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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 11, 2020 | 讻状讚 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讗

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's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents,聽 Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

  • 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 94

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Tzippy Wolkenfeld for a refuah shleima for Yakira Leeba bat Sara Gita, 鈥渙ur sweet brave girl.鈥

If a courtyard wall is breached on Shabbat, do we say that since it was permitted at the onset of Shabbat to carry in each individual courtyard, the status remains the rest of Shabbat or not? If a courtyard is breached into the public domain, what is the status of that courtyard? Rabbi Eliezer says it is now considered a public domain and the rabbis call it a carmelit. The gemara struggles to understand how Rabbi Eliezer could view this space that belongs to the courtyard residents as a public domain and therefore narrows the debate to the space where the wall once stood that is not the subject of debate between the public and the courtyard residents. Or that the debate is really about the sides of the public domain that are sometimes used by the public and therefore also would extend to this case regarding the space near the border of the courtyard and the public domain. How does this work in with the wording of the mishna. The mishna states that if two walls of a courtyard or a house collapse on Shabbat, what is the status for that Shabbat. Two opinions are brought, however they both agree that regarding the next Shabbat, this is a breach. What size breach and why is it specifically two walls and not one? Due to this question, Rav and Shmuel each narrow the case of the mishna to a very specific type of breach in the corner. What do Rav and Shmuel disagree about regarding a ceiling dropping down and creating imaginary walls? In what size structure do they disagree?

讝讛 诪讟诇讟诇 注讚 注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讝讛 诪讟诇讟诇 注讚 注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛

This one may carry to the base of the former partition, and that one may likewise carry to the base of the partition, as he maintains that since it was permitted at the beginning of Shabbat, it remains permitted until the conclusion of Shabbat.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讗转诪专 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讘讛讛讜讗 讞爪专 谞驻诇 讙讜讚讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 砖拽讜诇讜 讙诇讬诪讗 谞讙讬讚讜 讘讛

The Gemara comments: And this ruling of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference; i.e., it was inferred by his students from another one of his teachings. As once Rav and Shmuel were sitting in a certain courtyard on Shabbat, and the wall between the two courtyards fell. Shmuel said to the people around him: Take a cloak and suspend it on the remnant of the partition.

讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 专讘 诇讗驻讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 拽驻讬讚 讗讘讗 砖拽讜诇讜 (讛讬诪谞讬讛) 讜拽讟专讜 讘讛

Rav turned his face away, displaying his displeasure with Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, as Rav maintained it was prohibited to carry a cloak in this courtyard. Shmuel said to them in a humorous vein: If Abba, Rav, is particular, take his belt and tie it to the cloak, to secure it to the partition.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 讛讗 讗诪专 讝讛 诪讟诇讟诇 注讚 注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讝讛 诪讟诇讟诇 注讚 注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, why was it necessary to suspend the cloak? He himself said: If a wall between two courtyards collapsed on Shabbat, this one may carry to the base of the former partition, and that one may likewise carry to the base of the partition.

砖诪讜讗诇 注讘讬讚 诇爪谞讬注讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara answers: Shmuel did not do so to render it permitted to carry in the courtyard. He did so merely for the purpose of privacy, as he did not want the residents of the other courtyard to see into his own courtyard.

讜专讘 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗住讬专 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗转专讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讛

The Gemara asks: And Rav, if he maintains that in this case carrying is prohibited, he should have said so to him explicitly. The Gemara answers: It was Shmuel鈥檚 place. Rav did not want to disagree with his colleague in his jurisdiction, as he accepted the opinion of the local authority.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇讗驻讬讛 讚诇讗 谞讬诪专讜 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 (讜讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪砖诪注转讬讛):

The Gemara asks: If so, if he accepted the jurisdiction of the local rabbinic authority, why did he turn his face away? The Gemara answers: He acted in this manner so that people would not say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and that he retracted his opinion with regard to this halakha.

诪转谞讬壮 讞爪专 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛诪讻谞讬住 诪转讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇转讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

MISHNA: With regard to a courtyard that was breached into the public domain, and the breach was more than ten cubits wide, so that it cannot be considered an entrance, one who carries an object from inside the courtyard into the private domain, or from the private domain into it, is liable, as it ceases to be a private domain and is subsumed into the public domain. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇转讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻讻专诪诇讬转:

And the Rabbis disagree and say: One who carries from inside the courtyard into the public domain, or from the public domain into it, is exempt, because its legal status is like that of a karmelit. Although it ceases to be a private domain, it does not become a full-fledged public domain.

讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻专爪讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, due to the fact that the courtyard was breached into the public domain, does it become the public domain? The Gemara answers: Yes, as in this regard the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his standard line of reasoning.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬诐 砖讘专专讜 讚专讱 诇注爪诪谉 诪讛 砖讘专专讜 讘专专讜

As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: In a situation where the multitudes selected a path for themselves in a field, or between fields, the path that they selected, they selected, and they retain the right to traverse this path even if the place belongs to an individual. Here too, as the partition of the courtyard was breached to the extent that the public can enter, its status is that of a public domain.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讛谉 讚专讱 讘讗讜转讜 砖讚讛

The Gemara expresses surprise at this opinion: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Giddel say that Rav said: And this applies only if they had misplaced a path in that field. Generally speaking, the public does not have the right to establish a path wherever it chooses. The baraita is referring to a case where a public path used to run through that field, but it fell into disuse, and no one remembers its precise course. In this case the public may once again select a path through the field.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讛 讚专讱 讘讗讜转讛 讞爪专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注讚 诪拽讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

And if you say: Here too, the mishna is dealing with a case where the public misplaced a path in that courtyard. They do not remember the exact position of the partition that once separated the courtyard and the public domain. The public claims that the residents of the courtyard appropriated that part of their domain. It is only this area that Rabbi Eliezer says is considered a public domain. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nina say: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is with regard to the entire courtyard to [ad] the place of the fallen partition, not only the small section that might have been a public path.

讗讬诪讗 注诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

The Gemara rejects this argument: Say that Rabbi 岣nina stated that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree over [al] the place of the partition, i.e., the dispute does not concern the entire courtyard, but only the former location of the partition, where a public path might once have passed.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜

And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is dealing with a case where the location of the original partition is known, and the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the legal status of the sides of a public domain. As Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the sides of a public domain are considered like a public domain, i.e., the areas adjacent to the public domain are subsumed into the public domain. The same applies to the place of the partition that once separated the courtyard and the public domain but was breached. And the Rabbis maintain that the sides of a public domain are not considered like a public domain.

讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬 讗讬驻诇讬讙讜 讘爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讬驻讜驻讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讞讬驻讜驻讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, let them disagree with regard to the sides of a public domain in general; why did they disagree about this particular case? The Gemara answers: Had they disagreed with regard to the sides of a public domain in general, we would have said: When do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer? This dispute applies only where there are stakes alongside the houses, which interfere with the use of the sides of the public domain. However, where there are no such stakes, say that they concede to him that the sides of a public domain are considered like a public domain. By formulating the dispute with regard to a courtyard that was breached into the public domain, the mishna is teaching us that they disagree in all cases.

讜讛讗 诪转讜讻讛 拽讗诪专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer say with regard to a courtyard that was breached into the public domain, that one who carries an object from inside the courtyard into the private domain is liable? Apparently, he is liable if he carries an article into the private domain from anywhere in the courtyard, not only from the area adjacent to the public domain, as the entire courtyard is considered a public domain.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪转讜讻讛 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诪转讜讻讛

The Gemara answers: As the Rabbis said: From inside the courtyard, Rabbi Eliezer also said: From inside the courtyard. No conclusion can be inferred from his use of the term, as he was referring only to the section adjacent to the public domain.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪讛讚专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛讜 诪转讜讻讛

The Gemara asks: But, if that is the case, the statement of the Rabbis is difficult. Rabbi Eliezer said that the legal status of the sides of the public domain is like that of a public domain, and they replied to him by referring to: From inside the entire courtyard? They appear to be addressing two different cases.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪讜讚讬转 诇谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讟讬诇讟诇 诪转讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇转讜讻讛 讚驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻专诪诇讬转 爪讬讚讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara answers: This is what the Rabbis are saying to Rabbi Eliezer: Don鈥檛 you concede to us with regard to a case where he carried an object from inside the courtyard to the public domain, or from the public domain to the courtyard, that he is exempt, because the courtyard is considered like a karmelit? The sides of the public domain are no different, and should have the status of a karmelit as well.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 讚专住讬 诇讛 专讘讬诐 讛讻讗 拽讗 讚专住讬 诇讛 专讘讬诐:

And how does Rabbi Eliezer counter this argument? There, the public does not tread on the courtyard; here, the public treads on the edge of the courtyard adjacent to the public domain, and therefore its status is that of a public domain in every sense.

诪转谞讬壮 讞爪专 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讛 讜讻谉 讘讬转 砖谞驻专抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讜 讜讻谉 诪讘讜讬 砖谞讟诇讜 拽讜专讜转讬讜 讗讜 诇讞讬讬讜 诪讜转专讬诐 讘讗讜转讜 砖讘转 讜讗住讜专讬诐 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

MISHNA: With regard to a courtyard that was breached on Shabbat into a public domain from two of its sides, and likewise with regard to a house that was breached from two of its sides, and likewise with regard to an alleyway whose cross beams or side posts were removed on Shabbat, the residents of that domain are permitted to carry there on that Shabbat, but are prohibited from doing so in the future. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗讜转讜 砖讘转 诪讜转专讬谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜讗诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讗讜转讜 砖讘转:

Rabbi Yosei says: This cannot be the halakha, as if they are permitted to carry there on that Shabbat, they are likewise permitted to do so in the future, and if they are prohibited from carrying there in the future, they are also prohibited from carrying there on that Shabbat.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注砖专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讚讗诪专 驻讬转讞讗 讛讜讗 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 谞诪讬 驻讬转讞讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘讬转专 诪注砖专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 谞诪讬

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: With what case are we dealing? If you say the mishna is referring to a case where the breach was up to ten cubits wide, in what way is a breach on only one side different? It is due to the fact that we say: It is an entrance rather than a breach, and carrying is therefore permitted. If so, if it was breached on two sides as well, say: It is an entrance, and there are entrances on two sides of the courtyard. Rather, the mishna is certainly dealing with a breach that is greater than ten cubits. If so, it should be prohibited to carry even if the courtyard was breached on only one side, as a breach that size negates all the partitions.

讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讘注砖专

Rav said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with a breach that is no wider than ten cubits,

讜讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻专爪讛 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讚驻讬转讞讗 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬:

and with a case where the courtyard was breached in a corner, so that it is breached on two sides. Although the opening is no more than ten cubits wide, it cannot be considered an entrance, as people do not build an entrance in a corner. It is therefore clear that this is a breach that negates the partition.

讜讻谉 讘讬转 砖谞驻专抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讜: 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

We learned in the mishna: And likewise, with regard to a house that was breached on Shabbat from two of its sides into a public domain, the residents are permitted to carry in the house on that Shabbat, but not a future Shabbat. The Gemara asks: In what way is a breach on one side different? The difference is due to the fact that we say: The edge of the roof descends and seals the house, as if there were a full-fledged partition there. So too, when it is breached on two sides, let us say: The edge of the roof descends and seals.

讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻专抓 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讜拽讬专讜讬讜 讘讗诇讻住讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

The Gemara answers: The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The mishna is referring to a case where the house was breached in a corner, and its roofing was inclined, as in that case, one cannot say: The edge of the roof descends and seals, as the edge of an inclined roof does not appear to be the beginning of a partition.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转专 诪注砖专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 谞诪讬

And Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a breach that is even wider than ten cubits. The Gemara asks: If so, why did the mishna cite a case where it is breached from two sides? It should be prohibited to carry there even if it were breached from one side.

诪砖讜诐 讘讬转

The Gemara answers: The reason that it is prohibited only if it is breached from two sides is due to the fact that it is a house. In the case of a courtyard, the same halakha would apply even if it were breached on only one side. However, the mishna sought to teach the halakha of a house as well, in which case, it is prohibited to carry only if it is breached on two sides. If it is breached on one side, the edge of the roof descends and seals, and carrying is permitted.

讜讘讬转 讙讜驻讬讛 转拽砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讚讗诪专讬壮 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

The Gemara asks: But the halakha of a house itself should pose a difficulty according to this explanation. In what way is a breach on one side different? It is due to the fact that we say: The edge of the roof descends and seals the house, as if there were a full-fledged partition there. So too, when it is breached on two sides, let us say: The edge of the roof descends and seals.

讜转讜 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讜讛讗 讗转诪专 讗讻住讚专讛 讘讘拽注讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

And furthermore: Is Shmuel of the opinion that there is a principle: The edge of a roof descends and seals? But wasn鈥檛 it stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a portico located in a valley, which has the status of a karmelit. Rav said: It is permitted to carry in the entire portico, as he maintains that the edge of the roof of the portico descends and seals, rendering it a private domain. And Shmuel said: One may carry only within four cubits. Apparently, Shmuel does not accept the principle: The edge of a roof descends and seals.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘讗专讘注 讗讘诇 讘砖诇砖 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not a difficulty. Where Shmuel is not of the opinion that this principle is applied, it is with regard to a structure where walls on all four sides are formed in that manner. However, with regard to a structure where only three sides are formed in that manner and the fourth side is an actual wall, he is of the opinion that the principle is applied.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara comments: In any case, this is difficult. Although the contradiction between the two statements of Shmuel was resolved, the question remains: Why do we not apply the principle: The edge of a roof descends and seals, to two sides of the house?

讻讚讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻专抓 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讜拽讬专讜讬讜 讘讗诇讻住讜谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻专抓 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讜拽讬专讜讬讜 讘讗专讘注

The Gemara answers: The reason is as the Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The mishna is referring to a case where the house was breached in a corner, and its roofing was inclined, as in that case, one cannot say: The roof of the house descends and seals. Here too, Shmuel鈥檚 opinion can be explained in a similar manner: The mishna is dealing with a case where the house was breached in a corner, and its roof is at a distance of at least four handbreadths from the breach, and is uneven. In that case, the principle: The edge of a roof descends and seals, would have to be applied to four corners, and Shmuel is of the opinion that it may not be applied in that case.

砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讗诇讻住讜谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜专讘 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讻住讚专讛 讜专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讻住讚专讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛

The Gemara explains: Shmuel did not say his explanation of the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as the mishna does not teach that the roof was slanted, which is the crux of Rav鈥檚 explanation. And Rav did not say his explanation of the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as if so, even if the roof was breached on several sides, its legal status would be that of a portico, and Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: With regard to a portico, it is permitted to carry throughout the entire portico.

讚讗讬转诪专 讗讻住讚专讛 讘讘拽注讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara proceeds to cite the dispute between Rav and Shmuel in a more comprehensive manner. As it was stated that Rav said: It is permitted to carry in the entire portico as it is considered sealed. And Shmuel said: One may carry only within four cubits. As the portico does not have actual partitions it is subsumed into the field, and shares its status of a karmelit.

专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

The Gemara elaborates on their respective opinions. Rav said: It is permitted to carry in the entire portico, as he maintains that we say: The edge of the roof descends and seals the portico to form a partition. As there is a roof over the portico, it is considered sealed with partitions on all four sides. And Shmuel said: One may carry only within four cubits, as we do not say: The edge of the ceiling descends and seals.

