Eruvin 6b — the Talmud in English

One who had two houses on the two sides of the public domain,

one opposite the other, and wishes to carry from one house to the other through the public domain.

Since there are, on the two sides of the public domain, two partitions formed by the walls of the houses [and according to Rabbi Yehuda, a place that has partitions on its two sides becomes a private domain by Torah law]].

Therefore, a minor enactment suffices for him: that he

make a side-post here,

at the corner of the house on one side,

and a side-post here,

at the other corner of the house!

Or a crossbeam here,

across the width of the public domain on one side of the houses,

and a crossbeam here,

on the other side of the houses,

and he carries and brings

carrying

in the middle,

from house to house.

The Sages said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Yehuda:

One does not make the public domain into an eruv by means of this!

And it is evident from here that according to the Sages one may not carry in the public domain by closing it with a side-post and a crossbeam; and how did you say that it is effective?!

And if you say

that only

by this,

with two side-posts or two crossbeams,

is it not made into an eruv,

the public domain.

But with a door [according to old editions]

on one side, and a side-post or a crossbeam on the other side, as Beit Hillel say, then

it is made into an eruv.

It is impossible to answer in this way. For:

But Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Jerusalem,

whose public domain runs directly from gate to gate and is open through, and in which six hundred thousand people pass, and whose width is sixteen cubits,

if its doors

in the wall, on both sides of the public domain,

were not locked at night—

one would be liable on account of it as a public domain.

And from here we must infer:

A. One door is insufficient [even if it is locked] on one side.

B. Doors without locking are ineffective in the public domain.

And there is further proof:

And Ulla also said:

also:

these gateways,

gates,

of Meḥoza—

whose gates were aligned one opposite the other, and the public domain ran from gate to gate—

if their doors

of the gates on their two sides

were locked

at night—

one would be liable on account of them as public domains!

And one should infer from here: with doors without locking, or with one door even if it is locked—it is not sufficient!

And now it is difficult: how did you say that a tzurat ha-petaḥ is effective, or one door that is not locked on one side, and a side-post and a crossbeam on the other side?! [This was explained according to Tosafot’s understanding of Rashi, combined with the rulings of the Ri"d].

And we answer:

Rabbi Yehuda said:

the beraita that says, “How does one make an eruv through the public domain?” is not discussing the public domain itself.

Rather, it is discussing alleyways that lead between two public domains.

And

this is what it says

in the beraita:

How does one make an eruv

the

“open alleyways”

to the public domain—

he makes a tzurat ha-petaḥ here, and a side-post or a crossbeam here.

And it was concerning those open alleyways that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed according to Ḥananya; but the tanna was not discussing the public domain at all!

It was stated:

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the first tanna

that it is possible to permit carrying in an alley open to the public domain on both its sides by means of a tzurat ha-petaḥ here and a side-post or a crossbeam here! [See illustration] 1]

And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Ḥananya

according to Beit Hillel, for we require a door here, and a side-post or a crossbeam here!

They raised a question before them: according to Ḥananya, in accordance with Beit Hillel,

who requires a door on one side:

Is it that one

must lock

that door when he goes out and enters, just as Beit Shammai require him to do with two doors?

Or is it not necessary to lock it?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear: for Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: It is not necessary to lock it.

And likewise Rav Mattana said in the name of Shmuel: It is not necessary to lock it.

There are those who say:

Rav Mattana did not state a teaching in Shmuel’s name.

Rather, this is what he

said: Rav Mattana said: The incident happened to me, and

then

Shmuel said to me: It is not necessary to lock it.

And they likewise

asked him

also

from Rav Anan:

Is it that one

must,

according to Beit Hillel,

lock

that one door?

Or is it not necessary to lock it?

He said to them: Come and see,

come and see

these gateways,

gates at the heads of the open alleyways

of Nehardea.

For they were buried up to their halfway point in earth,

as their doors were buried in earth up to their halfway point and could not be locked.

And

nevertheless

he entered and went out,

he was entering and going out

Mar Shmuel

there,

and he said nothing at all to them,

that the alleyway was not properly rendered fit.

Evidently, even doors that are not locked are perfectly acceptable!

Rav Kahana said:

from here one cannot prove that it is not necessary to lock them. For

those

gates of Nehardea

were partly closed,

they were neither completely open nor completely closed. And in such a case doors are effective.

But if they are completely open and cannot be locked—it is not so!

When Rav Naḥman came

to Nehardea and saw the doors buried in earth,

he said: Clear away their earth [clear the earth from the gates]!

[clear the earth from the gates]!

And we consider this:

Shall we say that Rav Naḥman holds that one must lock them,

and for this reason he said that they should clear the earth from the doors, so that they would be able to lock them?

And we reject this:

No,

Rav Naḥman did not say to clear the earth in order actually to lock them.

Rather, it was so that they would be “fit” to be locked. And

since they are

fit to be locked,

it is perfectly acceptable,

even though they are not actually locked

in practice.

That crooked alleyway—

this crooked alleyway is not like the crooked alleyway above; rather, the alleyway had two bends, being shaped like an eight, and its two entrances opened onto the same public domain—

which was in Nehardea.

They imposed upon it the stringency of Rav,

they imposed upon the alleyway also Rav’s stringency,

and also

also

Shmuel’s stringency,

as he proceeds to explain.

And they required it:

A.

doors

at its two bends.

B. A side-post or a crossbeam at its two entrances opening onto the public domain. [See illustration] 1]

And we explain it:

Rav’s stringency:

this is

what Rav said

above concerning a crooked alleyway: it is not considered a “closed alleyway,” but

its status is that of a “

alleyway

open through,”

which is not permitted by a side-post or a crossbeam alone at the entrance adjacent to the public domain, but also requires the rectification of an open-through alleyway [as will be explained] at its bend.

And this alleyway, which has two bends, requires rectification at both its bends, in accordance with the status of a double open-through alleyway!

And

if they held like Rav in all his method, they would not have needed to place doors here, for

Rav himself said:

himself:

The halakha is in accordance with the first tanna,

who holds that an open-through alleyway is permitted by a tzurat ha-petaḥ here and a side-post and crossbeam here.

And if so, here too tzurat ha-petaḥ at the two bends would have sufficed, and doors would not have been necessary!

Rather, they were stringent with it also

like Shmuel, who said that the halakha is in accordance with Ḥananya,

and according to Beit Hillel, that an open-through alleyway requires a door here and a side-post and crossbeam here.

And if we held like Shmuel in all his method, we would not have needed to place doors at its bends. For

Shmuel said: its status

of a crooked alleyway is

that of a “

alleyway

closed,”

and we do not need to place anything at its bends, but only side-posts at its two entrances opening onto the public domain.

And according to those who explain above that “its status is that of a closed [alleyway]” means that the bends have the status of a closed [alleyway], here too we would not need doors at its bends; rather, it would suffice to place there a side-post or a crossbeam.

Rather, this is why they required doors, because they were stringent with it also

like Rav, who said:

a crooked alleyway

has the status of a “

alleyway

open through,”

and one must place at its bends what must be placed in an open-through alleyway.

And since according to Shmuel, in an ordinary open-through alleyway, we need to place a door, here too we need a door.

And this is what we say: they imposed upon it Rav’s stringency and Shmuel’s stringency! It is an open-through alleyway according to Rav, and it requires doors according to Shmuel.

And we raise an objection:

Do we act according to two stringencies?!

For both according to Rav and according to Shmuel, for such a crooked alleyway, tzurat ha-petaḥ at its two bends alone should suffice!

For according to Rav, who says that its status is that of an open-through alleyway, he holds that the permitting of an open-through alleyway is through a tzurat ha-petaḥ! And according to Shmuel, who holds that the permitting of an open-through alleyway is through a door, he holds that its status is that of a closed alleyway, and we do not require [at its bend] anything at all.

And according to the other commentators, a side-post or a crossbeam suffices, and certainly a tzurat ha-petaḥ suffices.

And in a case such as this, do we act according to two stringencies!? [Tosafot]

But it was taught

that we do not act in such a case according to two stringencies:

For it was taught:

The halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel

in every place where they disagreed with Beit Shammai. Rather:

And one who wishes to act in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai—

does so [and below we challenge this, since the latter clause contradicts the former clause].

[and below the Gemara challenges this, since it contradicts the first clause].

And one who wishes to act

in accordance with the words of Beit Hillel—

does so!

But a person who acts, where there are two disputes between them that are bound together, both

according to the leniencies of Beit Shammai,

and also

according to the leniencies of Beit Hillel—

that person is

wicked!

And if he acts also

according to the stringencies of Beit Shammai,

and also

according to the stringencies of Beit Hillel,

where the two disputes are bound together—

concerning him Scripture says: “The fool walks in darkness!”

For he does not know how to distinguish upon whom to rely, whether upon Beit Shammai or upon Beit Hillel [Rashi, on Rosh Hashana, page 15a].

Rather,

this is what he should do:

if

he conducts himself

according to Beit Shammai—

he should act

according to their leniencies and their stringencies.

If

he conducts himself

according to Beit Hillel—

he should act

according to their leniencies and their stringencies!

We first explain the beraita, and afterward we return to the incident of Nehardea.

And we challenge:

this itself

of the beraita

is difficult

from within itself:

For at first

you said: “The halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel.”

And it implies that one is obligated to act in accordance with Beit Hillel.

And

if

afterward,

afterward

you said: “One who wishes to act in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai”—

does so?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

Here,

in the latter clause, where we say: “One who wishes to act in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai does so”—

before

there emerged

a Heavenly Voice

and said: “The halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel everywhere” [as is brought below, page 13b]. For then anyone who wished to act according to the words of Beit Shammai was permitted to act according to their leniencies and their stringencies.

Here,

in the first clause, where we say: “The halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel”—

after

there emerged

a Heavenly Voice!

And if you wish, say: both this and that

the first clause and the latter clause are discussing

after

there emerged

a Heavenly Voice.