Eruvin 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

He makes a partition ten

handbreadths

long for four cubits

the measure of the length of a mavoi, and

places it

within the mavoi, at its midpoint,

along the length of the mavoi,

so that it becomes like two mavo'ot. The first opening is made the entrance of this mavoi, and the second opening the entrance of the other mavoi, and each entrance is rendered fit with a lehi or a korah. [See illustration 1]

Alternatively,

he can render it fit

in accordance with

the arrangement

of Rav Yehuda.

As Rav Yehuda said: In the case of a mavoi that is fifteen cubits wide, one distances two cubits

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

and makes a partition

wide

three cubits,

and places it across the width of the mavoi at its entrance. It follows that five cubits of the entrance are considered closed, since the standing area within them is greater than the open area. Thus, an entrance of ten cubits and no more remains, and he renders it fit with a lehi or a korah. [See illustration 2]

Likewise, when it is twenty cubits wide, he places partitions three cubits wide on both sides of the entrance of the mavoi, each two cubits away from a wall. Alternatively, on one side of the entrance of the mavoi he makes a partition six cubits wide, four cubits away from the wall. In this manner, ten cubits of the entrance are closed, with the standing area greater than the open area, and an entrance of ten cubits and no more remains; he renders it fit with a lehi or a korah. [Tosafot and Ritva] [See illustration 3]

And we raise a difficulty:

Why

did we require him [Rashi] to close the fifteen-cubit-wide mavoi specifically with one partition three cubits wide?!

And why should he not

make

two partitions:

one partition

one cubit wide

and a half,

and place it adjacent to the wall,

and distance it two cubits, and make a second partition

wide

one cubit and a half,

so that the two partitions together constitute a standing area greater than the open area and close the two cubits of air between them?! [See illustration 4]

Does this indeed

prove

that, since we do not act in this manner,

a standing area greater than the open area

through the joining of standing areas

from two sides is not considered a standing area,

because, since neither of the standing areas by itself is greater than the open area [the open area is two cubits, whereas the standing area is one and a half cubits], all the standing area is nullified in relation to the open area, which is greater than it [expressed as a question]. [See illustration 5]

And we reject this:

I can say to you forever

that a standing area greater than the open area, even through the joining of standing areas from two sides,

is considered a standing area.

But here it is different,

because one cannot divide the standing area into two partitions. This is because the one-and-a-half-cubit partition standing in the middle of the entrance is surrounded on both sides by open areas greater than it: on one side there is an open area of two cubits, and on the other side there is an open area of ten cubits. In such a case we say:

the air on this side comes, and

the air

on that side and nullifies it,

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

We nevertheless ask: Why is one partition specifically necessary?!

Let him make a one-cubit partition

and place it adjacent to one of the walls,

and distance it one cubit and make a partition

the second one

one cubit wide, distance it one cubit, and make a partition

the third one

one cubit wide,

so that the standing area of all of them together is greater than the open area?!

Does this prove

that, since we do not act in this manner,

a standing area

that is equal

to the open area—

is prohibited!

And we reject this:

I can say to you forever

that a standing area equal to the open area

is permitted.

But here it is different [

since on one side of the standing area adjacent to the entrance there is an open area greater than the standing area, as the entrance is wider than it, while on the other side there is an open area equal to the standing area; therefore we say ]

that the air on this side comes, and

the air

on that side and nullifies it [

Ran ].

We further raise a difficulty from the other side:

Why did you say that he should distance it a full two cubits, thereby creating a large breach?!

Would it not be preferable to do this:

distance it one cubit

from one of the walls,

and make a partition one cubit and a half wide.

And distance it

another

cubit, and make

another

partition one cubit and a half wide?!

For now, since the one-and-a-half-cubit standing area is greater than the one-cubit open area on one side, that air space does not join the larger open area of the entrance so as to nullify the standing area between them.

On the contrary, the one-cubit air space is nullified by the one-and-a-half-cubit standing area, which is greater than it on one side. [See the illustration on the previous page]

And we answer:

Indeed,

it would be preferable to do so.

But

the reason it was not stated that he should do so is that

to such an extent

of exertion, placing several separate partitions,

the Sages did not impose upon him.

We further ask: When he distances it two cubits, he thereby makes another entrance for the mavoi,

and

if so,

let us be concerned lest he abandon the large entrance [

he will leave the large entrance ]

and enter through the small entrance [

and enter through the small entrance in the breach ], at which point the adjustment of the lehi or korah is nullified, since they must be located at the entrance of the mavoi. This, however, does not have the status of an “entrance of the mavoi.” [Language of the Mishna Berura 365:4]

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Mattana said:

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

there is a presumption: A person does not leave a large entrance and enter through a small entrance.

And we ask against this:

And how is this different from

that

of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

who said above [page 5a]: If a mavoi was breached on its side [in the wall at the side of the mavoi] toward the beginning of the mavoi, and a four-handbreadth partition did not remain toward the beginning of the mavoi, then, if the breach is three handbreadths wide, the korah does not render the mavoi permitted. This is because we are concerned lest he abandon the large entrance and enter through the small entrance on the side of the mavoi, in which case the entrance of the mavoi would lose its status as an entrance of the mavoi, and the allowance of the lehi or korah would no longer be effective.

