Eruvin 5a — the Talmud in English

And

if

the one who says

[Abaye] does not suffice with reducing the space by one handbreadth beneath the beam, but requires reducing the space with a surface four handbreadths wide

four

handbreadths inside the alley,

he holds: it is forbidden to use beneath the beam!

According to him, one uses only the inner side of the alley, beyond the area beneath the beam.

And therefore, according to him, a sign for one who stands beneath the beam does not suffice, for there one does not use by virtue of the permission of the beam; rather, a sign is needed for those who use the alley itself.

And since reducing only beneath the beam does not suffice for us, we again require the measure of an “important place,” which is four handbreadths.

And the explanation of their dispute as to whether it is permitted to use beneath the beam is:

Everyone holds that a beam is effective to repair the alley because it is considered a partition, in that we regard it as though it were a ceiling covering the end of the alley, and “the edge of a ceiling descends and closes” [see “Concepts”]].

And this is where they dispute: do we regard the outer edge of the beam as though it were a wall descending and closing the alley on the outer side of the beam, so that there is a partition even for the place beneath the beam, and it is permitted to use beneath the beam?

Or do we say: the inner edge of the beam is the one that descends and closes. If so, the place beneath the beam has no partition. And therefore it is forbidden to use beneath the beam.

And we reject this:

No

this is not where they disputed.

Rather,

everyone holds

that

it is permitted to use beneath the beam.

And here they dispute:

One—

Rav Yosef, who said that reducing the space by one handbreadth beneath the beam suffices—

holds that a beam

which is effective to repair the alley

is because of a sign

.

For the Sages enacted that the beam be placed at the entrance of the alley so that people would not come to confuse an alley in which carrying is permitted with the public domain in which carrying is forbidden. And for this purpose the Sages enacted that a beam-sign be made.

And the reason for the invalidity of a beam higher than twenty cubits is that in a beam located higher than twenty cubits there is no recognizable sign.

And therefore, since he reduced the space beneath the beam, and it is permitted to use beneath the beam, there is a sign for the person using beneath it, and it suffices that there is a recognizable sign for one who uses beneath the beam.

And the other—

Abaye, who said that it is necessary to reduce the height of the alley with a surface four handbreadths wide—

holds

that the reason for the repair of a

beam

is

because of a partition,

for we regard the outer edge of the beam as though it descends and closes the alley as a partition.

And Abaye holds that what the Sages said—that a beam higher than twenty cubits is not effective—is not because there is no recognizable sign, but because with a beam located higher than twenty cubits we do not say concerning it that the edge of the beam descends and closes.

And therefore Abaye holds that it is necessary to reduce the alley by a width of four handbreadths, because a partition that is not suitable and is not made for at least a surface of four handbreadths is not a partition. [For there is no private domain of less than four handbreadths, Rashi.] And if he reduces it by less than a width of four handbreadths, it becomes a partition made for less than four, which is not a partition [according to Gaon Yaakov in understanding Rashi].

Alternatively: everyone holds that a beam is because of a sign

and is effective. And the invalidity of a beam higher than twenty cubits is because of the lack of a sign. And when the beam is according to its law, it is permitted to use beneath the beam.

And here, with regard to the

measure of

the sign below

[when he reduces the space from below, and thereby there will be a sign for those standing on the width of that reduction]—is one handbreadth enough, just as

with the sign above,

which is the beam, one handbreadth alone is enough,

they dispute:

For one—

Rav Yosef—

holds: we say,

“the sign below

[for those standing on the place that they reduced] its measure is one handbreadth; it

is like the sign of

the beam

above,”

whose measure is one handbreadth.

And with a width of one handbreadth below there is a sign, for there he reduced the height of the space so that it would not be higher than twenty, and that is enough.

And the other—

Abaye—

holds: we do not say,

“the sign below is like the sign above.”

And therefore, although above, with a sign of only one handbreadth, it suffices, that is because through this one-handbreadth sign the beam is recognizable to everyone. But it does not suffice that there be a sign only for those standing on the place reduced to a width of one handbreadth. [Gaon Yaakov]

And since reducing one handbreadth beneath the beam does not suffice, we require a sign for those standing in the alley, in the measure of an important place, which is at least four handbreadths.

Alternatively: everyone says

that indeed in principle

“the sign below—

it is enough that it be

like the sign above”

with only one handbreadth.

And here, they dispute concerning a decree lest he reduce

the place of the reduction from a width of one handbreadth through the trampling of the feet of the inhabitants of the alley, and it stand at less than one handbreadth—

they dispute.

Rav Yosef holds: we do not decree lest he reduce it, and one handbreadth suffices.

And Abaye holds: we decree lest he reduce it and it stand at less than one handbreadth, and since one handbreadth does not suffice, we again require that he reduce it by the measure of an important place, which is four handbreadths.

An alley is not permitted by a side-post and a beam unless its height is at least ten handbreadths. [Shulhan Arukh 363:26] And therefore, if the alley does not have surrounding partitions at least ten handbreadths high—for example, if the walls of the courtyards surrounding the alley were low—this is considered as though the alley had no partitions at all. For a partition less than ten handbreadths is not considered a partition.

And the Gemara is uncertain:

If

the height of the alley

was less than ten handbreadths, and he hollowed

[dug]

in it

to a depth in the floor of the alley in order

to complete it to

a height of

ten—

how much,

by what measure, would he

hollow?

And it initially occurred to us that our uncertainty concerns the depth of the hollowing.

And we object: What need have you

to ask how much he should hollow?!

After all,

as much as it needs

to complete it to a height of ten, so much should he hollow and deepen!

Rather,

this is what we need to ask:

Its length

[the length of the hollowing inside the alley, along its length]

how much,

by what length must he make it so that the alley will have walls with a height of ten handbreadths?

Rav Yosef said:

It is enough that he hollow

for a

length of

four

handbreadths inside the alley, along its length [see Illustration 1].

Abaye said:

He must hollow

for a

length of

four cubits

into the alley [see Illustration 2].

And although with regard to reducing it from a height of twenty cubits we do not require so much, according to both Rav Yosef and Abaye, as we said above,

here it is different, for the low walls of the alley do not have the status of walls, since every wall that is less than ten is not a wall at all. And therefore he must make the hollowing in the smallest measure of the length of an alley. According to Rav Yosef, that is four handbreadths; and according to Abaye, the measure of an alley is at least four cubits.

But when the beam is higher than twenty cubits, there is no need to make a wall; rather, only the repair of the sign is needed, and for this it is enough if he makes a surface of one handbreadth [or of four handbreadths], in which the sign of the beam is recognizable.

And we examine this:

Shall we say

that Rav Yosef and Abaye, who dispute concerning the measure of the length of an alley,

dispute concerning the opinion of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

whether one should hold like them regarding the measure of the length of an alley—for in their view it is four handbreadths—or disagree with them?

For it was stated:

An alley in which an opening was made in one of the walls of the alley, measuring less than ten cubits, retains the status of an ordinary alley, which is permitted by a side-post and a beam at its entrance. For an opening less than ten is not considered an opening, but rather an “entrance” to the alley.

And although this breach constitutes another entrance to the alley, at its side, and this entrance too opens to the public domain, nevertheless the alley is not disqualified from being made fit for carrying within it by means of a side-post and a beam at its main entrance. For even with many entrances it is considered an ordinary alley, since the entrance at its head, through which the inhabitants of the alley ordinarily enter and exit, is the one considered “the entrance of the alley.”

But if there was

an alley breached at its side

[in one of the lengthwise walls of the alley], and the breach was

toward its head

of the alley, close to the entrance of the alley, then even if this breach is less than ten cubits, the repair of a side-post or a beam is no longer effective for this alley!

And the reason for this is that one must be concerned lest from now on the inhabitants of the alley enter it from the public domain through that breach, and not through the entrance at the head of the alley which opens to the public domain, since by doing so they shorten their path.

And thereby the designation “entrance of the alley” will be nullified with regard to it. And then the repair of the side-post or beam will also be nullified. For the repair must be made at the entrance of the alley, and from now on it does not bear the designation “entrance of the alley.” [Mishna Berura]

And concerning such an alley

it was stated in the name of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi

how it is made fit for a beam and a side-post, and how it is disqualified from being made fit by them:

If there is there,

that is, what remains of the breached wall near the head of the alley,

a strip,

a short wall-strip measuring

four

handbreadths, attached to the head of the alley, with the beam placed on its end at the entrance of the alley [and the breach is after the strip, toward the rear of the alley]—

the strip permits

this alley by means of the side-post or beam placed upon it,

with a breach up to ten

cubits! [see Illustration]

For it does not matter to us if the inhabitants of the alley enter through the breach, because in any event, with regard to the alley opposite the strip, the designation of entrance has not been nullified from the original entrance, since the inhabitants of the alley will enter the part of the alley opposite the strip through the original entrance.

But if not,

that there is no strip of four handbreadths [which is the measure of the length of an alley], the alley is not permitted by a side-post and a beam. For then the original entrance is an entrance only with regard to an alley that is less than four handbreadths, which does not have the measure of an alley.

Nevertheless, if the width of the breach is

less than three

handbreadths,

the wall permits

the alley at whose end the beam is located. For we say lavud, and it is as though there were no breach here.

But if the width of the breach is

three

handbreadths or more,

the wall does not permit

the alley by means of the side-post or beam.

And we see that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi hold that the measure of the length of an alley is four handbreadths.

And if so, let us say:

According to Rav Yosef,

who holds that the length of an alley is four handbreadths,

he agrees with Rabbi Ami

and Rabbi Asi, who say that a strip of four handbreadths suffices.

And

according to Abaye,

he does not agree with Rabbi Ami

and Rabbi Asi, and he permits it only if there is a strip of four cubits!?

And we reject this:

Abaye could say to you:

I speak even in accordance with Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.

For

there,

in the case of an alley that was breached,

it is the end of an alley

!

That is to say: there we are not coming to establish a “designation of alley” opposite the strip, for before the breach was made there was already the fitness of an alley there, and through the strip we come to preserve the designation of alley opposite the strip; and for this four handbreadths suffice.

But

here,

in an alley less than ten [handbreadths], which never had the designation of an alley, and now, when he hollowed, it became

the beginning of an alley,

therefore only

if there are four cubits,

which is the measure of the length of an ordinary alley in order to permit it by a side-post and beam according to Abaye,

yes,

then the alley is valid. But

if not,

if the hollowing does not have a length of four cubits—

no!

Abaye said: From where do I say it,

from where do I learn that the measure of the length of an alley in order to permit it by a side-post and beam is four cubits?

For it was taught: An alley is not permitted by a side-post and a beam until there are

in it, on its sides, at least two

houses

[Gemara Shabbat 131a and Rashi there; and see Rashi below, 12b] opening into each courtyard,

and

two

courtyards opening into it

of the alley.

And Abaye infers:

And if

you say that the measure of the length of an alley suffices

with four

handbreadths—

how can you find it

that two courtyards will open into it, each one with an entrance four handbreadths wide [for less than this is not called an entrance], along an alley whose own length is only four handbreadths?

For even one entrance [four handbreadths wide] to one courtyard cannot be made in an alley whose entire length is four handbreadths!

For besides the space of the entrance, which is four handbreadths, there must also be doorposts of the entrance on its sides.

And even if there were room for the doorposts, it would follow that the entire length of the alley was breached with entrances, and there would be no sign of the wall of the alley [Rashi and Ritba].

And if you would say

that there is no proof from here that a length of four handbreadths is insufficient,

it is possible that the length of the alley according to Rav Yosef is four handbreadths in a case where the width of the alley is more than eight handbreadths,

so that

it can

open it

to the two entrances of the courtyards

in the middle wall

of the alley, which is wider than eight handbreadths?

It cannot be said so. For:

But Rav Nahman said: We have received

[a tradition from our fathers, and this is how our teachers practiced]:

Which is an alley that is permitted by a side-post and a beam?

Any

in which four conditions have been fulfilled:

a.

Its length is greater than its width,

and it is not square.

b. And its width is not greater than its length.

c.

And

there are at least four

houses,

two houses for each of two courtyards.

d.

And

there are at least two

courtyards

[in each of which there are at least two houses]

opening into it.

But if its length is not greater than its width, it is called a courtyard.

And

Rav Yosef

rejected

Abaye’s proof.

He could say to you: It can properly be found that two courtyards open into an alley whose length is only four handbreadths, in a case where

he opens it

to the entrances of the courtyards

at the corner,

at the place where the lengthwise walls of the alley meet the wall along the width of the alley, in such a manner that part of the entrance is breached along the length of the alley and part of it along the width of the alley! [see Illustration 1] Again,

Abaye said: From where do I say it

that the length of an alley is four cubits?

For Rami bar Hama said that Rav Huna said:

One who extended the construction of the wall standing along the length of an alley and made it like

a side-post projecting from the wall of an alley

at its head, into the width of the alley [and did not do so for the purpose of permitting it as a side-post], if the projection was

less than four cubits,

which is the measure of the length of an alley,

the projection is considered

the projection

as a side-post,

and it is permitted to carry in the alley,

and it does not need

the alley

another side-post to permit it,

even though he did not make it for the sake of a side-post, for we have established: a side-post standing by itself is valid. But if it was four

cubits,

which is the measure of the length of an alley, since he did not make it for the sake of a side-post, the projection

is considered as

a

wall

and not as a side-post,

and it needs

the alley

another side-post to permit it

for carrying.

And we see from here that the measure of the length of an alley is four cubits—in accordance with Abaye!

And Rav Yosef

rejects it and could say to you:

To remove it

[to take it out]

from the status of a side-post,

it is not enough

until there is

a side-post with a length of

four cubits!

But the measure of an alley in order

to be an alley—even with four handbreadths it is also an alley.

The body of the matter: Rami bar Hama said that Rav Huna said: A side-post projecting from the wall of an alley,