Eruvin 10b — the Talmud in English

makes a raised barrier ten

handbreadths

over a length of four cubits

according to the measure of the length of a mavoi, and

sets it

within the mavoi, in its middle,

along the length of the mavoi,

and they become like two mavo'ot: one opening becomes the opening of this mavoi, and the second opening becomes the opening of the second mavoi, and he prepares each opening with a side-post or a crossbeam. [See illustration 1]

Alternatively,

he can prepare it

in accordance with

its arrangement

of Rav Yehuda.

For Rav Yehuda said: A mavoi that is fifteen cubits wide, he distances two cubits

from the beginning of one of the walls of the mavoi,

and makes a barrier

wide

three cubits,

and sets it across the width of the mavoi at its beginning. And it is found that five cubits of the opening are considered closed, since the standing portion within them is greater than the breached portion. And there remains for him an opening of ten cubits and no more. [See illustration 2]

And likewise, in a width of twenty cubits, he should set on both sides of the opening of the mavoi barriers three cubits wide, at a distance of two cubits from each wall. Or he should make on one side of the opening of the mavoi a barrier six cubits wide, at a distance of four cubits, and thereby ten cubits of the opening are closed by a standing portion greater than the breached portion, and there remains for him an opening of ten cubits and no more, and he renders it fit with a side-post or crossbeam. [Tosafot and the Ritva] [See illustration 3]

And we raise an objection to it:

And why

did we require him [Rashi] to close the mavoi that is fifteen cubits wide specifically with one barrier three cubits wide?!

And why does he not

make

two barriers:

one barrier

one cubit wide

and a half,

and set it adjacent to the wall,

and distance two cubits, and make a barrier

a second one,

one cubit and a half wide,

and the two barriers together are a standing portion greater than the breached portion, and close the two cubits of air between them?! [See illustration 4]

Does it indeed

follow from this,

since we do not do so, that

a standing portion greater than the breached portion

through the joining of the standing portions

from two directions is not considered a standing portion,

for since in not even one of the standing portions is there more than the breached portion [for the breach is two cubits, and the standing portion is one and a half cubits], is all the standing portion nullified in relation to the breached portion, which is greater than it [as a rhetorical question]. [See illustration 5]

And we reject this:

I will always say to you

that a standing portion greater than the breached portion, even through the joining of standing portions from two directions,

is considered a standing portion.

But here is different,

for one cannot divide the standing portion into two barriers, since that one-and-a-half-cubit barrier standing in the middle of the opening is surrounded on both its sides by a breached portion greater than it: on one side it is breached by the air of two cubits, and on the other side it is breached by the air of ten cubits. For then we say:

the air of this side comes, and

the air

of that side, and nullifies it

the one-and-a-half-cubit standing portion between them.

And we still object: Why do I need specifically one barrier?!

And let him make a one-cubit barrier

and set it adjacent to one of the walls,

and distance one cubit and make a barrier

a second one,

one cubit wide, and distance one cubit and make a barrier

a third one,

one cubit wide,

for together they would constitute a standing portion greater than the breached portion?!

It follows from this

since we do not do so, that a

standing portion

that is equal

to the breached portion—

is forbidden!

And we reject this:

I will always say to you

that a standing portion equal to the breached portion

is permitted.

But here is different [

since on one side of the standing portion next to the opening there is a breached portion greater than the standing portion, for the opening is wider than it, while on the other side there is a breached portion equal to the standing portion, and therefore we say]

that the air of this side comes, and

the air

of that side and nullifies it [

Ran].

We further object from the other side:

Why did you say that he should distance two complete cubits, so that he thereby has a large breach?!

Would it not be preferable to do this:

and distance one cubit

from one of the walls,

and make a barrier of one and a half cubits.

And distance

another

cubit, and make

another

barrier of one and a half cubits?!

For now, since the standing portion of one and a half cubits is greater than the breached portion of one cubit on one side, that air—the smaller breach—does not join with the air of the opening, which is greater, to nullify the standing portion between them.

Rather, on the contrary, the air of one cubit is nullified by the one-and-a-half-cubit standing portion that is greater than it on one side. [See illustration on the preceding page]

And we answer:

Indeed, so

it is preferable to do this.

And

the reason it was not said that he does so is that

to go to all this trouble

to set up several separate barriers

the Rabbis did not trouble him.

And we further object: When he distances two cubits, he makes another opening for the mavoi,

and

if so,

let us be concerned lest he abandon the large opening [

leave the large opening]

and enter through the small opening [

and enter through the small opening in the breach], and then the arrangement of the side-post or crossbeam is nullified, since they must be at the opening of the mavoi. And this—there is not the designation “opening of a mavoi” upon it. [The language of the Mishna Berura, section 365, subsection 4]

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Mattana said:

There is no concern that they will pass through the breach, for

it is presumed that a person does not leave a large opening and enter through a small opening.

And we object against this:

And how is it different from

that

of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

who said above [page 5a]: If a mavoi was breached from its side [in the wall at the side of the mavoi] toward the beginning of the mavoi, and a four-handbreadth standing portion did not remain toward the beginning, then, if the breach is three handbreadths wide, the crossbeam does not render the mavoi permitted. This is because we are concerned lest he abandon the large opening and enter through the small opening at the side of the mavoi, and the designation “opening of the mavoi” will be nullified from the opening of the mavoi, and the permission of the side-post or crossbeam will no longer help it.

And how is there different there from what you said here, that it is presumed that a person does not leave a large opening and enter through a small opening?!

And we answer:

There is different,

for the mavoi was breached from the side, and one who comes to enter through the small opening

reduces

in his walking,

since he does not need to go around and enter through the opening of the mavoi.

But

here,

where it was breached from its beginning,

it does not reduce

the possibility of entering through the breach

in his walking.

And for this reason we are not concerned that he will leave the large opening and enter through the small opening.

We learned there [

in the Tosefta of Kelim], concerning the impurity of a corpse in a tent:

A tent over a corpse imparts corpse-impurity to those found beneath it even if they did not touch the corpse.

The smallest measure of a tent over a corpse is “a handbreadth by a handbreadth with a height of a handbreadth.”

The width of the handbreadth is measured:

Four fingers when measured with the thumb.

Five fingers when measured with the finger.

Six fingers when measured with the little finger.

The skin of the esla [

it is explained immediately below that it contains a hollow]

and its hollow,

whose skin together with the hollow had a width of one handbreadth—

join together to make a handbreadth,

for the measure of a handbreadth to be a tent for a corpse.

And we explain the beraita:

What is the skin of the esla?

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The skin covering of a lavatory

of ministers, whose seat is made of iron and covered with skin. [Rash]

We further explain:

And how much

is the measure of the breached hollow, so that it is nullified beside the standing skin surrounding it, to join the measure of a handbreadth?

When Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

that he had heard from Rabbi Yohanan [Ritva]:

Two fingers [

little fingers] of skin

from here, and two fingers

of skin

from here, and two fingers of open space

a hollow

in the middle—

for they are equal to one another, six little fingers, which are a handbreadth.

When Ravin came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

that he had heard from Rabbi Yohanan [Ritva]:

One finger

a thumb

and a half

of skin

from here, and one finger

a thumb

and a half

of skin

from here, and one finger of open space in the middle,

for they are equal to one another, four thumbs, which are a handbreadth.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Do you disagree [

have you and Ravin disagreed in the law]?

He said to him

Rav Dimi to Abaye:

No,

we did not disagree.

Rather,

that

which Ravin spoke of concerns

the

fingers

that are large [

large ones, namely the thumbs], of which four constitute a handbreadth!

And that

which is mine,

concerns the

fingers

that are small [

the little finger], of which six constitute a handbreadth.

And we do not disagree,

I and Ravin.

Abaye said to him,

Abaye to Rav Dimi:

Indeed not;

how can it be said according to your words that you do not disagree?! For certainly

you disagree!

For according to your approach, the skin and the air join to make the measure of a handbreadth even though there is no standing portion here that by itself is greater than the breached portion. Whereas according to Ravin, we require a standing portion that by itself is greater than the breached portion.

And

if so,

with a standing portion greater than the breached portion

through the joining of the standing portion

from two directions

of the breached portion—

you disagree!

And this is your disagreement:

According to you—

since you said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan that two fingers are sufficient as the standing portion and two fingers as the breached portion, Rabbi Yohanan holds that a standing portion greater than the breached portion

is considered a standing portion

even when the standing portions join

from two directions.

But

according to Ravin, only a standing portion

that is

from one direction

and is greater than the breached portion,

is considered a standing portion [

according to Rabbi Yohanan]. But a standing portion that is greater only through the joining

from two directions—

is not considered a standing portion.

For if it should enter your mind that you do not disagree,

and Ravin, who stated one and a half fingers in his words, did so because Rabbi Yohanan was speaking of large fingers,

if so:

according to Ravin, this is what

this is what

it should have been necessary for him

for Rabbi Yohanan

to say:

One finger and a third from here, and one finger and a third from here, and one finger and a third of open space in the middle.

For they are equal to one another, four large fingers, and the standing portion is greater than the breached portion. And it was unnecessary to state an example in which the air in the middle is less than the standing portion at the side.

And necessarily, since here the standing portion is greater than the breached portion only through joining from two directions, it is not considered a standing portion!

Rav Dimi said to Abaye:

But what then

do you say—that

we disagree

concerning a standing portion greater than the breached portion from two directions, and according to me Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is effective?!

If so:

According to me, this is what it should have been necessary for me to say

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

One finger

one

and two-thirds

from here, and

one finger

one

and two-thirds from here, and two fingers and two-thirds of open space in the middle.

Since a standing portion from two directions is also effective, even if the hollow between them is greater than each of the standing portions individually, the two standing portions also join together and nullify it.

And necessarily, the reason is not that two standing portions join to nullify it, but that it is sufficient that each standing portion is equal to the breached portion, and the breached portion is not greater than either of the standing portions.

Rather,

in my view, we do not disagree at all. What I heard from Rabbi Yohanan and what Ravin heard from Rabbi Yohanan are all one matter, and Rabbi Yohanan did not distinguish between one and the other [Ritva].

And

if it can be said that we disagree, it is concerning a breached portion

that is not greater than either of the standing portions, but rather

equal to the standing portion

on each side—

we disagree.

For I hold: even this is considered a standing portion! And Ravin holds: it is not considered a standing portion unless each standing portion is greater than the breached portion between them. And for this reason he stated: one and a half fingers from here, one and a half fingers from here, and one finger of open space in the middle!

We learned in the Mishna:

If it has

the mavoi

the form of an opening,

then

even though it is wider than ten, he does not need to reduce

the width of the mavoi.

And we inquire: Since

we find

in the Mishna

the form of an opening that is effective in its width

of the mavoi when it is more than ten.

And

we also find [above, page 3a]

an amaltera [

a thing adjacent to the crossbeam that attracts the eye, and there it explains it],

that is effective in its height

of the mavoi, when the crossbeam is higher than twenty cubits [for without an amaltera it is invalid, as it is stated in the Mishna above, page 2a].