Eruvin 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

Ta shma: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who went to

Rabbi Yosei ben Perida—

his student,

to Lublin [a place-name].

name of a place].

And he found

Rabbi Yosei

sitting in an alleyway that had only one lehi

and one crossbeam.

He said to him: My son, make

another

lehi!

Rabbi Yosei said to

Rabbi Eliezer:

Do I need to close it off?!

Rabbi Eliezer said to him:

Rabbi Eliezer:

Let it be closed off; what difference does it make?!

We conclude the entire beraita, and then 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

the entrance of an alleyway that is

four cubits wide and up to ten cubits wide.

As Beit Shammai say: A lehi

and

a crossbeam

together,

whereas Beit Hillel say: Either a lehi or a crossbeam.

And now we establish the proof:

In any event, it is taught

in the beraita that Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Eliezer, because he had required two leḥayyim:

“Do I need to close it off?!”

Granted, if you say

that Rabbi Eliezer required Rabbi Yosei to make two

leḥayyim and a crossbeam, that is why he said

to him:

“Do I need to close it off?”

But if you say that Rabbi Eliezer required two leḥayyim without a crossbeam,

what is

this

that Rabbi Yosei said to him: “Do I need

to close it off

by myself?!”

That is to say: From Rabbi Yosei’s statement, “Do I need to close it off?” it is evident that Rabbi Eliezer asked him to close it off more than he had done. Rabbi Yosei had made only a lehi and a crossbeam, whereas Rabbi Eliezer asked him to close it off with two leḥayyim.

And it follows that according to Rabbi Eliezer two leḥayyim and a crossbeam are required. For if two leḥayyim suffice, Rabbi Eliezer is not closing it off more than Rabbi Yosei: what difference is there between the lehi and crossbeam made by Rabbi Yosei and the two leḥayyim requested by Rabbi Eliezer? The closure of one is no greater than that of the other.

And we reject this:

This is what he said: “Do I need to close it off with leḥayyim?!”

That is to say: In fact, according to Rabbi Eliezer two leḥayyim suffice. Rather, Rabbi Yosei was saying precisely this: “Do I specifically need to close it off with leḥayyim? What difference is there between a lehi and a crossbeam and two leḥayyim without a crossbeam?” In fact, according to Rabbi Eliezer two leḥayyim 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 wide, that it requires nothing.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

But didn’t we learn

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 wide, that it is rendered permitted either by a lehi or by a crossbeam,”

and how can you say that it requires nothing?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi

said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel likewise stated the same thing as that student.

And the statement “it requires nothing” 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 lehi and

also

a crossbeam as

the addition made by

Beit Shammai.

Nor

two leḥayyim,

that is, a second lehi,

as

the addition made by

Rabbi Eliezer.

Rather,

either a lehi or a crossbeam—

as

the words of

Beit Hillel

alone!

Now that we have said that even when the entrance is less than four cubits wide, the alleyway must be rendered permitted according to everyone, we are uncertain:

And

at

how much

less than four cubits may the entrance be, while still requiring correction?

Rav Aḥlai, and some say Rav Yeḥiel, said:

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

to four

handbreadths, it still requires correction.

That is: If the entrance is less than four handbreadths wide, it does not require correction; from four handbreadths onward, it requires correction.

Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba, who said 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 to which it may not open, such as a public domain or a karmelit, is prohibited for carrying unless remnants of the wall, four handbreadths wide, remain on that side where the breach occurred. These remnants are called “side-posts.”

b.

The Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer—

of our Mishna, who says that two leḥayyim are required—

with regard to the side-posts of a courtyard,

for two side-posts are required there.

And Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the side-posts of a courtyard.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak

said in explanation of the statements of Rav and Rav Naḥman:

As for Rav’s statement, “The Sages agree with regard to the side-posts of a courtyard”—

who

are those Sages who

agree?

Rabbi!

And he proceeds to explain.

And as for Rav Naḥman’s statement:

The halakha

is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

And

by implication

of his words, it is understood that there are those who

disagree

with him with regard to the side-posts of a courtyard.

Who disagrees with him

—with Rabbi Eliezer?

The Rabbis!

And we explain it:

As it is taught in a beraita: A courtyard is rendered permitted with one side-post,

the words of the Sages.

Rabbi says: With two side-posts.

This is what Rav meant by saying “agree”: Although Rabbi maintains that an alleyway is rendered permitted with one lehi, he agrees with Rabbi Eliezer that, at least with regard to the side-posts of a courtyard, two side-posts are required, as the beraita teaches.

And this is likewise what Rav Naḥman meant when he said: “The halakha is” in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

For although the Sages of the beraita disagree even with regard to the side-posts of a courtyard, maintaining that only one side-post is required to render it permitted, nevertheless the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi: with regard to the side-posts of a courtyard, two side-posts are required.

Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A courtyard requires two side-posts

at its entrance in order to render it permitted.

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

that a courtyard requires two side-posts?

But you,

Rabbi Asi,

are the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The side-posts of a courtyard must have

a width of

four

handbreadths; and necessarily this refers to one side-post. [“Must have” means that ordinary courtyards “require” one side-post four handbreadths wide—Ritva.] And he proceeds to explain.

And if you would say:

In fact, two side-posts are required, but they must be made four

four

handbreadths

here and four

handbreadths

there!

That is not so.

For

didn’t Rav Adda bar Avimi teach before Rabbi Ḥanina—

and some say, before Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi [above, on page 9b]—

concerning our Mishna:

A small [narrow] courtyard 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 is that, from the perspective of the large courtyard, this is not a “breach in its entirety,” but merely an “entrance.” For the large courtyard is wider than the small one, and side-posts remain for it on both sides. Thus, the large courtyard remains distinct from the small one, and its status is like that of any other two courtyards with an entrance between them, where each one makes an eruv for itself.

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

The

small

one was

ten

cubits wide,

and the

large

one was

eleven

cubits wide. Consequently, the large courtyard extended three handbreadths [half a cubit] beyond the small one on this side and three handbreadths on that side.

And from here it is established that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that the side-posts of a courtyard must be four handbreadths wide means that one side-post four handbreadths wide suffices.

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

And we answer:

When Rabbi Zeira ascended from the days

[when Rabbi Zeira went up 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 resolves the difficulty:

Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that the side-posts of a courtyard must be four handbreadths wide applies specifically when one makes a side-post

on one side

of the courtyard [for Rabbi Yoḥanan holds like the Sages, that two side-posts are not necessary and one side-post suffices]. In that case, the one side-post must be made

four

handbreadths wide.

But if one does not make a side-post four handbreadths wide, one must make two side-posts

on two sides

of the courtyard [and even the Sages agree to this]. In that case, it suffices if one makes one side-post with a width of

something here and

a side-post with a width of

something there.

This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan meant when he said: “A courtyard requires two side-posts.”

That is to say: If one does not want to make a wide side-post, the courtyard requires two side-posts of minimal width.

And as for Rav Adda bar Avimi’s teaching

that two side-posts are required and one side-post four handbreadths wide does not suffice [as is evident from the beraita, where it is not enough for the large courtyard to extend beyond the small one by only four handbreadths], the reason is that this beraita

follows Rabbi,

who holds that a courtyard cannot be rendered permitted with one side-post, even one four handbreadths wide, but specifically requires two side-posts.

And the reason that it does not suffice for the large courtyard to have two side-posts of minimal width—as it does according to Rabbi Yoḥanan in accordance with the Sages—is that Rabbi disagrees with the Sages even concerning the width of the side-post.

For Rabbi

follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei,

who said with regard to the leḥayyim of an alleyway that minimal width does not suffice, as the Sages hold; rather, a width of three handbreadths is required.

The same applies to the side-posts of a courtyard: Rabbi holds that they must be three handbreadths wide. [Based on the Ritva’s understanding of Rashi.]

Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehuda, who said in the name of Shmuel: A courtyard is rendered permitted with one side-post

alone.

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

But Shmuel said to Rav Ḥananya bar Sheila: You must not perform a practical act

to render a courtyard permitted

except either with

one side-post extending across

most

of

the wall, or with two side-posts!

If so, how can Shmuel say that one side-post suffices, even when it does not extend across most of the wall?!

He said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

I do not know

how to answer your difficulty.

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

For there was an incident in the village of shepherds

[“Shepherds’ village”—Rashi, above, page 7b], where

an arm of the sea

[a water channel]

entered the courtyard

there, and breached the courtyard’s fourth wall in its entirety.

And this incident came

before

Rav Yehuda

to ask him whether it was permitted to draw water from that arm of the sea, which was a karmelit [because the water was connected to the sea outside the courtyard, which was a karmelit—Minḥat Yisrael, based on the Ritva], into the courtyard [Rabbenu Yonatan], which had the status of a private domain by Torah law, since it had three partitions.

And he did not require him

Rav Yehuda to leave, at the place of the breached partition,

anything except one side-post.

Consequently, he could draw water from the place where the partition had stood before it was breached [and where one side-post remained] into the courtyard. [See illustration 1]

Abaye said to him,

Abaye to Rav Yosef: This does not establish that Rav Yehuda performed a practical act permitting a courtyard with one side-post.

What,

you are citing an arm of the sea

as proof?!

That case is different, because

the Sages were lenient

with regard to partitions

in water,

permitting water to be drawn by means of any minimal correction; but ordinarily, they were not lenient.

And

as

we find that they were lenient with regard to water in a manner in which they were not lenient elsewhere:

For Rabbi Tavla asked Rav: A partition

that does not reach the ground, but is

suspended

in the air—

may it render a ruin permitted

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

Rav said to him,

Rav to Rabbi Tavla:

No.

A “suspended partition”

renders permitted only in water.

For

the Sages were lenient with regard to water.

As we find below that a suspended partition renders water permitted:

For we learned: A balcony projecting from a private domain and located above water [which is considered a karmelit]: One may not draw water from the karmelit into the balcony, which is a private domain, unless one makes a hole in the balcony and constructs around the hole a partition ten handbreadths high, so that the area containing the water below will be considered a private domain; only then may one draw water into it through the hole in the balcony.

This partition around the hole is effective whether it is above, on the balcony, or whether it is made beneath the floor of the balcony while suspended above the water. This is because we say: “Lower the partition,” viewing the partitions as though they descend and extend into the water beneath the balcony. [See illustration 3]

But ordinarily, we are not lenient with regard to a suspended partition!

Here too, we are lenient with regard to water, permitting one to draw water even when there is only one side-post. But ordinarily, perhaps we are not lenient and one side-post is insufficient.

And now we return to the difficulty with which we challenged one statement of Shmuel from another:

Nevertheless, it remains difficult!

And we answer:

When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from Rav’s academy, they explained

this statement of Shmuel so that his statements would not contradict one another:

If one comes to render it permitted

from one side,

it can be rendered permitted only

with four

handbreadths of width.

This is what Shmuel meant when he said: “A courtyard is rendered permitted with one side-post.” And when Shmuel said that two side-posts are required, he meant that if one does not render it permitted with one side-post four handbreadths wide, one may make two side-posts

on two sides

of the courtyard’s entrance: one side-post with a width of

something here, and

a side-post with a width of

something there!

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

this is the difficulty for me:

This statement

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

from one side,

“or with two side-posts!”

Why do I need most of the wall

when rendering it permitted from one side?

But

four handbreadths suffice!

And why did Shmuel teach the permission of most of the wall? He should have taught the greater novelty: that where four handbreadths are less than most of the wall—for example, where the wall is eight handbreadths wide—four handbreadths likewise suffice.

And if you would say

that four handbreadths indeed suffice, but

what

is the reason that Shmuel preferred to teach the permission of

most of the wall

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

For example:

with a wall seven

handbreadths wide,

it has

within it

most of the wall.

And Shmuel teaches a greater novelty by saying “most of the wall” than he would have by saying “four.” For had he said “four,” I might have said that four are always required, even with a wall seven handbreadths wide, since four is more than half the wall.

Now he teaches us that most of the wall always suffices, since most of the wall is effective whether the wall is seven handbreadths wide or considerably wider.

That cannot be said!

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

For

why do I need four?

It suffices for us to reduce the width of the entrance until the entrance is less than four handbreadths wide, for in such a case no permission through a “side-post” is required at all [as stated below].

If so, we would know that a four-handbreadth side-post is not required; rather,

three and something suffice

with a wall seven handbreadths wide, since the entrance would thereby automatically be less than four handbreadths wide.

And since this is so: If Shmuel held that a four-handbreadth side-post renders it permitted, he should have taught us this permission, since we would not have thought that four handbreadths are required even with a wall seven handbreadths wide.

And the reason that three and something suffice is:

For Rav Aḥlai, and some say Rav Yeḥiel, said

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

to four

handbreadths did the alleyway require the means of being rendered permitted through a lehi and a crossbeam.

But if the width of the alleyway’s entrance was less than four handbreadths, no means of being rendered permitted was required at all. The same applies to a courtyard: if the entrance is less than four handbreadths wide, a side-post is not required.

And we reject this: Shmuel in fact holds that a four-handbreadth side-post renders it permitted.

And Shmuel did not want to say that a four-handbreadth side-post is required, so that we would not mistakenly conclude that even with a wall seven handbreadths wide, four handbreadths are required, as we said.

And as for the fact that we would have known that a four-handbreadth side-post is not required with a wall seven handbreadths wide, in accordance with Rav Aḥlai—this is not so, for two reasons:

a.

If you wish, say: Here,

in Shmuel’s statement, which is speaking

of a courtyard,

it is not effective for the entrance to be less than four handbreadths wide.

But

here:

in Rav Ahlai’s statement, which discusses

an alleyway—

no corrective measure is required at an entrance that is less than four [cubits wide].

But in the case of a courtyard, a side-post is required even when the opening is less than four [cubits wide]!

B.

Alternatively,

since the statement

of Rav Ahlai himself—

is subject to dispute among the tannaim [as we say below, on 13a],

if Shmuel had said “four,” we would have inferred that he does not hold in accordance with Rav Ahlai, but rather in accordance with the tanna who disputes his view and maintains that three and something is insufficient.

Consequently, we would not have permitted even the majority of the wall, since Shmuel says “four.”

Therefore, Shmuel teaches us the novel point that the majority of the wall is also effective, while in any event four [handbreadths] is sufficient.

[This tradition is explained according to the interpretation of the Rashba and the Tosafot of Rosh. Examine Rashi carefully, for this does not appear to be his view; and examine carefully the Tosafot, the Tosafot of Rabbeinu Peretz, and the Ritva.]

The Sages taught: A tongue of the sea that enters a courtyard

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

one may not draw water from it

water

on Shabbat

to bring it into the courtyard, for that would be bringing an object from a karmelit into a private domain,

unless he has a partition that is high

[[unclear: isolated letter in the source]]

ten handbreadths.

That is to say: unless he closes the breach with a partition ten handbreadths high, and makes the breach ten cubits wide or less.

When are these matters stated—

when its breach

of the courtyard was

more than ten

[R. H.] cubits wide.

But

if its breach was

ten

cubits wide—

nothing at all is required!

For since the wall was not breached along its entire length [in which case this would not be effective even when the breach was less than ten, since there would be no side-posts], if the opening is not wider than ten, it retains the status of an “entrance,” and it is permitted.

And we raise an objection: From the fact that it teaches that one may not “draw water” from the tongue of the sea into the courtyard, it follows that this applies specifically to

drawing water; it is only that we may not draw water,

because that would be bringing an object from a karmelit into a private domain.

But carrying

in this courtyard—properly

we may carry.

But why?

Yet

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?!