Eruvin 7b — the Talmud in English

For if

it was said in the name of

Rav

Rav Judah said it,

it is difficult

this

of Rav A

—another statement

of Rav [

below]

in two respects:

a. Here Rav Judah says: An alleyway that terminates at an open area into which it has been breached, we do not prohibit it because it is open at both ends. [See illustration 1]

Whereas from another statement of Rav it is demonstrated that it is prohibited because it appears to be open at both ends.

b. Since Rav Judah stated: an alleyway that terminates “at an open area,” which has no residents, and did not state: an alleyway that terminates “at a courtyard,” which has residents, it may be inferred from this that, in the case of an alleyway that terminates at a courtyard, the residents of the courtyard prohibit the residents of the alleyway from carrying in the alleyway, even though it does not have the appearance of an alleyway open at both ends, and even if the wall of the courtyard had not been breached toward the public domain at all [and this matter will be explained below].

Whereas from another statement of Rav it is demonstrated that, as far as the residents of the courtyard are concerned, we have no concern, but only because it appears to be an alleyway open at both ends.

For Rav Jeremiah bar Abba said in the name of Rav:

An alleyway

narrow [whose width is up to ten cubits]

whose wall was breached

the wall of the alleyway opposite the opening that is open to the public domain

in its entirety [that the entire wall across the width of the alleyway was breached], and the alleyway terminates

at a courtyard

at a courtyard

behind the alleyway [which had not originally been open to it]. [See illustration 2]

And

besides this,

the partition was breached

also the partition of the

courtyard

itself opposite it, which separates it from the public domain behind it [a breach no wider than ten cubits, and not breaching the entire partition, but with the partition at the sides of the breach remaining standing]

opposite it

of the alleyway, so that one standing in the alleyway sees the public domain directly opposite him. Therefore:

The courtyard is permitted

for carrying, for it is enclosed by its four partitions.

Even though breaches were made in them, since the breaches are not wider than ten cubits and they have side-posts [remnants of the wall at the sides of the breach], the partition was not nullified, for these breaches are “openings.”

But the

alleyway is prohibited

for carrying because it is an alleyway open at both ends.

And now we demonstrate that Rav himself does not hold in accordance with Rav Judah. For if he held in accordance with Rav Judah, two difficulties arise:

a.

And why

is the alleyway prohibited?

Let

this alleyway, which terminates at a courtyard and was breached into it,

be like an alleyway that terminates at an open area

of which Rav Judah said that it does not require rectification, for he holds that it does not appear to be open at both ends.

b. And furthermore, there is a difficulty: Rav was not speaking of an open area that has no residents—as Rav Judah was—but was speaking of a case in which it was breached into a courtyard that has residents. Nevertheless, Rav did not prohibit carrying in the alleyway because it was breached into a courtyard that has residents, but because the courtyard too was breached toward the public domain and the alleyway thereby became like an alleyway open at both ends.

And this is not in accordance with Rav Judah, who prohibits when the alleyway was breached into a courtyard that has residents, even if it had not been breached toward the public domain, as we said!

He said to him

Rav Joseph to Abaye:

I do not know

from whom Rav Judah learned it. But

there was an incident in the village of shepherds [a village of shepherds] in which

an

alleyway that terminated at an open area

was there, and the partition of the open area opposite the alleyway was breached toward the public domain.

And

the case of this open area

came before Rav Judah, and he did not require it

Rav Judah any rectification

at all!

And now the latter difficulty does not arise. For it cannot be inferred: But the courtyard is prohibited, since this was the incident [Gaon Yaakov].

And if it is difficult from Rav’s name,

that is to say: And if it is difficult to say that Rav Judah learned to permit it from Rav, on the basis of the first difficulty—for Rav himself considers the alleyway to be open at both ends—

let it be from Shmuel’s name,

let it be as you say, that Rav Judah learned this from Shmuel.

And there is no difficulty at all [and even the first difficulty will not be difficult].

And now the Gemara explains that it can properly be said that Rav Judah learned from Rav to permit an alleyway that terminates at an open area. Nevertheless, there is no contradiction between Rav and Rav, for he prohibited an alleyway that terminates at a courtyard!

For

because

now, when Rav Sheshet said to Rav Shmuel bar Abba—and some say

that Rav Sheshet said

to Rav Joseph bar Abba:

I shall explain to you

Rav’s reason and reasoning, that he prohibited carrying in an alleyway that terminates at a courtyard not because it is considered open at both ends, but as follows: a. The Sages enacted that one may not carry from a house to a courtyard shared by several houses unless all the residents of the houses opening onto the courtyard make together an “eruv of courtyards” [in which they all combine through one food on the eve of

Shabbat and place it in one of the houses].

And they likewise enacted that one may not carry from the house in the courtyard [or objects that remained in the house over

Shabbat and were taken out to the courtyard] to the alleyway shared by all the courtyards, unless all the residents of the courtyards opening onto the alleyway and accustomed to pass through it make “partnerships of alleyways” [in which they all participate through one food and place it in one of the courtyards].

b. Two courtyards between which a wall separates are two separate domains in every respect, and each courtyard makes an eruv of courtyards for itself.

If the wall between them was breached in its entirety and no side-posts [wall remnants] remained at the sides of the breach, since there is no “opening” between them but only a “breach,” the two courtyards became like one courtyard and one domain in every respect, and they make one eruv together.

And if there was an “opening” in the wall, if they wish, they make an eruv together and are permitted to carry from one courtyard to the other. If they wish, each one makes an eruv for itself, and they are prohibited from carrying from one to the other.

c. If one courtyard was narrow, and the one adjacent to it was broad, and the wall separating them was breached across the entire width of the narrow courtyard, with the result that one standing inside the narrow courtyard does not see any side-posts, this opening is called “visible from the outside and flush from the inside.” And this is not an opening but merely a breach [according to Rav, in accordance with what Rav Sheshet explained].

d. In contrast, in the broad courtyard, in which the side-posts are visible from the inside, the breach is considered a completely valid “opening.”

And therefore: the narrow courtyard is nullified to the broad courtyard adjacent to it, to be considered part of it, and it is not permitted for carrying until it makes an eruv together with the residents of the broad courtyard, for we consider it one domain with the broad courtyard.

But with regard to the broad courtyard, the two courtyards are considered separate domains. Therefore, if the broad one made an eruv for itself, it is permitted to carry in the broad courtyard. And therefore: in the case of this alleyway that was breached in its entirety into a courtyard, it is impossible to carry from the house into it—even without the courtyard’s breach toward the public domain—for with regard to the alleyway, we consider it one domain with the adjacent courtyard, as though the residents of the courtyard lived in the alleyway, and they prohibit the residents of the alleyway from carrying out there until they make an eruv with the residents of the courtyard.

a.

And it follows that there is a distinction in Rav’s statement:

a.

Here, where they made an eruv.

That is to say: where the residents of the alleyway made an eruv with the residents of the courtyard, they are permitted to carry, for there is no deficiency of an eruv. And the alleyway is not considered an alleyway open at both ends, and it requires rectification only like any other closed alleyway.

b.

Here, where they did not make an eruv.

That is to say: where Rav said that the alleyway is prohibited, it is where they did not make an eruv, and because the alleyway was nullified to the courtyard, the residents of the courtyard—who did not make an eruv with the residents of the alleyway—prohibit the residents of the alleyway from carrying from their houses into the alleyway.

And now it is explained that, according to Rav Sheshet’s reason in Rav’s statement, it can properly be said that Rav Judah learned from Rav that an alleyway that terminates at an open area does not require rectification.

For according to Rav Sheshet,

Rav’s

statement concerning an open area is

not

like

Rav’s

statement concerning a courtyard, about which we raised the difficulty above—

there is also no difficulty.

For according to him, Rav, who was stringent regarding an alleyway that terminates at a courtyard, his reason is that the residents of the courtyard prohibit the residents of the alleyway from carrying into the alleyway without making an eruv with them. And this applies only to a courtyard that has residents who prohibit. But if the alleyway was breached into an open area, which has no residents who could prohibit, it is permitted to carry in the alleyway.

And if so, there is no difficulty. For:

Here,

in the open area, he is speaking of a case where

the residents of the courtyard made an eruv,

that is to say, the residents of the open area

with the residents of the alleyway.

For even if they did not make an eruv, it is considered as though they made an eruv [Meiri, following Rashi’s method]. For there are no residents in the open area with whom it would be necessary to make an eruv, and therefore the alleyway is permitted.

Here,

in the courtyard, Rav prohibited carrying in the alleyway, in a case

where they did not make an eruv

the residents of the courtyard with the residents of the alleyway.