Eruvin 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

Rava went

Rava left

and removed them,

he pulled the reeds out of their places, as he held that this was unnecessary. Since he had built that hut there, which was a dwelling, the entire orchard thereby became a courtyard for that hut and was considered enclosed for dwelling purposes, as we said above: “An opening permits it.”

And furthermore,

went

they went

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and took them from behind him,

they took the reeds from there so that Rav Huna, son of Rav Ḥinnana, would not return and replace them, since they agreed with Rava.

The next day,

on Shabbat, when they wanted to eat and stroll in the orchard,

Ravina raised an objection to Rava,

as he held that Rav Huna’s corrective measure was unnecessary, even though the hut had been built there after the orchard had been enclosed:

One who observes Shabbat eve within a walled city considers the entire city, up to the wall, as though it were four cubits, which is the place of residence of every person who observes Shabbat there. He measures two thousand cubits from outside the wall, and this is his Shabbat boundary.

But if it did not have a wall, he measures two thousand cubits from the outermost houses of the city.

An old

new city

as will be explained below

is measured from its settled area

from the inhabited houses, and not from its wall;

and

a

settled

city is measured

from its wall.

Which is considered new, and which is considered old?

A new city: one that was enclosed

by a wall

and was settled only afterward,

the city was then inhabited. Its wall is not considered a wall that renders the entire area equivalent to four cubits, since its settlement was “new,” as its wall preceded its settlement. This is Rashi’s wording.

An old city:

that

was settled

by inhabitants

and was enclosed only afterward.

And this

orchard

also,

which had already been enclosed many days earlier, while this hut was built only now, and the enclosure of the orchard was not made with this dwelling in mind,

is like

a city that

was enclosed and settled only afterward!

And Rav Pappa, who at first had simply agreed with Rava and had even acted accordingly, retracted his view and

Rav Pappa said to Rava: But didn’t Rav Asi say: The partitions made by builders

for eating there temporarily

are not called a partition,

as they are not considered an enclosure made for dwelling purposes?

Apparently, since it is made for privacy

alone

and is

dismantled the next day,

it is not a partition.

Here too—

the partitions of the hut—

since they are made for privacy

alone, for eating there temporarily and occasionally, and for privacy, so that those sitting there would not be seen from outside,

they are not a partition,

and the hut itself is not enclosed for dwelling purposes; certainly, therefore, it cannot permit carrying throughout the entire orchard.

And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, also retracted his view, and

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: But didn’t Rav Huna say: A partition made for storage

not for dwelling there, but to protect what they would “place” there,

is not called a partition?

This hut too was made only to store the garments, prayer shawls, and other utensils they would remove there; it is not a partition and is not an enclosure made for dwelling purposes.

For Rabba bar Avuha

was

establishing an eruv for all of it,

for the entire city of

Meḥoza, neighborhood by neighborhood,

rather than establishing one eruv for the entire city.

Although all the streets of the city that opened toward the edge of the city were closed off by partitions, Meḥoza was nevertheless not considered one city enclosed by a wall, which could establish one eruv for all its inhabitants,

because of the pits,

the excavations shaped like trenches that separated the neighborhoods,

of the oxen,

which were intended to store grain for the oxen. Those excavations were deeper than ten handbreadths.

The partitions at the entrances to the streets were ineffective in making all the neighborhoods one area, since those partitions were intended to protect the grain in the excavations and not for dwelling purposes.

And these pits for the oxen—

are comparable to a partition made for storage,

which is ineffective.

The Exilarch applied to them,

to Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who had not remembered the previous day that Rav Huna, son of Rav Ḥinnana, needed to make the correction, and had prevented him from returning and doing so, but now had become sages intent on prohibiting:

“They are wise to do harm, but they do not know how to do good,”

yesterday.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Ela'i said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer

that one may enclose an area even when it is not for dwelling purposes,

even an area measuring a bet kor:

And we said:

The Mishna

which teaches that one may enclose only up to an area measuring a bet kor, thirty beit se'a,

is not in accordance with Ḥananya,

some explain that this was stated in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, while others explain that Ḥananya said it in his own name, according to the Ritva,

as it was taught in a beraita: Ḥananya says: Even if it is

an area measuring

forty se'a, like the broad avenue of a king

the open area behind the palace.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them,

Rabbi Ela'i and Ḥananya,

derived their views from one verse,

their respective approaches:

As it is stated:

“In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill, and Isaiah, son of Amoz the prophet, came to him, and so on.

And Isaiah had not yet left

before he had managed to leave

the middle courtyard,

when the word of the Lord came to him, saying: Return and say to Hezekiah, and so on: I will heal you.”

There is a qeri and a ketiv in this verse:

The written form is: “the city”

the middle one,

but we read: “the courtyard”

the middle one, the inner courtyard behind the palace!

From here it is derived that the avenue of a king,

which was

as large as medium-sized towns,

and since it is called a “courtyard,” which is ordinarily enclosed for dwelling purposes, although in reality it was an open area behind the houses and was not enclosed for dwelling purposes, they derived support from it that an area of this size has the legal status of a courtyard, so that one may carry throughout it, according to the Ritva.

And

with regard to what do

these tannaim

differ?

One Sage holds: Medium-sized towns are

a

bet kor.

And we explain the verse:

And Isaiah,

who was with Hezekiah when he was ill,

what was he seeking there?

That is: Why did he wish to leave for the middle courtyard behind the house, which is not the usual route of exit?!

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: This teaches that when Hezekiah became ill, and Isaiah went away from him,

intending

to establish

a study session

according to the Gaon Yaakov,

of students

to engage in Torah study

at his entrance,

within the middle courtyard, so that the Angel of Death would not have permission to enter there, since words of Torah protect against the Angel of Death, according to the Ya'avetz. We find something similar with David, whom the Angel of Death could not overcome while he was studying; see Shabbat 30b.

And

from here it is derived that when a Torah scholar becomes ill, one establishes a study session at his entrance.

But we reject this:

And this is not a valid statement

that we should establish a study session for every Torah scholar; rather, Isaiah did so because he was a prophet and a completely righteous person, according to the Ritva.

Perhaps the Satan will come to provoke him,

for when the Angel of Death sees that they are provoking him by not allowing him to enter, he will provoke them, based on Rashi in the Ein Yaakov.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise I heard from him: If one of the members of a courtyard forgot

among them

and did not establish an eruv,

but renounced his rights to them,

his house

his own

is prohibited

for him to carry from it into the courtyard, but it is permitted for them:

And we question this:

But didn’t we learn: His house is prohibited for carrying in and out

both

for him and

both

for them?!

And we answer:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said that Rav Sheshet said: It is not difficult: