Eruvin 8a — the Talmud in English

And we raised it in discussion:

And according to what we initially assumed,

that Rav Yehuda stated his ruling about an alley that terminates in a courtyard in accordance with Shmuel. But Rav did not prohibit carrying in an alley that terminates in a courtyard because of the absence of an eruv; rather, whether the residents of the courtyard joined with the residents of the alley, and whether they did not join, it is prohibited to carry in the alley, because it is considered open at both ends.

On the contrary, it entered our minds that according to Rav, the absence of an eruv is not an issue, and

whether they joined,

and there is no reason to judge it as appearing open at both ends,

and whether they did not join—

even if the breach is not directly opposite it—

Rav and Shmuel disagree

with one another:

If so,

when they joined,

where Rav prohibits because of an alley open at both ends, while Rav Yehuda permits in the name of Shmuel—

over what do they disagree?

And likewise,

when they did not join,

when Shmuel prohibits [and as we initially assumed above, Rav Yehuda specifically said “an alley that terminates in an open area”; but in the case of a courtyard he would prohibit, because the residents of the courtyard prohibit the alley’s residents when they have not joined with them], while Rav permits [for he prohibited only because it is open at both ends]]—

over what do they disagree?

And we explain:

when they did not join—

they disagree about

the opening

that is visible from outside and equal from inside.

In the case of an opening whose side-posts are visible from outside it, but are not visible from inside, whether it is considered an opening also with regard to the inside or not.

According to Rav, it is considered an opening even with regard to the inside, and therefore the courtyard and the alley remain two domains, each joining separately, and the residents of the courtyard do not prohibit the residents of the alley from carrying into the alley.

But Shmuel requires the residents of the alley to join together with the residents of the courtyard, for according to Shmuel these side-posts are considered, with regard to the residents of the alley, as though they were not present, and it is one domain that requires one eruv.

When they joined—

they disagree—

Rav, who prohibits it because it appears open at both ends, and Shmuel, who permits—

according to Rav Yosef!

For Rav Yosef said:

They taught

that an alley that terminates in an open area does not require a correction

only

when it

terminates in the middle of the open area,

and there is room to turn this way and that on both sides of the alley. For this does not appear as an alley open at both ends [since the width of the open area exceeds the width of the alley on each side, and it appears that the alley terminates in the open area and does not extend until the public domain opposite it, and therefore one will not come to permit an alley open at both ends]. [See drawing 1]

But

if

the alley terminates

in the alley

at the sides of the open area,

where on one side the wall of the alley continues together with the wall of the open area until the public domain—

it is prohibited

to carry in the alley, because it appears open at both ends. [See drawing 2]

And now—Rav and Shmuel disagree according to Rav Yosef!

Rav, who prohibits [according to what we initially assumed] even when it terminates in the middle of a courtyard, does not hold like Rav Yosef, who considers it “appearing open at both ends” only when there is an actual continuation of the wall of the alley together with the wall of the open area or courtyard. For according to Rav, since one standing in the alley sees opposite him only the public domain, and many people also pass through it, it is prohibited.

And Shmuel, who permits when it terminates in the middle of an open area—holds like Rav Yosef!

Rabba said: This which you said

that if the alley

terminates in the middle of an open area it is permitted, we said this only

when

this one [

the courtyard adjacent to the public domain]

was breached not opposite that one [

not directly opposite the alley; rather, the breach was in that wall that is “opposite it” of the alley, which is what Rav said: “and the courtyard was breached opposite it.” [See drawing 1]

But

if

this one was breached opposite that one

actually,

it is prohibited,

even though the alley terminates in the middle of the open area! [ See drawing 2]

Rav Mesharsheya said: This which you said

that an alley that terminates in an open area, and the open area is breached into the public domain,

this not opposite that one is permitted

to carry in it—

we said this only

in

an open area belonging to the public. [

See drawing 3]

But

in

an open area belonging to an individual

it is prohibited to carry in the alley.

For

sometimes its owner decides about it

the owner of the open area may change it into a place in which there are no residences,

and build houses in it

in the open area, in the vacant space beside the alley,

and it becomes

through the houses, whose walls continue together with the walls of the alley,

like an alley that terminates at the sides of an open area, and it is prohibited

to carry in it, even when its breach into the public domain is not aligned opposite the alley -

as we said! [See drawing 4]

But in an open area belonging to the public, we are not concerned lest the public change the original designation of the open area.

And we explain:

And from where do you say that we distinguish between an open area belonging to the public and an open area belonging to an individual?

For Ravin bar Rav Adda said in the name of Rabbi Isaac: There was an incident involving one alley, one side of which was the sea,

whose shore was ten high and constituted a partition,

and one side of which was a refuse heap,

ten high, which constituted a partition; one end was closed like the other alleys, and one end was open to the public domain [corrected according to Rashi], and this alley was now like an ordinary closed alley that has three partitions. [See drawing 5]

And the incident came before Rabbi,

to ask him whether this alley could be permitted by means of a side-post or a crossbeam at its end that was open to the public domain,

and he stated neither a permission nor a prohibition concerning it.

And we explain Rabbi’s ruling:

The reason that he

did not state a prohibition concerning it is

because

there presently stand

three

partitions,

and it is like an ordinary alley permitted by means of a side-post or crossbeam.

However,

a permission

also

he did not state concerning it,

because

we are concerned lest

the

refuse heap

be removed and the partition be diminished, or

the sea raise a sandbank

of sand and stones beside its shore and it become ground, and people pass there and it become a public domain—Rabbi Hananel.

And we raise a difficulty concerning Rabbi’s ruling, to prove that there is a difference between public and individual:

But are we concerned lest the refuse heap be removed?!

But did we not learn: A refuse heap

that is situated

in the public domain,

and it is

ten

handbreadths high, so that the domain above it is a private domain—from the

high, so that the area above it is a private domain—

window

of the house

that is above it,

the refuse heap,

one throws into it

into the refuse heap

on Shabbat!

For he is throwing from a private domain to a private domain [through the air of the public domain above ten handbreadths, which is a place exempt from domain classification—Tosafot], which is permitted. [See drawing 1]

And now this is difficult according to Rabbi, for we see from this Mishna that we are not concerned lest the refuse heap be removed, and it turns out that he is throwing from a private domain into a public domain?!

It follows

we say, so that this should not be difficult for Rabbi:

It is different;

one must distinguish

between a public refuse heap—

like that of the window, where we are not concerned lest it be removed—

and an individual’s refuse heap—

like that of Rabbi, which was an individual’s refuse heap, where we are concerned lest it be removed!

Here too

with regard to the open area,

it is different;

one must distinguish

between an open area belonging to the public and an open area belonging to an individual—

as we said!

And we ask:

And what

did the Sages

say

about that alley, one side of which terminates at a refuse heap?

He

stated it explicitly,

Rav Yosef bar Avdimi: A tanna

in a

beraita: And the Sages prohibit.

Rav Nahman said: The halakha is in accordance with the words of the Sages.

There are those who say

this

Rav Yosef bar Avdimi said: A tanna: And the Sages permit.

And thus

Rav Nahman said: The halakha is not in accordance with the words of the Sages—

who permit!

Marimar would make it [

he would make partitions]

for

the alleys of

Sura—

which terminated on one side at the sea and on the opposite side at the public domain—

with nets [

nets and fishing nets] so that they would be the partitions of the alley. [See drawing 2] He did not wish to rely on the sea’s partition, because

Marimar said:

Marimar

we are concerned lest the sea raise a sandbank.

The following teaching is explained according to the first approach above, on page 6, concerning the law of a bent alley. Further on it will also be explained according to the approach of the “some explain” there.

A certain bent alley that was in Sura,

one end of which was open in the west to the public domain, while the alley bent [within a width of ten cubits] and went toward the south, and was open there to another public domain.

The residents of the alley open to the west made a side-post or crossbeam at their opening, which was open to the public domain, while the residents of the alley open to the south did not make anything at their opening to permit carrying in their section.

They rolled up a mat,

they rolled up a mat, and

placed it

and set it up while it was rolled up

there at its bend,

of the alley. [See drawing 3]

Rav Hisda said:

What they did is not effective to permit carrying even in half of the alley that is open to the west.

For

this—

is neither according to Rav nor according to Shmuel,

who disagreed above, on page 6a, concerning the permitting of a bent alley.

And we explain this ruling of Rav Hisda:

For

according to Rav, who says that its law

of a bent alley

is like

if it were

open at both ends,

and one must place at its bend what is placed in an alley open at both ends—

it requires the form of an entrance!

As is the law of an alley open at both ends [above, page 6], and setting up a rolled mat at its bend does not help it!

And

according to Shmuel

also,

who says that its law

of a bent alley

is like

an alley

closed,

and it does not require the form of an entrance at its bend, nevertheless, the alley is not permitted by one side-post [and not even that section between the bend and the opening where the side-post is placed] until he places a second side-post at the second opening or at the bend of the alley.

And in this alley, where they placed a mat at its bend and not a side-post, it is not effective.

For

this matter

that a side-post is effective for it, when he placed in it

a proper side-post, is what is effective.

there; only then is it effective.

But this

rolled mat—even as a side-post it is not considered. For

since wind blows against it [

the wind blows against it]

and throws it down [

and knocks it over]—

it is nothing.

And

nevertheless,

if he drove a peg into it and joined it [

if he drives a peg [Rabbi Hananel] into the mat and joins it to the wall of the alley], then

he joined it,

and the wind will no longer throw it down, and it is properly effective.

The substance: Rav Jeremiah bar Abba said in the name of Rav:

An alley that was breached in its entirety into a courtyard, and the courtyard was breached opposite it—

the courtyard is permitted and the alley is prohibited.

And we explained this above in the conclusion: The reason for the prohibition of the alley is that the residents of the alley did not join with the residents of the courtyard. For the alley is considered one domain with the courtyard since the wall between them was breached, and the side-posts of the partition have, with regard to the alley, the status of “visible from outside and equal from inside,” and therefore it is prohibited.

Whereas the courtyard, in which the side-posts of the partition are visible from inside, is permitted and joins separately.

And we challenge this:

Rabba bar Ulla said to Rav Bibi bar Abaye: Rabbi!

What does Rav come to teach us?

And

is this not our Mishna?!

For we learned:

A small courtyard,

narrow,

that was breached

in its entirety

into a

courtyard

large,

wide, adjacent to it—the

large courtyard is permitted

to carry in it once it makes a courtyard eruv for itself.

And the small one is prohibited

until it joins together with the large one.

And the reason is:

because it is like the opening of the large one.

As we said: Since the side-posts of the small courtyard have the status of “visible from outside and equal from inside,” the breach is not considered an “opening” with regard to it, and it must join with the large one, for it is nullified with regard to it.

Whereas the large one, which has side-posts visible even from inside, considers the breach an “opening” with regard to itself. Therefore, it does not need to join with the small one, for it is a domain in its own right! And now this is difficult: What does Rav come to teach us by stating the case of an alley breached into a courtyard?!

He said to him,

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said to Rabba bar Ulla: Rav comes to teach us his principal novelty concerning the courtyard, that it is permitted for carrying, which cannot be learned from the Mishna.

For

if from there—

in the Mishna concerning the small courtyard—

I would have said: This applies only where the public does not pass through it,

and they do not nullify the name of its partitions.

But where the public does pass through it,

that is, in Rav’s statement, which discusses a courtyard that was also breached into the public domain, and many people pass from the public domain to the public domain through the courtyard and the alley,

I might say

that they nullified the two partitions because of the public’s passage through the alley, and

even the courtyard too

would be prohibited for carrying, since it has no partitions.

Rav comes to teach us that it is permitted to carry in the courtyard!

And we challenge:

But

this which you said, that Rav comes to teach us that the public’s passage does not nullify the status of a partition,

we also learned

this, so what does Rav come to teach us?!

For it was taught:

A courtyard

surrounded by partitions, in which there are two openings,

through which the public enters it,

through one opening,

and exits from it through this one,

through the second opening—

it is

a public domain with regard to

the matter of uncertainty concerning

impurity,

for we maintain that in a public domain an uncertainty is pure [whereas in a private domain an uncertainty is impure];

and

it is

a private domain with regard to

the matter of

Shabbat.

It follows that we do not say that it should not be a private domain with regard to Shabbat, on the grounds that the public comes and nullifies the partitions. This is difficult: What does Rav come to teach us? And we answer:

If from there,

in the

beraita,

I would have said, this applies only—

when the two openings are

not opposite one another,