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

Daf Yomi

August 17, 2020 | 讻状讝 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 8

Today’s daf is dedicated by Becky Fryant in memory of her mother, Faina Fraynt z”l on her yahrzeit. She was a great teacher and supporter of women’s learning. May her memory be for blessing.

Before they concluded that Rav Yehuda in the case of an alley that opened to a backyard did not disagree with Rav in the case of an alley that opened into a courtyard, there was an assumption that they disagreed. According to that original understanding, what was the debate between them in the case where an eruv was made and what was the disagreement in a case where there was no eruv? Is the case where the alley opens to a backyard which leads to the public domain, only permitted if the entrances to the public domain are not directly opposite each other? Does it matter is the alley opens into the middle of the backyard or can it open to its side? Does it matter if it is a backyard owned by an individual or by a few people? Where are there other cases where this distinction is made between private and multiple owners? The gemara asks why Rav taught the case about the alley opening into a courtyard where the courtyard members can carry within the courtyard, isn’t that an explicit mishna where a small courtyard opens into a larger one. And even if one can distinguish between the cases, there is a Tosefta that also says the same thing even when many people use the courtyard to get from place to place? An alley designed with multiple exits, how does one fix it? If one wall juts out farther than the other, where does one place the beam? Can one use the space under the beam? There is a debate and the gemara brings three possible explanations of the debate between them. By the posts, no one disagrees.

 

讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讘讬谉 砖注讬专讘讜 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讘注讬专讘讜 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬


And with regard to what first entered our minds, that Rav and Shmuel disagree both in the case where the residents of the alleyway and the residents of the yard established an eiruv together, as well as in the case where they did not establish an eiruv together, explanation is necessary. The Gemara seeks to explicate on what point they disagree in the case where they established a joint eiruv, and on what point they disagree in the case where they did not establish a joint eiruv. That is to say, what is the crux of the argument in these two cases?


讘砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐


The Gemara explains: In the case where they did not establish a joint eiruv, Rav and Shmuel disagree concerning the halakha governing an alleyway that appears closed from the outside. Outside the alleyway there is a wider courtyard, so that from the perspective of those standing in the courtyard, the breach at the end of the alleyway seems like an entrance, and the alleyway appears to be closed, but appears to be even from the inside. From the perspective of those inside the alleyway, the breach is even with the walls of the alleyway, so that the breach does not look like an entrance, and the alleyway appears to be open. The dispute revolves around the question of whether an alleyway of this kind is considered open or closed. According to the authority who says that it is considered a closed alleyway, one is permitted to carry within an alleyway that terminates in a backyard in this manner.


讘注讬专讘讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讻诇讛 诇讗诪爪注 专讞讘讛 讗讘诇 讻诇讛 诇爪讬讚讬 专讞讘讛 讗住讜专


And in the case where they established a joint eiruv, they disagree about the principle stated by Rav Yosef. For Rav Yosef said: The allowance to carry in an alleyway that terminates in a backyard was only taught in a case where the alleyway terminates in the middle of the backyard, so that when viewed from the yard, the alleyway appears to be closed. But if it terminates on one of the sides of the backyard, so that the alleyway and yard appear continuous, carrying in the alleyway is prohibited.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 诇讗诪爪注 专讞讘讛 诪讜转专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讗讘诇 讝讛 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讗住讜专


Rabba took the discussion one step further and said: That which you say: Where the alleyway terminates in the middle of the backyard, carrying is permitted, this was only stated with regard to a case where the breach in the back wall of the alleyway into the yard and the breach in the facing wall of the yard into the public domain are not opposite one another. But if the two breaches are opposite one another, carrying within the alleyway is prohibited.


讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 诪讜转专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 专讞讘讛 讚专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 专讞讘讛 讚讬讞讬讚 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬诪诇讱 注诇讛 讜讘谞讬 诇讛 讘转讬诐 讜讛讜讬 诇讛 讻诪讘讜讬 砖讻诇讛 诇讛 诇爪讬讚讬 专讞讘讛 讜讗住讜专


Rav Mesharshiya continued this line of thought and said: That which you say: If the two breaches are not opposite one another, carrying within the alleyway is permitted, this was only stated with regard to the case where the backyard belongs to many people. But if the yard belongs to a single individual, he might sometime change his mind about it and build houses in that part of the yard that is wider than the alleyway, and then the alleyway will become like an alleyway that terminates on one of the sides of the backyard, which is prohibited. If the owner of the yard closes off one side of the yard with houses, the alleyway will no longer terminate in the middle of the yard, but on one of its sides, in which case carrying will be forbidden. Consequently, although the houses have not yet been built, adjustments must be made in the alleyway to permit carrying, so that no problems should arise in the future.


讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 专讞讘讛 讚专讘讬诐 诇专讞讘讛 讚讬讞讬讚 讚讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘诪讘讜讬 讗讞讚 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻诇讛 诇讬诐 讜爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻诇讛 诇讗砖驻讛 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讛 诇讗 讛讬转专 讜诇讗 讗讬住讜专


Rav Mesharshiya adds: And from where do you say that we distinguish between a backyard that belongs to many people and a backyard that belongs to a single individual? As Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: There was an incident involving a certain alleyway, where one of its sides terminated in the sea and one of its sides terminated in a refuse heap, resulting in an alleyway closed on both sides. And the incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, so that he may rule on whether these partitions are sufficient or whether some additional construction is necessary, and he did not say anything about it, neither permission nor prohibition.


讗讬住讜专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘讛 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讬转专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讬谞讟诇 讗砖驻讛 讜讬注诇讛 讛讬诐 砖专讟讜谉


The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not state a ruling indicating a prohibition to carry in the alleyway, for partitions, i.e., the sea and the refuse heap, indeed stand, and the alleyway is closed off on both sides. However, he also did not state a ruling granting permission to carry in the alleyway, for we are concerned that perhaps the refuse heap will be removed from its present spot, leaving one side of the alleyway open. And, alternatively, perhaps the sea will raise up sand, and the sandbank will intervene between the end of the alleyway and the sea, so that the sea can no longer be considered a partition for the alleyway.


讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讬谞讟诇 讗砖驻讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗砖驻讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讞诇讜谉 砖注诇 讙讘讛 讝讜专拽讬谉 诇讛 讘砖讘转


The Gemara continues: Are we really concerned that perhaps the refuse heap will be removed? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A refuse heap in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high, so that it has the status of a private domain, and there is a window above the pile of refuse, i.e., the window is in a house adjacent to the refuse heap, we may throw refuse from the window onto the heap on Shabbat. Carrying on Shabbat from one private domain, i.e., the house, to another, i.e., the refuse heap, is permitted. We are not concerned that someone might remove some of the refuse, thus lowering the heap until it is no longer a private domain, such that throwing refuse upon it is prohibited. This seems to present a contradiction, for in some cases we are concerned that the refuse heap might be removed, but in other cases we are not.


讗诇诪讗 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 讗砖驻讛 讚专讘讬诐 诇讗砖驻讛 讚讬讞讬讚


Apparently, we distinguish between a public refuse heap and a private refuse heap, such that in the case of a private refuse heap we cannot assume that it will remain in place permanently, as it is likely to be emptied at some point.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 专讞讘讛 讚专讘讬诐 诇专讞讘讛 讚讬讞讬讚


Here, too, we distinguish between a backyard belonging to many people, where buildings are not likely to be added, and a backyard belonging to a single individual, where he might consider making changes and add buildings.


讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬


The case involving an alleyway opening on one side to the sea and on the other side to a refuse heap was brought before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who did not rule on the matter. The Gemara inquires: And the Rabbis of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 generation, what was their opinion with regard to this case? The fact that we are told that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not want to issue a ruling indicates that his colleagues disagreed with him.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 转谞讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 转谞讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐


Rav Yosef bar Avdimi said: It was taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis prohibit carrying in such an alleyway. Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. There are some who state a different version of the previous statements as follows: Rav Yosef bar Avdimi said: It was taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis permit carrying in such an alleyway. Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


诪专讬诪专 驻住讬拽 诇讛 诇住讜专讗 讘讗讜讝诇讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬注诇讛 讛讬诐 砖专讟讜谉


The Gemara relates: Mareimar would block off the ends of the alleyways of Sura, which opened to a river, with nets to serve as partitions. He said: Just as we are concerned that perhaps the sea will raise up sand, so too, we are concerned that the river will raise up sand, and hence we cannot rely on its banks to serve as partitions.


讛讛讜讗 诪讘讜讬 注拽讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讘住讜专讗 讻专讜讱 讘讜讚讬讗 讗讜转讬讘讜 讘讬讛 讘注拽诪讜诪讬转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 诇讗 讻专讘 讜诇讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 转讜专转讜 讻诪驻讜诇砖 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讘注讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 转讜专转讜 讻住转讜诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讞讬 诪注诇讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚谞砖讬讘 讘讬讛 讝讬拽讗 讜砖讚讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗


The Gemara further relates: With regard to a certain crooked L-shaped alleyway that was in Sura, the residents of the place rolled up a mat and placed it at the turn to serve as a side post to permit carrying within it. Rav 岣sda said: This was done neither in accordance with the opinion of Rav nor in accordance with that of Shmuel. The Gemara explains: According to Rav, who said that the halakha of a crooked L-shaped alleyway is like that of an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides, it requires an opening in the form of a doorway. And even according to Shmuel, who said that its halakha is like that of an alleyway that is closed at one side, so that carrying is permitted by means of a side post, this applies only to a case where a proper side post was erected. But with regard to this mat, once the wind blows upon it, it throws it over; it is regarded as nothing and is totally ineffective.


讜讗讬 谞注讬抓 讘讬讛 住讬讻转讗 讜讞讘专讬讛 讞讘专讬讛:


The Gemara comments: But if a peg was inserted into the mat, and thus the mat was properly attached to the wall, it is considered attached and serves as an effective side post.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜 诇讞爪专 讜谞驻专爪讛 讞爪专 讻谞讙讚讜 讞爪专 诪讜转专转 讜诪讘讜讬 讗住讜专


The Gemara examines Rav Yirmeya bar Abba鈥檚 statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. As to the matter itself, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: An alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard, and likewise the courtyard was breached on its opposite side into the public domain, the courtyard is permitted for carrying, and the alleyway is prohibited for carrying.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 诇专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 诇讗 诪砖谞转谞讜 讛讬讗 讝讜 讞爪专 拽讟谞讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讜拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛


Rabba bar Ulla said to Rav Beivai bar Abaye: My Master, is this case not the same as our Mishna? A smaller courtyard that was breached along the entire length of one of its walls into a larger courtyard, the larger one is permitted for carrying, and the smaller one is prohibited, because the breach is regarded as the entrance to the larger courtyard. With regard to the larger courtyard, the breach running the entire length of the smaller courtyard is considered like an entrance in one of its walls, for the breach is surrounded on both sides by the remaining portions of the wall of the larger courtyard, and therefore carrying is permitted. With regard to the smaller courtyard, however, one wall is missing in its entirety, and therefore carrying is forbidden. This seems to be exactly the same as the case of an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 讚专住讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讚专住讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪专 谞诪讬


He, Rav Beivai bar Abaye, said to him, Rabba bar Ulla: If this was learned from there alone, I would have said that we must distinguish between the cases: The Mishna鈥檚 ruling only applies in a place where many people do not tread. The breach between the smaller and larger courtyard will not cause more people to pass through the larger courtyard, and therefore it remains a unit of its own. But in a place where many people tread, i.e., in the case where a courtyard is breached on one side into an alleyway and on the other side into the public domain, you might say that carrying is prohibited even in the courtyard as well, owing to the people passing through it from the alleyway to the public domain.


讜讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讞爪专 砖讛专讘讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讛 讘讝讜 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讝讜 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇砖讘转


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 we already learn this as well, that the mere fact that many people tread through a courtyard does not forbid carrying, for we learned in the Tosefta: A courtyard that was properly surrounded by partitions, into which many people enter on this side and exit on that side, is considered a public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, so that in cases of doubt, we say that the person or article is pure, but it is still a private domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. Therefore, we see that with regard to Shabbat, the sole criterion is the existence of partitions, and the fact that many people pass through the courtyard does not impair its status as a private domain.


讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛


The Gemara refutes this argument: If this was derived there alone, I would have said that this only applies in a case where the two breaches are not opposite one another,


讗讘诇 讝讛 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


but if the two breaches are opposite one another, you might say that it is not considered a private domain even with regard to Shabbat. Rav therefore teaches us that even if the breaches of the courtyard line up with each other, carrying is nonetheless permitted therein.


讜诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讗住讜专 讛讗 讚专讘 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And according to Rabba, who said that where the alleyway terminates in a backyard and the breaches are one opposite another, carrying is prohibited, how does he construe Rav鈥檚 case? Rav鈥檚 ruling must refer to a case where the breaches are not one opposite another, and if so, why do I need two rulings? The essence of this halakha, that the yard is deemed a private domain with regard to Shabbat, was already stated in the Tosefta, so why did Rav need to teach another halakha with regard to the very same issue?


讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讝专讜拽 讗讘诇 诇讟诇讟诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara explains that there is a novelty in Rav鈥檚 teaching: If one learned the halakha from there, the Tosefta, alone, I would have said that this ruling that the courtyard is a private domain with regard to Shabbat only applies to the issue of throwing, i.e., that one who throws from the public domain into this courtyard is liable, since it is considered a private domain according to Torah law. But to allow carrying in it like a proper private domain, you might say no, that the Sages forbade carrying in it, owing to the many people passing through it. Rav therefore teaches us that we are not concerned about this, and that carrying in the yard is permitted, even by rabbinic law.


讗讬转诪专 诪讘讜讬 讛注砖讜讬 讻谞讚诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注讜砖讛 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 诇讙讚讜诇 讜讛谞讱 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讬砖转专讜 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree about the following matter: With regard to an alleyway that is shaped like a centipede, i.e., a long alleyway that opens to the public domain but with a series of small alleyways branching off of it on both of its sides, all of which also open to the public domain, Abaye said: An opening in the form of a doorway is made for the large alleyway, and all the small alleyways are permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讻诪讗谉 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 转讜专转讜 讻住转讜诐 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讘讜讬 注拽讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讞砖讜 诇讛 诇讚专讘


Rava said to him: According to whom do you state this halakha? Apparently according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said that the halakha of a crooked L-shaped alleyway is like that of an alleyway that is closed at one side. For in this case of an alleyway that is shaped like a centipede, when each of the smaller alleyways connects to the larger alleyway, it forms a crooked L-shaped alleyway. However, if the halakha is indeed in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, why is the form of a doorway needed for it? According to Shmuel, an alleyway of this kind only requires a side post or a cross beam at each end in order to permit carrying within it. And furthermore, with regard to the crooked, L-shaped alleyway in Neharde鈥檃, which was Shmuel鈥檚 place of residence, didn鈥檛 they take into consideration the position of Rav? This indicates that the halakha in practice follows Rav as opposed to Shmuel.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讜砖讛 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 诇讻讜诇讛讜 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 诪讬砖转专讜 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛


Rather, Rava said: An alleyway made like a centipede can be rendered fit for one to carry within it as follows: An opening in the form of a doorway is made for all of the small alleyways on this one of their sides, and the other side is permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专 诪诇讻讬讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 专讘讬讛 讚专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专 诪诇讻讬讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 专讘讬讛 讚专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讗专讜讱 讜爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 拽爪专 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 讘讗诇讻住讜谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛拽爪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛拽爪专


The Gemara considers a new case: Rav Kahana bar Ta岣lifa said in the name of Rav Kahana bar Minyumi, who said in the name of Rav Kahana bar Malkiyu, who said in the name of Rav Kahana, the teacher of Rav; and some say that Rav Kahana bar Malkiyu is Rav Kahana, the teacher of Rav: With regard to an alleyway that opens into the public domain, its one side being long and its other side being short, i.e., one side juts out into the public domain more than the other, the halakha is as follows: If the difference in length between the two sides is less than four cubits, the cross beam is placed diagonally across the opening between the ends of the two walls of the alleyway. If, however, the difference is four cubits or more, the cross beam is placed straight across the alleyway at the end of the short side, i.e., at the end of the short side straight across toward the corresponding spot on the longer wall such that the beam is perpendicular to both walls, and no use may be made of the portion of the alleyway that lies beyond the cross beam. Rava disagreed and said: In both this case and in that case, the cross beam is placed straight across the alleyway at the end of the short side.


讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 拽讜专讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜讘讗诇讻住讜谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讬讻专


Rava added: I will state my reason, and I will state their reason. I will state my reason: What is the reason for a cross beam? To function as a conspicuous marker that separates the alleyway from the public domain, so that the residents of the alleyway should know the boundary within which carrying is permitted, and when placed diagonally, the cross beam is not sufficiently conspicuous. Those who see people carrying in the section extending past the short side will think that one is generally permitted to carry in a public domain.


讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讛讜 拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讘讗诇讻住讜谉 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 诪讞讬爪讛


I will state their reason as well: What is the reason for a cross beam? To function as a partition, that is to say, the cross beam is considered as though it descended to the ground, creating a fourth wall for the alleyway. Hence, even when placed diagonally, it is considered a partition.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖诪注转转讗 讚讻讛谞讬 讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 讘讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 诪谞讬讞 讛拽讜专讛 讘讗诇讻住讜谉 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讘讗诇讻住讜谞讜 讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讗诇讻住讜谞讜 讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛拽爪专


Rav Kahana said: Since this involves halakhot of Sages named Kahana, I too will say something with regard to it: That which you said, that the cross beam is placed diagonally across the alleyway, this was only said in a case where the diagonal is no more than ten cubits. But if the diagonal is more than ten cubits, then even if the width of the alleyway itself is less than ten cubits, all agree that the cross beam must be placed straight across the alleyway at the end of the short side, for an entrance wider than ten cubits cannot be permitted by a cross beam, and here the entire length under the cross beam is considered an entrance.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛 专讘 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讜 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to utilizing and carrying in the area beneath the cross beam spanning the opening of an alleyway, which the beam permits carrying? Opinions differ on the matter. Rav, Rabbi 岣yya, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is permitted to utilize the area beneath the cross beam. Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is prohibited to utilize the area beneath the cross beam.


诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 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 suggests a way to understand this dispute: Shall we say that these amora鈥檌m argue over the following issue, that Master, representing those who permit it, holds: A cross beam serves in an alleyway as a conspicuous marker that separates it from the public domain, and Master, representing those who prohibit it, holds: A cross beam serves as a partition.


诇讗 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 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讬讻讬专讗 诪诇讙讬讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讬讻讬专讗 诪诇讘专


The Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone might agree that a cross beam serves as a conspicuous marker, but here they argue over the following: Master, representing those who forbid it, holds that the conspicuous marker is intended for those situated inside the alleyway, and hence the area outside the inner edge of the cross beam may not be used; and Master, representing those who permit it, holds that the conspicuous marker is intended for those outside in the public domain, and it is therefore permitted to carry up to the outer edge of the cross beam.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讞讜讚讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讜诪专 住讘专 讞讜讚讜 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐


The Gemara proposes an alternative explanation: And if you wish, you can say that everyone agrees that a cross beam permits carrying as a partition, and here they argue over the following issue: As one Sage holds that the inner edge of the cross beam descends to the ground and seals off the alleyway, and therefore under the cross beam is not within the closed-off area; and the other Sage holds that the cross beam鈥檚 outer edge descends to the ground and seals off the alleyway, and therefore it is permitted to carry even in the area beneath the cross beam. Consequently, there is no need to connect the dispute with regard to utilizing the area beneath the cross beam to the dispute with regard to the nature of the cross beam.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬诐 砖讗住讜专


Rav 岣sda said: All concede that utilizing the area between the side posts placed at the entrance to an alleyway to permit carrying is prohibited, for a side post functions as a partition, and therefore one may only use the space up to its inner edge, but no further.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 谞注抓 砖转讬 讬转讬讚讜转 讘砖谞讬 讻讜转诇讬 诪讘讜讬 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讛谞讬讞 拽讜专讛 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 诪讛讜


Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: What is the halakha in a case where a person inserted two pegs in the two alleyway walls, one in each wall, on the outside of the entrance facing the public domain, and he placed a cross beam on top of the pegs, such that the beam is attached to the front of the alleyway walls instead of on top of them? Does this cross beam permit carrying within the alleyway?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪转讬专 讗住讜专 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜住专 诪讜转专


Rav 岣sda said to him: According to the statement of the one who permits utilizing the area beneath the cross beam, carrying within the alleyway is prohibited, for he holds that the cross beam鈥檚 outer edge is the critical one, and here this outer edge is positioned outside the alleyway and therefore cannot permit it. Whereas according to the statement of the authority who prohibits utilizing the area beneath the cross beam, carrying in the alleyway is permitted, for the cross beam鈥檚 inner edge is attached to the entrance of the alleyway.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜住专 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讘注讬谞谉 拽讜专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诇讬讻讗


Rava, however, disagreed and said: Even according to the opinion of the one who prohibits utilizing the area beneath the cross beam, carrying in the alleyway is prohibited, for we require that the cross beam that permits the alleyway be placed on top of the walls of the alleyway, and it is not. A cross beam that merely touches the alleyway from the outside does not permit it.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇专讘讗 讛讬转讛 拽讜专转讜


Rav Adda bar Mattana raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: If the cross beam being used to render an alleyway permitted for carrying is


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...
too many rav kahanas

The Mysterious Case of Too Many Rav Kahanas

Let鈥檚 take a short break from streets, walls, doorways and courtyards. On daf 8b of Eruvin we have a strange...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 8: The Case of the Kahanas

Some thoughts on learning Eruvin. Plus: What happens when a backyard is owned by more than one person... Or when...
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 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 8

讜诇诪讗讬 讚住诇讬拽 讗讚注转讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讘讬谉 砖注讬专讘讜 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讘注讬专讘讜 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬


And with regard to what first entered our minds, that Rav and Shmuel disagree both in the case where the residents of the alleyway and the residents of the yard established an eiruv together, as well as in the case where they did not establish an eiruv together, explanation is necessary. The Gemara seeks to explicate on what point they disagree in the case where they established a joint eiruv, and on what point they disagree in the case where they did not establish a joint eiruv. That is to say, what is the crux of the argument in these two cases?


讘砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐


The Gemara explains: In the case where they did not establish a joint eiruv, Rav and Shmuel disagree concerning the halakha governing an alleyway that appears closed from the outside. Outside the alleyway there is a wider courtyard, so that from the perspective of those standing in the courtyard, the breach at the end of the alleyway seems like an entrance, and the alleyway appears to be closed, but appears to be even from the inside. From the perspective of those inside the alleyway, the breach is even with the walls of the alleyway, so that the breach does not look like an entrance, and the alleyway appears to be open. The dispute revolves around the question of whether an alleyway of this kind is considered open or closed. According to the authority who says that it is considered a closed alleyway, one is permitted to carry within an alleyway that terminates in a backyard in this manner.


讘注讬专讘讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讻诇讛 诇讗诪爪注 专讞讘讛 讗讘诇 讻诇讛 诇爪讬讚讬 专讞讘讛 讗住讜专


And in the case where they established a joint eiruv, they disagree about the principle stated by Rav Yosef. For Rav Yosef said: The allowance to carry in an alleyway that terminates in a backyard was only taught in a case where the alleyway terminates in the middle of the backyard, so that when viewed from the yard, the alleyway appears to be closed. But if it terminates on one of the sides of the backyard, so that the alleyway and yard appear continuous, carrying in the alleyway is prohibited.


讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 诇讗诪爪注 专讞讘讛 诪讜转专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讗讘诇 讝讛 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讗住讜专


Rabba took the discussion one step further and said: That which you say: Where the alleyway terminates in the middle of the backyard, carrying is permitted, this was only stated with regard to a case where the breach in the back wall of the alleyway into the yard and the breach in the facing wall of the yard into the public domain are not opposite one another. But if the two breaches are opposite one another, carrying within the alleyway is prohibited.


讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 诪讜转专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 专讞讘讛 讚专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 专讞讘讛 讚讬讞讬讚 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬诪诇讱 注诇讛 讜讘谞讬 诇讛 讘转讬诐 讜讛讜讬 诇讛 讻诪讘讜讬 砖讻诇讛 诇讛 诇爪讬讚讬 专讞讘讛 讜讗住讜专


Rav Mesharshiya continued this line of thought and said: That which you say: If the two breaches are not opposite one another, carrying within the alleyway is permitted, this was only stated with regard to the case where the backyard belongs to many people. But if the yard belongs to a single individual, he might sometime change his mind about it and build houses in that part of the yard that is wider than the alleyway, and then the alleyway will become like an alleyway that terminates on one of the sides of the backyard, which is prohibited. If the owner of the yard closes off one side of the yard with houses, the alleyway will no longer terminate in the middle of the yard, but on one of its sides, in which case carrying will be forbidden. Consequently, although the houses have not yet been built, adjustments must be made in the alleyway to permit carrying, so that no problems should arise in the future.


讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 专讞讘讛 讚专讘讬诐 诇专讞讘讛 讚讬讞讬讚 讚讗诪专 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘诪讘讜讬 讗讞讚 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻诇讛 诇讬诐 讜爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻诇讛 诇讗砖驻讛 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讛 诇讗 讛讬转专 讜诇讗 讗讬住讜专


Rav Mesharshiya adds: And from where do you say that we distinguish between a backyard that belongs to many people and a backyard that belongs to a single individual? As Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitz岣k said: There was an incident involving a certain alleyway, where one of its sides terminated in the sea and one of its sides terminated in a refuse heap, resulting in an alleyway closed on both sides. And the incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, so that he may rule on whether these partitions are sufficient or whether some additional construction is necessary, and he did not say anything about it, neither permission nor prohibition.


讗讬住讜专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘讛 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讬 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讬转专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讬谞讟诇 讗砖驻讛 讜讬注诇讛 讛讬诐 砖专讟讜谉


The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not state a ruling indicating a prohibition to carry in the alleyway, for partitions, i.e., the sea and the refuse heap, indeed stand, and the alleyway is closed off on both sides. However, he also did not state a ruling granting permission to carry in the alleyway, for we are concerned that perhaps the refuse heap will be removed from its present spot, leaving one side of the alleyway open. And, alternatively, perhaps the sea will raise up sand, and the sandbank will intervene between the end of the alleyway and the sea, so that the sea can no longer be considered a partition for the alleyway.


讜诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讬谞讟诇 讗砖驻讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗砖驻讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讞诇讜谉 砖注诇 讙讘讛 讝讜专拽讬谉 诇讛 讘砖讘转


The Gemara continues: Are we really concerned that perhaps the refuse heap will be removed? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: A refuse heap in the public domain that is ten handbreadths high, so that it has the status of a private domain, and there is a window above the pile of refuse, i.e., the window is in a house adjacent to the refuse heap, we may throw refuse from the window onto the heap on Shabbat. Carrying on Shabbat from one private domain, i.e., the house, to another, i.e., the refuse heap, is permitted. We are not concerned that someone might remove some of the refuse, thus lowering the heap until it is no longer a private domain, such that throwing refuse upon it is prohibited. This seems to present a contradiction, for in some cases we are concerned that the refuse heap might be removed, but in other cases we are not.


讗诇诪讗 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 讗砖驻讛 讚专讘讬诐 诇讗砖驻讛 讚讬讞讬讚


Apparently, we distinguish between a public refuse heap and a private refuse heap, such that in the case of a private refuse heap we cannot assume that it will remain in place permanently, as it is likely to be emptied at some point.


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖谞讬 讘讬谉 专讞讘讛 讚专讘讬诐 诇专讞讘讛 讚讬讞讬讚


Here, too, we distinguish between a backyard belonging to many people, where buildings are not likely to be added, and a backyard belonging to a single individual, where he might consider making changes and add buildings.


讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬


The case involving an alleyway opening on one side to the sea and on the other side to a refuse heap was brought before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who did not rule on the matter. The Gemara inquires: And the Rabbis of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 generation, what was their opinion with regard to this case? The fact that we are told that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not want to issue a ruling indicates that his colleagues disagreed with him.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 转谞讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 转谞讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪转讬专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐


Rav Yosef bar Avdimi said: It was taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis prohibit carrying in such an alleyway. Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. There are some who state a different version of the previous statements as follows: Rav Yosef bar Avdimi said: It was taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis permit carrying in such an alleyway. Rav Na岣an said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


诪专讬诪专 驻住讬拽 诇讛 诇住讜专讗 讘讗讜讝诇讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬注诇讛 讛讬诐 砖专讟讜谉


The Gemara relates: Mareimar would block off the ends of the alleyways of Sura, which opened to a river, with nets to serve as partitions. He said: Just as we are concerned that perhaps the sea will raise up sand, so too, we are concerned that the river will raise up sand, and hence we cannot rely on its banks to serve as partitions.


讛讛讜讗 诪讘讜讬 注拽讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讘住讜专讗 讻专讜讱 讘讜讚讬讗 讗讜转讬讘讜 讘讬讛 讘注拽诪讜诪讬转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 诇讗 讻专讘 讜诇讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 转讜专转讜 讻诪驻讜诇砖 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讘注讬 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 转讜专转讜 讻住转讜诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讞讬 诪注诇讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚谞砖讬讘 讘讬讛 讝讬拽讗 讜砖讚讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗


The Gemara further relates: With regard to a certain crooked L-shaped alleyway that was in Sura, the residents of the place rolled up a mat and placed it at the turn to serve as a side post to permit carrying within it. Rav 岣sda said: This was done neither in accordance with the opinion of Rav nor in accordance with that of Shmuel. The Gemara explains: According to Rav, who said that the halakha of a crooked L-shaped alleyway is like that of an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides, it requires an opening in the form of a doorway. And even according to Shmuel, who said that its halakha is like that of an alleyway that is closed at one side, so that carrying is permitted by means of a side post, this applies only to a case where a proper side post was erected. But with regard to this mat, once the wind blows upon it, it throws it over; it is regarded as nothing and is totally ineffective.


讜讗讬 谞注讬抓 讘讬讛 住讬讻转讗 讜讞讘专讬讛 讞讘专讬讛:


The Gemara comments: But if a peg was inserted into the mat, and thus the mat was properly attached to the wall, it is considered attached and serves as an effective side post.


讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜 诇讞爪专 讜谞驻专爪讛 讞爪专 讻谞讙讚讜 讞爪专 诪讜转专转 讜诪讘讜讬 讗住讜专


The Gemara examines Rav Yirmeya bar Abba鈥檚 statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. As to the matter itself, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: An alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard, and likewise the courtyard was breached on its opposite side into the public domain, the courtyard is permitted for carrying, and the alleyway is prohibited for carrying.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 诇专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 诇讗 诪砖谞转谞讜 讛讬讗 讝讜 讞爪专 拽讟谞讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讜拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛


Rabba bar Ulla said to Rav Beivai bar Abaye: My Master, is this case not the same as our Mishna? A smaller courtyard that was breached along the entire length of one of its walls into a larger courtyard, the larger one is permitted for carrying, and the smaller one is prohibited, because the breach is regarded as the entrance to the larger courtyard. With regard to the larger courtyard, the breach running the entire length of the smaller courtyard is considered like an entrance in one of its walls, for the breach is surrounded on both sides by the remaining portions of the wall of the larger courtyard, and therefore carrying is permitted. With regard to the smaller courtyard, however, one wall is missing in its entirety, and therefore carrying is forbidden. This seems to be exactly the same as the case of an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 讚专住讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 讚专住讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞爪专 谞诪讬


He, Rav Beivai bar Abaye, said to him, Rabba bar Ulla: If this was learned from there alone, I would have said that we must distinguish between the cases: The Mishna鈥檚 ruling only applies in a place where many people do not tread. The breach between the smaller and larger courtyard will not cause more people to pass through the larger courtyard, and therefore it remains a unit of its own. But in a place where many people tread, i.e., in the case where a courtyard is breached on one side into an alleyway and on the other side into the public domain, you might say that carrying is prohibited even in the courtyard as well, owing to the people passing through it from the alleyway to the public domain.


讜讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讞爪专 砖讛专讘讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇讛 讘讝讜 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 诇讛 讘讝讜 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讜专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇砖讘转


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 we already learn this as well, that the mere fact that many people tread through a courtyard does not forbid carrying, for we learned in the Tosefta: A courtyard that was properly surrounded by partitions, into which many people enter on this side and exit on that side, is considered a public domain with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, so that in cases of doubt, we say that the person or article is pure, but it is still a private domain with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. Therefore, we see that with regard to Shabbat, the sole criterion is the existence of partitions, and the fact that many people pass through the courtyard does not impair its status as a private domain.


讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛


The Gemara refutes this argument: If this was derived there alone, I would have said that this only applies in a case where the two breaches are not opposite one another,


讗讘诇 讝讛 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


but if the two breaches are opposite one another, you might say that it is not considered a private domain even with regard to Shabbat. Rav therefore teaches us that even if the breaches of the courtyard line up with each other, carrying is nonetheless permitted therein.


讜诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 讗住讜专 讛讗 讚专讘 讘诪讗讬 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: And according to Rabba, who said that where the alleyway terminates in a backyard and the breaches are one opposite another, carrying is prohibited, how does he construe Rav鈥檚 case? Rav鈥檚 ruling must refer to a case where the breaches are not one opposite another, and if so, why do I need two rulings? The essence of this halakha, that the yard is deemed a private domain with regard to Shabbat, was already stated in the Tosefta, so why did Rav need to teach another halakha with regard to the very same issue?


讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讝专讜拽 讗讘诇 诇讟诇讟诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara explains that there is a novelty in Rav鈥檚 teaching: If one learned the halakha from there, the Tosefta, alone, I would have said that this ruling that the courtyard is a private domain with regard to Shabbat only applies to the issue of throwing, i.e., that one who throws from the public domain into this courtyard is liable, since it is considered a private domain according to Torah law. But to allow carrying in it like a proper private domain, you might say no, that the Sages forbade carrying in it, owing to the many people passing through it. Rav therefore teaches us that we are not concerned about this, and that carrying in the yard is permitted, even by rabbinic law.


讗讬转诪专 诪讘讜讬 讛注砖讜讬 讻谞讚诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注讜砖讛 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 诇讙讚讜诇 讜讛谞讱 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讬砖转专讜 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree about the following matter: With regard to an alleyway that is shaped like a centipede, i.e., a long alleyway that opens to the public domain but with a series of small alleyways branching off of it on both of its sides, all of which also open to the public domain, Abaye said: An opening in the form of a doorway is made for the large alleyway, and all the small alleyways are permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讻诪讗谉 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 转讜专转讜 讻住转讜诐 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 讜注讜讚 讛讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讘讜讬 注拽讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讞砖讜 诇讛 诇讚专讘


Rava said to him: According to whom do you state this halakha? Apparently according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said that the halakha of a crooked L-shaped alleyway is like that of an alleyway that is closed at one side. For in this case of an alleyway that is shaped like a centipede, when each of the smaller alleyways connects to the larger alleyway, it forms a crooked L-shaped alleyway. However, if the halakha is indeed in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, why is the form of a doorway needed for it? According to Shmuel, an alleyway of this kind only requires a side post or a cross beam at each end in order to permit carrying within it. And furthermore, with regard to the crooked, L-shaped alleyway in Neharde鈥檃, which was Shmuel鈥檚 place of residence, didn鈥檛 they take into consideration the position of Rav? This indicates that the halakha in practice follows Rav as opposed to Shmuel.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讜砖讛 爪讜专转 讛驻转讞 诇讻讜诇讛讜 诇讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 诪讬砖转专讜 讘诇讞讬 讜拽讜专讛


Rather, Rava said: An alleyway made like a centipede can be rendered fit for one to carry within it as follows: An opening in the form of a doorway is made for all of the small alleyways on this one of their sides, and the other side is permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专 诪诇讻讬讜 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 专讘讬讛 讚专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专 诪诇讻讬讜 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 专讘讬讛 讚专讘 诪讘讜讬 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讗专讜讱 讜爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 拽爪专 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 讘讗诇讻住讜谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛拽爪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛拽讜专讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛拽爪专


The Gemara considers a new case: Rav Kahana bar Ta岣lifa said in the name of Rav Kahana bar Minyumi, who said in the name of Rav Kahana bar Malkiyu, who said in the name of Rav Kahana, the teacher of Rav; and some say that Rav Kahana bar Malkiyu is Rav Kahana, the teacher of Rav: With regard to an alleyway that opens into the public domain, its one side being long and its other side being short, i.e., one side juts out into the public domain more than the other, the halakha is as follows: If the difference in length between the two sides is less than four cubits, the cross beam is placed diagonally across the opening between the ends of the two walls of the alleyway. If, however, the difference is four cubits or more, the cross beam is placed straight across the alleyway at the end of the short side, i.e., at the end of the short side straight across toward the corresponding spot on the longer wall such that the beam is perpendicular to both walls, and no use may be made of the portion of the alleyway that lies beyond the cross beam. Rava disagreed and said: In both this case and in that case, the cross beam is placed straight across the alleyway at the end of the short side.


讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 拽讜专讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讬讻专 讜讘讗诇讻住讜谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讬讻专


Rava added: I will state my reason, and I will state their reason. I will state my reason: What is the reason for a cross beam? To function as a conspicuous marker that separates the alleyway from the public domain, so that the residents of the alleyway should know the boundary within which carrying is permitted, and when placed diagonally, the cross beam is not sufficiently conspicuous. Those who see people carrying in the section extending past the short side will think that one is generally permitted to carry in a public domain.


讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讛讜 拽讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讘讗诇讻住讜谉 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 诪讞讬爪讛


I will state their reason as well: What is the reason for a cross beam? To function as a partition, that is to say, the cross beam is considered as though it descended to the ground, creating a fourth wall for the alleyway. Hence, even when placed diagonally, it is considered a partition.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖诪注转转讗 讚讻讛谞讬 讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 讘讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 诪谞讬讞 讛拽讜专讛 讘讗诇讻住讜谉 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 讘讗诇讻住讜谞讜 讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讗诇讻住讜谞讜 讬讜转专 诪注砖专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讬讞 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛拽爪专


Rav Kahana said: Since this involves halakhot of Sages named Kahana, I too will say something with regard to it: That which you said, that the cross beam is placed diagonally across the alleyway, this was only said in a case where the diagonal is no more than ten cubits. But if the diagonal is more than ten cubits, then even if the width of the alleyway itself is less than ten cubits, all agree that the cross beam must be placed straight across the alleyway at the end of the short side, for an entrance wider than ten cubits cannot be permitted by a cross beam, and here the entire length under the cross beam is considered an entrance.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛 专讘 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讜 诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to utilizing and carrying in the area beneath the cross beam spanning the opening of an alleyway, which the beam permits carrying? Opinions differ on the matter. Rav, Rabbi 岣yya, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is permitted to utilize the area beneath the cross beam. Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is prohibited to utilize the area beneath the cross beam.


诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 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 suggests a way to understand this dispute: Shall we say that these amora鈥檌m argue over the following issue, that Master, representing those who permit it, holds: A cross beam serves in an alleyway as a conspicuous marker that separates it from the public domain, and Master, representing those who prohibit it, holds: A cross beam serves as a partition.


诇讗 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 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讬讻讬专讗 诪诇讙讬讜 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讬讻讬专讗 诪诇讘专


The Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone might agree that a cross beam serves as a conspicuous marker, but here they argue over the following: Master, representing those who forbid it, holds that the conspicuous marker is intended for those situated inside the alleyway, and hence the area outside the inner edge of the cross beam may not be used; and Master, representing those who permit it, holds that the conspicuous marker is intended for those outside in the public domain, and it is therefore permitted to carry up to the outer edge of the cross beam.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讞讜讚讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讜诪专 住讘专 讞讜讚讜 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐


The Gemara proposes an alternative explanation: And if you wish, you can say that everyone agrees that a cross beam permits carrying as a partition, and here they argue over the following issue: As one Sage holds that the inner edge of the cross beam descends to the ground and seals off the alleyway, and therefore under the cross beam is not within the closed-off area; and the other Sage holds that the cross beam鈥檚 outer edge descends to the ground and seals off the alleyway, and therefore it is permitted to carry even in the area beneath the cross beam. Consequently, there is no need to connect the dispute with regard to utilizing the area beneath the cross beam to the dispute with regard to the nature of the cross beam.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬诐 砖讗住讜专


Rav 岣sda said: All concede that utilizing the area between the side posts placed at the entrance to an alleyway to permit carrying is prohibited, for a side post functions as a partition, and therefore one may only use the space up to its inner edge, but no further.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 谞注抓 砖转讬 讬转讬讚讜转 讘砖谞讬 讻讜转诇讬 诪讘讜讬 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讛谞讬讞 拽讜专讛 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 诪讛讜


Rami bar 岣ma raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: What is the halakha in a case where a person inserted two pegs in the two alleyway walls, one in each wall, on the outside of the entrance facing the public domain, and he placed a cross beam on top of the pegs, such that the beam is attached to the front of the alleyway walls instead of on top of them? Does this cross beam permit carrying within the alleyway?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪转讬专 讗住讜专 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜住专 诪讜转专


Rav 岣sda said to him: According to the statement of the one who permits utilizing the area beneath the cross beam, carrying within the alleyway is prohibited, for he holds that the cross beam鈥檚 outer edge is the critical one, and here this outer edge is positioned outside the alleyway and therefore cannot permit it. Whereas according to the statement of the authority who prohibits utilizing the area beneath the cross beam, carrying in the alleyway is permitted, for the cross beam鈥檚 inner edge is attached to the entrance of the alleyway.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜住专 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讘注讬谞谉 拽讜专讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讘讜讬 讜诇讬讻讗


Rava, however, disagreed and said: Even according to the opinion of the one who prohibits utilizing the area beneath the cross beam, carrying in the alleyway is prohibited, for we require that the cross beam that permits the alleyway be placed on top of the walls of the alleyway, and it is not. A cross beam that merely touches the alleyway from the outside does not permit it.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇专讘讗 讛讬转讛 拽讜专转讜


Rav Adda bar Mattana raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: If the cross beam being used to render an alleyway permitted for carrying is


Scroll To Top