Eruvin 12a — the Talmud in English

Come and hear: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who went to ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

Rabbi Yosei ben Perida—

his student, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

to Lublin

[a place-name].

And he found

Rabbi Yosei

sitting in an alleyway that had only one side-post

and one crossbeam.

He said to him: My son, make

another

side-post!

He said to him

Rabbi Yosei to Rabbi Eliezer:

Do I need to close it off?!

He said to him

Rabbi Eliezer:

Let it be closed off; and what of it!?

And we complete the entire beraita, and afterward establish the proof:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning an alleyway whose entrance is less than four cubits wide

at its entrance,

that it requires nothing.

Concerning what did they disagree? Concerning

an alleyway entrance that is

wider than four cubits and up to ten.

For Beit Shammai say: one side-post

and

a crossbeam

together,

and Beit Hillel say: either a side-post or a crossbeam.

And now we establish the proof:

It is nevertheless taught

in the beraita that Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Eliezer, because he required two side-posts:

Do I need to close it off?!

Granted, if you say

that Rabbi Eliezer required Rabbi Yosei to make two

side-posts and a crossbeam, for that reason he said

to him:

Do I need to close it off?

But if you say that Rabbi Eliezer required side-posts without a crossbeam,

Rabbi Eliezer required them,

what

is this that Rabbi Yosei said to him: Do I need

to close it off

I?!

That is to say: From the fact that Rabbi Yosei said, “Do I need to close it off?”, it is proven that Rabbi Eliezer requested to close off more than he did, for he made only one side-post and a crossbeam, whereas Rabbi Eliezer requested to close it off with two side-posts.

And it is proven that according to Rabbi Eliezer we require two side-posts and a crossbeam. For if two side-posts suffice, Rabbi Eliezer does not close off more, since what difference is there between the side-post and crossbeam that Rabbi Yosei made and the two side-posts that Rabbi Eliezer requested? The closing-off of the one is not greater than that of the other.

And we reject this:

This is what he said: Do I need to close it off with side-posts?!

That is to say: In fact, two side-posts suffice for Rabbi Eliezer. Rather, Rabbi Yosei was saying precisely this: Do I specifically need to close it off with side-posts? What difference is there between one side-post and a crossbeam and two side-posts without a crossbeam? In fact, according to Rabbi Eliezer, two side-posts without a crossbeam suffice.

And now we explain the latter part of the beraita:

The Master said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning an alleyway that is less than four cubits, that it requires nothing.

And we wonder about it:

But we learned

in our Mishna:

In the name of Rabbi Yishmael, one student said before Rabbi Akiva: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning an alleyway that is less than four cubits, that it is permitted either by a side-post or by a crossbeam,

and how did you say that it requires nothing?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is also saying like that student.

And as for “it requires nothing” that he said, this refers to what Beit Shammai and Rabbi Eliezer added to the words of Beit Hillel, and

this is what he said:

It does not require

also

a side-post and

also

a crossbeam as

the addition that

Beit Shammai added.

And not

side-posts,

that is, a second side-post,

as

the addition that

Rabbi Eliezer added.

Rather,

either a side-post or a crossbeam—

as

the words of

Beit Hillel

alone!

And now that we say that even when the entrance is less than four cubits wide, everyone requires the alleyway to be rectified, we inquire:

And

at

how much

less than four cubits may the width of the entrance be and still require rectification?

Rav Ahli, and some say Rav Yehiel, said:

Even if the width of the entrance is reduced from four cubits

to four

handbreadths, it also requires rectification.

That is: If the width of the entrance was less than four handbreadths, it does not require rectification; and from four handbreadths onward, it requires rectification!

Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba in the name of Rav:

a. A courtyard that was enclosed on all four sides, and one wall was breached in its entirety toward a place that is forbidden to it, such as the public domain or a karmelit, is forbidden for carrying, unless remnants of the wall four handbreadths wide remained along the side that was breached; these are called “strips.”

b.

The Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer—

who says in our Mishna that two side-posts are required—

with regard to courtyard strips,

for two strips are required in them!

And Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to courtyard strips.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said

in explanation of the words of Rav and Rav Naḥman:

As for that which Rav said: The Sages agree with regard to courtyard strips—

who

are those Sages who

agree?

Rabbi!

And he proceeds to explain.

