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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 18, 2020 | 讻状讞 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

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

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of 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.聽

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.

诪砖讜讻讛 讗讜 转诇讜讬讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 讗专讘注讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转

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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜讻讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜转诇讜讬讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 statement above that disqualifies such a cross beam.

诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜讻讛 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讜转诇讜讬讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转

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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜讻讛 讜讛讬讗 转诇讜讬讛 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞注抓 砖转讬 讬转讬讚讜转 注拽讜诪讜转 注诇 砖谞讬 讻讜转诇讬 诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讙讜讘讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讘注拽诪讜诪讬转谉 砖诇砖讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讜 诇讘讜讚 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜 讞讘讜讟 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 讜讞讘讜讟 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 岣vut, pressed down, that we consider the cross beam to be pressed down vertically; but we do not say both lavud and 岣vut. 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.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬诐 讜转讞转 讛拽讜专讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讻讻专诪诇讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 转谞讬 诇讘专讗

Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬诐 谞诪讬 诪讜转专

The Gemara records a dispute with regard to the scope of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Abaye said: Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan asserted, and even in the area between the side posts carrying is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 诪讜转专 诇讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇讻转祝 注诇讬讜 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻讜

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 讘讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛

And Abaye said that this offers no proof, as there, with regard to Rav Dimi鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

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 岣ma 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

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鈥檛 Rav 岣nin 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.

讜专讘讗 讛转诐 讚驻转讜讞 诇讻专诪诇讬转

And Rava replies that a distinction must be made between the cases: There, the case of Rav鈥檚 ruling refers to a scenario where the alleyway鈥檚 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.

讗讘诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讗讬 砖专讬 讬爪讬讘讗 讘讗专注讗 讜讙讬讜专讗 讘砖诪讬 砖诪讬讗

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.

讗讬谉 诪爪讗 诪讬谉 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜谞讬注讜专

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讗住讜专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讘讜讬 砖专爪驻讜 讘诇讞讬讬谉 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

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鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 诪砖转诪砖 注讚 讞讜讚讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬 砖诇 诇讞讬 讛驻谞讬诪讬 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 诪砖转诪砖 注讚 讞讜讚讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬 砖诇 讞讬爪讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗住讜专

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.

讜专讘讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚驻转讜讞 诇讻专诪诇讬转

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

讗讘诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讗讬 砖专讬 讬爪讬讘讗 讘讗专注讗 讜讙讬讜专讗 讘砖诪讬 砖诪讬讗 讗讬谉 诪爪讗 诪讬谉 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜谞讬注讜专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if the entrance opens to a public domain, what is its legal status 鈥 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖专爪驻讜 讘诇讞讬讬诐 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讘诪砖讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara provides an alternative explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement. Rav Ashi said: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讘讜讬 讜爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜 讜诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

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.

讜诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讛讜讬 讻谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

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.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬

The Gemara answers: As Rav Ashi鈥檚 reason is only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, didn鈥檛 he say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗讬转诪专 谞专讗讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讜讛 诪讘讞讜抓 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讞讚 讗诪专 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬

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 岣yya 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.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讜转诇 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻谞讜住 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘讬谉 砖谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讘讬谉 砖谞专讗讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讜讛 诪讘讞讜抓 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara clarifies: Conclude that Rabbi 岣yya is the one who said that it is considered to have the legal status of a side post, as Rabbi 岣yya 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 岣yya is the one who said it has the legal status of a side post.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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 岣yya also does not hold in accordance with it.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬 讗讬转讗 讚诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讗

The Gemara answers: What is this comparison? Granted, Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold in accordance with that halakha. That is why he did not teach it. But Rabbi 岣yya, if it is true that he does not hold in accordance with it, why would he teach it?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讜诪讜转讘讬谞谉 讗砖诪注转讬谉 讞爪专 拽讟谞讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讜拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 拽讟谞讛 谞诪讬 转砖转专讬 讘谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘谞讻谞住讬谉 讻讜转诇讬 拽讟谞讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛

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.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讘讜讚 讜转砖转专讬

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪驻诇讙讬 讟讜讘讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽讟谞讛 讘注砖专 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛

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鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Avimi teach before Rabbi 岣nina: 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘诪讜驻诇讙讬谉 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讘砖谞讬诐 讜诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讘讗专讘注讛

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.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讘讜讚 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讜转砖转专讬

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.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

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

We will start Masechet Eruvin this week and review the key concepts in Daf 2-9 including understanding what an open...
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鈥橝H 讛讜爪讗讛: Transferring objects between private and public domain OR 4 amot in public domain.聽 Rabbis added decrees...

Eruvin 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 9

诪砖讜讻讛 讗讜 转诇讜讬讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 砖诇砖讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转 讗专讘注讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 拽讜专讛 讗讞专转

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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜讻讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜转诇讜讬讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 statement above that disqualifies such a cross beam.

诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜讻讛 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讜转诇讜讬讛 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转

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.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜讻讛 讜讛讬讗 转诇讜讬讛 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞注抓 砖转讬 讬转讬讚讜转 注拽讜诪讜转 注诇 砖谞讬 讻讜转诇讬 诪讘讜讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讙讜讘讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讜讗讬谉 讘注拽诪讜诪讬转谉 砖诇砖讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讜 诇讘讜讚 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜 讞讘讜讟 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 讜讞讘讜讟 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 岣vut, pressed down, that we consider the cross beam to be pressed down vertically; but we do not say both lavud and 岣vut. 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.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讝讻讗讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬诐 讜转讞转 讛拽讜专讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讻讻专诪诇讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 转谞讬 诇讘专讗

Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转讞转 讛拽讜专讛 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讗住讜专 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬诐 谞诪讬 诪讜转专

The Gemara records a dispute with regard to the scope of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: Abaye said: Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan asserted, and even in the area between the side posts carrying is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 诪讜转专 诇讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇讻转祝 注诇讬讜 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讞诇讬驻讜

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜讗讘讬讬 讛转诐 讘讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛

And Abaye said that this offers no proof, as there, with regard to Rav Dimi鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

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 岣ma 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谉 讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

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鈥檛 Rav 岣nin 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.

讜专讘讗 讛转诐 讚驻转讜讞 诇讻专诪诇讬转

And Rava replies that a distinction must be made between the cases: There, the case of Rav鈥檚 ruling refers to a scenario where the alleyway鈥檚 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.

讗讘诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讗讬 砖专讬 讬爪讬讘讗 讘讗专注讗 讜讙讬讜专讗 讘砖诪讬 砖诪讬讗

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.

讗讬谉 诪爪讗 诪讬谉 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜谞讬注讜专

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘讗 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讗住讜专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讘讜讬 砖专爪驻讜 讘诇讞讬讬谉 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

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鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 诪砖转诪砖 注讚 讞讜讚讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬 砖诇 诇讞讬 讛驻谞讬诪讬 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 诪砖转诪砖 注讚 讞讜讚讜 讛驻谞讬诪讬 砖诇 讞讬爪讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 诇讞讬讬谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗住讜专

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.

讜专讘讗 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚驻转讜讞 诇讻专诪诇讬转

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

讗讘诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讗讬 砖专讬 讬爪讬讘讗 讘讗专注讗 讜讙讬讜专讗 讘砖诪讬 砖诪讬讗 讗讬谉 诪爪讗 诪讬谉 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讜谞讬注讜专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if the entrance opens to a public domain, what is its legal status 鈥 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖专爪驻讜 讘诇讞讬讬诐 驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注讛 讘诪砖讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara provides an alternative explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement. Rav Ashi said: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪讘讜讬 讜爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜 讜诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讘讜讚 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讞讬 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

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.

讜诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讛讜讬 讻谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

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.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬

The Gemara answers: As Rav Ashi鈥檚 reason is only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, didn鈥檛 he say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讗讬转诪专 谞专讗讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讜讛 诪讘讞讜抓 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讘讬 讞讚 讗诪专 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬

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 岣yya 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.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讜转诇 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻谞讜住 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘讬谉 砖谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讘讬谉 砖谞专讗讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖讜讛 诪讘讞讜抓 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara clarifies: Conclude that Rabbi 岣yya is the one who said that it is considered to have the legal status of a side post, as Rabbi 岣yya 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 岣yya is the one who said it has the legal status of a side post.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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 岣yya also does not hold in accordance with it.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬 讗讬转讗 讚诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讗

The Gemara answers: What is this comparison? Granted, Rabbi Yo岣nan does not hold in accordance with that halakha. That is why he did not teach it. But Rabbi 岣yya, if it is true that he does not hold in accordance with it, why would he teach it?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讞讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讜诪讜转讘讬谞谉 讗砖诪注转讬谉 讞爪专 拽讟谞讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讜拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 拽讟谞讛 谞诪讬 转砖转专讬 讘谞专讗讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜砖讜讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘谞讻谞住讬谉 讻讜转诇讬 拽讟谞讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛

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.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讘讜讚 讜转砖转专讬

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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪驻诇讙讬 讟讜讘讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讬诪讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽讟谞讛 讘注砖专 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讗讞转 注砖专讛

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鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Avimi teach before Rabbi 岣nina: 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘诪讜驻诇讙讬谉 诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讘砖谞讬诐 讜诪讻讜转诇 讝讛 讘讗专讘注讛

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.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讘讜讚 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讜转砖转专讬

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.

Scroll To Top