Eruvin 11b — the Talmud in English

For Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Hanina: A pe'ah [a braided branch stretched over poles and made in the form of an entranceway]

is

is permitted,

for it separates by virtue of a partition

with regard to kilayim, but not with regard to Shabbat.

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

a pe'ah is not effective

so partitions for kilayim, in which

a pe'ah is not effective for them!

Behold, Rabbi Yohanan, who said above that an entranceway made from a stretched branch is effective for kilayim, holds here that it is not effective even for kilayim!

And Reish Lakish likewise, who said above that an entranceway made from a stretched branch is effective even for Shabbat, holds here the opposite: that at least for Shabbat it is not effective!

And we explain:

Granted, the statement of Reish Lakish is not difficult in relation to the statement of Reish Lakish.

For

this

in the case of stretching a branch between one pole and another, about which Reish Lakish said that it is effective also for Shabbat, he said this according to his own position,

his,

he said it according to his own method.

And

this

here, concerning a pe'ah, about which he said that it is not effective for Shabbat,

is that of his master,

he said it according to the method of his master, Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Hanina, in his name.

But the statement of Rabbi Yohanan in relation to the statement of Rabbi Yohanan—

is difficult!

And now the Gemara proves that Rabbi Yohanan holds like Rav, that an entranceway is not effective on Shabbat for more than ten. And the reason of Rabbi Yohanan concerning the branch, that it is not effective with regard to Shabbat, is because it is more than ten, and not as we rejected above, that it deals with an entranceway up to ten which he made from the side!

And this is how we prove it:

If you say, granted, there

in the earlier statement of Rabbi Yohanan it indeed deals—as we wished to say above—with an entranceway made according to law,

on top

of the poles, and the reason that it is effective with regard to kilayim but not effective with regard to Shabbat is because it deals with more than ten [and according to Rav’s opinion]. Whereas

here

concerning the pe'ah, it deals with one that he made as an entranceway

from the side—

it is satisfactory

very well

that there is no difficulty from what Rabbi Yohanan said here, that it is not effective even with regard to kilayim, because here it deals with one made from the side, and Rabbi Yohanan holds that one made from the side is not effective even with regard to kilayim!

But if you say

as we rejected above, that the reason of Rabbi Yohanan is because of an entranceway that he made from the side, and

this

that statement of Rabbi Yohanan above

and this

present statement of Rabbi Yohanan concerning the pe'ah, both deal with an entranceway that he made

from the side—

if so,

what is there to say

to reconcile Rabbi Yohanan’s statements with one another?!

And we reject it:

Actually,

as we rejected above, Rabbi Yohanan above deals with one made from the side. And indeed

both this and that

deal with one that he made as an entranceway

from the side.

And concerning what is difficult, Rabbi Yohanan in relation to Rabbi Yohanan, it can be said:

There,

in the earlier statement, it deals with an entranceway made from the side, but the entranceway was

ten

and no more, and in this Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is not effective for Shabbat, but with regard to kilayim one made from the side is effective.

But in the statement of

here

it deals

with

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

more than ten, and in this Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is not effective if he made it from the side, both with regard to Shabbat and with regard to kilayim!

cubits. In this case Rabbi Yohanan holds that it is ineffective when made from the side, both with regard to Shabbat and with regard to prohibited mixtures!

But a fully valid entranceway, even when it is more than ten, is effective very well according to Rabbi Yohanan even for Shabbat, and he does not hold like Rav, who holds that it is not effective!

And from where do you say that

with regard to an entranceway that he made from the side

we distinguish between ten and more than ten?

From

what Rabbi Yohanan said to Reish Lakish—

who disagreed with him and held that a pe'ah is permitted with regard to kilayim: And was

this not the incident, that Rabbi Yehoshua went [perhaps this is not the Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned everywhere, Ya'avetz]

[perhaps this is not the Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned elsewhere; Yaavetz]

to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri to study Torah,

and Rabbi Yehoshua asked Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri a question in the laws of kilayim [below],

even though

Rabbi Yehoshua himself

was expert

in

the laws of kilayim.

And

he found

Rabbi Yehoshua Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri

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

Rabbi Yehoshua:

My master!

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, and relying on the entranceway separating between them?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri:

With ten it is permitted; with more than ten—

it is forbidden!

Behold, a pe'ah is not effective even with regard to kilayim.

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

With what are we dealing

in the incident of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri?

If you say

with a stretched branch

on top,

above the trees?

This cannot be.

For if so, how did Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri say to him that

more than ten is forbidden?!

But it was taught,

that with regard to kilayim, a fully valid entranceway is certainly effective even when it is more than ten:

As it was taught:

There were,

in the vineyard,

stakes pointed like spears [sharpened like a spike, which is fixed in the ground]

and fixed in the ground,

and he made a pe'ah for them [a braided branch]

[a braided branch]

above—

even when it is more than ten, it is permitted.

Rather, is it not

that the incident of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri deals with a braided branch

from the side.

And he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to Rabbi Yehoshua:

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

Evidently, with regard to kilayim, in an entranceway made from the side, we distinguish between ten and more than ten.

And we conclude:

Infer from it!

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

he has done nothing!

And Rav Hisda said: The entranceway that they said

which is effective,

must be strong enough to hold a door. And even

if it is strong only enough to hold

a door of reeds [made from the stalks of grain]!

[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 fit for a door to be in it—we require this!

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, found the students of Rav Ashi.

Rav Aha son of Rav Avya found the students of Rav Ashi.

He said

Rav Aha asked

them:

Did

the Master say,

Rav Ashi,

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”]:

The doorway-shaped partition of which they spoke consists of one pole here, one pole here, and one pole above them!

The entranceway that they said: A pole here, a pole here, and a pole above them!

And we inquire: Do

the upper poles [Rashi] in every entranceway

[Rashi: the upper poles in every doorway-shaped partition]

need to touch [see illustration 1] the lower poles,

[see Figure 1] the lower poles,

or do they not need to touch,

and even if the pole is suspended above in the air, it is entirely acceptable? [See illustration 2]

Rav Nahman said: They do not need to touch, because we say “extend and raise” with regard to the poles at the sides. [Meiri, and Mishna Berura in the name of the Ra'am].

And Rav Sheshet said: They have to touch.

And Rav Sheshet said: They need to touch.

Rav Nahman went and performed an act [Rav Nahman went and carried out a practical ruling]

at the house of the Exilarch, in accordance with his teaching [he made a doorway-shaped partition at the Exilarch’s residence to permit carrying in a courtyard with openings wider than ten cubits, even though the upper pole did not touch the lower poles, in accordance with his view]!

in the house of the Exilarch, according to his teaching [he made an entranceway at the Exilarch’s house—to permit carrying in a courtyard having openings more than ten—when the upper pole did not touch the lower poles, and according to his view]!

his attendant

Rav Sheshet said to

who had disagreed with Rav Naḥman above:

his attendant [his servant]

[go to the Exilarch’s residence],

Rav Gadda: Go [go to the house of the Exilarch],

[remove and throw away the poles of the doorway-shaped partition that Rav Naḥman had made]!

pull them out and throw them away [remove and throw away the entranceway poles that Rav Nahman made]!

Rav Gada,

He went,

Rav Gadda, 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

in prison.

imprisoned him

in prison.

Rav Sheshet went and stood at the entrance [he stood at the entrance of the prison],

his attendant:

he said to him

to his attendant:

Gadda, come out, come [come out from here and come with me]! The prison guards allowed him to leave [Rav Hai Gaon], and

Rav Gada,

he went out,

Rav Gadda,

and came!

Rav Sheshet found Rabbah bar Shmuel and said to him: Have you taught anything [have you taught any beraita]

from which it would be possible to determine whether the poles must touch or not?

concerning an entranceway,

from which it would be possible to learn whether they need to touch or not?

He said to him,

Rabbah bar Shmuel said to Rav Sheshet:

Yes, I have taught

in a beraita that they do not need to touch!

For this is what was taught:

a. The measure of the height of an “entrance” is ten handbreadths, and its width is four handbreadths.

b.

An arch [a gate made in a rounded form like an arch, while above the gate and at its sides it is not rounded but built in a straight line], at whose bottom the width of the entrance is four handbreadths, and the curve gradually becomes narrower, and above it does not have a width of four handbreadths: [See illustration 3]

a mezuzah,

Rabbi Meir obligates

it

in a mezuzah,

and as he explains the reason below: since it is possible to hollow out the building at its sides and widen the curve, completing it above as well to a width of four, we regard it as though they had already hollowed it out and completed it!

