Eruvin 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said:

From this statement of Rabbi Yohanan concerning an alleyway in which posts were arranged along its length, no proof can be brought!

For Rabbi Yohanan’s intention is not as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, explained it.

Rather:

For example, where posts were arranged along its length, each less than four

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

over a distance 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 Yohanan’s statement:

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

when the gap is less than four handbreadths,

it becomes—

the entire series of adjoining posts, extending together over a length of four cubits, becomes the side wall of the

alleyway!

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

And

therefore:

another lehi is required,

extending less than four cubits, in order

to permit

the alleyway [as explained according to Rashi’s second interpretation].

And

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

when the gap is three handbreadths—

another lehi is not required to permit it

the alleyway. For the outermost lehi alone does not extend four cubits, and it is the one that permits the alleyway.

According to this explanation, it is not implied here that, according to Rabbi Yohanan, it is forbidden to use the area between the lehiyyin.

And we challenge this:

And according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

as you said, that according to him the lehi is ineffective, since by means of lavud it extends four cubits into the alleyway—in any event, this lehi should be effective.

For presumably, this case is not speaking of a situation in which the outer end of the lehi stands flush with the end of the adjacent wall. Rather, it projects outward, as all those who install lehiyyin do: they draw the lehi slightly outward so that the lehi will be visible from outside as well as from inside, indicating that it was fixed there for the purpose of serving as a lehi.

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

And if so:

let

that projection extending outward from the alleyway

be

a lehi that is

visible

only

from outside

the alleyway,

and flush on the inside,

so that from inside the alleyway it does not appear to have been placed there as a lehi; nevertheless, it should be effective. [See illustration 2]

Here too, that projection extending outward from the walls of the alleyway should be regarded as a lehi, even though from inside the lehi does not appear as a lehi but as a wall.

And we answer:

Is this matter relevant for any reason other than Rabbi Yohanan?

That is to say: this statement concerning an alleyway in which posts were arranged along its length, which is invalid according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, was Rabbi Yohanan who stated it.

Your difficulty is directed against Rabbi Yohanan: let it be regarded as visible from outside and flush on the inside. Since that is the case, it is not a difficulty at all.

For

when Ravin came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan

himself:

Visible from outside and flush on the inside—

it is not regarded as a lehi!

It was stated:

A lehi that is

visible

as a lehi only to those standing

inside

the alleyway,

and

appears

flush

with the wall of the alleyway to those standing

outside,

where the lehi was placed inside the alleyway adjacent to the wall, with the outer edge of the lehi ending flush with the outer edge of the wall, so that to those standing outside it appears as a thick wall [but one standing inside sees the inner edge of the lehi, which projects beyond the wall]—

it is regarded as a lehi! [

See illustration 3] But a lehi that is

visible

only

from outside and flush on the inside,

for example, where the lehi was not placed inside the alleyway adjacent to the wall, but was made as an extension of the alleyway wall outward. He made the lehi thicker than the wall, in such a way that the additional thickness of the lehi does not project into the entrance of the alleyway, but projects outward from the alleyway [and the walls together with the lehi appear like the Hebrew letter tav]. [See illustration 1]

Consequently, it is visible as a lehi only to those standing completely outside the alleyway [and even one standing opposite the alleyway from outside does not see a lehi, but only a thick wall]. Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi disagreed about it.

One said: It is regarded as a lehi.

disagree about it.

And one said: It is not regarded as a lehi.

And we explain:

It can be concluded that it was Rabbi Hiyya who said that it is regarded as a lehi.

For Rabbi Hiyya taught

the following

beraita:

A wall

of an alleyway that is thick,

one of whose sides

—that is, part of the wall’s thickness is not aligned along its length with the other part, but

is recessed

relative to it. [

See illustration 2]

Whether it is visible from outside,

meaning that the wall begins to become thicker after the beginning of the alleyway, viewed from its entrance, and one standing outside sees part of the wall’s thickness [on the side of the alleyway] projecting inward into the entrance of the alleyway;

or 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 therefore one standing inside the alleyway after the thickening begins does not see a lehi. [See illustration 3]

And whether it is visible

as a lehi at the entrance

from inside, [See illustration 4]

and flush on the outside,

for at the head of the wall—on the side of the alleyway entrance—it is thick, and afterward the wall becomes narrow. Consequently, one standing inside the alleyway after the wall has become narrow sees a projection in the wall. But one standing at the head of the wall sees only a thick wall, and not a lehi. [See illustration 5]

In every case,

it is regarded as a lehi.

We see, then, that even “visible from outside and flush on the inside” is effective according to Rabbi Hiyya.

It can be concluded:

this is proof!

And we reject this:

And Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds—as you say—that something visible from outside and flush on the inside is not regarded as a lehi—

did

he

not hear this

beraita taught by Rabbi Hiyya?!

He certainly heard it.

Rather,

Rabbi Yohanan

heard it, but did not accept it

as the halakha.

And if so, it can properly be said that

Rabbi Hiyya too,

although he taught this beraita, nevertheless

did not accept it.

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

this one—

what is the proof?!

Granted, with regard to Rabbi Yohanan,

it is possible to say that he

did not accept

this beraita taught by Rabbi Hiyya, and

therefore,

because he did not accept it,

he did not teach it.

But with regard to Rabbi Hiyya,

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

For

if indeed he did not accept it—

why did he teach it,

for what purpose did he teach it?!

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Something visible from outside and flush on the inside is regarded as a lehi.

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

The first concerns defining a private domain as an enclosed domain: the private domain must be enclosed on all four sides and separated from the public domain or the karmelit on its sides.

The second concerns defining the residents of the alleyways or courtyards as being considered present within a single private domain.

The lehi, the korah, and the posts are means that are effective on both levels: both to close off the private domain completely and to define the area of the residents of the alleyways or courtyards as a single private domain, so that they can establish an eruv and regard their dwellings as one residence.

If the partition between two courtyards was breached completely, or if one of the walls of an alleyway was breached completely into the adjacent courtyard, then, although the area is considered a fully enclosed private domain, it is forbidden to carry there because of a rabbinic decree. The Sages required an eruv of courtyards among the residents of courtyards or alleyways that are completely open to one another.

The later authorities offered two explanations of this matter.

Some maintain that a complete breach between the courtyards causes the residents of the two courtyards to be considered as living in one courtyard, and therefore they must establish an eruv of courtyards between them.

Others maintain that in every place that is “completely open” to a place into which it is forbidden to carry from this place, the Sages prohibited carrying there until it is enclosed, or until the two places are made into one place through a joint eruv.

In explaining the sugya, we have followed the first opinion, since Rashi’s commentary in several places in the tractate clearly indicates that this was his approach.

But if there are posts between the courtyards, the posts divide the courtyards between their residents, so that they are not considered residents of a single domain who must establish an eruv of courtyards with one another.

Rabba said: And we raise an objection from our teaching [and it is necessary to respond to our statement]: Surely, just as a lehi that is visible from outside and flush on the inside is regarded as a lehi, so too, an entrance whose side-posts are visible from outside but not visible from inside should be regarded as an “entrance.”

For example, where a wall on one side of an area was breached along its entire length into another area wider than it: at the place of the breach no sign of side-posts is visible, whereas in the wider area into which it was breached, the side-posts of the wall appear as an entrance!

And a difficulty may be raised against this from the Mishna [which we cited above, page 8a]:

For we learned:

A small courtyard that was breached in its entirety

to

a large

courtyard [which is wider than it]—[See illustration 1]

The

large

courtyard is regarded as an independent courtyard, because in it the entrance to the small courtyard is visible through the side-posts of the small courtyard, and the small courtyard is not considered part of it. Therefore it is

permitted

to carry in it if the residents of the large courtyard establish an eruv of courtyards for themselves.

And

if it were the

small

courtyard, which has no entrance, since it was breached in its entirety, it is nullified relative to the large courtyard into which it was breached and is considered part of it. Therefore it is

forbidden

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

And for this reason the large courtyard is permitted,

because it—

the small courtyard—is considered

the entrance of the large courtyard, and two courtyards that have an entrance between them may each establish an eruv separately.

And if it is so,

that something visible from outside and flush on the inside is regarded as both a lehi and an entrance,

the small courtyard should also be permitted—

once it establishes an eruv for itself—

through the side-posts visible from outside,

to one standing in the large courtyard,

and even though they are

flush on the inside, to one standing in the small courtyard, who does not see side-posts at the breach.

Rabbi Zeira said:

The Mishna presents no difficulty.

For the Mishna is speaking of a case where

the walls

of the

small

courtyard

enter

and extend

into the

large

courtyard for two or three cubits. Consequently, the entrance is at the end of the extended walls, while the side-posts are recessed behind it, and they cannot be associated with the breach so as to make it an entrance with side-posts. [See illustration 1]

And we challenge this: Ultimately,

let us say lavud,

so that by means of lavud we can regard the entire area between the ends of the small courtyard’s walls and the midpoint of the large courtyard’s walls as though it were filled by the walls of the small courtyard, and as though the walls of the small courtyard extended until the walls of the large courtyard.

And

through this, the small courtyard

should also be permitted, since these are its side-posts. [See illustration 2]

And although they are not visible from inside, did you not say that something “visible from outside and flush on the inside” is regarded as a lehi, and the same law applies to an entrance?!

If you would say, and if you wish to answer and establish that the case is speaking of a situation where

the walls are far apart [distant]—the walls of the small courtyard from the walls of the large courtyard—

by a great distance,

more than the measure for which we apply lavud, meaning that they are three handbreadths or more apart.

That is not so. For:

Did Rav Adda bar Avimi not teach before Rabbi Hanina bar Pappi [according to the version in the Bah] a beraita that explains the Mishna:

And this is what it teaches: The Mishna is speaking of a case where the width of the open area of the

small

courtyard was

ten

cubits, while the width of the open area of the

large was eleven

cubits. Thus there were six additional handbreadths, 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 surfaces of the small courtyard’s walls and the walls of the large courtyard to less than three handbreadths. If so, let us say lavud, and the small courtyard should also be permitted?!

Ravina said:

Here the case is one where the small courtyard does not enter the large courtyard at the midpoint of the large courtyard.

Rather, it is speaking of a case where

the walls are set apart

from the small courtyard in a different configuration:

From this wall

of the small courtyard, the walls of the large courtyard are set apart only

by two

handbreadths [and there lavud does apply],

whereas

from

this wall

of the small courtyard, they are set apart

by four

handbreadths.

Therefore, you can say lavud only on one side, because on the other side there are more than three handbreadths [and the case is one where the walls of the small courtyard are not wider than one handbreadth]!

And we challenge this:

And

in any event,

let us say lavud

only

from one side, and the small courtyard should be permitted

through a single side-post?!