Eruvin 101

מתני׳ הדלת שבמוקצה וחדקים שבפרצה ומחצלות אין נועלין בהן אלא אם כן גבוהים מן הארץ:

MISHNA: With regard to the door to a rear court, i.e., a door that opens from a house to the courtyard situated behind it, which is typically not a proper door but merely a wooden board without hinges that closes off the doorway; and likewise bundles of thorns that seal a breach; and reed mats, one may not close an opening with them on Shabbat. This would be considered building or completing a building, unless they remain above the ground even when they are open.

גמ׳ ורמינהו דלת הנגררת ומחצלת הנגררת וקנקן הנגרר בזמן שקשורין ותלויין נועלין בהן בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: With regard to a door, or a mat, or a lattice [kankan] that drag along the ground and are used for closing up openings, when they are tied and suspended in place one may close an opening with them on Shabbat; and needless to say this is permitted on a Festival. According to the baraita, the critical factor is apparently that they must be tied and suspended, not that they have to be held up above the ground.

אמר אביי בשיש להם ציר רבא אמר בשהיה להן ציר

Abaye said: The baraita is referring to ones that have a hinge. As they are considered proper doors, closing them does not appear like building. Rava said: The baraita is referring even to doors that once had a hinge, even though they no longer have one. These partitions also bear the clear form of a door, and therefore one’s action does not have the appearance of building.

מיתיבי דלת הנגררת ומחצלת הנגררת וקנקן הנגרר בזמן שקשורין ותלויין וגבוהים מן הארץ אפילו מלא נימא נועלין בהן ואם לאו אין נועלין בהן

The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: With regard to a door, or a mat, or a lattice that drag along the ground, when they are tied and suspended in place and they are held above the ground even by as little as a hairbreadth, one may close an opening with them. However, if they are not raised in this manner, one may not close an opening with them. Clearly, these doors must indeed be raised above the ground as well.

אביי מתרץ לטעמיה ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה אביי מתרץ לטעמיה או שיש להן ציר או שגבוהין מן הארץ רבא מתרץ לטעמיה כשהיה להן ציר או שגבוהין מן הארץ

The Gemara answers: Abaye reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning, and Rava reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning. The Gemara elaborates: Abaye reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning by adding to the baraita: They must either have a hinge or be held above the ground. Rava likewise reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning, as he reads: They must have had a hinge or else be held above the ground.

תנו רבנן סוכי קוצים וחבילין שהתקינן לפירצה שבחצר בזמן שקשורין ותלויין נועלין בהן בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב

The Sages taught a baraita: With regard to branches of thorn bushes or bundles of wood that were arranged so that they sealed off a breach in a courtyard, when they are tied and suspended in place, one may close an opening with them on Shabbat; and needless to say, this is permitted on a Festival.

תני רבי חייא דלת אלמנה הנגררת אין נועלין בה היכי דמי דלת אלמנה איכא דאמרי דחד שיפא ואיכא דאמרי דלית ליה גשמה

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita: With regard to a widowed door that drags along the ground, one may not close an opening with it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a widowed door? Some say it refers to a door built from a single plank, which does not look like a door, and others say it is a door that does not have a lower doorsill (ge’onim) and that touches the ground when closed.

אמר רב יהודה האי מדורתא ממעלה למטה שרי ממטה למעלה אסיר

With regard to activities that are prohibited because of their similarity to building, the Gemara cites a teaching that Rav Yehuda said: When arranging a pile of wood for a fire on a Festival, if the logs are arranged from the top down, i.e., the upper logs are temporarily suspended in the air while the lower logs are inserted below them, it is permitted. However, if the wood is placed from the bottom up, it is prohibited, as the arrangement of wood in the regular manner is a form of building.

וכן ביעתא וכן קידרא וכן פוריא וכן חביתא

And the same applies to eggs that are to be arranged in a pile, and the same applies to a cauldron that is to be set down on a fire by means of supports, and the same applies to a bed that will be placed on its frame, and the same applies to barrels arranged in a cellar. In all these cases, the part that goes on top must be temporarily suspended in the air while the lower section is inserted beneath it.

אמר ליה ההוא מינא לרבי יהושע בן חנניה חדקאה דכתיב בכו טובם כחדק אמר ליה שטיא שפיל לסיפיה דקרא דכתיב ישר ממסוכה ואלא מאי טובם כחדק כשם שחדקים הללו מגינין על הפירצה כך טובים שבנו מגינים עלינו דבר אחר טובם כחדק שמהדקין את הרשעים לגיהנם שנאמר קומי ודושי בת ציון כי קרנך אשים ברזל ופרסותיך אשים נחושה והדיקות עמים רבים וגו׳:

With regard to bundles of thorns used to seal a breach, the Gemara cites a related incident: A certain heretic once said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: Man of thorns! For it says about you: “The best of them is as a brier” (Micah 7:4), which indicates that even Israel’s best are merely thorns. He said to him: Fool, go down to the end of the verse: “The most upright is worse than a thorn hedge,” a derogatory expression meant as praise. Rather, what is the meaning of the best of them is as a brier? It means that just as these thorns protect a breach, so the best among us protect us. Alternatively: The best of them is as a brier [ḥedek] means that they grind [mehaddekin] the nations of the world into Gehenna, as it is stated: “Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion, for I will make your horn iron, and I will make your hoofs brass, and you shall beat in pieces [vahadikot] many peoples; and you shall devote their gain to God, and their substance to the God of the whole earth” (Micah 4:13).

מתני׳ לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד ויפתח ברשות הרבים ברשות הרבים ויפתח ברשות היחיד אלא אם כן עשה מחיצה גבוה עשרה טפחים דברי רבי מאיר

MISHNA: A person may not stand in the private domain and open a door located in the public domain with a key, lest he inadvertently transfer the key from one domain to the other. Likewise, one may not stand in the public domain and open a door in the private domain with a key, unless in the latter case he erected a partition ten handbreadths high around the door and stands inside it. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

אמרו לו מעשה בשוק של פטמים שהיה בירושלים ושהיו נועלין ומניחין את המפתח בחלון שעל גבי הפתח רבי יוסי אומר שוק של צמרים הוה:

The Rabbis said to him: There was an incident at the poultry dealers’ market in Jerusalem, where they would fatten fowl for slaughter (Rabbeinu Ḥananel), and they would lock the doors to their shops and place the key in the window that was over the door, which was more than ten handbreadths off the ground, and nobody was concerned about the possible violation of any prohibition. Rabbi Yosei says: That place was a market of wool dealers.

גמ׳ ורבנן אמר רבי מאיר רשות הרבים ומהדרו אינהו כרמלית דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן ירושלים אלמלא דלתותיה ננעלות בלילה חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And those Rabbis, who cited the case of the poultry dealers of Jerusalem to rebut Rabbi Meir’s opinion, Rabbi Meir spoke to them about unlocking a door in a private domain while standing in the public domain, and they responded with an incident involving a karmelit. As Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to Jerusalem, were it not for the fact that its doors are locked at night, one would be liable for carrying in it on Shabbat, because its thoroughfares have the status of the public domain. However, since Jerusalem’s doors are typically locked, it is considered one large karmelit, which is subject to rabbinic prohibitions. How, then, could a proof be cited from the markets of Jerusalem with regard to the transfer of objects between a public domain and a private domain, which is prohibited by Torah law?

אמר רב פפא כאן קודם שנפרצו בה פרצות כאן לאחר שנפרצו בה פרצות

Rav Pappa said: Here, in the statement of Rabbi Yohanan, Jerusalem was considered a karmelit during the period before breaches were made in its walls. Its doors did not turn it into a public domain, as they were locked. Whereas there, the Rabbis in the mishna are referring to the time after breaches had been made in the walls, and it therefore acquired the status of a public domain.

רבא אמר סיפא אתאן לשערי גינה והכי קאמר וכן לא יעמוד ברשות היחיד ויפתח בכרמלית בכרמלית ויפתח ברשות היחיד

Rava said: In the latter clause of the mishna we came to a different issue, i.e., the final section of the mishna is not designed to counter Rabbi Meir’s statement with regard to the public domain. Rather, it refers to the gates of a garden with an area greater than two beit se’a in size, whose legal status is that of a karmelit. Consequently, the mishna is saying as follows: And likewise, one may not stand in the private domain and open a door in a karmelit; neither may one stand in a karmelit and open a door in the private domain,

אלא אם כן עשה מחיצה גבוהה עשרה טפחים דברי רבי מאיר אמרו לו מעשה בשוק של פטמים שהיה בירושלים שהיו נועלין ומניחין את המפתח בחלון שעל גבי הפתח רבי יוסי אומר שוק של צמרים היה:

unless he erected a partition ten handbreadths high around the door and stands inside it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to him: An incident occurred at the poultry dealers’ market in Jerusalem, as they would lock the doors to their shops and place the key in a window that was over the door, which was higher than ten handbreadths. Rabbi Yosei says: That place was a market of wool dealers.

תנו רבנן פתחי שערי גינה בזמן שיש להן בית שער מבפנים פותח ונועל מבפנים מבחוץ פותח ונועל מבחוץ מכאן ומכאן פותח ונועל כאן וכאן אין להן לא לכאן ולא לכאן אסורין כאן וכאן

The Sages taught a baraita: With regard to the entrances of garden gates that open into a public domain, when they have a gatehouse on the inside, which is a private domain, one may open and close them from within. This is because the lock, which is four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths high, also constitutes a private domain. Consequently, the key may be passed from the gatehouse to the lock. However, they may not be opened or closed from without, as the key may not be passed from the public domain to the private domain of the lock. If the gatehouse is on the outside, one may open and close the doors from without, as once again both the lock and the gatehouse are private domains. They may not, however, be opened from within, as the key may not be passed from the garden, which is a karmelit, to the lock. If they have a gatehouse from here, from within, and there, from without, one may open and close the doors here and there. If they do not have a gatehouse; neither here nor there, it is prohibited to open or close the doors here and there, as one may not carry the key either in the public domain or in the garden.

וכן חנויות הפתוחות לרשות הרבים בזמן שהמנעול למטה מעשרה מביא מפתח מערב שבת ומניחו באיסקופה למחר פותח ונועל ומחזירו לאיסקופה

And likewise, this is the halakha with regard to stores that open into the public domain: When the lock is below ten handbreadths off the ground, it is in the public domain. In that case, one may bring a key on Shabbat eve and place it on the threshold, whose legal status is that of a karmelit, and the following day he may open and close the door and return the key to the threshold.

ובזמן שהמנעול למעלה מעשרה מביא מפתח מערב שבת ומניחו במנעול למחר פותח ונועל ומחזירו למקומו דברי רבי מאיר

And when the lock is above ten handbreadths off the ground, one may bring a key on Shabbat eve and place it in the lock. And the following day he may open and close the door and return the key to its place on top of the lock. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וחכמים אומרים אף בזמן שהמנעול למעלה מעשרה טפחים מביא מפתח מערב שבת ומניחו באיסקופה למחר פותח ונועל ומחזירו למקומו או בחלון שעל גבי הפתח

And the Rabbis say: Even when the lock is above ten handbreadths off the ground, one may bring a key on Shabbat eve and place it on the threshold, and the following day he may open and close the door and return the key to its place on the threshold or in the window that is above the door.

אם יש בחלון ארבעה על ארבעה אסור מפני שהוא כמוציא מרשות לרשות

However, if the window is four by four handbreadths and ten handbreadths above the ground, its status is that of a private domain, and it is therefore prohibited to place the key in the window, because it would be as though one is transferring the key from one domain, a karmelit, to another private domain.

מדקאמר וכן חנויות מכלל דבאיסקופת כרמלית עסקינן האי מנעול היכי דמי אי דלית ביה ארבעה מקום פטור הוא

The Gemara infers: From the fact that it is stated in the baraita: And similarly, stores, this proves by inference that we are dealing with a threshold that is a karmelit, as it would otherwise be prohibited to transfer the key from the threshold to the lock. If so, with regard to this lock, what are the circumstances? If there is not an area of four by four handbreadths in it, it does not have the status of a prohibited domain at all, and it is an exempt domain.

ואי אית ביה ארבעה בהא לימא רבנן אף בזמן שהמנעול למעלה מעשרה מביא מפתח מערב שבת ומניחו באיסקופה למחר פותח ונועל בו ומחזירו לאיסקופה או לחלון שעל גבי הפתח והא קא מטלטל מכרמלית לרשות היחיד

And if it is four by four handbreadths, and therefore a private domain, would the Rabbis say in that case: Even when the lock is above ten handbreadths off the ground, he may bring a key on Shabbat eve and place it in the threshold, and the following day he may open and close the door and return the key to the threshold or to a window above the door? Isn’t he moving an object from a karmelit to the private domain?

אמר אביי לעולם דאין בו ארבעה ויש בו לחוק ולהשלימו לארבעה

Abaye said: Actually, the lock is not four by four handbreadths, but there is enough space in the door surrounding it to carve out a hole that would complete its area to the requisite four handbreadths.

ובהא פליגי דרבי מאיר סבר חוקקין להשלים ורבנן סברי אין חוקקין להשלים

And this is their dispute: Rabbi Meir, who conforms to his standard line of reasoning, maintains that one carves out the space to complete it to four handbreadths. In other words, if a small opening is located in a place large enough for it to be widened, the place is viewed as though it had already been carved out, providing the opening with the larger dimensions. And the Rabbis conform to their standard line of reasoning, as they maintain that one does not carve out the space to complete it to four handbreadths. Consequently, the lock in its present condition is not large enough to constitute a place of significance, and it is therefore regarded as an exempt place.

אמר רב ביבי בר אביי שמע מינה מהא מתניתא תלת שמע מינה חוקקין להשלים ושמע מינה הדר ביה רבי מאיר משערי גינה

Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: Learn from this baraita three halakhot: Learn from it that according to Rabbi Meir, we carve out to complete the necessary dimensions. And further learn from it that Rabbi Meir retracted his ruling with regard to garden gates. According to Rava, Rabbi Meir prohibited a man standing in a karmelit from opening a door in a private domain, and yet here he permits a similar case.

ושמעת מינה מדרבנן איתא לדרב דימי דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן מקום שאין בו ארבעה על ארבעה מותר לבני רשות הרבים ולבני רשות היחיד לכתף עליו ובלבד שלא יחליפו:

And learn from the statement of the Rabbis that the ruling of Rav Dimi is accepted. As when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Israel, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A place with an area that is less than four by four handbreadths and that is set apart from the surrounding area is an exempt domain with regard to carrying on Shabbat. Consequently, if the domain is located between a public domain and a private domain, it is permitted for both the people in the public domain and for the people in the private domain to adjust the burden onto their shoulders, provided that they do not exchange objects with one another. This ruling, that it is prohibited to exchange articles, is supported by the position of the Rabbis that it is prohibited to transfer the key from the threshold, which is a karmelit, via the lock, an exempt domain, to the private domain of the window, as one may not transfer an object from one prohibited domain to another, even via an exempt domain.

מתני׳ נגר שיש בראשו גלוסטרא רבי אליעזר אוסר ורבי יוסי מתיר

MISHNA: With regard to a bolt that secures a door in place and that has a thick knob [gelustera] at its end, a useful implement for a variety of purposes, the tanna’im disagree whether the bolt has the status of a vessel, and one may therefore close the door with it, or whether it is considered a cross beam, which would mean that doing so is classified as building. Rabbi Eliezer prohibits its use, and Rabbi Yosei permits it.

אמר רבי אליעזר מעשה בכנסת שבטבריא שהיו נוהגין בו היתר עד שבא רבן גמליאל והזקנים ואסרו להן רבי יוסי אומר איסור נהגו בו ובא רבן גמליאל והזקנים והתירו להן:

Rabbi Eliezer said: An incident occurred in a synagogue in Tiberias, where they were accustomed to treat use of this bolt as permitted, until Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and prohibited it to them. Rabbi Yosei says that the opposite was the case: At first they were accustomed to treat use of this bolt as prohibited, and Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and permitted it to them.

גמ׳ בניטל באגדו כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי

GEMARA: The Gemara narrows the dispute: If the bolt can be moved by the rope with which it is attached to the door, everyone agrees that it is considered part of the door, and one may secure the door with it. When Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Eliezer disagree,