is not considered as though the standing segment were greater.


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗转讬 讗讜讬专讗 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讗讜讬专讗 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛


The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I would say to you that ordinarily it is considered as standing even when one must combine the standing segments on the two sides of the breach. However, it is different here, as the air, i.e., the two cubit opening, of this one side of the far board and the air, i.e., the ten cubit opening, of this other side of the board come together and negate it. Therefore, in this case, the board that is farther from the wall cannot serve to close off the alleyway.


讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜讬专讞讬拽 讗诪讛 讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜讬专讞讬拽 讗诪讛 讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讜诪讚 讻驻专讜抓 讗住讜专


The Gemara suggests: And one could instead prepare a board one cubit wide and distance himself one cubit, and prepare another board of a cubit and distance himself one cubit, and prepare a third board of one cubit, thus ensuring that the open space is not greater than the standing segment on both sides. Apparently, since Rav Yehuda did not suggest this possibility, one may conclude from this that if the standing segment of a wall is equal to the breached segment, carrying in the alleyway is prohibited.


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讜转专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗转讗 讗讜讬专讗 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛


The Gemara rejects this assumption: Actually, I would say to you that ordinarily carrying is permitted in that case. But here it is different, since the air, the opening, on this side of the board and the air, the opening, on that side of the board come together and negate the effectiveness of the board.


讜讬专讞讬拽 讗诪讛 讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讬专讞讬拽 讗诪讛 讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜诪讞爪讛


The Gemara suggests: And one could distance himself one cubit from the wall, and prepare a board of a cubit and a half, and distance himself another cubit, and prepare another board of a cubit and a half. In this manner, one could diminish the width of the entrance of the alleyway to ten cubits.


讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛 专讘谞谉


The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; this would work equally as well. But the Sages did not burden him this much, requiring him to prepare two boards where one suffices.


讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 砖讘讬拽 驻讬转讞讗 专讘讛 讜注讬讬诇 讘驻讬转讞讗 讝讜讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪谞讬讞 驻转讞 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讻谞住 讘驻转讞 拽讟谉


The Gemara raises a new issue: But let us be concerned lest one abandon use of the larger entrance, which is ten cubits wide, and begin to enter the alleyway through the smaller entrance, which has a width of two cubits. This would negate the larger opening鈥檚 status as an entrance and render the alleyway unfit for one to carry within it, as it would no longer have an entrance with a side post. Rav Adda bar Mattana said: The presumption is that a person does not abandon a larger entrance and enter instead through a smaller entrance.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讚专讘讬 讗住讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And in what way is this different from the opinion of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, who maintain that in the case of an alleyway that is breached on its side wall close to its entrance, if the breach is large enough for one to enter through it, carrying in the alleyway is prohibited? There, too, such a breach should not be problematic, as a person does not abandon a larger entrance to enter through a smaller one.


讛转诐 拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讛讬诇讜讻讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讛讬诇讜讻讗


The Gemara answers: There, in the case of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, the smaller entrance reduces his walking distance. If one approaches the alleyway from the side, the smaller entrance provides a shortcut, and therefore one might enter through it as well. However, here, in the case of the two entrances one two cubits and one ten cubits, it does not reduce his walking distance, as both openings are situated at the front of the alleyway.


转谞谉 讛转诐 注讜专 讛注住诇讗 讜讞诇诇 砖诇讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讘讟驻讞


The Gemara returns to the issue of the standing segment that is greater than the breached segment. We learned in the Tosefta there, in tractate Kelim: The leather covering of a stool [asla] and its hole join together to complete a handbreadth with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a tent over a corpse. Any person, vessel, or food that is beneath a covering that is at least a handbreadth in size together with a portion of a corpse of at least an olive-bulk becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The baraita teaches that the leather covering of a stool and its hole combine to complete the measure of a handbreadth.


诪讗讬 注讜专 讛注住诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讻讬住讜讬 砖诇 讘讬转 讛讻住讗


The Gemara asks: What is the leather covering of a stool referred to in the Tosefta? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rav Yo岣nan said: The leather covering of a bathroom.


讜讻诪讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗爪讘注讬讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注讬讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注讬讬诐 专讬讜讞 讘讗诪爪注 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讗爪讘注 讜诪讞爪讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注 讜诪讞爪讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注 专讬讜讞 讘讗诪爪注


The Gemara asks: And how large can the hole be and still combine with the leather covering to complete the handbreadth? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Two fingers of leather from here, on one side, and two fingers of leather from here, on the other side, and a space of two fingers for the hole in the middle. However, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: A finger and a half of leather from here, and a finger and a half on the leather from here, and a space of a single finger for the hole in the middle.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讗 讘专讘专讘转讗 讛讗 讘讝讜讟专转讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬谉


Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Do the two of you, yourself and Ravin, disagree in principle? Rav Dimi said to him: No, rather this, Ravin鈥檚 statement, is referring to the large finger, i.e., the thumb, and this, my own statement, is referring to the small finger, the pinkie, and we do not disagree. Both were describing one handbreadth, which equals the width of four thumbs or six pinkies.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讬讬 驻诇讬讙讬转讜 讜讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 驻诇讬讙讬转讜 诇讚讬讚讱 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诇专讘讬谉 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚


Abaye said to him: This is not so [la鈥檈i]. You disagree, and you disagree with regard to the halakha in a case where the standing segment of a wall is greater than the breached segment only when one combines the standing segments from two directions, i.e., both sides of the breached segment. According to you, this wall is considered as standing, even when one must combine the standing segments from two directions. According to Ravin, if the standing segment on one side of the breach is greater, the wall is considered as standing; however, if the standing segment is greater only after combining the standing segments from the two directions, it is not considered as standing.


讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬转讜 诇专讘讬谉 讛讻讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讗爪讘注 讜砖诇讬砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注 讜砖诇讬砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注 讜砖诇讬砖 专讬讜讞 讘讗诪爪注


Abaye continues: For if it should enter your mind to say that you do not disagree, but simply refer to the same measures by different names, to express his opinion, Ravin should have said as follows: A finger and a third of leather from here, and a finger and a third of leather from here, and a space of a finger and a third for the hole in the middle. In this case, there would still be a handbreadth in total, but each side of leather alone would not be larger than the space in the middle. The fact that Ravin presented a case where the hole in the middle is smaller than the width of the leather on either side indicates that his dispute with Rav Dimi is a fundamental one.


讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬 讛讻讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗爪讘注 讜砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注 讜砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注讬讬诐 讜砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬诐 专讬讜讞 讘讗诪爪注


Rav Dimi responds: Rather, what do you wish to say, that we disagree? If so, to express the opinion attributed to me, I should have said as follows: A finger and two thirds of leather from here, and a finger and two thirds of leather from here, and a space of two fingers and two thirds in the middle. This would provide a more striking case where, despite the fact that the breach is much greater than the standing segments on either of its sides, the two standing segments combine together so that the standing segments are considered greater than the breached segment.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚驻诇讙讬谞谉 讘驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 驻诇讙讬谞谉:


Rather, if there is room to say that we disagree, our dispute relates to a different point, and we argue in the case where the breached segment is exactly equal to the standing segment on each side. According to Ravin, it is considered breached; while according to Rav Dimi, it is considered standing.


讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟: 讗砖讻讞谉 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讚诪讛谞讬讗 讘专讞讘讜 讜讗诪诇转专讗 讚诪讛谞讬讗 讘讙讘讛讜


The Gemara returns to the mishna: If the entrance to the alleyway has an opening in the form of a doorway, then, even if it is wider than ten cubits, one need not diminish its width. The Gemara comments: We find that an opening in the form of a doorway is effective to permit carrying in an alleyway with regard to its width, i.e., when its entrance is more than ten cubits wide, and that a cornice is effective with regard to its height, i.e., when it is more than twenty cubits high.


Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Eruvin 10-16

This week we will learn what the minimum and maximum dimensions of an alleyway and a courtyard are, understand the...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 10: Of Sideposts, Wide Alleyways, and a Toilet

A sidepost that is visible from the outside, as from within, and R. Yosef says he never heard that halakhah....
eruvin

Introduction to Eruvin – by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Melacha is HOTZA鈥橝H 讛讜爪讗讛: Transferring objects between private and public domain OR 4 amot in public domain.聽 Rabbis added decrees...

Eruvin 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 10

专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 砖谞讬 驻住讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讞爪专 谞讬转专转 讘驻住 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 驻住讬谉


The Gemara answers: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that in order to permit carrying in a courtyard that was breached, we require two upright boards, one on either side of the breach. As it was taught in a baraita: If a courtyard was breached and opens into the public domain, and the width of the breach does not exceed ten cubits, it becomes permitted to carry there, even with only one upright board remaining on one side of the breach. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is permitted only with two upright boards remaining, one on each side of the breach.


讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讚专讘讬谞讗 诇讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讟谞讛 讘注砖专 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


The Gemara rejects this entire explanation: What is this comparison? Granted, if you say that the legal status of a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall from the inside is not considered like that of a side post; and that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that a side post or an upright board in a courtyard must be at least three handbreadths wide; and that the explanations of the mishna offered earlier by Rabbi Zeira and Ravina are not accepted; that is why there is significance to the fact that the small courtyard is ten cubits wide and the large one is eleven cubits wide. It is due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Since Rabbi Yosei holds that a side post must be three handbreadths wide, we require that the two upright boards together measure six handbreadths, i.e., one cubit, which is the minimal difference in size between the two courtyards.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讚专讘讬谞讗 讗讬转讗 讜专讘讬 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛 诇诪讛 诇讬


However, if you say that the legal status of a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall from the inside is considered like that of a side post; and that Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 and Ravina鈥檚 explanations are accepted as halakha; and that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold in accordance with the opinion Rabbi Yosei, why do I need to explain that the large courtyard measures eleven cubits?


诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诇诪砖专讬讬讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 拽讗转讬 讘注砖专 讜砖谞讬 讟驻讞讬诐 住讙讬讗 讜讗讬 诇诪讬住专讛 诇拽讟谞讛 拽讗转讬 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚诪驻诇讙讬 讟讜讘讗


Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: If the baraita is coming to permit one to carry in the large courtyard, then a width of ten cubits and two handbreadths suffices. These two handbreadths can be considered the upright boards that render the courtyard fit for one to carry within it. And if it is coming to teach a novel halakha according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and prohibit one to carry in the small courtyard, it should teach us a case where the walls of the two courtyards are much farther removed from each other, rather than a case where they are only one cubit apart. Therefore, the second explanation cannot be accepted.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rather, can we not conclude from the baraita that a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall from the inside is not considered to have the legal status of a side post? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转转讗


Rav Yosef said: I did not hear this halakha of Rabba bar Rav Huna from my teachers. Rav Yosef had become ill and forgotten his learning, which is why he could not recall the halakha that a side post that is visible from the outside is considered to have the legal status of a side post.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讚讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讞讬 讛诪讜砖讱 注诐 讚驻谞讜 砖诇 诪讘讜讬 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜诪砖转诪砖 注诐 讞讜讚讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讘讜讬 讜讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 讘讻讜诇讜


His student Abaye said to him: You yourself told us this halakha, and it was with regard to this that you told it to us. As Rami bar Abba said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a side post that extends along the wall of an alleyway and beyond, in which case it appears from the inside to be a continuation of the wall but due to its narrow width it is clearly visible as a side post from the outside, if that side post is less than four cubits long it is considered to have the legal status of a side post. And one may use the alleyway up to the inner edge of the side post. However, if the side post itself extends four cubits, the alleyway has no side post and it is considered to have the legal status of an alleyway, and it is prohibited to utilize the entire alleyway.


讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讗住讜专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讱 诪讘讜讬 讘讗专讘注 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬


And you said to us about this: Learn from this statement three halakhot with regard to eiruvin. Learn from it that in the area between the side posts it is prohibited to carry, as Rav Huna rules that one may use the alleyway only up to the inner edge of the side post. And learn from it that the minimal length of an alleyway is four cubits. And learn from it that a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall of the alleyway from the inside is considered to have the legal status of a side post.


讜讛诇讻转讗 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讜讛诇讻转讗


The Gemara concludes: The halakha is that a side post that is visible from the outside but appears to be even with the wall from the inside is considered to have the legal status of a side post. The Gemara asks: It is possible that there is a conclusive refutation of this opinion, and it is also the halakha? This opinion was refuted earlier. Can the halakha then be decided in accordance with it?


讗讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛:


The Gemara answers: Yes, it can because Rabbi 岣yya taught a baraita in accordance with it. Although the deductive analysis of the statements of other tanna鈥檌m led to different conclusions, the halakha relies on Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 explicit statement.


讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讬诪注讟: 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讗 讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讬诪注讟 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟 讜注讚 讻诪讛


The opening mishna states: If the entrance to an alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width. Abaye said that a Sage taught in the Tosefta: If the entrance to an alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not diminish it. The question arises: Until what width does Rabbi Yehuda still permit carrying in the alleyway?


住讘专 专讘 讗讞讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬诪专 注讚 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖 讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转


Initially, Rav A岣i thought to say before Rav Yosef: Up to thirteen and a third cubits. And he derived this figure through an a fortiori argument from upright boards surrounding a well. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that if one placed upright boards up to thirteen and a third cubits apart from one another, he may consider the partitioned area around the well as a private domain and therefore carry within it.


讜诪讛 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 砖讛转专转讛 讘讛谉 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讗 讛转专转讛 讘讛谉 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 讛转专转讛 讘讜 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转转讬专 讘讜 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖


Rav A岣i explains: Just as in the case of upright boards surrounding a well, where you permitted carrying, even though the boards form a partition where the breached segment is greater than the standing segment, you did not permit carrying within them if the gap between the boards is more than thirteen and a third cubits wide; in the case of an alleyway, where you did not permit carrying if the breached segment of its walls is greater than the standing segment, is it not right that you will not permit carrying within it if there is a gap more than thirteen and a third cubits wide?


讜讛讬讗 讛谞讜转谞转 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 砖讛转专转讛 讘讛谉 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讗 转转讬专 讘讛谉 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 讜砖诇讬砖 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 讛转专转讛 讘讜 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 转转讬专 讘讜 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讜砖诇讬砖


But that reasoning provides support for a contrary conclusion as well. Just as in the case of upright boards surrounding a well, where you permitted carrying within them, even though the boards form a partition where the breached segment is greater than the standing segment, you will not extend the leniency and permit carrying within them, when the gap between the boards is more than thirteen and a third cubits; in an alleyway, where you were stringent and did not permit carrying when the breached segment is greater than the standing segment, in a case where most of the walls are standing, you will certainly permit carrying, even when the gap is more than thirteen and a third cubits.


讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 讚讗拽讬诇转 讘讛讜 讞讚 拽讜诇讗 讗拽讬诇 讘讛讜 拽讜诇讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪讘讜讬 讻诇诇 讻诇诇 诇讗


Alternatively, one may argue to the contrary. One should be more stringent in the case of an alleyway. In the case of upright boards surrounding a well, with regard to which you were lenient and issued one leniency, be lenient and issue another leniency and maintain that a gap of up to thirteen and a third cubits still be considered an entrance. However, in the case of an alleyway, you should not be lenient at all. Therefore, there is no way to determine Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion with regard to the width of an alleyway entrance.


转谞讬 诇讜讬 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 专讞讘 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 谞讜注抓 拽谞讛 讘讗诪爪注讬转讜 讜讚讬讜 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讛 诪砖谞讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讛 诪砖谞讛


Levi taught a baraita with regard to reducing the width of an alleyway in order to render it fit for one to carry within it. If an alleyway is twenty cubits wide, one may stick a reed in the center of its entrance and that is sufficient to create two separate alleyways, each ten cubits wide. He taught this baraita, and he said about it that the halakha is not in accordance with that teaching, as the insertion of a reed is not effective in reducing the width. Some say that Shmuel said in the name of Levi: The halakha is not in accordance with that teaching.


讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬


The Gemara asks: Rather, how should one act in order to render an alleyway of that sort fit for one to carry within it? Shmuel said in the name of Levi:


注讜砖讛 驻住 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讘诪砖讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诪注诪讬讚讜 诇讗专讻讜 砖诇 诪讘讜讬


One prepares a board ten handbreadths high with a length of four cubits and stands it lengthwise down the middle of the alleyway, and thereby forms two small alleyways at the entrance to the alleyway, neither of which is more than ten cubits wide.


讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 专讞讘 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪专讞讬拽 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讜注讜砖讛 驻住 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转


Alternatively, one can act in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda said: If an alleyway is fifteen cubits wide, how does one reduce its width? He distances himself two cubits from one of the walls of the alleyway and prepares a board three cubits wide, thereby leaving an opening of only ten cubits.


讜讗诪讗讬 讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讬专讞讬拽 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜诪讞爪讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚


The Gemara asks: And why must one reduce the width in this manner? One could also prepare a board a cubit and a half wide, and distance himself two cubits, and then prepare another board a cubit and a half wide, leaving the alleyway with an opening of only ten cubits. Apparently, one may conclude from the fact that Rav Yehuda did not suggest this possibility that if the standing segment of a wall is greater than the breached segment only when one combines the standing segments from two directions, i.e., both sides of the breach, it is not considered as though the standing segment were greater.


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗转讬 讗讜讬专讗 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讗讜讬专讗 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛


The Gemara rejects this: Actually, I would say to you that ordinarily it is considered as standing even when one must combine the standing segments on the two sides of the breach. However, it is different here, as the air, i.e., the two cubit opening, of this one side of the far board and the air, i.e., the ten cubit opening, of this other side of the board come together and negate it. Therefore, in this case, the board that is farther from the wall cannot serve to close off the alleyway.


讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜讬专讞讬拽 讗诪讛 讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜讬专讞讬拽 讗诪讛 讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讜诪讚 讻驻专讜抓 讗住讜专


The Gemara suggests: And one could instead prepare a board one cubit wide and distance himself one cubit, and prepare another board of a cubit and distance himself one cubit, and prepare a third board of one cubit, thus ensuring that the open space is not greater than the standing segment on both sides. Apparently, since Rav Yehuda did not suggest this possibility, one may conclude from this that if the standing segment of a wall is equal to the breached segment, carrying in the alleyway is prohibited.


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讜转专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗转讗 讗讜讬专讗 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛


The Gemara rejects this assumption: Actually, I would say to you that ordinarily carrying is permitted in that case. But here it is different, since the air, the opening, on this side of the board and the air, the opening, on that side of the board come together and negate the effectiveness of the board.


讜讬专讞讬拽 讗诪讛 讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讬专讞讬拽 讗诪讛 讜讬注砖讛 驻住 讗诪讛 讜诪讞爪讛


The Gemara suggests: And one could distance himself one cubit from the wall, and prepare a board of a cubit and a half, and distance himself another cubit, and prepare another board of a cubit and a half. In this manner, one could diminish the width of the entrance of the alleyway to ten cubits.


讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛 专讘谞谉


The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; this would work equally as well. But the Sages did not burden him this much, requiring him to prepare two boards where one suffices.


讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 砖讘讬拽 驻讬转讞讗 专讘讛 讜注讬讬诇 讘驻讬转讞讗 讝讜讟讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪谞讬讞 驻转讞 讙讚讜诇 讜谞讻谞住 讘驻转讞 拽讟谉


The Gemara raises a new issue: But let us be concerned lest one abandon use of the larger entrance, which is ten cubits wide, and begin to enter the alleyway through the smaller entrance, which has a width of two cubits. This would negate the larger opening鈥檚 status as an entrance and render the alleyway unfit for one to carry within it, as it would no longer have an entrance with a side post. Rav Adda bar Mattana said: The presumption is that a person does not abandon a larger entrance and enter instead through a smaller entrance.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讚专讘讬 讗住讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And in what way is this different from the opinion of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, who maintain that in the case of an alleyway that is breached on its side wall close to its entrance, if the breach is large enough for one to enter through it, carrying in the alleyway is prohibited? There, too, such a breach should not be problematic, as a person does not abandon a larger entrance to enter through a smaller one.


讛转诐 拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讛讬诇讜讻讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讛讬诇讜讻讗


The Gemara answers: There, in the case of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, the smaller entrance reduces his walking distance. If one approaches the alleyway from the side, the smaller entrance provides a shortcut, and therefore one might enter through it as well. However, here, in the case of the two entrances one two cubits and one ten cubits, it does not reduce his walking distance, as both openings are situated at the front of the alleyway.


转谞谉 讛转诐 注讜专 讛注住诇讗 讜讞诇诇 砖诇讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讘讟驻讞


The Gemara returns to the issue of the standing segment that is greater than the breached segment. We learned in the Tosefta there, in tractate Kelim: The leather covering of a stool [asla] and its hole join together to complete a handbreadth with regard to ritual impurity imparted by a tent over a corpse. Any person, vessel, or food that is beneath a covering that is at least a handbreadth in size together with a portion of a corpse of at least an olive-bulk becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The baraita teaches that the leather covering of a stool and its hole combine to complete the measure of a handbreadth.


诪讗讬 注讜专 讛注住诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讻讬住讜讬 砖诇 讘讬转 讛讻住讗


The Gemara asks: What is the leather covering of a stool referred to in the Tosefta? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rav Yo岣nan said: The leather covering of a bathroom.


讜讻诪讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗爪讘注讬讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注讬讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注讬讬诐 专讬讜讞 讘讗诪爪注 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讗爪讘注 讜诪讞爪讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注 讜诪讞爪讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注 专讬讜讞 讘讗诪爪注


The Gemara asks: And how large can the hole be and still combine with the leather covering to complete the handbreadth? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Two fingers of leather from here, on one side, and two fingers of leather from here, on the other side, and a space of two fingers for the hole in the middle. However, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: A finger and a half of leather from here, and a finger and a half on the leather from here, and a space of a single finger for the hole in the middle.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讛讗 讘专讘专讘转讗 讛讗 讘讝讜讟专转讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬谉


Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Do the two of you, yourself and Ravin, disagree in principle? Rav Dimi said to him: No, rather this, Ravin鈥檚 statement, is referring to the large finger, i.e., the thumb, and this, my own statement, is referring to the small finger, the pinkie, and we do not disagree. Both were describing one handbreadth, which equals the width of four thumbs or six pinkies.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讬讬 驻诇讬讙讬转讜 讜讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 驻诇讬讙讬转讜 诇讚讬讚讱 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诇专讘讬谉 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讬 注讜诪讚


Abaye said to him: This is not so [la鈥檈i]. You disagree, and you disagree with regard to the halakha in a case where the standing segment of a wall is greater than the breached segment only when one combines the standing segments from two directions, i.e., both sides of the breached segment. According to you, this wall is considered as standing, even when one must combine the standing segments from two directions. According to Ravin, if the standing segment on one side of the breach is greater, the wall is considered as standing; however, if the standing segment is greater only after combining the standing segments from the two directions, it is not considered as standing.


讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬转讜 诇专讘讬谉 讛讻讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讗爪讘注 讜砖诇讬砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注 讜砖诇讬砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注 讜砖诇讬砖 专讬讜讞 讘讗诪爪注


Abaye continues: For if it should enter your mind to say that you do not disagree, but simply refer to the same measures by different names, to express his opinion, Ravin should have said as follows: A finger and a third of leather from here, and a finger and a third of leather from here, and a space of a finger and a third for the hole in the middle. In this case, there would still be a handbreadth in total, but each side of leather alone would not be larger than the space in the middle. The fact that Ravin presented a case where the hole in the middle is smaller than the width of the leather on either side indicates that his dispute with Rav Dimi is a fundamental one.


讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬 讛讻讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗爪讘注 讜砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注 讜砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗爪讘注讬讬诐 讜砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬诐 专讬讜讞 讘讗诪爪注


Rav Dimi responds: Rather, what do you wish to say, that we disagree? If so, to express the opinion attributed to me, I should have said as follows: A finger and two thirds of leather from here, and a finger and two thirds of leather from here, and a space of two fingers and two thirds in the middle. This would provide a more striking case where, despite the fact that the breach is much greater than the standing segments on either of its sides, the two standing segments combine together so that the standing segments are considered greater than the breached segment.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚驻诇讙讬谞谉 讘驻专讜抓 讻注讜诪讚 驻诇讙讬谞谉:


Rather, if there is room to say that we disagree, our dispute relates to a different point, and we argue in the case where the breached segment is exactly equal to the standing segment on each side. According to Ravin, it is considered breached; while according to Rav Dimi, it is considered standing.


讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟: 讗砖讻讞谉 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讚诪讛谞讬讗 讘专讞讘讜 讜讗诪诇转专讗 讚诪讛谞讬讗 讘讙讘讛讜


The Gemara returns to the mishna: If the entrance to the alleyway has an opening in the form of a doorway, then, even if it is wider than ten cubits, one need not diminish its width. The Gemara comments: We find that an opening in the form of a doorway is effective to permit carrying in an alleyway with regard to its width, i.e., when its entrance is more than ten cubits wide, and that a cornice is effective with regard to its height, i.e., when it is more than twenty cubits high.


Scroll To Top