Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 17, 2020 | כ״ז 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 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.

 

ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא בין שעירבו ובין שלא עירבו פליגי בעירבו במאי פליגי בשלא עירבו במאי פליגי

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?

בשלא עירבו פליגי בנראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים

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.

בעירבו קמיפלגי בדרב יוסף דאמר רב יוסף לא שנו אלא שכלה לאמצע רחבה אבל כלה לצידי רחבה אסור

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.

אמר רבה הא דאמרת לאמצע רחבה מותר לא אמרן אלא זה שלא כנגד זה אבל זה כנגד זה אסור

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.

אמר רב משרשיא הא דאמרת זה שלא כנגד זה מותר לא אמרן אלא רחבה דרבים אבל רחבה דיחיד זימנין דמימלך עלה ובני לה בתים והוי לה כמבוי שכלה לה לצידי רחבה ואסור

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.

ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין רחבה דרבים לרחבה דיחיד דאמר רבין בר רב אדא אמר רבי יצחק מעשה במבוי אחד שצידו אחד כלה לים וצידו אחד כלה לאשפה ובא מעשה לפני רבי ולא אמר בה לא היתר ולא איסור

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 Yitzḥak 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.

איסור לא אמר בה דהא קיימי מחיצות היתר לא אמר בה חיישינן שמא תינטל אשפה ויעלה הים שרטון

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.

ומי חיישינן שמא תינטל אשפה והתנן אשפה ברשות הרבים גבוה עשרה טפחים חלון שעל גבה זורקין לה בשבת

The Gemara continues: Are we really concerned that perhaps the refuse heap will be removed? But didn’t 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.

אלמא שני בין אשפה דרבים לאשפה דיחיד

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.

הכא נמי שני בין רחבה דרבים לרחבה דיחיד

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.

ורבנן מאי

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’s 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.

אמר רב יוסף בר אבדימי תנא וחכמים אוסרין אמר רב נחמן הלכה כדברי חכמים איכא דאמרי אמר רב יוסף בר אבדימי תנא וחכמים מתירין אמר רב נחמן אין הלכה כדברי חכמים

Rav Yosef bar Avdimi said: It was taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis prohibit carrying in such an alleyway. Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

מרימר פסיק לה לסורא באוזלי אמר חיישינן שמא יעלה הים שרטון

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.

ההוא מבוי עקום דהוה בסורא כרוך בודיא אותיבו ביה בעקמומיתיה אמר רב חסדא הא לא כרב ולא כשמואל לרב דאמר תורתו כמפולש צורת הפתח בעי לשמואל דאמר תורתו כסתום הני מילי לחי מעליא אבל האי כיון דנשיב ביה זיקא ושדי ליה לא כלום הוא

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 Ḥisda 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.

ואי נעיץ ביה סיכתא וחבריה חבריה:

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.

גופא אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב מבוי שנפרץ במלואו לחצר ונפרצה חצר כנגדו חצר מותרת ומבוי אסור

The Gemara examines Rav Yirmeya bar Abba’s 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.

אמר ליה רבה בר עולא לרב ביבי בר אביי רבי לא משנתנו היא זו חצר קטנה שנפרצה לגדולה גדולה מותרת וקטנה אסורה מפני שהיא כפתחה של גדולה

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.

אמר ליה אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי היכא דלא קא דרסי בה רבים אבל היכא דקא דרסי בה רבים אימא אפילו חצר נמי

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’s 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.

והא נמי תנינא חצר שהרבים נכנסין לה בזו ויוצאין לה בזו רשות הרבים לטומאה ורשות היחיד לשבת

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t 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.

אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי זה שלא כנגד זה

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,

אבל זה כנגד זה אימא לא

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.

ולרבה דאמר זה כנגד זה אסור הא דרב במאי מוקי לה בזה שלא כנגד זה תרתי למה לי

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’s case? Rav’s 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?

אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי לזרוק אבל לטלטל אימא לא קא משמע לן

The Gemara explains that there is a novelty in Rav’s 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.

איתמר מבוי העשוי כנדל אמר אביי עושה צורת הפתח לגדול והנך כולהו מישתרו בלחי וקורה

It was stated that the amora’im 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.

אמר ליה רבא כמאן כשמואל דאמר תורתו כסתום למה ליה צורת הפתח ועוד הא ההוא מבוי עקום דהוה בנהרדעא וחשו לה לדרב

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’a, which was Shmuel’s place of residence, didn’t they take into consideration the position of Rav? This indicates that the halakha in practice follows Rav as opposed to Shmuel.

אלא אמר רבא עושה צורת הפתח לכולהו להאי גיסא ואידך גיסא מישתרו בלחי וקורה

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.

אמר רב כהנא בר תחליפא משמיה דרב כהנא בר מניומי משמיה דרב כהנא בר מלכיו משמיה דרב כהנא רביה דרב ואמרי לה רב כהנא בר מלכיו היינו רב כהנא רביה דרב מבוי שצידו אחד ארוך וצידו אחד קצר פחות מארבע אמות מניח את הקורה באלכסון ארבע אמות אינו מניח את הקורה אלא כנגד הקצר רבא אמר אחד זה ואחד זה אינו מניח את הקורה אלא כנגד הקצר

The Gemara considers a new case: Rav Kahana bar Taḥalifa 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.

ואימא טעמא דידי ואימא טעמא דידהו אימא טעמא דידי קורה טעמא מאי משום היכר ובאלכסון לא הוי היכר

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.

ואימא טעמא דידהו קורה משום מאי משום מחיצה ובאלכסון נמי הוי מחיצה

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.

אמר רב כהנא הואיל ושמעתתא דכהני היא אימא בה מילתא הא דאמרת מניח הקורה באלכסון לא אמרן אלא שאין באלכסונו יותר מעשר אבל יש באלכסונו יותר מעשר דברי הכל אינו מניח אלא כנגד הקצר

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.

איבעיא להו מהו להשתמש תחת הקורה רב ורבי חייא ורבי יוחנן אמרו מותר להשתמש תחת הקורה שמואל ורבי שמעון בר רבי ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמרו אסור להשתמש תחת הקורה

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 Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר קורה משום היכר ומר סבר קורה משום מחיצה

The Gemara suggests a way to understand this dispute: Shall we say that these amora’im 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.

לא דכולי עלמא קורה משום היכר והכא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר היכירא מלגיו ומר סבר היכירא מלבר

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.

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא משום מחיצה והכא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר חודו הפנימי יורד וסותם ומר סבר חודו החיצון יורד וסותם

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’s 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.

אמר רב חסדא הכל מודים בבין לחיים שאסור

Rav Ḥisda 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.

בעא מיניה רמי בר חמא מרב חסדא נעץ שתי יתידות בשני כותלי מבוי מבחוץ והניח קורה על גביהן מהו

Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: 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?

אמר ליה לדברי המתיר אסור לדברי האוסר מותר

Rav Ḥisda 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’s 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’s inner edge is attached to the entrance of the alleyway.

רבא אמר לדברי האוסר נמי אסור בעינן קורה על גבי מבוי וליכא

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.

איתיביה רב אדא בר מתנה לרבא היתה קורתו

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

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’s 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’AH הוצאה: Transferring objects between private and public domain OR 4 amot in public domain.  Rabbis added decrees...

Eruvin 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 8

ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא בין שעירבו ובין שלא עירבו פליגי בעירבו במאי פליגי בשלא עירבו במאי פליגי

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?

בשלא עירבו פליגי בנראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים

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.

בעירבו קמיפלגי בדרב יוסף דאמר רב יוסף לא שנו אלא שכלה לאמצע רחבה אבל כלה לצידי רחבה אסור

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.

אמר רבה הא דאמרת לאמצע רחבה מותר לא אמרן אלא זה שלא כנגד זה אבל זה כנגד זה אסור

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.

אמר רב משרשיא הא דאמרת זה שלא כנגד זה מותר לא אמרן אלא רחבה דרבים אבל רחבה דיחיד זימנין דמימלך עלה ובני לה בתים והוי לה כמבוי שכלה לה לצידי רחבה ואסור

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.

ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין רחבה דרבים לרחבה דיחיד דאמר רבין בר רב אדא אמר רבי יצחק מעשה במבוי אחד שצידו אחד כלה לים וצידו אחד כלה לאשפה ובא מעשה לפני רבי ולא אמר בה לא היתר ולא איסור

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 Yitzḥak 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.

איסור לא אמר בה דהא קיימי מחיצות היתר לא אמר בה חיישינן שמא תינטל אשפה ויעלה הים שרטון

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.

ומי חיישינן שמא תינטל אשפה והתנן אשפה ברשות הרבים גבוה עשרה טפחים חלון שעל גבה זורקין לה בשבת

The Gemara continues: Are we really concerned that perhaps the refuse heap will be removed? But didn’t 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.

אלמא שני בין אשפה דרבים לאשפה דיחיד

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.

הכא נמי שני בין רחבה דרבים לרחבה דיחיד

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.

ורבנן מאי

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’s 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.

אמר רב יוסף בר אבדימי תנא וחכמים אוסרין אמר רב נחמן הלכה כדברי חכמים איכא דאמרי אמר רב יוסף בר אבדימי תנא וחכמים מתירין אמר רב נחמן אין הלכה כדברי חכמים

Rav Yosef bar Avdimi said: It was taught in a baraita: And the Rabbis prohibit carrying in such an alleyway. Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

מרימר פסיק לה לסורא באוזלי אמר חיישינן שמא יעלה הים שרטון

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.

ההוא מבוי עקום דהוה בסורא כרוך בודיא אותיבו ביה בעקמומיתיה אמר רב חסדא הא לא כרב ולא כשמואל לרב דאמר תורתו כמפולש צורת הפתח בעי לשמואל דאמר תורתו כסתום הני מילי לחי מעליא אבל האי כיון דנשיב ביה זיקא ושדי ליה לא כלום הוא

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 Ḥisda 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.

ואי נעיץ ביה סיכתא וחבריה חבריה:

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.

גופא אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב מבוי שנפרץ במלואו לחצר ונפרצה חצר כנגדו חצר מותרת ומבוי אסור

The Gemara examines Rav Yirmeya bar Abba’s 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.

אמר ליה רבה בר עולא לרב ביבי בר אביי רבי לא משנתנו היא זו חצר קטנה שנפרצה לגדולה גדולה מותרת וקטנה אסורה מפני שהיא כפתחה של גדולה

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.

אמר ליה אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי היכא דלא קא דרסי בה רבים אבל היכא דקא דרסי בה רבים אימא אפילו חצר נמי

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’s 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.

והא נמי תנינא חצר שהרבים נכנסין לה בזו ויוצאין לה בזו רשות הרבים לטומאה ורשות היחיד לשבת

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t 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.

אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי זה שלא כנגד זה

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,

אבל זה כנגד זה אימא לא

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.

ולרבה דאמר זה כנגד זה אסור הא דרב במאי מוקי לה בזה שלא כנגד זה תרתי למה לי

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’s case? Rav’s 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?

אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי לזרוק אבל לטלטל אימא לא קא משמע לן

The Gemara explains that there is a novelty in Rav’s 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.

איתמר מבוי העשוי כנדל אמר אביי עושה צורת הפתח לגדול והנך כולהו מישתרו בלחי וקורה

It was stated that the amora’im 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.

אמר ליה רבא כמאן כשמואל דאמר תורתו כסתום למה ליה צורת הפתח ועוד הא ההוא מבוי עקום דהוה בנהרדעא וחשו לה לדרב

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’a, which was Shmuel’s place of residence, didn’t they take into consideration the position of Rav? This indicates that the halakha in practice follows Rav as opposed to Shmuel.

אלא אמר רבא עושה צורת הפתח לכולהו להאי גיסא ואידך גיסא מישתרו בלחי וקורה

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.

אמר רב כהנא בר תחליפא משמיה דרב כהנא בר מניומי משמיה דרב כהנא בר מלכיו משמיה דרב כהנא רביה דרב ואמרי לה רב כהנא בר מלכיו היינו רב כהנא רביה דרב מבוי שצידו אחד ארוך וצידו אחד קצר פחות מארבע אמות מניח את הקורה באלכסון ארבע אמות אינו מניח את הקורה אלא כנגד הקצר רבא אמר אחד זה ואחד זה אינו מניח את הקורה אלא כנגד הקצר

The Gemara considers a new case: Rav Kahana bar Taḥalifa 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.

ואימא טעמא דידי ואימא טעמא דידהו אימא טעמא דידי קורה טעמא מאי משום היכר ובאלכסון לא הוי היכר

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.

ואימא טעמא דידהו קורה משום מאי משום מחיצה ובאלכסון נמי הוי מחיצה

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.

אמר רב כהנא הואיל ושמעתתא דכהני היא אימא בה מילתא הא דאמרת מניח הקורה באלכסון לא אמרן אלא שאין באלכסונו יותר מעשר אבל יש באלכסונו יותר מעשר דברי הכל אינו מניח אלא כנגד הקצר

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.

איבעיא להו מהו להשתמש תחת הקורה רב ורבי חייא ורבי יוחנן אמרו מותר להשתמש תחת הקורה שמואל ורבי שמעון בר רבי ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמרו אסור להשתמש תחת הקורה

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 Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר קורה משום היכר ומר סבר קורה משום מחיצה

The Gemara suggests a way to understand this dispute: Shall we say that these amora’im 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.

לא דכולי עלמא קורה משום היכר והכא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר היכירא מלגיו ומר סבר היכירא מלבר

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.

ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא משום מחיצה והכא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר חודו הפנימי יורד וסותם ומר סבר חודו החיצון יורד וסותם

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’s 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.

אמר רב חסדא הכל מודים בבין לחיים שאסור

Rav Ḥisda 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.

בעא מיניה רמי בר חמא מרב חסדא נעץ שתי יתידות בשני כותלי מבוי מבחוץ והניח קורה על גביהן מהו

Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: 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?

אמר ליה לדברי המתיר אסור לדברי האוסר מותר

Rav Ḥisda 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’s 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’s inner edge is attached to the entrance of the alleyway.

רבא אמר לדברי האוסר נמי אסור בעינן קורה על גבי מבוי וליכא

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.

איתיביה רב אדא בר מתנה לרבא היתה קורתו

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

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

Scroll To Top