Eruvin 6a — the Talmud in English

Rav Ḥanin bar Rava said in the name of Rav: A mavoy

that

was rectified with a side-post or a crossbeam and

was breached

the wall

from its side

of the mavoy [and four handbreadths remained in that same wall toward the side of the public domain—as above, page 5a]—it is permitted to carry in it if the breach was up to

ten

cubits.

But if the breach was more than ten cubits, it is necessary to close it, or to rectify the place of the breach by means of a “form of an entrance.” [Mishna Berura]

However, a mavoy whose opening on its side, which opened onto the public domain, was wider than ten cubits [in which case it is impossible to render it fit with a side-post or a crossbeam, as we learned in the Mishna, 2a], and one closed part of the opening until he reduced it to ten cubits, and a breach was made in that closure, so that the breach was

“from the head

of the mavoy”—such a breach need only be

four

handbreadths in order to prohibit carrying in the mavoy until it is closed. [See illustration 1].

And we raise a difficulty against it:

What is different

about a breach in the wall

from the side

of the mavoy, whose measure is

ten

cubits and not four handbreadths?

You are compelled to say that it is because

he said,

namely, that we hold [in the Mishna below, page 15b] that a breach up to ten

is an opening.

And if so, when the mavoy is breached

from its head—

should we not likewise say, “It is an opening,”

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

And we answer:

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: That which Rav said, “It is breached from its head by four,” is speaking of

a case where it was breached from its head

for example, it was breached

from its head

at a corner,

at the place where the closure that was made at the head of the mavoy joins the wall at the side, along the length of the mavoy. [See illustration 2]

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

And for this reason Rav does not render a breach there fit up to ten cubits by virtue of an “opening,” since

people do not make an opening at a corner!

And since this breach is not judged according to the measure of an ordinary opening, the breach is judged—in order to invalidate the fitness of the mavoy with a side-post or a crossbeam—by four handbreadths, which is the measure of a significant place. [Ritba]

And Rav Huna

disagrees with Rav Ḥanin bar Rava, who said in Rav’s name that a breach from the side of a mavoy is ten, and

said:

This one,

a mavoy breached from its head,

and this one,

a mavoy breached from its side—the measure of its breach that prohibits carrying in it is

four

handbreadths.

And so Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥanan bar Rava—who said in Rav’s name that from its side “its breach is ten.” -

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

Do not disagree with me [Do not dispute me; do not say in the name of Rav that a mavoy’s breach at its side is ten cubits, but rather that it is four handbreadths].

—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

that

Rav happened to come

arrived

at Damḥarya [a place name],

and

and performed an action in accordance with me [and performed an action like mine], and prohibited a mavoy breached from its side by four handbreadths!

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

He said to him

Rav Ḥanin bar Rava said to Rav Huna: One cannot prove from that incident in which Rav was stringent and prohibited a breach of four handbreadths. For there it was not according to the law.

Rather,

Rav found an open plain and fenced it in!

Because there were unlearned people there, and they treated the mitzvot lightly, Rav was stringent with them, to make a safeguard to distance them from transgression, like a person who fences in an open plain in order to guard it. [Rashi]

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In accordance with him [like]

[like]

Rav Huna,

who said that even from its side its breach is four—

is logical!

For it was stated:

a. A mavoy enclosed on three of its sides and open on its one side to the public domain is called a “closed mavoy,” and this is the “ordinary mavoy” that we learned is rendered permitted by a side-post and a crossbeam. [See illustration 1] b. A mavoy open from both of its sides [opposite one another] to the public domain is called a “through mavoy,”” and it is rendered permitted only by a form of an entrance at one of its sides open to the public domain, thereby making the mavoy like a closed mavoy. Then he makes a side-post or a crossbeam at its other side open to the public domain, and it is permitted to carry in it. [See illustration 2]

This was explained according to Rashi’s interpretation here. However, below, on the next side, the amoraim disagree about the permission of a through mavoy, whether it is rendered permitted by a form of an entrance or whether a door is required.

A bent mavoy

which is a mavoy that bends in its middle—for example, it runs from south to north, bends and turns toward the west in the shape of a dalet, and its two heads—on the southern side and on the western side—are open to the public domain—the amoraim disagreed about how to render it permitted:

Rav said: Its legal status

of the bent mavoy is

like a

mavoy

through!

For we view the two sections of the mavoy as straight mavoyot meeting at their heads at the place of the bend.

And the opening at the bend is considered an opening serving both mavoyot, as an exit into the second mavoy and from there to the public domain. Thus, it is as though it is open there to the public domain.

And it follows that there are here two straight through mavoyot.

Therefore, the two mavoyot can be rendered permitted by making a form of an entrance at the bend, which serves as an opening for both of them, thereby closing both mavoyot, and he makes for each of them a side-post or a crossbeam at its opening that is open to the public domain. [See illustration 1]

And Shmuel said: Its legal status

of a bent mavoy is

like a

mavoy

closed!

For nothing is required at its bend.

For we require a form of an entrance only for mavoyot that are open opposite one another to the public domain.

Therefore, the members of the mavoy that turns south make a side-post for their opening, and the members of the mavoy that turns west make a side-post for their opening. [See illustration 2]

And from here Rav Naḥman proves in accordance with Rav Huna that a breach of a mavoy, even from its side, is four handbreadths:

For here, concerning a bent mavoy—

what are we dealing with?

If you say

that it is speaking of a case where the place at which the mavoy bends is

of

width

more than ten

cubits.

It is impossible to say this. Since:

Does

Shmuel say in this case that its legal status is like a closed mavoy

and not like a through one?!

For since each of the two straight mavoyot is breached toward the other at the place of the bend by more than ten cubits, these are not two closed mavoyot, but rather one long mavoy, open at both its sides to the public domain, that is, a through mavoy!

Rather, is it not so that

the case is that the mavoy, at the place where it bends, is

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 legal status

of this mavoy is

like

the law of a mavoy

through.

Apparently, a breach of a mavoy from its side

according to Rav prohibits even

by four

handbreadths.

For there is no difference between a breach of ten cubits and a breach of four handbreadths, since every breach that is not more than ten cubits is considered an opening and not a breach. It is only with regard to permitting a mavoy by means of a side-post or crossbeam that it is considered a breach, in order to invalidate the fitness of the mavoy by means of a side-post or crossbeam.

And the Gemara’s proof is from this: If a breach of four handbreadths at its side does not prohibit it, then in the case of a bent mavoy as well, its bend should be nothing other than a breach at its side, which does not prohibit it.

And Rav Ḥanan bar Rava,

who said in Rav’s name that a breach of a mavoy at its side is only when it is more than ten, can say to you: There is no proof from this.

For

it is different there,

in the case of a bent mavoy,

because many pass through it

at the bend,

the public [many people pass there]

through that breach, when they pass from the public domain on one side of the mavoy to the public domain on the other side of the mavoy. Therefore, the measure of the breach is less than ten!

And we raise a difficulty:

By implication,

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

that Rav Huna,

who disagrees with Rav Ḥanan,

holds

that

even though many do not pass through it [and you find this where it is open to a filthy or ruined place], the measure of its breach is four.

[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 different from

this

that

say

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi

above, page 5a: A mavoy breached from its side toward its head—he permits it with a breach up to ten.

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

But if you say that Rav Huna is speaking of a case in which many do not pass through it, and nevertheless he holds that its breach is four, it is difficult: What is different from Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi? And we answer:

There,

in the case of Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, it is speaking of a case

where there are

at the breach

projections [a projection: a ledge; that is, the wall was not breached completely down to its foundation, but a ledge remained three or four handbreadths high]. [See illustration 1]

[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, it is speaking of a case

where there are no

at the breach

projections,

and it is convenient to pass through it. Nevertheless, many do not pass through it, because it is open to a filthy or ruined place!

[The discussion of the eruv of the public domain]

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

that is, how does one rectify it so that carrying in it will be permitted [when they make there an eruv of courtyards]?

He makes a form of an entrance from here

at its one head,

and a side-post and crossbeam [or a crossbeam, Rif and Rosh]

[or a korah, Rif and Rosh]

from here,

at its second head at the end of the city [the words of the first tanna]. [See illustration 2]

Ḥananya says:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree about it:

Beit Shammai say: He makes a door here and a door here,

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

and when he goes out and enters—

he locks

the door behind him. [See illustration 3]

Beit Hillel say:

It is sufficient that he

makes a door here, and a side-post and crossbeam here.

And we raise a difficulty against the first tanna, and against Ḥananya according to Beit Hillel:

Can the public domain be established as an eruv

by means of the rectification of a form of an entrance, or by means of one door when it is not locked?!

And it was taught: Moreover, Rabbi Yehuda said: