Eruvin 2a (ב.) — the Talmud in English

A mavוי is a side alley, from the term mavo, and it serves as a passageway for the residents of the houses on either side to the public domain. There are two principal forms of mavוי: a dead-end mavוי and a through mavוי. The through mavוי, is open at both ends to the public domain or to a karmelit. If it is open at both ends to the public domain, there are certain circumstances in which it has the status of a public domain by Torah law. The dead-end mavוי, is open on only one side, at its head, to the public domain [or to a karmelit], while on its other three sides it is enclosed by the walls of the courtyards of the houses. According to most of the Rishonim, a dead-end mavוי is a private domain by Torah law, since a place enclosed by three partitions is a private domain. However, the Sages decreed that it is necessary to rectify the fourth side, which is open to the public domain, in order that carrying within the mavוי be permitted. The reason for the decree is that the Sages were concerned that, since one end of the mavוי is open to the public domain or to a karmelit, people might err and compare the permission to carry in the mavוי with carrying in the public domain, and consequently come to carry even in a completely defined public domain, or to carry an object out from a private domain into a completely defined public domain [Rashi and Rabbenu Yehonatan]. Alternatively, they might err and say: Since the opening of the mavוי is entirely open to the public domain and is level with the public domain, the mavוי itself is also a public domain; and they would consequently carry from the adjacent public domain into the mavוי [Rabbenu Yehonatan; see an additional explanation in Gaon Yaakov]. Therefore, although a dead-end mavוי is a completely defined private domain by Torah law, since it is enclosed by three partitions [and according to most of the Rishonim, a place enclosed by three partitions is a private domain], nevertheless, the Sages decreed that one may not carry an object four cubits within it, nor carry an object from a private domain into it or from it into a private domain. Rather, its status is that of a karmelit, in which one may not carry an object four cubits, and into which one may not carry from a private domain or out of which one may not carry to a private domain, until it is rectified by making an entranceway at its fourth side. The Sages instituted several forms of rectification for a mavוי, so that carrying within it would be permitted: a. The placement of a leḥi, a post ten tefaḥim high, at the side of the entrance of the mavוי that is open to the public domain. b. The placement of a beam, across the two walls of the mavוי, at both sides, spanning the width of the mavוי—at its side that is open to the public domain. And we hold that by placing either a leḥi or a beam the mavוי is rectified; it is not necessary to place both. [The Gemara below will explain for what reason these rectifications are effective.] Mishna:

A dead-end mavוי

that

is higher than twenty cubits,

[see illustration 1]

That is, its beam was placed at a height of more than twenty cubits above the floor of the mavוי—

he must reduce

the height between the beam and the floor of the mavוי, either by raising the floor or by lowering the beam. For a beam’s rectification is effective for a mavוי only up to a height of twenty cubits.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not necessary

to reduce it; rather, even a beam situated at a height greater than twenty cubits rectifies the entrance of the mavוי.

A dead-end mavוי is rendered permitted by means of a leḥi or a beam only if there is an “entranceway” at the head of the mavוי. But if its head is not fit to be called an “entranceway,” for example, if it is wider than ten cubits, in which case it is considered a “breach” [by rabbinic law!], it cannot be rendered permitted by means of a leḥi or a beam.

Therefore, a mavוי

that is wider

than

ten cubits

at its opening to the public domain—since, as stated, every place wider than ten cubits is considered [by rabbinic law!] a “breach” and is not considered an entranceway—

he must reduce

the width of the entranceway until it is no wider than ten cubits, at which point he can render it fit by means of a leḥi or a beam. [See illustration 2]

And if it has

at its opening to the public domain

a “form of an entranceway,”

made by placing a leḥi here and a leḥi there, with a beam over them, resembling the two doorposts and lintel of an entranceway—the form of an entranceway closes off the mavוי [since it is considered an “entranceway,” or like a partition] even when it is wider than ten cubits [see illustration 3].

Therefore:

even though

the entranceway of the mavוי

is wider

than

ten cubits—

it is not necessary to reduce

its width!

Gemara:

We learned there

in tractate Sukka:

A sukka that is higher,

that is, its roofing is higher than the floor of the sukka

than twenty cubits—

is unfit.

And Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

And Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

And we raised the following discussion concerning it:

What is different with regard to a sukka

that is higher than twenty cubits,

that the tanna teaches

that it is

“unfit,”

but the tanna did not teach us how to rectify such a sukka?

And

if

with regard to

the beam of a

mavוי

that is higher than twenty cubits, the tanna did not teach in our Mishna that it is unfit, but merely

teaches

in it

a rectification,

how it can be rendered fit, saying: “He must reduce it.”

And we answer: The tanna uses the expression “unfit” only with regard to a matter whose laws had already been established and were known—how it should be made—even before the Mishna was taught. In that case, the tanna comes to teach us in the Mishna that if the matter was not performed according to its law, it is unfit, since it was not made in accordance with Torah and the known halakha.

Therefore, with regard to the law of a

sukka

higher than twenty cubits, whose disqualification is known, since it is unfit

by Torah law,

and the laws of the sukka had already been established and were known from the time of the giving of the Torah—

he teaches

in its regard the expression

“it is unfit.”

But a

mavוי,

whose fundamental laws are only

rabbinic,

since by Torah law it is a completely defined private domain, and before this Mishna was taught the Sages had not yet informed us of the laws governing the fitness of a mavוי, or at what height its beam is fit—it is not possible to use the expression “unfit” with regard to it, since the matter concerns a law whose requirements for fitness are not yet known.

Therefore, the tanna did not teach with regard to it, “it is unfit,” but rather

teaches a rectification,

how to rectify the disqualification of this beam. [Based on Rashi here and Rashi in Sukka.]

And if you wish, say:

Even with regard to a matter whose disqualification is

by Torah law,

he also teaches—

it is likewise the tanna’s practice to teach in its regard

a rectification.

Rather,

the reason that the tanna stated with regard to a sukka higher than twenty cubits “it is unfit,” and did not write its rectification, that one must reduce its height, is due to the continuation of that Mishna, which deals with the details of the laws of a

sukka, for its matters are numerous

[as many laws concerning the sukka are written there in the Mishna].

For there it teaches: a. A sukka that is not ten tefaḥim high. b. One that does not have three walls. c. One whose sunlight is greater than its shade—all these are unfit.

And if the tanna had taught us there how to rectify a sukka that is high, he would have had to elaborate and write as well the manner of rectifying all the other disqualifications taught there.

And since the Sages said: A person should always teach his student by means of a concise formulation,

therefore, he

cut short,

the tanna abbreviated and did not elaborate his words,

and taught, “it is unfit,”

thereby referring to all the matters concerning the sukka taught there in the Mishna.

But

a mavוי, whose matters are not numerous,

as it has only one rectification, that of a leḥi or a beam at the head of the mavוי—

he teaches

with regard to it

a rectification,

that one should reduce it, and it will thereby be rendered fit.

The Gemara now explains the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda concerning a beam that is higher than twenty cubits: What is the basis of their dispute?

As stated in the introduction, a dead-end mavוי is a private domain by Torah law, since it is enclosed on three sides by partitions, while its fourth side constitutes an “entranceway,” and it is thereby considered enclosed on all four sides. For an entranceway also constitutes “closure” with regard to defining the place as enclosed and closed off on all sides.

However, the Sages decreed that the fourth side, if it is entirely open to the public domain, should not be considered an “entranceway,” but rather a breach. Since it is “open,” carrying in the mavוי is prohibited by rabbinic law until it is rectified by means of a leḥi or a beam; through this rectification, the fourth side once again comes to be considered an “entranceway,” closing off the fourth side.

When does this apply? When the fourth side has the dimensions of an entranceway.

But if it is larger than the dimensions appropriate to be called an entranceway, the leḥi or beam will no longer help it, since their entire power lies in nullifying the breach and restoring the designation of an entranceway to the entrance of the mavוי.

The Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed in our Mishna concerning the height of this entranceway, such that it can be rendered fit by placing a beam above the walls at the opening of the mavוי.

[But the height of the mavוי does not prevent the possibility of rendering it fit by placing a leḥi alongside the wall at the head of the mavוי,

at whatever height the entranceway may be.

See the “Studies,” where some authorities disagree concerning this matter.]

And if the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda also disagreed with regard to the width of the mavוי, the Gemara will explain it.

According to Rav, the basis of the dispute is: To which entranceway did the Sages compare the opening of a mavוי in their decree, requiring it to be considered an “entranceway”? According to Rav Naḥman, they disagreed concerning the dimensions necessary for a beam to be noticeable.

Two approaches are stated in the Gemara according to Rav:

The first: They disagreed as to which entranceway mentioned in the Written Torah the Sages compared it to.

The second: They disagreed as to whether they learned it from the Written Torah or compared it to the ordinary entranceways of kings [which are the largest entranceways].

First approach:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The Rabbis did not learn it

that the dimensions of the entranceway’s height should be up to twenty cubits and no more,

except from the entranceway of the Sanctuary,

which was in the Temple before the Holy of Holies, and in which the Table and the Menorah were located; its entranceway was twenty cubits high.

And Rabbi Yehuda did not learn it

the dimensions of the height of an entranceway

except from the entranceway of the Entrance Hall,

which was in the Temple before the Sanctuary, and whose entranceway was higher than twenty cubits.

As we learned: The entranceway of the Sanctuary—

its height was twenty cubits, and its width was ten cubits.

And

as for the entranceway

of the Entrance Hall—

its height was forty cubits, and its width was twenty cubits.

And we explain the reasoning of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda in two ways:

a.

And both of them,

the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda,

expounded one verse,

and they disagreed within that verse itself whether the dimensions of an “entranceway” are like those of the entranceway of the Sanctuary or those of the Entrance Hall.

For both of them expounded the verse stated concerning the peace offering:

“And they shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

And both learned from here that the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is called an “entranceway.”

And from the “entranceway” of the Tent of Meeting they learned with regard to the entranceway of the Sanctuary in the Temple, that it too is called an “entranceway,” since the Sanctuary contained the Temple vessels just as they had been in the Tabernacle.

Everyone agrees that the Sanctuary in the Temple is called the “Tent of Meeting,” and from this it follows that its entranceway is included in the “entranceway of the Tent of Meeting,” which the Torah calls an “entranceway.”

However, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed on the following: Is the Entrance Hall also—although it existed only in the Temple and not in the Tabernacle—called the “Tent of Meeting”? This also determines whether its entranceway is called an “entranceway.”

And this is the point of their dispute:

For the Rabbis hold: The sanctity of the Sanctuary is separate, and the sanctity of the

Entrance Hall is separate,

and all the services whose designated place was the Tent of Meeting or the Sanctuary are not valid if performed in the Entrance Hall.

It follows that in the Temple only the Sanctuary itself is considered the “Tent of Meeting.”

And

if so,

when it is written, “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

only the

entrance of the

Sanctuary

is

written!

But

Rabbi Yehuda holds: The Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall have one sanctity.

And the services whose designated place was the Tent of Meeting or the Sanctuary are valid even when performed in the Entrance Hall.

It follows, according to him, that the Entrance Hall is also called the “Tent of Meeting.”

And

if so,

when it is written, “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

it is written with regard to both of them

[both the entranceway of the Sanctuary and the entranceway of the Entrance Hall]

.

b.

And if you wish, say:

Only the Rabbis derive the dimensions of the entranceway from “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

But Rabbi Yehuda did not learn it from there at all.

For even according to him, one cannot learn from the entranceway of the Entrance Hall, since it is not included in the entranceway of the Tent of Meeting, because

according to Rabbi Yehuda as well, the sanctity of the Entrance Hall is separate and the sanctity of the Sanctuary is separate.

Therefore, the entranceway of the Entrance Hall is not considered included in the “entranceway of the Tent of Meeting”; only the entranceway of the Sanctuary is.

And here,

in our Mishna, where Rabbi Yehuda said that it is not necessary to reduce it,

this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda:

he holds that the entranceway of the Entrance Hall is called an “entranceway,” and he learned this from another place, from that

which is written,

“to the entranceway of the Entrance Hall of the House.”

Thus, even the large entranceway of the Entrance Hall is called an “entranceway.”

And

the reason of the

Rabbis,

who did not learn from Rabbi Yehuda’s verse, is as follows:

Because

if it had been written

somewhere in the Written Torah

“to the entranceway of the Entrance Hall”

alone, and “Entrance Hall of the House” had not been written anywhere, it would indeed be possible to learn from it

as you say,

that the entranceway of the Entrance Hall is called an “entranceway.”

But

now, since it is written,

“to the entranceway of the Entrance Hall of the House,”

we explain it as follows: The entranceway of

the House that opens onto the Entrance Hall,

meaning the entranceway of the Sanctuary, which opens onto the Entrance Hall that stood before it.

The Gemara now discusses and explains the comparison of the entranceway of the Tent of Meeting with the entranceway of the Sanctuary and the Entrance Hall in the Temple.

And we raised the following difficulty:

But when this

verse, “the entranceway of the Tent of Meeting,” was written, it was

only in the Tabernacle

that it was

written

[and in the Tabernacle there was no Entrance Hall at all, while the entranceway of the Sanctuary in the Tabernacle was only ten cubits high]. How, then, can one learn from it with regard to the entranceways of the Temple?!

And we answer: Since

we find

that with regard to the

Tabernacle

of Moses

it is called a “Sanctuary,” and

we likewise

find that the Sanctuary is called a “Tabernacle”

[as will be explained below], it is indeed possible to learn from the Temple with regard to the Tabernacle.

And we support this answer:

For if you do not say

that if you do not say

so,

that one can learn from the Temple with regard to the Tabernacle, then there is also a difficulty concerning

that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Peace offerings

that one slaughtered

in the morning

before the doors of the Sanctuary were opened—

are unfit!

This is because

it is stated

in the passage concerning the peace offering:

“And they shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

the verse teaches that one may slaughter peace offerings only

when

the doors of the Sanctuary are

open, and not when they are locked.

And if it is impossible to learn from the Temple with regard to the Tabernacle, there is a difficulty:

But when that

verse, “And they shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” was written, it was

in the Tabernacle

that it was

written!

If so, how can we learn from it to prohibit slaughtering peace offerings before the opening of the doors of the Sanctuary in the Temple?!

Rather,

it is necessarily the case: Since

we find that the Sanctuary is called a Tabernacle, and the Tabernacle is called a Sanctuary,

it is possible to learn from the Temple with regard to the Tabernacle.

Therefore, the same applies here: It is possible to learn from the Temple with regard to the Tabernacle concerning the height of the entranceway.

We challenge what we have said, that “the Sanctuary is called a Tabernacle, and the Tabernacle is called a Sanctuary”:

Granted, with regard to the Sanctuary,

we indeed find

that it is called a Tabernacle.

As it is written,

that God promised us after the erection of the Tabernacle, saying:

“And I will place My Tabernacle among you.”

The verse necessarily refers to the Temple, which had not yet been built, and not to the Tabernacle, since the Tabernacle had already been erected.

But with regard to the Tabernacle, which is called a Sanctuary—

from where do we know this?!

If you say, from that which is written

in the account of the transporting of the Tabernacle:

“And the Kohathites, who carry the Sanctuary, shall journey, and the Tabernacle shall be erected before their arrival,”

does this mean that those who carry the Tabernacle were called “those who carry the Sanctuary”? This is not so, for the verse is not speaking at all about those who carry the Tabernacle.