Eruvin 5a (ה.) — the Talmud in English

And

if

according to the one who says

[Abaye] he is not satisfied with reducing the height of the space by a handbreadth beneath the beam, but requires reducing the space by a surface four handbreadths wide

four

handbreadths into the mavוי,

he holds: It is forbidden to use the area beneath the beam!

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

Therefore, according to him, it is not sufficient to provide a visual indication for one standing beneath the beam, since the permission granted by the beam is not applicable to use there; rather, a visual indication is needed for those using the mavוי itself.

And since it is not sufficient for us to reduce only the space beneath the beam, we once again require the measure of an “important area,” which is four handbreadths.

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

Everyone agrees that the beam is effective in rendering the mavוי fit because it is considered a partition: we regard it as though it were a ceiling covering the end of the mavוי, and “the edge of a ceiling descends and closes off” [see “Concepts”].

And this is where they disagree: Do we regard the outer edge of the beam as though it were a wall descending and closing off the mavוי on the beam’s outer side, so that there is a partition even in the area beneath the beam, and it is permitted to use beneath the beam?

Or do we say that the inner edge of the beam is the part that descends and closes off the area? If so, there is no partition for the area beneath the beam. Therefore, it is forbidden to use beneath the beam.

And we reject this:

No,

this is not the point of their dispute.

Rather,

everyone agrees

that

it is permitted to use beneath the beam.

And this is where they disagree:

One—

Rav Yosef, who said that reducing the space by a handbreadth beneath the beam is sufficient—

holds that the beam

which is effective in rendering the mavוי fit

is for the sake of a visual indication

.

For the Sages instituted placing the beam at the entrance of the mavוי so that people would not come to confuse a mavוי, in which carrying is permitted, with the public domain, in which carrying is forbidden. For this purpose, the Sages instituted that a beam should serve as a visual indication.

And the reason a beam is invalid when it is above twenty cubits is that a beam situated above twenty cubits does not provide a recognizable indication.

Therefore, once he has reduced the space beneath the beam, and it is permitted to use beneath the beam, there is a visual indication for the person using beneath it; it is sufficient that there be a visual indication for one using beneath the beam.

And the other—

Abaye, who said that one must reduce the height of the mavוי with a surface four handbreadths wide—

holds

that the purpose of the repair by means of a

beam

is

because of a partition:

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

And Abaye maintains that when the Sages said that a beam above twenty cubits is ineffective, the reason is not that there is no visual indication. Rather, with regard to a beam situated above twenty cubits, we do not say that the edge of the beam descends and closes off the area.

Therefore, Abaye holds that one must reduce the mavוי by a width of four handbreadths, because a partition that is not suitable for, and is not made at least for, a surface of four handbreadths is not considered a partition. [For there is no private domain less than four handbreadths, Rashi.] If he reduces it by less than a width of four handbreadths, it is a partition made for less than four handbreadths, which is not a partition [based on Gaon Yaakov’s understanding of Rashi].

And if you wish, say: everyone agrees that the beam is effective

because it provides a visual indication. The invalidity of a beam above twenty cubits is due to the absence of a visual indication. And when the beam is properly placed, it is permitted to use beneath the beam.

And here, they disagree concerning the

measure of

the lower visual indication

[when one reduces the space from below, thereby providing an indication for those standing on the width of that reduced area]: Is a handbreadth sufficient, just as

with the upper visual indication,

which is the beam, a single handbreadth is sufficient?

They disagree:

One—

Rav Yosef—

holds: We say,

“The lower visual indication

[for those standing on the area that was reduced], its measure is a handbreadth, is

like the visual indication of

the beam

above,”

whose measure is a handbreadth.

And a width of a handbreadth below provides a visual indication, since he has reduced the height of the space there so that it will not be more than twenty cubits high, and that is sufficient.

And the other—

Abaye—

holds: We do not say

“the lower visual indication is like the upper visual indication.”

Therefore, although above a visual indication of only a handbreadth is sufficient, that is because through this handbreadth the beam is recognizable to everyone. But it is not sufficient that there be an indication only for those standing on an area reduced to a width of a handbreadth. [Gaon Yaakov]

And since reducing the area beneath the beam by a handbreadth is not sufficient, we require an indication for those standing in the mavוי corresponding to an important area, which is at least four handbreadths.

And if you wish, say: Everyone agrees that we say

that, in principle,

“the lower visual indication

is sufficient if it is

like the upper visual indication”

of only a handbreadth.

And here, they disagree because of a decree lest one reduce

the reduced area to less than a handbreadth in width through the trampling of the feet of the residents of the mavוי, so that it will stand at less than a handbreadth.

They disagree.

Rav Yosef holds: We do not issue a decree lest it be reduced, and a handbreadth is sufficient.

And Abaye holds: We issue a decree lest it be reduced and stand at less than a handbreadth. Since a handbreadth is not sufficient, we once again require that he reduce it by the measure of an important area, which is four handbreadths.

A mavוי is rendered permissible by means of a side-post and a beam only if its height is at least ten handbreadths. [Shulḥan Arukh 363:26] Therefore, if the mavוי does not have surrounding partitions at least ten handbreadths high—for example, if the walls of the courtyards surrounding the mavוי were low—it is considered as though the mavוי has no partitions at all, since a partition less than ten handbreadths high is not considered a partition.

And the Gemara raises a question:

If

the height of the mavוי was

less than ten handbreadths, and he excavated

[dug]

in it

to a depth in the floor of the mavוי in order

to complete it to

a

height of ten

how much,

by what measure, must he

excavate?

And it initially entered our minds that our question concerns the depth of the excavation.

And we wonder: What need have you to ask

“how much must he excavate?!”

After all,

as much as he needs

to complete the height to ten, so much should he excavate and deepen!

Rather,

this is what we need to ask:

Its length

[the length of the excavation within the mavוי, along its length]

how much,

what length must he make it so that the mavוי will have walls reaching the measure of ten handbreadths in height?

Rav Yosef said:

It is sufficient for him to excavate

a

length of

four

handbreadths into the mavוי, along its length [see illustration 1].

Abaye said:

He must excavate

a

length of

four cubits into the mavוי [see illustration 2].

into the alley [see Figure 2].

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

here it is different, because the low walls of the mavוי do not have the status of walls, since any wall less than ten handbreadths high is not a wall at all. Therefore, the excavation must be made according to the minimum measure of the length of a mavוי. According to Rav Yosef, that is four handbreadths; according to Abaye, the measure of a mavוי is at least four cubits.

But when the beam is higher than twenty cubits, there is no need to establish a wall; only the visual indication needs to be repaired. For that, it is sufficient to make a surface of a handbreadth [or of four handbreadths] on which the beam’s visual indication is recognizable.

And we inquire:

Shall we say

that Rav Yosef and Abaye, who disagree about the measure of the length of a mavוי,

disagree about the position of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

whether one should adopt their position concerning the measure of the length of a mavוי, which according to them is four handbreadths, or dispute their position?

For it was stated:

In the case of a mavוי in which an opening less than ten cubits wide was made in one of its walls, its status remains that of an ordinary mavוי, which is rendered permissible by a side-post and a beam at its entrance. For an opening less than ten cubits is not considered a breach, but rather an “entrance” to the mavוי.

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

But if there was

a mavוי breached on its side

[in one of the longitudinal walls of the mavוי], and the breach was

toward its head

of the mavוי, adjacent to the entrance of the mavוי, then even if this breach is less than ten cubits wide, a repair by means of a side-post or beam is no longer effective for this mavוי!

The reason is that there is concern lest from now on the residents of the mavוי enter it from the public domain through that breach, rather than through the entrance at the head of the mavוי that opens onto the public domain, since by doing so they shorten their route.

The designation “entrance of the mavוי” will thereby be nullified. Then the repair by means of the side-post or beam will also be nullified, since the repair must be made at the entrance of the mavוי, and from now on it no longer bears the designation “entrance of the mavוי” [Mishna Berura].

And concerning such a mavוי,

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

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

If there is there,

remaining from the wall that was breached, adjacent to the head of the mavוי,

a strip

of short wall measuring

four

handbreadths, attached to the head of the mavוי, with the beam at the entrance of the mavוי resting on its edge [and the breach is beyond the strip, toward the rear of the mavוי]—

the strip renders

the mavוי permissible by means of the side-post or beam resting upon it,

when the breach is up to ten

cubits wide! [See illustration.]

This is because we are not concerned if the residents of the mavוי enter through the breach, since in any event, with regard to the part of the mavוי opposite the strip, the designation of the original entrance has not been nullified: the residents of the mavוי will enter that section opposite the strip through the original entrance.