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

And we answer:

There it is different,

because the mavoi was breached on its side, and one who wishes to enter through the small entrance

reduces

his walking,

as he need not go around and enter through the entrance of the mavoi.

But

here,

where it was breached at its beginning,

it does not reduce

the possibility of entering through the breach

in terms of walking.

Therefore, we are not concerned that he will leave the large entrance and enter through the small entrance.

We learned there [

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

A tent over a corpse imparts corpse impurity to those located 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 a handbreadth is measured as follows:

Four fingers when measured with the thumb.

Five fingers when measured with the index finger.

Six fingers when measured with the little finger.

The skin of the esla [

it will be explained immediately below that it contains an empty space ]

and its empty space,

where the width of the skin together with the empty space was one handbreadth—

combine to form a handbreadth,

the measure required for a tent over a corpse.

And we explain the beraita:

What is “the skin of the esla”?

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The skin covering of a lavatory

of ministers, whose seat is made of iron and covered with skin. [Rabbi Shimon of Sens]

We further explain:

And how much

may the measure of the open space be, so that it is nullified in relation to the standing skin surrounding it and joins it to constitute a handbreadth?

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

that he had heard from Rabbi Yoḥanan [Ritva]:

Two fingers [

little fingers ] of skin

on this side, and two fingers

of skin

on this side, and a two-finger space

of empty space

in the middle—

for they are equivalent: six little fingers, which constitute a handbreadth.

When Ravin came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

that he had heard from Rabbi Yoḥanan [Ritva]:

One finger

of thumb

and a half

of skin

on this side, and one finger

of thumb

and a half

of skin

on this side, and a thumb-finger of empty space in the middle,

for they are equivalent: four thumbs, which constitute a handbreadth.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: Do you disagree [

have you and Ravin disagreed in this law ]?

He said to him

Rav Dimi to Abaye:

No,

we do not disagree.

Rather,

that

which Ravin said refers

to

fingers

that are large [

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

And that

which I said refers

to

fingers

that are small [

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

And I and Ravin do not disagree

at all.

Abaye said to him

Abaye to Rav Dimi:

No indeed!

How can one say, as you have said, that you do not disagree?! Surely

you do disagree!

For according to your position, the skin and the air combine to constitute a handbreadth even though there is no standing area here that by itself is greater than the open area. According to Ravin, however, the standing area must by itself be greater than the open area.

And

if so,

with regard to a standing area greater than the open area

through the joining of standing areas

from two sides

of the open area,

you do disagree!

And this is the nature of your disagreement:

According to you—

since you said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that two fingers of standing area and two fingers of open area suffice, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that a standing area greater than the open area

is considered a standing area

even when the standing areas join

from two sides.

But

according to Ravin,

only a standing area

on one side

that is greater than the open area is considered standing area,

is considered a standing area [

according to Rabbi Yoḥanan ]. But a standing area that is greater only through the joining of standing areas

from two sides—

is not considered a standing area.

For if it enters your mind that you do not disagree,

and the reason Ravin stated one and a half fingers in his words is that Rabbi Yoḥanan was speaking of large fingers, and that is why he stated this measure,

if so:

according to Ravin,

surely this is what

he should have

Rabbi Yoḥanan

said:

One and one-third fingers on this side, one and one-third fingers on that side, and one and one-third fingers of empty space in the middle.

For together they constitute four large fingers, and the standing area is greater than the open area. There would have been no need to state an example in which the air in the middle is less than the standing area on the sides.

But inevitably, since here the standing area is greater than the open area only through the joining of standing areas from two sides, it is not considered a standing area!

Rav Dimi said to Abaye:

What else

can you say, that

we do disagree

concerning a standing area greater than the open area from two sides, and, according to my position, Rabbi Yoḥanan held that it is effective?!

If so:

According to me, this is what I should have said

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

One finger

one

and two-thirds

on this side, and

one finger

one

and two-thirds on this side, and two fingers and two-thirds of empty space in the middle.

Since a standing area from two sides is also effective, even if the empty space between them is larger than each of the standing areas individually, the two standing areas nevertheless combine and nullify it.

And inevitably, the reason is not that two standing areas combine to nullify it, but rather that it is sufficient for each standing area to be equal to the open area; the open area is not greater than either of the standing areas.

Rather,

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

And

if one can say that we disagree, it is regarding an open area

that is not greater than either of the standing areas, but

equal to the standing area

on each side—

we disagree.

For I hold that even this is considered standing area! Ravin, however, holds that it is considered standing area only when each standing area is greater than the open area between them. That is why he stated: one and a half fingers on this side, one and a half fingers on that side, and one finger of empty space in the middle!

We learned in the Mishna:

If it has

the mavoi

the form of an entrance,

then

even if it is wider than ten, he need not reduce

the width of the mavoi.

And we raise the following question: Since

we find

in the Mishna

that the form of an entrance is effective with regard to its width

when the mavoi is more than ten cubits wide,

and

we also find [above, page 3a]

an amaltara [

an object adjacent to the korah that attracts the eye, as it is explained there ],

that is effective with regard to its height

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