Eruvin 2a — the Talmud in English

An alley is a side street, from the expression “entrance,” and it serves as a passage for the residents of the houses on its sides to the public domain. An alley has two principal forms: a closed alley and an open alley. The open alley, open on both its sides to the public domain, or to a karmelit. If it is open on both its sides to the public domain, there are certain circumstances in which it has the status of a public domain by Torah law. The closed alley, open only on one side, at its head, to the public domain [or to a karmelit], and on its three sides it is enclosed by the walls of the courtyards of the houses. A closed alley is, according to most of the early authorities, 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 repair the fourth side, which is open to the public domain, so that carrying within the alley will be permitted. And the reason for the decree is that the Sages were concerned lest, because one head of the alley is open to the public domain or to a karmelit, people come to err and compare the permission to carry in the alley with carrying in the public domain, and come to carry even in a completely public domain, or to remove from a private domain to a completely public domain [Rashi and Rabbeinu Yonatan]. Or they may come to err and say: Since the breach of the alley is entirely open to the public domain, and it is level with the public domain, the alley too is a public domain; and they will come to carry from the adjacent public domain into the alley [Rabbeinu Yonatan; and see additional explanation in Gaon Yaakov]. Therefore, although the closed alley is a completely private domain by Torah law, since it is enclosed by three partitions [and according to most of the early authorities, 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, and may not remove an object from a private domain into it, or from it to a private domain. Rather, its status will be that of a karmelit, in which one may not carry four cubits, and into which one may not remove or bring from a private domain, until they repair it by making an entrance to the alley on its fourth side. And the Sages instituted several forms of repairing the alley so that it will be permitted to carry in it: a. The placing of a side-post, which is a pillar ten handbreadths high, at the side of the entrance of the alley that is open to the public domain. b. The placing of a crossbeam upon the two walls of the alley, on its two sides, across the width of the alley—on its side that is open to the public domain. And we hold that by placing a side-post or a crossbeam the alley is repaired, and it is not necessary to place both of them. And below, in the Gemara, it will be explained for what reason these repairs are effective. Mishna:

An alley

closed

that is higher than twenty cubits, [see illustration 1]

see illustration 1]

That placed its crossbeam at a height of more than twenty cubits from the floor of the alley—

He must reduce

the height between the crossbeam and the floor of the alley, by raising the floor or by lowering the crossbeam. For a crossbeam repair is effective for an alley only up to a height of twenty cubits.

Rabbi Judah says: He need not

reduce it; rather, even a crossbeam that is located at a height greater than twenty cubits repairs the entrance of the alley.

A closed alley is not rendered permitted by a side-post and a crossbeam unless there is a “doorway” there, at the head of the alley. But if the head of the alley is not fit to be called a “doorway,” for example, if it is wider than ten cubits, in which case it is considered a “breach” [by rabbinic law!], it is impossible to permit it by means of a side-post or a crossbeam.

Therefore, an alley

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 entrance—

he must reduce

the width of the entrance until it is no wider than ten cubits, and then he will be able to validate it with a side-post or a crossbeam. [See illustration 2]

And if it has

the alley, at its opening to the public domain,

a “form of a doorway,”

made by placing a side-post here and a side-post there and a crossbeam above them, which are like two doorposts and a lintel of a doorway—the form of a doorway closes the alley [because it is considered an “entrance,” or a partition] even when its width is greater than ten cubits [see illustration 3].

Therefore:

even though

the entrance of the alley

is wide

more than

ten cubits—

it is not necessary to reduce

its width!

Gemara:

We learned there

in tractate Sukkah:

A sukkah that is high,

whose roofing is higher than the floor of the sukkah

by more than twenty cubits—

is invalid.

And Rabbi Judah validates it.

And Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What is different with regard to a sukkah

that is higher than twenty cubits,

that the tan­[nai] taught

the tan­[nai] that it is

“invalid,”

and the tan­[nai] did not teach us how to repair such a sukkah?

And

if

with regard to

the crossbeam of an

alley

that is higher than twenty cubits, the tan­[nai] did not teach in our Mishna that it is invalid, but only

taught

in it

the remedy, how it can be validated, and said: “He must reduce”!

And we answer: The wording “invalid” the tan­[nai] uses to teach only concerning something whose laws had already been established and made known—how to perform it—even before the Mishna was taught. For then the tan­[nai] comes to inform us in the Mishna that if the thing was not done according to law, it is invalid, because it was not done according to the Torah and according to the known halakha.

Therefore, with regard to the law of a

Therefore, regarding the law of a

sukkah

that is higher than twenty cubits, whose invalidity is known, since it is invalid

by Torah law,

and its laws had already been established and made known at the time of the giving of the Torah—

he taught

in it the wording

“is invalid.”

But

an alley,

whose principal laws are only

by rabbinic law,

since by Torah law it is a completely private domain, and before this Mishna was taught the Sages had still not made known to us the laws for validating an alley, and at what height the crossbeam would be valid, it is not possible to teach concerning it the wording “invalid,” because the matter concerns a halakha whose validation is not yet known.

Therefore, he did not teach in it “is invalid,” but

taught the remedy,

how it is possible to repair the invalidity of this crossbeam. [Based on Rashi here and Rashi in Sukkah.]

And if you wish, say:

Actually, even concerning something whose invalidity is

by Torah law—

he also teaches

the tan­[nai]’s practice is also to teach in it

the remedy.

Rather,

the fact that the tan­[nai], with regard to a sukkah higher than twenty cubits, took the wording “is invalid,” and did not write its repair, that its height should be reduced, is because of the continuation of that Mishna, which deals with the details of the laws of a

sukkah, for its matters are numerous

[because many laws concerning a sukkah are written there in the Mishna].

For it teaches there: a. A sukkah that is not ten handbreadths high. b. And one that does not have three walls. c. And one whose sunlight is greater than its shade—is invalid.

And if the tan­[nai] had taught us there how to repair a high sukkah, he would have needed to lengthen the text and write also the form of repairing all the other invalid states taught there.

And since the Sages said: A person should always teach his student by way of brevity,

therefore

he cut short,

the tan­[nai] shortened and did not expand his words,

and taught “is invalid,”

referring thereby to all the matters of the sukkah taught there in the Mishna.

But

an alley, whose matters are not numerous,

rather, it has only one repair, a side-post or a crossbeam at the head of the alley—

he taught

in it

the remedy,

that it should be reduced and become valid.

And now the Gemara explains the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Judah concerning the invalidity of a crossbeam that is higher than twenty cubits—over what did they disagree?

As stated in the introduction, the closed alley is a private domain by Torah law, since it is enclosed on its three sides by partitions, and its fourth side constitutes an “entrance,” and through this it is considered closed on all four sides. For an entrance also constitutes a “closing” with regard to defining the place as enclosed and closed around it.

Rather, the Sages decreed that the fourth side, if it is entirely open to the public domain, should not be considered an “entrance,” but a breach. And because it is “open,” carrying in the alley was forbidden by rabbinic law until a side-post or crossbeam was made there; and through this repair the fourth side will again be considered an “entrance,” which closes the fourth side.

When are these words said? When there is on the fourth side the measure of an entrance.

But if it is larger than the measure fit to be called an entrance, the side-post or crossbeam will no longer help it, since their entire power lies in nullifying the breach and restoring the name “entrance” to the entrance of the alley.

And the Sages and Rabbi Judah disagreed in our Mishna: What is the measure of the height of this entrance, so that they can validate it by placing a crossbeam above the walls of the alley’s entrance?

But the height of the alley does not prevent the possibility of validating it by placing a side-post beside the wall at the head of the alley,

at whatever height the entrance may be.

And see in the “Studies” that there are those who disagree concerning this.

And if the Sages and Rabbi Judah also disagreed with regard to the width of the alley, it will be explained in the Gemara.

According to Rav, the basis of the dispute is: To which entrance did the Sages compare the entrance of the alley in their decree, that it must be considered an “entrance”? And according to Rav Naḥman, they disagreed about the measure of the visibility of a crossbeam.

Two approaches were stated in the Gemara according to Rav:

The first: They disagreed to which entrance mentioned in Scripture the Sages compared it.

And the second: They disagreed whether they learned it from Scripture or compared it to ordinary entrances of kings [which are the largest entrances].

First approach:

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: The Sages did not learn it

—the measure of the height of an entrance, that it should be up to twenty cubits and no more—

except from the entrance of the Sanctuary,

which was in the Temple before the Holy of Holies, and in which the table and the menorah were located, and the height of its entrance was twenty cubits.

And Rabbi Judah did not learn it

—the measure of the height of an entrance—

except from the entrance of the Hall,

which was in the Temple before the Sanctuary, and the height of its entrance was greater than twenty cubits.

For we learned: The entrance of the Sanctuary—

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

And

if it were the entrance

of the Hall—

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

And we explain the reasoning of the Sages and Rabbi Judah in two ways:

a.

And both of them,

the Sages and Rabbi Judah,

expounded one verse,

and they disagreed within it whether the measure of an “entrance” is like the entrance of the Sanctuary or like that of the 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 “entrance.”

And from the “entrance” of the Tent of Meeting they learned about the entrance of the Sanctuary in the Temple, which is like it in being called an “entrance,” since in the Sanctuary [in the Temple] the Temple vessels were placed, just as they were in the Tabernacle.

And everyone agrees that the Sanctuary in the Temple is called the “Tent of Meeting,” and from here its entrance is included in “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” which the Torah calls an “entrance.”

Rather, in this the Sages and Rabbi Judah disagreed: whether the Hall as well—which existed only in the Temple and did not exist in the Tabernacle—is also called the “Tent of Meeting.” And upon this also depends whether its entrance is called an “entrance.”

And this is where they disagree:

For the Sages hold: The sanctity of the Sanctuary is one thing, and the sanctity of the

Hall is another thing,

and all the services whose place was established in the Tent of Meeting or in the Sanctuary are not valid to be performed in the Hall.

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

And

if so,

when “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” is written—

the

entrance of the

Sanctuary

alone is what

is written!

But

Rabbi Judah holds: The Sanctuary and the Hall are one sanctity.

And the services whose place was established in the Tent of Meeting or in the Sanctuary are valid to be performed even in the Hall.

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

And

if so,

when “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” is written—

with regard to both of them

[both the entrance of the Sanctuary and the entrance of the Hall]

is it written.

b.

And if you wish, say:

Only the Sages learn the measure of an entrance from “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

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

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

according to Rabbi Judah too, the sanctity of the Hall is one thing and the sanctity of the Sanctuary is another thing.

And if so, the entrance of the Hall is not considered included in “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”; only the entrance of the Sanctuary is.

And here,

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

this is Rabbi Judah’s reason,

for he holds that the entrance of the Hall is called an “entrance,” and he learned this from another place, from what

is written,

“to the entrance of the Hall of the House.”

It follows that even the large entrance of the Hall is called an “entrance.”

And

the reason of the

Sages,

who did not learn from Rabbi Judah’s verse:

Because,

if it had been written

somewhere in Scripture

“to the entrance of the Hall”

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

as you say,

that the entrance of the Hall is called an “entrance.”

But

now, since it is written,

“to the entrance of the Hall of the House,”

we interpret it: the entrance of

the House that is open to the Hall.

The reference is to the entrance of the Sanctuary, which is open to the Hall that was before it.

And now the Gemara discusses and explains the comparison of the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to the entrance of the Sanctuary and the Hall in the Temple.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

But when this

verse of “the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” was written, it was written only

in the Tabernacle,

for it

is written

[and in the Tabernacle there was no Hall at all, and the entrance of the Sanctuary in the Tabernacle was only ten cubits high]; and how can one learn from it concerning the entrances of the Temple?!

And we answer: Since

we find

that with regard to the

Tabernacle

of Moses

it is called “Temple,” and

we also find

a Temple that is called “Tabernacle”

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

And we support this:

For if you do not say

that if you do not say

so,

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

that which Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel:

Peace-offerings

that one slaughtered

in the morning

before the opening of the doors of the Sanctuary—

are invalid!

Because

it is stated

in the section of the peace-offering:

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

the verse teaches that it is permitted to 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 about the Temple from the Tabernacle, there is a difficulty:

But when that

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

in the Tabernacle

for it

is written!

And if so, how can one learn from it to forbid the slaughter of peace-offerings before the opening of the doors of the Sanctuary in the Temple?!

Rather,

it is necessarily so: Since

we find that a Temple is called a Tabernacle, and a Tabernacle is called a Temple,

it is possible to learn about the Temple from the Tabernacle.

Therefore, the same applies: it is possible to learn about the Temple from the Tabernacle with regard to the height of the entrance.

And we raise an objection concerning that which we said, “A Temple is called a Tabernacle, and a Tabernacle is called a Temple”:

Granted, a Temple,

we properly find

that it is called a Tabernacle.

For it is written,

that the Lord promised us after the erection of the Tabernacle, and said:

“And I shall place My Tabernacle among you.”

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

But a Tabernacle that is called a Temple—

from where do we know it?!

If you say, from what is written

in the account of the carrying of the Tabernacle:

“And the Kohathites, bearers of the Sanctuary, shall journey, and they shall erect the Tabernacle before their arrival.”

Does it follow that the bearers of the Tabernacle were called “bearers of the Sanctuary”?! That is not so. For the verse is not speaking at all about the bearers of the Tabernacle.