And as for that which Rav Naḥman said:

The halakha

is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer—

and

from the implication

of his words it is understood that there are those who

disagree

with him concerning courtyard strips—

who disagrees with him

with regard to Rabbi Eliezer?

The Rabbis!

And we explain it:

For it was taught: A courtyard is permitted by one strip,

the words of the Sages!

Rabbi says: By two strips.

And this is what Rav said, “agree”: Although Rabbi holds that an alleyway is permitted by one side-post, he agrees with Rabbi Eliezer that, at least with regard to courtyard strips, two strips are required, as was taught in the beraita.

And this is also what Rav Naḥman said: “The halakha” is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer!

For although the Sages of the beraita disagree even with regard to courtyard strips, holding that only one strip is required to permit it, nevertheless the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi, that at least with regard to courtyard strips, two strips are required.

Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A courtyard requires two strips

at its entrance in order to permit it.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this,

that a courtyard requires two strips?!

But you

Rabbi Asi

are the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Courtyard strips must have

a width of

four

handbreadths; and this must perforce refer to one strip. [The “must have” that he said means that ordinary courtyards “must have” one strip four handbreadths wide—Ritva.] And he proceeds to explain.

And if you would say:

In fact, two strips are required, but they are to be made with a width of

four

handbreadths

on this side and four

handbreadths

on this side!

That is not so.

For

Rav Adda bar Avimi taught before Rabbi Ḥanina.

And some say, before Rabbi Ḥanina bar Papi

[above, page 9b], concerning our Mishna:

A small courtyard [narrow] that was breached [in its entirety] into a large courtyard [wider than it]: The residents of the large courtyard are permitted to carry from the house into the courtyard, even if they do not join in a courtyard eruv with the residents of the small courtyard, but join only among themselves.

The reason for this is that with regard to the large courtyard, this is not an “opening in its entirety” but merely an “entrance.” For the large courtyard is wider than the small one, and strips remain for it on the sides. Thus the large courtyard is separated from the small one, and its law is like that of any two courtyards with an entrance between them, each of which makes an eruv for itself.

And he explains it in the beraita that Rav Adda bar Avimi taught:

That the

small

was

ten

cubits wide,

and the

large

was

eleven

cubits wide, so that the large exceeded the small by three handbreadths [half a cubit] on this side and three handbreadths on that side!

And from here it is proven that the courtyard strips that Rabbi Yoḥanan said must be four means that one strip four handbreadths wide suffices.

For if you say that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan two strips are required, each four handbreadths wide, how do we say in this beraita that the two strips at the sides of the large courtyard suffice, when they contain three handbreadths on this side and three handbreadths on that side?!

And we answer:

When Rabbi Zeira ascended from the waters

[when Rabbi Zeira ascended from overseas and reached the Land of Israel],

he explained it

—he explained the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan and the beraita taught by Rav Adda in a manner that leaves no difficulty:

That which Rabbi Yoḥanan said, that courtyard strips must be four handbreadths wide, applies specifically if one makes one strip

along one side

of the courtyard [for Rabbi Yoḥanan holds like the Rabbis, that two strips are not necessary and one strip suffices], in which case the one strip must be made

four

handbreadths wide [for that is the measure of a strip according to the Rabbis].

But if one does not make a strip four handbreadths wide, he must make two strips

along two sides

of the courtyard [and the Rabbis also agree to this], and then it suffices if he makes one strip with a width of

something on this side and

a strip with a width of

something on that side.

And this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A courtyard requires two strips.

That is: If one does not wish to make a wide strip, the courtyard requires two strips of minimal width.

And as for that which Rav Adda bar Avimi taught

that two strips are required and one strip four handbreadths wide does not suffice [for we see in the beraita that it does not suffice for the large courtyard to exceed it by only a strip of four handbreadths], the reason is that this beraita—

it is Rabbi’s,

who holds that a courtyard cannot be permitted by one strip, even one four handbreadths wide, but specifically by two strips.

And as for why it does not suffice for the large courtyard to have two strips of minimal width—as it suffices for Rabbi Yoḥanan according to the Rabbis—the reason is that Rabbi disagrees with the Rabbis even concerning the width of the strip.

For Rabbi

holds like Rabbi Yosei,

who says with regard to the side-posts of an alleyway that minimal width does not suffice—as the Rabbis hold—but a width of three handbreadths is required.

And the same law applies to courtyard strips: Rabbi holds that they must be three handbreadths wide. [According to the Ritva in Rashi’s understanding.]

Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel: A courtyard is permitted by one strip

alone.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel say this?!

But Shmuel said to Rav Ḥanya bar Sheila: You shall not perform a practical act

to permit a courtyard

except either with

one strip extending across

most

of the

wall, or with two strips!

And if so, how could Shmuel say that one strip suffices, even when it does not extend across most of the wall?!

He said to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

And I do not know

how to resolve your difficulty.

But I truly know that Rav Yehuda performed an act in accordance with his teaching [Ritva].

For the incident occurred in Dura DeRa’uta

[Shepherds’ Village—Rashi above, page 7b], where

an inlet of the sea

[a water channel]

that entered the courtyard was

there. And it breached the fourth wall of the courtyard in its entirety.

And this incident came

before

Rav Yehuda

to ask him whether it was permitted to draw water from that inlet of the sea, which was a karmelit [because the water was connected to the sea outside the courtyard, which was a karmelit—Minḥat Yisrael according to the Ritva], into the courtyard [Rabbeinu Yehonatan], which was a private domain by Torah law, since it had three partitions.

And he did not require it

Rav Yehuda that, at the place of the breached partition, there remain

anything but one strip.

And now he could draw water from that place where the wall had been before it was breached [and one strip remained there] into the courtyard. [See illustration 1]

He said to him

Abaye to Rav Yosef: From there there is no proof that Rav Yehuda performed a practical act permitting a courtyard with one strip.

But what, did you say

“an inlet of the sea”

in order to prove it?!

There it is different, because

the Sages were lenient

with regard to partitions

in water,

to draw water by means of any sort of rectification; but generally, no!

And

as

we find that they are lenient in water with a leniency that they do not apply elsewhere:

For Rabbi Tavla asked Rav: A partition

that does not reach the ground, but is

suspended

in the air—

what is the law: does it permit in a ruin

[see illustration], where suspended partitions are usual? [Illustration 2]

He said to him

Rav to Rabbi Tavla:

No. A

“suspended partition”

permits only in water.

For

the Sages were lenient in water.

And similarly we find below that a suspended partition permits in water:

For we learned: A balcony projecting from a private domain and situated above water [which is considered a karmelit]: One may not draw water into the balcony, which is a private domain, from the karmelit, unless they made a hole in the balcony and made around the hole a partition ten handbreadths high, so that the place of the water below would be considered a private domain; only then may they draw water into it through the hole in the balcony.

And this partition around the hole is effective whether it was above, on the balcony, or whether it was made beneath the floor of the balcony while suspended above the water. For we say, “extend the partition downward,” seeing the partitions as though they descend and continue into the water beneath the balcony. [See illustration 3]

But generally, we are not lenient with a suspended partition!

And here too, we are lenient in water, permitting one to draw water even though there is only one strip. But generally, one may say that we are not lenient with one strip!

And now we return to the difficulty with which we challenged Shmuel against Shmuel:

Nevertheless, it is difficult!

And we answer:

When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the house of Rav, they explained it

—they explained this statement of Shmuel so that the two statements would not contradict one another:

If he comes to permit it

from one side,

it is permitted only

with four

handbreadths of width.

And this is what Shmuel said: A courtyard is permitted by one strip! And that which Shmuel said that two strips are required means that if he does not permit it with one strip four handbreadths wide, he may make two strips

along two sides

of the courtyard entrance: one strip with a width of

something on this side, and

a strip with a width of

something on that side!

Rav Pappa said: If there is a difficulty for me,

this is my difficulty:

That which

Shmuel said to Rav Ḥananya bar Sheila: You shall not perform a practical act, except either across most of the wall

from one side,

or with two strips!

Why do I need most of the wall

when he permits it from one side?

But

four suffices!

And why did Shmuel teach us the permission of most of the wall? He should have taught us the greater novelty: Where four handbreadths are less than most of the wall—as, for example, with a wall eight handbreadths wide—four also suffices.

And if you would say

that in fact four also suffices, but

what

is the reason that Shmuel preferred to teach us the permission

of most of the wall

? It is because, on the contrary, Shmuel preferred to teach us the permission of most of the wall, since sometimes most of the wall also suffices and a strip four handbreadths wide is not required.

For example:

with a wall of seven, for four

handbreadths

is

included within

most of the wall.

