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

Daf Yomi

August 14, 2020 | 讻状讚 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

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

Eruvin 5

Today’s daf is dedicated by Sara Berelowitz in memory of her mother Kila bat Yehuda z”l on her yartzeit. She would have been delighted to know that her daughter is learning the daf.

If the beam is higher than 20 cubits, by how much does one need to lower it? The gemara tries to understand what exactly the question is. Rav Yosef and Abaye each have their own opinion and the gemara tries to explain the debate between them. Four different answers are brought. The same question is asked regarding a case where the beam is lower than ten handbreadths – how far into the mavoi does the floor need to be lowered. Rav Yosef and Abaye also have a debate regarding this matter. Abaye brings two proofs for his position and Rav Yosef explains those sources according to his view. Rav Huna describes a case where the entrance to the mavoi has a partial wall jutting out – does one still need to put up a lechi there? It depends on the size of the wall. In the case that one would put up a lechi, where should it be placed? Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua narrows the case of Rav Huna and doesn’t require a lechi if the wall covers more than 50% of the opening as it can be derived from laws of courtyards by a kal vachomer. Some question whether this kal vachomer is valid, perhaps laws of mavoi are more stringent than courtyards?

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗专讘注讛 拽住讘专 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛


And the one who said four handbreadths holds that the alleyway is considered as if it were sealed from the inside edge of the cross beam, and consequently it is prohibited to utilize the area beneath the cross beam. As the area beneath the cross beam is not part of the alleyway, a significant demarcation, i.e., one of four handbreadths, is required within the alleyway itself.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽住讘专讬 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛 讜讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜诪专 住讘专 拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛


The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that it is permitted to utilize the area beneath the cross beam, and they disagree with regard to this: This Master, Rav Yosef, holds that a cross beam functions in an alleyway as a conspicuous marker that demarcates the alleyway from the public domain, and consequently a mere handbreadth is sufficient, as even a handbreadth is sufficiently conspicuous. And this Master, Abaye, holds that a cross beam serves as a partition, and a partition is not effective for an area of less than four handbreadths. The principle that an outer edge descends and seals the alleyway does not apply if the beam is higher than twenty cubits. In order for it to be considered a partition, there must be at least four handbreadths that are less than twenty cubits beneath the cross beam.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪讟讛 讜讘讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪注诇讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪讟讛 讻讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪注诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪讟讛 讻讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪注诇讛


The Gemara proposes an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that a cross beam serves as a conspicuous marker, and here they disagree with regard to the relationship between a conspicuous marker below, i.e., the raised area of the alleyway, and a conspicuous marker above, i.e., the cross beam. This Master, Rav Yosef, holds that we say that the halakha that governs the conspicuous marker below is like the halakha that applies to the conspicuous marker above, and one handbreadth suffices. And this Master, Abaye, holds that we do not say that the halakha that governs the conspicuous marker below is like the halakha that applies to the conspicuous marker above. The lower sign must be more prominent and extend four handbreadths.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪讟讛 讻讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪注诇讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬驻讞讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬:


The Gemara proposes yet another explanation of the amoraic dispute: And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that we say that fundamentally, the halakha that governs the conspicuous marker below is like the halakha that applies to the conspicuous marker above, and even a handbreadth should suffice. But here they disagree whether the Sages decreed that four handbreadths are necessary, lest people treading upon it will erode and diminish the raised area. Rav Yosef is not concerned that it will be diminished and therefore holds that a raised area of a handbreadth is sufficient, whereas Abaye is concerned that the raised area of a handbreadth will erode to less than a handbreadth, rendering it inconspicuous, and the alleyway will come to be utilized in a prohibited manner.


讛讬讛 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讞拽拽 讘讜 诇讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 讻诪讛 讞讜拽拽 讻诪讛 讞讜拽拽 讻诪讛 讚爪专讬讱 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讻讜 讘讻诪讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


The Gemara considers a new case: If the cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway was less than ten handbreadths above the ground, and one hollowed out the ground under the cross beam in order to complete the distance from the ground to the cross beam to ten, how much must he hollow out? The Gemara is surprised by the question: How much must he hollow out? However much is necessary for it to increase the height to at least ten handbreadths. Rather, the question is as follows: How far must the hollowed-out area extend into the alleyway in order to render it permitted to carry throughout the alleyway? Rav Yosef said: Four handbreadths. Abaye said: Four cubits.


诇讬诪讗 讘讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗讬转诪专 诪讘讜讬 砖谞驻专抓 诪爪讬讚讜 讻诇驻讬 专讗砖讜 讗讬转诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 驻住 讗专讘注讛 诪转讬专 讘驻讬专爪讛 注讚 注砖专


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the ruling of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. As it was stated with regard to the following question: If the side wall of an alleyway was breached toward its entrance, i.e., close to where the alleyway opens into the public domain, what is the halakha? It was stated in the name of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: If an upright board four handbreadths wide remains of the original wall or is set up where the original wall had ended, the cross beam or side post at the entrance to the alleyway renders it permitted to carry in the alleyway even if there is a breach of up to ten cubits wide.


讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诪转讬专 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞讜 诪转讬专 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬


And if there is no upright board there, the following distinction applies: If the breach is less than three handbreadths, the cross beam or side post renders it permitted to carry in the alleyway, based on the principle of lavud. If the breach is three or more handbreadths, the cross beam or side post does not render it permitted to carry. The Gemara proposes that Rav Yosef, who says that the hollowed-out area need only extend four handbreadths, adopts the opinion of Rabbi Ami, whereas Abaye, who requires a hollowed-out area of four cubits, does not adopt the opinion of Rabbi Ami.


讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 住讜祝 诪讘讜讬 讛讻讗 转讞诇转 诪讘讜讬 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: Abaye could have said to you that the two cases are not comparable: There, in Rav Ami鈥檚 case, we are dealing with the final stage of an alleyway, i.e., an alleyway that had at first been properly structured, and only later did it become breached. Here, we are dealing with the initial stage of an alleyway, i.e., an alleyway that from the very outset did not fulfill the necessary conditions. In this case: If there are four cubits in the hollowed-out area, yes, it is considered an alleyway, and if not, no, it is not considered an alleyway.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讜讬 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讘转讬诐 讜讞爪专讜转 驻转讜讞讬谉 诇转讜讻讜


Abaye said: From where do I say that a length of at least four cubits is required? As it was taught in a baraita: An alleyway is permitted by means of a side post or cross beam only if it has both houses opening into courtyards and courtyards opening into it, as only in that case can it be called an alleyway.


讜讗讬 讘讗专讘注讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛


And if the entire length of the alleyway is only four handbreadths, as is indicated by Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion, how can you find this case? Under what circumstances is it possible for such a short alleyway to have courtyards opening into it? Even if there are only two such courtyards, the entrance to each is at least four handbreadths wide.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚驻转讞 诇讛 讘讚讜驻谉 讛讗诪爪注讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 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 驻转讜讞讬谉 诇转讜讻讜


And if you say that the alleyway opens into the courtyards through its middle wall, i.e., the alleyway is only four handbreadths long but is wide enough to have two entrances opening into two courtyards, this is difficult. Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that we hold on the authority of tradition: Which is an alleyway that is permitted by a side post or a cross beam? Any alleyway whose length is greater than its width and has houses and courtyards opening into it. Accordingly, if the alleyway is only four handbreadths long, its width must be even less than that. Consequently, argues Abaye, a length of at least four cubits is required.


讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚驻转讞 诇讬讛 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转


And Rav Yosef, how would he respond to this? Rav Yosef explains that the baraita is dealing with a case where the courtyards open into the alleyway at its corners. In this way it is possible to have two openings, each of which is at least four handbreadths wide, although the length of the alleyway itself is no greater than four handbreadths, as the four handbreadths of the openings to the courtyards are divided between the width and the length of the alleyway.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讞讬 讛讘讜诇讟 诪讚讜驻谞讜 砖诇 诪讘讜讬 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讘讜讬 讜爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜


Abaye further said: From where do I say that a length of at least four cubits is required? As Rami bar 岣ma said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a side post that protrudes from the wall on the side of an alleyway into the opening of the alleyway, if its protrusion was less than four cubits, it is deemed a side post that renders it permitted to carry in the alleyway, and no other side post is required to render it permitted to carry in it. However, if it protruded four cubits, that section is deemed an alleyway, as though there were an additional alleyway within an alleyway, and another side post is required to render it permitted to carry there. This shows that anything less than four cubits does not have the status of an alleyway, which supports the position of Abaye.


讜专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪转讜专转 诇讞讬 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇诪讬讛讜讬 诪讘讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 诪讘讜讬:


The Gemara asks: And Rav Yosef, how would he respond to this? Rav Yosef distinguishes between the cases: With regard to removing its status as a side post, this status remains until there are four cubits in the length of the side post. However, in order to be deemed an independent alleyway, even with a wall of four handbreadths it is also considered an alleyway.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讞讬 讛讘讜诇讟 诪讚驻谞讜 砖诇 诪讘讜讬


The Gemara examines Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. As to the matter itself: Rami bar 岣ma said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a side post that protrudes from the wall on the side of an alleyway into the entrance of the alleyway,


驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讘讜讬 讜爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜


if its protrusion is less than four cubits, it is deemed a side post that renders it permitted to carry in the alleyway, and no other side post is required to render it permitted. However, if it protrudes four cubits, that section is deemed an alleyway, and another side post is required to render it permitted to carry in it.


讗讜转讜 诇讞讬 讛讬讻谉 诪注诪讬讚讜 讗讬 讚诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讗讜住驻讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讜住讬祝 注诇讬讛


The Gemara poses a question: That side post, which is added in order to permit carrying within the alleyway that was formed by the four-cubit side post, where does one position it such that one may carry within the alleyway? The Gemara clarifies its difficulty: If one positions it alongside the first side post as an addition to it, it looks as if he is merely extending the original side post, and it is not noticeable that an extra side post is present.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讚诪讟驻讬 讘讬讛 讗讜 讚诪讘爪专 讘讬讛


Rav Pappa said: He should position it, the extra side post, on the other side of the alleyway, near the opposite wall. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even if you say that he positions it alongside the first side post, it is valid, so long as he adds to it or diminishes from it in thickness or height, so that it will be noticeable that it is a side post of its own.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘诪讘讜讬 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讘讜讬 砖讘注讛 谞讬转专 讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


The Gemara limits the application of Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 ruling: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We stated this halakha with regard to a side post protruding four cubits into the alleyway only in the case of an alleyway that is at least eight cubits wide. However, in the case of an alleyway that is only seven cubits wide, it is permitted to carry within the alleyway without an additional side post, not because the original side post functions as a side post but rather because it sufficiently seals off the entrance to the alleyway such that the standing segment is greater than the breached segment. The alleyway is now closed off from all four sides, and the remaining opening to the public domain is regarded as an entrance, as most of that side is closed and only a small part of it is open.


讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讞爪专 讜诪讛 讞爪专 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讬转专转 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 谞讬转专转 讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪讘讜讬 砖谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讬转专 讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


And this is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from a courtyard: Just as in a courtyard, which is not rendered a permitted domain by means of a side post or a cross beam, but actual partitions are required, it is nevertheless rendered a permitted domain even if there are gaps in the partitions, as long as the standing segment is greater than the breached segment in an alleyway, with regard to which the Sages were lenient, as it is rendered a permitted domain by means of a side post or a cross beam, is it not right that it is rendered a permitted domain when the standing segment of the partition is greater than the breached segment?


诪讛 诇讞爪专 砖讻谉 驻专爪转讛 讘注砖专 转讗诪专 讘诪讘讜讬 砖驻专爪转讜 讘讗专讘注


The Gemara refutes this a fortiori inference that was based on the fact that the legal status of a courtyard is more lenient than that of an alleyway, as it is in fact more stringent than that of an alleyway in at least one respect. With regard to what is true of a courtyard, that as long as its breach is less than ten cubits it remains a permitted domain, can you say the same of an alleyway, which is more stringent, as in a case where its breach is only four handbreadths it is not permitted to carry in the alleyway? Therefore, the halakha of an alleyway cannot be derived from the halakha of a courtyard.


拽住讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讘讜讬 谞诪讬 驻专爪转讜 讘注砖专 诇诪讗谉 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻专爪转讜 讘讗专讘注 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara answers: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, holds that the breach of an alleyway is also ten cubits. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in accordance with whose opinion did we state this a fortiori inference? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Huna himself hold that the breach of an alleyway is four handbreadths.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讟注诪讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专


The Gemara answers: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, did not come to explain Rav Huna鈥檚 position. Rather, he stated his own view, and he does not accept Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion with regard to the law of a breach in an alleyway.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘诪讘讜讬 砖诪讜谞讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 注讜诪讚 谞驻讬砖 谞讬转专 讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 讜讗讬 驻专讜抓 谞驻讬砖 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬


Rav Ashi went further than Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and said: Even if you say that the law with regard to a side post protruding four cubits into the alleyway applies in the case of an alleyway that is exactly eight cubits wide, in that it too does not require an additional side post. Whichever way you look at it, you are forced to arrive at this conclusion: If you say that the standing segment is greater, then the alleyway is permitted, because its standing segment is greater than the breached segment; and if you say that the breached segment is greater, then the protrusion is deemed a side post, as its width must be less than four cubits.


诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讚砖讜讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 讚讘专讬讛谉 讜住驻拽 讚讘专讬讛谉 诇讛拽诇:


What might you say that would require an additional side post? Would you suggest that there is yet another possibility, that the two are exactly equal, the standing portion and the breach? This is an uncertainty with regard to rabbinic law, as carrying in an alleyway is forbidden only by rabbinic law, and the principle is that where there is an uncertainty with regard to a rabbinic law, one may assume the lenient position, as opposed to an uncertainty arising with respect to a Torah law, where one assumes the stringent position.


讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖谞驻专抓


The Gemara considers a new case: Rav 岣nin bar Rava said that Rav said: With regard to an alleyway that was breached,


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 2-9

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

Eruvin 5: Creating a Wall Out of Thin Air

Terminology: Gode, Lavud, Lechi, Koreh. And: The crossbeam is there to demarcate the space, distinguishing between the alleyway and the...
eruvin

Introduction to Eruvin – by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Melacha is HOTZA鈥橝H 讛讜爪讗讛: Transferring objects between private and public domain OR 4 amot in public domain.聽 Rabbis added decrees...

Eruvin 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 5

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗专讘注讛 拽住讘专 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛


And the one who said four handbreadths holds that the alleyway is considered as if it were sealed from the inside edge of the cross beam, and consequently it is prohibited to utilize the area beneath the cross beam. As the area beneath the cross beam is not part of the alleyway, a significant demarcation, i.e., one of four handbreadths, is required within the alleyway itself.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽住讘专讬 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛 讜讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜诪专 住讘专 拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛


The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that it is permitted to utilize the area beneath the cross beam, and they disagree with regard to this: This Master, Rav Yosef, holds that a cross beam functions in an alleyway as a conspicuous marker that demarcates the alleyway from the public domain, and consequently a mere handbreadth is sufficient, as even a handbreadth is sufficiently conspicuous. And this Master, Abaye, holds that a cross beam serves as a partition, and a partition is not effective for an area of less than four handbreadths. The principle that an outer edge descends and seals the alleyway does not apply if the beam is higher than twenty cubits. In order for it to be considered a partition, there must be at least four handbreadths that are less than twenty cubits beneath the cross beam.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪讟讛 讜讘讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪注诇讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪讟讛 讻讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪注诇讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪讟讛 讻讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪注诇讛


The Gemara proposes an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that a cross beam serves as a conspicuous marker, and here they disagree with regard to the relationship between a conspicuous marker below, i.e., the raised area of the alleyway, and a conspicuous marker above, i.e., the cross beam. This Master, Rav Yosef, holds that we say that the halakha that governs the conspicuous marker below is like the halakha that applies to the conspicuous marker above, and one handbreadth suffices. And this Master, Abaye, holds that we do not say that the halakha that governs the conspicuous marker below is like the halakha that applies to the conspicuous marker above. The lower sign must be more prominent and extend four handbreadths.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪讟讛 讻讛讬讻专 砖诇 诪注诇讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬驻讞讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬:


The Gemara proposes yet another explanation of the amoraic dispute: And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that we say that fundamentally, the halakha that governs the conspicuous marker below is like the halakha that applies to the conspicuous marker above, and even a handbreadth should suffice. But here they disagree whether the Sages decreed that four handbreadths are necessary, lest people treading upon it will erode and diminish the raised area. Rav Yosef is not concerned that it will be diminished and therefore holds that a raised area of a handbreadth is sufficient, whereas Abaye is concerned that the raised area of a handbreadth will erode to less than a handbreadth, rendering it inconspicuous, and the alleyway will come to be utilized in a prohibited manner.


讛讬讛 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讞拽拽 讘讜 诇讛砖诇讬诪讜 诇注砖专讛 讻诪讛 讞讜拽拽 讻诪讛 讞讜拽拽 讻诪讛 讚爪专讬讱 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讻讜 讘讻诪讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


The Gemara considers a new case: If the cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway was less than ten handbreadths above the ground, and one hollowed out the ground under the cross beam in order to complete the distance from the ground to the cross beam to ten, how much must he hollow out? The Gemara is surprised by the question: How much must he hollow out? However much is necessary for it to increase the height to at least ten handbreadths. Rather, the question is as follows: How far must the hollowed-out area extend into the alleyway in order to render it permitted to carry throughout the alleyway? Rav Yosef said: Four handbreadths. Abaye said: Four cubits.


诇讬诪讗 讘讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗讬转诪专 诪讘讜讬 砖谞驻专抓 诪爪讬讚讜 讻诇驻讬 专讗砖讜 讗讬转诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 驻住 讗专讘注讛 诪转讬专 讘驻讬专爪讛 注讚 注砖专


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the ruling of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. As it was stated with regard to the following question: If the side wall of an alleyway was breached toward its entrance, i.e., close to where the alleyway opens into the public domain, what is the halakha? It was stated in the name of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: If an upright board four handbreadths wide remains of the original wall or is set up where the original wall had ended, the cross beam or side post at the entrance to the alleyway renders it permitted to carry in the alleyway even if there is a breach of up to ten cubits wide.


讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 诪转讬专 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞讜 诪转讬专 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬


And if there is no upright board there, the following distinction applies: If the breach is less than three handbreadths, the cross beam or side post renders it permitted to carry in the alleyway, based on the principle of lavud. If the breach is three or more handbreadths, the cross beam or side post does not render it permitted to carry. The Gemara proposes that Rav Yosef, who says that the hollowed-out area need only extend four handbreadths, adopts the opinion of Rabbi Ami, whereas Abaye, who requires a hollowed-out area of four cubits, does not adopt the opinion of Rabbi Ami.


讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 住讜祝 诪讘讜讬 讛讻讗 转讞诇转 诪讘讜讬 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗


The Gemara rejects this argument: Abaye could have said to you that the two cases are not comparable: There, in Rav Ami鈥檚 case, we are dealing with the final stage of an alleyway, i.e., an alleyway that had at first been properly structured, and only later did it become breached. Here, we are dealing with the initial stage of an alleyway, i.e., an alleyway that from the very outset did not fulfill the necessary conditions. In this case: If there are four cubits in the hollowed-out area, yes, it is considered an alleyway, and if not, no, it is not considered an alleyway.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讘讜讬 谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讘转讬诐 讜讞爪专讜转 驻转讜讞讬谉 诇转讜讻讜


Abaye said: From where do I say that a length of at least four cubits is required? As it was taught in a baraita: An alleyway is permitted by means of a side post or cross beam only if it has both houses opening into courtyards and courtyards opening into it, as only in that case can it be called an alleyway.


讜讗讬 讘讗专讘注讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛


And if the entire length of the alleyway is only four handbreadths, as is indicated by Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion, how can you find this case? Under what circumstances is it possible for such a short alleyway to have courtyards opening into it? Even if there are only two such courtyards, the entrance to each is at least four handbreadths wide.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚驻转讞 诇讛 讘讚讜驻谉 讛讗诪爪注讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 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 驻转讜讞讬谉 诇转讜讻讜


And if you say that the alleyway opens into the courtyards through its middle wall, i.e., the alleyway is only four handbreadths long but is wide enough to have two entrances opening into two courtyards, this is difficult. Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that we hold on the authority of tradition: Which is an alleyway that is permitted by a side post or a cross beam? Any alleyway whose length is greater than its width and has houses and courtyards opening into it. Accordingly, if the alleyway is only four handbreadths long, its width must be even less than that. Consequently, argues Abaye, a length of at least four cubits is required.


讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚驻转讞 诇讬讛 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转


And Rav Yosef, how would he respond to this? Rav Yosef explains that the baraita is dealing with a case where the courtyards open into the alleyway at its corners. In this way it is possible to have two openings, each of which is at least four handbreadths wide, although the length of the alleyway itself is no greater than four handbreadths, as the four handbreadths of the openings to the courtyards are divided between the width and the length of the alleyway.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讞讬 讛讘讜诇讟 诪讚讜驻谞讜 砖诇 诪讘讜讬 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讘讜讬 讜爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜


Abaye further said: From where do I say that a length of at least four cubits is required? As Rami bar 岣ma said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a side post that protrudes from the wall on the side of an alleyway into the opening of the alleyway, if its protrusion was less than four cubits, it is deemed a side post that renders it permitted to carry in the alleyway, and no other side post is required to render it permitted to carry in it. However, if it protruded four cubits, that section is deemed an alleyway, as though there were an additional alleyway within an alleyway, and another side post is required to render it permitted to carry there. This shows that anything less than four cubits does not have the status of an alleyway, which supports the position of Abaye.


讜专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪转讜专转 诇讞讬 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇诪讬讛讜讬 诪讘讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 诪讘讜讬:


The Gemara asks: And Rav Yosef, how would he respond to this? Rav Yosef distinguishes between the cases: With regard to removing its status as a side post, this status remains until there are four cubits in the length of the side post. However, in order to be deemed an independent alleyway, even with a wall of four handbreadths it is also considered an alleyway.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讞讬 讛讘讜诇讟 诪讚驻谞讜 砖诇 诪讘讜讬


The Gemara examines Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. As to the matter itself: Rami bar 岣ma said that Rav Huna said: With regard to a side post that protrudes from the wall on the side of an alleyway into the entrance of the alleyway,


驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讘讜讬 讜爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜


if its protrusion is less than four cubits, it is deemed a side post that renders it permitted to carry in the alleyway, and no other side post is required to render it permitted. However, if it protrudes four cubits, that section is deemed an alleyway, and another side post is required to render it permitted to carry in it.


讗讜转讜 诇讞讬 讛讬讻谉 诪注诪讬讚讜 讗讬 讚诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讗讜住驻讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讜住讬祝 注诇讬讛


The Gemara poses a question: That side post, which is added in order to permit carrying within the alleyway that was formed by the four-cubit side post, where does one position it such that one may carry within the alleyway? The Gemara clarifies its difficulty: If one positions it alongside the first side post as an addition to it, it looks as if he is merely extending the original side post, and it is not noticeable that an extra side post is present.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讚诪讟驻讬 讘讬讛 讗讜 讚诪讘爪专 讘讬讛


Rav Pappa said: He should position it, the extra side post, on the other side of the alleyway, near the opposite wall. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even if you say that he positions it alongside the first side post, it is valid, so long as he adds to it or diminishes from it in thickness or height, so that it will be noticeable that it is a side post of its own.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘诪讘讜讬 砖诪讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讘讜讬 砖讘注讛 谞讬转专 讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


The Gemara limits the application of Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 ruling: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We stated this halakha with regard to a side post protruding four cubits into the alleyway only in the case of an alleyway that is at least eight cubits wide. However, in the case of an alleyway that is only seven cubits wide, it is permitted to carry within the alleyway without an additional side post, not because the original side post functions as a side post but rather because it sufficiently seals off the entrance to the alleyway such that the standing segment is greater than the breached segment. The alleyway is now closed off from all four sides, and the remaining opening to the public domain is regarded as an entrance, as most of that side is closed and only a small part of it is open.


讜拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讞爪专 讜诪讛 讞爪专 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讬转专转 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 谞讬转专转 讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 诪讘讜讬 砖谞讬转专 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖谞讬转专 讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓


And this is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from a courtyard: Just as in a courtyard, which is not rendered a permitted domain by means of a side post or a cross beam, but actual partitions are required, it is nevertheless rendered a permitted domain even if there are gaps in the partitions, as long as the standing segment is greater than the breached segment in an alleyway, with regard to which the Sages were lenient, as it is rendered a permitted domain by means of a side post or a cross beam, is it not right that it is rendered a permitted domain when the standing segment of the partition is greater than the breached segment?


诪讛 诇讞爪专 砖讻谉 驻专爪转讛 讘注砖专 转讗诪专 讘诪讘讜讬 砖驻专爪转讜 讘讗专讘注


The Gemara refutes this a fortiori inference that was based on the fact that the legal status of a courtyard is more lenient than that of an alleyway, as it is in fact more stringent than that of an alleyway in at least one respect. With regard to what is true of a courtyard, that as long as its breach is less than ten cubits it remains a permitted domain, can you say the same of an alleyway, which is more stringent, as in a case where its breach is only four handbreadths it is not permitted to carry in the alleyway? Therefore, the halakha of an alleyway cannot be derived from the halakha of a courtyard.


拽住讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讘讜讬 谞诪讬 驻专爪转讜 讘注砖专 诇诪讗谉 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻专爪转讜 讘讗专讘注 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara answers: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, holds that the breach of an alleyway is also ten cubits. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in accordance with whose opinion did we state this a fortiori inference? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Huna himself hold that the breach of an alleyway is four handbreadths.


专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讟注诪讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专


The Gemara answers: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, did not come to explain Rav Huna鈥檚 position. Rather, he stated his own view, and he does not accept Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion with regard to the law of a breach in an alleyway.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘诪讘讜讬 砖诪讜谞讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 注讜诪讚 谞驻讬砖 谞讬转专 讘注讜诪讚 诪专讜讘讛 注诇 讛驻专讜抓 讜讗讬 驻专讜抓 谞驻讬砖 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬


Rav Ashi went further than Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and said: Even if you say that the law with regard to a side post protruding four cubits into the alleyway applies in the case of an alleyway that is exactly eight cubits wide, in that it too does not require an additional side post. Whichever way you look at it, you are forced to arrive at this conclusion: If you say that the standing segment is greater, then the alleyway is permitted, because its standing segment is greater than the breached segment; and if you say that the breached segment is greater, then the protrusion is deemed a side post, as its width must be less than four cubits.


诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讚砖讜讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 讚讘专讬讛谉 讜住驻拽 讚讘专讬讛谉 诇讛拽诇:


What might you say that would require an additional side post? Would you suggest that there is yet another possibility, that the two are exactly equal, the standing portion and the breach? This is an uncertainty with regard to rabbinic law, as carrying in an alleyway is forbidden only by rabbinic law, and the principle is that where there is an uncertainty with regard to a rabbinic law, one may assume the lenient position, as opposed to an uncertainty arising with respect to a Torah law, where one assumes the stringent position.


讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖谞驻专抓


The Gemara considers a new case: Rav 岣nin bar Rava said that Rav said: With regard to an alleyway that was breached,


Scroll To Top