But if not,

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

Nevertheless, if the width of the breach is

less than three

handbreadths,

the wall renders

the mavוי permissible by means of the side-post or beam situated at its end. For we apply the principle of 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 render

the mavוי permissible by means of the side-post or beam.

And we see that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi maintain that the measure of the length of a mavוי is four handbreadths.

If so, let us say:

According to Rav Yosef,

who holds that the length of a mavוי is four handbreadths,

he agrees with Rabbi Ami

and Rabbi Asi, who say that a strip four handbreadths wide is sufficient.

And

according to Abaye,

he does not agree with Rabbi Ami

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

And we reject this:

Abaye could say to you:

I state my position even in accordance with Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.

For

there,

in the case of a breached mavוי,

it is the end of a mavוי

that is involved!

That is to say: There we are not coming to establish a new “status of mavוי” opposite the strip, since before the breach was made there was already a valid mavוי there. Through the strip, we seek to preserve the status of mavוי opposite the strip, and for that four handbreadths is sufficient.

But

here,

in the case of a mavוי less than ten handbreadths high, it never previously had the status of a mavוי. Now, when he excavates it, it becomes

the beginning of a mavוי.

Therefore, only

if there are four cubits,

which is the general measure of the length of a mavוי in order to render it permissible by a side-post and a beam according to Abaye,

is it

then fit. And

if not,

if the excavation is not four cubits long,

it is not!

Abaye said: From where do I say this,

from where can I learn that the measure of the length of a mavוי in order to render it permissible by a side-post and a beam is four cubits?

As it was taught: A mavוי is not rendered permissible by a side-post and a beam until there are

at least two

houses

on its sides, each opening onto a courtyard [Gemara, Shabbat 131a, and Rashi there; see Rashi below, 12b],

and

two

courtyards open into it

of the mavוי.

And Abaye infers:

And if

you say that the measure of the length of a mavוי is sufficient

at four

handbreadths—

how can you find it

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

After all, even a single entrance [four handbreadths wide] to one courtyard cannot be made in a mavוי whose entire length is four handbreadths!

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

And even if there were room for the doorposts, it would follow that the entire length of the mavוי was breached by entrances, and there would be no visual indication of the wall of the mavוי [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 according to Rav Yosef the length of the mavוי is four handbreadths when, for example, the width of the mavוי is more than eight handbreadths,

so that

he can

open into it

two entrances of courtyards

in the middle wall

of the mavוי, which is wider than eight handbreadths?

This cannot be said. For:

But Rav Naḥman said: We have received the tradition

[it is a tradition from our ancestors, and this is how our Rabbis practiced]:

Which is a mavוי that is rendered permissible by a side-post and a beam?

Any

one in which four conditions have been fulfilled:

a.

Its length is greater than its width,

and it is not square.

b. 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

[each of which contains 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 indeed be found that two courtyards open into a mavוי whose length is only four handbreadths, for example,

when he opens it

to the entrances of the courtyards

at the corner,

at the place where the longitudinal walls of the mavוי meet its widthwise wall, in such a manner that part of the entrance is open along the length of the mavוי, and part of it along its width! [See illustration 1] Again,

Abaye said: From where do I say this

that the length of a mavוי is four cubits?

For Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Huna said:

If one extended the structure of the wall standing along the length of a mavוי, making it like

a side-post projecting from the wall of a mavוי

at its head, into the width of the mavוי [and he did not do so for the purpose of establishing a side-post], if the projection was

less than four cubits,

which is the measure of the length of a mavוי,

the projection is treated

as

a side-post,

and it is permitted to carry in the mavוי;

and it does not need

the mavוי

another side-post to render it permissible,

even though he did not make it for the sake of a side-post, since we maintain: a side-post that stands by itself is valid. But if it was four

cubits

wide, which is the measure of the length of a mavוי, since he did not make it for the sake of a side-post,

the projection is treated as

a

wall

and not as a side-post,

and

the mavוי

requires another side-post to render it permissible

for carrying.

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

And Rav Yosef

rejects this and could say to you:

To remove it

[to take it out]

from the category of a side-post,

it is not sufficient

until there is

a side-post whose length is

four cubits!

But the measure of a mavוי in order

to be a mavוי, is a mavוי even at four handbreadths.

The substance of the matter: Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Huna said: A side-post projecting from the wall of a mavוי,