Eruvin 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Adda bar Mattana raised an objection to Rava: If its beam was

the beam of a mavoi

projecting

outward from the walls of the mavoi—for example, one drove two pegs into the tops of the walls of the mavoi, extending outward, and placed the beam upon them. [See illustration

or

if the beam was

suspended

over the airspace of the mavoi, between the two walls and at the same height as them—for example, one drove a pole into the center of the entrance to the mavoi, placed the beam upon it, and it was not resting on the walls of the mavoi [see illustration 3]—if the beam that was “projecting” was distant from the mavoi, or if the ends of the “suspended” beam were distant from the walls of the mavoi

less than three

handbreadths—

it is not necessary to bring another beam.

For we apply the principle of lavud, regarding it as though the beam had been extended lengthwise and widthwise until the walls of the mavoi, and it is valid.

However, if the projecting or suspended beam was distant from the walls of the mavoi

three

handbreadths or more, so that it is not subject to lavud with regard to the walls of the mavoi—

it is necessary to bring another beam.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel [who maintains that we apply lavud up to four handbreadths]

who maintains that the principle of lavud applies up to four handbreadths,

says:

Less than four

handbreadths,

it is not necessary to bring another beam.

Only if it was distant

four

handbreadths

is it necessary to bring another beam.

The Gemara analyzes this:

Is it not the case that “projecting”

as stated in the beraita means that it projects

outside

the mavoi, as we explained?

And “suspended,”

as stated in the beraita, means that it stands

inside

the mavoi, but is too short to reach the walls of the mavoi, as we explained.

And now this is difficult: We see that the “projecting” beam is deemed valid, meaning that one drove a beam onto two pegs, even if its inner edge is not adjacent to the mavoi. This is unlike Rav Ḥisda, who said: According to the one who permits, it is prohibited. And it is unlike Rava, who said that according to everyone it is prohibited!

And we answer:

No.

“Projecting” does not have the meaning we explained, namely, that the beam stands outside the mavoi.

Rather,

one—whether in the case of “projecting”

or

or one—whether in the case of “suspended”—the beam is

inside

the mavoi, but it does not stand upon both walls of the mavoi or adjoin both of them; rather, it is suspended.

The distinction between them is as follows:

“Projecting”—

it stands upon one wall of the mavoi or adjoins it only

on one side. [See illustration

“And “suspended”—

it is suspended in the airspace of the mavoi and rests upon neither wall nor adjoins them

on either side. [See illustration

The tannaitic sage had to mention two forms of a “hanging” crossbeam, in order to teach us that even a crossbeam hanging entirely in the air on both sides is subject to the principle of lavud if it is not three handbreadths away.

The tanna had to mention two forms of “suspended” in order to teach us that even a beam completely suspended on both sides is subject to lavud if it is not distant by three handbreadths.

For

it might have entered your mind

that only

on one side do we apply lavud,

but

on two sides we do not apply lavud—

it teaches us

that the tanna of the beraita says that we apply lavud even on two sides.

Rav Ashi said:

There is no need to answer as you did, that the “projecting” beam is also suspended, except that “projecting” refers only to a beam suspended on one side. For what difference is there between a beam suspended on one side and one suspended on two sides? The tanna of the beraita would not need to teach us both cases.

Rather, this is how it should be answered: When the beraita states “projecting” and “suspended,” it is not speaking of two different beams.

Rather, it is speaking of a single beam situated above the mavoi, at its entrance, which is too short to reach the walls of the mavoi and is also elevated above them. That is:

a. It is

projecting

at a distance from both walls of the mavoi. [See illustration 1] b.

And it,

that same beam, is also

suspended

at a height greater than the height of the walls of the mavoi.

And what are the circumstances? For example, one drove two bent pegs

[made in the shape of the letter dalet]

onto the two walls of the mavoi, [and the pegs themselves are not fit to serve as a valid beam, since they are not one handbreadth wide], with the faces of the pegs directed toward each other. They were placed there to support a short beam that would be laid upon them, between them.

the pegs themselves being unfit to serve as a valid crossbeam because they are not a handbreadth wide. Their faces point toward one another, and they were placed there to support a short crossbeam that would be placed on top of them, between them.

And, for example,

their height is not

[in the vertical section of the pegs]

three

handbreadths,

and

likewise

their bent sections do not have

[in the horizontal section of the pegs]

three

handbreadths. [See illustration 2] Therefore, although in actuality the beam is not resting on the walls of the mavoi, this beam is nevertheless considered to be resting upon the walls of the mavoi and upon the mavoi itself. For:

a. Since from the top of the beam placed on the tops of the pegs to the point opposite the walls of the mavoi there is no distance of three handbreadths, it is subject to lavud.

Therefore, it is considered as though the beam had been lengthened [by the length of the pegs] until it reached above the walls. b. Since it is less than three handbreadths high, we say ḥavot rammi [lower and place it], treating the beam as though it were resting upon the walls of the mavoi. The innovation of the beraita is:

It might have entered your mind

that we apply only one of the two principles:

either we apply lavud, or we apply ḥavot rammi.

But

lavud and ḥavot rammi

together

we do not apply.

It teaches us

that we apply both of them together.

The Gemara now returns to the matter it had been discussing: Is it permitted to use the area beneath the beam and between the leḥiyyot?

Rabbi Zakkai taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan:

The area situated

between

the

leḥiyyot

of the mavoi,

and

likewise the area situated

beneath the beam

of the mavoi—

is considered

a domain in its own right. Its status is

that of a karmelit [where, by rabbinic decree, it is prohibited to carry as in the public domain, and there are several types of karmelit], and therefore it is prohibited to carry there.

an area that, by rabbinic decree, may not be used for carrying as a public domain; there are several types of karmelit. Therefore, it is forbidden to carry there.

He said to him

Rabbi Yoḥanan to Rabbi Zakkai:

Go teach your beraita outside [go and recite your beraita outside the beit-midrash].

In other words: This beraita was never taught in the beit-midrash. Rather, the law is that it is permitted to carry there!

In other words, this baraitha was never taught in the study hall. Rather, the law is that it is permitted to carry there!

Abaye said: The statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is reasonable,

meaning that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself did not permit carrying everywhere, but only

beneath the beam.

This is because concerning this area we say: The outer edge of the beam descends and closes off the mavoi as far as the area beneath the beam, thereby permitting carrying there as well.

But

the area situated

between

the

leḥiyyot

Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees with Rabbi Zakkai that it is

prohibited

to carry there.

And Rava said: Between the leḥiyyot—

it is also permitted

to carry there according to Rabbi Yoḥanan!

Rava said: From where do I say this

that this is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position?

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

An area

situated between the private domain and the public domain

that does not contain four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths [the measure of a significant area]—since it is adjacent to two domains, it is “nullified toward both,” toward each of the domains adjacent to it. Therefore: [See illustration 1]

a. It does not become a karmelit, since it lacks the measure of a significant area required to establish it as a domain in its own right.

b. It cannot join one of the domains adjacent to it and be considered part of it, since it is not of the same type as that domain: It is neither a private domain nor a public domain.

Likewise, since it is adjacent to two domains, and it itself is not like either of them, its proximity to one domain prevents it from joining the other domain, for before it can join one domain it would have to be joined to the other!

c. That area has the status of a “place exempt,” and it is permitted to carry objects into it from either of the domains on its sides, since, due to its lack of significance, it is considered “nullified” toward both sides.

And since it is “nullified” toward every domain beside it—

it is permitted

both

for members of the public domain and

both

for members of the private domain to place burdens upon it.

They may place upon it burdens that they lifted from their own domain, in order to lift them from there again, place them on their shoulders, and carry them. Since the object is placed down in this area, which is nullified toward both sides, and lifted from this area, there is no prohibition of carrying from one domain to another!

Provided that they do not exchange

the burdens of the members of the public domain and those of the members of the private domain after they have been placed there, one with the other.

The prohibition against exchanging is only so that people will not say that it is permitted to carry from one domain to another, and thereby come to permit carrying on Shabbat.

And accordingly, Rava derives with regard to the area between the leḥiyyot that although this area is not rendered permitted by the leḥi, nevertheless, since it does not contain four handbreadths by four handbreadths, it has the status of a place exempt, and it is permitted to carry there!

And Abaye

would say to you: You have no proof from these words of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

For the area between the leḥiyyot is not comparable to a place exempt.

For

there,

in the case of a place exempt, the discussion is of an area

elevated

above the ground

three

handbreadths, making it recognizable.

But the area between the leḥiyyot is on the ground itself, and is not recognizable as a place distinct from the mavoi itself. Therefore, if we permit carrying there, people will err and carry into the public domain.

Abaye said: From where do I say

that according to Rabbi Yoḥanan it is prohibited to carry between the leḥiyyot?

For Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said in the name of Rav:

If the posts [the sideposts of the entrance] of the entrance to the mavoi were wide and extended slightly into the length of the mavoi, and these themselves were the leḥiyyot of the mavoi, then if one wishes to carry

within the entrance

in the area between the leḥiyyot—

he requires another leḥi to permit it

in the area within the entrance. [See illustration 1]

This proves that according to Rav it is prohibited to use the area between the leḥiyyot.

And since this is the halakha, and we do not find that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with it, we have no reason to establish a disagreement between them without basis. [Ritva]

And if you would say

that there it is different, as the case is one

where there is

in the area between the posts a width of four

four

handbreadths [the posts were four handbreadths wide when positioned along the length of the mavoi],

by four

handbreadths, across the width of the entrance—and every area measuring four by four is a domain in its own right and is a karmelit, prohibited for carrying by rabbinic decree. [See illustration 2] This cannot be the explanation, because:

But Rav Ḥanin bar Rava said in the name of Rav:

The area that is

“within the entrance,”

even

though it does not contain four by four—

requires another leḥi to permit it!

And Rava

would say to you: The statement of Rav provides no proof against my ruling permitting one to carry within the entrance, between the leḥiyyot, under the status of a place exempt.

For

there,

in Rav’s statement prohibiting carrying within the entrance, the case is one

where the entrance of

the mavoi is

open to a karmelit,

so that the area “within the entrance” joins the karmelit outside it, and the entire joined area is considered a karmelit. Consequently, the designation “place exempt” is removed from the area between the leḥiyyot.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But

if the entrance is

to the public domain, what then?

Is it

permitted

to carry there under the status of a place exempt?!

The citizen is on the earth, while the stranger is in the heavens! [This is a proverb: The citizen sits on the earth, while the stranger is in the heavens.] Is it possible that when a mavoi is open only to a rabbinically defined karmelit, carrying within its entrance is prohibited, whereas when it is open to a public domain prohibited by Torah law, carrying there is permitted?!

The Gemara explains this:

And we explain it:

No.

Indeed, the area at an entrance open to a karmelit is certainly of a lower status than an entrance open to the public domain! The entire status of this area as a “place exempt” is only because it is distinct from the domains adjacent to it and because it lacks the significance of an independent area.

For had that area possessed the significance of an independent area measuring four by four, it would certainly be considered a karmelit.

Only because it does not contain four handbreadths—the measure required for an area to be significant—is it considered a place exempt and nullified toward both sides.

But when this area is adjacent to a karmelit, the area between the leḥiyyot joins the karmelit adjacent to it, for

a type

[inside the entrance]

encounters its own type

[outside it]

and

it is as though it

“awakens

from its sleep”!

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: And

if

you do not agree [do you not concede]

that

that

according to Rabbi Yoḥanan

it is prohibited between the leḥiyyot?!

But Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A mavoi whose entrance was lined with leḥiyyot

[where several continuous leḥiyyot were erected from the entrance of the mavoi inward, for a distance of two or three cubits, with]

less than four

handbreadths [and more than three handbreadths] between each leḥi— -

we have arrived at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis. [See illustration 1]

They disagree above as to whether the measure of lavud extends up to three handbreadths, according to the Rabbis, or up to four handbreadths, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, explains that this is what he is saying:

According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says

that up to four handbreadths

we

apply lavud,

here too, since the gaps are less than four handbreadths, we consider all the leḥiyyot as one long leḥi. Therefore, one may not

use

the mavoi except

up to the inner edge of the innermost leḥi,

which is the inner edge of the leḥi, since we apply lavud!

According to the Rabbis, who say that we do not apply lavud

except up to three handbreadths [and not “up to and including” three], it follows that only the outermost leḥi is a leḥi through which the mavoi is permitted, while the rest are merely posts.

Therefore:

one may use the area up to the inner edge of

the

outermost leḥi!

And according to the way Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, explains Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, it is evident that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds:

But concerning the area between the leḥiyyot, everyone—

the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—agrees that

it is prohibited

to use it.

This supports Abaye!

And Rava

would say to you:

There too

the case is one

where

the mavoi was

open to a karmelit,

in which case Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees that it is prohibited to use the area between the leḥiyyot.

And we challenge this:

But if it is open to the public domain, what then—

is it

permitted?!

The citizen is on the earth, while the stranger is in the heavens?!

And we answer:

Yes; a type encounters its own type and awakens!