Eruvin 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

As Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi

Hanina: A pe'a

[a braided branch stretched over poles and made in the form of an entranceway]

is permitted

, because it serves as a partition

with regard to prohibited mixtures, but not with regard to Shabbat.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Just as partitions for Shabbat, in which

a pe'a is ineffective

so too partitions for prohibited mixtures, in which

a pe'a is ineffective!

Thus, Rabbi Yohanan, who said above that an entranceway made of a stretched branch is effective with regard to prohibited mixtures, apparently holds here that it is ineffective even with regard to prohibited mixtures!

And Reish Lakish likewise, who said above that an entranceway made of a stretched branch is effective even with regard to Shabbat, apparently holds here the opposite: that at least with regard to Shabbat it is ineffective!

And we explain:

Granted, the statement of Reish Lakish does not pose a difficulty for the statement of Reish Lakish.

For

this

, in the incident involving stretching a branch between one pole and another, concerning which Reish Lakish said that it is effective even for Shabbat, he stated it according to

his own

position; he said it according to his own view.

And

this

, here, concerning a pe'a, where he said that it is ineffective for Shabbat, he said according to

his teacher's

view, stating it in the name of his teacher, Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Hanina.

But the statement of Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Yohanan

does pose a difficulty!

And now the Gemara proves that Rabbi Yohanan holds like Rav, that an entranceway is ineffective for Shabbat when it is wider than ten cubits. And the reason Rabbi Yohanan says that the branch is ineffective with regard to Shabbat is that it is wider than ten cubits, and not, as we rejected above, that he is speaking of an entranceway up to ten cubits wide but made from the side!

And this is how we prove it:

Granted, if you say that there

, in Rabbi Yohanan's statement above, he is indeed speaking—as we sought to say above—of an entranceway made in accordance with the law,

on top

of the poles, and the reason that it is effective with regard to prohibited mixtures but ineffective with regard to Shabbat is that he is speaking of one wider than ten cubits, in accordance with Rav's view. But

here

, concerning a pe'a, he is speaking of an entranceway made

from the side—it is

quite

entirely

reasonable that there is no difficulty with Rabbi Yohanan's statement here, that it is ineffective even with regard to prohibited mixtures. For here he is speaking of one made from the side, and Rabbi Yohanan holds that one made from the side is ineffective even with regard to prohibited mixtures!

But if you say

as we rejected above, that the reason for Rabbi Yohanan's view is that the entranceway was made from the side, and

both this—

that statement of Rabbi Yohanan above—

and this

, this statement of Rabbi Yohanan concerning a pe'a, are both speaking of an entranceway made

from the side—

if so,

what is there to say

to reconcile Rabbi Yohanan's contradictory statements?!

And we reject this:

Actually,

as we rejected above, Rabbi Yohanan's statement above is speaking of one made from the side. Indeed,

both this and that

are speaking of an entranceway made

from the side.

And as for the difficulty from one statement of Rabbi Yohanan to the other, it can be said:

There, in the earlier statement, he is speaking of an entranceway made from the side, but the entrance was

only

ten

cubits wide and no more. In that case Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is ineffective for Shabbat, but with regard to prohibited mixtures an entranceway made from the side is effective.

But in the statement

here

he is speaking

of

an entranceway made from the side that was made over an opening

wider than ten cubits, and in this case Rabbi Yohanan holds that if it was made from the side it is ineffective both with regard to Shabbat and with regard to prohibited mixtures!

But a fully valid entranceway, even when it is wider than ten cubits, is entirely effective according to Rabbi Yohanan even for Shabbat; he does not hold like Rav, who says that it is ineffective!

And from where do you say that

in the case of an entranceway made from the side,

we distinguish between ten and more than ten?

It is from

what

Rabbi Yohanan said to Reish Lakish

, who disagreed with him and held that a pe'a is permitted with regard to prohibited mixtures: Was

this not in fact the incident, in which Rabbi Yehoshua went

[perhaps this is not the Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned elsewhere; Ya'avetz]

to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri to study Torah?

And Rabbi Yehoshua asked Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri a question concerning the laws of prohibited mixtures,

even though

Rabbi Yehoshua himself

was well versed

in

the laws of prohibited mixtures.

And

he found

Rabbi Yohoshua ben Nuri

sitting among the trees and stretching a branch from one tree to another, and he said to him

Rabbi Yehoshua:

My teacher!

