Eruvin 101b — the Talmud in English

unless he made a partition ten handbreadths high in the public domain, and he is standing inside it, in which case he may open in the private domain. For he is standing in the private domain and opens in the private domain

,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And he disputes the Mishna above [98b], which states that a person may stand in the private domain and move an object in the public domain, and likewise in the reverse case, and we do not decree lest he bring the object into his domain.

The Sages said to him:

the Sages:

there was an incident involving the market of poultry sellers,

butchers,

which was in Jerusalem, where they would lock their shops on Shabbat, and the lock was above ten handbreadths,

and they would place the key in a window above the entrance,

and they would place the key in the window above the entrance,

even though they themselves stood in the market, which was a public domain,

Rabbi Yosei says: It was a market of wool sellers,

wool sellers,

it was!

He did not come to dispute with the Sages, but only to state how the incident was, and not a halakhic ruling.

Gemara:

And we raise it as a difficulty:

but the Sages,

who responded to Rabbi Meir in the Mishna from the market that was in Jerusalem—did they not respond properly?

For

Rabbi Meir said

“the public domain,” which one is prohibited to stand in and open in the private domain,

where it is forbidden to stand and open something in the private domain.

and they respond to him from a karmelit?! For Jerusalem is not a public domain but a karmelit, and what proof is there from a karmelit to a public domain?

Jerusalem was not a public domain but a karmelit, an area treated as a public domain by rabbinic decree. What proof is there from a karmelit regarding a public domain?

But a karmelit is different, since the prohibition of transferring from the private domain into it is only rabbinic; therefore, we do not decree that one may not stand in a karmelit and open in the private domain, lest he bring the key to himself, for that would be a decree upon a decree.

But in the public domain, perhaps we do decree.

For Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Jerusalem—were it not that its doors are locked at night

it would be

subject to liability concerning it because of the public domain, since it contains six hundred thousand people and its streets are open from gate to gate.

since it contained six hundred thousand people and its streets ran openly from one gate to another.

But since they lock the gates of the city at night, it is like one large courtyard, even during the day, because it is not comparable to the banners of the wilderness, where there was an open road at all times. However, one may not move objects within it by rabbinic law, because they did not establish courtyard eruvin in it.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

Here, before breaches were made in it in the wall of Jerusalem, at which time it was a karmelit.

in Jerusalem’s wall; at that time, it had the status of a karmelit.

Here,

the market of poultry sellers mentioned in the Mishna is under discussion,

after breaches were made in it in the wall of the city, so that it became a public domain. Nevertheless, they would lock [the shops] and place the key in the window above the entrance. And the Sages responded properly to Rabbi Meir.

in the city wall, so that it had become a public domain. Nevertheless, they would lock the shops and place the key in the window above the entrance. Thus, the Sages properly responded to Rabbi Meir.

Rava said:

Jerusalem always has the status of a karmelit.

And

the latter clause

of the Mishna, in which the Sages said to Rabbi Meir [that they had done so] from the market of poultry sellers—

we have arrived at the gates of a garden, where Rabbi Meir prohibits even in a garden whose status is that of a karmelit, lest a person stand inside it and open in the private domain, as will be stated below.

Rabbi Meir forbids a person even in a garden, which has the status of a karmelit, to stand inside it and open something in the private domain, as will be explained below. The Sages responded to him with the incident involving the market of fattened animals, which also had the status of a karmelit, and where people customarily acted permissively in this matter.

And concerning this the Sages responded to him from the market of poultry sellers, which also had been a karmelit, and they practiced permission in the matter.

And this is what

Rabbi Meir says in the Mishna:

And likewise, he may not stand in the private domain and open in a karmelit,

for example, he is standing in his courtyard and inserts his hand through a hole or a crack into the garden, which is a karmelit.

For it is not a place of residence and it is larger than two seah, and we hold that a karpef larger than two seah that was not enclosed for residence may not be used for moving objects more than four cubits; and he will take the key from there and open from inside.

And likewise he may not stand

in a karmelit and open in the private domain,

for example, he is standing inside the garden and extends his hand upward, takes a key from a place ten high and four wide, which is a private domain, and opens the lock, which is also above ten.

unless he made

inside the garden

a partition ten handbreadths high,

and he is standing inside it; then he may open the lock that is above ten, for his hand too is in the private domain, since the private domain rises to the firmament,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And all of this is because of a decree, lest he bring the key into the domain in which he is located. For Rabbi Meir decrees even because of transferring from a karmelit to a private domain, although the prohibition is only rabbinic.

The Sages said to him

the Sages:

There was an incident involving the market of poultry sellers that was in Jerusalem, where they would lock [the shops] and place the key in the window above the entrance.

Rabbi Yosei says: It was a market of wool sellers.

The Sages taught: The entrances of the gates of a garden—

when they have a gatehouse,

a small house standing at the entrance of the garden, whose entrance serves as the entrance of the garden.

If the gatehouse stands

inside

the garden,

he opens and locks from inside.

And if it is

outside

the garden,

he opens and locks from outside.

That is, he opens the gatehouse wherever it is located, for the one opening stands inside the gatehouse, which is a private domain, and the key and lock are also there.

If they have a gatehouse

on both sides—

he opens and locks here and there, the two entrances of the two gatehouses.

the two entrances of the two gatehouses.

If

they do not have

a gatehouse

neither here nor there, but there is only a gate for the garden, and it is adjacent to the public domain—

but there is only a gate to the garden, adjacent to the public domain—

they are prohibited here and there, both to open and lock from the side of the public domain and from the side of the garden.

whether to open and lock from the side of the public domain or from the side of the garden.

Because the lock is a private domain [for garden locks are generally ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide], whereas the person stands in the public domain or in the garden, which is a karmelit.

And even if the key is lying on the lock and he does not take it out from one domain to another, nevertheless we decree lest he bring the key to himself, to where he is standing, and it follows that he takes it from the private domain to the public domain or to a karmelit.

And likewise, shops that open onto the public domain,

and their threshold has the status of a karmelit [because it is less than ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide], while the locks of shops are sometimes high and sometimes low.

And therefore,

when the lock is below ten

handbreadths, at which time it is a karmelit [since it projects from the door by a width of four handbreadths]—

he brings a key before Shabbat and places it on the threshold.

And

on the following day, he opens and locks, and returns it to the threshold,

so that he is moving it from the threshold to the lock above it through the airspace of the threshold, and back. And all the time he is moving it only within a karmelit.

And when the lock is above ten

handbreadths, at which time it is a private domain—

he brings a key before Shabbat and places it in the lock.

That is, on top of the lock, and not on the threshold, for then on the following day he could not move it from there to the lock, since that would be from a karmelit to a private domain.

And

on the following day, he opens and locks, and returns it

to its place on top of the lock, which is from a private domain to a private domain,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Even when the lock is above ten handbreadths, he brings a key before Shabbat and places it on the threshold.

And

on the following day, he opens and locks, and returns it to its place.

For according to the Sages, the lock, although it is ten handbreadths high, is not a private domain but a place exempt [from domain liability], as will be explained below. Therefore it is permitted to move from the threshold to the lock, for that is from a karmelit to a place exempt.

Or he returns the key after locking

to the window above the entrance,

whose width is less than four handbreadths, so that it is a place exempt. Thus, when he moves it from the lock to the window, he is moving it from a place exempt to a place exempt.

But

if the window has four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths, at which time it is a private domain,

it is prohibited

to return the key there,

because it is like taking [an object] out from one domain to another.

It is as though he transferred the key from the threshold, which is a karmelit, to the window, which is a private domain. Although he did not transfer it directly from a karmelit to a private domain, for he placed it down in the middle in the lock, which is a place exempt, nevertheless the Sages prohibited doing so, as follows.

And we raise it as a difficulty:

Since

the beraita

says, “and likewise shops

that open onto the public domain,”—

by inference, we are dealing with a threshold that is a karmelit,

for the shop’s threshold is a karmelit, similar to the gates of the garden mentioned immediately beforehand, where the garden is a karmelit.

And now this is difficult:

this lock—

what are its circumstances?

If it does not have four

handbreadths by four handbreadths in width, then

it is a place exempt,

even when it is above ten handbreadths. And why did Rabbi Meir prohibit moving the key from the threshold to the lock when the lock is above ten handbreadths? After all, it is permitted to move from a karmelit to a place exempt!?

And if it has four

by four—then it is a private domain.

And if so, this is difficult: is it possible that

concerning this the Sages would say, “Even when the lock is above ten, he brings a key before Shabbat and places it on the threshold; on the following day he opens and locks with it and returns it to the threshold or to the window above the entrance”!?

And how is it permitted to move the key from the threshold to the lock,

for he is moving it from a karmelit to a private domain?

And we answer:

Abaye said: Actually, the thickness of

the lock does not have a width of

four

by four.

But

it has

enough

to hollow out,

there is sufficient space in the thickness of the door to hollow out there, parallel to the head of the lock,

and complete it to four

handbreadths.

And concerning this Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages.

For Rabbi Meir holds: We view it as hollowed out to complete [the measure]!

We view the door as though it were hollowed out until the completion of four handbreadths, and therefore the lock is a private domain, and it is prohibited to move the key from the threshold to the lock.

And the Sages hold: We do not view it as hollowed out to complete [the measure]!

Rather, we regard the lock as it is, and it is a place exempt. Therefore it is permitted to move from the threshold to the lock.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said: Infer three things from this teaching:

A.

Infer from it

from Rabbi Meir that

we view it as hollowed out to complete [the measure].

B.

And infer from it: Rabbi Meir retracted his position concerning the gates of a garden.

In the first clause of the beraita, concerning the gates of a garden, it is explained that Rabbi Meir prohibits standing in one domain and opening in another domain, even when it concerns two domains between which moving is prohibited only rabbinically. For even then we decree lest he bring the key from the place where he opens to the place where he is standing.

Whereas in the latter clause it is explained that he does not decree because of rabbinic moving.

For when the lock is above ten handbreadths, he permits opening it even though the person is standing on the threshold, which is a karmelit. And he does not decree lest he bring the key from the lock, which is a private domain, to himself, into the karmelit. Since the prohibition of moving from a private domain to a karmelit is only rabbinic, we do not decree a decree upon a decree.

C.

And infer from it from the Sages

who prohibit returning the key to a window that has four:

the teaching of Rav Dimi is established.

For when Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A place that does not have four by four

handbreadths—

it is permitted

both

for members of the public

domain

and

both

for members of the private domain to place their burdens upon it.

To lower their burdens upon it, since it is permitted to transfer from the public domain or from the private domain to a place exempt.

provided that they do not exchange

and transfer from one domain to another through a place exempt, even when they placed the object down in the middle in a place exempt, as a decree lest they come to transfer from domain to domain directly, without placing it down in the middle.

And therefore the Sages prohibit taking a key from the threshold, which is a karmelit, opening and locking with it, and afterward returning it to a window of four, which is a private domain. Although the key was placed down in the middle of the way, inside the lock, which is a place exempt.

Mishna:

A bolt,

which is a bolt that one inserts into a hole in the threshold in order to lock the door with it,

that has a knob at its head,

which is thick and large at its head like a pomegranate, and because of this it has the status of a utensil, since it is fit for crushing peppers with it.

Nevertheless,

Rabbi Eliezer prohibits

locking the door with it on Shabbat, unless it is tied and hanging from the door.

For if it is not tied and hanging from the door, he appears to be building by locking it.

And Rabbi Yosei permits.

Since it has the status of a utensil, he does not appear to be building.

Rabbi Eliezer said: There was an incident involving a

house of

assembly in Tiberias, where they practiced permission

concerning a bolt that had a knob, to lock with it on Shabbat.

Until Rabban Gamliel and the elders came and prohibited it for them!

And this is proof for my words.

Rabbi Yosei says:

the incident was the opposite:

They practiced prohibition concerning it, and Rabban Gamliel and the elders came and permitted it for them!

Gemara:

And we explain the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosei:

When the bolt can be taken

the bolt

by its attachment,

when the bolt is tied and hanging from the door with a strong cord, so that it can be moved by means of that cord and it does not break—

everyone agrees

that it is permitted to lock with it, since, as it is well tied and hanging, it is evident that it is intended for locking the door, and he does not appear to be building.