Eruvin 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ḥanin bar Rava said that Rav said: A mavוי

that

repaired with a laḥi or a korah, and

the wall was breached

on its side

of the mavוי

and four tefaḥim remained in that wall alongside the public domain—as stated above, on page 5a—is permitted for carrying within it, provided that the breach was no wider than

ten

cubits.

However, if the breach was wider than ten cubits, it must be closed, or the place of the breach must be repaired by means of a “form of a doorway.” [Mishna Berura]

However, in the case of a mavוי whose opening on its side, facing the public domain, was wider than ten cubits—so that it could not be rendered fit with a laḥi or a korah, as we learned in the Mishna, 2a—and one closed part of the opening until it was reduced to ten cubits, and a breach then occurred in that closure, so that the breach was

“from the head

of the mavוי,” such a breach

of four

tefaḥim is sufficient to prohibit carrying in the mavוי until it is sealed. [See illustration 1].

We raise an objection to this:

What is the difference

between a breach in the wall

on the side

of the mavוי, whose measure is

ten

cubits rather than four tefaḥim?

It must be because

he said,

meaning, it is established for us, as we will learn in the Mishna on page 15b, that a breach of up to ten

is considered a doorway.

And if so, when the mavוי is breached

from its head,

should we not likewise say that it is considered a doorway,

and render it fit even at its head with a breach of up to ten cubits?!

And we answer:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The statement of Rav that “a mavוי breached from its head at four” concerns

a case in which it was breached from its head

such that it was breached

from its head

at a corner,

at the place where the closure made at the head of the mavוי meets the wall on the side, along the length of the mavוי. [See illustration 2]

The breach was at the corner: part of it was in the closure at the head of the wall, and part of it was in the wall on the side.

And for this reason Rav does not deem a breach of up to ten cubits fit there under the status of a “doorway,” since

people do not make a doorway at a corner!

And since this breach is not treated according to the measure of an ordinary doorway, the breach is treated—as a measure that disqualifies the mavוי’s fitness through a laḥi or korah—as four tefaḥim, which is the measure of a significant place. [Ritva]

And Rav Huna

disagrees with Rav Ḥanin bar Rava, who said in Rav’s name that a breach on the side of a mavוי is measured at ten cubits, and

said:

Both this,

a mavוי breached from its head,

and that,

a mavוי breached on its side, have a breach whose measure prohibits carrying in it

of four

tefaḥim.

And so Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥanan bar Rava—

who said in Rav’s name that on its side “its breach is at ten.” -

Do not disagree with me

—do not say in Rav’s name that a breach in the side of a mavוי is at ten cubits; rather, it is at four tefaḥim.

For

Rav

happened to come

arrived

at Damḥarya

[the name of a place],

and performed an act in accordance with my view

[and acted as I did], prohibiting a mavוי breached on its side by four tefaḥim!

Rav Ḥanin bar Rava said to him

Rav Huna: That incident in which Rav was stringent and prohibited a breach of four tefaḥim does not prove anything, because there it was not based on the law.

Rather,

Rav found an open plain and enclosed it with a fence!

Since there were ignorant people there who treated the mitzvot lightly, Rav was stringent with them and established a safeguard to distance them from transgression, like one who encloses an open plain with a fence in order to protect it. [Rashi]

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In accordance

[like]

with Rav Huna,

who said that even on its side its breach is at four—

it is logical!

For it was stated:

A. A mavוי enclosed on three of its sides and open on its fourth side to the public domain is called a “closed mavוי,” and this is the ordinary mavוי that we learned is rendered permitted by a laḥi and a korah. [See illustration 1] B. A mavוי open at both of its sides [opposite one another] to the public domain is called a “through mavוי,” and it is rendered permitted only by a form of a doorway at one of its sides open to the public domain, thereby making the mavוי like a closed mavוי. One then makes a laḥi or a korah at its other side, which is open to the public domain, and carrying in it is permitted. [See illustration 2]

This was explained according to Rashi’s interpretation here. However, below, on page 8b, the amoraim disagree concerning the dispensation for a through mavוי: whether it is rendered permitted by a form of a doorway, or whether a door is required.

A crooked mavוי

is a mavוי that bends in the middle—for example, it runs from south to north, then bends and turns westward in the shape of the letter dalet—and both of its heads, on the south and on the west, are open to the public domain. The amoraim disagree as to how to render it permitted:

Rav said: Its status

of the crooked mavוי is

like a

mavוי

through!

For we view the two sections of the mavוי as two straight mavואות that meet at their heads at the bend.

And the opening at the bend is considered an opening serving both mavואות, as an exit from one mavוי into the other and from there to the public domain. It is therefore as though it is open there to the public domain.

It follows that there are two straight through mavואות here.

Therefore, the two mavואות can be rendered permitted by making a form of a doorway at the bend, which serves as an opening for both of them, thereby closing both mavואות, and making a laḥi or a korah for each of them at its opening to the public domain. [See illustration 1]

And Shmuel said: Its status

of a crooked mavוי is

like a

mavוי

closed!

Nothing at all is required at its bend.

For we require a form of a doorway only for mavואות that are open opposite one another to the public domain.

Therefore, the inhabitants of the mavוי that turns south make a laḥi at their opening, and the inhabitants of the mavוי that turns west make a laḥi at their opening. [See illustration 2]

Rav Naḥman proves from here that Rav Huna is correct, that a breach in a mavוי, even on its side, is at four tefaḥim:

For here, in the case of a crooked mavוי—

with what case are we dealing?

If you say

that we are dealing with a case in which the place where the mavוי bends is

of

width

more than ten

cubits,

it is impossible to say this, because:

And

would Shmuel say in this case that its status is like that of a closed mavוי

and not like that of a through mavוי?!

Since each of the two straight mavואות is breached into the other at the bend by more than ten cubits, these are not two closed mavואות; rather, it is one long mavוי, open on both sides to the public domain—that is, a through mavוי!

Rather, is it not so that

the mavוי in question, at the place where it bends, was

of

width

ten

cubits and no more?

And

nevertheless, although the width of the breach at the bend is not more than ten cubits,

Rav says

that

its status

is

like the law of a

mavוי

through.

Apparently, a breach in a mavוי on its side

according to Rav prohibits even

at four

tefaḥim.

For there is no difference between a breach of ten cubits and a breach of four tefaḥim, since every breach that is no wider than ten cubits is considered an opening rather than a breach. It is considered a breach only with regard to permitting a mavוי by means of a laḥi or a korah, in order to disqualify the mavוי from being rendered fit by a laḥi or a korah.

The Gemara’s proof is that if a breach of four tefaḥim on the side does not prohibit, then in the case of a crooked mavוי as well, its bend should be no more than a breach on the side, which does not prohibit.

And Rav Ḥanan bar Rava,

who said in Rav’s name that a breach in the side of a mavוי is only when it is more than ten, would say to you: There is no proof from here.

Because

it is different there,

in the case of a crooked mavוי,

for they pass through it

at the bend—

the many

[many people pass there] through that breach when they go from the public domain on one side of the mavוי to the public domain on its other side. Therefore, the measure of the breach is less than ten!

We are astonished:

By inference, from what you said—that Rav Ḥanan bar Rava concedes that where many pass through it, the measure of its breach is not ten—we can infer

that

Rav Huna,

who disagrees with Rav Ḥanan,

holds

that

even though many do not pass through it

[as would be the case if it opened onto a filthy or otherwise impassable place], the measure of its breach is four.

And now this is difficult:

What is the difference from

that

that

was stated by

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi

said above, on page 5a: A mavוי breached on its side toward its head may be rendered permitted with a breach of up to ten?

And this would be understandable if we were to say that Rav Ḥanan and Rav Huna were discussing a breach through which many pass, for one could say that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were discussing a case where many do not pass through it.

But if you say that Rav Huna is discussing a case where many do not pass through it, and nevertheless holds that its breach is measured at four, this is difficult: What is the difference from the statement of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi? And we answer:

There,

in the case of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, we are dealing with a breach that

has

at its side

embankments

[an embankment is a lip; that is, the wall was not breached entirely down to its foundation, but a lip three or four tefaḥim high remained]. [See illustration 1]

And since this breach is not convenient to pass through, its measure is ten!

But

here,

in the case of Rav Huna and Rav Ḥanan, we are dealing with a breach that

does not have

at its side

embankments,

and it is convenient to pass through. Nevertheless, many do not pass through it, because it opens onto a filthy or otherwise impassable place!

The discussion of establishing an eruv for a public domain ]

The Sages taught: How does one establish an eruv through a public domain,

meaning, how does one repair it so that carrying in it will be permitted [once an eruv of courtyards is made there]?

One makes a form of a doorway here,

at one of its heads,

and a laḥi and a korah

[or a korah, Rif and Rosh]

here,

at its other head, at the end of the city [the statement of the first tanna]. [See illustration 2]

Ḥananya says:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree about this:

Beit Shammai say: One makes a door here and a door there,

at the two ends of the public domain, on the two sides of the city,

and when he goes out and comes in, he

locks

the door behind him. [See illustration 3]

Beit Hillel say:

It is sufficient that he

make a door here, and a laḥi and a korah there.

We raise an objection to the first tanna and to Ḥananya according to Beit Hillel:

And can a public domain be made subject to an eruv

through the repair of a form of a doorway, or with one door when it is not locked?!

But it was taught: Moreover, Rabbi Yehuda said: