Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 15, 2020 | כ״ה באב 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 6 – Shabbat August 15, 25 Av

Today’s daf is dedicated by Alexis Rosoff Treeby in honor of the yahrzeit of Jennifer Rosoff, Malka Menucha bat Meir v’Esther Chaya z”l. And by Beth Fox in memory of her father Edward Fox, Ezra Chaim ben Zev v’Slova z”l on his shloshim. “A kind, wonderful man who always encouraged me in my learning. I miss him very much.”

If there is a breach in a wall of a mavoi, does it prevent one from using a korah or lechi to allow carrying the mavoi? At what size is it a problem and does it matter where the breach is? There are different types of alley – ones that are opened on both sizes (opposite sides) to the public domain (mavoi mefulash), ones that are only open on one side (mavoi satum) and ones that are “crooked” L-shaped, open on two sides but not opposite sides (mavoi akum). What are the laws for allowing carrying in each type of alley/mavoi? Can one accept stringencies of two different approaches? According to a braita, this is considered a bad practice.

 

מצידו בעשר מראשו בארבעה

if it was breached from its side, the side wall of the alleyway, carrying within the alleyway is prohibited if the breach is ten cubits wide. But if it was breached from its front, the wall that faces the public domain, carrying within the alleyway is prohibited even if the breach is only four handbreadths wide.

מאי שנא מצידו בעשר דאמר פתחא הוא מראשו נמי נימא פתחא הוא

The Gemara poses a question: What is the difference such that carrying is prohibited due to a breach from the side only if the breach is ten cubits? This is because you say that up to ten cubits it is deemed an entrance. If the breach is in the front, let us also say it is an entrance, and carrying should be permitted if the breach is less than ten cubits.

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כגון שנפרץ בקרן זוית דפתחא בקרן זוית לא עבדי אינשי

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We are dealing with a case where the breach is in a corner. Since people do not make an entrance in a corner, a breach of this kind cannot be viewed as an entrance, and if the breach is larger than four handbreadths it must be sealed.

ורב הונא אמר אחד זה ואחד זה בארבעה וכן אמר ליה רב הונא לרב חנן בר רבא לא תפלוג עלאי דרב איקלע לדמחריא ועבד עובדא כוותי אמר ליה רב בקעה מצא וגדר בה גדר

Rav Huna disagreed with Rav Ḥanin bar Rava and said: There is no distinction between the side and the front, for in both this case and that, a breach of up to four handbreadths is allowed. And so Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥanan bar Rava: Do not dispute me, as Rav himself arrived at a place called Damḥarya and performed an action, i.e., issued a practical ruling, in accordance with my opinion. Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said in response to him: No proof can be brought from that incident, for in that case Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in, i.e., , Rav saw the need to add a safeguard and was therefore stringent in this case. His ruling, however, was not generally applied.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כוותיה דרב הונא מסתברא דאיתמר מבוי עקום רב אמר תורתו כמפולש ושמואל אמר תורתו כסתום

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Huna’s opinion stands to reason, as it was stated that the amora’im disagree about the following issue: With regard to a crooked, L-shaped alleyway that opens onto the public domain at both ends, Rav said: Its law is like that of an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides, and it must be treated in a manner suitable for such an alleyway, i.e., an opening in the form of a doorway must be constructed at both ends, or else such an opening must be constructed at the point where the two arms of the alleyway meet and a side post or a cross beam must be placed at each end. And Shmuel said: Its law is like that of an alleyway that is closed on one side, and all that is necessary is a side post or a cross beam at each end.

במאי עסקינן אילימא ביותר מעשר בהא לימא שמואל תורתו כסתום

The Gemara clarifies the particular circumstances of the case: With what are we dealing? If you say that the width of the alleyway at the point of the turn is more than ten cubits wide, in this case, would Shmuel say that its law is like that of an alleyway that is closed on one side? With an opening of that size, it must be considered like an alleyway that is open on both ends.

אלא לאו בעשר וקאמר רב תורתו כמפולש אלמא פירצת מבוי מצידו בארבעה

Rather, are we not dealing with a case where the width of the alleyway at the point of the turn is ten cubits or less, and Rav nonetheless said that the law of such an alleyway is like that of an alleyway that is open on both ends. Apparently, a breach in the side wall of an alleyway renders it prohibited to carry even if it is only four handbreadths wide, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna.

