Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 20, 2020 | ל׳ באב תש״פ

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 11

Today’s daf is sponsored Chanah and Michael Piotrkowski in honor of Azi and Reva Esensten (and siblings Margolit, Zev and Betzalel, and their parents) for the beautiful handmade card and for giving us tzedakah so we’d travel safely to Israel when we made Aliyah on the 27th of Av. Come be with us soon! Love, Chanah and Michael

The exceptions to the rule of: a decorative element if the alley is too high, and a form of a doorway if it is too wide, would they each work to resolve the other issue (doorway for height, decorative for width)? Rav had an alternate version of the mishna in which is said that a form of a doorway does not resolve an opening of more than 10 cubits. Rav Yosef derived from there a halacha regarding a courtyard with a wall mostly open with windows and doorframes – that Rav would also not permit that. But the gemara rejects his comparison. The gemara suggests that Rabbi Yochanan agrees with Rav by bringing a debate between him and Reish Lakish regarding a vine draped on beams to serve as a barrier for mixing crops. Rabbi Yochanan distinguished there between laws for crops and laws of Shabbat. However, the gemara rejects the comparison as it is not clear it is referring to the same situation (the vine case could be that they were attached in the middle of the beams and not at the top). The gemara brings a contradiction to Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish’s positions in this case to their positions in a similar case. The gemara resolves the contradiction. The gemara brings several halachot regarding the form of a doorway that can be used. Rav Hisda says it cannot be used if the beam it attached in the middle of the pole. Reish Lakish says it needs a pivot hole – for a hinge. Rav Nachman says the beam does not need to be attached to the posts – just above it and Rav Sheshet requires they be touching. A case happened in the alley of the Exilarch where they held like Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet asked his attendant to take it down. The attendant was thrown into jail by the Exilarch’s men and Rav Sheshet had to bail him out. Later, Raba bar Shmuel explained to Rav Sheshet that his opinion was wrong from a debate regarding an arched doorway and in which cases it is obligated in mezuza. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel debate how an alley can be fixed – it is enough to put a beam or post or does one need both? Rabbi Eliezer things one needs two posts. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate in which cases do Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel argue? Is it at any width or only from 4-10 cubits? How many walls make a space considered a private domain according to Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel and is it different to forbid carrying into their from a public domain and to permit carrying inside?

 

 

איפכא מאי

The Gemara asks: What is the halakha in the opposite situation? Does an opening in the form of a doorway also serve to permit carrying in an alleyway that is more than twenty cubits high?

תא שמע דתניא מבוי שהוא גבוה מעשרים אמה ימעט ואם יש לו צורת הפתח אינו צריך למעט

The Gemara answers: Come and hear the answer to this question, as it was taught in a baraita: If the cross beam placed over the entrance to an alleyway is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish its height, but if the entrance has an opening in the form of a doorway, he need not diminish it.

אמלתרא ברחבו מאי תא שמע דתניא מבוי שהוא גבוה מעשרים אמה ימעט והרחב מעשר ימעט ואם יש לו צורת הפתח אינו צריך למעט ואם יש לו אמלתרא אינו צריך למעט

The Gemara asks: What is the effect of a cornice with regard to the need to diminish the alleyway’s width? Does the cornice render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, even if the entrance is more than ten cubits wide? The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer as it was taught in a baraita: If the cross beam placed over the entrance to an alleyway is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish its height, and if the alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width. However, if the entrance to the alleyway has an opening in the form of a doorway, he need not diminish it, and, similarly, if it has a cornice, he need not diminish it.

מאי לאו אסיפא לא ארישא

The Gemara explains the proof it wishes to adduce from this baraita: What, is this statement with regard to the cornice not referring to the latter clause, i.e., the case of an alleyway that is wider than ten cubits, proving that a cornice can render an alleyway otherwise too wide fit for one to carry within it? The Gemara refutes this argument: No, this statement is referring to the first clause of the baraita, that a cornice is effective for an alleyway more than twenty cubits high, but it tells us nothing about one that is more than ten cubits wide.

מתני ליה רב יהודה לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב אינו צריך למעט אמר ליה אתנייה צריך למעט

With regard to the same issue, Rav Yehuda would teach the baraita to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav as follows: If the entrance to an alleyway that is wider than ten cubits has an opening in the form of a doorway, he need not diminish its width. Rav said to him: Teach him that the correct version of the baraita is: He must diminish its width.

אמר רב יוסף מדברי רבינו נלמד חצר שרובה פתחים וחלונות אינה ניתרת בצורת הפתח

Rav Yosef said: From the statement of our teacher, Rav, who said that the entrance to an alleyway must be diminished even if it has an opening in the form of a doorway, we will learn that with regard to a courtyard, the walls of which are mostly entrances and windows, it is not permitted to carry within it even by having an opening in the form of a doorway. Even if the entrances have an opening in the form of a doorway, this does not render a mostly breached courtyard wall into a closed wall.

מאי טעמא הואיל ויותר מעשר אוסר במבוי ופרוץ מרובה על העומד אוסר בחצר מה יותר מעשר האוסר במבוי אינו ניתר בצורת הפתח אף פרוץ מרובה על העומד האוסר בחצר אינו ניתר בצורת הפתח

What is the reason? Since an opening of more than ten cubits renders it prohibited for one to carry in an alleyway, and likewise when the breached segment of a wall that is greater than its standing segment renders it prohibited for one to carry in a courtyard, the following claim can be made: Just as, according to Rav, in the case of an opening more than ten cubits wide that renders it prohibited for one to carry in an alleyway, carrying in the alleyway is not permitted by the form of a doorway in the opening, so too a case where breached segment of a wall is greater than its standing segment that renders it prohibited for one to carry in a courtyard, carrying in the courtyard is not permitted by the form of a doorway in the opening.

מה ליותר מעשר האוסר במבוי שכן לא התרת בו אצל פסי ביראות לרבי מאיר תאמר בפרוץ מרובה על העומד האוסר בחצר שכן התרת אצל פסי ביראות לדברי הכל

The Gemara rejects this argument: What is the basis for comparison to an opening that is more than ten cubits wide that renders it prohibited for one to carry in an alleyway? It is not permitted by having an opening in the form of a doorway because you did not permit an opening of that size with regard to the case of upright boards surrounding a well, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Can you say the same in a case where the breached segment of a wall is greater than the standing segment that renders it prohibited for one to carry in a courtyard, that carrying in the courtyard will not be permitted by the form of a doorway? That situation is clearly not as severe a problem, as you permitted carrying with regard to upright boards surrounding a well according to everyone. Consequently, no comparison can be made between the case of an opening wider than ten cubits in an alleyway and a partition in which the breached segment is greater than the standing segment in a courtyard.

לימא מסייע ליה דפנות הללו שרובן פתחים וחלונות מותר ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports this opinion that the form of a doorway is ineffective in a case where the breached segments of a wall are greater than its standing segments: With regard to the area enclosed by these walls that most of them consist of entrances and windows, it is permitted to carry on Shabbat therein, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments.

שרובן סלקא דעתך אלא אימא שריבה בהן פתחים וחלונות ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

The Gemara first analyzes the wording of the baraita: The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the baraita: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to a case where most of the walls are entrances and windows? If so, the standing segments are not greater than the breached segments. Rather, emend the baraita: Carrying in the area enclosed by these walls to which he added many entrances and windows is permitted, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments. Apparently, if the breached segments are greater than the standing segments, carrying is not permitted even if the breaches are in the form of doorways.

אמר רב כהנא כי תניא ההיא בפיתחי שימאי

Rav Kahana said that his is not an absolute proof: When this baraita was taught, it was taught with regard to broken entrances [pitḥei shima’ei] that lack the proper form of doorways.

מאי פיתחי שימאי פליגי בה רב רחומי ורב יוסף חד אמר דלית להו שקפי וחד אמר דלית להו תיקרה

The Gemara asks: What are broken entrances? Rav Reḥumei and Rav Yosef disagreed on the matter. One said that they do not have proper doorposts, and the other one said that they do not have lintels above the openings.

ואף רבי יוחנן סבר לה להא דרב דאמר רבין בר רב אדא אמר רבי יצחק מעשה באדם אחד מבקעת בית חורתן שנעץ ארבעה קונדיסין בארבע פינות השדה ומתח זמורה עליהם ובא מעשה לפני חכמים והתירו לו לענין כלאים

The Gemara comments: And even Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that opinion of Rav, that an opening in the form of a doorway does not permit carrying if the opening is more than ten cubits wide. As Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was an incident involving a person from the valley of Beit Ḥortan who stuck four poles [kunddeisin] into the ground in the four corners of his field, and stretched a vine over them, creating the form of a doorway on each side. He intended to seal the area so that he would be permitted to plant a vineyard in close proximity without creating a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard. And the case came before the Sages, and they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to diverse kinds.

ואמר ריש לקיש כדרך שהתירו לו לענין כלאים כך התירו לו לענין שבת רבי יוחנן אמר לכלאים התירו לו לענין שבת לא התירו לו

And Reish Lakish said: Just as they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to diverse kinds, so too they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to Shabbat, i.e., they permitted carrying within this area. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to diverse kinds, they permitted him to consider it sealed, however, with regard to Shabbat, they did not permit him to do so.

במאי עסקינן אילימא מן הצד והאמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שעשאה מן הצד לא עשה ולא כלום

The Gemara clarifies: With what case are we dealing here? If you say that he draped the vines on the posts from the side, rather than on top of them, didn’t Rav Ḥisda say with regard to Shabbat: If one constructed an opening in the form of a doorway from the side, he has done nothing?

אלא על גבן ובמאי אילימא בעשר בהא לימא רבי יוחנן בשבת לא

Rather, it must be that he set the vines on top of the posts. And in what circumstances did Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree? If you say that the posts were set at a distance of ten cubits from each other, would Rabbi Yoḥanan say in that case that with regard to Shabbat, they did not permit him to consider the area sealed? Everyone agrees that the form of a doorway is effective for an entrance that is only ten cubits wide.

אלא לאו ביתר מעשר

Rather, isn’t it referring to a case where the posts were more than ten cubits apart? Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees with Rav, that an opening in the form of a doorway does not permit carrying if the original opening is wider than ten cubits.

לא לעולם בעשר ומן הצד ובדרב חסדא קא מיפלגי

The Gemara refutes this proof: No, actually it is referring to a case where the posts were ten cubits apart, and the person attached the vines to the posts from the side. And Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree with regard to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. Reish Lakish maintains that the form of a doorway is effective even when the horizontal cross beam is attached to the vertical posts from the side, and Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees with Rav Ḥisda that a form of a doorway is ineffective for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat when constructed in such a manner.

ורמי דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן ורמי דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה ברבי חנינא

The Gemara comments: But it is possible to raise a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan and another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan; and it is possible to raise a contradiction between this statement of Reish Lakish and another statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥanina:

פיאה מותרת לענין כלאים אבל לא לשבת ורבי יוחנן אמר כמחיצות לשבת דלא כך מחיצות לכלאים דלא

A braid of vines plaited around poles to form a partition is permitted with regard to diverse kinds, i.e., it is considered a partition that renders planting grapevines in close proximity to other crops permitted, but not with regard to Shabbat. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Just as such a braid is not considered a partition with regard to Shabbat, so too it is not considered a partition with regard to diverse kinds. Their opinions in the dispute here apparently contradict their opinions in the dispute cited above.

בשלמא דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה אלא דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן קשיא

Granted, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Reish Lakish and the other statement of Reish Lakish poses no difficulty, as this statement, according to which such a braid of vines is an effective partition even with regard to Shabbat, reflects his own opinion; that statement, according to which it is an effective partition only with regard to diverse kinds, reflects the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. However, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan and the other statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, poses a difficulty.

אי אמרת בשלמא התם על גבן הכא מן הצד שפיר אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי מן הצד מאי איכא למימר

Granted, if you say that there, where Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled that a braid of vines is an effective partition with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where the vines were placed on top of the posts, while here, where he rules that it is ineffective even with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where they were attached to the posts from the side, it works out well. However, if you say that both this and that are cases where the vines were attached from the side, what is there to say?

לעולם אידי ואידי מן הצד התם בעשר הכא ביותר מעשר

The Gemara answers: Actually, both this and that are cases where the vines were attached to the side posts from the side. There, where Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled that the braid is an effective partition with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where the poles were only ten cubits apart; here, where he rules that it is ineffective even with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where the poles were more than ten cubits apart.

ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין עשר ליותר מעשר דאמר ליה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש לא כך היה המעשה שהלך רבי יהושע אצל רבי יוחנן בן נורי ללמוד תורה אף על פי שבקי בהלכות כלאים ומצאו שיושב בין האילנות ומתח זמורה מאילן לאילן ואמר לו רבי אי גפנים כאן מהו לזרוע כאן אמר לו בעשר מותר ביותר מעשר אסור

And from where do you say that we distinguish between an opening of ten cubits and an opening of more than ten cubits? As Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: That is not the way that the incident transpired. As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, even though Rabbi Yehoshua himself was an expert in the halakhot of diverse kinds and found him sitting among the trees, and Rabbi Yehoshua stretched a vine from one tree to another and said to him: Rabbi, if there are grapevines here, in the enclosed area, what is the halakha with regard to sowing diverse kinds of seeds here, on the other side of the partition? Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him: In a case where the trees are only ten cubits apart, it is permitted; however, where they are more than ten cubits apart, it is prohibited.

במאי עסקינן אילימא על גבן יותר מעשר אסור והתניא היו שם קנין הדוקרנין ועשה להן פיאה מלמעלה אפילו ביותר מעשר מותר

The Gemara clarifies the case: With what are we dealing here? If you say that the vines were placed on top of the trees, when they are more than ten cubits apart is it prohibited? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to diverse kinds: If there were forked reeds there and he plaited a braid of vines above them, then even if the reeds were set more than ten cubits apart, it is permitted? With regard to diverse kinds, the form of a doorway when properly constructed is certainly effective.

אלא לאו מן הצד וקאמר ליה בעשר מותר יותר מעשר אסור שמע מינה:

Rather, is it not referring to a case where he attached the vines to the trees from the side, and he is saying to him: In a case where the trees are only ten cubits apart, it is permitted; however, in a case where the trees are more than ten cubits apart, it is prohibited? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that there is a distinction between poles that are ten cubits apart and poles that are more than ten cubits apart, and that this distinction resolves the contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

גופא אמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שעשאה מן הצד לא עשה ולא כלום

The Gemara now examines the matter itself with regard to Rav Ḥisda’s statement cited above. Rav Ḥisda said: If one prepared an opening in the form of a doorway from the side, placing the horizontal cross beam to the sides, rather than on top, of the vertical posts, he has not done anything.

ואמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שאמרו צריכה שתהא בריאה כדי להעמיד בה דלת ואפילו דלת של קשין

And Rav Ḥisda also said: The opening in the form of a doorway of which the Sages spoke must be strong enough to mount a door in it, and even if it is merely a flimsy door of straw.

אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי ינאי צורת הפתח צריכה היכר ציר מאי היכר ציר אמר רב אויא אבקתא

Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The opening in the form of a doorway requires a mark in the doorpost for hinges. The Gemara asks: What is an mark for hinges? Rav Avya said: Loops [avkata] into which the hinge is inserted, so that it will be possible to mount a door in the doorway.

אשכחינהו רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לתלמידי דרב אשי אמר להו אמר מר מידי בצורת הפתח אמרו ליה לא אמר ולא כלום

The Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa, the son of Rav Avya, once found the students of Rav Ashi and said to them: Did the Master, Rav Ashi, say anything with regard to an opening in the form of a doorway? They said to him: He said nothing, implying that an indication for hinges is unnecessary.

תנא צורת הפתח שאמרו קנה מכאן וקנה מכאן וקנה על גביהן צריכין ליגע או אין צריכין ליגע רב נחמן אמר אין צריכין ליגע ורב ששת אמר צריכין ליגע

A Sage taught a baraita: The form of a doorway of which they spoke consists of a reed from here, on one side, and a reed from there, on the opposite side, and a reed on top of them. The Gemara asks: Need the lower reeds reach high enough to touch the upper reed, or do they not need to touch it? Rav Naḥman said: They do not need to touch it; and Rav Sheshet said: They need to touch it.

אזל רב נחמן ועבד עובדא בי ריש גלותא כשמעתיה אמר ליה רב ששת לשמעיה רב גדא זיל שלוף שדינהו אזל שלף שדינהו אשכחוהו דבי ריש גלותא חבשוהו אזל רב ששת קם אבבא אמר ליה גדא פוק תא נפק ואתא

The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman went ahead and performed an action in the house of the Exilarch in accordance with his own opinion. He constructed an opening in the form of a doorway such that the upper reed was not in contact with the lower reeds. Rav Sheshet said to his attendant, Rav Gadda: Go, remove those reeds and throw them away. The attendant went, removed the reeds, and threw them away. Members of the Exilarch’s court found him and imprisoned him for destroying the form of a doorway that permitted them to carry. Rav Sheshet went and stood at the door of the prison, and called out to him: Gadda, go out and come to me. The Exilarch’s men released him, and he went out and came to Rav Sheshet.

אשכחיה רב ששת לרבה בר שמואל אמר ליה תני מר מידי בצורת הפתח אמר ליה אין תנינא כיפה רבי מאיר מחייב במזוזה וחכמים פוטרין ושוין שאם יש ברגליה עשרה שהיא חייבת

The Gemara relates that Rav Sheshet once found Rabba bar Shmuel and said to him: Did the Master teach anything with regard to the halakhot of the form of a doorway? He said to him: Yes, we learned in a baraita: With regard to an arched gateway, Rabbi Meir deems the owner obligated to affix a mezuza, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. However, they both agree that if its supports, the vertical sides of the gate before it arches, are ten handbreadths high, that the gate requires a mezuza.

אמר אביי הכל מודים אם גבוהה עשרה ואין ברגליה שלשה אי נמי יש ברגליה שלשה ואין גבוהה עשרה ולא כלום

In order to explain the dispute, Abaye said: Everyone agrees that if the entire arch is ten handbreadths high, but its supports are less than three handbreadths high, or, alternatively, if its supports are three handbreadths high but the entire arch is less than ten handbreadths high, the arch requires no mezuza at all. Both of these gateways lack the requisite parameters of the form of a doorway to require a mezuza.

כי פליגי ביש ברגליה שלשה וגבוהה עשרה ואין רחבה ארבעה ויש בה לחוק להשלימה לארבעה

Where they disagree is in a case where the supports are three handbreadths high and the entire arch is ten handbreadths high, and at the height of ten handbreadths the arch is less than four handbreadths wide; however, there is room to carve out the area to complete it to four handbreadths, so that the opening of the arch measures four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths high.

רבי מאיר סבר חוקקין להשלים ורבנן סברי אין חוקקין להשלים

Abaye explains the dispute: Rabbi Meir holds that one carves out the area to complete the four handbreadths, i.e., the arch is considered as though it has already been carved out, and the opening has the necessary dimensions. And the Rabbis hold that one does not carve out the arch to complete the four handbreadths. Since the opening is not actually four handbreadths wide at a height of ten handbreadths, no mezuza need be affixed. Rabba bar Shmuel indicates that everyone agrees that the lintel need not touch the doorposts of the entrance; if the arch’s opening were four handbreadths wide at a height of ten handbreadths, it would require a mezuza even though the ceiling is separated by the arch and does not touch the doorposts directly. So too, with regard to the form of a doorway, the upper reed need not touch the lower reeds, contrary to the opinion of Rav Sheshet.

אמר ליה אי משכחת להו לא תימא להו לבי ריש גלותא ולא מידי מהא מתניתא דכיפה:

Rav Sheshet said to Rabba bar Shmuel: If you find them, do not say to the members of the Exilarch’s household anything with regard to this baraita of an arched gateway, as it is proof against my opinion.

מתני׳ הכשר מבוי בית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה ובית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה רבי אליעזר אומר לחיין

MISHNA: There is a basic dispute with regard to the method of rendering an alleyway fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat. Beit Shammai say: Both a side post and a cross beam are required. Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a cross beam. Rabbi Eliezer says: Two side posts are required, one on each side of the alleyway.

משום רבי ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד לפני רבי עקיבא לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על מבוי שהוא פחות מארבע אמות שהוא ניתר או בלחי או בקורה על מה נחלקו על רחב מארבע אמות ועד עשר שבית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה ובית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה אמר רבי עקיבא על זה ועל זה נחלקו:

In the name of Rabbi Yishmael, one student said before Rabbi Akiva: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway that is less than four cubits wide, as they both agree that carrying is rendered permitted by either a side post or a cross beam. With regard to what did they disagree? It is with regard to an alleyway that is wider than four cubits, and up to ten cubits wide; as Beit Shammai say: It requires both a side post and a cross beam. And Beit Hillel say: It requires either a side post or a cross beam. Rabbi Akiva said to the disciple: It is not so, as they disagree both about this case, i.e., an alleyway that is less than four cubits wide, and about that case, i.e., an alleyway that is between four and ten cubits wide.

גמ׳ כמאן דלא כחנניה ולא כתנא קמא

GEMARA: Before clarifying the various opinions in the mishna, the Gemara seeks to determine: In accordance with whose opinion was this mishna taught? Apparently, it is neither in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, nor in accordance with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna of the baraita, who disagree about an alleyway that is open to a public domain on two opposite sides. The dispute is whether the form of a doorway on one end and a side post and a cross beam on the other end suffice to render it permitted for one to carry within it, or whether actual doors are required, at least on one end. However, they both agree that a side post and a cross beam alone are not effective. Since at this point the Gemara assumes that the dispute in the mishna between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies to all alleyways, whether closed on one side or open on two opposite sides to the public domain, these opinions reflect an entirely different position.

אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר הכשר מבוי סתום כיצד בית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה ובית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה

Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: How is a closed alleyway rendered fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat? Beit Shammai say: It requires both a side post and a cross beam. And Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a cross beam.

בית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה למימרא דקא סברי בית שמאי ארבע מחיצות דאורייתא

The Gemara discusses the basis of each opinion. Beit Shammai say: It requires both a side post and a cross beam. Is that to say that Beit Shammai hold that in order for an area to be considered a private domain, four partitions are required by Torah law? Since a side post with a cross beam qualifies as a partition, the fact that they do not permit carrying within an alleyway without a side post indicates that they maintain that a private domain requires four partitions.

לא לזרוק משלש הוא דמיחייב לטלטל עד דאיכא ארבע

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, there is no proof, as one cannot conclude the parameters for a private domain based on the number of walls required to permit carrying. As with regard to the Torah prohibition to throw an object into a private domain from the public domain, once an enclosed area has three partitions, one is liable by Torah law. However, to permit one to carry an object within a private domain, the Rabbis decreed that it is not permitted until there are partitions on all four sides.

בית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה לימא קא סברי בית הלל שלש מחיצות דאורייתא

The Gemara attempts to draw an inference from that which Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a cross beam is required. Is that to say that Beit Hillel hold that at least three partitions are required by Torah law, and that an area with fewer is not considered a private domain?

לא לזרוק משתים הוא דמיחייב לטלטל עד דאיכא שלש:

The Gemara rejects this argument as well: No proof can be cited from here. With regard to the Torah prohibition to throw an object into a private domain from the public domain, once an enclosed area has merely two partitions, one is liable by Torah law. However, to permit one to carry an object within a private domain, the Rabbis decreed that it is not permitted until there are partitions on three sides. A cross beam and a side post do not function as partitions but merely as conspicuous markers, so that one does not mistakenly carry outside the alleyway.

רבי אליעזר אומר לחיין: איבעיא להו רבי אליעזר לחיין וקורה קאמר או דילמא לחיין בלא קורה קאמר

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: Two side posts are required. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did Rabbi Eliezer intend to say that two side posts and a cross beam are required, adding a stringency to Beit Shammai’s opinion, that in addition to the cross beam not one, but two side posts are required? Or perhaps he intended to say that two side posts without a cross beam are required.

תא שמע מעשה ברבי אליעזר שהלך אצל רבי יוסי בן פרידא תלמידו

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was related in the Tosefta. There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who went to Rabbi Yosei ben Perida, his disciple,

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

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 11: Doorways of… Eruvin

Terminology: Tzurat ha-petach. Pitachei shima'ei. Avkata. The need to visualize, and how that plays out, runs throughout the daf. So,...

Eruvin 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 11

איפכא מאי

The Gemara asks: What is the halakha in the opposite situation? Does an opening in the form of a doorway also serve to permit carrying in an alleyway that is more than twenty cubits high?

תא שמע דתניא מבוי שהוא גבוה מעשרים אמה ימעט ואם יש לו צורת הפתח אינו צריך למעט

The Gemara answers: Come and hear the answer to this question, as it was taught in a baraita: If the cross beam placed over the entrance to an alleyway is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish its height, but if the entrance has an opening in the form of a doorway, he need not diminish it.

אמלתרא ברחבו מאי תא שמע דתניא מבוי שהוא גבוה מעשרים אמה ימעט והרחב מעשר ימעט ואם יש לו צורת הפתח אינו צריך למעט ואם יש לו אמלתרא אינו צריך למעט

The Gemara asks: What is the effect of a cornice with regard to the need to diminish the alleyway’s width? Does the cornice render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, even if the entrance is more than ten cubits wide? The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer as it was taught in a baraita: If the cross beam placed over the entrance to an alleyway is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish its height, and if the alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width. However, if the entrance to the alleyway has an opening in the form of a doorway, he need not diminish it, and, similarly, if it has a cornice, he need not diminish it.

מאי לאו אסיפא לא ארישא

The Gemara explains the proof it wishes to adduce from this baraita: What, is this statement with regard to the cornice not referring to the latter clause, i.e., the case of an alleyway that is wider than ten cubits, proving that a cornice can render an alleyway otherwise too wide fit for one to carry within it? The Gemara refutes this argument: No, this statement is referring to the first clause of the baraita, that a cornice is effective for an alleyway more than twenty cubits high, but it tells us nothing about one that is more than ten cubits wide.

מתני ליה רב יהודה לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב אינו צריך למעט אמר ליה אתנייה צריך למעט

With regard to the same issue, Rav Yehuda would teach the baraita to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav as follows: If the entrance to an alleyway that is wider than ten cubits has an opening in the form of a doorway, he need not diminish its width. Rav said to him: Teach him that the correct version of the baraita is: He must diminish its width.

אמר רב יוסף מדברי רבינו נלמד חצר שרובה פתחים וחלונות אינה ניתרת בצורת הפתח

Rav Yosef said: From the statement of our teacher, Rav, who said that the entrance to an alleyway must be diminished even if it has an opening in the form of a doorway, we will learn that with regard to a courtyard, the walls of which are mostly entrances and windows, it is not permitted to carry within it even by having an opening in the form of a doorway. Even if the entrances have an opening in the form of a doorway, this does not render a mostly breached courtyard wall into a closed wall.

מאי טעמא הואיל ויותר מעשר אוסר במבוי ופרוץ מרובה על העומד אוסר בחצר מה יותר מעשר האוסר במבוי אינו ניתר בצורת הפתח אף פרוץ מרובה על העומד האוסר בחצר אינו ניתר בצורת הפתח

What is the reason? Since an opening of more than ten cubits renders it prohibited for one to carry in an alleyway, and likewise when the breached segment of a wall that is greater than its standing segment renders it prohibited for one to carry in a courtyard, the following claim can be made: Just as, according to Rav, in the case of an opening more than ten cubits wide that renders it prohibited for one to carry in an alleyway, carrying in the alleyway is not permitted by the form of a doorway in the opening, so too a case where breached segment of a wall is greater than its standing segment that renders it prohibited for one to carry in a courtyard, carrying in the courtyard is not permitted by the form of a doorway in the opening.

מה ליותר מעשר האוסר במבוי שכן לא התרת בו אצל פסי ביראות לרבי מאיר תאמר בפרוץ מרובה על העומד האוסר בחצר שכן התרת אצל פסי ביראות לדברי הכל

The Gemara rejects this argument: What is the basis for comparison to an opening that is more than ten cubits wide that renders it prohibited for one to carry in an alleyway? It is not permitted by having an opening in the form of a doorway because you did not permit an opening of that size with regard to the case of upright boards surrounding a well, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Can you say the same in a case where the breached segment of a wall is greater than the standing segment that renders it prohibited for one to carry in a courtyard, that carrying in the courtyard will not be permitted by the form of a doorway? That situation is clearly not as severe a problem, as you permitted carrying with regard to upright boards surrounding a well according to everyone. Consequently, no comparison can be made between the case of an opening wider than ten cubits in an alleyway and a partition in which the breached segment is greater than the standing segment in a courtyard.

לימא מסייע ליה דפנות הללו שרובן פתחים וחלונות מותר ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports this opinion that the form of a doorway is ineffective in a case where the breached segments of a wall are greater than its standing segments: With regard to the area enclosed by these walls that most of them consist of entrances and windows, it is permitted to carry on Shabbat therein, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments.

