Eruvin 10a — the Talmud in English

And we explain: this Mishna is

Rabbi’s.

For he says: we require two strips

[projections] in order to give it the status of an entrance.

For it was taught: A courtyard

whose breach opens into the public domain, a breach up to ten cubits [which is not sufficient to nullify the partition, since it is an “entrance”]—

is rendered permitted with one strip

that remains from the wall that was breached.

Rabbi says:

it is not rendered permitted except

with

two that remain from it,

two strips,

on both sides.

And we raise an objection against it:

This

interpretation that you give of the Mishna, that he holds: “visible from the outside and equal from the inside” is judged as a lehi, and in accordance with everything that we said—

what

—how is it possible to say so?!

Granted, if you say

that the reason the small one is not rendered permitted is because

“visible from the outside and equal from the inside” is not judged as a lehi—

the beraita is well understood, establishing the Mishna as referring to a small one measuring ten and a large one measuring eleven.

For without establishing it in this manner, the large courtyard too would be forbidden for carrying. For:

a. The Mishna is Rabbi’s, who holds that two strips are required.

b.

Rabbi

with regard to the strips of a courtyard

holds like Rabbi Yose,

that a strip must be three handbreadths wide.

And now the large courtyard has two projections, each of three handbreadths.

c. And consequently:

and Rabbi Zeira’s

[who established the Mishna as referring to the walls of the small courtyard entering into the large one, and for this reason he needs to establish it in accordance with Ravina, that they are separated from this wall by two and from that wall by four, so that there will not be lavud],

and Ravina’s

himself—

is not so!

[It is not true in the interpretation of the Mishna.]

For since, in order to permit the large courtyard, we require a three-handbreadth strip on each side [for otherwise it is not rendered permitted, since the Mishna holds like Rabbi and like Rabbi Yose], Ravina’s interpretation does not stand.

And consequently Rabbi Zeira’s interpretation also does not stand, since without Ravina’s interpretation it benefits us nothing!

And now it is well understood, for

therefore

the beraita teaches that the Mishna speaks of

a small one measuring ten and a large one measuring eleven,

which are an excess of six handbreadths, three on each side, in order to permit the large one.

And

because Rabbi

holds that two projections are required to permit the large one, and

holds like Rabbi Yose,

that each projection must be three handbreadths wide!

But if you say

as you claim:

a. That

“visible from the outside and equal from the inside” is judged as a lehi.

b.

And Rabbi Zeira’s

[which speaks of the walls of the small courtyard entering into the large one]

and Ravina’s

[which speaks of their being separated from one another by two and by four]

do stand.

c.

And

consequently—if it is as you claim—

Rabbi,

who holds that two strips are required [for this is how we establish the Mishna according to him, for if not, let us say lavud from one side],

does not hold like Rabbi Yose,

that the strips must be three handbreadths wide [for if he held like Rabbi Yose, the large one too would not be rendered permitted, since on one side it is separated only by two—for Ravina]!

There is a difficulty: concerning what the beraita teaches, that the Mishna speaks of

a large one measuring eleven,

for

why is this needed?!

But

in either case:

If it comes to permit the large one,

so that it should have projections,

the

beraita comes—

this is not so.

For

with ten,

the measure of the entrance of the small courtyard,

and two handbreadths,

one handbreadth for each projection, it is also

sufficient.

And

if

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

to come to forbid the small one,

and to teach us that it is only because the walls of the large courtyard are separated from the small one that we forbid the small one, since now it is impossible to say lavud—

this is not so.

For if so, it should have

taught us

this novelty in a matter more decisively demonstrating that there is no lavud, such as

that the walls

of the large courtyard are separated from the small one

by a great deal, and not as it establishes it now, for it is possible to explain that they are distant three from here and three from there, and when the thickness of the walls is subtracted, there is indeed lavud!

and not as it is established now, where one could explain that they are three handbreadths apart on each side and that, after deducting the thickness of the walls, lavud does in fact apply!

Rather, is it not, learn from this

Mishna, that

“visible from the outside and equal from the inside” is not judged as a lehi.

And we conclude:

Is this to be learned?

Rav Yosef said: I have not heard this teaching

of Rabba bar Rav Huna above, who said: “Visible from the outside and equal from the inside” is judged as a lehi!

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef [who had become ill and forgotten his learning, and Abaye, his student, would remind him—Rashi below, 41]:

You said it to us, and you said it to us concerning this:

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

A mavoy whose one wall is longer and the other shorter than it. He placed at the head of the shorter wall

a lehi extending along

opposite

its wall

the longer

wall of the mavoy [Ritba], and that lehi at the head of the wall was thinner than the thickness of the wall, so that one standing inside the mavoy saw only a long wall, while only one standing outside the mavoy saw the projection of the lehi—which was thinner than the thickness of the wall—beyond the outer side of the lehi:

If the side post was

If the length of the lehi was

less than four cubits—it is

judged as a lehi, and one may use

and carry only

up to its inner edge

of the lehi.

But if it was

four cubits

the measure of the extension of a mavoy—the lehi is

judged

the lehi

as

an extension of the wall

of the mavoy, and not as a lehi,

and

and

therefore

it is forbidden to use all of it

[the entire mavoy], since here there is no lehi, but rather an extension of the wall of the mavoy.

And this—

Rav Yosef—

you said to us concerning it: Learn from this

teaching

three things:

a.

Learn from this: the area between lehayim

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

is forbidden

to use and to carry there. And therefore one uses only up to the inner edge of the lehi! b.

And learn from this: the extension of a mavoy

is

four

cubits, and therefore, if the lehi extends four cubits, it is judged as the wall of the mavoy and not as a lehi.

c.

And learn from this: A lehi which

is visible

is visible

only

from the outside

of the mavoy,

and is equal from the inside—

is judged as a lehi!

For if this were not so, even if it did not extend four cubits, it would not be judged as a lehi, since inside it appears as an extension of the wall of the mavoy, and not as a lehi.

And we conclude:

And the halakha is: “visible from the outside and equal from the inside”—

is judged as a lehi!

And we wonder about this: Did not Rabba raise an objection against it [above] from the Mishna of “a small courtyard whose breach opens into a large one,” and did we not conclude above: Learn from this that “visible from the outside and equal from the inside” is not judged as a lehi?!

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

a tiyuvta, and

on the other hand there is

a halakha

like it, that it is judged as a lehi?!

And we explain:

No.

Despite the tiyuvta, the halakha is indeed so.

Because Rabbi Hiyya taught

above

in accordance with it. For he taught: “A wall whose one side is recessed from the other, whether it is visible from the outside and equal from the inside—it is judged as a lehi”!

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

And

the entrance of a mavoy

wider than ten cubits—

must be reduced.

Abaye said: It was taught

in a beraita:

And one wider than ten must be reduced.

Rabbi Judah says: It need not be reduced.

And we inquire:

And up to how much

may the width of the entrance be, and need it not be reduced, according to Rabbi Judah?

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

cubits.

And

Rav Ahi learned it by means of a

kal va-chomer

from the entrance of the mavoy

from

the entrance of

the strips around the wells.

The strips around the wells are strips in the form of angles [see illustration], which they placed in the public domain around water wells. [See the introduction for an extensive explanation of this concept.]

The reason for the matter is that since the water pits are ten handbreadths deep and four [handbreadths] wide, they are a private domain.

And since they are located in the public domain, it is impossible to take out from them and draw water.

Therefore, they make around the well diomedin [angles], one cubit in one direction and one cubit in the other direction, and it follows that on all four sides of the well, in every direction, there are partitions of two cubits: a one-cubit strip here and a one-cubit strip there, enclosing the area and giving it the status of a private domain. Therefore they may draw water from the well into the area between the strips.

And Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah dispute how far one may separate one strip from another.

Rabbi Meir holds: ten cubits. And Rabbi Judah holds: up to thirteen and one-third cubits between one strip and another.

And this is how we learn by a kal va-chomer from the strips around the wells, in order to ascertain Rabbi Judah’s position concerning the width of the entrance of a mavoy:

And if, concerning the strips around the wells, where you permitted a breached area to be greater than the standing area,

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

you did not permit there

according to Rabbi Judah a breach that is

more than thirteen and one-third cubits.

A mavoy, in which you did not permit a breached area to be greater than the standing area—

is it not logical that you should not permit there

according to Rabbi Judah, when its entrance is open

more than thirteen and one-third cubits?

And we refute the kal va-chomer:

On the contrary, this very principle by which you bring a prohibition for an entrance that is more than thirteen and one-third cubits, because you did not permit in a mavoy a breached area to be greater than the standing area—

it

itself is

what gives

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

For specifically

the strips around the wells,

since you were lenient with them with one leniency, in that

you permitted in them a breached area to be greater than the standing area,

it is appropriate that you not be lenient with them with an additional leniency, and

not permit in them

an entrance that is

more

wide

than thirteen and one-third cubits.

But

a mavoy, in which you did not permit a breached area to be greater than the standing area,

and most of it is closed, it is appropriate to be lenient with it with one leniency, and

permit in it

even

more than thirteen and one-third cubits.

Alternatively, Rav Ahi’s statement may also be rejected

on

in the opposite direction, to be more stringent with a mavoy than with the strips around the wells:

namely, by being stricter with regard to an alleyway than with regard to water-well side posts:

For one may say:

The strips around the wells are permitted up to thirteen and one-third cubits, since

water-well side posts are permitted up to thirteen and one-third cubits—apply because

you were lenient with them with one leniency,

to permit in them a breached area greater than the standing area—

you were lenient with them

also

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

an alleyway,

a mavoy

with which you were not lenient

at all, not at all,

you will not be lenient with it; rather, we require an “entrance” only up to ten cubits!

And this means that from the strips around the wells it is impossible to learn Rabbi Judah’s position concerning the entrance of a mavoy, neither to be stringent nor to be lenient. Yet it is clear to us that according to Rabbi Judah the entrance of a mavoy may also be more than ten cubits, as explained in the beraita.

In the following discussion it is explained how a mavoy whose entrance is wider than ten cubits can be rendered permitted by dividing the mavoy at its head into two entrances of two mavo’ot, or by reducing the entrance to ten cubits through “the standing area being greater than the breached area.”

Levi taught: A mavoy that is wide

at its head

twenty cubits—

he drives a reed into its middle

of the entrance and makes it into two entrances, each of which is no wider than ten,

and that is sufficient! [see illustration 1]

How does he render it permitted? Does he need a lehi or a beam for each entrance, or is one of the entrances sufficient? See “Iyyunim”.

And we say:

And we say:

He,

Levi,

taught it,

this beraita,

and he

Levi also

said concerning 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 [from its other side] come and nullify the reed!

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

Rather, how does he act

to render permitted a mavoy whose width is twenty cubits?

Shmuel said in the name of Levi: