Eruvin 8b — the Talmud in English

But

in Rav’s statement, which deals with a case where the openings were

directly opposite one another

[as he says: “and a courtyard was breached ‘opposite’ the alleyway],

say that it is not

a partition, for in such a case we say: the many come and nullify the partitions.

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

And we raise an objection against this answer:

But according to Rabba, who said

above, on page 8a, that when we say concerning an alleyway that terminates at a courtyard, and the courtyard too was breached into the public domain, that it is not considered an alleyway open through from end to end, this applies only when the breach and the opening of the alleyway were not aligned directly opposite one another; but if they were aligned

directly opposite one another, it is forbidden

because it is an alleyway open through from end to end!

Necessarily,

this statement of Rav—

who says: An alleyway that was breached in its entirety into a courtyard, and the courtyard was breached opposite it, the alleyway is forbidden until they establish an eruv with the residents of the courtyard. If they established an eruv with them, it is permitted to carry in the alleyway, for we do not consider it open through from end to end—

where does Rabba establish it

?

By

necessity, in a case where it was breached

not directly opposite one another.

For if not, it would be forbidden even if they established an eruv, because it is considered open through from end to end [and that which Rav said: “and the courtyard was breached ‘opposite it,’” means in the wall opposite the alleyway, and not that the breach itself was “opposite” the opening of the alleyway—Rashi above, 8a, s.v. aval; and see Rashi here].

And now this is difficult: since Rav himself—as understood by Rabba—also deals with a case where they are not directly opposite one another,

why—

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

do I need

to teach that the many do not come and nullify the partitions, in openings that are not aligned directly opposite one another?!

And we answer with another answer:

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 many come and nullify the partitions—

I would have said: this applies

only with regard to nullifying the partition on a Torah level!

And to teach that it is a fully valid private domain, and

to throw

from the public domain into it would be carrying out, and one is liable for it.

But to carry

within it,

say that it is not

permitted, since on a rabbinic level it is not a private domain, because the many come and nullify the partitions!

And therefore

he teaches us

Rav: that even on a rabbinic level the partitions were not nullified, and it is permitted to carry in the courtyard!

It was stated:

An alleyway

large and bent like the letter dalet, open at both its ends to the public domain, and

made like a centipede

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

Abaye said: He makes a doorway-shaped partition for the

alleyway

large,

at one of its two ends open to the public domain [and a side-post or crossbeam at its other end open to the public domain],

and all these

small alleyways

are permitted

[permitted for carrying]

with a side-post and a crossbeam

at the opening at their ends facing the public domain, while at the place where they open into the large alleyway he does nothing for them.

Rava said to him

to Abaye: Whichever way you look at it!

If you say that the small alleyways are permitted with a side-post and a crossbeam, and it is not necessary to place anything at their ends opening into the large alleyway, necessarily

as whom

do you hold,

as Shmuel, who said

above: A bent alleyway,

its status

of this alleyway

is like a closed one,

and one permits it with a side-post here and a side-post there.

And therefore these small alleyways, which are bent [for they themselves are open to the public domain, and they are open to the large alleyway, which is also open to the public domain, and this is a bent alleyway], are permitted with a side-post at their openings, and with an additional side-post at the opening of the large alleyway to the public domain, and it is not necessary to place anything at their bend—at the place where they open into the large alleyway!

[And not like Rav, who holds above that in a bent alleyway one must place a doorway-shaped partition at its bend, for he holds that the bend is given the status of an alleyway open through from end to end].

And since so,

why does he need

for the large alleyway—which too is only a bent alleyway—

a doorway-shaped partition

at one of its ends?!

For according to Shmuel it is like a closed one, and a side-post here and a side-post there is sufficient even for the large alleyway.

And furthermore,

it is difficult:

that certain bent alleyway that was in Nehardea

which was Shmuel’s place,

and

nevertheless

they were concerned there for Rav’s opinion,

who disagrees with Shmuel and says: A bent alleyway has the status of one open through from end to end, and it must be permitted at its bend in the manner in which one permits an alleyway open through from end to end [as we said above, 6b].

And all the more so, elsewhere, which is not Shmuel’s place, one must be concerned for Rav’s opinion [Ritba]. And why did you not require anything at the bends of the small alleyways?!

Rather, Rava said: He makes a doorway-shaped partition for all

the small alleyways

on this side

at their ends opening into the large alleyway, in accordance with Rav, who says: The bend of the alleyway has the status of one open through from end to end.

And on the other side,

of the small alleyways,

they are permitted with a side-post and a crossbeam. [see illustration 1]

And through this the small alleyways are permitted.

And by this the small alleyways are permitted. [

[This report concerning an alleyway made like a centipede has been explained according to the Ritba and the Maharshal in Rashi’s opinion].

Rav Kahana bar Taḥlifa said in the name of Rav Kahana bar Minyomi in the name of Rav Kahana bar Malkiyo in the name of Rav Kahana the Great.

And some say: Rav Kahana bar Malkiyo is

himself

Rav Kahana the Great [Bach]:

An alleyway whose

wall on

one side

is

long, and one side is short.

If the excess of the long side over the short one is

less than four cubits, he places the crossbeam diagonally

from the end of the long wall to the end of the short one, and one may carry up to the crossbeam wherever it is. [see illustration 2]

But if the long side exceeded the short one by

four

cubits

or more,

he places the crossbeam only opposite

the end of the wall

the short one,

and places it perpendicular to the long wall. [see illustration 3]

Rava said: Both this one

that exceeds by four cubits,

and this one

that exceeds by less than four cubits,

he places the crossbeam only opposite

the end of the wall

the short one.

[And if he placed it diagonally, this crossbeam is not effective at all, and it is forbidden to carry even opposite the short side, Biur Halakha, section 363, according to the Pri Megadim, and not according to the Maḥatzit HaShekel].

And Rava added:

And let me state the reason for my ruling, and let me state the reason for their ruling:

Let me state the reason for my ruling,

that a crossbeam placed diagonally is not effective, for I hold:

What is the reason for a crossbeam

that the Sages instituted that it is effective to permit carrying in the alleyway?—

Because of recognition

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

And

a crossbeam standing

diagonally is not recognition,

for one who sees the residents of the alleyway extending and using the alleyway beyond the line opposite the short wall will come to err and say: It is permitted to use the public domain!

Because that excess, 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 the reason for their ruling,

that a crossbeam placed diagonally is effective: for they hold,

because of what

did the Sages institute that it is effective?

Because of a partition,

for we see the edge of the crossbeam as though it descends and closes.

And diagonally too it is a partition.

Rav Kahana said: Since the teaching

of an alleyway whose one side is long

of priests

[belonging to priests]

is, let me state concerning it

I too am a priest, likewise

a matter:

That which you said,

that if the long wall exceeded the short wall by up to four cubits,

he places

the

crossbeam diagonally—

we said this only when the

length of

its diagonal

of the alleyway, from the end of the short wall to the end of the long wall, along a diagonal line, is

more than ten

cubits!

[And Rashi explains that the discussion is about a narrow alleyway, whose width together with the four-cubit excess of the long 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 short side.

For everything beneath the crossbeam is an opening, and it is impossible for an opening to be more than ten cubits wide.

They raised a question before them: What is the law concerning using [carrying] in all ordinary alleyways

beneath the crossbeam?

beneath the crossbeam?

Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is permitted to use beneath the crossbeam. [see illustration 1]

Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is forbidden to use beneath the crossbeam.

And we considered it:

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

those amoraim who hold that it is permitted to use beneath the crossbeam,

holds

that

the crossbeam is effective because of recognition,

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

And the other,

those amoraim who hold that it is forbidden to use beneath the crossbeam,

holds

that

the crossbeam is because of a partition,

and its inner edge is the part of the partition that descends and closes; it follows that beneath the crossbeam there is no partition, and therefore it is forbidden to use beneath it.

And we reject this:

No,

they do not disagree about this.

Rather,

everyone

holds that

the crossbeam is because of recognition.

And here they disagree about this:

One master holds: the recognition

of the crossbeam is

on the inside,

for the recognition is required for those inside the alleyway, and the recognition is the inner side of the thickness of the crossbeam; therefore it is forbidden to use beneath the crossbeam itself, which stands outside the recognition.

And the other,

who permits using beneath the crossbeam,

holds: 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 crossbeam’s thickness; therefore it is permitted to use even beneath the crossbeam.

And if you wish, say: everyone

holds that a crossbeam is

because of a partition.

And here they disagree about this: one master holds: the inner edge

of the crossbeam

descends and closes,

and beneath the crossbeam is outside the partition, so it is forbidden to use beneath it.

And the other holds: the outer edge

of the crossbeam

descends and closes,

and beneath the crossbeam is inside the partition, so it is permitted to use beneath it.

Rav Ḥisda said: All

those who disagree about whether it is permitted to use beneath the crossbeam

agree concerning between the side-posts

[if one permitted ordinary alleyways with side-posts], that is, on the side of the side-post,

that it is forbidden

to use and carry there, but only from its edge—perhaps one should say, its inner edge—and inward.

And the reason is: because the measure of a side-post is even something minimal, and if we permit carrying between the side-posts, one will come to carry outside 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 crossbeam upon them,

the pegs outside the alleyway, and aligned the inner edge of the crossbeam with the edge of the alleyway -

what

is the law: may one permit the alleyway with this crossbeam? [see illustration 1]

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda to Rami bar Ḥama:

According to the opinion of the one who permits

using beneath the crossbeam in an ordinary alleyway—and because he holds that the outer edge of the crossbeam descends and closes—

it is forbidden

to use in an alleyway in which one placed its crossbeam upon pegs. Since the outer edge of the crossbeam descends and closes, it follows that the closing of the partition is not attached to the walls of the alleyway, for there is air the width of the crossbeam between them.

And

according to the opinion of the one who forbids

using beneath the crossbeam in an ordinary alleyway—and because he holds that the inner edge of the crossbeam descends and closes—

it is permitted

to use in an alleyway in which one placed its crossbeam upon pegs, for the inner edge of the crossbeam is adjacent to the walls, and its closing is attached to the walls, and it is effective!

Rava said: According to the opinion of the one who forbids

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

it is also forbidden

to use in an alleyway in which one drove its crossbeam upon pegs. Because a crossbeam outside the alleyway is not effective; rather,

we require a crossbeam upon the alleyway, and

here

there is no

crossbeam upon the alleyway!