Eruvin 8

Eruvin 8

וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק אַדַּעְתִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא בֵּין שֶׁעֵירְבוּ וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ פְּלִיגִי: בְּעֵירְבוּ בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי, בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי?

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?

בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ — פְּלִיגִי בְּנִרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים.

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.

בְּעֵירְבוּ — קָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף. דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁכָּלֶה לְאֶמְצַע רְחָבָה, אֲבָל כָּלֶה לְצִידֵּי רְחָבָה — אָסוּר.

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.

אָמַר רַבָּה: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״לְאֶמְצַע רְחָבָה מוּתָּר״, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה, אֲבָל זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה — אָסוּר.

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.

אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה מוּתָּר״, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא רְחָבָה דְרַבִּים, אֲבָל רְחָבָה דְיָחִיד, זִימְנִין דְּמִימְּלַךְ עֲלַהּ וּבְנֵי לַהּ בָּתִּים, וְהָוֵי לַהּ כְּמָבוֹי שֶׁכָּלֶה לֵהּ לְצִידֵּי רְחָבָה וְאָסוּר.

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.

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁנֵי לַן בֵּין רְחָבָה דְרַבִּים לִרְחָבָה דְיָחִיד — דְּאָמַר רָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמָבוֹי אֶחָד שֶׁצִּידּוֹ אֶחָד כָּלֶה לַיָּם וְצִידּוֹ אֶחָד כָּלֶה לְאַשְׁפָּה, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, וְלֹא אָמַר בָּהּ לֹא הֶיתֵּר וְלֹא אִיסּוּר.

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.

אִיסּוּר לָא אֲמַר בַּהּ — דְּהָא קָיְימִי מְחִיצּוֹת. הֶיתֵּר לָא אֲמַר בַּהּ — חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תִּינָּטֵל אַשְׁפָּה, וְיַעֲלֶה הַיָּם שִׂרְטוֹן.

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.

וּמִי חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תִּינָּטֵל אַשְׁפָּה? וְהָתְנַן: אַשְׁפָּה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, חַלּוֹן שֶׁעַל גַּבָּהּ — זוֹרְקִין לָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת.

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.

אַלְמָא שָׁנֵי בֵּין אַשְׁפָּה דְרַבִּים לְאַשְׁפָּה דְיָחִיד.

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.

הָכָא נָמֵי, שָׁנֵי בֵּין רְחָבָה דְרַבִּים לִרְחָבָה דְיָחִיד.

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.

וְרַבָּנַן מַאי?

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.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר אַבְדִּימִי, תָּנָא: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין; אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר אַבְדִּימִי, תָּנָא: וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין; אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.

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.

מָרִימָר פָּסֵיק לַהּ לְסוּרָא בְּאוּזְלֵי. אָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה הַיָּם שִׂרְטוֹן.

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.

הָהוּא מָבוֹי עָקוֹם דַּהֲוָה בְּסוּרָא, כְּרוּךְ בּוּדְיָא אוֹתִיבוּ בֵּיהּ בְּעַקְמוּמִיתֵיהּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָא לָא כְּרַב וְלָא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל. לְרַב דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָתוֹ כִּמְפוּלָּשׁ — צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח בָּעֵי. לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָתוֹ כְּסָתוּם — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לֶחִי מְעַלְּיָא. אֲבָל הַאי, כֵּיוָן דְּנָשֵׁיב בֵּיהּ זִיקָא וְשָׁדֵי לֵיהּ — לֹא כְּלוּם הוּא.

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.

וְאִי נָעֵיץ בֵּיהּ סִיכְּתָא וְחַבְּרֵיהּ — חַבְּרֵיהּ.

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.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: מָבוֹי שֶׁנִּפְרַץ בִּמְלוֹאוֹ לְחָצֵר, וְנִפְרְצָה חָצֵר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ — חָצֵר מוּתֶּרֶת, וּמָבוֹי אָסוּר.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא לְרַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי, לֹא מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ הִיא זוֹ? ״חָצֵר קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה לִגְדוֹלָה — גְּדוֹלָה מוּתֶּרֶת וּקְטַנָּה אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּפִתְחָהּ שֶׁל גְּדוֹלָה״.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מֵהָתָם הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָא דָרְסִי בָּהּ רַבִּים, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּקָא דָרְסִי בַּהּ רַבִּים — אֵימָא אֲפִילּוּ חָצֵר נָמֵי.

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.

וְהָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: חָצֵר שֶׁהָרַבִּים נִכְנָסִין לָהּ בָּזוֹ וְיוֹצְאִין לָהּ בְּזוֹ, רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לַטּוּמְאָה, וּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לַשַּׁבָּת.

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.

אִי מֵהָתָם הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי, זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה.

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,

אֲבָל זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה, אֵימָא לָא.

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.

וּלְרַבָּה דְּאָמַר זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה אָסוּר, הָא דְּרַב בְּמַאי מוֹקֵי לָהּ — בְּזֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה, תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי?

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?

אִי מֵהָתָם הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי לִזְרוֹק, אֲבָל לְטַלְטֵל — אֵימָא לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

אִיתְּמַר: מָבוֹי הֶעָשׂוּי כְּנַדָּל, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: עוֹשֶׂה צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח לַגָּדוֹל, וְהָנָךְ כּוּלְּהוּ מִישְׁתְּרוּ בְּלֶחִי וְקוֹרָה.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: כְּמַאן, כִּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָתוֹ כְּסָתוּם — לְמָה לֵיהּ צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח? וְעוֹד, הָא הָהוּא מָבוֹי עָקוֹם דַּהֲוָה בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, וְחַשּׁוּ לָהּ לִדְרַב!

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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: עוֹשֶׂה צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח לְכוּלְּהוּ לְהַאי גִּיסָא, וְאִידָּךְ גִּיסָא מִישְׁתְּרוּ בְּלֶחִי וְקוֹרָה.

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.

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא בַּר מַלְכִּיּוֹ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא רַבֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ, רַב כָּהֲנָא בַּר מַלְכִּיּוֹ הַיְינוּ רַב כָּהֲנָא רַבֵּיהּ דְּרַב: מָבוֹי שֶׁצִּידּוֹ אֶחָד אָרוֹךְ וְצִידּוֹ אֶחָד קָצָר, פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת מַנִּיחַ אֶת הַקּוֹרָה בַּאֲלַכְסוֹן. אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — אֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ אֶת הַקּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד הַקָּצָר. רָבָא אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה אֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ אֶת הַקּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד הַקָּצָר.

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.

וְאֵימָא טַעְמָא דִידִי, וְאֵימָא טַעְמָא דִידְהוּ. אֵימָא טַעְמָא דִידִי: קוֹרָה טַעְמָא מַאי — מִשּׁוּם הֶיכֵּר, וּבַאֲלַכְסוֹן לָא הָוֵי הֶיכֵּר.

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.

וְאֵימָא טַעְמָא דִידְהוּ, קוֹרָה מִשּׁוּם מַאי — מִשּׁוּם מְחִיצָה. וּבַאֲלַכְסוֹן נָמֵי הָוֵי מְחִיצָה.

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.

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: הוֹאִיל וּשְׁמַעְתְּתָא דְכָהֲנֵי הִיא, אֵימָא בַּהּ מִילְּתָא. הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מַנִּיחַ הַקּוֹרָה בַּאֲלַכְסוֹן, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין בַּאֲלַכְסוֹנוֹ יוֹתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בַּאֲלַכְסוֹנוֹ יוֹתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד הַקָּצָר.

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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ תַּחַת הַקּוֹרָה? רַב וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרוּ: מוּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ תַּחַת הַקּוֹרָה. שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמְרוּ: אָסוּר לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ תַּחַת הַקּוֹרָה.

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.

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: קוֹרָה מִשּׁוּם הֶיכֵּר, וּמָר סָבַר: קוֹרָה מִשּׁוּם מְחִיצָה.

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.

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא קוֹרָה מִשּׁוּם הֶיכֵּר, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: הֶיכֵּירָא מִלְּגָיו, וּמָר סָבַר: הֶיכֵּירָא מִלְּבַר.

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.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִשּׁוּם מְחִיצָה, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: חוּדּוֹ הַפְּנִימִי יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם, וּמָר סָבַר: חוּדּוֹ הַחִיצוֹן יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם.

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.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבֵין לְחָיַיִם שֶׁאָסוּר.

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.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: נָעַץ שְׁתֵּי יְתֵידוֹת בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹתְלֵי מָבוֹי מִבַּחוּץ, וְהִנִּיחַ קוֹרָה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, מַהוּ?

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?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְדִבְרֵי הַמַּתִּיר — אָסוּר, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹסֵר — מוּתָּר.

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.

רָבָא אָמַר: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹסֵר נָמֵי אָסוּר — בָּעִינַן קוֹרָה עַל גַּבֵּי מָבוֹי, וְלֵיכָּא.

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.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה לְרָבָא: הָיְתָה קוֹרָתוֹ

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