Eruvin 94b — the Talmud in English

And

here it is speaking,

for example,

that it was not breached on two sides opposite one another, but

that it was breached

by one breach on two sides adjacent to one another,

at a corner.

And therefore, although the breach is not ten cubits wide, it is not an “opening,” since

people do not make an opening at a corner.

And below Shmuel explains the Mishna in a different manner].

We learned in the Mishna:

and likewise, a house that was breached on two of its sides

is permitted on that Shabbat, but is prohibited thereafter:

It entered our minds that it is speaking of a house that was breached by a breach wider than ten cubits.

And therefore we ask:

What is different about

the house being breached

on one side,

so that the house does not become prohibited [even thereafter], because

we say: the edge of the ceiling—

of the house—

descends and closes,

and there is no breach here, but rather a partition [or an opening].

If so, when the house is breached

on two sides as well,

it should not become prohibited! For

let us say: the edge of the ceiling descends and closes

all the breaches of the house!

The scholars of the house of Rav say

to answer

in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna is speaking of a case where the house was breached up to ten cubits, and whether it was breached on one side or on two, it does not become prohibited, because it is an “opening.”

And that which it becomes prohibited when it is breached on two of its sides is speaking

for example, when the house was breached

the house

at a corner

and this is “on two of its sides,” as in the case of the courtyard], and the place of the breach is not considered an opening there, since “people do not make an opening at a corner.”

And if it is because of “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,” with what are we dealing here? It was that

its roofing

of the house

was diagonal,

so that the roof was not flat and straight, but was made on a slope, and it did not have an “edge” at its end,

so that it cannot be said

of it

“the edge”

of the ceiling descends and closes.

And

Shmuel

answers the question above concerning the first clause of the Mishna, why the courtyard becomes prohibited when it is breached on two of its sides, and

he said:

There is no need to establish our Mishna as referring to a breach less than ten cubits wide and at a corner.

Rather, the Mishna is speaking

even of a

breach that is

wider than ten cubits.

And this that is difficult for you:

if so,

even

on one side as well

it should become prohibited.

This is not difficult. For indeed, even with a breach on one side the courtyard becomes prohibited if the width of the breach is more than ten cubits.

And that which the tan###nay stated it as a case where it was breached on two of its sides is

because of

the latter part of the first clause, concerning a

house

that was breached on two of its sides. For had the house been breached only on one side, it would not have become prohibited even if the breach were more than ten cubits, because we say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes.”

And we ask:

but the house itself is difficult:

why is it inferior when it is breached on two sides?

What is different

when the house is breached

on one side, for we say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,”

and for this reason it does not become prohibited.

If so, when the house is breached

on two sides—

let us also say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes!”

And furthermore,

we ask about what Shmuel said, that in a house we say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes”:

does Shmuel accept

this principle of the law of

“the edge of the ceiling descends and closes”?!

But it was stated

above [on page 90b]:

a portico

breached on all four sides, with its roofing standing on beams resting on four posts at the corners of the portico], העומדתstanding

in an open field

which is a karmelit:

Rav said: it is permitted to carry throughout all of it,

for we say: the edge of the ceiling [which is the thickness of the walls upon which the roofing rests, Rashi above] descends and closes. And as it is explained below.

And

Shmuel said: one may carry in it only within four cubits,

like any other open field, which is a karmelit.

And it is demonstrated that Shmuel does not accept “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes”

? And we answer the second question:

this is not difficult.

When he does not accept

for Shmuel that the edge of the ceiling descends and closes, it is only

in a

place where it is necessary to make

four

partitions by means of closing with the edge of the ceiling, as in the case of a portico in an open field.

But

where there is one ordinary partition, and it is not necessary to make partitions by closing with the edge of the ceiling, but only

three

partitions [and all the more so fewer than that, as in the case of our Mishna]—

he accepts

even according to Shmuel, that we say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes.”

But the first question,

nevertheless remains difficult.

For the first question still remains difficult: why do we not say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,” even when the house is breached on two of its sides?!

And it is impossible to say that Shmuel too establishes it as referring to roofing made diagonally. For necessarily, according to Shmuel, here it is speaking in a manner in which “the edge of the ceiling” applies, with the roof straight. For if not, even on one side we should not say “the edge of the ceiling,” Rashi.

And we answer: Shmuel could say to you:

j

as

they said

and forced

the scholars of the house of Rav, in the name of Rav,

to establish the Mishna with an interpretation that is not implied by the plain meaning of the Mishna [Ritba; and see Rashi], and they explain it as

for example, that the house was breached

the house

at a corner, and its roofing

is different from other roofs and is made

diagonally.

Here too,

I too will say to you, with a forced interpretation, that it is speaking of:

for example,

that

it was breached—

the wall together with the roofing upon it—

at a corner, and its roofing

was breached

on four sides.

That is to say: the breach in the roofing did not run along one straight diagonal line [from one end of the breach to the other], but along a “broken” line resembling steps, so that the roofing has four “edges” [parallel to the breached walls], which must be brought down in order to enclose all four sides of the house remaining beneath the roofing.

That is, in the eastern breach there is an edge of the ceiling of five cubits, and on its southern side an edge of the ceiling of four handbreadths.

And likewise on the northern side there is an edge of the ceiling of five cubits and something more, and on the western side an edge of the ceiling of four handbreadths.

And since this is so, we do not say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,” just as we do not say “the edge of the ceiling” with regard to a portico in an open field, since it is on four sides, as we said.

And we explain:

Shmuel did not say like Rav—

for he explains that the walls of the house were breached by a ten-cubit breach at a corner, and we do not say “the edge of the ceiling” because the roofing is made diagonally—because

a diagonal is not taught.

That is to say: the Mishna states merely “a house,” and the roofing of all houses is even, and is not made diagonally [but what Shmuel innovated, that the roofing too was breached, is included in “a house that was breached,” for it and its roofing were breached together, Rashi].

And Rav did not say like Shmuel—

for he explains that we do not say “the edge of the ceiling” because it was breached on four sides, and with four edges we do not say “the edge of the ceiling”—because

if so, this house would be

this house would be like

a portico

which requires closing with four edges.

And Rav

proceeds

according to his position, for he said: a portico—

it is permitted to carry throughout all of it,

for we say, even with regard to its four edges, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes.”

And as

it was stated,

that according to Rav we say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,” on four sides:

A portico

that is located

in an open field:

Rav said: it is permitted to carry throughout all of it.

And Shmuel said: one may carry in it only within four cubits.

And we explain it:

Rav said, it is permitted to carry throughout all of it,

because

we say: the edge of the ceiling descends and closes.

And Shmuel said,

one may not carry in it

except within four cubits,

because

we do not say that the edge of the ceiling descends and closes

with four partitions, as we said.

And we explain their dispute: where the openings of the portico are

of

a width of

ten

cubits, even on every side, everyone agrees that it is permitted to carry throughout all of it, even without “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,” since they are no wider than the measure of an opening.

When do they disagree? In a case

where the openings of the portico were wider

than ten

cubits. Since without “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes” they would be “breaches,” Rav and Shmuel disagree concerning whether we say “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes” with four partitions.

And there are those who say: in a case

where the openings of the portico were wider

than ten—

everyone agrees

that it is prohibited to carry in it.

When do they disagree? In a case where they are

wide

ten.

And we raise a question concerning it:

but this that Rav Yehuda said: