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

Daf Yomi

August 21, 2020 | 讗壮 讘讗诇讜诇 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 12

Today’s daf is dedicated by David Freudenstein in honor of Dr. Anna Urowitz-Freudenstein – “From your loving husband and children, on the occasion of your upcoming birthday, and in appreciation of the Simcha Shel Mitzva of learning and teaching Torah which you bring to all of us and to your many students.”聽

Rabbi Eliezer requires 2 posts – does that also include a crossbeam? How does one allow carrying in a courtyard if the wall is breached? Does one need one board or two? Is there a minimum measurement required for the board? Is there a difference between a post and a beam in terms of the way they “correct” an alley – does the post “create” a wall and a beam is a noticeable marker? Is an alley whose width is equal to (or greater than) its length treated like a courtyard?

诇讗讜讘诇讬谉 讜诪爪讗讜 砖讬讜砖讘 讘诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诇讞讬 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谞讬 注砖讛 诇讞讬 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 讜讻讬 诇住讜转诪讜 讗谞讬 爪专讬讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讬住转诐 讜诪讛 讘讻讱


at the town of Ovelin, and found him dwelling in an alleyway that had only one side post. He said to him: My son, set up another side post. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Am I required to close it up? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Let it be closed up; what does it matter?


讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 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 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讻诇讜诐 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


We learned in that same Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that this alleyway does not require anything to render it permitted for one to carry within it. About what did they disagree? About an alleyway that is wider than four cubits, and up to ten cubits; as Beit Shammai say: It is permitted to carry within it only if there is both a side post and a cross beam, and Beit Hillel say: It requires either a side post or a cross beam.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讜讻讬 诇住讜转诪讜 讗谞讬 爪专讬讱 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞讬讬谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讜讻讬 诇住讜转诪讜 讗谞讬 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讞讬讬谉 讘诇讗 拽讜专讛 诪讗讬 诇住讜转诪讜


The Gemara explains the proof from this Tosefta. In any case, it teaches: Rabbi Yosei ben Perida said to Rabbi Eliezer: Am I required to seal it? Granted, if you say that Rabbi Eliezer requires two side posts and a cross beam, for that reason the disciple said: Am I required to seal it? However, if you say that he requires side posts without a cross beam, what is the meaning of to seal it? The entrance to the alleyway remains open from above.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 诇住讜转诪讜 讘诇讞讬讬谉 讗谞讬 爪专讬讱


The Gemara rejects this argument: No absolute proof can be cited from here, as perhaps this is what he is saying: Am I required to seal it with side posts?


讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 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 砖驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讻诇讜诐 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 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


The Master said in the Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that it does not require anything to render it permitted to carry within it. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: A certain disciple said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that carrying in an alleyway of that sort is permitted by either a side post or a cross beam. How could Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel have said that according to Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel even that minimal action is unnecessary?


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诇讗 诇讞讬讬谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇


Rav Ashi said: This is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying. It neither requires both a side post and a cross beam, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, nor does it require two side posts, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer; rather, it requires either a side post or a cross beam, in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel with regard to a large alleyway. When it said that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not require anything, it meant anything more than that required by Beit Hillel.


讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞诇讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 注讚 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara asks: And how narrow must an alleyway be so that it would not require even a side post, according to all opinions? Rav A岣ei said, and some say it was Rav Ye岣el who said: Up to a width of four handbreadths, the alleyway requires nothing in order to render it permitted for one to carry within it.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘驻住讬 讞爪专 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘驻住讬 讞爪专


Rav Sheshet said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the upright boards of a courtyard. That is to say, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only about the number of side posts needed to permit carrying within an alleyway. However, they agree that if a courtyard was breached into the public domain, it can be considered closed only if upright boards of wall, similar to side posts, remain on both sides of the breach. But Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the upright boards of wall that are required in a courtyard.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗谉 诪讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 [诪讗谉 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 ] 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讞爪专 谞讬转专转 讘驻住 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 驻住讬谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Who are the Rabbis to whom Rav referred when he stated that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer? He was referring to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Furthermore, as Rav Na岣an said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one can learn by inference that the Sages dispute this issue as well. Who are the ones who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: In a courtyard that was breached into the public domain, with the width of the breach not exceeding ten cubits, it is permitted to carry if one upright board remains on one side of the breach. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is permitted only if there remain two upright boards, one on each side of the breach.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞爪专 爪专讬讻讛 砖谞讬 驻住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻住讬 讞爪专 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗专讘注讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗专讘注讛 诪讻讗谉


Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A courtyard that was breached requires two upright boards of wall on either side of the breach, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan really say that? But weren鈥檛 you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: The upright boards in a courtyard must be four handbreadths wide? This indicates that only one board is necessary. And if you say that Rabbi Yo岣nan requires one upright four handbreadths board from here, one side of the breach, and one upright four handbreadths board from there, the other side of the breach, this is difficult.


讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 拽讟谞讛 讘注砖专 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛


But didn鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Avimi teach the following baraita before Rabbi 岣nina, and some say it was before Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, with regard to the halakha governing a small courtyard that was breached along its entire length into a large courtyard. The baraita teaches that the residents of the large courtyard may use their courtyard even if the small courtyard has a width of ten cubits, and the large one has a width of eleven cubits. In this case, the difference between the length of the smaller courtyard and that of the larger courtyard is only one cubit, i.e., six handbreadths. Therefore, there cannot be upright boards of four handbreadths on each side, as together they would amount to more than a cubit.


讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讬诪讬 驻专砖讛 讘专讜讞 讗讞转 讘讗专讘注讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诪砖讛讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诪砖讛讜 诇讻讗谉


The Gemara resolves this difficulty: When Rabbi Zeira ascended from his sea travels, he explained the contradiction between the statements of Rav Yo岣nan in the following manner: If there is a upright board in only one direction, it must be four handbreadths, however, if there are upright boards from two directions, it suffices if there is any amount here, on one side, and any amount there, on the other side.


讜讛讚转谞讬 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


And that which Adda bar Avimi taught with regard to the difference in size between the two courtyards is not universally accepted, as according to Rabbi Zeira it is sufficient if one courtyard is four handbreadths larger than the other. Rather, it is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who requires two upright boards of wall in a breached courtyard. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that a side post must be at least three handbreadths wide. Consequently, the two upright boards together must be at least six handbreadths, which is why the minimum difference between the smaller and the larger courtyards is a cubit.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞爪专 谞讬转专转 讘驻住 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗转 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 注讜讘讚讗 讗诇讗 讗讜 讘专讜讘 讚讜驻谉 讗讜 讘砖谞讬 驻住讬谉


Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A breached courtyard is permitted if one upright board of wall remains on one side of the breach. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel really say this? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say to Rav 岣nanya bar Sheila: You must not perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling to permit carrying in a breached courtyard, unless there remains standing either the majority of the wall or two upright boards on either side of the breach.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗谞讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讘讚讜专讛 讚专注讜转讗 诇砖讜谉 讬诐 讛谞讻谞住 诇讞爪专 讛讜讛 讜讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讗爪专讻讬讛 讗诇讗 驻住 讗讞讚


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I do not know how to resolve this contradiction. All I know is that there was an incident in a shepherds鈥 village with regard to a narrow inlet of the sea that penetrated a courtyard, breaching one of its walls in its entirety, and the matter came before Rav Yehuda, and he required only one upright board of wall to remain in order to permit it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖讜谉 讬诐 拽讗诪专转 拽诇 讛讜讗 砖讛拽诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You speak of a narrow inlet of the sea, but an inlet is different and nothing can be derived from that case, for we know that this is a leniency in which the Sages lessened the requirements in cases involving water. In these cases, the Sages did not require properly constructed partitions, but were satisfied with inferior ones.


讻讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 诪专讘 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪讛讜 砖转转讬专 讘讞讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪转专转 讗诇讗 讘诪讬诐 拽诇 讛讜讗 砖讛拽诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐


The Gemara supports the assertion that the Sages were more lax with regard to water from the following dilemma that Rabbi Tavla raised before Rav: Does a suspended partition permit carrying in a ruin? Do we say that the remnants of the walls that are suspended in the air are considered as if they descend to the ground, closing off the area so that it is regarded as a private domain? Rav said to him: A suspended partition of this kind permits carrying only in the case of water; this is a leniency in which the Sages lessened the requirements in cases involving water.


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗


The Gemara continues: In any case, it is difficult. The contradiction between the conflicting statements of Shmuel remains unresolved.


讻讬 讗转讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讘讬 专讘 驻讬专砖讜讛 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讘讗专讘注讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诪砖讛讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诪砖讛讜 诇讻讗谉


The Gemara resolves the difficulty: When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the house of their teacher, they explained the contradiction in the following manner: If there is an upright board from only one direction, it must be of four handbreadths; but if there are upright boards from two directions, i.e., both sides of the breach, it suffices if there is a bit here, on one side, and bit here, on the other side.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗转 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 注讜讘讚讗 讗诇讗 讗讜 讘专讜讘 讚讜驻谉 讗讜 讘砖谞讬 驻住讬谉


Rav Pappa said: If this issue is difficult for me to understand, this is my difficulty: For Shmuel said to Rav 岣nanya bar Sheila: You must not perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling to permit carrying in a breached courtyard, unless there remains standing either most of the wall or two upright boards on either side of the breach.


诇诪讛 诇讬 专讜讘 讚讜驻谉 讘驻住 讗专讘注讛 住讙讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讘专讜讘 讚讜驻谉 讘讚讜驻谉 砖讘注讛 讚讘讗专讘注讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讜讘 讚讜驻谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗专讘注讛 讘砖诇砖讛 讜诪砖讛讜 住讙讬 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞诇讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 注讚 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara asks: Why do I need most of the wall? An upright board of four handbreadths should suffice. The Gemara further explains the difficulty: And if you say, what is the meaning of most of the wall mentioned here? It is referring to the special case where the wall is seven handbreadths wide, so that four handbreadths constitutes most of the wall, this too is difficult. Even if the wall is seven handbreadths wide, why do I require an upright board of four handbreadths to seal? Three handbreadths and any amount should suffice, as Rav A岣ei, and some say it was Rav Ye岣el who said: A narrow alleyway up to four handbreadths wide requires nothing at all. Here too, after sealing up slightly more than three handbreadths, the remaining gap that remains is less than four handbreadths, so nothing further should be required.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讗谉 讘讞爪专 讻讗谉 讘诪讘讜讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚专讘 讗讞诇讬 讙讜驻讬讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗


The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that here, the statement of Shmuel is referring to a courtyard, where even a breach of less than four handbreadths requires action. There, the statement of Rav A岣ei, is referring to an alleyway. And if you wish, say that the statement of Rav A岣ei is itself subject to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇砖讜谉 讬诐 讛谞讻谞住 诇讞爪专 讗讬谉 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 诪讞讬爪讛 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖驻讬专爪转讜 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专讛 讗讘诇 注砖专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讻诇讜诐


The Sages taught the following baraita: With regard to a narrow inlet of the sea that enters into a courtyard, partially breaching one of its walls, one may not fill water from it on Shabbat. The inlet is a karmelit, from which it is prohibited to carry into a private domain, e.g. a courtyard. This is the halakha unless there is a partition ten handbreadths high at one side of the wall鈥檚 breach, which would incorporate the inlet as part of the courtyard. In what case is this statement said? Where the breach through which the water enters is more than ten cubits wide; but if it is only ten cubits wide, nothing is required.鈥


诪诪诇讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪诪诇讗讬谞谉 讛讗 讟诇讟讜诇讬 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗 谞驻专爪讛 讞爪专 讘诪诇讜讗讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讗住讜专 诇讛


The Gemara asks: The baraita indicates that one may not fill water from the inlet because that would involve carrying from a karmelit into a private domain, but in the courtyard itself one may indeed carry. But isn鈥檛 the courtyard breached along its entirety, i.e., more than ten cubits, into a place that is prohibited to it? Since it is prohibited to carry to or from the inlet, it should also be prohibited to carry within the courtyard itself.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讬讚讜讚讬:


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here in this baraita? It is a case where the wall has not been fully breached, but rather remnants of the wall remain on each side (Rabbeinu 岣nanel; Rif).


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘诇讞讬 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘拽讜专讛 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 驻讟讜专


Rav Yehuda said: If several courtyards open onto a common alleyway, the residents of the houses in the courtyards are prohibited to carry in the alleyway, unless the alleyway is rendered fit for one to carry within it by placing a side post or a cross beam at its entrance, and by the inhabitants of each courtyard placing food in a common area for the duration of Shabbat, symbolically converting the entire alleyway into a single household. It is prohibited to carry in an alleyway that the residents did not merge. Nevertheless, if the alleyway was rendered fit by means of a side post placed at its entrance, one who throws an object into it from the public domain is liable; the side post functions as a partition, and the alleyway is deemed a full-fledged private domain. If, however, the alleyway was rendered fit by means of a cross beam, one who throws an object into it from the public domain is exempt; the cross beam functions only as a conspicuous marker. It is not considered a partition that renders the alleyway a private domain.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讛讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘拽讜专讛 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讬 讻讻专 讝讜 注砖讛 讗讜转讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讜 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐


Rav Sheshet strongly objects to this due to the following: The reason that one is exempt in the latter case is due to the fact the residents of the alleyway did not merge. By inference, if they did in fact merge, one would be liable even if the alleyway was rendered fit by way of a cross beam. This, however, is difficult. One can ask: Does this loaf, through which the residents joined together to form a single household, render the alleyway a private domain or a public domain?


讜讛转谞讬讗 讞爪讬专讜转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜诪讘讜讗讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 诪驻讜诇砖讬谉 讘讬谉 注讬专讘讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻谉 讞讬讬讘


But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Courtyards shared by many and alleyways that are not open on two opposite sides, whether the residents established an eiruv or did not establish an eiruv, one who throws an object into them from the public domain is liable. This seems to contrary to Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇砖讬转讜祝 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘诇讞讬 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘拽讜专讛 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 驻讟讜专


Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows. Rav Yehuda said: In the case of an alleyway that is not fit for merging, i.e., an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides, if the alleyway was rendered fit for one to carry within it by means of a side post, one who throws an object into it from the public domain is liable. In that case, the side post is considered a third partition, and since the alleyway is closed on three sides it is deemed a private domain. If, however, the alleyway was rendered fit for one to carry within in by means of a cross beam, one who throws an object into it is exempt.


讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诇讞讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讜拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讞讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讜拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专


Apparently, Rav Yehuda holds that a side post functions as a partition, whereas a cross beam functions as a conspicuous marker but is not considered a partition. And, so too, Rabba said: A side post functions as a partition, whereas a cross beam functions as a conspicuous marker. But Rava said: Both this, the side post, and that, the cross beam, function as a conspicuous marker.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讗 讛讝讜专拽 诇诪讘讜讬 讬砖 诇讜 诇讞讬 讞讬讬讘 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讞讬 驻讟讜专


Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Abba raised an objection to Rava from the following baraita: One who throws an object from the public domain into an alleyway, if the alleyway has a side post, he is liable; if it does not have a side post he is exempt. This shows that a side post is considered a proper partition.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇讞讬 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讞讬 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 驻讟讜专


Rava replied: This is what the baraita is saying: If the alleyway is closed on one side such that it requires only a side post in order to permit carrying within in, one who throws an object into it from the public domain is liable because the alleyway already has three partitions and is therefore a proper private domain according to Torah law. However, if the alleyway requires a side post and something else in order to permit carrying within it, one who throws an object into it from the public domain is exempt because the alleyway has only two partitions and is therefore not considered a private domain.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜砖讛 诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讗诪爪注


He raised an additional objection to Rava from the following baraita. Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: The halakha is as follows with regard to one who has two houses opposite each other on two sides of the public domain, if he chooses, he may create a private domain for himself in the area of the public domain. He may place a ten-handbreadth high side post from here, perpendicular to the public domain. This creates a symbolic wall which, in the halakhot of alleyways, has the legal status of a wall. And, he may place an additional post from here, on the other side, and that has the same legal status as if he closed the public domain on all of its sides. Or, he can implement a different solution appropriate for alleyways by placing a beam extending from here, from one end of one house, to the end of the house opposite it. This creates a symbolic partition across the width of the street. And, he may place a beam extending from here, from the other side of the house. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in that way, one is permitted to carry objects and place them in the area between the symbolic partitions, as he would in a private domain.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讻讱


The Rabbis said to him: One may not place an eiruv in the public domain in that way. One who seeks to transform a public domain into a private domain must place actual partitions. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the side posts function as partitions in the public domain, creating a private domain between the two houses. It follows from this that a side post is in fact deemed a proper partition, contrary to Rava鈥檚 statement.


讛转诐 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


The Gemara answers: This is not the reason behind Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement. Rather, there Rabbi Yehuda holds that by Torah law two partitions suffice to constitute a private domain, and he requires side posts only as a conspicuous marker. Therefore, Rava鈥檚 position cannot be disproved from this source either.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖讗专讻讜 讻专讞讘讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 诪砖讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖讗专讻讜 讻专讞讘讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 讘拽讜专讛 讟驻讞


Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Unlike other alleyways, carrying within an alleyway whose length is equal to its width is not permitted by means of a side post of minimal width. Like a courtyard, carrying within it is permitted only by means of an upright board four handbreadths wide. Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Carrying within an alleyway whose length is equal to its width is not permitted by a cross beam with the width of a handbreadth.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诪讛 诪讻讜讜谞谉 砖诪注转讗 讚住讘讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗专讻讜 讻专讞讘讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讞爪专 讜讞爪专 讗讬谞讛 谞讬转专转 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘驻住 讗专讘注讛


Rabbi Zeira said: How precise are the traditions of the Elders. He explains: Since the length of the alleyway is equal to its width, it is regarded like a courtyard, and carrying within a courtyard is not permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam, but only by means of an upright board of four handbreadths.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讗讬 诇讞讬 讻驻住 诪砖讛讜 讜谞砖转专讬


Rabbi Zeira said: Nonetheless, if this issue is difficult for me to understand, this is my difficulty: Let this side post be considered like an upright board of minimal width and permit carrying within the alleyway, just as an upright board permits carrying in a breached courtyard.


讗讬砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻住讬 讞爪专 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara explains that this is incorrect, as that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said escaped Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 attention: The upright boards of a courtyard must be four handbreadths wide, whereas a side post may be of minimal size.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 砖谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讻诇 砖讗专讻讜 讬转专 注诇 专讞讘讜 讜讘转讬诐 讜讞爪专讜转 驻转讜讞讬诐 诇转讜讻讜 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讞爪专 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讬转专转 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘驻住 讗专讘注讛 讻诇 砖诪专讜讘注转


Rav Na岣an said: We have a tradition that states: What is the type of alleyway in which carrying is permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam? Any alleyway whose length is greater than its width and has houses and courtyards opening into it. And what is the type of courtyard in which carrying is not permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam, but by an upright board of four handbreadths? Any courtyard that is square.


诪专讜讘注转 讗讬谉 注讙讜诇讛 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讗专讻讛 讬转专 注诇 专讞讘讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讘讜讬 讜诪讘讜讬 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 住讙讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讛 讞爪专


The Gemara wonders: If it is square, then yes, is it considered a courtyard? If it is round, no, is it not considered a courtyard? The Gemara makes a correction: This is what it is saying: If its length is greater than its width, it is considered an alleyway, and for an alleyway a side post or a cross beam suffices; but if its length is not greater than its width, i.e., it is square, it is considered a courtyard.


讜讻诪讛 住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘专讞讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讞讘讬讘讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讛讜:


The Gemara asks: And by how much must its length exceed its width so that it can be considered an alleyway? Shmuel thought at first to say: It is not considered an alleyway unless its length is double its width, until Rav said to him: My uncle [岣vivi], Rav 岣yya, said this: Even if its length is greater than its width by only a minimal amount, the halakhot of an alleyway apply to it.


诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 讻讜壮:


We learned in the mishna: A certain disciple said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, etc.


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 12: Panels and Posts

Terminology: Pas/pasim. R. Eliezer visits his student, R. Yosi ben Preida, and the topic of conversation is the student's need...

Eruvin 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 12

诇讗讜讘诇讬谉 讜诪爪讗讜 砖讬讜砖讘 讘诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诇讞讬 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谞讬 注砖讛 诇讞讬 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讜 讜讻讬 诇住讜转诪讜 讗谞讬 爪专讬讱 讗诪专 诇讜 讬住转诐 讜诪讛 讘讻讱


at the town of Ovelin, and found him dwelling in an alleyway that had only one side post. He said to him: My son, set up another side post. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Am I required to close it up? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Let it be closed up; what does it matter?


讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 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 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讻诇讜诐 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


We learned in that same Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that this alleyway does not require anything to render it permitted for one to carry within it. About what did they disagree? About an alleyway that is wider than four cubits, and up to ten cubits; as Beit Shammai say: It is permitted to carry within it only if there is both a side post and a cross beam, and Beit Hillel say: It requires either a side post or a cross beam.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讜讻讬 诇住讜转诪讜 讗谞讬 爪专讬讱 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞讬讬谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讜讻讬 诇住讜转诪讜 讗谞讬 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讞讬讬谉 讘诇讗 拽讜专讛 诪讗讬 诇住讜转诪讜


The Gemara explains the proof from this Tosefta. In any case, it teaches: Rabbi Yosei ben Perida said to Rabbi Eliezer: Am I required to seal it? Granted, if you say that Rabbi Eliezer requires two side posts and a cross beam, for that reason the disciple said: Am I required to seal it? However, if you say that he requires side posts without a cross beam, what is the meaning of to seal it? The entrance to the alleyway remains open from above.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 诇住讜转诪讜 讘诇讞讬讬谉 讗谞讬 爪专讬讱


The Gemara rejects this argument: No absolute proof can be cited from here, as perhaps this is what he is saying: Am I required to seal it with side posts?


讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 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 砖驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讻诇讜诐 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 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


The Master said in the Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that it does not require anything to render it permitted to carry within it. But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: A certain disciple said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that carrying in an alleyway of that sort is permitted by either a side post or a cross beam. How could Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel have said that according to Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel even that minimal action is unnecessary?


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诇讗 诇讞讬讬谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讗讜 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇


Rav Ashi said: This is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying. It neither requires both a side post and a cross beam, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, nor does it require two side posts, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer; rather, it requires either a side post or a cross beam, in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel with regard to a large alleyway. When it said that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not require anything, it meant anything more than that required by Beit Hillel.


讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞诇讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 注讚 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara asks: And how narrow must an alleyway be so that it would not require even a side post, according to all opinions? Rav A岣ei said, and some say it was Rav Ye岣el who said: Up to a width of four handbreadths, the alleyway requires nothing in order to render it permitted for one to carry within it.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘驻住讬 讞爪专 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘驻住讬 讞爪专


Rav Sheshet said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the upright boards of a courtyard. That is to say, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only about the number of side posts needed to permit carrying within an alleyway. However, they agree that if a courtyard was breached into the public domain, it can be considered closed only if upright boards of wall, similar to side posts, remain on both sides of the breach. But Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the upright boards of wall that are required in a courtyard.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗谉 诪讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 [诪讗谉 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 ] 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讞爪专 谞讬转专转 讘驻住 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 驻住讬谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Who are the Rabbis to whom Rav referred when he stated that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer? He was referring to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Furthermore, as Rav Na岣an said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one can learn by inference that the Sages dispute this issue as well. Who are the ones who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: In a courtyard that was breached into the public domain, with the width of the breach not exceeding ten cubits, it is permitted to carry if one upright board remains on one side of the breach. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is permitted only if there remain two upright boards, one on each side of the breach.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞爪专 爪专讬讻讛 砖谞讬 驻住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻住讬 讞爪专 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗专讘注讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗专讘注讛 诪讻讗谉


Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A courtyard that was breached requires two upright boards of wall on either side of the breach, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan really say that? But weren鈥檛 you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: The upright boards in a courtyard must be four handbreadths wide? This indicates that only one board is necessary. And if you say that Rabbi Yo岣nan requires one upright four handbreadths board from here, one side of the breach, and one upright four handbreadths board from there, the other side of the breach, this is difficult.


讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 拽讟谞讛 讘注砖专 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛


But didn鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Avimi teach the following baraita before Rabbi 岣nina, and some say it was before Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, with regard to the halakha governing a small courtyard that was breached along its entire length into a large courtyard. The baraita teaches that the residents of the large courtyard may use their courtyard even if the small courtyard has a width of ten cubits, and the large one has a width of eleven cubits. In this case, the difference between the length of the smaller courtyard and that of the larger courtyard is only one cubit, i.e., six handbreadths. Therefore, there cannot be upright boards of four handbreadths on each side, as together they would amount to more than a cubit.


讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讬诪讬 驻专砖讛 讘专讜讞 讗讞转 讘讗专讘注讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诪砖讛讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诪砖讛讜 诇讻讗谉


The Gemara resolves this difficulty: When Rabbi Zeira ascended from his sea travels, he explained the contradiction between the statements of Rav Yo岣nan in the following manner: If there is a upright board in only one direction, it must be four handbreadths, however, if there are upright boards from two directions, it suffices if there is any amount here, on one side, and any amount there, on the other side.


讜讛讚转谞讬 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬


And that which Adda bar Avimi taught with regard to the difference in size between the two courtyards is not universally accepted, as according to Rabbi Zeira it is sufficient if one courtyard is four handbreadths larger than the other. Rather, it is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who requires two upright boards of wall in a breached courtyard. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that a side post must be at least three handbreadths wide. Consequently, the two upright boards together must be at least six handbreadths, which is why the minimum difference between the smaller and the larger courtyards is a cubit.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞爪专 谞讬转专转 讘驻住 讗讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗转 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 注讜讘讚讗 讗诇讗 讗讜 讘专讜讘 讚讜驻谉 讗讜 讘砖谞讬 驻住讬谉


Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A breached courtyard is permitted if one upright board of wall remains on one side of the breach. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel really say this? But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say to Rav 岣nanya bar Sheila: You must not perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling to permit carrying in a breached courtyard, unless there remains standing either the majority of the wall or two upright boards on either side of the breach.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗谞讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讘讚讜专讛 讚专注讜转讗 诇砖讜谉 讬诐 讛谞讻谞住 诇讞爪专 讛讜讛 讜讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讗爪专讻讬讛 讗诇讗 驻住 讗讞讚


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I do not know how to resolve this contradiction. All I know is that there was an incident in a shepherds鈥 village with regard to a narrow inlet of the sea that penetrated a courtyard, breaching one of its walls in its entirety, and the matter came before Rav Yehuda, and he required only one upright board of wall to remain in order to permit it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖讜谉 讬诐 拽讗诪专转 拽诇 讛讜讗 砖讛拽诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You speak of a narrow inlet of the sea, but an inlet is different and nothing can be derived from that case, for we know that this is a leniency in which the Sages lessened the requirements in cases involving water. In these cases, the Sages did not require properly constructed partitions, but were satisfied with inferior ones.


讻讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 诪专讘 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪讛讜 砖转转讬专 讘讞讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 转诇讜讬讛 诪转专转 讗诇讗 讘诪讬诐 拽诇 讛讜讗 砖讛拽诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪讬诐


The Gemara supports the assertion that the Sages were more lax with regard to water from the following dilemma that Rabbi Tavla raised before Rav: Does a suspended partition permit carrying in a ruin? Do we say that the remnants of the walls that are suspended in the air are considered as if they descend to the ground, closing off the area so that it is regarded as a private domain? Rav said to him: A suspended partition of this kind permits carrying only in the case of water; this is a leniency in which the Sages lessened the requirements in cases involving water.


诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗


The Gemara continues: In any case, it is difficult. The contradiction between the conflicting statements of Shmuel remains unresolved.


讻讬 讗转讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讘讬 专讘 驻讬专砖讜讛 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讘讗专讘注讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诪砖讛讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诪砖讛讜 诇讻讗谉


The Gemara resolves the difficulty: When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the house of their teacher, they explained the contradiction in the following manner: If there is an upright board from only one direction, it must be of four handbreadths; but if there are upright boards from two directions, i.e., both sides of the breach, it suffices if there is a bit here, on one side, and bit here, on the other side.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗转 诇讗 转注讘讬讚 注讜讘讚讗 讗诇讗 讗讜 讘专讜讘 讚讜驻谉 讗讜 讘砖谞讬 驻住讬谉


Rav Pappa said: If this issue is difficult for me to understand, this is my difficulty: For Shmuel said to Rav 岣nanya bar Sheila: You must not perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling to permit carrying in a breached courtyard, unless there remains standing either most of the wall or two upright boards on either side of the breach.


诇诪讛 诇讬 专讜讘 讚讜驻谉 讘驻住 讗专讘注讛 住讙讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讘专讜讘 讚讜驻谉 讘讚讜驻谉 砖讘注讛 讚讘讗专讘注讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讜讘 讚讜驻谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗专讘注讛 讘砖诇砖讛 讜诪砖讛讜 住讙讬 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞诇讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讞讬讗诇 注讚 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara asks: Why do I need most of the wall? An upright board of four handbreadths should suffice. The Gemara further explains the difficulty: And if you say, what is the meaning of most of the wall mentioned here? It is referring to the special case where the wall is seven handbreadths wide, so that four handbreadths constitutes most of the wall, this too is difficult. Even if the wall is seven handbreadths wide, why do I require an upright board of four handbreadths to seal? Three handbreadths and any amount should suffice, as Rav A岣ei, and some say it was Rav Ye岣el who said: A narrow alleyway up to four handbreadths wide requires nothing at all. Here too, after sealing up slightly more than three handbreadths, the remaining gap that remains is less than four handbreadths, so nothing further should be required.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讗谉 讘讞爪专 讻讗谉 讘诪讘讜讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚专讘 讗讞诇讬 讙讜驻讬讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗


The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that here, the statement of Shmuel is referring to a courtyard, where even a breach of less than four handbreadths requires action. There, the statement of Rav A岣ei, is referring to an alleyway. And if you wish, say that the statement of Rav A岣ei is itself subject to a dispute between the tanna鈥檌m.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇砖讜谉 讬诐 讛谞讻谞住 诇讞爪专 讗讬谉 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 诪讞讬爪讛 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖驻讬专爪转讜 讘讬讜转专 诪注砖专讛 讗讘诇 注砖专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讻诇讜诐


The Sages taught the following baraita: With regard to a narrow inlet of the sea that enters into a courtyard, partially breaching one of its walls, one may not fill water from it on Shabbat. The inlet is a karmelit, from which it is prohibited to carry into a private domain, e.g. a courtyard. This is the halakha unless there is a partition ten handbreadths high at one side of the wall鈥檚 breach, which would incorporate the inlet as part of the courtyard. In what case is this statement said? Where the breach through which the water enters is more than ten cubits wide; but if it is only ten cubits wide, nothing is required.鈥


诪诪诇讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪诪诇讗讬谞谉 讛讗 讟诇讟讜诇讬 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗 谞驻专爪讛 讞爪专 讘诪诇讜讗讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讗住讜专 诇讛


The Gemara asks: The baraita indicates that one may not fill water from the inlet because that would involve carrying from a karmelit into a private domain, but in the courtyard itself one may indeed carry. But isn鈥檛 the courtyard breached along its entirety, i.e., more than ten cubits, into a place that is prohibited to it? Since it is prohibited to carry to or from the inlet, it should also be prohibited to carry within the courtyard itself.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙讬讚讜讚讬:


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here in this baraita? It is a case where the wall has not been fully breached, but rather remnants of the wall remain on each side (Rabbeinu 岣nanel; Rif).


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讘讜讬 砖诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘诇讞讬 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘拽讜专讛 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 驻讟讜专


Rav Yehuda said: If several courtyards open onto a common alleyway, the residents of the houses in the courtyards are prohibited to carry in the alleyway, unless the alleyway is rendered fit for one to carry within it by placing a side post or a cross beam at its entrance, and by the inhabitants of each courtyard placing food in a common area for the duration of Shabbat, symbolically converting the entire alleyway into a single household. It is prohibited to carry in an alleyway that the residents did not merge. Nevertheless, if the alleyway was rendered fit by means of a side post placed at its entrance, one who throws an object into it from the public domain is liable; the side post functions as a partition, and the alleyway is deemed a full-fledged private domain. If, however, the alleyway was rendered fit by means of a cross beam, one who throws an object into it from the public domain is exempt; the cross beam functions only as a conspicuous marker. It is not considered a partition that renders the alleyway a private domain.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讛讗 谞砖转转驻讜 讘讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘拽讜专讛 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讬 讻讻专 讝讜 注砖讛 讗讜转讜 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讜 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐


Rav Sheshet strongly objects to this due to the following: The reason that one is exempt in the latter case is due to the fact the residents of the alleyway did not merge. By inference, if they did in fact merge, one would be liable even if the alleyway was rendered fit by way of a cross beam. This, however, is difficult. One can ask: Does this loaf, through which the residents joined together to form a single household, render the alleyway a private domain or a public domain?


讜讛转谞讬讗 讞爪讬专讜转 砖诇 专讘讬诐 讜诪讘讜讗讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 诪驻讜诇砖讬谉 讘讬谉 注讬专讘讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻谉 讞讬讬讘


But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Courtyards shared by many and alleyways that are not open on two opposite sides, whether the residents established an eiruv or did not establish an eiruv, one who throws an object into them from the public domain is liable. This seems to contrary to Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇砖讬转讜祝 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘诇讞讬 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讞讬讬讘 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘拽讜专讛 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 驻讟讜专


Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows. Rav Yehuda said: In the case of an alleyway that is not fit for merging, i.e., an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides, if the alleyway was rendered fit for one to carry within it by means of a side post, one who throws an object into it from the public domain is liable. In that case, the side post is considered a third partition, and since the alleyway is closed on three sides it is deemed a private domain. If, however, the alleyway was rendered fit for one to carry within in by means of a cross beam, one who throws an object into it is exempt.


讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 诇讞讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讜拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讞讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讜拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专


Apparently, Rav Yehuda holds that a side post functions as a partition, whereas a cross beam functions as a conspicuous marker but is not considered a partition. And, so too, Rabba said: A side post functions as a partition, whereas a cross beam functions as a conspicuous marker. But Rava said: Both this, the side post, and that, the cross beam, function as a conspicuous marker.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讗 讛讝讜专拽 诇诪讘讜讬 讬砖 诇讜 诇讞讬 讞讬讬讘 讗讬谉 诇讜 诇讞讬 驻讟讜专


Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Abba raised an objection to Rava from the following baraita: One who throws an object from the public domain into an alleyway, if the alleyway has a side post, he is liable; if it does not have a side post he is exempt. This shows that a side post is considered a proper partition.


讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇讞讬 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讞讬 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讝讜专拽 诇转讜讻讜 驻讟讜专


Rava replied: This is what the baraita is saying: If the alleyway is closed on one side such that it requires only a side post in order to permit carrying within in, one who throws an object into it from the public domain is liable because the alleyway already has three partitions and is therefore a proper private domain according to Torah law. However, if the alleyway requires a side post and something else in order to permit carrying within it, one who throws an object into it from the public domain is exempt because the alleyway has only two partitions and is therefore not considered a private domain.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讘砖谞讬 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注讜砖讛 诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讜诇讞讬 诪讻讗谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜拽讜专讛 诪讻讗谉 讜谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘讗诪爪注


He raised an additional objection to Rava from the following baraita. Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: The halakha is as follows with regard to one who has two houses opposite each other on two sides of the public domain, if he chooses, he may create a private domain for himself in the area of the public domain. He may place a ten-handbreadth high side post from here, perpendicular to the public domain. This creates a symbolic wall which, in the halakhot of alleyways, has the legal status of a wall. And, he may place an additional post from here, on the other side, and that has the same legal status as if he closed the public domain on all of its sides. Or, he can implement a different solution appropriate for alleyways by placing a beam extending from here, from one end of one house, to the end of the house opposite it. This creates a symbolic partition across the width of the street. And, he may place a beam extending from here, from the other side of the house. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in that way, one is permitted to carry objects and place them in the area between the symbolic partitions, as he would in a private domain.


讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讻讱


The Rabbis said to him: One may not place an eiruv in the public domain in that way. One who seeks to transform a public domain into a private domain must place actual partitions. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the side posts function as partitions in the public domain, creating a private domain between the two houses. It follows from this that a side post is in fact deemed a proper partition, contrary to Rava鈥檚 statement.


讛转诐 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


The Gemara answers: This is not the reason behind Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement. Rather, there Rabbi Yehuda holds that by Torah law two partitions suffice to constitute a private domain, and he requires side posts only as a conspicuous marker. Therefore, Rava鈥檚 position cannot be disproved from this source either.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖讗专讻讜 讻专讞讘讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 诪砖讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖讗专讻讜 讻专讞讘讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 讘拽讜专讛 讟驻讞


Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Unlike other alleyways, carrying within an alleyway whose length is equal to its width is not permitted by means of a side post of minimal width. Like a courtyard, carrying within it is permitted only by means of an upright board four handbreadths wide. Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Carrying within an alleyway whose length is equal to its width is not permitted by a cross beam with the width of a handbreadth.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诪讛 诪讻讜讜谞谉 砖诪注转讗 讚住讘讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗专讻讜 讻专讞讘讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讞爪专 讜讞爪专 讗讬谞讛 谞讬转专转 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘驻住 讗专讘注讛


Rabbi Zeira said: How precise are the traditions of the Elders. He explains: Since the length of the alleyway is equal to its width, it is regarded like a courtyard, and carrying within a courtyard is not permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam, but only by means of an upright board of four handbreadths.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讛讗讬 诇讞讬 讻驻住 诪砖讛讜 讜谞砖转专讬


Rabbi Zeira said: Nonetheless, if this issue is difficult for me to understand, this is my difficulty: Let this side post be considered like an upright board of minimal width and permit carrying within the alleyway, just as an upright board permits carrying in a breached courtyard.


讗讬砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻住讬 讞爪专 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛


The Gemara explains that this is incorrect, as that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said escaped Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 attention: The upright boards of a courtyard must be four handbreadths wide, whereas a side post may be of minimal size.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 诪讘讜讬 砖谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讻诇 砖讗专讻讜 讬转专 注诇 专讞讘讜 讜讘转讬诐 讜讞爪专讜转 驻转讜讞讬诐 诇转讜讻讜 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讞爪专 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讬转专转 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讗诇讗 讘驻住 讗专讘注讛 讻诇 砖诪专讜讘注转


Rav Na岣an said: We have a tradition that states: What is the type of alleyway in which carrying is permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam? Any alleyway whose length is greater than its width and has houses and courtyards opening into it. And what is the type of courtyard in which carrying is not permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam, but by an upright board of four handbreadths? Any courtyard that is square.


诪专讜讘注转 讗讬谉 注讙讜诇讛 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讗专讻讛 讬转专 注诇 专讞讘讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讘讜讬 讜诪讘讜讬 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 住讙讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讛 讞爪专


The Gemara wonders: If it is square, then yes, is it considered a courtyard? If it is round, no, is it not considered a courtyard? The Gemara makes a correction: This is what it is saying: If its length is greater than its width, it is considered an alleyway, and for an alleyway a side post or a cross beam suffices; but if its length is not greater than its width, i.e., it is square, it is considered a courtyard.


讜讻诪讛 住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讘专讞讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讞讘讬讘讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讛讜:


The Gemara asks: And by how much must its length exceed its width so that it can be considered an alleyway? Shmuel thought at first to say: It is not considered an alleyway unless its length is double its width, until Rav said to him: My uncle [岣vivi], Rav 岣yya, said this: Even if its length is greater than its width by only a minimal amount, the halakhot of an alleyway apply to it.


诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 讻讜壮:


We learned in the mishna: A certain disciple said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, etc.


Scroll To Top