Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 16, 2020 | כ״ו 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 7

In a crooked alleyway in Nehardea, they ruled stringently like Rav that it was considered an open alleyway and stringently like Shmuel that an open alleyway requires a door on one side and a post or beam on the other. Is one allowed to rule stringently like two different opinions? The gemara questions this from a braita in which it says that one who holds like stringencies of Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai is a “fool who walks in the dark.” There is a further issue with the braita itself as it says that the halacha is like Beit Hillel, yet if one wants to, one can follow Beit Shamai. The gemara brings answers to both their questions. Rav Yosef brings two halachot regarding cases of an alleyway opened on both sides – one relating to what it is open to and the other about a case where the alleyway opens to a backyard and the ackyard is open. The first halacha was stated in the name of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav and the second was stated in the name of Rav Yehuda, but it is unclear if it was learned from Rav or not. Abaye suggests that it seems to contradict what Rav says in a similar case where the alleyway opens up to a courtyard, however the gemara suggests that one could distinguish between the two cases as people don’t generally leave their houses through the backyard. And the issue is not connected to the alleyway being considered open on both sides, but has to do with whether or not the people in the courtyard joined the eruv.

 

ורבי יהושע היא דלא משגח בבת קול

and the latter statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not pay attention to a Divine Voice that attempts to intervene in matters of halakha, for according to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.

ואיבעית אימא הכי קאמר כל היכא דמשכחת תרי תנאי ותרי אמוראי דפליגי אהדדי כעין מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל לא ליעבד כי קוליה דמר וכי קוליה דמר ולא כחומריה דמר וכי חומריה דמר אלא או כי קוליה דמר וכחומריה עביד או כקוליה דמר וכחומריה עביד

The Gemara suggests yet another resolution: And if you wish, say instead that this is what the baraita is saying: Wherever you find two tanna’im or two amora’im who disagree with each other in the manner of the disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, one should not act either in accordance with the leniency of the one Master and in accordance with the leniency of the other Master, nor should one act in accordance with the stringency of the one Master and in accordance with the stringency of the other Master. Rather, one should act either in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the one Master, or in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the other Master.

מכל מקום קשיא

All of this is suggested to explain the wording of the baraita. In any case, it is difficult to explain the law with regard to the alleyway in Neharde’a, concerning which they simultaneously adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כוליה כרב עבדוה דאמר רב הונא אמר רב הלכה ואין מורין כן

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In fact, they acted entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and the reason that they required doors and did not rely on the opening in the form of a doorway alone is due to that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: This is the halakha; however, a public ruling is not issued to that effect ab initio. Although Rav maintains that an opening in the form of a doorway is sufficient in an open alleyway, a public ruling is not issued to that effect; rather, the ruling is stringent, in accordance with Ḥananya’s position, and requires doors.

ולרב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב דאמר הלכה ומורין כן מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: And according to the statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava that Rav said, as Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said with regard to the same issue: This is the halakha and a public ruling is issued to that effect, what can be said? Why did the residents of Neharde’a adopt the stringencies of the two authorities?

אמר רב שיזבי כי לא עבדינן כחומרי דבי תרי היכא דסתרי אהדדי

Rav Sheizvi said: The principle of dictating when we do not act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities applies only in a case where the two stringencies contradict one another. In these types of cases, following both stringencies would result in an internal contradiction.

כגון שדרה וגולגולת דתנן השדרה והגולגולת שחסרו וכמה חסרון בשדרה בית שמאי אומרים שתי חוליות ובית הלל אומרים חוליא אחת ובגולגולת בית שמאי אומרים כמלא מקדח ובית הלל אומרים כדי שינטל מן החי וימות

The Gemara illustrates this principle with an example from the laws governing the spine and skull. As we learned in a mishna: The spine and the skull of a corpse that are incomplete do not impart ritual impurity via a tent as a corpse would; rather, they impart impurity only through contact or if they are carried as individual bones. This basic law was unanimously accepted, but the details were the subject of dispute: How much is considered a deficiency in the spine for this purpose? Beit Shammai say: If it is missing two vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: Even if it is missing only one vertebra. And similarly, they argued over the deficiency in the skull: Beit Shammai say: It must be missing piece the size of a drill hole, and Beit Hillel say: It must be missing an amount that, when removed from a living person, would cause him to die, which is a larger amount.

ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל וכן לענין טריפה

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argued likewise with respect to a tereifa, a kosher animal suffering from a wound or illness that will cause it to die within twelve months, and which is prohibited to be eaten even after the required ritual slaughter. Beit Shammai say that an animal is regarded as a tereifa if it is missing two vertebrae, while Beit Hillel hold that it is a tereifa if it lacks even one. In such a situation, a person must not be stringent with regard to the halakhot of tereifa in accordance with the view of Beit Hillel, and at the same time be stringent with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity of a corpse in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai, for the two disputes relate to the same issue, and one must not act in accordance with two contradictory opinions.

אבל היכא דלא סתרי אהדדי עבדינן

Rav Sheizvi continues: However, in a case where the two stringencies do not contradict one another, we may indeed act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities. Therefore, the stringencies adopted in the case of the alleyway in Neharde’a were legitimate, for the two stringencies related to two separate issues: Rav’s stringency was that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an open alleyway, and Shmuel’s stringency was that an open alleyway requires a door.

והיכא דסתרי אהדדי לא עבדינן מתיב רב משרשיא מעשה ברבי עקיבא שליקט אתרוג באחד בשבט ונהג בו שני עישורין אחד כדברי בית שמאי ואחד כדברי בית הלל

The Gemara challenges Rav Sheizvi’s assertion: Is it true that we do not act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities in a case where the two stringencies contradict one another? Rav Mesharshiya raised an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who gathered the fruit of a citron tree on the first of the month of Shevat and applied the laws of two tithes to it. After teruma and the first tithe have been separated, an additional tithe is separated from what is left. During the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle, second tithe is set aside to be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owner, while during the third and sixth years, poor man’s tithe is set aside to be distributed to the needy. When tithing the fruit picked on the first of Shevat, Rabbi Akiva set aside both additional tithes, second tithe and poor man’s tithe: He set aside one in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, who say that the new year for trees begins on the first of Shevat, and as that day belongs to the new year, a tithe must be set aside in accordance with the law of that year; and he set aside one in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, that the new year for trees is the fifteenth of Shevat, and any fruit picked prior to that date must be tithed in accordance with the law of the previous year. Apparently, Rabbi Akiva adopted for himself two contradictory stringencies.

רבי עקיבא גמריה איסתפיק ליה ולא ידע אי בית הלל בחד בשבט אמור אי בחמיסר בשבט אמור ועבד הכא לחומרא והכא לחומרא:

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva did not act in this way in order to be stringent in accordance with both opinions, but because he was in doubt with regard to his tradition and did not know whether Beit Hillel said the New Year for trees falls on the first of Shevat or on the fifteenth of Shevat, and therefore he acted stringently here and stringently there.

יתיב רב יוסף קמיה דרב הונא ויתיב וקאמר אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מחלוקת בסרטיא מכאן וסרטיא מכאן ופלטיא מכאן ופלטיא מכאן

The Gemara resumes its discussion of alleyways that are open on two opposite sides. Rav Yosef sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The dispute between the anonymous first tanna of the baraita and Ḥananya refers to a case where there is a main street [seratya] from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a main street from here, on the other side. Alternatively, it refers to a case where there is a plaza [pelatya] from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a plaza from here, on the other side.

אבל סרטיא מכאן ובקעה מכאן או בקעה מכאן ובקעה מכאן עושה צורת הפתח מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן

But if there is a main street from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, a valley being a karmelit, which is neither a public domain nor a private domain, in which carrying is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, or if there is a valley from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, one constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the alleyway, and places a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side. One is thereby permitted to carry in the alleyway even according to the opinion of Ḥananya.

השתא סרטיא מכאן ובקעה מכאן עושה לו צורת הפתח מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן בקעה מכאן ובקעה מכאן מיבעיא

The Gemara raises a question about this ruling: Now, if you say that where there is a main street from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a valley from here, on the other side, it is sufficient to construct an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side, was it necessary to state that these are sufficient if there is a valley from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a valley from here, on the other side?

הכי קאמר סרטיא מכאן ובקעה מכאן נעשה כבקעה מכאן ובקעה מכאן

The Gemara answers: This is what he intended to say: If there is a main street from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, it is considered as if there were a valley from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side.

ומסיים בה משמיה דרב יהודה אם היה מבוי כלה לרחבה אין צריך כלום

The Gemara continues: And when Rav Yosef reported this ruling, he concluded with a statement in the name of Rav Yehuda himself, without attributing it to one of Rav Yehuda’s teachers: If the alleyway terminated in a backyard, i.e., a closed-off area behind a group of houses, then even if there is a breach in the wall between the yard and the public domain beyond it, nothing is needed on this side of the alleyway, as it is considered closed.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף הא דרב יהודה דשמואל היא

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This ruling of Rav Yehuda is a ruling of his teacher Shmuel, and not of his other teacher, Rav.

דאי דרב קשיא דרב אדרב בתרתי דאמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב מבוי שנפרץ במלואו לחצר ונפרצה חצר כנגדו חצר מותרת ומבוי אסור ואמאי ליהוי כמבוי שכלה לרחבה

For if it is a ruling of Rav, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav poses a difficulty in two ways. The first is with regard to the fact that this alleyway opens into the public domain on two opposite sides, and the second is based on that which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: If an alleyway was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard, and likewise the courtyard was breached opposite it into the public domain, it is permitted to carry in the courtyard, and it is prohibited to carry in the alleyway, since this alleyway is now open on two opposite sides to the public domain. Why should this be the ruling? In this case, let it be like an alleyway that terminates in a backyard, where Rav Yehuda ruled that nothing further is needed to permit carrying.

אמר ליה אנא לא ידענא עובדא הוה בדורא דרעותא מבוי שכלה לרחבה הוה ואתא לקמיה דרב יהודה ולא אצרכיה ולא מידי ואי קשיא משמיה דרב תיהוי משמיה דשמואל ולא קשיא מידי

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I do not know in accordance with which of his teachers Rav Yehuda issued this ruling. All I know is that there was an incident in a shepherds’ village where an alleyway terminated in a backyard, and the matter came before Rav Yehuda for a ruling, and he did not require anything to render it permitted to carry in the alleyway. And if, as you say, it is difficult if we say that he issued his ruling in the name of Rav, let it be suggested that he issued it in the name of his other teacher, Shmuel, and then there will be no difficulty.

השתא דאמר ליה רב ששת לרב שמואל בר אבא ואמרי ליה לרב יוסף בר אבא אסברא לך כאן שעירבו כאן שלא עירבו

The Gemara comments: Now that Rav Sheshet said to Rav Shmuel bar Abba, and some say that he said to Rav Yosef bar Abba: I will explain to you Rav’s statement with regard to an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard. One must make a distinction based on the nature of the case: Here it is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard established an eiruv together. In that case, Rav permits carrying in the alleyway and is not concerned with the breach into the courtyard, as the courtyard and the alleyway are treated as a single domain. There it is referring to a case where the residents did not establish an eiruv together. In that case, Rav prohibits carrying in the alleyway, because the alleyway now has new residents, i.e., the residents of the courtyard, who did not participate in the eiruv, and they prevent the residents of the alleyway from carrying.

דרב אדרב נמי לא קשיא כאן שעירבו בני חצר עם בני מבוי כאן שלא עירבו

Consequently, it can be said that Rav Yehuda’s statement with regard to an alleyway that terminates in a backyard is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav also poses no difficulty. Here, where Rav Yehuda permits carrying in an alleyway that terminates in a backyard, he is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard and the residents of the alleyway established a joint eiruv, whereas here, where Rav prohibits carrying in an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard, he is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard and the residents of the alleyway did not establish a joint eiruv.

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 7: How to Not Be Wicked – and Also Not a Fool

What do you do when you want to follow the stringencies of two opinions, and they contradict?! Bottom line principle:...
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 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 7

ורבי יהושע היא דלא משגח בבת קול

and the latter statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not pay attention to a Divine Voice that attempts to intervene in matters of halakha, for according to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.

ואיבעית אימא הכי קאמר כל היכא דמשכחת תרי תנאי ותרי אמוראי דפליגי אהדדי כעין מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל לא ליעבד כי קוליה דמר וכי קוליה דמר ולא כחומריה דמר וכי חומריה דמר אלא או כי קוליה דמר וכחומריה עביד או כקוליה דמר וכחומריה עביד

The Gemara suggests yet another resolution: And if you wish, say instead that this is what the baraita is saying: Wherever you find two tanna’im or two amora’im who disagree with each other in the manner of the disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, one should not act either in accordance with the leniency of the one Master and in accordance with the leniency of the other Master, nor should one act in accordance with the stringency of the one Master and in accordance with the stringency of the other Master. Rather, one should act either in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the one Master, or in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the other Master.

מכל מקום קשיא

All of this is suggested to explain the wording of the baraita. In any case, it is difficult to explain the law with regard to the alleyway in Neharde’a, concerning which they simultaneously adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כוליה כרב עבדוה דאמר רב הונא אמר רב הלכה ואין מורין כן

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In fact, they acted entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and the reason that they required doors and did not rely on the opening in the form of a doorway alone is due to that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: This is the halakha; however, a public ruling is not issued to that effect ab initio. Although Rav maintains that an opening in the form of a doorway is sufficient in an open alleyway, a public ruling is not issued to that effect; rather, the ruling is stringent, in accordance with Ḥananya’s position, and requires doors.

ולרב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב דאמר הלכה ומורין כן מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: And according to the statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava that Rav said, as Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said with regard to the same issue: This is the halakha and a public ruling is issued to that effect, what can be said? Why did the residents of Neharde’a adopt the stringencies of the two authorities?

אמר רב שיזבי כי לא עבדינן כחומרי דבי תרי היכא דסתרי אהדדי

Rav Sheizvi said: The principle of dictating when we do not act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities applies only in a case where the two stringencies contradict one another. In these types of cases, following both stringencies would result in an internal contradiction.

כגון שדרה וגולגולת דתנן השדרה והגולגולת שחסרו וכמה חסרון בשדרה בית שמאי אומרים שתי חוליות ובית הלל אומרים חוליא אחת ובגולגולת בית שמאי אומרים כמלא מקדח ובית הלל אומרים כדי שינטל מן החי וימות

The Gemara illustrates this principle with an example from the laws governing the spine and skull. As we learned in a mishna: The spine and the skull of a corpse that are incomplete do not impart ritual impurity via a tent as a corpse would; rather, they impart impurity only through contact or if they are carried as individual bones. This basic law was unanimously accepted, but the details were the subject of dispute: How much is considered a deficiency in the spine for this purpose? Beit Shammai say: If it is missing two vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: Even if it is missing only one vertebra. And similarly, they argued over the deficiency in the skull: Beit Shammai say: It must be missing piece the size of a drill hole, and Beit Hillel say: It must be missing an amount that, when removed from a living person, would cause him to die, which is a larger amount.

ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל וכן לענין טריפה

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argued likewise with respect to a tereifa, a kosher animal suffering from a wound or illness that will cause it to die within twelve months, and which is prohibited to be eaten even after the required ritual slaughter. Beit Shammai say that an animal is regarded as a tereifa if it is missing two vertebrae, while Beit Hillel hold that it is a tereifa if it lacks even one. In such a situation, a person must not be stringent with regard to the halakhot of tereifa in accordance with the view of Beit Hillel, and at the same time be stringent with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity of a corpse in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai, for the two disputes relate to the same issue, and one must not act in accordance with two contradictory opinions.

אבל היכא דלא סתרי אהדדי עבדינן

Rav Sheizvi continues: However, in a case where the two stringencies do not contradict one another, we may indeed act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities. Therefore, the stringencies adopted in the case of the alleyway in Neharde’a were legitimate, for the two stringencies related to two separate issues: Rav’s stringency was that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an open alleyway, and Shmuel’s stringency was that an open alleyway requires a door.

והיכא דסתרי אהדדי לא עבדינן מתיב רב משרשיא מעשה ברבי עקיבא שליקט אתרוג באחד בשבט ונהג בו שני עישורין אחד כדברי בית שמאי ואחד כדברי בית הלל

The Gemara challenges Rav Sheizvi’s assertion: Is it true that we do not act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities in a case where the two stringencies contradict one another? Rav Mesharshiya raised an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who gathered the fruit of a citron tree on the first of the month of Shevat and applied the laws of two tithes to it. After teruma and the first tithe have been separated, an additional tithe is separated from what is left. During the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle, second tithe is set aside to be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owner, while during the third and sixth years, poor man’s tithe is set aside to be distributed to the needy. When tithing the fruit picked on the first of Shevat, Rabbi Akiva set aside both additional tithes, second tithe and poor man’s tithe: He set aside one in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, who say that the new year for trees begins on the first of Shevat, and as that day belongs to the new year, a tithe must be set aside in accordance with the law of that year; and he set aside one in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, that the new year for trees is the fifteenth of Shevat, and any fruit picked prior to that date must be tithed in accordance with the law of the previous year. Apparently, Rabbi Akiva adopted for himself two contradictory stringencies.

רבי עקיבא גמריה איסתפיק ליה ולא ידע אי בית הלל בחד בשבט אמור אי בחמיסר בשבט אמור ועבד הכא לחומרא והכא לחומרא:

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva did not act in this way in order to be stringent in accordance with both opinions, but because he was in doubt with regard to his tradition and did not know whether Beit Hillel said the New Year for trees falls on the first of Shevat or on the fifteenth of Shevat, and therefore he acted stringently here and stringently there.

יתיב רב יוסף קמיה דרב הונא ויתיב וקאמר אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מחלוקת בסרטיא מכאן וסרטיא מכאן ופלטיא מכאן ופלטיא מכאן

The Gemara resumes its discussion of alleyways that are open on two opposite sides. Rav Yosef sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The dispute between the anonymous first tanna of the baraita and Ḥananya refers to a case where there is a main street [seratya] from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a main street from here, on the other side. Alternatively, it refers to a case where there is a plaza [pelatya] from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a plaza from here, on the other side.

אבל סרטיא מכאן ובקעה מכאן או בקעה מכאן ובקעה מכאן עושה צורת הפתח מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן

But if there is a main street from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, a valley being a karmelit, which is neither a public domain nor a private domain, in which carrying is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, or if there is a valley from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, one constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the alleyway, and places a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side. One is thereby permitted to carry in the alleyway even according to the opinion of Ḥananya.

השתא סרטיא מכאן ובקעה מכאן עושה לו צורת הפתח מכאן ולחי וקורה מכאן בקעה מכאן ובקעה מכאן מיבעיא

The Gemara raises a question about this ruling: Now, if you say that where there is a main street from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a valley from here, on the other side, it is sufficient to construct an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side, was it necessary to state that these are sufficient if there is a valley from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a valley from here, on the other side?

הכי קאמר סרטיא מכאן ובקעה מכאן נעשה כבקעה מכאן ובקעה מכאן

The Gemara answers: This is what he intended to say: If there is a main street from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, it is considered as if there were a valley from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side.

ומסיים בה משמיה דרב יהודה אם היה מבוי כלה לרחבה אין צריך כלום

The Gemara continues: And when Rav Yosef reported this ruling, he concluded with a statement in the name of Rav Yehuda himself, without attributing it to one of Rav Yehuda’s teachers: If the alleyway terminated in a backyard, i.e., a closed-off area behind a group of houses, then even if there is a breach in the wall between the yard and the public domain beyond it, nothing is needed on this side of the alleyway, as it is considered closed.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף הא דרב יהודה דשמואל היא

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This ruling of Rav Yehuda is a ruling of his teacher Shmuel, and not of his other teacher, Rav.

דאי דרב קשיא דרב אדרב בתרתי דאמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב מבוי שנפרץ במלואו לחצר ונפרצה חצר כנגדו חצר מותרת ומבוי אסור ואמאי ליהוי כמבוי שכלה לרחבה

For if it is a ruling of Rav, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav poses a difficulty in two ways. The first is with regard to the fact that this alleyway opens into the public domain on two opposite sides, and the second is based on that which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: If an alleyway was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard, and likewise the courtyard was breached opposite it into the public domain, it is permitted to carry in the courtyard, and it is prohibited to carry in the alleyway, since this alleyway is now open on two opposite sides to the public domain. Why should this be the ruling? In this case, let it be like an alleyway that terminates in a backyard, where Rav Yehuda ruled that nothing further is needed to permit carrying.

אמר ליה אנא לא ידענא עובדא הוה בדורא דרעותא מבוי שכלה לרחבה הוה ואתא לקמיה דרב יהודה ולא אצרכיה ולא מידי ואי קשיא משמיה דרב תיהוי משמיה דשמואל ולא קשיא מידי

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I do not know in accordance with which of his teachers Rav Yehuda issued this ruling. All I know is that there was an incident in a shepherds’ village where an alleyway terminated in a backyard, and the matter came before Rav Yehuda for a ruling, and he did not require anything to render it permitted to carry in the alleyway. And if, as you say, it is difficult if we say that he issued his ruling in the name of Rav, let it be suggested that he issued it in the name of his other teacher, Shmuel, and then there will be no difficulty.

השתא דאמר ליה רב ששת לרב שמואל בר אבא ואמרי ליה לרב יוסף בר אבא אסברא לך כאן שעירבו כאן שלא עירבו

The Gemara comments: Now that Rav Sheshet said to Rav Shmuel bar Abba, and some say that he said to Rav Yosef bar Abba: I will explain to you Rav’s statement with regard to an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard. One must make a distinction based on the nature of the case: Here it is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard established an eiruv together. In that case, Rav permits carrying in the alleyway and is not concerned with the breach into the courtyard, as the courtyard and the alleyway are treated as a single domain. There it is referring to a case where the residents did not establish an eiruv together. In that case, Rav prohibits carrying in the alleyway, because the alleyway now has new residents, i.e., the residents of the courtyard, who did not participate in the eiruv, and they prevent the residents of the alleyway from carrying.

דרב אדרב נמי לא קשיא כאן שעירבו בני חצר עם בני מבוי כאן שלא עירבו

Consequently, it can be said that Rav Yehuda’s statement with regard to an alleyway that terminates in a backyard is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav also poses no difficulty. Here, where Rav Yehuda permits carrying in an alleyway that terminates in a backyard, he is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard and the residents of the alleyway established a joint eiruv, whereas here, where Rav prohibits carrying in an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard, he is referring to a case where the residents of the courtyard and the residents of the alleyway did not establish a joint eiruv.

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

Scroll To Top