And the Sages exempt, as he explains below, for they do not hold “one hollows out in order to complete.”

that if its legs

And they agree,

Rabbi Meir and the Sages,

that if at its legs [the ordinary legs of a gate are four apart] of the arch there is a height of

in a mezuzah, since it has the dimensions of a complete “opening” below. [see Figure 4] Since its lower part has a height of ten and a width of four, it does not matter that above it lacks the required width of an “opening.” Even if it were completely closed above ten handbreadths, it would still be effective; now that it is not closed, but is open to a width less than that required for an “opening,” it certainly is no worse.

ten, it is obligated

in a mezuzah, since it has the measure of a complete “entrance” below. [See illustration 4] Since at its bottom there is a height of ten with a width of four, it does not matter to us that above it does not have the measure of the width of an “entrance,” for even if it were completely closed above ten, it would be effective; now that it is not closed but is open to less than the measure of an “entrance,” it certainly is not inferior.

And the Gemara’s proof is from the conclusion of the beraita, that they do not need to touch in order to make it an “entrance.”

And the Gemara’s proof may be explained in two ways:

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

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

Behold, we see that it does not matter to us that the ceiling [the upper pole in the entranceway] does not touch the doorposts of the entrance [the pole here and the pole here in the entranceway], but is distant from it.

b. When we say “they need to touch,” it is not enough that the ends of the upper pole touch the tops of the lower poles; rather, we require that the upper pole be laid “along its entire length” over the “entrance” that is opposite the lower poles.

And now we prove: Since we see that although the height of the “entrance” ends after ten handbreadths, when the curve narrows and becomes less than four, while the ceiling itself is not adjacent in its middle to the place of the “entrance,” for it curves upward, nevertheless it is obligated in a mezuzah, it is proven that “they do not need to touch.” [This teaching was explained according to Rashi’s first formulation].

And incidentally, since we bring the beraita, we also bring that which Abaye explains concerning what Rabbi Meir and the Sages disputed [Ritva]:

Abaye said:

They do not say “one hollows out in order to complete,” unless there is the beginning of an entrance at its bottom with a width of four. Therefore:

Everyone—

Rabbi Meir and the Sages—

agrees,

that even

if the arch is high

the arch

ten

handbreadths

and at its legs there are not [ordinary legs are four handbreadths apart from one another], that is, at its bottom there is not a height of four handbreadths with a width of

[as ordinary legs, four handbreadths apart] a height of

three

handbreadths, for here there is not even the beginning of an “entrance”; up to three handbreadths it is not an “entrance” but compact ground. [See illustration 1]

Alternatively [and likewise, even],

it has legs

if at its legs there are—

four apart from one another—a height of

three

handbreadths,

and the arch is not high

the arch

ten

handbreadths, for here there is not the measure of the height of an entrance.

In both this case and that case,

it is nothing at all

with regard to becoming obligated in a mezuzah!

Where they disagree: When at its legs there are

four apart from one another, like ordinary legs of an entrance—a height of

three

handbreadths, and it follows that at the bottom of the entrance there is the beginning of an entrance. [See illustration 2]

And

also

the arch is high

the arch

ten

handbreadths.

And it is not four wide

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

and

also

it has

in the building of the arch above the three handbreadths enough

to hollow it out

and

complete it to four.

For the building is constructed at its sides in a straight line, and it is possible to hollow out and widen the curve to the width of its measure at the bottom of the entrance. [See illustration 3]

Rabbi Meir holds: We say, “one hollows out” [we regard it as though it had been hollowed out and made an entrance ten high and four wide, in order]

Rav Sheshet said to Rabba bar Shmuel:

to complete

the measure of an entrance.

And the Rabbis hold: One does not hollow out in order to complete! [This teaching was explained according to Rashi’s first formulation].

anything at all to the people of the Exilarch’s house—

And now we return to what Rabbah bar Shmuel proved from this beraita to Rav Sheshet, that the poles do not need to touch, and not in accordance with his statement.

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet said to Rabbah bar Shmuel:

If you find [if you encounter]

“the correction of a side-street”

them,

the people of the house of the Exilarch,

do not say [do not tell]

both a side-post and a crossbeam

anything at all to them, the people of the house of the Exilarch—

to prove that my action was not correct, since I thought that they need to touch—

from this teaching of the arch,

for I will retract on my own [Rav Hai Gaon. And from Rashi below, page 39a, it appears that it should be explained: do not tell them, so that he will not be embarrassed].

Mishna:

What is

“the preparation of a mavוי [mavוי]

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 opening of the mavוי.

And the Gemara explains Rabbi Eliezer’s words. [The Ritva wrote: Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree, but holds that this is what Beit Shammai said, for Rabbi Eliezer was among them. And 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 opening of a

mavוי that is

wide

less than four cubits, which is permitted either by a side-post or by a crossbeam.

Concerning what did they disagree? Concerning

an opening of a mavוי that is

wider than four cubits and up to ten.

For 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:

Rabbi Akiva said:

Whether

concerning this,

which is wider than four and up to ten, and whether

concerning this,

which is less than four—

they disagreed,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel!

Gemara:

It might have entered our minds that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed concerning the preparation of a mavוי “open through” at its two ends, opposite one another, toward the public domain.

And above [page 6a], the First tanna and Hananiah disagreed concerning the preparation of an open-through mavוי: the First tanna holds that he makes an entranceway here and a side-post and crossbeam here. And according to Hananiah, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed about it. According to Beit Shammai, he makes a door here and a door here; and according to Beit Hillel, a door here and a side-post and crossbeam here.

And now we wonder:

According to whom

does our Mishna proceed, which permits an open-through mavוי without a door and without an entranceway—for this is

not according to Hananiah, and not according to the First tanna?!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said:

Our Mishna does not deal with an open-through mavוי. Rather,

this is what it says:

How is a closed mavוי prepared?

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

and

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

and the Mishna does not deal with an open-through mavוי at all.

And we explain that which we learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say, a side-post and a crossbeam.

And we inquire: Is it

to say that Beit Shammai hold

that in order to make it a private domain, we require

four partitions

from

Torah law [from the law given to Moses at Sinai], and since a superior partition is required to make it a private domain, for that reason he also requires both a side-post and a crossbeam?

For if they held that by Torah law three partitions are sufficient, and that the Sages required a distinguishing mark on the fourth side, surely either a side-post or a crossbeam would be sufficient. [Rashba and Ritva]

For if Beit Shammai held that by Torah law three partitions suffice, and the Rabbis required a mark on the fourth side, certainly 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—the private domain enclosed

by three

partitions alone

is what makes one liable,

for by Torah law it is a private domain.

But only with regard

to carrying

did the Rabbis decree to prohibit

until there are four

partitions in the private domain [and Beit Shammai hold that a mark of a side-post or crossbeam is insufficient, for it is not a “complete mark” until there is a side-post and a crossbeam—Ritva. And it is implied by the Rashba: according to Beit Shammai, on the fourth side we require a “partition” of a side-post and crossbeam].

We further explain that which we learned in the Mishna:

Beit Hillel say, either a side-post or a crossbeam: And it implies 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 on the third side would not suffice. Rather, a complete partition is required on the third side, and a side-post or a crossbeam on the fourth.

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:

Let us say

that their reason is that

Beit Hillel hold that three partitions

are required

by Torah law, and for that reason a side-post or a beam does not suffice—for they are merely a recognition—but rather [a partition is required] on the fourth side, and not on the third [Rashba and Ritva].

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 it:

No,

three partitions are required by Torah law.

And

“to throw”

from the public domain into the private domain

from two

partitions

is for which he is liable, since it is a private domain by Torah law.

since it is a private domain by Torah law.

But

to carry

is what the Rabbis prohibited

until there are three “

partitions” that are complete, and a side-post or a beam is not a partition, but suffices only as a recognition on the fourth side, [Rashba and Ritva]. We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says, side-posts:

It was raised before them:

whether

Rabbi Eliezer says, side-posts and a beam

together

he says.

Or perhaps

two

side-posts without a beam, he says,

and a beam neither adds nor detracts?