Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 18, 2020 | כ״ח 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 9

Today’s daf is dedicated by Yael Asher in memory of her father, Elchanan Yosipuf ben Yeshua z”l on his yahrzeit. 

If a peg was hung on the outside of the alley and the beam attached to that, would it work? Does it depend on what one holds regarding the way the beam functions as an imaginary wall – if we view it as if the outer edge comes down or the inner edge? Rava thinks that either way it is a problem. Rava’s opinion is questioned from a braita which discusses a beam that is drawn away or suspended. In order to resolve it, the gemara brings different explanations for the case in the braita. Is the space between posts permitted? Rabbi Zakai brought a braita which said both under the beam and between the posts is allowed and Rabbi Yochanan told him it was a problematic braita. Rava and Abaye disagree over which part of the braita Rabbi Yochanan thought was incorrect. Each brings a source to prove their position. Rava is questioned by another source and two potential answers are brought. If the post can be seen from the outside but not the inside, is it valid? Different answers are brought. One is questioned by the mishna regarding a smaller courtyard open into a larger one. And the gemara explains the case slightly differently in order to resolve the question.

משוכה או תלויה פחות משלשה אין צריך להביא קורה אחרת שלשה צריך להביא קורה אחרת רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר פחות מארבעה אין צריך להביא קורה אחרת ארבעה צריך להביא קורה אחרת

drawn away from the alleyway walls or suspended in the air, the following distinction applies: If the cross beam is less than three handbreadths from the walls, one is not required to bring a different cross beam, for it is considered attached to the walls based on the principle of lavud, which views two solid surfaces as connected if the gap between them is less than three handbreadths wide. However, if the distance is three or more handbreadths from the walls, he is required to bring a different cross beam in order to permit carrying in the alleyway. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that the principle of lavud applies to a gap of up to four handbreadths wide, says: If the cross beam is less than four handbreadths from the wall, one is not required to bring a different cross beam; but if the distance is four handbreadths from the wall, he is required to bring a different cross beam.

מאי לאו משוכה מבחוץ ותלויה מבפנים

The Gemara wishes to clarify the baraita: What, is it not that when the baraita speaks of a cross beam that is drawn away from the alleyway walls, it is referring to a cross beam that is distanced from the alleyway walls and situated on the outside in the public domain, similar to the case of the cross beam resting on pegs mentioned above? And when it speaks of a cross beam that is suspended, isn’t it referring to a cross beam that is distanced from the alleyway walls and placed on the inside in the alleyway? This interpretation contradicts Rava’s statement above that disqualifies such a cross beam.

לא אידי ואידי מבפנים משוכה מרוח אחת ותלויה משתי רוחות

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, both this, the cross beam that is drawn away, and that, the crossbeam that is suspended, are located on the inside of the alleyway. The difference between them is that the cross beam that is drawn away is distanced from the wall from one direction, while a suspended cross beam does not lie on the alleyway walls at all, but is distanced from them from both directions.

מהו דתימא מרוח אחת אמרינן לבוד משתי רוחות לא אמרינן לבוד קא משמע לן

Lest you say that if the cross beam is distanced from the wall from one direction, we say that the principle of lavud applies, and it is as if the cross beam is joined to the wall; but if it is distanced from the wall from two directions, we do not say that the principle of lavud applies. The baraita, therefore, comes and teaches us that there is no difference in this regard.

רב אשי אמר משוכה והיא תלויה והיכי דמי כגון שנעץ שתי יתידות עקומות על שני כותלי מבוי שאין בגובהן שלשה ואין בעקמומיתן שלשה מהו דתימא או לבוד אמרינן או חבוט אמרינן לבוד וחבוט לא אמרינן קא משמע לן

Rav Ashi said: The baraita refers to a cross beam that is drawn away from the walls and also suspended in the air. And what are the circumstances where this would be the case? For example, where he inserted two bent pegs on the tops of the two alleyway walls, and the height of the pegs from the top of the walls is less than three handbreadths, and their bend inward is less than three handbreadths, and a cross beam rests on top of them. Lest you say that we either say lavud, i.e., we consider the cross beam to be virtually extended and thus connected to the wall, or we say ḥavut, pressed down, that we consider the cross beam to be pressed down vertically; but we do not say both lavud and ḥavut. The baraita therefore teaches us that even in that case we say that any item adjacent to another with a gap of less than three handbreadths between them is considered connected to it, whether to the side or below, and even in both directions at once.

תני רבי זכאי קמיה דרבי יוחנן בין לחיים ותחת הקורה נידון ככרמלית אמר ליה פוק תני לברא

Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The area between the side posts and beneath the cross beam has the legal status of a karmelit, and it is forbidden to carry in it. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Exit and teach this halakha outside, i.e., this baraita is not in accordance with the accepted halakha, and therefore it should not be made part of the regular learning in the study hall.

אמר אביי מסתברא מילתיה דרבי יוחנן תחת הקורה אבל בין לחיין אסור ורבא אמר בין לחיים נמי מותר

The Gemara records a dispute with regard to the scope of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Abaye said: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is reasonable with regard to the area beneath the cross beam, as only the area beneath the cross beam should be considered a private domain, but between the side posts, carrying is indeed prohibited, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai. And Rava said: The entire statement of Rabbi Zakkai is to be rejected, as Rabbi Yoḥanan asserted, and even in the area between the side posts carrying is permitted.

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן מקום שאין בו ארבעה על ארבעה מותר לבני רשות הרבים ולבני רשות היחיד לכתף עליו ובלבד שלא יחליפו

Rava said: From where do I know to say this, that carrying is permitted even between the side posts? For when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A place that has an area of less than four by four handbreadths and is located between a public and private domain but belongs to neither has the status of an exempt domain with regard to carrying on Shabbat. Therefore, it is permitted for both the people in the public domain as well as the people in the private domain to use it for loading their burdens onto their shoulders, so long as they do not exchange objects with one another. Therefore, a place having an area of less than four handbreadths is not considered a karmelit, but rather an exempt domain, where carrying is permitted. Consequently, the area between the side posts should likewise be considered an exempt domain, and carrying should be permitted within it.

ואביי התם בגבוה שלשה

And Abaye said that this offers no proof, as there, with regard to Rav Dimi’s statement, the area being discussed is at least three handbreadths high, setting it apart from the other domains. It is therefore considered a domain in its own right, and has the halakha of an exempt domain.

אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דאמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב תוך הפתח צריך לחי אחר להתירו

The Gemara considers the position of Abaye: Abaye said: From where do I know to say this, that the area between the side posts has the halakha of a karmelit? For Rav Ḥama bar Guria said that Rav said: The area within the opening, i.e., the doorway between two entrance posts that serve as side posts to permit carrying in the alleyway, requires another side post in order to permit carrying there, for the entrance posts alone do not suffice. This demonstrates that it is forbidden to carry in the space between the side posts without another side post.

וכי תימא דאית ביה ארבעה על ארבעה והאמר רב חנין בר רבא אמר רב תוך הפתח אף על פי שאין בו ארבעה על ארבעה צריך לחי אחר להתירו

And if you say that this is a case where the doorway has an area four by four handbreadths, and therefore an additional side post is required to permit carrying there, this is not a valid argument. For didn’t Rav Ḥanin bar Rava say that Rav said: The area within the opening itself, even if it does not have an area of four by four handbreadths, requires an additional side post in order to permit carrying within it. This indicates that the area between the side posts is not to be used.

ורבא התם דפתוח לכרמלית

And Rava replies that a distinction must be made between the cases: There, the case of Rav’s ruling refers to a scenario where the alleyway’s entrance opens to a karmelit, and thus the space between the entrance posts is also viewed as a karmelit, and an additional side post is required.

אבל לרשות הרבים מאי שרי יציבא בארעא וגיורא בשמי שמיא

The Gemara poses a question: But if the entrance opens to a public domain, what would be the halakha? Would it be permitted to carry there even without an additional side post? If so, it follows that the halakha of a karmelit is more stringent than that of a public domain. However, this seems untenable, for carrying in a karmelit is prohibited only by rabbinic decree, owing to the similarity between a karmelit and the public domain. This is similar to a situation where a permanent resident is down on the ground, while a stranger is raised up to the highest heaven, the very opposite of the appropriate state of affairs.

אין מצא מין את מינו וניעור

The Gemara comments: Yes, it is possible that this is the ruling, for we can say that it has found its own type and been awakened. In other words, as the area within the entranceway is not a defined domain, it doesn’t have the status of an independent domain. Therefore, when it opens into a karmelit, to which it is similar, its status is negated, and it joins with the karmelit to form a single unit. However, when it opens into a public domain, it cannot join with it because it is not similar to a public domain, which has a totally different set of laws; and therefore it is considered part of the alleyway, and it is permitted to carry within it.

אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרבא ואת לא תסברא דבין לחיין אסור והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מבוי שרצפו בלחיין פחות פחות מארבעה באנו למחלוקת רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן

Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: And you do not hold that in the area between the side posts carrying is prohibited? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If an alleyway was lined with side posts, each one set more than three but less than four handbreadths apart from its neighbor, we have arrived in this matter at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis with regard to the measure of lavud.

לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאמר אמרינן לבוד משתמש עד חודו הפנימי של לחי הפנימי לרבנן דאמרי לא אמרינן לבוד משתמש עד חודו הפנימי של חיצון אבל בין לחיין דכולי עלמא אסור

How so? According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that if the gap between two items is less than four handbreadths, we say that the principle of lavud applies; all the side posts are considered a single side post. He may therefore only utilize the alleyway up to the inner edge of the innermost side post, but no more. However, according to the Rabbis, who say that we do not say the principle of lavud applies unless the gap is less than three handbreadths, he may utilize the alleyway up to the inner edge of the outermost side post. This discussion demonstrates that the argument revolves around the question as to which side post establishes the permitted area. But with regard to the area between the side posts, all agree that carrying is prohibited.

ורבא התם נמי דפתוח לכרמלית

And Rava answers that there too, it refers to a case where the alleyway’s entrance opens to a karmelit.

אבל לרשות הרבים מאי שרי יציבא בארעא וגיורא בשמי שמיא אין מצא מין את מינו וניעור

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if the entrance opens to a public domain, what is its legal status – would carrying be permitted? If so, the halakha of a karmelit is more severe than that of a public domain. Once again, this can be likened to a situation where a permanent resident is down on the ground, while a stranger is raised up to the highest heaven. The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed, this is the ruling, but one should not be perplexed, as we have explained: it has found its own type and been awakened.

רב אשי אמר כגון שרצפו בלחיים פחות פחות מארבעה במשך ארבע אמות

The Gemara provides an alternative explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. Rav Ashi said: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, carrying in the area between the side posts is actually permitted. The dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis concerning the principle of lavud is in a case where there was an alleyway that one lined with side posts, each positioned less than four handbreadths from the next, and the side posts extend for a length of four cubits.

לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאמר אמרינן לבוד הוה ליה מבוי וצריך לחי אחר להתירו ולרבנן דאמרי לא אמרינן לבוד לא צריך לחי אחר להתירו

According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that for a gap of up to four handbreadths we say that the principle of lavud applies, all the side posts are considered a single side post, and since the side post in that case is four cubits long, it is considered a separate alleyway; therefore, it requires an additional side post to permit carrying in it. And according to the Rabbis, who say that we do not say that the principle of lavud applies unless the gap is less than three handbreadths, this area does not require an additional side post to permit carrying within it.

ולרבן שמעון בן גמליאל להוי כנראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים

The Gemara asks: And even according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, why is another side post required? Let it have the same legal status as a side post that is visible from the outside, protruding from the wall of the alleyway, but appears to be even with the wall from the inside. Since it is evident from the outside that it is a side post and not part of the building, carrying is permitted there.

מידי הוא טעמא אלא לרבי יוחנן הא כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים אינו נידון משום לחי

The Gemara answers: As Rav Ashi’s reason is only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, didn’t he say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a side post is visible from the outside, protruding from the wall of the alleyway, but it appears to be even with the wall from the inside, it is not considered to have the legal status of a side post?

איתמר נראה מבפנים ושוה מבחוץ נידון משום לחי נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים רבי חייא ורבי שמעון ברבי חד אמר נידון משום לחי וחד אמר אינו נידון משום לחי

An amoraic dispute was stated: If a side post is visible from the inside, protruding from the wall of the alleyway, but it appears to be even with the wall from the outside, it is considered a side post. However, if a side post is visible from the outside protruding from the wall, but it appears to be even with the wall from the inside, there is a disagreement between Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to its status. One said: It is considered to have the legal status of a side post. And the other one said: It is not considered to have the legal status of a side post.

תסתיים דרבי חייא הוא דאמר נידון משום לחי דתני רבי חייא כותל שצידו אחד כנוס מחבירו בין שנראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים ובין שנראה מבפנים ושוה מבחוץ נידון משום לחי תסתיים

The Gemara clarifies: Conclude that Rabbi Ḥiyya is the one who said that it is considered to have the legal status of a side post, as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: In the case of a wall at the entrance to an alleyway whose one side is more recessed than the other, whether the recess is visible from outside the alleyway but appears to be even from the inside, or the recess is visible from the inside but appears to be even from the outside, it is considered to have the legal status of a side post. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude that Rabbi Ḥiyya is the one who said it has the legal status of a side post.

ורבי יוחנן מי לא שמיע ליה הא אלא שמיע ליה ולא סבר לה רבי חייא נמי לא סבר לה

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, who explicitly said that a side post of that kind is not considered a side post, did he not hear this halakha? The Tosefta was widely known. Rather, he heard it, but he does not hold in accordance with it. Perhaps, then, Rabbi Ḥiyya also does not hold in accordance with it.

האי מאי בשלמא רבי יוחנן לא סבר לה משום הכי לא תני לה אלא רבי חייא אי איתא דלא סבר לה למה ליה למיתנא

The Gemara answers: What is this comparison? Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold in accordance with that halakha. That is why he did not teach it. But Rabbi Ḥiyya, if it is true that he does not hold in accordance with it, why would he teach it?

אמר רבה בר רב הונא נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים נידון משום לחי אמר רבה ומותבינן אשמעתין חצר קטנה שנפרצה לגדולה גדולה מותרת וקטנה אסורה מפני שהיא כפתחה של גדולה ואם איתא קטנה נמי תשתרי בנראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: If a side post is visible from the outside, protruding from the wall of the alleyway, but appears to be even with the wall from the inside, it is considered to have the legal status of a side post. Rabba said: And we raise an objection to our own halakha from a mishna: With regard to a small courtyard that was breached along the entire length of one of its walls so that it opens into a large courtyard, in the large one it is permitted to carry and in the small one it is prohibited to carry. This is because the breach is considered an entrance of the large courtyard. The wall of the smaller courtyard was breached along its entire length, therefore there is no visible partition from inside the smaller courtyard. However, the partition is noticeable from the outside, i.e., in the large courtyard, since the breach is flanked on both sides by the remaining segments of the wall of the large courtyard. And if it is so, that a partition that is visible from the outside is considered a partition, carrying in the small courtyard should also be permitted in this case, as the wall is visible from the outside but appears to be even from the inside.

אמר רבי זירא בנכנסין כותלי קטנה לגדולה

Rabbi Zeira said: This mishna is referring to a case where the walls of the small courtyard protrude into the large one, i.e., the breached wall of the small courtyard is not in line with the wall of the large one. Therefore, even when viewed from the outside there are no walls visible, and that is why carrying is prohibited there.

ולימא לבוד ותשתרי

The Gemara asks: And let us say that the principle of lavud applies, and then carrying will be permitted even in the small courtyard. The ends of the breached wall should be considered attached to the side walls of the large courtyard, rendering the wall of the large courtyard visible. Then it will be permitted to carry in the small courtyard based on the principle governing side posts visible from the outside.

וכי תימא דמפלגי טובא והא תני רב אדא בר אבימי קמיה דרבי חנינא קטנה בעשר גדולה באחת עשרה

And if you say that the walls of the smaller courtyard are too separate from the walls of the larger courtyard, such that the distance between the walls is too great for the principle of lavud to apply, didn’t Rav Adda bar Avimi teach before Rabbi Ḥanina: The small courtyard of which they speak is referring even to one ten cubits wide; the large one is referring even to one eleven cubits wide? Apparently, this halakha applies even when the difference in width between the courtyards is a single cubit, which is six handbreadths. Assuming the small courtyard is located equidistant from the ends of the large courtyard, only three handbreadths separate it on each side from the wall of the large one. Therefore, the principle of lavud applies.

אמר רבינא במופלגין מכותל זה בשנים ומכותל זה בארבעה

Ravina said: It is a case where the walls of the smaller courtyard are separated from this wall of the larger courtyard by two handbreadths and from this wall of the larger courtyard on the other side by four handbreadths. Since there is a distance of more than three handbreadths, the principle of lavud does not apply.

ולימא לבוד מרוח אחת ותשתרי

The Gemara asks: And let us say that the principle of lavud applies from one direction,then carrying will be permitted even in the small courtyard.

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Eruvin 2-9

We will start Masechet Eruvin this week and review the key concepts in Daf 2-9 including understanding what an open...
talking talmud_square

Eruvin 9: When Like Finds Like

Topics recurring with more development on each pass, like a spiral passing through again, but at a distance reflecting that...
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 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 9

משוכה או תלויה פחות משלשה אין צריך להביא קורה אחרת שלשה צריך להביא קורה אחרת רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר פחות מארבעה אין צריך להביא קורה אחרת ארבעה צריך להביא קורה אחרת

drawn away from the alleyway walls or suspended in the air, the following distinction applies: If the cross beam is less than three handbreadths from the walls, one is not required to bring a different cross beam, for it is considered attached to the walls based on the principle of lavud, which views two solid surfaces as connected if the gap between them is less than three handbreadths wide. However, if the distance is three or more handbreadths from the walls, he is required to bring a different cross beam in order to permit carrying in the alleyway. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that the principle of lavud applies to a gap of up to four handbreadths wide, says: If the cross beam is less than four handbreadths from the wall, one is not required to bring a different cross beam; but if the distance is four handbreadths from the wall, he is required to bring a different cross beam.

מאי לאו משוכה מבחוץ ותלויה מבפנים

The Gemara wishes to clarify the baraita: What, is it not that when the baraita speaks of a cross beam that is drawn away from the alleyway walls, it is referring to a cross beam that is distanced from the alleyway walls and situated on the outside in the public domain, similar to the case of the cross beam resting on pegs mentioned above? And when it speaks of a cross beam that is suspended, isn’t it referring to a cross beam that is distanced from the alleyway walls and placed on the inside in the alleyway? This interpretation contradicts Rava’s statement above that disqualifies such a cross beam.

לא אידי ואידי מבפנים משוכה מרוח אחת ותלויה משתי רוחות

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, both this, the cross beam that is drawn away, and that, the crossbeam that is suspended, are located on the inside of the alleyway. The difference between them is that the cross beam that is drawn away is distanced from the wall from one direction, while a suspended cross beam does not lie on the alleyway walls at all, but is distanced from them from both directions.

מהו דתימא מרוח אחת אמרינן לבוד משתי רוחות לא אמרינן לבוד קא משמע לן

Lest you say that if the cross beam is distanced from the wall from one direction, we say that the principle of lavud applies, and it is as if the cross beam is joined to the wall; but if it is distanced from the wall from two directions, we do not say that the principle of lavud applies. The baraita, therefore, comes and teaches us that there is no difference in this regard.

רב אשי אמר משוכה והיא תלויה והיכי דמי כגון שנעץ שתי יתידות עקומות על שני כותלי מבוי שאין בגובהן שלשה ואין בעקמומיתן שלשה מהו דתימא או לבוד אמרינן או חבוט אמרינן לבוד וחבוט לא אמרינן קא משמע לן

Rav Ashi said: The baraita refers to a cross beam that is drawn away from the walls and also suspended in the air. And what are the circumstances where this would be the case? For example, where he inserted two bent pegs on the tops of the two alleyway walls, and the height of the pegs from the top of the walls is less than three handbreadths, and their bend inward is less than three handbreadths, and a cross beam rests on top of them. Lest you say that we either say lavud, i.e., we consider the cross beam to be virtually extended and thus connected to the wall, or we say ḥavut, pressed down, that we consider the cross beam to be pressed down vertically; but we do not say both lavud and ḥavut. The baraita therefore teaches us that even in that case we say that any item adjacent to another with a gap of less than three handbreadths between them is considered connected to it, whether to the side or below, and even in both directions at once.

תני רבי זכאי קמיה דרבי יוחנן בין לחיים ותחת הקורה נידון ככרמלית אמר ליה פוק תני לברא

Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The area between the side posts and beneath the cross beam has the legal status of a karmelit, and it is forbidden to carry in it. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Exit and teach this halakha outside, i.e., this baraita is not in accordance with the accepted halakha, and therefore it should not be made part of the regular learning in the study hall.

אמר אביי מסתברא מילתיה דרבי יוחנן תחת הקורה אבל בין לחיין אסור ורבא אמר בין לחיים נמי מותר

The Gemara records a dispute with regard to the scope of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: Abaye said: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is reasonable with regard to the area beneath the cross beam, as only the area beneath the cross beam should be considered a private domain, but between the side posts, carrying is indeed prohibited, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai. And Rava said: The entire statement of Rabbi Zakkai is to be rejected, as Rabbi Yoḥanan asserted, and even in the area between the side posts carrying is permitted.

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן מקום שאין בו ארבעה על ארבעה מותר לבני רשות הרבים ולבני רשות היחיד לכתף עליו ובלבד שלא יחליפו

Rava said: From where do I know to say this, that carrying is permitted even between the side posts? For when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A place that has an area of less than four by four handbreadths and is located between a public and private domain but belongs to neither has the status of an exempt domain with regard to carrying on Shabbat. Therefore, it is permitted for both the people in the public domain as well as the people in the private domain to use it for loading their burdens onto their shoulders, so long as they do not exchange objects with one another. Therefore, a place having an area of less than four handbreadths is not considered a karmelit, but rather an exempt domain, where carrying is permitted. Consequently, the area between the side posts should likewise be considered an exempt domain, and carrying should be permitted within it.

ואביי התם בגבוה שלשה

And Abaye said that this offers no proof, as there, with regard to Rav Dimi’s statement, the area being discussed is at least three handbreadths high, setting it apart from the other domains. It is therefore considered a domain in its own right, and has the halakha of an exempt domain.

אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דאמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב תוך הפתח צריך לחי אחר להתירו

The Gemara considers the position of Abaye: Abaye said: From where do I know to say this, that the area between the side posts has the halakha of a karmelit? For Rav Ḥama bar Guria said that Rav said: The area within the opening, i.e., the doorway between two entrance posts that serve as side posts to permit carrying in the alleyway, requires another side post in order to permit carrying there, for the entrance posts alone do not suffice. This demonstrates that it is forbidden to carry in the space between the side posts without another side post.

וכי תימא דאית ביה ארבעה על ארבעה והאמר רב חנין בר רבא אמר רב תוך הפתח אף על פי שאין בו ארבעה על ארבעה צריך לחי אחר להתירו

And if you say that this is a case where the doorway has an area four by four handbreadths, and therefore an additional side post is required to permit carrying there, this is not a valid argument. For didn’t Rav Ḥanin bar Rava say that Rav said: The area within the opening itself, even if it does not have an area of four by four handbreadths, requires an additional side post in order to permit carrying within it. This indicates that the area between the side posts is not to be used.

ורבא התם דפתוח לכרמלית

And Rava replies that a distinction must be made between the cases: There, the case of Rav’s ruling refers to a scenario where the alleyway’s entrance opens to a karmelit, and thus the space between the entrance posts is also viewed as a karmelit, and an additional side post is required.

אבל לרשות הרבים מאי שרי יציבא בארעא וגיורא בשמי שמיא

The Gemara poses a question: But if the entrance opens to a public domain, what would be the halakha? Would it be permitted to carry there even without an additional side post? If so, it follows that the halakha of a karmelit is more stringent than that of a public domain. However, this seems untenable, for carrying in a karmelit is prohibited only by rabbinic decree, owing to the similarity between a karmelit and the public domain. This is similar to a situation where a permanent resident is down on the ground, while a stranger is raised up to the highest heaven, the very opposite of the appropriate state of affairs.

אין מצא מין את מינו וניעור

The Gemara comments: Yes, it is possible that this is the ruling, for we can say that it has found its own type and been awakened. In other words, as the area within the entranceway is not a defined domain, it doesn’t have the status of an independent domain. Therefore, when it opens into a karmelit, to which it is similar, its status is negated, and it joins with the karmelit to form a single unit. However, when it opens into a public domain, it cannot join with it because it is not similar to a public domain, which has a totally different set of laws; and therefore it is considered part of the alleyway, and it is permitted to carry within it.

אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרבא ואת לא תסברא דבין לחיין אסור והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מבוי שרצפו בלחיין פחות פחות מארבעה באנו למחלוקת רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן

Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: And you do not hold that in the area between the side posts carrying is prohibited? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If an alleyway was lined with side posts, each one set more than three but less than four handbreadths apart from its neighbor, we have arrived in this matter at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis with regard to the measure of lavud.

לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאמר אמרינן לבוד משתמש עד חודו הפנימי של לחי הפנימי לרבנן דאמרי לא אמרינן לבוד משתמש עד חודו הפנימי של חיצון אבל בין לחיין דכולי עלמא אסור

How so? According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that if the gap between two items is less than four handbreadths, we say that the principle of lavud applies; all the side posts are considered a single side post. He may therefore only utilize the alleyway up to the inner edge of the innermost side post, but no more. However, according to the Rabbis, who say that we do not say the principle of lavud applies unless the gap is less than three handbreadths, he may utilize the alleyway up to the inner edge of the outermost side post. This discussion demonstrates that the argument revolves around the question as to which side post establishes the permitted area. But with regard to the area between the side posts, all agree that carrying is prohibited.

ורבא התם נמי דפתוח לכרמלית

And Rava answers that there too, it refers to a case where the alleyway’s entrance opens to a karmelit.

אבל לרשות הרבים מאי שרי יציבא בארעא וגיורא בשמי שמיא אין מצא מין את מינו וניעור

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if the entrance opens to a public domain, what is its legal status – would carrying be permitted? If so, the halakha of a karmelit is more severe than that of a public domain. Once again, this can be likened to a situation where a permanent resident is down on the ground, while a stranger is raised up to the highest heaven. The Gemara answers: Yes, indeed, this is the ruling, but one should not be perplexed, as we have explained: it has found its own type and been awakened.

רב אשי אמר כגון שרצפו בלחיים פחות פחות מארבעה במשך ארבע אמות

The Gemara provides an alternative explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. Rav Ashi said: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, carrying in the area between the side posts is actually permitted. The dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis concerning the principle of lavud is in a case where there was an alleyway that one lined with side posts, each positioned less than four handbreadths from the next, and the side posts extend for a length of four cubits.

לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאמר אמרינן לבוד הוה ליה מבוי וצריך לחי אחר להתירו ולרבנן דאמרי לא אמרינן לבוד לא צריך לחי אחר להתירו

According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that for a gap of up to four handbreadths we say that the principle of lavud applies, all the side posts are considered a single side post, and since the side post in that case is four cubits long, it is considered a separate alleyway; therefore, it requires an additional side post to permit carrying in it. And according to the Rabbis, who say that we do not say that the principle of lavud applies unless the gap is less than three handbreadths, this area does not require an additional side post to permit carrying within it.

ולרבן שמעון בן גמליאל להוי כנראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים

The Gemara asks: And even according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, why is another side post required? Let it have the same legal status as a side post that is visible from the outside, protruding from the wall of the alleyway, but appears to be even with the wall from the inside. Since it is evident from the outside that it is a side post and not part of the building, carrying is permitted there.

מידי הוא טעמא אלא לרבי יוחנן הא כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים אינו נידון משום לחי

The Gemara answers: As Rav Ashi’s reason is only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, didn’t he say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If a side post is visible from the outside, protruding from the wall of the alleyway, but it appears to be even with the wall from the inside, it is not considered to have the legal status of a side post?

איתמר נראה מבפנים ושוה מבחוץ נידון משום לחי נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים רבי חייא ורבי שמעון ברבי חד אמר נידון משום לחי וחד אמר אינו נידון משום לחי

An amoraic dispute was stated: If a side post is visible from the inside, protruding from the wall of the alleyway, but it appears to be even with the wall from the outside, it is considered a side post. However, if a side post is visible from the outside protruding from the wall, but it appears to be even with the wall from the inside, there is a disagreement between Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to its status. One said: It is considered to have the legal status of a side post. And the other one said: It is not considered to have the legal status of a side post.

תסתיים דרבי חייא הוא דאמר נידון משום לחי דתני רבי חייא כותל שצידו אחד כנוס מחבירו בין שנראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים ובין שנראה מבפנים ושוה מבחוץ נידון משום לחי תסתיים

The Gemara clarifies: Conclude that Rabbi Ḥiyya is the one who said that it is considered to have the legal status of a side post, as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: In the case of a wall at the entrance to an alleyway whose one side is more recessed than the other, whether the recess is visible from outside the alleyway but appears to be even from the inside, or the recess is visible from the inside but appears to be even from the outside, it is considered to have the legal status of a side post. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude that Rabbi Ḥiyya is the one who said it has the legal status of a side post.

ורבי יוחנן מי לא שמיע ליה הא אלא שמיע ליה ולא סבר לה רבי חייא נמי לא סבר לה

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, who explicitly said that a side post of that kind is not considered a side post, did he not hear this halakha? The Tosefta was widely known. Rather, he heard it, but he does not hold in accordance with it. Perhaps, then, Rabbi Ḥiyya also does not hold in accordance with it.

האי מאי בשלמא רבי יוחנן לא סבר לה משום הכי לא תני לה אלא רבי חייא אי איתא דלא סבר לה למה ליה למיתנא

The Gemara answers: What is this comparison? Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold in accordance with that halakha. That is why he did not teach it. But Rabbi Ḥiyya, if it is true that he does not hold in accordance with it, why would he teach it?

אמר רבה בר רב הונא נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים נידון משום לחי אמר רבה ומותבינן אשמעתין חצר קטנה שנפרצה לגדולה גדולה מותרת וקטנה אסורה מפני שהיא כפתחה של גדולה ואם איתא קטנה נמי תשתרי בנראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: If a side post is visible from the outside, protruding from the wall of the alleyway, but appears to be even with the wall from the inside, it is considered to have the legal status of a side post. Rabba said: And we raise an objection to our own halakha from a mishna: With regard to a small courtyard that was breached along the entire length of one of its walls so that it opens into a large courtyard, in the large one it is permitted to carry and in the small one it is prohibited to carry. This is because the breach is considered an entrance of the large courtyard. The wall of the smaller courtyard was breached along its entire length, therefore there is no visible partition from inside the smaller courtyard. However, the partition is noticeable from the outside, i.e., in the large courtyard, since the breach is flanked on both sides by the remaining segments of the wall of the large courtyard. And if it is so, that a partition that is visible from the outside is considered a partition, carrying in the small courtyard should also be permitted in this case, as the wall is visible from the outside but appears to be even from the inside.

אמר רבי זירא בנכנסין כותלי קטנה לגדולה

Rabbi Zeira said: This mishna is referring to a case where the walls of the small courtyard protrude into the large one, i.e., the breached wall of the small courtyard is not in line with the wall of the large one. Therefore, even when viewed from the outside there are no walls visible, and that is why carrying is prohibited there.

ולימא לבוד ותשתרי

The Gemara asks: And let us say that the principle of lavud applies, and then carrying will be permitted even in the small courtyard. The ends of the breached wall should be considered attached to the side walls of the large courtyard, rendering the wall of the large courtyard visible. Then it will be permitted to carry in the small courtyard based on the principle governing side posts visible from the outside.

וכי תימא דמפלגי טובא והא תני רב אדא בר אבימי קמיה דרבי חנינא קטנה בעשר גדולה באחת עשרה

And if you say that the walls of the smaller courtyard are too separate from the walls of the larger courtyard, such that the distance between the walls is too great for the principle of lavud to apply, didn’t Rav Adda bar Avimi teach before Rabbi Ḥanina: The small courtyard of which they speak is referring even to one ten cubits wide; the large one is referring even to one eleven cubits wide? Apparently, this halakha applies even when the difference in width between the courtyards is a single cubit, which is six handbreadths. Assuming the small courtyard is located equidistant from the ends of the large courtyard, only three handbreadths separate it on each side from the wall of the large one. Therefore, the principle of lavud applies.

אמר רבינא במופלגין מכותל זה בשנים ומכותל זה בארבעה

Ravina said: It is a case where the walls of the smaller courtyard are separated from this wall of the larger courtyard by two handbreadths and from this wall of the larger courtyard on the other side by four handbreadths. Since there is a distance of more than three handbreadths, the principle of lavud does not apply.

ולימא לבוד מרוח אחת ותשתרי

The Gemara asks: And let us say that the principle of lavud applies from one direction,then carrying will be permitted even in the small courtyard.

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

Scroll To Top