שרובן סלקא דעתך אלא אימא שריבה בהן פתחים וחלונות ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

The Gemara first analyzes the wording of the baraita: The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the baraita: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to a case where most of the walls are entrances and windows? If so, the standing segments are not greater than the breached segments. Rather, emend the baraita: Carrying in the area enclosed by these walls to which he added many entrances and windows is permitted, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments. Apparently, if the breached segments are greater than the standing segments, carrying is not permitted even if the breaches are in the form of doorways.

אמר רב כהנא כי תניא ההיא בפיתחי שימאי

Rav Kahana said that his is not an absolute proof: When this baraita was taught, it was taught with regard to broken entrances [pitḥei shima’ei] that lack the proper form of doorways.

מאי פיתחי שימאי פליגי בה רב רחומי ורב יוסף חד אמר דלית להו שקפי וחד אמר דלית להו תיקרה

The Gemara asks: What are broken entrances? Rav Reḥumei and Rav Yosef disagreed on the matter. One said that they do not have proper doorposts, and the other one said that they do not have lintels above the openings.

ואף רבי יוחנן סבר לה להא דרב דאמר רבין בר רב אדא אמר רבי יצחק מעשה באדם אחד מבקעת בית חורתן שנעץ ארבעה קונדיסין בארבע פינות השדה ומתח זמורה עליהם ובא מעשה לפני חכמים והתירו לו לענין כלאים

The Gemara comments: And even Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that opinion of Rav, that an opening in the form of a doorway does not permit carrying if the opening is more than ten cubits wide. As Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was an incident involving a person from the valley of Beit Ḥortan who stuck four poles [kunddeisin] into the ground in the four corners of his field, and stretched a vine over them, creating the form of a doorway on each side. He intended to seal the area so that he would be permitted to plant a vineyard in close proximity without creating a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard. And the case came before the Sages, and they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to diverse kinds.

ואמר ריש לקיש כדרך שהתירו לו לענין כלאים כך התירו לו לענין שבת רבי יוחנן אמר לכלאים התירו לו לענין שבת לא התירו לו

And Reish Lakish said: Just as they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to diverse kinds, so too they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to Shabbat, i.e., they permitted carrying within this area. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to diverse kinds, they permitted him to consider it sealed, however, with regard to Shabbat, they did not permit him to do so.

במאי עסקינן אילימא מן הצד והאמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שעשאה מן הצד לא עשה ולא כלום

The Gemara clarifies: With what case are we dealing here? If you say that he draped the vines on the posts from the side, rather than on top of them, didn’t Rav Ḥisda say with regard to Shabbat: If one constructed an opening in the form of a doorway from the side, he has done nothing?

אלא על גבן ובמאי אילימא בעשר בהא לימא רבי יוחנן בשבת לא

Rather, it must be that he set the vines on top of the posts. And in what circumstances did Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree? If you say that the posts were set at a distance of ten cubits from each other, would Rabbi Yoḥanan say in that case that with regard to Shabbat, they did not permit him to consider the area sealed? Everyone agrees that the form of a doorway is effective for an entrance that is only ten cubits wide.

אלא לאו ביתר מעשר

Rather, isn’t it referring to a case where the posts were more than ten cubits apart? Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees with Rav, that an opening in the form of a doorway does not permit carrying if the original opening is wider than ten cubits.

לא לעולם בעשר ומן הצד ובדרב חסדא קא מיפלגי

The Gemara refutes this proof: No, actually it is referring to a case where the posts were ten cubits apart, and the person attached the vines to the posts from the side. And Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree with regard to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. Reish Lakish maintains that the form of a doorway is effective even when the horizontal cross beam is attached to the vertical posts from the side, and Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees with Rav Ḥisda that a form of a doorway is ineffective for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat when constructed in such a manner.

ורמי דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן ורמי דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה ברבי חנינא

The Gemara comments: But it is possible to raise a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan and another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan; and it is possible to raise a contradiction between this statement of Reish Lakish and another statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥanina:

פיאה מותרת לענין כלאים אבל לא לשבת ורבי יוחנן אמר כמחיצות לשבת דלא כך מחיצות לכלאים דלא

A braid of vines plaited around poles to form a partition is permitted with regard to diverse kinds, i.e., it is considered a partition that renders planting grapevines in close proximity to other crops permitted, but not with regard to Shabbat. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Just as such a braid is not considered a partition with regard to Shabbat, so too it is not considered a partition with regard to diverse kinds. Their opinions in the dispute here apparently contradict their opinions in the dispute cited above.

בשלמא דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה אלא דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן קשיא

Granted, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Reish Lakish and the other statement of Reish Lakish poses no difficulty, as this statement, according to which such a braid of vines is an effective partition even with regard to Shabbat, reflects his own opinion; that statement, according to which it is an effective partition only with regard to diverse kinds, reflects the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. However, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan and the other statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, poses a difficulty.

אי אמרת בשלמא התם על גבן הכא מן הצד שפיר אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי מן הצד מאי איכא למימר

Granted, if you say that there, where Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled that a braid of vines is an effective partition with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where the vines were placed on top of the posts, while here, where he rules that it is ineffective even with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where they were attached to the posts from the side, it works out well. However, if you say that both this and that are cases where the vines were attached from the side, what is there to say?

לעולם אידי ואידי מן הצד התם בעשר הכא ביותר מעשר

The Gemara answers: Actually, both this and that are cases where the vines were attached to the side posts from the side. There, where Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled that the braid is an effective partition with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where the poles were only ten cubits apart; here, where he rules that it is ineffective even with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where the poles were more than ten cubits apart.

ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין עשר ליותר מעשר דאמר ליה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש לא כך היה המעשה שהלך רבי יהושע אצל רבי יוחנן בן נורי ללמוד תורה אף על פי שבקי בהלכות כלאים ומצאו שיושב בין האילנות ומתח זמורה מאילן לאילן ואמר לו רבי אי גפנים כאן מהו לזרוע כאן אמר לו בעשר מותר ביותר מעשר אסור

And from where do you say that we distinguish between an opening of ten cubits and an opening of more than ten cubits? As Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: That is not the way that the incident transpired. As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, even though Rabbi Yehoshua himself was an expert in the halakhot of diverse kinds and found him sitting among the trees, and Rabbi Yehoshua stretched a vine from one tree to another and said to him: Rabbi, if there are grapevines here, in the enclosed area, what is the halakha with regard to sowing diverse kinds of seeds here, on the other side of the partition? Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him: In a case where the trees are only ten cubits apart, it is permitted; however, where they are more than ten cubits apart, it is prohibited.

במאי עסקינן אילימא על גבן יותר מעשר אסור והתניא היו שם קנין הדוקרנין ועשה להן פיאה מלמעלה אפילו ביותר מעשר מותר

The Gemara clarifies the case: With what are we dealing here? If you say that the vines were placed on top of the trees, when they are more than ten cubits apart is it prohibited? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to diverse kinds: If there were forked reeds there and he plaited a braid of vines above them, then even if the reeds were set more than ten cubits apart, it is permitted? With regard to diverse kinds, the form of a doorway when properly constructed is certainly effective.

אלא לאו מן הצד וקאמר ליה בעשר מותר יותר מעשר אסור שמע מינה:

Rather, is it not referring to a case where he attached the vines to the trees from the side, and he is saying to him: In a case where the trees are only ten cubits apart, it is permitted; however, in a case where the trees are more than ten cubits apart, it is prohibited? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that there is a distinction between poles that are ten cubits apart and poles that are more than ten cubits apart, and that this distinction resolves the contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

גופא אמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שעשאה מן הצד לא עשה ולא כלום

The Gemara now examines the matter itself with regard to Rav Ḥisda’s statement cited above. Rav Ḥisda said: If one prepared an opening in the form of a doorway from the side, placing the horizontal cross beam to the sides, rather than on top, of the vertical posts, he has not done anything.

ואמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שאמרו צריכה שתהא בריאה כדי להעמיד בה דלת ואפילו דלת של קשין

And Rav Ḥisda also said: The opening in the form of a doorway of which the Sages spoke must be strong enough to mount a door in it, and even if it is merely a flimsy door of straw.

אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי ינאי צורת הפתח צריכה היכר ציר מאי היכר ציר אמר רב אויא אבקתא

Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The opening in the form of a doorway requires a mark in the doorpost for hinges. The Gemara asks: What is an mark for hinges? Rav Avya said: Loops [avkata] into which the hinge is inserted, so that it will be possible to mount a door in the doorway.

אשכחינהו רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לתלמידי דרב אשי אמר להו אמר מר מידי בצורת הפתח אמרו ליה לא אמר ולא כלום

The Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa, the son of Rav Avya, once found the students of Rav Ashi and said to them: Did the Master, Rav Ashi, say anything with regard to an opening in the form of a doorway? They said to him: He said nothing, implying that an indication for hinges is unnecessary.

תנא צורת הפתח שאמרו קנה מכאן וקנה מכאן וקנה על גביהן צריכין ליגע או אין צריכין ליגע רב נחמן אמר אין צריכין ליגע ורב ששת אמר צריכין ליגע

A Sage taught a baraita: The form of a doorway of which they spoke consists of a reed from here, on one side, and a reed from there, on the opposite side, and a reed on top of them. The Gemara asks: Need the lower reeds reach high enough to touch the upper reed, or do they not need to touch it? Rav Naḥman said: They do not need to touch it; and Rav Sheshet said: They need to touch it.

אזל רב נחמן ועבד עובדא בי ריש גלותא כשמעתיה אמר ליה רב ששת לשמעיה רב גדא זיל שלוף שדינהו אזל שלף שדינהו אשכחוהו דבי ריש גלותא חבשוהו אזל רב ששת קם אבבא אמר ליה גדא פוק תא נפק ואתא

The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman went ahead and performed an action in the house of the Exilarch in accordance with his own opinion. He constructed an opening in the form of a doorway such that the upper reed was not in contact with the lower reeds. Rav Sheshet said to his attendant, Rav Gadda: Go, remove those reeds and throw them away. The attendant went, removed the reeds, and threw them away. Members of the Exilarch’s court found him and imprisoned him for destroying the form of a doorway that permitted them to carry. Rav Sheshet went and stood at the door of the prison, and called out to him: Gadda, go out and come to me. The Exilarch’s men released him, and he went out and came to Rav Sheshet.

אשכחיה רב ששת לרבה בר שמואל אמר ליה תני מר מידי בצורת הפתח אמר ליה אין תנינא כיפה רבי מאיר מחייב במזוזה וחכמים פוטרין ושוין שאם יש ברגליה עשרה שהיא חייבת

The Gemara relates that Rav Sheshet once found Rabba bar Shmuel and said to him: Did the Master teach anything with regard to the halakhot of the form of a doorway? He said to him: Yes, we learned in a baraita: With regard to an arched gateway, Rabbi Meir deems the owner obligated to affix a mezuza, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. However, they both agree that if its supports, the vertical sides of the gate before it arches, are ten handbreadths high, that the gate requires a mezuza.

אמר אביי הכל מודים אם גבוהה עשרה ואין ברגליה שלשה אי נמי יש ברגליה שלשה ואין גבוהה עשרה ולא כלום

In order to explain the dispute, Abaye said: Everyone agrees that if the entire arch is ten handbreadths high, but its supports are less than three handbreadths high, or, alternatively, if its supports are three handbreadths high but the entire arch is less than ten handbreadths high, the arch requires no mezuza at all. Both of these gateways lack the requisite parameters of the form of a doorway to require a mezuza.

כי פליגי ביש ברגליה שלשה וגבוהה עשרה ואין רחבה ארבעה ויש בה לחוק להשלימה לארבעה

Where they disagree is in a case where the supports are three handbreadths high and the entire arch is ten handbreadths high, and at the height of ten handbreadths the arch is less than four handbreadths wide; however, there is room to carve out the area to complete it to four handbreadths, so that the opening of the arch measures four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths high.

רבי מאיר סבר חוקקין להשלים ורבנן סברי אין חוקקין להשלים

Abaye explains the dispute: Rabbi Meir holds that one carves out the area to complete the four handbreadths, i.e., the arch is considered as though it has already been carved out, and the opening has the necessary dimensions. And the Rabbis hold that one does not carve out the arch to complete the four handbreadths. Since the opening is not actually four handbreadths wide at a height of ten handbreadths, no mezuza need be affixed. Rabba bar Shmuel indicates that everyone agrees that the lintel need not touch the doorposts of the entrance; if the arch’s opening were four handbreadths wide at a height of ten handbreadths, it would require a mezuza even though the ceiling is separated by the arch and does not touch the doorposts directly. So too, with regard to the form of a doorway, the upper reed need not touch the lower reeds, contrary to the opinion of Rav Sheshet.

אמר ליה אי משכחת להו לא תימא להו לבי ריש גלותא ולא מידי מהא מתניתא דכיפה:

Rav Sheshet said to Rabba bar Shmuel: If you find them, do not say to the members of the Exilarch’s household anything with regard to this baraita of an arched gateway, as it is proof against my opinion.

מתני׳ הכשר מבוי בית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה ובית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה רבי אליעזר אומר לחיין

MISHNA: There is a basic dispute with regard to the method of rendering an alleyway fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat. Beit Shammai say: Both a side post and a cross beam are required. Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a cross beam. Rabbi Eliezer says: Two side posts are required, one on each side of the alleyway.

משום רבי ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד לפני רבי עקיבא לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על מבוי שהוא פחות מארבע אמות שהוא ניתר או בלחי או בקורה על מה נחלקו על רחב מארבע אמות ועד עשר שבית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה ובית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה אמר רבי עקיבא על זה ועל זה נחלקו:

In the name of Rabbi Yishmael, one student said before Rabbi Akiva: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway that is less than four cubits wide, as they both agree that carrying is rendered permitted by either a side post or a cross beam. With regard to what did they disagree? It is with regard to an alleyway that is wider than four cubits, and up to ten cubits wide; as Beit Shammai say: It requires both a side post and a cross beam. And Beit Hillel say: It requires either a side post or a cross beam. Rabbi Akiva said to the disciple: It is not so, as they disagree both about this case, i.e., an alleyway that is less than four cubits wide, and about that case, i.e., an alleyway that is between four and ten cubits wide.

גמ׳ כמאן דלא כחנניה ולא כתנא קמא

GEMARA: Before clarifying the various opinions in the mishna, the Gemara seeks to determine: In accordance with whose opinion was this mishna taught? Apparently, it is neither in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, nor in accordance with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna of the baraita, who disagree about an alleyway that is open to a public domain on two opposite sides. The dispute is whether the form of a doorway on one end and a side post and a cross beam on the other end suffice to render it permitted for one to carry within it, or whether actual doors are required, at least on one end. However, they both agree that a side post and a cross beam alone are not effective. Since at this point the Gemara assumes that the dispute in the mishna between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies to all alleyways, whether closed on one side or open on two opposite sides to the public domain, these opinions reflect an entirely different position.

אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר הכשר מבוי סתום כיצד בית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה ובית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה

Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: How is a closed alleyway rendered fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat? Beit Shammai say: It requires both a side post and a cross beam. And Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a cross beam.

בית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה למימרא דקא סברי בית שמאי ארבע מחיצות דאורייתא

The Gemara discusses the basis of each opinion. Beit Shammai say: It requires both a side post and a cross beam. Is that to say that Beit Shammai hold that in order for an area to be considered a private domain, four partitions are required by Torah law? Since a side post with a cross beam qualifies as a partition, the fact that they do not permit carrying within an alleyway without a side post indicates that they maintain that a private domain requires four partitions.

לא לזרוק משלש הוא דמיחייב לטלטל עד דאיכא ארבע

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, there is no proof, as one cannot conclude the parameters for a private domain based on the number of walls required to permit carrying. As with regard to the Torah prohibition to throw an object into a private domain from the public domain, once an enclosed area has three partitions, one is liable by Torah law. However, to permit one to carry an object within a private domain, the Rabbis decreed that it is not permitted until there are partitions on all four sides.

בית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה לימא קא סברי בית הלל שלש מחיצות דאורייתא

The Gemara attempts to draw an inference from that which Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a cross beam is required. Is that to say that Beit Hillel hold that at least three partitions are required by Torah law, and that an area with fewer is not considered a private domain?

לא לזרוק משתים הוא דמיחייב לטלטל עד דאיכא שלש:

The Gemara rejects this argument as well: No proof can be cited from here. With regard to the Torah prohibition to throw an object into a private domain from the public domain, once an enclosed area has merely two partitions, one is liable by Torah law. However, to permit one to carry an object within a private domain, the Rabbis decreed that it is not permitted until there are partitions on three sides. A cross beam and a side post do not function as partitions but merely as conspicuous markers, so that one does not mistakenly carry outside the alleyway.

רבי אליעזר אומר לחיין: איבעיא להו רבי אליעזר לחיין וקורה קאמר או דילמא לחיין בלא קורה קאמר

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: Two side posts are required. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did Rabbi Eliezer intend to say that two side posts and a cross beam are required, adding a stringency to Beit Shammai’s opinion, that in addition to the cross beam not one, but two side posts are required? Or perhaps he intended to say that two side posts without a cross beam are required.

תא שמע מעשה ברבי אליעזר שהלך אצל רבי יוסי בן פרידא תלמידו

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was related in the Tosefta. There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who went to Rabbi Yosei ben Perida, his disciple,

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top