If

there were

vines here

on one side of the branch,

what is the ruling regarding sowing here

on the other side of the branch, relying on the entranceway that separates them?

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him

:

With ten it is permitted; with more than ten—

it is prohibited!

Thus, a pe'a is ineffective even with regard to prohibited mixtures.

And the Gemara proves that, with regard to an entranceway made from the side, the distinction is between ten and more than ten:

What are we dealing with

in the incident involving Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri?

If you say

that it involved a branch stretched

on top

of the trees?

That cannot be.

For if so, how could Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri have said to him:

More than ten is prohibited?!

But it was taught

that with regard to prohibited mixtures, a fully valid entranceway is certainly effective even when it is wider than ten:

As it was taught:

If there were

in a vineyard

stakes with pointed tops

[sharpened like a thorn and stuck into the ground] and they were stuck into the ground,

and he made a pe'a for them

[a braided branch]

above them—

even if it is wider than ten, it is permitted.

Rather, is it not so

that the incident involving Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri concerns a braided branch made

from the side?

And Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said

to Rabbi Yehoshua:

With ten it is permitted; more than ten is prohibited!

Apparently, with regard to prohibited mixtures, we distinguish in the case of an entranceway made from the side between ten and more than ten.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this!

The body of the matter: Rav Hisda said: An entranceway made from the side—

is entirely ineffective!

And Rav Hisda said: The entranceway that they said

is effective

must be sturdy enough to support a door. And even

if it is sturdy only enough to support

a door made of reeds

[made from the stalks of grain]!

Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: An entranceway requires

a “door hinge mark”

of a door. For although it does not require an actual door, it must be suitable for a door to be installed in it.

And the Gemara explains:

What is a “door hinge mark”?

Rav Avya said: A socket

[a hole in which the door hinge turns]!

Rav Aha, son of Rav Avya, encountered the students of Rav Ashi.

He said

—Rav Aha asked

them:

Did

the Master

, Rav Ashi,

say anything concerning

the matter of

an entranceway?

They said to him: He said nothing at all!

A tanna

[and some versions read: He said to them: A tanna]

taught: The entranceway that they said consists of a post here, a post there, and a post above them!

And the question was raised: Do

the upper posts

[Rashi: in every entranceway]

need to touch

[see diagram 1] the lower posts,

or do they not need to touch,

and even if the post is suspended above in the air, it is entirely valid? [see diagram 2]

Rav Naḥman said: They do not need to touch, because we apply the principle of “draw up” to the posts at the sides. [Meiri, and Mishna Berura in the name of the Re'em].

And Rav Sheshet said: They need to touch.

Rav Naḥman went and carried out an act

[Rav Naḥman went and put the ruling into practice]

in the house of the exilarch, in accordance with his teaching

[he made an entranceway at the house of the exilarch—to permit carrying in a courtyard whose openings were wider than ten, when the upper post did not touch the lower posts, in accordance with his view]!

Rav Sheshet said to

his attendant,

who had disagreed with Rav Naḥman above,

Rav Gadda

[his servant]:

Go

[go to the house of the exilarch],

pull them out and throw them away

[remove and throw away the entranceway posts that Rav Naḥman had made]!

Rav Gadda went

and

pulled them out and threw them away.

The people of the house of the exilarch found him

[the people of the exilarch found Rav Gadda] and

imprisoned him

in the prison.

Rav Sheshet went and stood at the entrance

[he stood at the entrance to the prison] and

said to him

—to his attendant:

Gadda, come out, come here

[come out from here and come with me]! The prison guards allowed him to leave [R. Hananel], and

he came out,

Rav Gadda,

and came!

Rav Sheshet encountered Rabba bar Shmuel and said to him: Have you, Master, learned anything

[have you learned any beraita]

concerning an entranceway,

from which it would be possible to determine whether the posts need to touch or not?

He said to him,

Rabba bar Shmuel said to Rav Sheshet:

Yes, I have learned

a beraita indicating that they do not need to touch!

For it was taught as follows:

A. The dimensions of the height of an “entrance” are ten handbreadths, and its width is four handbreadths.

B.

An arched entrance

[a gateway made in a rounded arch; above and at the sides of the gateway it is not round, but built along a straight line], whose opening at its base is four handbreadths wide, with the arch becoming progressively narrower, so that above it is not four handbreadths wide: [see diagram 3]

Rabbi Meir obligates

it

in mezuzah,

as he explains the reason below: Since it is possible to carve into the structure at its sides and widen the arch, completing it above as well to a width of four, we view it as though it had already been carved out and completed!

And the Sages exempt,

as they explain below, because they do not hold that “one carves in order to complete.”

And they agree,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages,

that if its legs

[the ordinary legs of a gateway are four handbreadths apart] of the arch have a height of

ten, it is obligated

in mezuzah, since it has the dimensions of a complete “entrance” below. [See diagram 4.] Since at its base it has a height of ten and a width of four, it does not matter that above it lacks the required width of an “entrance,” for even if it were completely closed above ten handbreadths, it would still be valid; now that it is not closed, but merely open to less than the dimensions of an “entrance,” it certainly is no worse.

The Gemara's proof is from the conclusion of the beraita, indicating that the posts do not need to touch in order to make it an “entrance.”

The Gemara's proof can be explained in two ways:

A. A ceiling that proceeds in a curve is not called a ceiling! Consequently, the ceiling is not adjacent to the doorposts of the entrance.

For only the straight section above the curve is considered a ceiling, whereas the doorposts of the “entrance” end at a height of ten, since from that point onward the entrance narrows.

Thus, we see that it does not matter that the ceiling [the upper post of the entranceway] does not touch the doorposts of the entrance [the post here and the post there of the entranceway], but is distant from them.

B. When we say “they need to touch,” it is not enough that the ends of the upper post touch the tops of the lower posts; rather, the upper post must rest “along its entire length” over the “entrance” corresponding to the lower posts.

And now we prove: Since we see that although the height of the “entrance” ends after ten handbreadths, when the arch narrows to less than four, and the ceiling itself is not adjacent at its midpoint to the place of the “entrance,” since it curves upward, nevertheless it is obligated in mezuzah, it follows that “they do not need to touch.” [This tradition is explained according to Rashi's first formulation.]

And since we have cited the beraita, we also cite Abaye's explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages [Ritva]:

Abaye said:

We do not say “one carves in order to complete” unless there is the beginning of an entrance at its base, four handbreadths wide. Therefore:

Everyone—

Rabbi Meir and the Sages—

agrees that even

if

the arch is

ten

handbreadths

high

and its legs do not have

[ordinary legs are four handbreadths apart], meaning that at its base there is not a width of four handbreadths for a height of

three

handbreadths, for there is not even the beginning of an “entrance”—up to three handbreadths, it is not an “entrance” but solid ground. [See diagram 1.]

Alternatively

[and likewise, even if]

its legs have

—four handbreadths apart—a height of

three

handbreadths,

and the arch is not

ten

handbreadths high, for it does not have the required height of an entrance.

In either case,

it is entirely ineffective

with regard to becoming obligated in mezuzah!

They disagree when its legs have

—four handbreadths apart, as ordinary legs of an entrance are—

a height of

three

handbreadths, so that there is the beginning of an entrance at the bottom of the opening. [See diagram 2.]

And

also

the arch is

ten

handbreadths

high.

And it is not four handbreadths wide

through the upper seven handbreadths of the height of the entrance,

and

also

it has

within the structure of the arch above the three handbreadths enough material

to carve

and

complete it to four.

The structure is built at its sides along a straight line, and it is possible to carve into it and widen the arch to the width of its measure at the base of the entrance. [See diagram 3.]

Rabbi Meir holds: We say “one carves”

[we view it as though it had been carved out and made into an entrance ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, in order]

to complete

the dimensions of an entrance.

And the Rabbis hold: One does not carve in order to complete!

[This tradition is explained according to Rashi's first formulation.]

And now we return to Rabba bar Shmuel's proof from this beraita to Rav Sheshet, that the posts do not need to touch, contrary to Rav Sheshet's view.

Rav Sheshet said to him,

Rav Sheshet said to Rabba bar Shmuel:

If you encounter

[if you meet]

them,

the people of the house of the exilarch,

do not say

[do not tell]

anything to the people of the house of the exilarch—

to prove that my action was incorrect, since I thought that the posts needed to touch—

from this baraita about the arch,

for I will retract my position on my own [R. Hananel. And from Rashi below, on page 39b, it appears that he explains: Do not tell them, so that he will not be embarrassed].

Mishna:

What is

“the preparation of a מבוי”

in order to permit carrying in it?

Beit Shammai say:

He makes

a side-post and a crossbeam

together.

And

Beit Hillel say: Either a side-post or a crossbeam.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

He makes

two side-posts

on the two sides of the entrance to the מבוי.

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Eliezer's statement. [The Ritva wrote: Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree; rather, he holds that this is what Beit Shammai said, as Rabbi Eliezer was one of them. There are those who disagree.]

In the name of Rabbi Yishmael, one student said before Rabbi Akiva:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning

the entrance of a

מבוי that is

less than four cubits wide,

which is rendered permitted either by a side-post or by a crossbeam.

Concerning what did they disagree? Concerning

an entrance to a מבוי that is

more than four cubits and up to ten

cubits wide: Beit Shammai say: a side-post and a crossbeam

together.

And Beit Hillel

say:

either a side-post or a crossbeam. And Rabbi Eliezer says: two side-posts.

Rabbi Akiva said:

Whether

concerning this

one wider than four and up to ten, and whether

concerning this

one less than four—

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed

!

Gemara:

It initially entered our minds that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning the preparation of a מבוי open at both ends, directly opposite one another, to the public domain.

And above, on page 6a, the tanna kamma and Hanania disagreed concerning the preparation of a מבוי open at both ends. The tanna kamma holds that one makes an entranceway here and a side-post and crossbeam there. According to Hanania, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed about it: According to Beit Shammai, one makes a door here and a door there; and according to Beit Hillel, a door here and a side-post and crossbeam there.

And now we ask in astonishment:

According to whom

does our Mishna proceed, since it permits a מבוי open at both ends without a door and without an entranceway—is it

neither in accordance with Hanania nor in accordance with the tanna kamma?!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said:

Our Mishna is not speaking of a מבוי open at both ends. Rather,

this is what it says:

How is a closed מבוי prepared?

Beit Shammai say: A side-post and a crossbeam.

And

Beit Hillel say: Either a side-post or a crossbeam,

and the Mishna is not speaking of a מבוי open at both ends at all.

And we explain the statement taught in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: A side-post and a crossbeam.

And we inquire: Does this mean

that Beit Shammai hold

that in order to make it a private domain,

we require

four partitions

by

Torah law

[by a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai]? Since a substantial partition is required to make it a private domain, that is why both a side-post and a crossbeam are required.

For if Beit Shammai hold that by Torah law three partitions suffice, and that the Sages required a sign on the fourth side by rabbinic decree, then certainly either a side-post or a crossbeam would suffice. [Rashba and Ritva.]

And we reject this:

No.

For with regard

to throwing

an object from the public domain into a private domain, a private domain enclosed

by three

partitions alone

is what renders one liable,

because by Torah law it is a private domain.

It is only with regard

to carrying

that the Sages decreed that it is prohibited

until there are four

partitions in the private domain [and Beit Shammai hold that a sign consisting of a side-post or a crossbeam is insufficient, since it is not a “complete sign” until there are both a side-post and a crossbeam—Ritva. And it is implied by the Rashba that according to Beit Shammai, a “partition” of a side-post and a crossbeam is required on the fourth side].

We further explain the statement taught in the Mishna:

Beit Hillel say: Either a side-post or a crossbeam:

It follows that Beit Hillel permitted a side-post or a crossbeam only on the fourth side, but if there were only two complete partitions, a side-post or a crossbeam would not suffice on the third side; rather, a complete partition would be required on the third side, and a side-post or a crossbeam on the fourth side.

And we raised this difficulty:

Shall we say

that their reason is that

Beit Hillel hold that three partitions

are required

by Torah law,

and therefore a leḥi or a korah—which serve only as a mere distinguishing marker—is insufficient, but a fourth side is required, and not a third side [Rashba and Ritba].

And we reject this:

No,

three partitions are not required by Torah law.

And

“to throw”

from the public domain into the private domain

is liable only with

two partitions;

he is liable

since it is a private domain by Torah law.

It is only

carrying

that the Sages prohibited

until there are three “

partitions” that are complete; a leḥi or a korah is not a partition, and it is sufficient only as a distinguishing marker on the fourth side, [Rashba and Ritba]. We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: leḥayim:

It was asked of them:

Does

Rabbi Eliezer mean leḥayim and a korah

together

?

Or perhaps

he means two

leḥayim without a korah,

and a korah neither adds nor detracts?