Eruvin 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

And we resolve: This Mishna is

the opinion of Rabbi.

As he says: We require two side posts

[projections] to establish the status of an entrance.

As it was taught in a beraita: A courtyard

whose wall was breached toward the public domain, a breach up to ten cubits [which is not sufficient to invalidate the partition, since it has the status of an “entrance”]—

may be rendered permitted with one side post

that remains from the breached wall.

Rabbi says:

It may be rendered permitted only

if

there remain

two side posts,

one on each side.

And we raise an objection to this:

This

interpretation that you give of the Mishna, that it holds that an object that is visible from the outside but flush with the interior is considered a lehi, and in accordance with everything we have said—

what

is the basis for saying this?!

Granted, if you say

that the reason the smaller courtyard is not rendered permitted is that

an object visible from the outside but flush with the interior is not considered a lehi—

the beraita can be understood well as establishing that the Mishna is speaking of a smaller courtyard that is ten cubits wide and a larger courtyard that is eleven cubits wide.

For without establishing it in this manner, the larger courtyard would also be prohibited for carrying. For:

a. The Mishna is the opinion of Rabbi, who holds that two side posts are required.

b.

Rabbi

with regard to the side posts of a courtyard

holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who requires the width of a side post to be three handbreadths.

And now the larger courtyard has two projections, each three handbreadths wide.

c. And consequently:

And Rabbi Zeira

[who established that the Mishna is speaking of the walls of the smaller courtyard entering into the larger courtyard, and therefore he must establish it in accordance with Ravina, that they are separated from this wall by two cubits and from that wall by four cubits, so that the principle of lavud will not apply],

and Ravina

himself—

does not apply!

[This is not the correct interpretation of the Mishna.]

Since, in order to render the larger courtyard permitted, a side post three handbreadths wide is required on each side [for otherwise it is not rendered permitted, as the Mishna agrees with Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei], Ravina’s interpretation does not apply.

And consequently Rabbi Zeira’s interpretation also does not apply, since without Ravina’s interpretation it accomplishes nothing for us!

And now it is understandable, for

that is why

the beraita teaches that the Mishna is discussing

a smaller courtyard of ten cubits and a larger courtyard of eleven cubits,

which are six handbreadths wider, three on each side, in order to render the larger courtyard permitted.

And

because Rabbi

holds that two projections are required to render the larger courtyard permitted, and

holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who requires each projection to be three handbreadths wide!

But if you say

as you claim:

a. That

an object visible from the outside but flush with the interior is considered a lehi.

b.

And Rabbi Zeira

[who speaks of the walls of the smaller courtyard entering the larger one]

and Ravina

[who speaks of their being separated by two cubits on one side and four on the other]

do apply.

c.

And

consequently—if you say as you claim—

Rabbi,

who holds that two side posts are required [for this is how we establish the Mishna, since otherwise we could invoke lavud from one side],

does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Yosei,

who requires the side posts to be three handbreadths wide [for if he agreed with Rabbi Yosei, the larger courtyard would also not be rendered permitted, since according to Ravina it is separated by only two cubits on one side]!

The following difficulty arises: Regarding what the beraita teaches, that the Mishna is discussing

a larger courtyard of eleven cubits,

for this

why is it necessary?!

For

in either case:

If it comes to render the larger courtyard permitted,

so that it will have projections,

the beraita comes

to teach—

this is not so.

For

with ten cubits,

the measure of the entrance of the smaller courtyard,

and two handbreadths,

one handbreadth for each projection, it would also be

sufficient.

And

if

you say that we establish it in such a manner in order

to render the smaller courtyard prohibited,

and to teach us that it is only because the walls of the larger courtyard are separated from those of the smaller courtyard that we prohibit the smaller courtyard, since now we cannot invoke lavud—

this is not so.

For if so, it should have

taught us

this novel point in a case that more decisively lacks lavud, such as

where the walls

of the larger courtyard are separated from those of the smaller courtyard

by a great deal,

and not as it establishes it now, where one might interpret the case as being that they are three cubits apart on each side, in which case, after subtracting the thickness of the walls, lavud does indeed apply!

Rather, is it not evident

from this Mishna that

an object visible from the outside but flush with the interior is not considered a lehi.

And we conclude:

Is this conclusive?

Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this teaching

of Rabba bar Rav Huna cited above, who said: An object visible from the outside but flush with the interior is considered a lehi!

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef: [He had become ill and forgotten his learning, and Abaye, his student, would remind him of it—Rashi below, 41a.]

You yourself told it to us, and you told it to us regarding this:

For Rami bar Abba said in the name of Rav Huna:

An alleyway whose one wall is longer than the other, shorter wall. At the head of the shorter wall he placed

a lehi extending along

opposite

its wall,

the longer

wall of the alleyway [Ritba]. That lehi at the head of the wall was thinner than the thickness of the wall, such that one standing inside the alleyway sees only a long wall, while only one standing outside the alleyway sees the projection of the lehi—which is thinner than the thickness of the wall—beyond the outer side of the lehi:

If the length of the lehi was

less than

four cubits—

it is considered a lehi, and one may use

and carry only

up to its inner edge

of the lehi.

But if it was

four cubits

long, the measure of the length of an alleyway—

the lehi is considered

the

continuation

of the wall

of the alleyway, and not a lehi,

and

and

therefore

it is prohibited to use all of it

[the entire alleyway], since there is no lehi here, but rather a continuation of the alleyway wall.

And this—

Rav Yosef—

you told us regarding it: From this teaching, it is evident

from this teaching

three things:

a.

It is evident: The area between the lehiot

that is, the place in the alleyway opposite the lehi—

is prohibited

to use and carry there. And that is why one may use only up to the inner edge of the lehi! b.

And it is evident: The length of an alleyway

is

four cubits, and that is why, if the lehi extends four cubits, it is considered the wall of the alleyway and not a lehi.

cubits, and therefore, if the side post extends four cubits, it is considered part of the alleyway wall and not a side post.

c.

And it is evident: A lehi that

is

visible

only

from outside

the alleyway,

but is flush with the interior—

is considered a lehi!

For if this were not so, even if it did not extend four cubits it would not be considered a lehi, since from the inside it appears to be a continuation of the alleyway wall, and not a lehi.

And we conclude:

And the halakha is: An object visible from the outside but flush with the interior—

is considered a lehi!

And we raise a difficulty against this: Rabba objected to it [above] from the Mishna concerning “a small courtyard that was breached into a large courtyard,” and we concluded above: It is evident that an object visible from the outside but flush with the interior is not considered a lehi!

And if so, how is it possible that on the one hand there is

a tיувta, and

on the other hand there is

a halakha

in accordance with him, that it is considered a lehi?!

And we resolve:

No.

Despite the tיувta, the halakha is indeed so.

Because Rabbi Hiyya taught

above

in accordance with him. He taught: “A wall whose one side is recessed relative to the other—whether it is visible from the outside and flush with the interior—it is considered a lehi.”

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

And

the entrance of an alleyway

that is wider than ten cubits—

one must reduce it.

Abaye said: It was taught

in a beraita:

And one that is wider than ten cubits, one must reduce it.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not necessary to reduce it.

And we ask:

And how much

may the width of the entrance be, such that according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not necessary to reduce it?

Rav Aḥai thought to say before Rav Yosef: Up to thirteen and one-third cubits

of a cubit.

And

Rav Aḥai derived this by

a kal va-homer

regarding the entrance of an alleyway

from

the entrance of

the pasei biraot.

Pasei biraot are side posts in the form of angles [see illustration] that were set up in the public domain around wells. [See the introduction for an extensive explanation of this concept].

The reason for this is that since the water pits are ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide, they have the status of a private domain.

And since they are located in the public domain, it is not possible to draw water from them and fill vessels with it.

Therefore, one makes around the well double posts [angles], one cubit in this direction and one cubit in that direction. It follows that on each of the four sides of the well, in each direction, there are partitions two cubits wide: a one-cubit post here and a one-cubit post there. These enclose the area and give it the status of a private domain. Therefore, one may draw water from the well into the area between the posts.

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree as to how far one may separate one post from the other.

Rabbi Meir holds: ten cubits. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: up to thirteen and one-third cubits between one post and the other.

And this is how we derive by a kal va-homer from the pasei biraot, in order to determine Rabbi Yehuda’s position regarding the width of the entrance of an alleyway:

And with regard to the pasei biraot, where you permitted the breached area to be greater than the standing area,

for on each side there are only two cubits of posts, with a much larger breached area between them, nevertheless

you did not permit there

according to Rabbi Yehuda a breach that is

more than thirteen and one-third cubits.

With regard to an alleyway, where you did not permit the breached area to be greater than the standing area—

is it not all the more so that you should not permit it

according to Rabbi Yehuda when its entrance is

more than thirteen and one-third cubits?

And we refute the kal va-homer:

On the contrary, the very factor by which you seek to prohibit an entrance that is more than thirteen and one-third cubits, namely, that you did not permit a breached area greater than the standing area in an alleyway—

it

itself

provides

a reason to permit an entrance of an alleyway even when it is more than thirteen and one-third cubits.

For specifically

the pasei biraot,

since you were lenient there in one respect, in that

you permitted the breached area to be greater than the standing area,

it is appropriate that you should not be lenient there in an additional respect, and

not permit there

an entrance that is

more

wide

than thirteen and one-third cubits.

But

an alleyway, where you did not permit the breached area to be greater than the standing area,

and most of it is closed, is fit for one leniency, and

you should permit in it

even

more than thirteen and one-third cubits.

Alternatively, Rav Aḥai’s statement can be rejected also

in the opposite direction,

in the direction of greater stringency, requiring greater stringency in the case of an alleyway than in the case of the pasei biraot:

For one might say:

This statement applies to

the pasei biraot, which are permitted up to thirteen and one-third cubits, since

you were lenient with them with one leniency,

you were lenient with them

by permitting a breached area greater than the standing area—

you were lenient with them

also with

another leniency, that it should be considered an “entrance” up to thirteen and one-third cubits! But

an alleyway,

an alleyway,

with which you were not lenient

at all,

you are not lenient with it; rather, we require an “entrance” of up to ten cubits!

Thus, from the pasei biraot it is impossible to derive Rabbi Yehuda’s position regarding the entrance of an alleyway, neither to be stringent nor to be lenient. However, it is clear to us that according to Rabbi Yehuda the entrance of an alleyway may also be more than ten cubits, as explained in the beraita.

The following passage explains how an alleyway whose entrance is wider than ten cubits can be rendered permitted, either by dividing the head of the alleyway into two entrances belonging to two alleyways, or by reducing the entrance to ten cubits through the principle that the standing area is greater than the breached area.

Levi taught: An alleyway that is wide

at its head

twenty cubits—

one drives a reed into its center

of the entrance, thereby making it two entrances, neither of which is more than ten cubits wide,

and that is sufficient!

[See illustration 1]

[How does one render it permitted? Does each entrance require a lehi or a beam, or is one at a single entrance sufficient? See the Iyyunim.]

And we say:

He,

Levi,

taught it

this beraita,

and he

Levi also

said regarding it that the halakha is not in accordance with that Mishna:

Because we say: The air on this side [the air on one side of the reed] and the air on that side [on its other side] combine and nullify the reed!

Some say: Shmuel said in the name of Levi: The halakha is not in accordance with that Mishna!

Rather, how should he act

to render an alleyway twenty cubits wide permitted?

Shmuel said in the name of Levi: