Eruvin 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

But

in Rav’s statement, which is discussing a case where the entrances were

directly opposite one another [

as he said: “and a courtyard was breached ‘opposite it,’” referring to the alleyway ],

say that it is not

a partition, as we say in such a case: the masses come and nullify the partitions.

Rav teaches us that even in such a case it is considered a partition.

We challenge this alternative resolution:

And according to Rabba, who said

above, on 8a, that when we say that in the case of an alleyway that ends in a plaza, where the plaza was also breached into the public domain, the alleyway is not considered an alleyway open at both ends, that applies only when the breach and the entrance of the alleyway were not aligned with one another; but if they were aligned

directly opposite one another, it is prohibited

because it is an alleyway open at both ends!

Necessarily,

Rav’s statement—

in which he said: An alleyway that was completely breached into a courtyard, and the courtyard was breached opposite it, the alleyway is prohibited until they establish an eiruv with the residents of the courtyard. If they established an eiruv with them, it is permitted to carry in the alleyway, as we do not consider it open at both ends—

how does

Rabba interpret it?

By

necessity, it is referring to a breach that is

not directly opposite one another.

For if not, it would be prohibited even if they established an eiruv, since it would be considered open at both ends [and that which Rav said, “and a courtyard was breached ‘opposite it,’” means that the breach was in the wall opposite the alleyway, and not that the breach itself was “opposite” the entrance of the alleyway—Rashi above, 8a, s.v. aval, and see Rashi here].

And now this is difficult: since according to Rabba Rav himself is also discussing a case where they are not directly opposite one another,

two—

the beraita of “a courtyard into which the public enters,” and Rav’s statement—

why is it necessary

to teach that the masses do not come and nullify the partitions when the entrances are not aligned with one another?!

And we offer another resolution:

If from there—

from the beraita of “a courtyard into which the public enters,” from which we learn that we do not say that the masses come and nullify the partitions—

I would say that this applies

only with regard to not nullifying the partition on a Torah level!

That is, to teach that it is a fully established private domain, and

to throw

from the public domain into it would constitute carrying out, for which one is liable.

But to carry

within it,

say that it is not

permitted, since rabbinically it is not a private domain, because the masses come and nullify the partitions!

Therefore,

Rav teaches us

that even rabbinically the partitions are not nullified, and it is permitted to carry in the courtyard!

It was stated:

An alleyway

that is large and bent in the shape of the letter dalet, open at both ends to the public domain, and

made like a centipede [

a creature with many legs ], with small alleyways opening into it, whose other ends open to the public domain running alongside the large alleyway [and the alleyways open from both sides of the long alleyway, not directly opposite one another—Tosafot], if one wishes to permit it: [see illustration 1]

Abaye said: He makes a tzurat ha-petah for

the

large

alleyway at one of its two ends that are open to the public domain [and a lehi or a kora at its other end, which is open to the public domain],

and all these

small alleyways

are permitted [

they are permitted for carrying ]

with a lehi and a kora

at the entrance at their ends adjoining the public domain, and at the place where they open into the large alleyway he does nothing for them.

Rava said to him

to Abaye: Whichever way one looks at it!

If you say that the small alleyways are permitted with a lehi and a kora, and that nothing at all need be placed at their ends that open into the large alleyway, then necessarily

like whom

do you hold?

Like Shmuel, who said

above: A bent alleyway,

its status

of this alleyway is

like that of a closed one,

and it can be permitted with a lehi here and a lehi there.

And therefore, these small alleyways, which are themselves bent [as they open into the public domain and also open into the large alleyway, which likewise opens into the public domain, and this is a bent alleyway], are permitted with a lehi at their entrances, and with an additional lehi at the entrance of the large alleyway to the public domain; and nothing need be placed at their bend—where they open into the large alleyway! [

And not like Rav, who held above that in a bent alleyway one must place a tzurat ha-petah at its bend, because he holds that the bend is assigned the status of an alleyway open at both ends.]

And since this is so,

why does

the large alleyway—which is itself merely a bent alleyway—

need a tzurat ha-petah

at one of its ends?!

After all, according to Shmuel it is like a closed alleyway, and it suffices even for the large alleyway to have a lehi here and a lehi there.

Furthermore,

it is difficult:

that particular bent alleyway that existed in Nehardea,

which was Shmuel’s place,

and

nevertheless

they were concerned for Rav’s opinion,

who disagreed with Shmuel and said: A bent alleyway has the status of one open at both ends, and it must be permitted at its bend in the manner in which an alleyway open at both ends is permitted [as we said above, 6b].

And all the more so, generally, in a place that is not Shmuel’s place, one must be concerned for Rav’s opinion [Ritva]. So why did you not require anything at the bends of the small alleyways?!

Rather, Rava said: He makes a tzurat ha-petah for all

the small alleyways

on this side

at their ends that open into the large alleyway, in accordance with Rav, who said: The bend of the alleyway has the status of one open at both ends.

And on the other side

of the small alleyways, they

are permitted with a lehi and a kora. [

See illustration 1]

And by this the small alleyways are permitted. [

This teaching concerning an alleyway made like a centipede is explained in accordance with the Ritva and Maharshal’s understanding of Rashi.]

Rav Kahana bar Taḥalifa said in the name of Rav Kahana bar Minyomi in the name of Rav Kahana bar Malkiyyo in the name of Rav Kahana the Great.

And some say: Rav Kahana bar Malkiyyo is

himself

Rav Kahana the Great [

Bach ]:

An alleyway whose

wall on

one side

is

longer, and whose other side is shorter.

If the longer wall extends beyond the shorter one by

less than four cubits, he places the kora diagonally

from the end of the longer wall to the end of the shorter one, and one may carry up to the kora wherever it is. [See illustration 2]

But if the longer wall extends beyond the shorter one by

four

cubits

or more,

he places the kora only opposite

the end of the

shorter

wall, placing it perpendicular to the longer wall. [ See illustration 3]

Rava said: Both this

case, where it extends by four cubits,

and this

case, where it extends by less than four cubits,

he places the kora only opposite

the end of the

shorter wall. [

And if he placed it diagonally, this kora is not effective at all, and it is prohibited to carry even opposite the shorter wall, Biur Halakha, section 363, in accordance with the Pri Megadim, and not in accordance with the Maḥatzit HaShekel.]

And Rava added:

And let me state my reason, and let me state their reason:

Let me state my reason,

that a kora placed diagonally is ineffective, for I hold:

What is the reason for a kora

that the Sages instituted it as effective in permitting carrying in the alleyway?

It is because of recognition [

so that people will not come to confuse an alleyway with the public domain ]!

And

a kora that stands

diagonally is not a recognition,

because one who sees the residents of the alleyway extending into and using the portion of the alleyway that is not opposite the shorter wall may err and say: It is permitted to use the public domain!

This is because that additional area, opposite which there is no partition on the other side, does not appear to them to be part of the alleyway.

And let me state their reason,

that a kora placed diagonally is effective: for they hold that

for what reason is a kora

instituted by the Sages as effective?

Because it is a partition,

as we view the edge of the kora as though it descends and closes the opening.

And when it is diagonal as well, it is a partition.

Rav Kahana said: Since this teaching

concerning an alleyway whose one side is longer

belongs to the priests [

of the priests ],

let me,

who am a priest, also

say something:

That which you said,

that if the longer wall extends beyond the shorter wall by up to four cubits, he

places

the

kora diagonally—

we said this only when the

length of its

diagonal

of the alleyway, from the end of the shorter wall to the end of the longer wall along a diagonal line, is

not more than ten

cubits! [

Rashi explains that this is referring to a narrow alleyway, whose width together with the four-cubit extension of the longer wall produces a diagonal of less than ten cubits.]

But

if

its diagonal is more than ten

cubits,

everyone agrees that he places it only opposite the shorter wall.

For the entire area beneath the kora is considered an entrance, and an entrance cannot be more than ten cubits wide.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the law concerning using [

carrying ] in all ordinary alleyways

under the kora?

Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is permitted to use under the kora. [

See illustration 1]

Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is prohibited to use under the kora.

And we examine this:

Shall we say that they disagree about this: That one,

the aforementioned amoraim who hold that it is permitted to use under the kora,

holds

that

the kora is effective because of recognition,

and therefore it is permitted to use even beneath the kora.

And the other,

the aforementioned amoraim who hold that it is prohibited to use under the kora,

holds

that

the kora is effective because it is a partition,

and the inner edge of the partition is the part that descends and closes the opening; consequently, there is no partition beneath the kora, and therefore it is prohibited to use beneath it.

And we reject this:

No,

that is not the basis of their dispute.

Rather,

everyone

holds that

the kora is effective because of recognition.

And here they disagree about this:

One holds that the recognition

of the kora is

on the inside,

as recognition is required for those inside the alleyway, and the recognition is the inner side of the thickness of the kora. Therefore, it is prohibited to use beneath the kora itself, which stands beyond the recognition.

And the other,

who permits using beneath the kora,

holds that the recognition is on the outside.

It is for the residents of the public domain outside the alleyway, and the recognition is the outer side of the kora’s thickness. Therefore, it is permitted to use even beneath the kora.

And if you wish, I can say that everyone

holds that the kora is effective

because it is a partition.

And here they disagree about this: One holds that the inner edge

of the kora

descends and closes the opening,

so that beneath the kora one is outside the partition, and it is prohibited to use beneath it.

And the other holds that the outer edge

of the kora

descends and closes the opening,

so that beneath the kora one is inside the partition, and it is permitted to use beneath it.

Rav Ḥisda said: Everyone

who disputes whether it is permitted to use beneath the kora

agrees concerning the area between the leḥayayim [

when he permitted ordinary alleyways with leḥayayim ], that is, the area beside the lehi,

that it is prohibited

to use or carry there, but only from the inner edge of the lehi and inward.

And the reason is that a lehi is valid even if it is only a minimal amount, and if we permit carrying between the leḥayayim, one may come to carry beyond them—Tosafot.

Rami bar Ḥama asked Rav Ḥisda:

If one drove two pegs

lying horizontally

into the two walls of the alleyway,

within the thickness of the wall,

on the outside

of the alleyway,

and placed a kora upon them,

outside the alleyway, with its inner edge flush with the edge of the alleyway— \-

what

is the law concerning permitting the alleyway with this kora? [See illustration 1]

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda to Rami bar Ḥama:

According to the one who permits

using beneath the kora in an ordinary alleyway—and this is because he holds that the outer edge of the kora descends and closes the opening—

it is prohibited

to use the alleyway in which the kora was placed upon pegs. Since the outer edge of the kora descends and closes the opening, it follows that the closing of the partition is not attached to the walls of the alleyway, since there is airspace between them the width of the kora.

And

according to the one who prohibits

using beneath the kora in an ordinary alleyway—and this is because he holds that the inner edge of the kora descends and closes the opening—

it is permitted

to use the alleyway in which the kora was placed upon pegs, since the inner edge of the kora is adjacent to the walls, and its closure is attached to the walls, so it is effective!

Rava said: According to the one who prohibits

using beneath the kora in an ordinary alleyway, because he holds that its inner edge descends and closes the opening,

it is also prohibited

to use the alleyway in which the kora was placed upon pegs. This is because a kora outside the alleyway is not effective; rather,

we require a kora upon the alleyway, and

here

there is no

kora upon the alleyway!