Eruvin 9b — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said:

it cannot be proven from that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan concerning an alleyway that was lined with leḥaya

because Rabbi Yoḥanan’s intention is not as Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua explained it.

Rather:

for example, when it was lined with leḥaya, each less than four

handbreadths apart—from the beginning of the alleyway to its end—

over a length of four cubits,

which is the measure of the length of an alleyway. [As we said above, page 5.] [See illustration 1]

And this is the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words:

According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that we apply the principle of lavud

where it is less than four handbreadths,

it becomes—

the entire group of adjoining leḥaya is transformed into a wall four cubits long—

of the alleyway!

That is, we regard it as a wall parallel to the wall of the alleyway, and it turns out that the alleyway has no leḥi at all.

And

therefore:

another leḥi is required,

less than four cubits long, in order

to permit it

for the alleyway [this was explained according to Rashi’s second interpretation].

And

according to the Rabbis, who say that we do not apply the principle of lavud

where it is three handbreadths,

another leḥi is not required to permit it

for the alleyway. For the outer leḥi alone is not four cubits long, and it is the one that permits the alleyway.

And according to this explanation, it does not emerge from here that, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, it is forbidden to use the area between the leḥaya.

And we raise an objection:

And according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

as you say, that for him the leḥi is ineffective, since through lavud it extends four cubits into the alleyway—in any event, let this leḥi be effective.

For presumably, the head of the outer leḥi does not stand flush with the head of the wall adjacent to it; rather, it protrudes outward, as all those who set up leḥaya do, drawing the leḥi slightly outward so that the leḥi will be visible from outside as well as from inside, showing that it was established there for the purpose of being a leḥi.

For if he does not draw the leḥi somewhat farther outward than the walls of the alleyway, but places it flush with them, it appears as though it merely adds to the thickness of the wall of the alleyway, and it is not recognizable from outside as a leḥi.

And if so: let

there be

that protrusion extending outward from the alleyway

as

a leḥi that is

visible

only

from outside

the alleyway, and

flush on the inside, so that from inside the alleyway it is not visible as having been placed there for the purpose of being a leḥi—and it should be effective. [See illustration 2]

And here too, that protrusion extending outward from the walls of the alleyway should be considered a leḥi, even though from inside the leḥi is not visible as a leḥi but as a wall.

And we answer:

What is the reason? It is only according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

for Rabbi Yoḥanan alone—that is, this statement concerning an alleyway lined with leḥaya, which is invalid according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, was said by Rabbi Yoḥanan.

And your difficulty is against Rabbi Yoḥanan: let it be considered visible from outside and flush on the inside. Since that is so, it is not a difficulty at all.

For

when

Ravin came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan

himself:

Visible from outside and flush on the inside—

it is not considered a leḥi!

It was stated:

A leḥi

visible

as a leḥi only to those standing

inside

the alleyway,

and

appearing as though it is

flush

with the wall of the alleyway to those standing

outside,

where he placed the leḥi inside the alleyway, adjacent to the wall, so that the outer edge of the leḥi ends flush with the outer edge of the wall from outside, and it appears to those standing outside as a thick wall [but one standing inside sees the inner edge of the leḥi, which protrudes from the wall]—

is considered a leḥi! [

See illustration 3] But a leḥi

visible

only

from outside and flush on the inside,

for example, where he did not place the leḥi inside the alleyway adjacent to the wall, but made it a continuation of the wall of the alleyway outward. And he made the leḥi thicker than the thickness of the wall, in such a manner that the excess thickness of the leḥi over the thickness of the wall does not protrude into the opening of the alleyway, but lies outside the alleyway [and the walls together with the leḥi appear like the Hebrew letter tav]. [See illustration 1]

And it turns out that it is visible as a leḥi only to those standing completely outside the alleyway [and even one standing opposite the alleyway from outside does not see a leḥi, but only a thick wall]; Rabbi Ḥiyya and

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi

disagree about it.

One said: It is considered a leḥi.

And one said: It is not considered a leḥi.

And we explain:

It can be conclusively established that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya who said that it is considered a leḥi.

For he taught,

that

Rabbi Ḥiyya

taught a beraita:

A wall

of an alleyway that is thick,

one side of which,

that is, part of the wall’s thickness is not equal in length to the other part, but

is recessed

from

its fellow. [

See illustration 2]

Whether it is visible from outside,

that is, the wall begins to become thicker after the beginning of the alleyway, from its entrance, and one standing outside sees part of the thickness of the wall [on the side of the alleyway] protruding inward from the opening of the alleyway;

and flush on the inside,

for after the wall begins to become thicker, it continues with a uniform thickness until the end of the wall, and it turns out that one standing inside the alleyway after the thickening begins does not see a leḥi. [See illustration 3]

And whether it is visible

as a leḥi at the entrance

from inside, [

see illustration 4]

and flush on the outside,

where at the head of the wall—toward the opening of the alleyway—it is thick, and afterward the wall is narrow. And it turns out that for one standing inside the alleyway after the wall becomes narrow, a protrusion in the wall is visible. But for one standing at the head of the wall, nothing is visible except a thick wall, and not a leḥi. [See illustration 5]

In every case, it

is considered a leḥi.

And we reject this:

Behold, we see that even “visible from outside and flush on the inside” is effective according to Rabbi Ḥiyya.

It can be conclusively established

—this is proof!

And we reject this:

And Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who holds—as you say—that visible from outside and flush on the inside is not considered a leḥi—

did

he perhaps

not hear this

beraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught?!

He certainly heard it.

Rather,

Rabbi Yoḥanan

heard it, but did not accept it

as the halakha.

And if so, it is quite possible to say that

Rabbi Ḥiyya too,

although he taught this beraita, nevertheless

did not accept it.

And we reject this: In any event, it can be conclusively established that

this one—

what?!

Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan,

it is possible to say that he

did not accept

this beraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught,

and therefore,

because he did not accept it, he

did not teach it.

But Rabbi Ḥiyya,

it is impossible to say that he did not accept the beraita that he himself taught.

For

if it were so that he did not accept it—

why did he teach it,

for what purpose did he teach it?!

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Visible from outside and flush on the inside is considered a leḥi.

As explained in the introduction to the tractate, the Sages enacted two ordinances concerning alleyways and courtyards, on two levels.

The first, with regard to defining the private domain as an enclosed domain: the private domain must be enclosed on all four of its sides and separated from the public domain or the karmelit on its sides.

And the second, with regard to defining the residents of the alleyways or the residents of the courtyards, who must be considered as being located in one private domain.

The leḥi, the crossbeam, and likewise the side-posts, are means that are effective on both levels: both to close off the private domain completely, and to define the place of the residents of the alleyways or the residents of the courtyards as being one private domain, so that they can establish an eruv and establish their dwelling in one house.

Two courtyards whose separating fence was breached completely, or an alleyway one of whose walls was breached completely into the courtyard adjacent to it, although the place is considered a completely enclosed private domain, it is forbidden to carry within them because of the Sages’ decree, as they required an eruv ḥatzerot among the residents of courtyards or the residents of alleyways that are completely open to one another.

And two explanations were stated by the later authorities in explanation of the matter.

Some hold that the complete breach between the courtyards causes the residents of the two courtyards to be considered as dwelling in one courtyard, and therefore they are required to make an eruv ḥatzerot among themselves.

And some hold that every place that is “completely breached” into a place to which it is forbidden to carry from this place, the Sages forbade carrying in it until one encloses it, or until one makes the two places into one place through a joint eruv.

In explaining the sugya, we adopted the first view, since it is evident from Rashi’s commentary in several places in the tractate that this is his approach.

But if there are side-posts between the courtyards, the side-posts divide the residents of the courtyards so that they will not be considered residents of one domain who are required to make an eruv ḥatzerot among themselves.

Rabba said: And we raise an objection against our teaching [

and it is necessary to answer concerning our statement]: Certainly, just as a leḥi visible from outside and flush on the inside is considered a leḥi, so too an opening whose side-posts are visible from outside but are not visible from inside is considered an “opening.”

And for example: where a wall on one side of a place was breached along its entire length into another place wider than it, so that at the place where it was breached no sign of side-posts is visible, whereas at the wider place into which it was breached, the side-posts of the wall appear as an opening!

And raise a difficulty against it from the Mishna [which we cited above, page 8a]:

For we learned:

A small courtyard that was breached

completely

into a

courtyard

large [

wider than it]—[See illustration 1]

Behold, the

large

courtyard is considered a courtyard in its own right, because the opening to the small courtyard is visible in it by means of the side-posts of the walls of the small courtyard, and the small courtyard is not considered part of it; therefore it is

permitted

to carry if the residents of the large courtyard make an eruv ḥatzerot for themselves.

And

if it were the

small

courtyard, which has no opening, since it was breached completely, it would be subordinate to the large courtyard into which it was breached and would be considered part of it; therefore it is

forbidden

to carry until it makes an eruv together with the large courtyard.

And it is for this reason that the large courtyard is permitted,

because it—

the small courtyard—

is considered

as the opening of the large courtyard, and two courtyards that have an opening between them may each make an eruv separately.

And if it is so

that visible from outside and flush on the inside is considered a leḥi and an opening,

the small courtyard too should be permitted—

when it makes an eruv for itself—

through its side-posts being visible from outside,

to one standing in the large courtyard,

and

even though

they are flush on the inside

for one standing in the small courtyard, who does not see side-posts at the breach.

Rabbi Zeira said:

The Mishna is not difficult.

For the Mishna is dealing

with

walls that enter and extend

the walls

of the

small into

the interior of the

large

courtyard by two or three cubits. And it turns out that the opening is at the end of the extended walls, whereas their side-posts are recessed behind it, and they cannot be associated with the breach to make it like an opening that has side-posts. [See illustration 1]

And we ask: Ultimately,

let us say lavud,

so that by the law of lavud the entire area between the heads of the walls of the small courtyard and the midpoint of the walls of the large courtyard can be considered as though it were filled with the walls of the small courtyard, and as though the walls of the small courtyard extend until the walls of the large courtyard.

And

through this

the small courtyard too should be permitted, for these are its side-posts. [See illustration 2]

And although they are not visible from inside, you have said that “visible from outside and flush on the inside” is considered a leḥi, and the same law applies to an opening?!

And if you would say,

and if you wish to resolve it and establish that it is dealing

with a case

where the walls are far apart [

where they are distant]—the walls of the small courtyard from the walls of the large courtyard—

considerably,

more than the measure for which we say “lavud,” namely, that they are three handbreadths or more apart.

This is not so. For:

And did Rav Adda bar Avimi not teach before Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi [the version in the Baḥ]

a beraita that explains the Mishna:

And this is what it teaches: The Mishna is dealing with a case where the width of the interior of the

small

courtyard was

ten

cubits, while the width of the interior of the

large was eleven

cubits, which are six handbreadths more, divided between the two sides of the small courtyard, three handbreadths on each side.

And the thickness of the walls of the small courtyard reduces the distance between the outer sides of the walls of the small courtyard and the walls of the large courtyard to less than three handbreadths, and if so, let us say lavud, and the small courtyard too should be permitted?!

Ravina said:

Here it is dealing with a case where the small courtyard does not enter the large courtyard at its midpoint.

Rather, it is dealing

with walls that are far apart,

the walls of the large courtyard from the small courtyard, in a different manner:

From this wall

of the small courtyard, they are distant only

by two

handbreadths [and there indeed there is lavud],

and

whereas

from this wall

of the small courtyard, they are distant

by four

handbreadths.

Therefore, you cannot say lavud except on one side, because on the other side there are more than three handbreadths [and it is dealing with a case where the thickness of the walls of the small courtyard is not more than one handbreadth]!

And we ask:

And

nevertheless,

let us say lavud

only

from one side, and the small courtyard should be permitted,

with one side-post?!