Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 21, 2020 | א׳ באלול תש״פ

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

Eruvin 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.” 

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?

לאובלין ומצאו שיושב במבוי שאין לו אלא לחי אחד אמר לו בני עשה לחי אחר אמר לו וכי לסותמו אני צריך אמר לו יסתם ומה בכך

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?

אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על מבוי שהוא פחות מארבע אמות שאינו צריך כלום על מה נחלקו על רחב מארבע אמות ועד עשר שבית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה ובית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה

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.

קתני מיהת וכי לסותמו אני צריך אי אמרת בשלמא לחיין וקורה משום הכי אמר וכי לסותמו אני צריך אלא אי אמרת לחיין בלא קורה מאי לסותמו

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.

הכי קאמר וכי לסותמו בלחיין אני צריך

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?

אמר מר אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על מבוי שפחות מארבע אמות שאינו צריך כלום והא אנן תנן משום רבי ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד לפני רבי עקיבא לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על מבוי שהוא פחות מארבע אמות שהוא ניתר או בלחי או בקורה

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’t 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?

אמר רב אשי הכי קאמר אינו צריך לחי וקורה כבית שמאי ולא לחיין כרבי אליעזר אלא או לחי או קורה כבית הלל

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.

וכמה אמר רב אחלי ואיתימא רב יחיאל עד ארבעה

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 Aḥlei said, and some say it was Rav Yeḥiel 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.

אמר רב ששת אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב מודים חכמים לרבי אליעזר בפסי חצר ורב נחמן אמר הלכה כרבי אליעזר בפסי חצר

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 Naḥman 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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאן מודים רבי הלכה מכלל דפליגי [מאן פליג עליה ] רבנן דתניא חצר ניתרת בפס אחד רבי אומר בשני פסין

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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 Naḥman 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.

אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן חצר צריכה שני פסין אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי אסי מי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והא את הוא דאמרת משמיה דרבי יוחנן פסי חצר צריכין שיהא בהן ארבעה וכי תימא ארבעה מכאן וארבעה מכאן

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan really say that? But weren’t you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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 Yoḥanan 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.

והתני רב אדא בר אבימי קמיה דרבי חנינא ואמרי לה קמיה דרבי חנינא בר פפי קטנה בעשר וגדולה באחת עשרה

But didn’t Rav Adda bar Avimi teach the following baraita before Rabbi Ḥanina, and some say it was before Rabbi Ḥanina 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.

כי סליק רבי זירא מימי פרשה ברוח אחת בארבעה משתי רוחות משהו לכאן ומשהו לכאן

The Gemara resolves this difficulty: When Rabbi Zeira ascended from his sea travels, he explained the contradiction between the statements of Rav Yoḥanan 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.

והדתני אדא בר אבימי רבי היא וסבר לה כרבי יוסי

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.

אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חצר ניתרת בפס אחד אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף מי אמר שמואל הכי והא אמר ליה שמואל לרב חנניה בר שילא את לא תעביד עובדא אלא או ברוב דופן או בשני פסין

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’t Shmuel say to Rav Ḥananya 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.

אמר ליה ואנא לא ידענא דעובדא הוה בדורה דרעותא לשון ים הנכנס לחצר הוה ואתא לקמיה דרב יהודה ולא אצרכיה אלא פס אחד

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’ 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.

אמר ליה לשון ים קאמרת קל הוא שהקלו חכמים במים

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You speak of a narrow in 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.

כדבעא מיניה רבי טבלא מרב מחיצה תלויה מהו שתתיר בחורבה אמר ליה אין מחיצה תלויה מתרת אלא במים קל הוא שהקלו חכמים במים

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.

מכל מקום קשיא

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

כי אתו רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב פירשוה מרוח אחת בארבעה משתי רוחות משהו לכאן ומשהו לכאן

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 he breach, it suffices if there is a bit here, on one side, and bit here, on the other side.

אמר רב פפא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי דאמר ליה שמואל לרב חנניה בר שילא את לא תעביד עובדא אלא או ברוב דופן או בשני פסין

Rav Pappa said: If this issue is difficult for me to understand, this is my difficulty: For Shmuel said to Rav Ḥananya 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.

למה לי רוב דופן בפס ארבעה סגי וכי תימא מאי ברוב דופן בדופן שבעה דבארבעה הוה ליה רוב דופן למה לי ארבעה בשלשה ומשהו סגי דהא אמר רב אחלי ואיתימא רב יחיאל עד ארבעה

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 Aḥlei, and some say it was Rav Yeḥiel 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.

איבעית אימא כאן בחצר כאן במבוי ואיבעית אימא דרב אחלי גופיה תנאי היא

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 Aḥlei, is referring to an alleyway. And if you wish, say that the statement of Rav Aḥlei is itself subject to a dispute between the tanna’im.

תנו רבנן לשון ים הנכנס לחצר אין ממלאין הימנו בשבת אלא אם כן יש לו מחיצה גבוה עשרה טפחים במה דברים אמורים שפירצתו ביותר מעשרה אבל עשרה אין צריך כלום

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’s 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.”

ממלא הוא דלא ממלאינן הא טלטולי מטלטלינן והא נפרצה חצר במלואה למקום האסור לה

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’t 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.

הכא במאי עסקינן דאית ליה גידודי:

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 Ḥananel; Rif).

אמר רב יהודה מבוי שלא נשתתפו בו הכשירו בלחי הזורק לתוכו חייב הכשירו בקורה הזורק לתוכו פטור

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.

מתקיף לה רב ששת טעמא דלא נשתתפו בו הא נשתתפו בו אפילו הכשירו בקורה נמי חייב וכי ככר זו עשה אותו רשות היחיד או רשות הרבים

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?

והתניא חצירות של רבים ומבואות שאינן מפולשין בין עירבו ובין לא עירבו הזורק לתוכן חייב

But wasn’t 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’s statement.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב יהודה מבוי שאינו ראוי לשיתוף הכשירו בלחי הזורק לתוכו חייב הכשירו בקורה הזורק לתוכו פטור

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.

אלמא קסבר לחי משום מחיצה וקורה משום היכר וכן אמר רבה לחי משום מחיצה וקורה משום היכר ורבא אמר אחד זה ואחד זה משום היכר

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.

איתיביה רבי יעקב בר אבא לרבא הזורק למבוי יש לו לחי חייב אין לו לחי פטור

Rabbi Ya’akov 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.

הכי קאמר אינו צריך אלא לחי הזורק לתוכו חייב לחי ודבר אחר הזורק לתוכו פטור

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.

איתיביה יתר על כן אמר רבי יהודה מי שיש לו שני בתים בשני צידי רשות הרבים עושה לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע

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.

אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך

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’s statement.

התם קסבר רבי יהודה שתי מחיצות דאורייתא

The Gemara answers: This is not the reason behind Rabbi Yehuda’s 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’s position cannot be disproved from this source either.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מבוי שארכו כרחבו אינו ניתר בלחי משהו אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב מבוי שארכו כרחבו אינו ניתר בקורה טפח

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 Ḥiyya 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.

אמר רבי זירא כמה מכוונן שמעתא דסבי כיון דארכו כרחבו הוה ליה חצר וחצר אינה ניתרת בלחי וקורה אלא בפס ארבעה

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.

אמר רבי זירא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי ליהוי האי לחי כפס משהו ונשתרי

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.

אישתמיטתיה הא דאמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן פסי חצר צריכין שיהא בהן ארבעה

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

אמר רב נחמן נקטינן איזהו מבוי שניתר בלחי וקורה כל שארכו יתר על רחבו ובתים וחצרות פתוחים לתוכו ואיזו היא חצר שאינה ניתרת בלחי וקורה אלא בפס ארבעה כל שמרובעת

Rav Naḥman 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.

מרובעת אין עגולה לא הכי קאמר אי ארכה יתר על רחבה הוה ליה מבוי ומבוי בלחי וקורה סגיא ואי לא הוה לה חצר

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.

וכמה סבר שמואל למימר עד דאיכא פי שנים ברחבה אמר ליה רב הכי אמר חביבי אפילו משהו:

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 [ḥavivi], Rav Ḥiyya, said this: Even if its length is greater than its width by only a minimal amount, the halakhot of an alleyway apply to it.

משום רבי ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד כו׳:

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

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

לאובלין ומצאו שיושב במבוי שאין לו אלא לחי אחד אמר לו בני עשה לחי אחר אמר לו וכי לסותמו אני צריך אמר לו יסתם ומה בכך

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?

אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על מבוי שהוא פחות מארבע אמות שאינו צריך כלום על מה נחלקו על רחב מארבע אמות ועד עשר שבית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה ובית הלל אומרים או לחי או קורה

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.

קתני מיהת וכי לסותמו אני צריך אי אמרת בשלמא לחיין וקורה משום הכי אמר וכי לסותמו אני צריך אלא אי אמרת לחיין בלא קורה מאי לסותמו

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.

הכי קאמר וכי לסותמו בלחיין אני צריך

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?

אמר מר אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על מבוי שפחות מארבע אמות שאינו צריך כלום והא אנן תנן משום רבי ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד לפני רבי עקיבא לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על מבוי שהוא פחות מארבע אמות שהוא ניתר או בלחי או בקורה

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’t 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?

אמר רב אשי הכי קאמר אינו צריך לחי וקורה כבית שמאי ולא לחיין כרבי אליעזר אלא או לחי או קורה כבית הלל

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.

וכמה אמר רב אחלי ואיתימא רב יחיאל עד ארבעה

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 Aḥlei said, and some say it was Rav Yeḥiel 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.

אמר רב ששת אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב מודים חכמים לרבי אליעזר בפסי חצר ורב נחמן אמר הלכה כרבי אליעזר בפסי חצר

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 Naḥman 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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאן מודים רבי הלכה מכלל דפליגי [מאן פליג עליה ] רבנן דתניא חצר ניתרת בפס אחד רבי אומר בשני פסין

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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 Naḥman 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.

אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן חצר צריכה שני פסין אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי אסי מי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והא את הוא דאמרת משמיה דרבי יוחנן פסי חצר צריכין שיהא בהן ארבעה וכי תימא ארבעה מכאן וארבעה מכאן

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan really say that? But weren’t you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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 Yoḥanan 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.

והתני רב אדא בר אבימי קמיה דרבי חנינא ואמרי לה קמיה דרבי חנינא בר פפי קטנה בעשר וגדולה באחת עשרה

But didn’t Rav Adda bar Avimi teach the following baraita before Rabbi Ḥanina, and some say it was before Rabbi Ḥanina 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.

כי סליק רבי זירא מימי פרשה ברוח אחת בארבעה משתי רוחות משהו לכאן ומשהו לכאן

The Gemara resolves this difficulty: When Rabbi Zeira ascended from his sea travels, he explained the contradiction between the statements of Rav Yoḥanan 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.

והדתני אדא בר אבימי רבי היא וסבר לה כרבי יוסי

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.

אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חצר ניתרת בפס אחד אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף מי אמר שמואל הכי והא אמר ליה שמואל לרב חנניה בר שילא את לא תעביד עובדא אלא או ברוב דופן או בשני פסין

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’t Shmuel say to Rav Ḥananya 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.

אמר ליה ואנא לא ידענא דעובדא הוה בדורה דרעותא לשון ים הנכנס לחצר הוה ואתא לקמיה דרב יהודה ולא אצרכיה אלא פס אחד

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’ 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.

אמר ליה לשון ים קאמרת קל הוא שהקלו חכמים במים

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You speak of a narrow in 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.

כדבעא מיניה רבי טבלא מרב מחיצה תלויה מהו שתתיר בחורבה אמר ליה אין מחיצה תלויה מתרת אלא במים קל הוא שהקלו חכמים במים

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.

מכל מקום קשיא

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

כי אתו רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב פירשוה מרוח אחת בארבעה משתי רוחות משהו לכאן ומשהו לכאן

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 he breach, it suffices if there is a bit here, on one side, and bit here, on the other side.

אמר רב פפא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי דאמר ליה שמואל לרב חנניה בר שילא את לא תעביד עובדא אלא או ברוב דופן או בשני פסין

Rav Pappa said: If this issue is difficult for me to understand, this is my difficulty: For Shmuel said to Rav Ḥananya 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.

למה לי רוב דופן בפס ארבעה סגי וכי תימא מאי ברוב דופן בדופן שבעה דבארבעה הוה ליה רוב דופן למה לי ארבעה בשלשה ומשהו סגי דהא אמר רב אחלי ואיתימא רב יחיאל עד ארבעה

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 Aḥlei, and some say it was Rav Yeḥiel 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.

איבעית אימא כאן בחצר כאן במבוי ואיבעית אימא דרב אחלי גופיה תנאי היא

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 Aḥlei, is referring to an alleyway. And if you wish, say that the statement of Rav Aḥlei is itself subject to a dispute between the tanna’im.

תנו רבנן לשון ים הנכנס לחצר אין ממלאין הימנו בשבת אלא אם כן יש לו מחיצה גבוה עשרה טפחים במה דברים אמורים שפירצתו ביותר מעשרה אבל עשרה אין צריך כלום

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’s 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.”

ממלא הוא דלא ממלאינן הא טלטולי מטלטלינן והא נפרצה חצר במלואה למקום האסור לה

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’t 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.

הכא במאי עסקינן דאית ליה גידודי:

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 Ḥananel; Rif).

אמר רב יהודה מבוי שלא נשתתפו בו הכשירו בלחי הזורק לתוכו חייב הכשירו בקורה הזורק לתוכו פטור

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.

מתקיף לה רב ששת טעמא דלא נשתתפו בו הא נשתתפו בו אפילו הכשירו בקורה נמי חייב וכי ככר זו עשה אותו רשות היחיד או רשות הרבים

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?

והתניא חצירות של רבים ומבואות שאינן מפולשין בין עירבו ובין לא עירבו הזורק לתוכן חייב

But wasn’t 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’s statement.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב יהודה מבוי שאינו ראוי לשיתוף הכשירו בלחי הזורק לתוכו חייב הכשירו בקורה הזורק לתוכו פטור

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.

אלמא קסבר לחי משום מחיצה וקורה משום היכר וכן אמר רבה לחי משום מחיצה וקורה משום היכר ורבא אמר אחד זה ואחד זה משום היכר

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.

איתיביה רבי יעקב בר אבא לרבא הזורק למבוי יש לו לחי חייב אין לו לחי פטור

Rabbi Ya’akov 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.

הכי קאמר אינו צריך אלא לחי הזורק לתוכו חייב לחי ודבר אחר הזורק לתוכו פטור

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.

איתיביה יתר על כן אמר רבי יהודה מי שיש לו שני בתים בשני צידי רשות הרבים עושה לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע

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.

אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך

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’s statement.

התם קסבר רבי יהודה שתי מחיצות דאורייתא

The Gemara answers: This is not the reason behind Rabbi Yehuda’s 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’s position cannot be disproved from this source either.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מבוי שארכו כרחבו אינו ניתר בלחי משהו אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב מבוי שארכו כרחבו אינו ניתר בקורה טפח

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 Ḥiyya 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.

אמר רבי זירא כמה מכוונן שמעתא דסבי כיון דארכו כרחבו הוה ליה חצר וחצר אינה ניתרת בלחי וקורה אלא בפס ארבעה

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.

אמר רבי זירא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי ליהוי האי לחי כפס משהו ונשתרי

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.

אישתמיטתיה הא דאמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן פסי חצר צריכין שיהא בהן ארבעה

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

אמר רב נחמן נקטינן איזהו מבוי שניתר בלחי וקורה כל שארכו יתר על רחבו ובתים וחצרות פתוחים לתוכו ואיזו היא חצר שאינה ניתרת בלחי וקורה אלא בפס ארבעה כל שמרובעת

Rav Naḥman 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.

מרובעת אין עגולה לא הכי קאמר אי ארכה יתר על רחבה הוה ליה מבוי ומבוי בלחי וקורה סגיא ואי לא הוה לה חצר

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.

וכמה סבר שמואל למימר עד דאיכא פי שנים ברחבה אמר ליה רב הכי אמר חביבי אפילו משהו:

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 [ḥavivi], Rav Ḥiyya, said this: Even if its length is greater than its width by only a minimal amount, the halakhot of an alleyway apply to it.

משום רבי ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד כו׳:

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

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

Scroll To Top