Eruvin 95a — the Talmud in English

A beam

four

handbreadths

wide, placed upon four stakes, is

permitted [

above, page 86a]

in a ruin

that is breached toward the public domain. For we say: “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,” at the four edges of the beam.

And Rav Naḥman

added:

Rabba bar Avuha said: A beam

four

handbreadths wide permits [

above, page 86a]

in water,

when it is placed above, in the middle of a cistern between two courtyards [whose residents are forbidden to draw water even from that part of the cistern that is in their domain—and as was explained above, page 86a—until they make a separating partition in the cistern; and if they placed this beam in the middle of the cistern above, we say of it: “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes”].

Whose opinion is it?

That is to say: In accordance with whom did Rav Yehuda say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,” even at four edges?

And we explain:

According to that formulation in which you said that with regard to ten they do not disagree,

it is speaking

of

a ruin whose width is no greater than

ten

cubits, and it is because of a “doorway” that we permit the ruin,

and it is the opinion of everyone

.

According to that formulation in which you said that with regard to ten they disagree,

it necessarily follows that this statement comes only

according to Rav,

but according to Shmuel, no, since here there is “the edge of the ceiling” on four partitions.

Shall we say that Abaye and Rava—

they disagree in the dispute between Rav and Shmuel?

For it was stated: If one roofed

a courtyard surrounded by porticos [galleries] adjoining houses and open to the courtyard, and he rested the roofing—which he made over the courtyard between the porticos—

upon

the edge of the roof of the

portico

on all sides of the sukka.

If the matter is speaking

of one that has

for the portico, on its side open to the courtyard,

posts,

whose partitions are pillars like windows, with less than three handbreadths between them—

the sukka is fit,

for we say concerning them lavud, and the sukka has partitions.

But if it

does not have—

the portico on all the sides of the sukka—

posts,

and it is completely open, it follows that the sukka in the courtyard has no partitions [and although the houses have partitions, since they are four cubits distant from the sukka, they are not partitions—Rashi there]:

Abaye said: It is fit.

And Rava said: It is unfit.

And we explain their dispute:

Abaye said, it is fit,

because

he said

Abaye holds:

the edge of the ceiling—

of the portico adjoining the courtyard—

descends and closes.

Rava said, it is unfit,

because

he did not say

he holds

that the edge of the ceiling descends and closes.

And now we say:

Shall we say that Abaye

holds

like Rav,

and

Rava

holds

like Shmuel?

For it entered our mind that Rava’s reason is because he holds that only with one partition or with two do we say “it descends and closes,” but with regard to every side we do not say so.

And we reject this:

According to Shmuel, everyone agrees.

And this is what it says: According to Shmuel, certainly it is as you said: Rava alone says like Shmuel, while Abaye cannot establish his words like Shmuel.

And according to Shmuel, Abaye did not disagree and say that it is fit [Rashi there], for certainly the sukka is unfit according to Shmuel, since we do not say “the edge of the ceiling” on every side.

They disagree—

Abaye and Rava—

according to Rav.

That is to say: What you said, that Rava is like Shmuel and not like Rav, is not so! Rather, Rava too stated his position according to Rav.

And this is the point of their disagreement:

Abaye—

who declares the sukka fit—holds

like Rav,

who holds that “the edge of the ceiling” applies even on every side.

And Rava

will say to you:

Rav said only there

that we say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,”

but

since

these partitions—that is to say, those beams placed upon four pillars, which are the edge of the ceiling—

that is, those beams placed on four posts, which constitute the edge of the ceiling—

were made for the portico

that we are coming to close, they are

made [

for that purpose].

But here, when we are coming to close the sukka in the courtyard by means of the edge of the ceiling of the portico,

these partitions [

the edge of the ceiling]

are not

for the sake of the

sukka

that is outside the portico; rather, they are

made—

not

does the edge of the ceiling of the portico descend and close the sukka.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yose says: If they are permitted

for that Shabbat, they are permitted for the future; and if they are forbidden for the future, they are forbidden for that Shabbat:

It was asked of them:

Does

Rabbi Yose come to prohibit

even for the future,

or to permit

even for that Shabbat?

Rav Sheshet said: To prohibit! And Rabbi Yoḥanan likewise said: To prohibit!

It was also taught so: Rabbi Yose said: Just as they are forbidden for the future, so they are forbidden for that Shabbat.

It was stated:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav [Baḥ]:

Bach]:

The halakha is according to Rabbi Yose.

Shmuel said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that they are permitted for that Shabbat and forbidden for the future.

And we raise a difficulty:

But did Shmuel say so?!

But we learned

in the Mishna above, in the chapter “Window”: One may not establish an eruv for a person except with his knowledge.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When are these words applicable? With regard to a boundary eruv.

But with regard to courtyard eruvin, one may establish an eruv whether with knowledge or without knowledge, because one may confer a benefit upon a person without his presence [

with his knowledge],

but one may not impose a liability upon him without his presence.

And a boundary eruv is at times a liability for him, since he loses the city boundary on the side opposite his eruv.

And

he said concerning it:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda. And furthermore, wherever Rabbi Yehuda taught a law concerning eruvin, the halakha is according to him.

And Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said to Rav Yehuda:

Did

Shmuel say—

that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda—

even with regard to an alleyway whose beam or side-post was removed,

as in our Mishna?

And he said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

With regard to eruvin I told you

in the name of Shmuel that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda,

but not with regard to partitions,

as in our Mishna!

Here it is explicitly apparent that Shmuel does not hold that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda in our Mishna?!

He said

in response,

Rav Anan: For me, it was explained to me by Shmuel himself:

Here, where it was breached toward a karmelit,

in this case Shmuel permits it, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Here, where it was breached toward the public domain,

in this case we do not permit it even for that Shabbat.

Mishna:

One who builds an upper story over two houses

standing on the two sides of the public domain, so that the public domain passing beneath the upper story is roofed by a ceiling—we say: the edge of the ceiling descends and closes the two sides of the passage beneath the ceiling toward the public domain, and the roofed area becomes a private domain, since it is surrounded by four partitions: the two walls of the houses on the two sides, and the two closures produced by “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes.”

And likewise two bridges that are open through,

with two partitions beneath them upon which the bridge rests, while the public domain passes beneath it, through the two sides open toward the public domain—we say: the edge of the ceiling [the roofing of the bridge above the public domain passing beneath it] descends and closes, and therefore:

One may carry beneath them on Shabbat; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

But the Sages prohibit,

and it will be clarified below whether the prohibition is from the Torah or rabbinic.

And Rabbi Yehuda further said: One may establish an eruv

of courtyard eruvin and alleyway partnerships

for an alleyway open through,

toward the public domain, when it has two partitions on its sides.

Because Rabbi Yehuda holds that two partitions make the place between them a private domain.

But the Sages prohibit

establishing an eruv, because the place does not become a private domain until it is surrounded by at least three partitions.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that one who builds an upper story over two houses standing on the two sides of the public domain, and likewise bridges beneath which the public domain passes, may carry beneath them, according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabba said: Do not say that this is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda

who permitted carrying beneath the ceiling: it is because

he holds

that Rabbi Yehuda considers

two partitions

to make the public domain passing between them a private domain by the law

of the Torah.

Rather, because he holds

that Rabbi Yehuda considers

the edge of the ceiling

of the upper story and the bridge

to descend and close

the two sides open toward the public domain, and it follows that there are four partitions here.

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba:

We learned in a beraita:

A public domain that passes beneath the ceiling of a bridge, or a roofed public domain: one may carry beneath the ceiling on Shabbat; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yehuda said further:

Even if it was an unroofed public domain, in which it is impossible to say that the edge of the ceiling descends and closes, but there was:

One who had two houses,

one opposite the other,

on the two sides of the public domain—

it is a private domain, by virtue of the two partitions of the walls of the houses on the two sides of the public domain.

However, it is still necessary to remedy that place between the partitions so that it will be possible to carry in it, since it is open toward the public domain. The Sages decreed that alleyways open toward the public domain require a remedy by means of a side-post or a beam.

Therefore,

he makes a side-post for it here,

on one side of the wall of the house,

and a side-post here,

on the other side of the wall of the house.

Or

he places

a beam

from house to house

here,

on one side of the opening toward the public domain,

and a beam here,

on the other side of the opening toward the public domain.

And he conducts business

and carries

in the middle,

between the two houses, as the law of an alleyway that they remedied with a side-post and a beam.

The Sages said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Yehuda: Two partitions do not make a place a private domain; only three partitions do. Therefore,

one may not establish an eruv [

remedy]

the public domain in this manner,

with a side-post or a beam!

And Abaye challenges Rabba: It is proven from this beraita that according to Rabbi Yehuda, with two partitions a place becomes a private domain, and not as Rabba said!

He said to him,

Rabba to Abaye:

From that

beraita that you brought—

yes,

there is indeed proof according to your words, that the reason of Rabbi Yehuda is because he holds that two partitions make a private domain by Torah law.

But my intention was to say that

from this,

from our Mishna,

nothing can be inferred from it

that two partitions make a private domain by Torah law.

Since in our Mishna itself, it would be possible to say that the reason it is permitted to carry beneath the ceiling is not because of two partitions; rather, there are four partitions here, by the law that the edge of the ceiling descends and closes.

Rav Ashi said: The Mishna—

also proves it!

Rashi brings two versions and two divergent explanations of Rav Ashi’s words.

First, Rav Ashi’s words will be explained according to the second explanation in Rashi, because it accords with the version of the Gemara before us [and Rashi himself wrote that the second formulation appears more plausible, as does our version].

A. Rav Ashi comes to strengthen Rabba’s words, saying that from the wording of our Mishna it can be proved that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason in the first law of our Mishna is based on the law that the edge of the ceiling descends and closes, and not on the fact that two partitions constitute a private domain by Torah law [although Rabbi Yehuda holds that two partitions constitute a private domain, this is his reason in the second law and not in the first].

Since it teaches

in our Mishna

“And Rabbi Yehuda further said: One may establish an eruv in an alleyway open through, but the Sages prohibit”,

Granted, if you say

that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason in the first law of our Mishna is

because he holds

that Rabbi Yehuda considers it a private domain by virtue of

the edge of the ceiling descending and closing—

well,

this is what it teaches

in the second law:

“And further”

Rabbi Yehuda said that it is permitted not only because of the edge of the ceiling, but also because of two partitions. Therefore, even in a place where there is no edge of the ceiling but only two partitions, such as an alleyway open through, it too is a private domain and an eruv may be established in it.

But if you say

that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason in the first law of our Mishna is

because he holds that two partitions are a matter of Torah law,

and this is also his reason in the second law—

what

new thing is introduced by his saying in the second law

“and further”?

After all, according to your words, the law of two partitions was already explained in the first matter of the Mishna.

Rather,

infer from it

that in the first matter of the Mishna only the law of the edge of the ceiling was explained, and only in the second matter was the law of two partitions explained. This accords with Rabba’s words, who said that from the first law in our Mishna it is impossible to know that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is that he holds that two partitions are a matter of Torah law, because his law is based on the edge of the ceiling descending and closing [although, as stated, Rabbi Yehuda holds that two partitions constitute a private domain by Torah law].

B. According to the first version in Rashi, the explanation of the Gemara is as follows:

Rav Ashi comes to disagree with Rabba and to say that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason even in the first matter is based on the law of two partitions and not on the edge of the ceiling!

And this is what Rav Ashi said:

The Mishna also proves that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason in the first law is based on two partitions and not on the edge of the ceiling.

Since it teaches: “And Rabbi Yehuda further said.”

Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason in the first clause is because of two partitions, it is well that he says there is another example in which they permit because of two partitions. And from the second example there is proof for the first, that there too, without the reason of the edge of the ceiling, but solely because of two partitions, Rabbi Yehuda permits.

But if you say that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason in the first clause is because of the edge of the ceiling, what is the “further” that he says? After all, this is not an additional example, but a law based on another reason! Infer from it that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason in the first clause is because of two partitions, and not as Rabba said!

We shall return to you, chapter “All Roofs.”

Mishna:

One who finds tefillin

on Shabbat in the field, which is a place where they are being degraded

brings them in

to the city, to a place that is guarded,

one pair at a time.

He puts on the head-tefillin on his head and the arm-tefillin on his arm, as he puts them on during the week, and enters. And he again brings in another pair, one pair at a time, until he brings in all of them.

And in this way he is not considered to be carrying a burden from the public domain to the private domain, because putting on tefillin is the manner of clothing.

But more than one pair at a time is carrying, and is forbidden.

Rabban Gamliel says:

even

two pairs at a time

is permitted at once. That is, he brings them in while wearing two tefillin-houses on his head and two on his arm. Their dispute will be explained in the Gemara.

In what case is this statement said,

that he is obligated to bring them into the city?

In

a find of

old ones,

whose straps show the impression of the knot that they customarily make in tefillin, for they are certainly tefillin, and they possess sanctity, and it is forbidden to leave them there in degradation.

But with new ones,

in which the knot is not recognizable,

he is exempt

from bringing them in, lest they are not tefillin but merely an amulet made in the form of tefillin.

And they do not possess the sanctity of tefillin, because they were not made for the sake of tefillin; therefore one does not desecrate Shabbat for them.

If he found them in bundles,

piles upon piles of tefillin, each pair tied separately,

or

he found

bundles,

where all the tefillin are tied together in each pile, and he will not suffice to bring all of them in one pair at a time before Shabbat ends—the Sages did not permit him to bring them in on Shabbat, since in any event he will have to remain there until Shabbat ends.

Rather,

he remains there until dark for them,

waits there and guards them until it becomes dark,

and brings them

all at once.