ורב חנן בר רבא שאני התם דקא בקעי בה רבים

And Rav Ḥanan bar Rava argues that the cases cannot be compared: It is different there, in the case of the L-shaped alleyway, for many people cross through the opening from one arm to the other. Since in practice the alleyway is open to regular traffic, the ruling is stringent even with regard to a small breach.

מכלל דרב הונא סבר אף על גב דלא בקעי בה רבים מאי שנא מדרבי אמי ורבי אסי

The Gemara asks: Can it be inferred from this that Rav Huna holds that even if many people do not cross through the opening, a breach of four handbreadths still prohibits carrying? What is the difference between this case and the case of the ruling of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi cited earlier, that an upright board of four handbreadths suffices in order to allow a breach of up to ten cubits?

התם דאיכא גידודי הכא דליכא גידודי:

The Gemara answers: There, there are remnants of a wall that render it difficult to pass through the breach, and therefore that breach does not annul the partitions. However, here, there are no remnants of a wall.

תנו רבנן כיצד מערבין דרך רשות הרבים עושה צורת הפתח מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן חנניה אומר בית שמאי אומרים עושה דלת מכאן ודלת מכאן וכשהוא יוצא ונכנס נועל בית הלל אומרים עושה דלת מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן

The Sages taught in a baraita: How does one render a public thoroughfare fit for carrying by means of an eiruv? He constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the thoroughfare, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side. Ḥananya disagrees and says: This is the subject of an early dispute between tanna’im, for Beit Shammai say: He constructs a door from here, on one side, and a door from here, on the other side, and when he exits and enters, he must lock the door. It is not sufficient to construct a symbolic door; rather, there must be a door that actually closes. And Beit Hillel say: He constructs a door from here, on one side, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side.

ורשות הרבים מי מיערבא והתניא יתר על כן אמר רבי יהודה

The Gemara raises a fundamental question: Can a public domain be rendered fit for carrying by means of an eiruv? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said:

מי שהיו לו שני בתים משני צידי רשות הרבים עושה לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך

One who has two houses opposite each other on the two sides of the public domain, and he wishes to carry from one house to the other on Shabbat via the public domain, he may place a side post from here, on one side of one of the houses, and an additional side post from here, on the other side. Alternatively, he may place a cross beam from here, from one end of one house, and an additional cross beam from here, from the other side of the house, and then he may carry objects and place them in the area between them, for in this manner he turns the middle area into a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One cannot render a public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv in this manner. Apparently, there is no way to establish an absolute public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv.

וכי תימא בכך הוא דלא מיערבא הא בדלתות מיערבא והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן ירושלים אילמלא דלתותיה ננעלות בלילה חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים

The Gemara questions its previous conclusion: And if you say that it is only in this manner, by way of a side post or a cross beam, that a public domain cannot be rendered fit for carrying, but by means of doors it can be rendered fit for carrying. But this is not true, as didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to Jerusalem, were it not for the fact that its doors are locked at night, one would be liable for carrying in it on Shabbat, because its thoroughfares are regarded as a public domain? This shows that the presence of a door is not sufficient to render it permitted to carry in a public domain; rather, the door must actually be locked.

ואמר עולא הני אבולי דמחוזא אילמלא דלתותיהן ננעלות חייבין עליהן משום רשות הרבים

And similarly, Ulla stated: With regard to the city entrances [abbulei] of Meḥoza, which meet the criteria for a public domain, were it not for the fact that their doors are locked, one would be liable for carrying in them, because they are regarded as a public domain. Apparently, without the actual locking of doors it is impossible to establish a public domain fit for carrying by means of the symbolic partitions of a side post or a cross beam. If so, how can the Sages in the baraita argue about how to establish a public domain fit for carrying?

אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר כיצד מערבין מבואות המפולשין לרשות הרבים עושה צורת הפתח מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן

Rather, Rav Yehuda said: The wording of the baraita must be emended so that this is what it says: How does one render alleyways that are not themselves public domains but are open on two opposite sides into the public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv? He constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side.

איתמר רב אמר הילכתא כתנא קמא ושמואל אמר הלכה כחנניה

It was stated that the amora’im differed on how the halakha is to be decided with regard to this issue. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous first tanna of the baraita, and it is sufficient to have the form of a doorway on one side and a side post or cross beam on the other side in order to render it permitted to carry in an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides to the public domain. And Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, following the position of Beit Hillel, who also require a door on one side.

איבעיא להו לחנניה אליבא דבית הלל צריך לנעול או אין צריך לנעול תא שמע דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אינו צריך לנעול וכן אמר רב מתנה אמר שמואל אינו צריך לנעול איכא דאמרי אמר רב מתנה בדידי הוה עובדא ואמר לי שמואל אין צריך לנעול

A dilemma was raised before the Sages concerning the position of Beit Hillel: According to Ḥananya, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, must this door be locked or need it not be locked? Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, who, as mentioned earlier, rules in accordance with Beit Hillel: The door need not be locked. And similarly, Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: The door need not be locked. Some say that Rav Mattana said: A case involving this very issue happened to me, and Shmuel said to me: The door need not be locked.

בעו מיניה מרב ענן צריך לנעול או אין צריך לנעול אמר להו תא חזי הני אבולי דנהרדעא דטימן עד פלגייהו בעפרא ועייל ונפיק מר שמואל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי

They raised a dilemma before Rav Anan with regard to this issue: Need the door be locked or need it not be locked? He said to them: Come and see these city entrances of Neharde’a that open on two opposite sides into the public domain, the gateways of which were filled up halfway with earth, so that the doors themselves could not possibly be locked. Mar Shmuel regularly goes in and out through them, but has never said anything to the people of Neharde’a about them. This shows that it is not necessary for the doors to be locked.

אמר רב כהנא הנך מגופות הואי

Rav Kahana rejected this proof and said: Those doors in Neharde’a were partially blocked, and therefore there was no need to lock them, but in general, the door of an alleyway that opens on both sides into the public domain must be locked.

כי אתא רב נחמן אמר פניוה לעפרייהו לימא קסבר רב נחמן צריך לנעול לא כיון דראויות לנעול אף על פי שאין ננעלות

The Gemara relates that when Rav Naḥman came to Neharde’a, he said: Clear away the earth, so that the doors can be locked. The Gemara attempts to understand Rav Naḥman’s instruction: Let us say that Rav Naḥman holds that the door of an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides must be locked. The Gemara explains: No, this is not proof. In order for carrying to be permitted in such an alleyway, it is enough that the doors be fit to be locked, even if they are not actually locked.

ההוא מבוי עקום דהוה בנהרדעא רמי עליה חומריה דרב וחומריה דשמואל ואצרכוהו דלתות חומריה דרב דאמר תורתו כמפולש והאמר רב הלכה כתנא קמא

The Gemara describes a certain crooked, L-shaped alleyway that was in Neharde’a, upon which they imposed the stringency of Rav and the stringency of Shmuel, and required it to have doors. The Gemara attempts to understand this ruling: The stringency of Rav, namely, that which he said, that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides. But this is difficult, for didn’t Rav say that the law follows the anonymous first tanna of the baraita, who says that even an open alleyway itself does not require doors, and that an opening in the form of a doorway suffices?

כשמואל דאמר הלכה כחנניה והאמר שמואל תורתו כסתום כרב דאמר תורתו כמפולש

The Gemara answers: They required doors in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya. But this too is difficult, for if the doors were required in accordance with Shmuel’s opinion, didn’t Shmuel say that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an alleyway that is closed on one side, which does not need any doors at all? The Gemara explains: The doors were required in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides. Therefore, they adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel: Rav’s stringency that an L-shaped alleyway is deemed an open alleyway, and Shmuel’s stringency that an open alleyway requires a door.

ומי עבדינן כתרי חומרי והא תניא לעולם הלכה כבית הלל והרוצה לעשות כדברי בית שמאי עושה כדברי בית הלל עושה מקולי בית שמאי ומקולי בית הלל רשע מחומרי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל עליו הכתוב אומר הכסיל בחשך הולך אלא אי כבית שמאי כקוליהון וכחומריהון אי כבית הלל כקוליהון וכחומריהון

The Gemara poses a question: But do we adopt the respective stringencies of two authorities who disagree on a series of issues? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel may do so. If he wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person. And if he wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and also the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, he should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת לעולם הלכה כבית הלל והדר אמרת הרוצה לעשות כדברי בית שמאי עושה

The Gemara first raises a problem concerning the wording of the baraita: The baraita is itself difficult to understand, because it contains an internal contradiction between its clauses: You first said that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and then you reversed that and said that one who wishes to act in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai may do so.

לא קשיא כאן קודם בת קול כאן לאחר בת קול

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita’s statement that a person may act as he wishes was made before the Divine Voice emerged and announced that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel; and here, the statement that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel was made after the Divine Voice issued this ruling.

ואיבעית אימא הא והא לאחר בת קול

And if you wish, say a different answer: Both this statement and that statement were made after the Divine Voice announced that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel,

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 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 6: Lock Up Your City at Night

Terminology: (Mavoi) Mefulash. Also Mavoi Akum. We start with the premise that the in-between status of alleyways as a karmelit...
eruvin

Introduction to Eruvin – by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld

Melacha is HOTZA’AH הוצאה: Transferring objects between private and public domain OR 4 amot in public domain.  Rabbis added decrees...
bet david courtyard wikipedia

On the Street Where You Live

Welcome to the wonderful world of Eruvin! For the next three months, architects, engineers and urban planners will be very...

Eruvin 6 – Shabbat August 15, 25 Av

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 6 – Shabbat August 15, 25 Av

מצידו בעשר מראשו בארבעה

if it was breached from its side, the side wall of the alleyway, carrying within the alleyway is prohibited if the breach is ten cubits wide. But if it was breached from its front, the wall that faces the public domain, carrying within the alleyway is prohibited even if the breach is only four handbreadths wide.

מאי שנא מצידו בעשר דאמר פתחא הוא מראשו נמי נימא פתחא הוא

The Gemara poses a question: What is the difference such that carrying is prohibited due to a breach from the side only if the breach is ten cubits? This is because you say that up to ten cubits it is deemed an entrance. If the breach is in the front, let us also say it is an entrance, and carrying should be permitted if the breach is less than ten cubits.

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע כגון שנפרץ בקרן זוית דפתחא בקרן זוית לא עבדי אינשי

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We are dealing with a case where the breach is in a corner. Since people do not make an entrance in a corner, a breach of this kind cannot be viewed as an entrance, and if the breach is larger than four handbreadths it must be sealed.

ורב הונא אמר אחד זה ואחד זה בארבעה וכן אמר ליה רב הונא לרב חנן בר רבא לא תפלוג עלאי דרב איקלע לדמחריא ועבד עובדא כוותי אמר ליה רב בקעה מצא וגדר בה גדר

Rav Huna disagreed with Rav Ḥanin bar Rava and said: There is no distinction between the side and the front, for in both this case and that, a breach of up to four handbreadths is allowed. And so Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥanan bar Rava: Do not dispute me, as Rav himself arrived at a place called Damḥarya and performed an action, i.e., issued a practical ruling, in accordance with my opinion. Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said in response to him: No proof can be brought from that incident, for in that case Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in, i.e., , Rav saw the need to add a safeguard and was therefore stringent in this case. His ruling, however, was not generally applied.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כוותיה דרב הונא מסתברא דאיתמר מבוי עקום רב אמר תורתו כמפולש ושמואל אמר תורתו כסתום

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Huna’s opinion stands to reason, as it was stated that the amora’im disagree about the following issue: With regard to a crooked, L-shaped alleyway that opens onto the public domain at both ends, Rav said: Its law is like that of an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides, and it must be treated in a manner suitable for such an alleyway, i.e., an opening in the form of a doorway must be constructed at both ends, or else such an opening must be constructed at the point where the two arms of the alleyway meet and a side post or a cross beam must be placed at each end. And Shmuel said: Its law is like that of an alleyway that is closed on one side, and all that is necessary is a side post or a cross beam at each end.

במאי עסקינן אילימא ביותר מעשר בהא לימא שמואל תורתו כסתום

The Gemara clarifies the particular circumstances of the case: With what are we dealing? If you say that the width of the alleyway at the point of the turn is more than ten cubits wide, in this case, would Shmuel say that its law is like that of an alleyway that is closed on one side? With an opening of that size, it must be considered like an alleyway that is open on both ends.

אלא לאו בעשר וקאמר רב תורתו כמפולש אלמא פירצת מבוי מצידו בארבעה

Rather, are we not dealing with a case where the width of the alleyway at the point of the turn is ten cubits or less, and Rav nonetheless said that the law of such an alleyway is like that of an alleyway that is open on both ends. Apparently, a breach in the side wall of an alleyway renders it prohibited to carry even if it is only four handbreadths wide, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna.

ורב חנן בר רבא שאני התם דקא בקעי בה רבים

And Rav Ḥanan bar Rava argues that the cases cannot be compared: It is different there, in the case of the L-shaped alleyway, for many people cross through the opening from one arm to the other. Since in practice the alleyway is open to regular traffic, the ruling is stringent even with regard to a small breach.

מכלל דרב הונא סבר אף על גב דלא בקעי בה רבים מאי שנא מדרבי אמי ורבי אסי

The Gemara asks: Can it be inferred from this that Rav Huna holds that even if many people do not cross through the opening, a breach of four handbreadths still prohibits carrying? What is the difference between this case and the case of the ruling of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi cited earlier, that an upright board of four handbreadths suffices in order to allow a breach of up to ten cubits?

התם דאיכא גידודי הכא דליכא גידודי:

The Gemara answers: There, there are remnants of a wall that render it difficult to pass through the breach, and therefore that breach does not annul the partitions. However, here, there are no remnants of a wall.

תנו רבנן כיצד מערבין דרך רשות הרבים עושה צורת הפתח מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן חנניה אומר בית שמאי אומרים עושה דלת מכאן ודלת מכאן וכשהוא יוצא ונכנס נועל בית הלל אומרים עושה דלת מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן

The Sages taught in a baraita: How does one render a public thoroughfare fit for carrying by means of an eiruv? He constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the thoroughfare, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side. Ḥananya disagrees and says: This is the subject of an early dispute between tanna’im, for Beit Shammai say: He constructs a door from here, on one side, and a door from here, on the other side, and when he exits and enters, he must lock the door. It is not sufficient to construct a symbolic door; rather, there must be a door that actually closes. And Beit Hillel say: He constructs a door from here, on one side, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side.

ורשות הרבים מי מיערבא והתניא יתר על כן אמר רבי יהודה

The Gemara raises a fundamental question: Can a public domain be rendered fit for carrying by means of an eiruv? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said:

מי שהיו לו שני בתים משני צידי רשות הרבים עושה לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רשות הרבים בכך

One who has two houses opposite each other on the two sides of the public domain, and he wishes to carry from one house to the other on Shabbat via the public domain, he may place a side post from here, on one side of one of the houses, and an additional side post from here, on the other side. Alternatively, he may place a cross beam from here, from one end of one house, and an additional cross beam from here, from the other side of the house, and then he may carry objects and place them in the area between them, for in this manner he turns the middle area into a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One cannot render a public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv in this manner. Apparently, there is no way to establish an absolute public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv.

וכי תימא בכך הוא דלא מיערבא הא בדלתות מיערבא והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן ירושלים אילמלא דלתותיה ננעלות בלילה חייבין עליה משום רשות הרבים

The Gemara questions its previous conclusion: And if you say that it is only in this manner, by way of a side post or a cross beam, that a public domain cannot be rendered fit for carrying, but by means of doors it can be rendered fit for carrying. But this is not true, as didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to Jerusalem, were it not for the fact that its doors are locked at night, one would be liable for carrying in it on Shabbat, because its thoroughfares are regarded as a public domain? This shows that the presence of a door is not sufficient to render it permitted to carry in a public domain; rather, the door must actually be locked.

ואמר עולא הני אבולי דמחוזא אילמלא דלתותיהן ננעלות חייבין עליהן משום רשות הרבים

And similarly, Ulla stated: With regard to the city entrances [abbulei] of Meḥoza, which meet the criteria for a public domain, were it not for the fact that their doors are locked, one would be liable for carrying in them, because they are regarded as a public domain. Apparently, without the actual locking of doors it is impossible to establish a public domain fit for carrying by means of the symbolic partitions of a side post or a cross beam. If so, how can the Sages in the baraita argue about how to establish a public domain fit for carrying?

אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר כיצד מערבין מבואות המפולשין לרשות הרבים עושה צורת הפתח מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן

Rather, Rav Yehuda said: The wording of the baraita must be emended so that this is what it says: How does one render alleyways that are not themselves public domains but are open on two opposite sides into the public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv? He constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side.

איתמר רב אמר הילכתא כתנא קמא ושמואל אמר הלכה כחנניה

It was stated that the amora’im differed on how the halakha is to be decided with regard to this issue. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous first tanna of the baraita, and it is sufficient to have the form of a doorway on one side and a side post or cross beam on the other side in order to render it permitted to carry in an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides to the public domain. And Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, following the position of Beit Hillel, who also require a door on one side.

איבעיא להו לחנניה אליבא דבית הלל צריך לנעול או אין צריך לנעול תא שמע דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אינו צריך לנעול וכן אמר רב מתנה אמר שמואל אינו צריך לנעול איכא דאמרי אמר רב מתנה בדידי הוה עובדא ואמר לי שמואל אין צריך לנעול

A dilemma was raised before the Sages concerning the position of Beit Hillel: According to Ḥananya, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, must this door be locked or need it not be locked? Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, who, as mentioned earlier, rules in accordance with Beit Hillel: The door need not be locked. And similarly, Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: The door need not be locked. Some say that Rav Mattana said: A case involving this very issue happened to me, and Shmuel said to me: The door need not be locked.

בעו מיניה מרב ענן צריך לנעול או אין צריך לנעול אמר להו תא חזי הני אבולי דנהרדעא דטימן עד פלגייהו בעפרא ועייל ונפיק מר שמואל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי

They raised a dilemma before Rav Anan with regard to this issue: Need the door be locked or need it not be locked? He said to them: Come and see these city entrances of Neharde’a that open on two opposite sides into the public domain, the gateways of which were filled up halfway with earth, so that the doors themselves could not possibly be locked. Mar Shmuel regularly goes in and out through them, but has never said anything to the people of Neharde’a about them. This shows that it is not necessary for the doors to be locked.

אמר רב כהנא הנך מגופות הואי

Rav Kahana rejected this proof and said: Those doors in Neharde’a were partially blocked, and therefore there was no need to lock them, but in general, the door of an alleyway that opens on both sides into the public domain must be locked.

כי אתא רב נחמן אמר פניוה לעפרייהו לימא קסבר רב נחמן צריך לנעול לא כיון דראויות לנעול אף על פי שאין ננעלות

The Gemara relates that when Rav Naḥman came to Neharde’a, he said: Clear away the earth, so that the doors can be locked. The Gemara attempts to understand Rav Naḥman’s instruction: Let us say that Rav Naḥman holds that the door of an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides must be locked. The Gemara explains: No, this is not proof. In order for carrying to be permitted in such an alleyway, it is enough that the doors be fit to be locked, even if they are not actually locked.

ההוא מבוי עקום דהוה בנהרדעא רמי עליה חומריה דרב וחומריה דשמואל ואצרכוהו דלתות חומריה דרב דאמר תורתו כמפולש והאמר רב הלכה כתנא קמא

The Gemara describes a certain crooked, L-shaped alleyway that was in Neharde’a, upon which they imposed the stringency of Rav and the stringency of Shmuel, and required it to have doors. The Gemara attempts to understand this ruling: The stringency of Rav, namely, that which he said, that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides. But this is difficult, for didn’t Rav say that the law follows the anonymous first tanna of the baraita, who says that even an open alleyway itself does not require doors, and that an opening in the form of a doorway suffices?

כשמואל דאמר הלכה כחנניה והאמר שמואל תורתו כסתום כרב דאמר תורתו כמפולש

The Gemara answers: They required doors in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya. But this too is difficult, for if the doors were required in accordance with Shmuel’s opinion, didn’t Shmuel say that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an alleyway that is closed on one side, which does not need any doors at all? The Gemara explains: The doors were required in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides. Therefore, they adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel: Rav’s stringency that an L-shaped alleyway is deemed an open alleyway, and Shmuel’s stringency that an open alleyway requires a door.

ומי עבדינן כתרי חומרי והא תניא לעולם הלכה כבית הלל והרוצה לעשות כדברי בית שמאי עושה כדברי בית הלל עושה מקולי בית שמאי ומקולי בית הלל רשע מחומרי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל עליו הכתוב אומר הכסיל בחשך הולך אלא אי כבית שמאי כקוליהון וכחומריהון אי כבית הלל כקוליהון וכחומריהון

The Gemara poses a question: But do we adopt the respective stringencies of two authorities who disagree on a series of issues? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel may do so. If he wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person. And if he wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and also the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, he should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת לעולם הלכה כבית הלל והדר אמרת הרוצה לעשות כדברי בית שמאי עושה

The Gemara first raises a problem concerning the wording of the baraita: The baraita is itself difficult to understand, because it contains an internal contradiction between its clauses: You first said that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and then you reversed that and said that one who wishes to act in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai may do so.

לא קשיא כאן קודם בת קול כאן לאחר בת קול

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita’s statement that a person may act as he wishes was made before the Divine Voice emerged and announced that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel; and here, the statement that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel was made after the Divine Voice issued this ruling.

ואיבעית אימא הא והא לאחר בת קול

And if you wish, say a different answer: Both this statement and that statement were made after the Divine Voice announced that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel,

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

Scroll To Top