讘注砖专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬转专 诪注砖专

The Gemara elaborates further: If the openings on the sides of the portico are no wider than ten cubits, everyone agrees that they are considered sealed, as the status of even an unroofed breach of ten cubits or less is that of an entrance, and one is permitted to carry throughout the entire domain. They disagree only in a case where the openings are more than ten cubits wide.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讬转专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘注砖专

And some say: On the contrary, if the openings are more than ten cubits wide, everyone agrees that they are considered breaches, and the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, is not applied. They disagree only in a case where the openings are no wider than ten cubits.

讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

And that which Rav Yehuda said:

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's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents,聽 Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

  • 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

Eruvin 94-100 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what happens if walls between courtyards fall down, or if the walls of a house...

Eruvin 94

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 94

讝讛 诪讟诇讟诇 注讚 注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讝讛 诪讟诇讟诇 注讚 注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛

This one may carry to the base of the former partition, and that one may likewise carry to the base of the partition, as he maintains that since it was permitted at the beginning of Shabbat, it remains permitted until the conclusion of Shabbat.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 诇讗讜 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗转诪专 讗诇讗 诪讻诇诇讗 讗转诪专 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讘讛讛讜讗 讞爪专 谞驻诇 讙讜讚讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 砖拽讜诇讜 讙诇讬诪讗 谞讙讬讚讜 讘讛

The Gemara comments: And this ruling of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference; i.e., it was inferred by his students from another one of his teachings. As once Rav and Shmuel were sitting in a certain courtyard on Shabbat, and the wall between the two courtyards fell. Shmuel said to the people around him: Take a cloak and suspend it on the remnant of the partition.

讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 专讘 诇讗驻讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 拽驻讬讚 讗讘讗 砖拽讜诇讜 (讛讬诪谞讬讛) 讜拽讟专讜 讘讛

Rav turned his face away, displaying his displeasure with Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, as Rav maintained it was prohibited to carry a cloak in this courtyard. Shmuel said to them in a humorous vein: If Abba, Rav, is particular, take his belt and tie it to the cloak, to secure it to the partition.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讗 讛讗 讗诪专 讝讛 诪讟诇讟诇 注讚 注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛 讜讝讛 诪讟诇讟诇 注讚 注讬拽专 诪讞讬爪讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, why was it necessary to suspend the cloak? He himself said: If a wall between two courtyards collapsed on Shabbat, this one may carry to the base of the former partition, and that one may likewise carry to the base of the partition.

砖诪讜讗诇 注讘讬讚 诇爪谞讬注讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara answers: Shmuel did not do so to render it permitted to carry in the courtyard. He did so merely for the purpose of privacy, as he did not want the residents of the other courtyard to see into his own courtyard.

讜专讘 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗住讬专 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗转专讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讛

The Gemara asks: And Rav, if he maintains that in this case carrying is prohibited, he should have said so to him explicitly. The Gemara answers: It was Shmuel鈥檚 place. Rav did not want to disagree with his colleague in his jurisdiction, as he accepted the opinion of the local authority.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇讗驻讬讛 讚诇讗 谞讬诪专讜 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 (讜讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪砖诪注转讬讛):

The Gemara asks: If so, if he accepted the jurisdiction of the local rabbinic authority, why did he turn his face away? The Gemara answers: He acted in this manner so that people would not say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and that he retracted his opinion with regard to this halakha.

诪转谞讬壮 讞爪专 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛诪讻谞讬住 诪转讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇转讜讻讛 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

MISHNA: With regard to a courtyard that was breached into the public domain, and the breach was more than ten cubits wide, so that it cannot be considered an entrance, one who carries an object from inside the courtyard into the private domain, or from the private domain into it, is liable, as it ceases to be a private domain and is subsumed into the public domain. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪转讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讜 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇转讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻讻专诪诇讬转:

And the Rabbis disagree and say: One who carries from inside the courtyard into the public domain, or from the public domain into it, is exempt, because its legal status is like that of a karmelit. Although it ceases to be a private domain, it does not become a full-fledged public domain.

讙诪壮 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚谞驻专爪讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, due to the fact that the courtyard was breached into the public domain, does it become the public domain? The Gemara answers: Yes, as in this regard the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his standard line of reasoning.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬诐 砖讘专专讜 讚专讱 诇注爪诪谉 诪讛 砖讘专专讜 讘专专讜

As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: In a situation where the multitudes selected a path for themselves in a field, or between fields, the path that they selected, they selected, and they retain the right to traverse this path even if the place belongs to an individual. Here too, as the partition of the courtyard was breached to the extent that the public can enter, its status is that of a public domain.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讛谉 讚专讱 讘讗讜转讜 砖讚讛

The Gemara expresses surprise at this opinion: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Giddel say that Rav said: And this applies only if they had misplaced a path in that field. Generally speaking, the public does not have the right to establish a path wherever it chooses. The baraita is referring to a case where a public path used to run through that field, but it fell into disuse, and no one remembers its precise course. In this case the public may once again select a path through the field.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讛 讚专讱 讘讗讜转讛 讞爪专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注讚 诪拽讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

And if you say: Here too, the mishna is dealing with a case where the public misplaced a path in that courtyard. They do not remember the exact position of the partition that once separated the courtyard and the public domain. The public claims that the residents of the courtyard appropriated that part of their domain. It is only this area that Rabbi Eliezer says is considered a public domain. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nina say: The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is with regard to the entire courtyard to [ad] the place of the fallen partition, not only the small section that might have been a public path.

讗讬诪讗 注诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讞讬爪讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

The Gemara rejects this argument: Say that Rabbi 岣nina stated that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree over [al] the place of the partition, i.e., the dispute does not concern the entire courtyard, but only the former location of the partition, where a public path might once have passed.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讜

And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is dealing with a case where the location of the original partition is known, and the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the legal status of the sides of a public domain. As Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the sides of a public domain are considered like a public domain, i.e., the areas adjacent to the public domain are subsumed into the public domain. The same applies to the place of the partition that once separated the courtyard and the public domain but was breached. And the Rabbis maintain that the sides of a public domain are not considered like a public domain.

讜诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬 讗讬驻诇讬讙讜 讘爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讬驻讜驻讬 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讞讬驻讜驻讬 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, let them disagree with regard to the sides of a public domain in general; why did they disagree about this particular case? The Gemara answers: Had they disagreed with regard to the sides of a public domain in general, we would have said: When do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer? This dispute applies only where there are stakes alongside the houses, which interfere with the use of the sides of the public domain. However, where there are no such stakes, say that they concede to him that the sides of a public domain are considered like a public domain. By formulating the dispute with regard to a courtyard that was breached into the public domain, the mishna is teaching us that they disagree in all cases.

讜讛讗 诪转讜讻讛 拽讗诪专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Eliezer say with regard to a courtyard that was breached into the public domain, that one who carries an object from inside the courtyard into the private domain is liable? Apparently, he is liable if he carries an article into the private domain from anywhere in the courtyard, not only from the area adjacent to the public domain, as the entire courtyard is considered a public domain.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诪转讜讻讛 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 诪转讜讻讛

The Gemara answers: As the Rabbis said: From inside the courtyard, Rabbi Eliezer also said: From inside the courtyard. No conclusion can be inferred from his use of the term, as he was referring only to the section adjacent to the public domain.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 爪讬讚讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪讛讚专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讛讜 诪转讜讻讛

The Gemara asks: But, if that is the case, the statement of the Rabbis is difficult. Rabbi Eliezer said that the legal status of the sides of the public domain is like that of a public domain, and they replied to him by referring to: From inside the entire courtyard? They appear to be addressing two different cases.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪讜讚讬转 诇谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讟讬诇讟诇 诪转讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇转讜讻讛 讚驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻专诪诇讬转 爪讬讚讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara answers: This is what the Rabbis are saying to Rabbi Eliezer: Don鈥檛 you concede to us with regard to a case where he carried an object from inside the courtyard to the public domain, or from the public domain to the courtyard, that he is exempt, because the courtyard is considered like a karmelit? The sides of the public domain are no different, and should have the status of a karmelit as well.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 讚专住讬 诇讛 专讘讬诐 讛讻讗 拽讗 讚专住讬 诇讛 专讘讬诐:

And how does Rabbi Eliezer counter this argument? There, the public does not tread on the courtyard; here, the public treads on the edge of the courtyard adjacent to the public domain, and therefore its status is that of a public domain in every sense.

诪转谞讬壮 讞爪专 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讛 讜讻谉 讘讬转 砖谞驻专抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讜 讜讻谉 诪讘讜讬 砖谞讟诇讜 拽讜专讜转讬讜 讗讜 诇讞讬讬讜 诪讜转专讬诐 讘讗讜转讜 砖讘转 讜讗住讜专讬诐 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

MISHNA: With regard to a courtyard that was breached on Shabbat into a public domain from two of its sides, and likewise with regard to a house that was breached from two of its sides, and likewise with regard to an alleyway whose cross beams or side posts were removed on Shabbat, the residents of that domain are permitted to carry there on that Shabbat, but are prohibited from doing so in the future. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诇讗讜转讜 砖讘转 诪讜转专讬谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讜讗诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讗讜转讜 砖讘转:

Rabbi Yosei says: This cannot be the halakha, as if they are permitted to carry there on that Shabbat, they are likewise permitted to do so in the future, and if they are prohibited from carrying there in the future, they are also prohibited from carrying there on that Shabbat.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注砖专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讚讗诪专 驻讬转讞讗 讛讜讗 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 谞诪讬 驻讬转讞讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讘讬转专 诪注砖专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 谞诪讬

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: With what case are we dealing? If you say the mishna is referring to a case where the breach was up to ten cubits wide, in what way is a breach on only one side different? It is due to the fact that we say: It is an entrance rather than a breach, and carrying is therefore permitted. If so, if it was breached on two sides as well, say: It is an entrance, and there are entrances on two sides of the courtyard. Rather, the mishna is certainly dealing with a breach that is greater than ten cubits. If so, it should be prohibited to carry even if the courtyard was breached on only one side, as a breach that size negates all the partitions.

讗诪专 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讘注砖专

Rav said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with a breach that is no wider than ten cubits,

讜讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻专爪讛 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讚驻讬转讞讗 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬:

and with a case where the courtyard was breached in a corner, so that it is breached on two sides. Although the opening is no more than ten cubits wide, it cannot be considered an entrance, as people do not build an entrance in a corner. It is therefore clear that this is a breach that negates the partition.

讜讻谉 讘讬转 砖谞驻专抓 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转讬讜: 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

We learned in the mishna: And likewise, with regard to a house that was breached on Shabbat from two of its sides into a public domain, the residents are permitted to carry in the house on that Shabbat, but not a future Shabbat. The Gemara asks: In what way is a breach on one side different? The difference is due to the fact that we say: The edge of the roof descends and seals the house, as if there were a full-fledged partition there. So too, when it is breached on two sides, let us say: The edge of the roof descends and seals.

讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻专抓 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讜拽讬专讜讬讜 讘讗诇讻住讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

The Gemara answers: The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The mishna is referring to a case where the house was breached in a corner, and its roofing was inclined, as in that case, one cannot say: The edge of the roof descends and seals, as the edge of an inclined roof does not appear to be the beginning of a partition.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转专 诪注砖专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 谞诪讬

And Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a breach that is even wider than ten cubits. The Gemara asks: If so, why did the mishna cite a case where it is breached from two sides? It should be prohibited to carry there even if it were breached from one side.

诪砖讜诐 讘讬转

The Gemara answers: The reason that it is prohibited only if it is breached from two sides is due to the fact that it is a house. In the case of a courtyard, the same halakha would apply even if it were breached on only one side. However, the mishna sought to teach the halakha of a house as well, in which case, it is prohibited to carry only if it is breached on two sides. If it is breached on one side, the edge of the roof descends and seals, and carrying is permitted.

讜讘讬转 讙讜驻讬讛 转拽砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 讚讗诪专讬壮 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

The Gemara asks: But the halakha of a house itself should pose a difficulty according to this explanation. In what way is a breach on one side different? It is due to the fact that we say: The edge of the roof descends and seals the house, as if there were a full-fledged partition there. So too, when it is breached on two sides, let us say: The edge of the roof descends and seals.

讜转讜 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讜讛讗 讗转诪专 讗讻住讚专讛 讘讘拽注讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

And furthermore: Is Shmuel of the opinion that there is a principle: The edge of a roof descends and seals? But wasn鈥檛 it stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a portico located in a valley, which has the status of a karmelit. Rav said: It is permitted to carry in the entire portico, as he maintains that the edge of the roof of the portico descends and seals, rendering it a private domain. And Shmuel said: One may carry only within four cubits. Apparently, Shmuel does not accept the principle: The edge of a roof descends and seals.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘讗专讘注 讗讘诇 讘砖诇砖 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not a difficulty. Where Shmuel is not of the opinion that this principle is applied, it is with regard to a structure where walls on all four sides are formed in that manner. However, with regard to a structure where only three sides are formed in that manner and the fourth side is an actual wall, he is of the opinion that the principle is applied.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara comments: In any case, this is difficult. Although the contradiction between the two statements of Shmuel was resolved, the question remains: Why do we not apply the principle: The edge of a roof descends and seals, to two sides of the house?

讻讚讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻专抓 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讜拽讬专讜讬讜 讘讗诇讻住讜谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻专抓 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讜拽讬专讜讬讜 讘讗专讘注

The Gemara answers: The reason is as the Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The mishna is referring to a case where the house was breached in a corner, and its roofing was inclined, as in that case, one cannot say: The roof of the house descends and seals. Here too, Shmuel鈥檚 opinion can be explained in a similar manner: The mishna is dealing with a case where the house was breached in a corner, and its roof is at a distance of at least four handbreadths from the breach, and is uneven. In that case, the principle: The edge of a roof descends and seals, would have to be applied to four corners, and Shmuel is of the opinion that it may not be applied in that case.

砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讗诇讻住讜谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜专讘 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讗诐 讻谉 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讻住讚专讛 讜专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讻住讚专讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛

The Gemara explains: Shmuel did not say his explanation of the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as the mishna does not teach that the roof was slanted, which is the crux of Rav鈥檚 explanation. And Rav did not say his explanation of the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as if so, even if the roof was breached on several sides, its legal status would be that of a portico, and Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: With regard to a portico, it is permitted to carry throughout the entire portico.

讚讗讬转诪专 讗讻住讚专讛 讘讘拽注讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara proceeds to cite the dispute between Rav and Shmuel in a more comprehensive manner. As it was stated that Rav said: It is permitted to carry in the entire portico as it is considered sealed. And Shmuel said: One may carry only within four cubits. As the portico does not have actual partitions it is subsumed into the field, and shares its status of a karmelit.

专讘 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 驻讬 转拽专讛 讬讜专讚 讜住讜转诐

The Gemara elaborates on their respective opinions. Rav said: It is permitted to carry in the entire portico, as he maintains that we say: The edge of the roof descends and seals the portico to form a partition. As there is a roof over the portico, it is considered sealed with partitions on all four sides. And Shmuel said: One may carry only within four cubits, as we do not say: The edge of the ceiling descends and seals.

讘注砖专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬转专 诪注砖专

The Gemara elaborates further: If the openings on the sides of the portico are no wider than ten cubits, everyone agrees that they are considered sealed, as the status of even an unroofed breach of ten cubits or less is that of an entrance, and one is permitted to carry throughout the entire domain. They disagree only in a case where the openings are more than ten cubits wide.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讬转专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘注砖专

And some say: On the contrary, if the openings are more than ten cubits wide, everyone agrees that they are considered breaches, and the principle: The edge of the roof descends and seals, is not applied. They disagree only in a case where the openings are no wider than ten cubits.

讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

And that which Rav Yehuda said:

Scroll To Top