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

Daf Yomi

August 20, 2020 | 诇壮 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 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?

 

讗讬驻讻讗 诪讗讬


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?


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬诪注讟 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟


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.


讗诪诇转专讗 讘专讞讘讜 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬诪注讟 讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讬诪注讟 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 讗诪诇转专讗 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟


The Gemara asks: What is the effect of a cornice with regard to the need to diminish the alleyway鈥檚 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.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 诇讗 讗专讬砖讗


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.


诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转谞讬讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟


With regard to the same issue, Rav Yehuda would teach the baraita to 岣yya 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬谞讜 谞诇诪讚 讞爪专 砖专讜讘讛 驻转讞讬诐 讜讞诇讜谞讜转 讗讬谞讛 谞讬转专转 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞


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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗讜住专 讘诪讘讜讬 讜驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讗讜住专 讘讞爪专 诪讛 讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讛讗讜住专 讘诪讘讜讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗祝 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讛讗讜住专 讘讞爪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞


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.


诪讛 诇讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讛讗讜住专 讘诪讘讜讬 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛转专转 讘讜 讗爪诇 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讗诪专 讘驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讛讗讜住专 讘讞爪专 砖讻谉 讛转专转 讗爪诇 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇


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.


诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讚驻谞讜转 讛诇诇讜 砖专讜讘谉 驻转讞讬诐 讜讞诇讜谞讜转 诪讜转专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


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.


砖专讜讘谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛谉 驻转讞讬诐 讜讞诇讜谞讜转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘驻讬转讞讬 砖讬诪讗讬


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


诪讗讬 驻讬转讞讬 砖讬诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 专讞讜诪讬 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讚 讗诪专 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 砖拽驻讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 转讬拽专讛


The Gemara asks: What are broken entrances? Rav Re岣mei 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.


讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 诪讘拽注转 讘讬转 讞讜专转谉 砖谞注抓 讗专讘注讛 拽讜谞讚讬住讬谉 讘讗专讘注 驻讬谞讜转 讛砖讚讛 讜诪转讞 讝诪讜专讛 注诇讬讛诐 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐


The Gemara comments: And even Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yitz岣k said: There was an incident involving a person from the valley of Beit 岣rtan 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.


讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚专讱 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讻讱 讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讻诇讗讬诐 讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讜


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 Yo岣nan 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.


讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪谉 讛爪讚 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 砖注砖讗讛 诪谉 讛爪讚 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐


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鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say with regard to Shabbat: If one constructed an opening in the form of a doorway from the side, he has done nothing?


讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘谉 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注砖专 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘砖讘转 诇讗


Rather, it must be that he set the vines on top of the posts. And in what circumstances did Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagree? If you say that the posts were set at a distance of ten cubits from each other, would Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讬转专 诪注砖专


Rather, isn鈥檛 it referring to a case where the posts were more than ten cubits apart? Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘注砖专 讜诪谉 讛爪讚 讜讘讚专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬


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 Yo岣nan disagree with regard to the opinion of Rav 岣sda. 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 Yo岣nan agrees with Rav 岣sda that a form of a doorway is ineffective for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat when constructed in such a manner.


讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专诪讬 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗


The Gemara comments: But it is possible to raise a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan; 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 岣nina:


驻讬讗讛 诪讜转专转 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇砖讘转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诪讞讬爪讜转 诇砖讘转 讚诇讗 讻讱 诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讻诇讗讬诐 讚诇讗


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 Yo岣nan 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.


讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗


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 岣nina. However, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and the other statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, poses a difficulty.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 注诇 讙讘谉 讛讻讗 诪谉 讛爪讚 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪谉 讛爪讚 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


Granted, if you say that there, where Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪谉 讛爪讚 讛转诐 讘注砖专 讛讻讗 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专


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 Yo岣nan 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.


讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 注砖专 诇讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 讛诪注砖讛 砖讛诇讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘拽讬 讘讛诇讻讜转 讻诇讗讬诐 讜诪爪讗讜 砖讬讜砖讘 讘讬谉 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜诪转讞 讝诪讜专讛 诪讗讬诇谉 诇讗讬诇谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讻讗谉 诪讛讜 诇讝专讜注 讻讗谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讘注砖专 诪讜转专 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗住讜专


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 Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: That is not the way that the incident transpired. As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.


讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注诇 讙讘谉 讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬讜 砖诐 拽谞讬谉 讛讚讜拽专谞讬谉 讜注砖讛 诇讛谉 驻讬讗讛 诪诇诪注诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专 诪讜转专


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鈥檛 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.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讚 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注砖专 诪讜转专 讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


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 Yo岣nan.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 砖注砖讗讛 诪谉 讛爪讚 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐


The Gemara now examines the matter itself with regard to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement cited above. Rav 岣sda 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.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 砖讗诪专讜 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讛讗 讘专讬讗讛 讻讚讬 诇讛注诪讬讚 讘讛 讚诇转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚诇转 砖诇 拽砖讬谉


And Rav 岣sda 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.


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬讻专 爪讬专 诪讗讬 讛讬讻专 爪讬专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讬讗 讗讘拽转讗


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 a 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.


讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诪专 诪讬讚讬 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐


The Gemara relates that Rav A岣, 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.


转谞讗 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 砖讗诪专讜 拽谞讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽谞讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽谞讛 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讬讙注 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讬讙注 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讬讙注 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讬讙注


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 Na岣an said: They do not need to touch it; and Rav Sheshet said: They need to touch it.


讗讝诇 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇砖诪注讬讛 专讘 讙讚讗 讝讬诇 砖诇讜祝 砖讚讬谞讛讜 讗讝诇 砖诇祝 砖讚讬谞讛讜 讗砖讻讞讜讛讜 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讞讘砖讜讛讜 讗讝诇 专讘 砖砖转 拽诐 讗讘讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讚讗 驻讜拽 转讗 谞驻拽 讜讗转讗


The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 men released him, and he went out and came to Rav Sheshet.


讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 诪专 诪讬讚讬 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 转谞讬谞讗 讻讬驻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘专讙诇讬讛 注砖专讛 砖讛讬讗 讞讬讬讘转


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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讗诐 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 讘专讙诇讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讬砖 讘专讙诇讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐


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.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬砖 讘专讙诇讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 诇讞讜拽 诇讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇讗专讘注讛


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.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐


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鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛讜 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讛讜 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 诪讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讚讻讬驻讛:


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


诪转谞讬壮 讛讻砖专 诪讘讜讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讞讬讬谉


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.


诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 谞讬转专 讗讜 讘诇讞讬 讗讜 讘拽讜专讛 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 专讞讘 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 注砖专 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注诇 讝讛 讜注诇 讝讛 谞讞诇拽讜:


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.


讙诪壮 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讞谞谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗


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 岣nanya, 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻砖专 诪讘讜讬 住转讜诐 讻讬爪讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛


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.


讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚拽讗 住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗专讘注 诪讞讬爪讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


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.


诇讗 诇讝专讜拽 诪砖诇砖 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇讟诇讟诇 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注


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.


讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诇讬诪讗 拽讗 住讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


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?


诇讗 诇讝专讜拽 诪砖转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇讟诇讟诇 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 砖诇砖:


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.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讞讬讬谉: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讞讬讬谉 讜拽讜专讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讞讬讬谉 讘诇讗 拽讜专讛 拽讗诪专


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鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讛诇讱 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 驻专讬讚讗 转诇诪讬讚讜


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

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 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

讗讬驻讻讗 诪讗讬


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?


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬诪注讟 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟


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.


讗诪诇转专讗 讘专讞讘讜 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬诪注讟 讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讬诪注讟 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 讗诪诇转专讗 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟


The Gemara asks: What is the effect of a cornice with regard to the need to diminish the alleyway鈥檚 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.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 诇讗 讗专讬砖讗


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.


诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转谞讬讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟


With regard to the same issue, Rav Yehuda would teach the baraita to 岣yya 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讚讘专讬 专讘讬谞讜 谞诇诪讚 讞爪专 砖专讜讘讛 驻转讞讬诐 讜讞诇讜谞讜转 讗讬谞讛 谞讬转专转 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞


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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗讜住专 讘诪讘讜讬 讜驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讗讜住专 讘讞爪专 诪讛 讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讛讗讜住专 讘诪讘讜讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗祝 驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讛讗讜住专 讘讞爪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞


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.


诪讛 诇讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讛讗讜住专 讘诪讘讜讬 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛转专转 讘讜 讗爪诇 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 转讗诪专 讘驻专讜抓 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛注讜诪讚 讛讗讜住专 讘讞爪专 砖讻谉 讛转专转 讗爪诇 驻住讬 讘讬专讗讜转 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇


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.


诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讚驻谞讜转 讛诇诇讜 砖专讜讘谉 驻转讞讬诐 讜讞诇讜谞讜转 诪讜转专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


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.


砖专讜讘谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛谉 驻转讞讬诐 讜讞诇讜谞讜转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘驻讬转讞讬 砖讬诪讗讬


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


诪讗讬 驻讬转讞讬 砖讬诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 专讞讜诪讬 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讞讚 讗诪专 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 砖拽驻讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 转讬拽专讛


The Gemara asks: What are broken entrances? Rav Re岣mei 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.


讜讗祝 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘专 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 诪讘拽注转 讘讬转 讞讜专转谉 砖谞注抓 讗专讘注讛 拽讜谞讚讬住讬谉 讘讗专讘注 驻讬谞讜转 讛砖讚讛 讜诪转讞 讝诪讜专讛 注诇讬讛诐 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐


The Gemara comments: And even Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yitz岣k said: There was an incident involving a person from the valley of Beit 岣rtan 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.


讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚专讱 砖讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讻讱 讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讻诇讗讬诐 讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讜


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 Yo岣nan 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.


讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪谉 讛爪讚 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 砖注砖讗讛 诪谉 讛爪讚 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐


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鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say with regard to Shabbat: If one constructed an opening in the form of a doorway from the side, he has done nothing?


讗诇讗 注诇 讙讘谉 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注砖专 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘砖讘转 诇讗


Rather, it must be that he set the vines on top of the posts. And in what circumstances did Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagree? If you say that the posts were set at a distance of ten cubits from each other, would Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讬转专 诪注砖专


Rather, isn鈥檛 it referring to a case where the posts were more than ten cubits apart? Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘注砖专 讜诪谉 讛爪讚 讜讘讚专讘 讞住讚讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬


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 Yo岣nan disagree with regard to the opinion of Rav 岣sda. 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 Yo岣nan agrees with Rav 岣sda that a form of a doorway is ineffective for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat when constructed in such a manner.


讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专诪讬 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗


The Gemara comments: But it is possible to raise a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan; 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 岣nina:


驻讬讗讛 诪讜转专转 诇注谞讬谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇砖讘转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诪讞讬爪讜转 诇砖讘转 讚诇讗 讻讱 诪讞讬爪讜转 诇讻诇讗讬诐 讚诇讗


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 Yo岣nan 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.


讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗


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 岣nina. However, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan and the other statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, poses a difficulty.


讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 注诇 讙讘谉 讛讻讗 诪谉 讛爪讚 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪谉 讛爪讚 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


Granted, if you say that there, where Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?


诇注讜诇诐 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪谉 讛爪讚 讛转诐 讘注砖专 讛讻讗 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专


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 Yo岣nan 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.


讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 注砖专 诇讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讻讱 讛讬讛 讛诪注砖讛 砖讛诇讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘拽讬 讘讛诇讻讜转 讻诇讗讬诐 讜诪爪讗讜 砖讬讜砖讘 讘讬谉 讛讗讬诇谞讜转 讜诪转讞 讝诪讜专讛 诪讗讬诇谉 诇讗讬诇谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗讬 讙驻谞讬诐 讻讗谉 诪讛讜 诇讝专讜注 讻讗谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讘注砖专 诪讜转专 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗住讜专


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 Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: That is not the way that the incident transpired. As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.


讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注诇 讙讘谉 讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬讜 砖诐 拽谞讬谉 讛讚讜拽专谞讬谉 讜注砖讛 诇讛谉 驻讬讗讛 诪诇诪注诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专 诪讜转专


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鈥檛 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.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讚 讜拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注砖专 诪讜转专 讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗住讜专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


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 Yo岣nan.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 砖注砖讗讛 诪谉 讛爪讚 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐


The Gemara now examines the matter itself with regard to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 statement cited above. Rav 岣sda 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.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 砖讗诪专讜 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讛讗 讘专讬讗讛 讻讚讬 诇讛注诪讬讚 讘讛 讚诇转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚诇转 砖诇 拽砖讬谉


And Rav 岣sda 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.


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬讻专 爪讬专 诪讗讬 讛讬讻专 爪讬专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讬讗 讗讘拽转讗


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 a 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.


讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诪专 诪讬讚讬 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐


The Gemara relates that Rav A岣, 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.


转谞讗 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 砖讗诪专讜 拽谞讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽谞讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽谞讛 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讬讙注 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讬讙注 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讬讙注 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讬讙注


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 Na岣an said: They do not need to touch it; and Rav Sheshet said: They need to touch it.


讗讝诇 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜注讘讚 注讜讘讚讗 讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇砖诪注讬讛 专讘 讙讚讗 讝讬诇 砖诇讜祝 砖讚讬谞讛讜 讗讝诇 砖诇祝 砖讚讬谞讛讜 讗砖讻讞讜讛讜 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讞讘砖讜讛讜 讗讝诇 专讘 砖砖转 拽诐 讗讘讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙讚讗 驻讜拽 转讗 谞驻拽 讜讗转讗


The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 men released him, and he went out and came to Rav Sheshet.


讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬 诪专 诪讬讚讬 讘爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 转谞讬谞讗 讻讬驻讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘专讙诇讬讛 注砖专讛 砖讛讬讗 讞讬讬讘转


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.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讗诐 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 讘专讙诇讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讬砖 讘专讙诇讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐


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.


讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬砖 讘专讙诇讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讙讘讜讛讛 注砖专讛 讜讗讬谉 专讞讘讛 讗专讘注讛 讜讬砖 讘讛 诇讞讜拽 诇讛砖诇讬诪讛 诇讗专讘注讛


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.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讞讜拽拽讬谉 诇讛砖诇讬诐


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鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛讜 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇讛讜 诇讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 诪讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讚讻讬驻讛:


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


诪转谞讬壮 讛讻砖专 诪讘讜讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讞讬讬谉


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.


诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 谞讬转专 讗讜 讘诇讞讬 讗讜 讘拽讜专讛 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 专讞讘 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜注讚 注砖专 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注诇 讝讛 讜注诇 讝讛 谞讞诇拽讜:


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.


讙诪壮 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讞谞谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讻转谞讗 拽诪讗


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 岣nanya, 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻砖专 诪讘讜讬 住转讜诐 讻讬爪讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛


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.


讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚拽讗 住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗专讘注 诪讞讬爪讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


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.


诇讗 诇讝专讜拽 诪砖诇砖 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇讟诇讟诇 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注


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.


讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诇讬诪讗 拽讗 住讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖诇砖 诪讞讬爪讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


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?


诇讗 诇讝专讜拽 诪砖转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇讟诇讟诇 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 砖诇砖:


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.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讞讬讬谉: 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讞讬讬谉 讜拽讜专讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讞讬讬谉 讘诇讗 拽讜专讛 拽讗诪专


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鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讛诇讱 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 驻专讬讚讗 转诇诪讬讚讜


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,


Scroll To Top