Eruvin 5b — the Talmud in English

If it was wide

less than four cubits, it is judged on account of a lehi, and it does not require another lehi to permit it!

But if it was wide

four cubits, it is judged on account of

a wall of the alley

and it requires another lehi to permit it! [

See illustration 1]

And we raise the question:

that lehi

other

where does he set it up?

And we explain it:

If he sets it up alongside it [

if he sets it up continuing the projection] it is not effective, because

it is merely adding to it [

he adds to the projection], and it is nullified beside the projection, which was not made for the purpose of a lehi, and the designation of a wall applies to it and not that of a lehi [Meiri]. [See illustration 2]

And therefore

Rav Pappa said: He sets the other one on the opposite side [

he sets it up on the other side] of the entrance of the alley. [See illustration 3]

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: Even if you say that he sets it up alongside it

of the projecting lehi, it is also possible to find that it is valid, and this is when

he adds to it [

he adds to it] in its thickness [illustration 4] or in its height [illustration 5], so that he makes the lehi higher or thicker than the projection,

or he diminishes it [

he diminishes it] in its height or thickness, and through this it is recognizable that it was made for the purpose of a lehi [Meiri].

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: We said

that in the case of a projecting lehi of four cubits, since it is judged on account of a wall of the alley, it requires another lehi to permit it,

only in an alley

that is wide

eight

cubits or more,

but in an alley of seven,

that is to say: less than eight cubits even by a small amount, it does not matter to us that it is not a lehi, since in any event it is permitted to carry in the alley, for the alley

is permitted by a standing part that is greater than the breached part

on its fourth side, which is judged as entirely closed, and it does not require any other permission at all to permit carrying in it! [See illustration 6]

And it is a kal va-chomer

that it is permitted to carry when its fourth wall is closed by a standing part that is greater than the breached part

from a courtyard

that is square, or whose width is greater than its length [for when its length is greater than its width, its law is like that of an alley, to be permitted by a lehi and a crossbeam—as below, page 12]:

And if a courtyard that is not permitted by a lehi and a crossbeam

unless he made at its entrance, which is open to the public domain, a strip [a lehi] four handbreadths wide, and nevertheless

is permitted by a standing part that is greater than the breached part,

for even if many breaches were made in the walls of the courtyard, in its four partitions, and there remained there enough standing part that the standing parts were greater than the breaches, it is permitted without any other correction

! An alley that is permitted

by opening its wall adjacent to the public domain

with a lehi and a crossbeam

and does not require a strip of four [handbreadths],

is it not the case

that it should be

permitted

there

by a standing part that is greater than the breached part

without any other correction!

And we challenge the kal va-chomer:

What is there to say about the courtyard, since

the measure of

its breach

in the other walls of the courtyard—which prevents it from being permitted by a strip of four—

is ten

cubits, for whenever its breaches are not wider than ten cubits and the standing part is greater than them, it is permitted by a strip of four! [Illustration 1]

Can you say this about an alley

for Rav Huna says below, page 6

that

the measure of

its breach

which prevents it from being permitted by a lehi or a crossbeam

is four [

four

Rashash] [illustration 2], for when the breach in the other walls of the alley is four handbreadths wide, it is not permitted by a lehi and a crossbeam, even when the standing part is greater than the breached part! And since this is so, you cannot learn from the more stringent alley about the more lenient courtyard, to permit it when its fourth wall has a standing part greater than the breached part!

And we answer:

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua holds

that he permitted a standing part greater than the breached part in the fourth wall by a kal va-chomer, for

in an alley too, its breach—

in its other walls—

is ten

cubits and not four handbreadths, as Rav Hanin son of Rava said in the name of Rav, below, page 6.

And we wonder about this: But

for whom [

according to whose position]

are we saying

that a standing part greater than the breached part is effective?

For Rav Huna!

For it is concerning Rav Huna’s statement, who says that a projecting lehi of four is not effective, that we say: In any event, if the standing part is greater than the breached part, it is effective! But now it is difficult:

But Rav Huna

himself

holds that its breach

of an alley in its other walls

is four

handbreadths and not ten cubits

he maintains, and according to him there is no kal va-chomer?!

And we answer:

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua

who says

that a projecting lehi of four is permitted by a standing part greater than the breached part did not come to add to the words of Rav Huna and say that Rav Huna too agrees with it. Rather,

his own reasoning [

his own position]

he states, and this is what he says: In an alley of eight, the statement of Rav Huna is reasonable, but in an alley of seven, Rav Huna’s position is not reasonable!

Rav Ashi said:

It is not necessary that in an alley of seven he permits a projecting lehi of four cubits on account of a standing part greater than the breached part, as we said. Rather,

even if you say that in an alley

that is wide

eight

cubits exactly

as well, a lehi four cubits wide is effective on account of a standing part greater than the breached part, and

it does not require a lehi

other to permit it. And since, presumably, these four are not exactly four, so that they do not exceed or fall short [Ritva], if so,

whichever way you look at it

the alley is permitted, for

if

the width of the lehi is greater than four cubits, and consequently

the standing part is greater [

than it], behold

the alley is permitted

by a standing part greater than the breached part!

And if

the width of the lehi is not four cubits, and consequently

the breached part is greater,

behold

the projection

of the lehi

is judged

as

a lehi

for anything that is not four cubits wide is judged as a lehi

! What will you say [

what do you wish to say, and prohibit], perhaps it happened that the width of the lehi was exactly four cubits, and consequently

the two were equal to one another [

the widths of the standing part and the breached part were equal], and there is no standing part greater than the breached part [for Rav Ashi holds that we require a standing part greater than the breached part, and it is not sufficient that the breached part be equal to the standing part, and this is a dispute below, page 16—Tosafot], in the end

it would be a doubt

in

their words [

in a matter of Rabbinic law],

and a doubt concerning their words is treated leniently!