And Shmuel taught us a greater novelty by saying “most of the wall” than if he had said “four.” For if he had said “four,” I would have said that in fact four is required even with a wall of seven, since four is more than most of the wall.

And now he teaches us that in fact most of the wall suffices, since most of the wall is effective whether the wall is seven handbreadths wide or very wide.

That cannot be said!

For even if Shmuel had said “four,” we would not have been led to say that even with a wall of seven, four is required.

For

why do I need four?

It suffices for us to reduce the width of the entrance until the entrance stands at a width of less than four, for in such a case we do not require the permission of a “strip” at all [as below].

And if so, we would know that a strip of four is not required, but

three and something suffices

with a wall of seven, for then the entrance would automatically stand at a width of less than four.

And since this is so: If Shmuel held that a strip four is the means of permission, Shmuel would have taught us this permission, since we would not have said that four handbreadths are required even with a wall of seven.

And the reason that three and something suffices is:

For Rav Ahli, and some say Rav Yehiel, said

[above]: Only if an alleyway had an entrance wider than ten cubits

to four

handbreadths does the alleyway require the permission of a side-post and a crossbeam.

But if the width of the alleyway entrance was less than four handbreadths, no permission is required at all; and likewise, when the width of a courtyard entrance is less than four handbreadths, a strip is not required!

And we reject this: In fact, Shmuel holds that a strip four is the means of permission.

And Shmuel did not wish to say that a strip four is required, so that we would not err and say that even with a wall of seven, four is required, as we said.

And if the reason is that we would have known that with a wall of seven a strip four is not required, as according to Rav Ahli—this is not so, for two reasons:

a.

If you wish, say: Here,

in Shmuel’s statement, which deals

with a courtyard,

it is not effective if the entrance stands at less than four.

And whereas

here,

in Rav Ahlai’s statement, which deals

with a mavoi—

we do not require a remedy at an entrance that is less than four [cubits] wide.

But in a courtyard, he requires a post even when [the entrance is] less than four [cubits]!

B.

Alternatively,

since the statement

of Rav Ahlai himself—

it is a dispute between tannaim, who disagree regarding his statement [as we say below, on folio 13]. If so, had Shmuel said “four,” I would have said that he does not hold like Rav Ahlai, but like the tanna who disagrees and holds that three and something is not sufficient.

And consequently, we would not have permitted even [a breach comprising] most of the wall, since Shmuel said “four.”

And therefore Shmuel informed us the novelty that [a breach comprising] most of the wall is also effective, while in every case four is also sufficient.

[This statement has been explained according to the interpretation of the Rashba and the Tosafot of the Rosh. Examine Rashi carefully, for it does not appear to indicate this; and examine carefully the Tosafot, the Tosafot of Rabbeinu Peretz, and the Ritva.]

The Sages taught: A tongue of sea entering a courtyard

through a breach wider than ten cubits in the fourth wall,

one may not draw water from it

water

on Shabbat

to bring it into the courtyard, for this is one who brings from a karmelit into a private domain,

unless he has a partition ten

handbreadths high.

That is to say: unless they closed the breach with a partition ten handbreadths high, and made the breach ten cubits wide or less.

In what case are these words said—

when

its breach

of the courtyard was

more than ten [R.H.] cubits.

But

if its breach was

ten

cubits—

nothing at all is required!

For since the wall was not breached in its entirety [for then it would not be effective even if it were less than ten, since it has no pasin], if the entrance is not wider than ten, it bears the designation “entrance,” and it is permitted.

And we raise an objection: Since it teaches “one may not draw,” from the wording “into the courtyard,” it implies: specifically,

drawing is what we do not draw,

because this is one who brings from a karmelit into a private domain.

As for carrying,

in this courtyard—properly

we carry.

And why?

But

since a breach wider than ten was made in the courtyard, it is like

a courtyard breached in its entirety to a place forbidden to it [to the water outside the courtyard, which is a karmelit]. And every place that was breached in its entirety to a place forbidden to it—it is forbidden to carry in it.

And if so, is it forbidden to carry in the courtyard at all?!

since a breach wider than ten was made in the courtyard, it is like

a courtyard breached in its entirety toward a place forbidden to it

[the water outside the courtyard, which has the status of a karmelit]. And wherever a place is breached in its entirety toward a place forbidden to it, carrying within it is prohibited.

If so, carrying in the courtyard should be entirely prohibited?!