Eruvin 11aעירובין י״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 11a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
11aי״א א

איפכא מאי

The Gemara asks: What is the halakha in the opposite situation? Does an opening in the form of a doorway also serve to permit carrying in an alleyway that is more than twenty cubits high?

תא שמע דתניא מבוי שהוא גבוה מעשרים אמה ימעט ואם יש לו צורת הפתח אינו צריך למעט

The Gemara answers: Come and hear the answer to this question, as it was taught in a baraita: If the cross beam placed over the entrance to an alleyway is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish its height, but if the entrance has an opening in the form of a doorway, he need not diminish it.

אמלתרא ברחבו מאי תא שמע דתניא מבוי שהוא גבוה מעשרים אמה ימעט והרחב מעשר ימעט ואם יש לו צורת הפתח אינו צריך למעט ואם יש לו אמלתרא אינו צריך למעט

The Gemara asks: What is the effect of a cornice with regard to the need to diminish the alleyway’s width? Does the cornice render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, even if the entrance is more than ten cubits wide? The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer as it was taught in a baraita: If the cross beam placed over the entrance to an alleyway is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish its height, and if the alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width. However, if the entrance to the alleyway has an opening in the form of a doorway, he need not diminish it, and, similarly, if it has a cornice, he need not diminish it.

מאי לאו אסיפא לא ארישא

The Gemara explains the proof it wishes to adduce from this baraita: What, is this statement with regard to the cornice not referring to the latter clause, i.e., the case of an alleyway that is wider than ten cubits, proving that a cornice can render an alleyway otherwise too wide fit for one to carry within it? The Gemara refutes this argument: No, this statement is referring to the first clause of the baraita, that a cornice is effective for an alleyway more than twenty cubits high, but it tells us nothing about one that is more than ten cubits wide.

מתני ליה רב יהודה לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב אינו צריך למעט אמר ליה אתנייה צריך למעט

With regard to the same issue, Rav Yehuda would teach the baraita to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav as follows: If the entrance to an alleyway that is wider than ten cubits has an opening in the form of a doorway, he need not diminish its width. Rav said to him: Teach him that the correct version of the baraita is: He must diminish its width.

אמר רב יוסף מדברי רבינו נלמד חצר שרובה פתחים וחלונות אינה ניתרת בצורת הפתח

Rav Yosef said: From the statement of our teacher, Rav, who said that the entrance to an alleyway must be diminished even if it has an opening in the form of a doorway, we will learn that with regard to a courtyard, the walls of which are mostly entrances and windows, it is not permitted to carry within it even by having an opening in the form of a doorway. Even if the entrances have an opening in the form of a doorway, this does not render a mostly breached courtyard wall into a closed wall.

מאי טעמא הואיל ויותר מעשר אוסר במבוי ופרוץ מרובה על העומד אוסר בחצר מה יותר מעשר האוסר במבוי אינו ניתר בצורת הפתח אף פרוץ מרובה על העומד האוסר בחצר אינו ניתר בצורת הפתח

What is the reason? Since an opening of more than ten cubits renders it prohibited for one to carry in an alleyway, and likewise when the breached segment of a wall that is greater than its standing segment renders it prohibited for one to carry in a courtyard, the following claim can be made: Just as, according to Rav, in the case of an opening more than ten cubits wide that renders it prohibited for one to carry in an alleyway, carrying in the alleyway is not permitted by the form of a doorway in the opening, so too a case where breached segment of a wall is greater than its standing segment that renders it prohibited for one to carry in a courtyard, carrying in the courtyard is not permitted by the form of a doorway in the opening.

מה ליותר מעשר האוסר במבוי שכן לא התרת בו אצל פסי ביראות לרבי מאיר תאמר בפרוץ מרובה על העומד האוסר בחצר שכן התרת אצל פסי ביראות לדברי הכל

The Gemara rejects this argument: What is the basis for comparison to an opening that is more than ten cubits wide that renders it prohibited for one to carry in an alleyway? It is not permitted by having an opening in the form of a doorway because you did not permit an opening of that size with regard to the case of upright boards surrounding a well, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Can you say the same in a case where the breached segment of a wall is greater than the standing segment that renders it prohibited for one to carry in a courtyard, that carrying in the courtyard will not be permitted by the form of a doorway? That situation is clearly not as severe a problem, as you permitted carrying with regard to upright boards surrounding a well according to everyone. Consequently, no comparison can be made between the case of an opening wider than ten cubits in an alleyway and a partition in which the breached segment is greater than the standing segment in a courtyard.

לימא מסייע ליה דפנות הללו שרובן פתחים וחלונות מותר ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports this opinion that the form of a doorway is ineffective in a case where the breached segments of a wall are greater than its standing segments: With regard to the area enclosed by these walls that most of them consist of entrances and windows, it is permitted to carry on Shabbat therein, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments.

שרובן סלקא דעתך אלא אימא שריבה בהן פתחים וחלונות ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

The Gemara first analyzes the wording of the baraita: The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the baraita: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to a case where most of the walls are entrances and windows? If so, the standing segments are not greater than the breached segments. Rather, emend the baraita: Carrying in the area enclosed by these walls to which he added many entrances and windows is permitted, provided that the standing segments are greater than the breached segments. Apparently, if the breached segments are greater than the standing segments, carrying is not permitted even if the breaches are in the form of doorways.

אמר רב כהנא כי תניא ההיא בפיתחי שימאי

Rav Kahana said that his is not an absolute proof: When this baraita was taught, it was taught with regard to broken entrances [pitḥei shima’ei] that lack the proper form of doorways.

מאי פיתחי שימאי פליגי בה רב רחומי ורב יוסף חד אמר דלית להו שקפי וחד אמר דלית להו תיקרה

The Gemara asks: What are broken entrances? Rav Reḥumei and Rav Yosef disagreed on the matter. One said that they do not have proper doorposts, and the other one said that they do not have lintels above the openings.

ואף רבי יוחנן סבר לה להא דרב דאמר רבין בר רב אדא אמר רבי יצחק מעשה באדם אחד מבקעת בית חורתן שנעץ ארבעה קונדיסין בארבע פינות השדה ומתח זמורה עליהם ובא מעשה לפני חכמים והתירו לו לענין כלאים

The Gemara comments: And even Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that opinion of Rav, that an opening in the form of a doorway does not permit carrying if the opening is more than ten cubits wide. As Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: There was an incident involving a person from the valley of Beit Ḥortan who stuck four poles [kunddeisin] into the ground in the four corners of his field, and stretched a vine over them, creating the form of a doorway on each side. He intended to seal the area so that he would be permitted to plant a vineyard in close proximity without creating a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds in a vineyard. And the case came before the Sages, and they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to diverse kinds.

ואמר ריש לקיש כדרך שהתירו לו לענין כלאים כך התירו לו לענין שבת רבי יוחנן אמר לכלאים התירו לו לענין שבת לא התירו לו

And Reish Lakish said: Just as they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to diverse kinds, so too they permitted him to consider it sealed with regard to Shabbat, i.e., they permitted carrying within this area. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to diverse kinds, they permitted him to consider it sealed, however, with regard to Shabbat, they did not permit him to do so.

במאי עסקינן אילימא מן הצד והאמר רב חסדא צורת הפתח שעשאה מן הצד לא עשה ולא כלום

The Gemara clarifies: With what case are we dealing here? If you say that he draped the vines on the posts from the side, rather than on top of them, didn’t Rav Ḥisda say with regard to Shabbat: If one constructed an opening in the form of a doorway from the side, he has done nothing?

אלא על גבן ובמאי אילימא בעשר בהא לימא רבי יוחנן בשבת לא

Rather, it must be that he set the vines on top of the posts. And in what circumstances did Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree? If you say that the posts were set at a distance of ten cubits from each other, would Rabbi Yoḥanan say in that case that with regard to Shabbat, they did not permit him to consider the area sealed? Everyone agrees that the form of a doorway is effective for an entrance that is only ten cubits wide.

אלא לאו ביתר מעשר

Rather, isn’t it referring to a case where the posts were more than ten cubits apart? Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees with Rav, that an opening in the form of a doorway does not permit carrying if the original opening is wider than ten cubits.

לא לעולם בעשר ומן הצד ובדרב חסדא קא מיפלגי

The Gemara refutes this proof: No, actually it is referring to a case where the posts were ten cubits apart, and the person attached the vines to the posts from the side. And Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree with regard to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. Reish Lakish maintains that the form of a doorway is effective even when the horizontal cross beam is attached to the vertical posts from the side, and Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees with Rav Ḥisda that a form of a doorway is ineffective for the purpose of carrying on Shabbat when constructed in such a manner.

ורמי דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן ורמי דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה ברבי חנינא

The Gemara comments: But it is possible to raise a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan and another statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan; and it is possible to raise a contradiction between this statement of Reish Lakish and another statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: