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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 11, 2020 | 讻状讗 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Eruvin 2

What are the four domains? What is an eruv? What does it permit? What is a lechi, kora, tzurat hapetach? What is the maximum height of a kora, beam and the maximum width of the opening of the alley (mavoi)? The rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda have different opinions. The gemara compares our mishna to the first mishna in Sukka and question why the language used is different. Rav says that both measurement s of the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda are learned from the measurements of the Temple – one from the entranceway to the ulam, antechamber and one from the entranceway to the heichal, sanctuary. They are both derived from verses relating to the tabernacle. How can we learn about the temple from the tabernacle? And if so, why not from the entranceway to the courtyard of the tabernacle which was wider? The gemara brings several questions on Rav and concludes that Rabbi Yehuda did not learn from the ulam, but learned from palaces of kings.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬诪注讟 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

MISHNA: If an alleyway is enclosed on three sides with courtyards opening into it from three sides, and the fourth side opens into a public domain, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry objects in it on Shabbat. However, carrying in an alleyway under those circumstances is permitted if a cross beam is placed horizontally over the entrance to the alleyway. The mishna teaches that if the cross beam spans the entrance to an alleyway at a height above twenty cubits, one must diminish the height of the cross beam so that it is less than twenty cubits. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not diminish it, since the cross beam enables one to carry in the alleyway even at that height.

讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗诪讜转 讬诪注讟 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗诪讜转 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟:

If the entrance to the alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width. However, if the entrance to the alleyway has the form of a doorway, i.e., two vertical posts on the two sides, and a horizontal beam spanning the space between them, even if it is wider than ten cubits, he need not diminish it, as it is then regarded as an entrance, rather than a breach, even if it is very wide.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 住讜讻讛 砖讛讬讗 讙讘讜讛讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 住讜讻讛 讚转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 讜讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Sukka: A sukka that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. The halakhot are similar in substance but differ in formulation, and accordingly the Gemara asks: What is the difference that with regard to a sukka the mishna teaches that it is unfit, whereas with regard to an alleyway, it teaches the method of rectification, that one must diminish the height of the cross beam?

住讜讻讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 诪讘讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

The Gemara answers: With regard to sukka, since it is a mitzva by Torah law, the mishna teaches that it is unfit, as if it is not constructed in the proper manner, no mitzva is fulfilled. Whereas with regard to an alleyway, where the entire prohibition of carrying is only by rabbinic law, the mishna teaches the method of rectification, as the cross beam comes only to rectify a rabbinic prohibition, but does not involve a mitzva by Torah law.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 讗诇讗 住讜讻讛 讚谞驻讬砖讬谉 诪讬诇讬讛 驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 诪讘讜讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖讬 诪讬诇讬讛 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that even with regard to matters prohibited by Torah law, it would have been appropriate for the mishna to teach a method of rectification. However, with regard to sukka, whose matters are numerous, it categorically teaches that it is unfit. Merely diminishing the height of a sukka is insufficient to render it fit; it must also satisfy requirements governing its size, its walls, and its roofing. Teaching the remedy for each disqualification would have required lengthy elaboration. With regard to an alleyway, however, whose matters are not numerous, the mishna teaches the method of rectification. Once the height is diminished, it is permitted to carry in the alleyway.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 诇诪讚讛 讗诇讗 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讗讜诇诐

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The Rabbis only derived this halakha, that an opening more than twenty cubits high is not considered an entrance, from the doorway of the Sanctuary, the inner sanctum of the Temple. And Rabbi Yehuda only derived his opinion, that even an opening more than twenty cubits high is considered an entrance, from the doorway of the Entrance Hall leading into the Sanctuary.

讚转谞谉 驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讙讘讛讜 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜专讞讘讜 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讜砖诇 讗讜诇诐 讙讘讛讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜专讞讘讜 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讜转

As we learned in a mishna: The doorway of the Sanctuary is twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide, and that of the Entrance Hall is forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.

讜砖谞讬讛谉 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讻诇 诇讞讜讚 讜拽讚讜砖转 讗讜诇诐 诇讞讜讚 讜讻讬 讻转讬讘 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗讛讬讻诇 讻转讬讘

The Gemara explains the basis of this tannaitic dispute. Both of them, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda, interpreted the same verse homiletically: 鈥淎nd he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering and slaughter it at the doorway of the Tent of Meeting, and Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall sprinkle the blood on the altar round about鈥 (Leviticus 3:2). As the Rabbis hold that the sanctity of the Sanctuary is discrete and the sanctity of the Entrance Hall is discrete, i.e., the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall have distinct levels of sanctity. And since the essence of the Temple is the Sanctuary and not the Entrance Hall, and since the Sanctuary in the Temple parallels the Tent of Meeting in the Tabernacle, when the verse speaks of the doorway of the Tent of Meeting, it is referring to the doorway of the Sanctuary. Therefore, the term doorway applies to an opening similar to the doorway of the Sanctuary, which is twenty cubits high. There is no source indicating that an opening with larger dimensions is also considered a doorway.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讬讻诇 讜讗讜诇诐 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 讻转讬讘 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall are one, equal, sanctity, and therefore, when it is written: 鈥淭he doorway of the Tent of Meeting,鈥 it is referring to both of them, and accordingly, the term doorway applies to a larger entrance as well.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 拽讚讜砖转 讗讜诇诐 诇讞讜讚 讜拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讻诇 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讜诇诐 讛讘讬转

The Gemara suggests an alternative understanding of the dispute. And if you wish, say instead that even according to Rabbi Yehuda, the sanctity of the Sanctuary is discrete and the sanctity of the Entrance Hall is discrete. And here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda: By fusing together language from different verses, the result is as it is written: To the doorway of the Entrance Hall of the House. Therefore, even the doorway of the Entrance Hall is referred to in the Torah as a doorway, and the same is true of any opening with comparable dimensions.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讛讜讛 讻转讘 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讜诇诐 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讜诇诐 讛讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讛驻转讜讞 诇讗讜诇诐

And the Rabbis say: Had the verse written: 鈥淭o the doorway of the Entrance Hall,鈥 it would be interpreted as you said. However, now that it is written: 鈥淭o the doorway of the Entrance Hall of the House,鈥 it is to be understood: To the doorway of the House that opens into the Entrance Hall, i.e., the Sanctuary, and consequently, the definition of doorway is derived from the dimensions of the doorway of the Sanctuary.

讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讗讬 讘诪砖讻谉 讻转讬讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the very basis of this explanation: But when this is written: 鈥淭he doorway of the Tent of Meeting,鈥 isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the Tabernacle in the wilderness? How can the status in the permanent Sanctuary, i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem, be derived from matters stated with regard to the Tabernacle?

讗砖讻讞谉 诪砖讻谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪拽讚砖 讜诪拽讚砖 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪砖讻谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 拽讜讚诐 驻转讬讞转 讚诇转讜转 讛讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讝诪谉 砖驻转讜讞讬谉 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 谞注讜诇讬诐 讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讛讬讗 讘诪砖讻谉 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 诪拽讚砖 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪砖讻谉 讜诪砖讻谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪拽讚砖

The Gemara answers: We find that the Tabernacle is called Temple, and that the Temple is called Tabernacle; therefore, the halakhot that govern one can be derived from the other. As if you do not say so, that the Tabernacle and the Temple are one with regard to their halakhot, that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Peace-offerings that were slaughtered in the Temple prior to the opening of the doors of the Sanctuary in the morning are disqualified would be difficult. That halakha is derived as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it at the doorway [peta岣] of the Tent of Meeting,鈥 from which it is derived: When the doors to the Tent of Meeting are open [petu岣n], and not when they are closed. But when this is written: The doorway of the Tent of Meeting, isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the Tabernacle? Rather, for halakhic purposes, we find the Temple called Tabernacle, and the Tabernacle called Temple.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪砖讻谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转转讬 (讗转) 诪砖讻谞讬 讘转讜讻讻诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讻谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪拽讚砖 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜谞砖讗讜 讛拽讛转讬诐 谞讜砖讗讬 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讛拽讬诪讜 讗转 讛诪砖讻谉 注讚 讘讜讗诐

The Gemara questions its previous conclusion: Granted, the Temple is called Tabernacle, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I will set My Tabernacle among you鈥 (Leviticus 26:11), and the reference is to the permanent Sanctuary, i.e., the Temple, as the verse is referring to that which will transpire after the Jewish people settle in their land. However, the fact that the Tabernacle is called Temple, from where do we derive it? The Gemara answers: If you say that it is derived from that which is written: 鈥淎nd the Kehatites, the bearers of the Temple, set forward, that they may set up the Tabernacle before they came鈥 (Numbers 10:21),

讛讛讜讗 讘讗专讜谉 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜注砖讜 诇讬 诪拽讚砖 讜砖讻谞转讬 讘转讜讻诐

that instance of the term Temple is not written with regard to the Tabernacle; rather, it is written with regard to the ark and the other sacred objects in the Tabernacle, as the sons of Kehat carried only the sacred vessels and not the Tabernacle itself. Rather, it is derived from here: 鈥淎nd let them make Me a Temple that I may dwell among them鈥 (Exodus 25:8), where the reference is to the Tabernacle.

讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬诇驻讜 诪驻转讞 砖注专 讛讞爪专 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜专讱 讛讞爪专 诪讗讛 讘讗诪讛 讜专讞讘 讞诪砖讬诐 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讜拽讜诪讛 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 讜讻转讬讘 讜讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 拽诇注讬诐 诇讻转祝 讜讻转讬讘 讜诇讻转祝 讛砖谞讬转 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 诇砖注专 讛讞爪专 拽诇注讬诐 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞诪砖 讘专讜讞讘 注砖专讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞诪砖 讘专讜讞讘 注砖专讬诐

The Gemara asks: Both according to the opinion of the Rabbis and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, let them derive the maximum width of a doorway from the doorway of the gate of the courtyard of the Tabernacle. As it is written: 鈥淭he length of the courtyard shall be one hundred cubits and the breadth fifty everywhere, and the height five cubits鈥 (Exodus 27:18). And it is written: 鈥淭he hangings on one side of the gate shall be fifteen cubits; their pillars three and their sockets three鈥 (Exodus 27:14). And it is written: 鈥淎nd for the other side of the court gate, on this hand and on that hand, were hangings of fifteen cubits; their pillars three and their sockets three鈥 (Exodus 38:15). If the hangings on both sides of the gate covered thirty of the courtyard鈥檚 total width of fifty cubits, apparently, the gate of the courtyard was twenty cubits wide and five cubits high. Therefore, just as there, with regard to the Tabernacle, an entrance five cubits high by twenty cubits wide is considered a doorway, so too here, with regard to the halakhot of eiruv, an entrance five cubits high by twenty cubits wide should be considered a doorway.

驻转讞 砖注专 讛讞爪专 讗讬拽专讬 驻转讞 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

The Gemara rejects this assertion: There is no proof from there, as that entrance is called the doorway of the gate of the courtyard, but it is not called a doorway, unmodified. Consequently, the dimensions of a doorway mentioned without qualification cannot be derived from that doorway.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 拽诇注讬诐 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讻转祝 讘讙讜讘讛讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara offers an alternative answer: And if you wish, say instead that when it is written: 鈥淭he hangings on one side of the gate shall be fifteen cubits,鈥 it is referring to the height of the hangings. The width of the hangings, however, is not specified in the Torah at all, and therefore the width of the doorway of the gate of the courtyard is unknown.

讙讜讘讛讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜拽讜诪讛 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 讛讛讜讗 诪砖驻转 诪讝讘讞 讜诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara raises an objection: Could it be that the height of the hangings was fifteen cubits? Isn鈥檛 it written explicitly in the verse: 鈥淎nd the height five cubits鈥? The Gemara answers: The verse is stating that the height of the hangings was five cubits, measured from the edge of the altar and above. The altar itself was ten cubits high, while the hangings of the courtyard were fifteen cubits high, five cubits higher than the altar.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讗讜诇诐 讙诪专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗诪讜转 讬诪注讟 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yehuda actually derive his opinion from the doorway of the Entrance Hall? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that if the entrance to an alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width? And Rabbi Yehuda does not dispute this ruling. Wasn鈥檛 the doorway of the Entrance Hall wider than ten cubits?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 驻诇讬讙 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗诪讜转 讬诪注讟 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟

Abaye said: In fact, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna in a baraita. As it was taught in a baraita: If the entrance to an alleyway is wider than ten cubits, he must diminish its width; Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: He need not diminish it.

讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 驻诇讬讙 讘讙讜讘讛讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇专讞讘讛

The Gemara asks further: If so, let him disagree in the mishna. Why is Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 dispute cited only in the baraita, and not in the mishna? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees in the mishna with regard to an entrance鈥檚 height, but the same applies to its width. His statement: He need not reduce it, is referring both to the entrance鈥檚 height and to its width.

讜讗讻转讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讗讜诇诐 讙诪专 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬诪注讟 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 注讚 诪讗讛

The Gemara poses a question: And still, is it possible that Rabbi Yehuda derived his opinion from the doorway of the Entrance Hall? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish its height; and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit up to forty and fifty cubits. And in a different baraita, bar Kappara taught the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: It is fit up to a hundred cubits.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 讙讜讝诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讙讜讝诪讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讙诪专 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讗讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara clarifies its question: Granted, according to bar Kappara, the phrase: Up to a hundred, can be understood as an exaggeration, not as an exact number. All that Rabbi Yehuda meant to say is that it is permitted to carry in the alleyway even if the cross beam is significantly higher than twenty cubits. However, according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, what exaggeration is there? He certainly meant precisely what he said. Granted, with regard to forty cubits, Rabbi Yehuda derived it from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. However, with regard to fifty cubits, from where does he derive it? Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda did not derive the dimensions of an entrance from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. He derived them from a different source.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讗讟注讬转讬讛 诇专讘 讚转谞讬讗 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬讜转专 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讬诪注讟 讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讚专讘谞谉 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讙诪专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讗讜诇诐 讙诪专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻转讞讗 讚诪诇讻讬谉 讙诪专

Rav 岣sda said: It was this baraita that misled Rav and led him to explain that Rabbi Yehuda derived the measurements of an entrance from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits, higher than the doorway of the Sanctuary, one must diminish its height. Rav maintains: From the fact that the Rabbis derived the dimensions of an entrance from the doorway of the Sanctuary, Rabbi Yehuda must have derived those dimensions from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. But that is not so. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda derived the dimensions of an entrance from the entrance of kings, whose regular practice was to erect their entrances exceedingly high and wide.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讙诪讬专讬 诇讬讘注讜 讚诇转讜转 讻讛讬讻诇 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讛讻砖专 诪讘讜讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛

The Gemara asks: And, according to the Rabbis, if they derived their opinion from the doorway of the Sanctuary, let them require doors in order to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, just as there were doors in the Sanctuary. Why then did we learn in the mishna: With regard to the method of rendering an alleyway fit for carrying within it, Beit Shammai say: Both a side post placed adjacent to one of the sides of the alleyway鈥檚 entrance and a cross beam over the entrance to the alleyway are required. And Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a cross beam is sufficient. However, not even according to the more stringent opinion of Beit Shammai are doors required.

讚诇转讜转 讛讬讻诇 诇爪谞讬注讜转 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚谉

The Gemara answers: The Sanctuary doors were made solely for the purpose of privacy, but served no practical function. The doorway of the Sanctuary did not require doors to be considered an entrance. It was a full-fledged entrance even without them.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讗 转讬讛谞讬 诇讬讛 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讚讛讗 讛讬讻诇 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讛讜讬讗 诇讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讛讜讗 讚专讜讬讞 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗诪讜转 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟

The Gemara raises another question: But if so, that the Rabbis derive their opinion from the entrance to the Sanctuary, the form of a doorway, i.e., two vertical posts on the two sides, with a horizontal cross beam spanning the space between them, should not be effective if the alleyway is more than ten cubits wide, as the Sanctuary had the form of a doorway, and even so, it was no more than ten cubits wide. Why then did we learn in the mishna: If the entrance has the form of a doorway, then even if it is wider than ten cubits, he need not diminish its width?

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转谞讬讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟

The Gemara answers: As that is the reason only according to Rav, who holds that the Rabbis derive their opinion from the doorway of the Sanctuary. Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda teach this mishna to 岣yya bar Rav before Rav, saying that if the entrance had the form of a doorway he need not diminish it, and Rav said to him to teach a different version: He must diminish it. Apparently, according to Rav himself, the form of a doorway does not render it permitted to carry within the alleyway if its entrance is wider than the doorway of the Sanctuary, and therefore the question about the form of a doorway poses no difficulty to his opinion.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛

The Gemara raises an additional difficulty: However, if that is so,

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

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

Eruvin 101-105 and Pesachim 2-3 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will be finishing Tractate Eruvin. After an introduction to Tractate Pesachim we will learn the first two...
Architecture during the time of the Talmud- by Amy Cohn for Hadran's Siyum Masechet Eruvin

Architecture During the Time of the Talmud- by Amy Cohn

Watch architect Amy Cohn's full presentation from Hadran's Siyum Masechet Eruvin https://youtu.be/QhuZzfg3vRA
London Eruv

Real Life Eruv by Naomi Cohen

L鈥檌lui nishmat Pesach Nachman ben Tzvi Hirsh (Peter Olswang)   I was responsible for building our suburban Eruv (London) a...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Eruvin 2-9

We will start Masechet Eruvin this week and review the key concepts in Daf 2-9 including understanding what an open...

Eruvin 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 2

诪转谞讬壮 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬诪注讟 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱

MISHNA: If an alleyway is enclosed on three sides with courtyards opening into it from three sides, and the fourth side opens into a public domain, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry objects in it on Shabbat. However, carrying in an alleyway under those circumstances is permitted if a cross beam is placed horizontally over the entrance to the alleyway. The mishna teaches that if the cross beam spans the entrance to an alleyway at a height above twenty cubits, one must diminish the height of the cross beam so that it is less than twenty cubits. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not diminish it, since the cross beam enables one to carry in the alleyway even at that height.

讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗诪讜转 讬诪注讟 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗诪讜转 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟:

If the entrance to the alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width. However, if the entrance to the alleyway has the form of a doorway, i.e., two vertical posts on the two sides, and a horizontal beam spanning the space between them, even if it is wider than ten cubits, he need not diminish it, as it is then regarded as an entrance, rather than a breach, even if it is very wide.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 住讜讻讛 砖讛讬讗 讙讘讜讛讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讙讘讬 住讜讻讛 讚转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 讜讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Sukka: A sukka that is more than twenty cubits high is unfit, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. The halakhot are similar in substance but differ in formulation, and accordingly the Gemara asks: What is the difference that with regard to a sukka the mishna teaches that it is unfit, whereas with regard to an alleyway, it teaches the method of rectification, that one must diminish the height of the cross beam?

住讜讻讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 诪讘讜讬 讚专讘谞谉 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

The Gemara answers: With regard to sukka, since it is a mitzva by Torah law, the mishna teaches that it is unfit, as if it is not constructed in the proper manner, no mitzva is fulfilled. Whereas with regard to an alleyway, where the entire prohibition of carrying is only by rabbinic law, the mishna teaches the method of rectification, as the cross beam comes only to rectify a rabbinic prohibition, but does not involve a mitzva by Torah law.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗 讗诇讗 住讜讻讛 讚谞驻讬砖讬谉 诪讬诇讬讛 驻住讬拽 讜转谞讬 驻住讜诇讛 诪讘讜讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖讬 诪讬诇讬讛 转谞讬 转拽谞转讗

The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that even with regard to matters prohibited by Torah law, it would have been appropriate for the mishna to teach a method of rectification. However, with regard to sukka, whose matters are numerous, it categorically teaches that it is unfit. Merely diminishing the height of a sukka is insufficient to render it fit; it must also satisfy requirements governing its size, its walls, and its roofing. Teaching the remedy for each disqualification would have required lengthy elaboration. With regard to an alleyway, however, whose matters are not numerous, the mishna teaches the method of rectification. Once the height is diminished, it is permitted to carry in the alleyway.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 诇诪讚讛 讗诇讗 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讗讜诇诐

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The Rabbis only derived this halakha, that an opening more than twenty cubits high is not considered an entrance, from the doorway of the Sanctuary, the inner sanctum of the Temple. And Rabbi Yehuda only derived his opinion, that even an opening more than twenty cubits high is considered an entrance, from the doorway of the Entrance Hall leading into the Sanctuary.

讚转谞谉 驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讙讘讛讜 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讜专讞讘讜 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讜砖诇 讗讜诇诐 讙讘讛讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讗诪讛 讜专讞讘讜 注砖专讬诐 讗诪讜转

As we learned in a mishna: The doorway of the Sanctuary is twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide, and that of the Entrance Hall is forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.

讜砖谞讬讛谉 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讻诇 诇讞讜讚 讜拽讚讜砖转 讗讜诇诐 诇讞讜讚 讜讻讬 讻转讬讘 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗讛讬讻诇 讻转讬讘

The Gemara explains the basis of this tannaitic dispute. Both of them, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda, interpreted the same verse homiletically: 鈥淎nd he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering and slaughter it at the doorway of the Tent of Meeting, and Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall sprinkle the blood on the altar round about鈥 (Leviticus 3:2). As the Rabbis hold that the sanctity of the Sanctuary is discrete and the sanctity of the Entrance Hall is discrete, i.e., the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall have distinct levels of sanctity. And since the essence of the Temple is the Sanctuary and not the Entrance Hall, and since the Sanctuary in the Temple parallels the Tent of Meeting in the Tabernacle, when the verse speaks of the doorway of the Tent of Meeting, it is referring to the doorway of the Sanctuary. Therefore, the term doorway applies to an opening similar to the doorway of the Sanctuary, which is twenty cubits high. There is no source indicating that an opening with larger dimensions is also considered a doorway.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讬讻诇 讜讗讜诇诐 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讻讬 讻转讬讘 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讗转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall are one, equal, sanctity, and therefore, when it is written: 鈥淭he doorway of the Tent of Meeting,鈥 it is referring to both of them, and accordingly, the term doorway applies to a larger entrance as well.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 拽讚讜砖转 讗讜诇诐 诇讞讜讚 讜拽讚讜砖转 讛讬讻诇 诇讞讜讚 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讜诇诐 讛讘讬转

The Gemara suggests an alternative understanding of the dispute. And if you wish, say instead that even according to Rabbi Yehuda, the sanctity of the Sanctuary is discrete and the sanctity of the Entrance Hall is discrete. And here, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda: By fusing together language from different verses, the result is as it is written: To the doorway of the Entrance Hall of the House. Therefore, even the doorway of the Entrance Hall is referred to in the Torah as a doorway, and the same is true of any opening with comparable dimensions.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 讛讜讛 讻转讘 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讜诇诐 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 驻转讞 讗讜诇诐 讛讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讛驻转讜讞 诇讗讜诇诐

And the Rabbis say: Had the verse written: 鈥淭o the doorway of the Entrance Hall,鈥 it would be interpreted as you said. However, now that it is written: 鈥淭o the doorway of the Entrance Hall of the House,鈥 it is to be understood: To the doorway of the House that opens into the Entrance Hall, i.e., the Sanctuary, and consequently, the definition of doorway is derived from the dimensions of the doorway of the Sanctuary.

讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讗讬 讘诪砖讻谉 讻转讬讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the very basis of this explanation: But when this is written: 鈥淭he doorway of the Tent of Meeting,鈥 isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the Tabernacle in the wilderness? How can the status in the permanent Sanctuary, i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem, be derived from matters stated with regard to the Tabernacle?

讗砖讻讞谉 诪砖讻谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪拽讚砖 讜诪拽讚砖 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪砖讻谉 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖诇诪讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 拽讜讚诐 驻转讬讞转 讚诇转讜转 讛讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟讜 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讝诪谉 砖驻转讜讞讬谉 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 谞注讜诇讬诐 讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 讛讛讬讗 讘诪砖讻谉 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 诪拽讚砖 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪砖讻谉 讜诪砖讻谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪拽讚砖

The Gemara answers: We find that the Tabernacle is called Temple, and that the Temple is called Tabernacle; therefore, the halakhot that govern one can be derived from the other. As if you do not say so, that the Tabernacle and the Temple are one with regard to their halakhot, that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Peace-offerings that were slaughtered in the Temple prior to the opening of the doors of the Sanctuary in the morning are disqualified would be difficult. That halakha is derived as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it at the doorway [peta岣] of the Tent of Meeting,鈥 from which it is derived: When the doors to the Tent of Meeting are open [petu岣n], and not when they are closed. But when this is written: The doorway of the Tent of Meeting, isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the Tabernacle? Rather, for halakhic purposes, we find the Temple called Tabernacle, and the Tabernacle called Temple.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪砖讻谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞转转讬 (讗转) 诪砖讻谞讬 讘转讜讻讻诐 讗诇讗 诪砖讻谉 讚讗讬拽专讬 诪拽讚砖 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜谞砖讗讜 讛拽讛转讬诐 谞讜砖讗讬 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讛拽讬诪讜 讗转 讛诪砖讻谉 注讚 讘讜讗诐

The Gemara questions its previous conclusion: Granted, the Temple is called Tabernacle, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I will set My Tabernacle among you鈥 (Leviticus 26:11), and the reference is to the permanent Sanctuary, i.e., the Temple, as the verse is referring to that which will transpire after the Jewish people settle in their land. However, the fact that the Tabernacle is called Temple, from where do we derive it? The Gemara answers: If you say that it is derived from that which is written: 鈥淎nd the Kehatites, the bearers of the Temple, set forward, that they may set up the Tabernacle before they came鈥 (Numbers 10:21),

讛讛讜讗 讘讗专讜谉 讻转讬讘 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜注砖讜 诇讬 诪拽讚砖 讜砖讻谞转讬 讘转讜讻诐

that instance of the term Temple is not written with regard to the Tabernacle; rather, it is written with regard to the ark and the other sacred objects in the Tabernacle, as the sons of Kehat carried only the sacred vessels and not the Tabernacle itself. Rather, it is derived from here: 鈥淎nd let them make Me a Temple that I may dwell among them鈥 (Exodus 25:8), where the reference is to the Tabernacle.

讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讬诇驻讜 诪驻转讞 砖注专 讛讞爪专 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜专讱 讛讞爪专 诪讗讛 讘讗诪讛 讜专讞讘 讞诪砖讬诐 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讜拽讜诪讛 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 讜讻转讬讘 讜讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 拽诇注讬诐 诇讻转祝 讜讻转讬讘 讜诇讻转祝 讛砖谞讬转 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 诇砖注专 讛讞爪专 拽诇注讬诐 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞诪砖 讘专讜讞讘 注砖专讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞诪砖 讘专讜讞讘 注砖专讬诐

The Gemara asks: Both according to the opinion of the Rabbis and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, let them derive the maximum width of a doorway from the doorway of the gate of the courtyard of the Tabernacle. As it is written: 鈥淭he length of the courtyard shall be one hundred cubits and the breadth fifty everywhere, and the height five cubits鈥 (Exodus 27:18). And it is written: 鈥淭he hangings on one side of the gate shall be fifteen cubits; their pillars three and their sockets three鈥 (Exodus 27:14). And it is written: 鈥淎nd for the other side of the court gate, on this hand and on that hand, were hangings of fifteen cubits; their pillars three and their sockets three鈥 (Exodus 38:15). If the hangings on both sides of the gate covered thirty of the courtyard鈥檚 total width of fifty cubits, apparently, the gate of the courtyard was twenty cubits wide and five cubits high. Therefore, just as there, with regard to the Tabernacle, an entrance five cubits high by twenty cubits wide is considered a doorway, so too here, with regard to the halakhot of eiruv, an entrance five cubits high by twenty cubits wide should be considered a doorway.

驻转讞 砖注专 讛讞爪专 讗讬拽专讬 驻转讞 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬

The Gemara rejects this assertion: There is no proof from there, as that entrance is called the doorway of the gate of the courtyard, but it is not called a doorway, unmodified. Consequently, the dimensions of a doorway mentioned without qualification cannot be derived from that doorway.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 拽诇注讬诐 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 诇讻转祝 讘讙讜讘讛讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara offers an alternative answer: And if you wish, say instead that when it is written: 鈥淭he hangings on one side of the gate shall be fifteen cubits,鈥 it is referring to the height of the hangings. The width of the hangings, however, is not specified in the Torah at all, and therefore the width of the doorway of the gate of the courtyard is unknown.

讙讜讘讛讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜拽讜诪讛 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 讛讛讜讗 诪砖驻转 诪讝讘讞 讜诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara raises an objection: Could it be that the height of the hangings was fifteen cubits? Isn鈥檛 it written explicitly in the verse: 鈥淎nd the height five cubits鈥? The Gemara answers: The verse is stating that the height of the hangings was five cubits, measured from the edge of the altar and above. The altar itself was ten cubits high, while the hangings of the courtyard were fifteen cubits high, five cubits higher than the altar.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讗讜诇诐 讙诪专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗诪讜转 讬诪注讟 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yehuda actually derive his opinion from the doorway of the Entrance Hall? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that if the entrance to an alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width? And Rabbi Yehuda does not dispute this ruling. Wasn鈥檛 the doorway of the Entrance Hall wider than ten cubits?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 驻诇讬讙 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗诪讜转 讬诪注讟 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟

Abaye said: In fact, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna in a baraita. As it was taught in a baraita: If the entrance to an alleyway is wider than ten cubits, he must diminish its width; Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: He need not diminish it.

讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 驻诇讬讙 讘讙讜讘讛讛 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇专讞讘讛

The Gemara asks further: If so, let him disagree in the mishna. Why is Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 dispute cited only in the baraita, and not in the mishna? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees in the mishna with regard to an entrance鈥檚 height, but the same applies to its width. His statement: He need not reduce it, is referring both to the entrance鈥檚 height and to its width.

讜讗讻转讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讗讜诇诐 讙诪专 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬诪注讟 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 注讚 讗专讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 注讚 诪讗讛

The Gemara poses a question: And still, is it possible that Rabbi Yehuda derived his opinion from the doorway of the Entrance Hall? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish its height; and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit up to forty and fifty cubits. And in a different baraita, bar Kappara taught the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: It is fit up to a hundred cubits.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 讙讜讝诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讙讜讝诪讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讙诪专 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讗讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讞诪砖讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara clarifies its question: Granted, according to bar Kappara, the phrase: Up to a hundred, can be understood as an exaggeration, not as an exact number. All that Rabbi Yehuda meant to say is that it is permitted to carry in the alleyway even if the cross beam is significantly higher than twenty cubits. However, according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, what exaggeration is there? He certainly meant precisely what he said. Granted, with regard to forty cubits, Rabbi Yehuda derived it from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. However, with regard to fifty cubits, from where does he derive it? Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda did not derive the dimensions of an entrance from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. He derived them from a different source.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讗讟注讬转讬讛 诇专讘 讚转谞讬讗 诪讘讜讬 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 讬讜转专 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讬诪注讟 讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讚专讘谞谉 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讙诪专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讗讜诇诐 讙诪专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻转讞讗 讚诪诇讻讬谉 讙诪专

Rav 岣sda said: It was this baraita that misled Rav and led him to explain that Rabbi Yehuda derived the measurements of an entrance from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits, higher than the doorway of the Sanctuary, one must diminish its height. Rav maintains: From the fact that the Rabbis derived the dimensions of an entrance from the doorway of the Sanctuary, Rabbi Yehuda must have derived those dimensions from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. But that is not so. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda derived the dimensions of an entrance from the entrance of kings, whose regular practice was to erect their entrances exceedingly high and wide.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 诪驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 讙诪讬专讬 诇讬讘注讜 讚诇转讜转 讻讛讬讻诇 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讛讻砖专 诪讘讜讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讞讬 讗讜 拽讜专讛

The Gemara asks: And, according to the Rabbis, if they derived their opinion from the doorway of the Sanctuary, let them require doors in order to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, just as there were doors in the Sanctuary. Why then did we learn in the mishna: With regard to the method of rendering an alleyway fit for carrying within it, Beit Shammai say: Both a side post placed adjacent to one of the sides of the alleyway鈥檚 entrance and a cross beam over the entrance to the alleyway are required. And Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a cross beam is sufficient. However, not even according to the more stringent opinion of Beit Shammai are doors required.

讚诇转讜转 讛讬讻诇 诇爪谞讬注讜转 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚谉

The Gemara answers: The Sanctuary doors were made solely for the purpose of privacy, but served no practical function. The doorway of the Sanctuary did not require doors to be considered an entrance. It was a full-fledged entrance even without them.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讗 转讬讛谞讬 诇讬讛 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讚讛讗 讛讬讻诇 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讛讜讬讗 诇讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 注砖专 讗诪讜转 讛讜讗 讚专讜讬讞 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖专讞讘 诪注砖专 讗诪讜转 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟

The Gemara raises another question: But if so, that the Rabbis derive their opinion from the entrance to the Sanctuary, the form of a doorway, i.e., two vertical posts on the two sides, with a horizontal cross beam spanning the space between them, should not be effective if the alleyway is more than ten cubits wide, as the Sanctuary had the form of a doorway, and even so, it was no more than ten cubits wide. Why then did we learn in the mishna: If the entrance has the form of a doorway, then even if it is wider than ten cubits, he need not diminish its width?

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转谞讬讬讛 爪专讬讱 诇诪注讟

The Gemara answers: As that is the reason only according to Rav, who holds that the Rabbis derive their opinion from the doorway of the Sanctuary. Didn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda teach this mishna to 岣yya bar Rav before Rav, saying that if the entrance had the form of a doorway he need not diminish it, and Rav said to him to teach a different version: He must diminish it. Apparently, according to Rav himself, the form of a doorway does not render it permitted to carry within the alleyway if its entrance is wider than the doorway of the Sanctuary, and therefore the question about the form of a doorway poses no difficulty to his opinion.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛

The Gemara raises an additional difficulty: However, if that is so,

Scroll To Top