Eruvin 9a — the Talmud in English

Rav Adda bar Matana raised an objection to Rava: It was ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location") the beam of a mavoy

drawn out

from the walls of the mavoy outward, as, for example, one inserted at the top of the walls of the mavoy two lying pegs directed outward and placed the beam upon them. [See illustration 2]

or

the beam was

suspended

over the airspace of the mavoy between the two walls, and at a height equal to them. For example, one inserted a pole in the middle of the opening of the mavoy and placed the beam upon it, and it is not resting upon the walls of the mavoy: [see illustration 3] if the beam that is “drawn out” was distant from the mavoy, or if the ends of the “suspended” beam were distant from the walls of the mavoy

less than three

handbreadths—

one need not bring another beam.

For we say lavud, and it is as though it were extended along its length and width until the walls of the mavoy, and it is valid.

But if the drawn-out or suspended beam was distant from the walls of the mavoy

three

handbreadths or more, so that it is not lavud to the walls of the mavoy—

one must bring another beam.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel [

who holds that we say lavud up to four handbreadths]

says:

Less than four

handbreadths

one need not bring another beam.

And only if it was distant

four

handbreadths

must one bring another beam.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Is it not that “drawn out”

stated in the beraita means that it is drawn out

outside

the mavoy, as we explained?

And “suspended”

stated in the beraita means that it stands

inside

the mavoy, but it is short and does not reach the walls of the mavoy, as we explained.

And now this is difficult: for we see that we validate “drawn out,” meaning that one inserted a beam upon two pegs, even if its inner edge is not adjacent to the mavoy. And this is not in accordance with Rav Hisda, who said: according to the words of the one who permits, it is forbidden. And not in accordance with Rava, who said that according to everyone it is forbidden!?

And we answer:

No.

“Drawn out” does not mean as we explained, that the beam stands outside the mavoy.

Rather,

one—whether with regard to “drawn out”

or with regard to “suspended,”

one—the beam is

inside

the mavoy, but it does not stand upon the two walls of the mavoy, or touch both of them; rather, it is suspended. And the distinction between them is:

The distinction between them is as follows:

“Drawn out”—it stands upon the wall of the mavoy or touches it only

It stands on the wall of the alleyway or adjoins it on only

from one direction. [See illustration 1]

And “suspended”—it is suspended in the airspace of the mavoy, and does not rest upon the walls or touch them

It hangs in the air over the alleyway and does not rest on the walls or adjoin them

from two directions. [See illustration 2]

And the tannay had to state two forms of “suspended” in order to teach us that even a beam entirely suspended from its two sides, if it is not distant three handbreadths, we say lavud concerning it.

For

it might have entered your mind

that only

from one direction do we say lavud,

but from two directions we do not say lavud—

it teaches us

that the tannay in the beraita teaches that we say lavud even from two directions.

Therefore, he teaches us

Rav Ashi said:

It cannot be answered as you said, that “drawn out” too is suspended, except that “drawn out” is called so only from one direction. For what difference is there to me between suspended from one direction and suspended from two directions? The tannay of the beraita would not need to teach us both. Rather, this is how it is to be answered: when the beraita says “drawn out” and “suspended,” it is not speaking of two different beams.

Rather, it is speaking of one beam, situated above the mavoy, at its entrance, which is short, does not reach the walls of the mavoy, and is also raised above it. That is:

A. It is

drawn out

at a distance from both walls of the mavoy. [See illustration 1] B.

And it,

the very same beam, is also

suspended

at a height, its height being greater than the height of the walls of the mavoy.

And what are the circumstances? For example, one inserted two crooked pegs

[made in the form of a dalet]

upon the two walls of a mavoy,

[and the pegs themselves are not fit to serve as a valid beam, since they do not have a breadth of one handbreadth], with the faces of the pegs directed toward one another, placed there in order to support a short beam that would be placed upon them, between them.

And for example:

their height is not

[in the vertical part] of the pegs

three

handbreadths,

and likewise

their bend does not have

[in the horizontal part] of the pegs

three

handbreadths. [See illustration 2]

Therefore, although in actuality it is not resting upon the walls of the mavoy, nevertheless this beam is considered as resting upon the walls of the mavoy, and upon the mavoy itself. For:

A. Since from the top of the beam placed upon the tops of the pegs until opposite the walls of the mavoy there is not a distance of three handbreadths, it is lavud. Therefore, the matter is considered as though the beam had been lengthened [like the length of the pegs] until it reaches above the walls. B. Since it is less than three handbreadths high, we say “strike and place” [lower and rest] the beam as though it were resting upon the walls of the mavoy. And the novelty of the beraita is: it might have entered your mind

handbreadths. [See diagram 2] Therefore, although in reality the crossbeam does not rest on the walls of the alleyway, this crossbeam is considered to be resting on the walls and over the alleyway itself. This is because:

that only one of the two do we say:

either we say lavud, or we say strike and place.

But

both lavud and strike-and-place

together

we do not say.

It teaches us

that we say both of them together.

And now the Gemara returns to the matter with which it was occupied: whether it is permitted to use beneath the beam and between the cheek-posts.

Rabbi Zakkai taught before Rabbi Yohanan:

The place situated

between

the

cheek-posts

of the mavoy,

and likewise the place situated

beneath the beam

of the mavoy—

is judged

as an independent domain. And its law is

like a karmelit

[in which it is rabbinically forbidden to carry as in the public domain, and there are several types of karmelit], and therefore it is forbidden to carry there.

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Rabbi Zakkai:

Go and teach it outside

[go out and teach your beraita outside].

That is to say: this beraita was never taught in the beit-midrash. Rather, the law is that it is permitted to carry there!

Abaye said: The statement of Rabbi Yohanan is reasonable,

meaning: Rabbi Yohanan himself did not permit carrying except

beneath the beam.

For concerning this place we say: the outer edge of the beam descends and closes the mavoy until the place beneath the beam, and permits carrying there as well.

But

the place situated

between

the

cheek-posts—

Rabbi Yohanan agrees there with the words of Rabbi Zakkai that it is

forbidden

to carry there.

And Rava said: Between the cheek-posts—

also permitted

to carry there, according to Rabbi Yohanan!

to carry there.

Rava said: From where do I say this

that this is Rabbi Yohanan’s position?

For when Rav Dimi came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan:

A place

standing between the private domain and the public domain,

which does not contain four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths [the measure of an important place], since it is adjacent to two domains it is “nullified to both sides,” to each of the domains adjacent to it. Therefore: [see illustration 1]

A. It does not become a karmelit, since it does not have the measure of an important place by which to establish it as an independent domain.

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

And likewise, since it is adjacent to two domains, while it itself is not like either of them, its adjacency to one domain removes from it the possibility of joining the other domain, because until it joins the one domain, it must be joined to the other domain!

C. The law of a “place of exemption” applies in that place, and it is permitted to carry into it from any domain at its sides, since, owing to its lack of importance, it is considered “nullified” to both sides.

And since it is “nullified” to every domain at its side—

it is permitted

both

for the members of the public domain and

both

for the members of the private domain, to shoulder upon it.

For it is permitted for them to place upon it burdens that they lifted from their domain, in order to lift them from there again, place them upon their shoulders, and carry them. For in placing the object in this place and lifting it from this place, which is nullified to both sides, there is no prohibition of carrying from one domain to another!

Provided that they do not exchange

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

And the prohibition of exchanging is only so that people should not say that it is permitted to carry from one domain to another, and they will come to permit carrying on Shabbat.

They may place on it loads that they lifted from their own domain, in order to lift them from there again, place them on their shoulders, and carry them. Placing an object in this area and lifting it from this area, which is nullified toward both sides, does not constitute the prohibited transfer from one domain to another!

And since this is so, Rava derives regarding the place between the cheek-posts that although this place is not permitted by means of the cheek-post, nevertheless, since it does not contain four handbreadths by four handbreadths, it has the law of a place of exemption, and it is permitted to carry there!

the loads of the members of the public domain and those of the private domain with one another after the loads have been placed there.

And Abaye

could say to you: You have no proof from these words of Rabbi Yohanan. For the place between the cheek-posts is not similar to a place of exemption.

For there,

in a place of exemption, it is speaking of a place

higher

than

three

handbreadths from the ground, which is recognizable.

But between the cheek-posts, which is on the ground itself and is not recognizable as a place distinct from the mavoy itself, if we permit carrying there, people will come to err and exchange, carrying into the public domain.

Abaye said: From where do I say

that according to Rabbi Yohanan it is forbidden to carry between the cheek-posts?

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

If the doorposts [side pillars] of the opening of the mavoy were broad and extended slightly into the length of the mavoy, and they themselves are the cheek-posts of the mavoy, then if one wishes to carry

within the opening

in the area between the cheek-posts—

he needs another cheek-post to permit it

for the place within the opening. [See illustration 1]

And it is proven that according to Rav it is forbidden to use the area between the cheek-posts.

And since it is the law, and we do not find that Rabbi Yohanan disagreed with him, we have no reason to establish a dispute between them without necessity. [Ritba]

And if you would say,

it is different there, for it is speaking

that there is

in the place between the doorposts a width of

four

handbreadths [the doorposts were four handbreadths wide when standing along the length of the mavoy],

by four

handbreadths, across the width of the opening, and every place that contains four by four is an independent domain and is a karmelit, and is rabbinically forbidden for carrying. [See illustration 2] It cannot be established in this manner. Since:

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

The place that is

“within the opening”,

even

though it does not contain four by four— requires another cheek-post to permit it!

And Rava

could say to you: From that statement of Rav there is no proof against what I permitted, to carry within the opening between the cheek-posts under the law of a place of exemption.

For

there,

in Rav’s statement, where he forbade carrying within the opening, it is speaking

that the opening is open

the opening of the mavoy

to a karmelit,

so that “within the opening” joins the karmelit outside it, and the entire joined area is judged as a karmelit. Through this, the name “place of exemption” is removed from the area between the cheek-posts.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

But

if the opening is

to the public domain, what—

is it

permitted

then to carry in it under the law of a place of exemption?!

A settled resident on the earth, and a stranger in the heavens! [

It is a parable: the citizen sits on the earth, and the stranger in the heavens]?! That is to say, is it possible that a mavoy open only to a rabbinic karmelit should have carrying forbidden within the opening, whereas when it is open to a Torah-level public domain, it should be permitted to carry within it?!

And we explain it:

No.

Indeed, certainly the place at the opening open to a karmelit is inferior to an opening open to the public domain! For the entire law of this place as a “place of exemption” is only because it is distinct from the domains adjacent to it, and because it lacks the importance of an independent place.

For if that place had the importance of an independent place measuring four by four, it would certainly be judged as a karmelit.

And only because it does not contain four—sufficient for the importance of a place—is it considered a place of exemption, and nullified to both sides.

But when this place is adjacent to a karmelit, the place between the cheek-posts joins the karmelit adjacent to it, for

a kind finds

[the one inside the opening]

its kind

[the one outside it]

and

as though it is

“awakened

from its sleep”!

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

if

you do not hold

[you do not agree]

that

according to Rabbi Yohanan

between the cheek-posts is forbidden?!

But Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A mavoy that was paved with cheek-posts

[in which several consecutive cheek-posts were erected from the entrance of the mavoy inward, over a distance of two or three cubits, and there are]

less than four

handbreadths [and more than three handbreadths] between each cheek-post— -

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

For they disagree above whether the measure of lavud is up to three handbreadths, according to the Rabbis, or up to four handbreadths, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

And 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 say lavud, here too, since it is less than four handbreadths, we consider all the cheek-posts as one long cheek-post. Therefore, one does not

use

the mavoy except

up to the inner edge of the innermost cheek-post,

which is its inner edge, since we say lavud!

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

except up to three handbreadths [and not “up to and including”], it follows that only the outermost cheek-post is a cheek-post, and through it the mavoy is permitted, while the rest are merely pillars.

Therefore:

one uses up to the inner edge of

the

outermost cheek-post!

And according to what Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, explained, concerning Rabbi Yohanan it is proven that Rabbi Yohanan holds:

But between the cheek-posts, according to everyone—

the Rabbis and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—agree that it is

forbidden

to use there.

And it is proven according to Abaye!

And Rava

could say to you:

There too

it is speaking

that

the mavoy was

open to a karmelit,

for Rabbi Yohanan agrees in that case that it is forbidden to use between the cheek-posts.

And we raise an objection:

But to the public domain, what—

is it

permitted?!

A settled resident on the earth and a stranger in the heavens?!

And we answer:

Yes, a kind finds its kind and is awakened!

But if it is open

to a public domain, what

then?

Is it

permitted?!

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

The Gemara answers: