Eruvin 2bעירובין ב׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 2b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
2bב׳ ב

ההוא בארון כתיב אלא מהכא ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם

that instance of the term Temple is not written with regard to the Tabernacle; rather, it is written with regard to the ark and the other sacred objects in the Tabernacle, as the sons of Kehat carried only the sacred vessels and not the Tabernacle itself. Rather, it is derived from here: “And let them make Me a Temple that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8), where the reference is to the Tabernacle.

בין לרבנן ובין לרבי יהודה לילפו מפתח שער החצר דכתיב אורך החצר מאה באמה ורחב חמשים בחמשים וקומה חמש אמות וכתיב וחמש עשרה אמה קלעים לכתף וכתיב ולכתף השנית מזה ומזה לשער החצר קלעים חמש עשרה אמה מה להלן חמש ברוחב עשרים אף כאן חמש ברוחב עשרים

The Gemara asks: Both according to the opinion of the Rabbis and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, let them derive the maximum width of a doorway from the doorway of the gate of the courtyard of the Tabernacle. As it is written: “The length of the courtyard shall be one hundred cubits and the breadth fifty everywhere, and the height five cubits” (Exodus 27:18). And it is written: “The hangings on one side of the gate shall be fifteen cubits; their pillars three and their sockets three” (Exodus 27:14). And it is written: “And for the other side of the court gate, on this hand and on that hand, were hangings of fifteen cubits; their pillars three and their sockets three” (Exodus 38:15). If the hangings on both sides of the gate covered thirty of the courtyard’s total width of fifty cubits, apparently, the gate of the courtyard was twenty cubits wide and five cubits high. Therefore, just as there, with regard to the Tabernacle, an entrance five cubits high by twenty cubits wide is considered a doorway, so too here, with regard to the halakhot of eiruv, an entrance five cubits high by twenty cubits wide should be considered a doorway.

פתח שער החצר איקרי פתח סתמא לא איקרי

The Gemara rejects this assertion: There is no proof from there, as that entrance is called the doorway of the gate of the courtyard, but it is not called a doorway, unmodified. Consequently, the dimensions of a doorway mentioned without qualification cannot be derived from that doorway.

ואיבעית אימא כי כתיב קלעים חמש עשרה אמה לכתף בגובהה הוא דכתיב

The Gemara offers an alternative answer: And if you wish, say instead that when it is written: “The hangings on one side of the gate shall be fifteen cubits,” it is referring to the height of the hangings. The width of the hangings, however, is not specified in the Torah at all, and therefore the width of the doorway of the gate of the courtyard is unknown.

גובהה והא כתיב וקומה חמש אמות ההוא משפת מזבח ולמעלה

The Gemara raises an objection: Could it be that the height of the hangings was fifteen cubits? Isn’t it written explicitly in the verse: “And the height five cubits”? The Gemara answers: The verse is stating that the height of the hangings was five cubits, measured from the edge of the altar and above. The altar itself was ten cubits high, while the hangings of the courtyard were fifteen cubits high, five cubits higher than the altar.

ורבי יהודה מפתחו של אולם גמר והא תנן והרחב מעשר אמות ימעט ולא פליג רבי יהודה

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yehuda actually derive his opinion from the doorway of the Entrance Hall? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if the entrance to an alleyway is wider than ten cubits, one must diminish its width? And Rabbi Yehuda does not dispute this ruling. Wasn’t the doorway of the Entrance Hall wider than ten cubits?

אמר אביי פליג בברייתא דתניא והרחב מעשר אמות ימעט רבי יהודה אומר אינו צריך למעט

Abaye said: In fact, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the unattributed opinion of the first tanna in a baraita. As it was taught in a baraita: If the entrance to an alleyway is wider than ten cubits, he must diminish its width; Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says: He need not diminish it.

וליפלוג במתניתין פליג בגובהה והוא הדין לרחבה

The Gemara asks further: If so, let him disagree in the mishna. Why is Rabbi Yehuda’s dispute cited only in the baraita, and not in the mishna? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees in the mishna with regard to an entrance’s height, but the same applies to its width. His statement: He need not reduce it, is referring both to the entrance’s height and to its width.

ואכתי רבי יהודה מפתחו של אולם גמר והתניא מבוי שהוא גבוה מעשרים אמה ימעט ורבי יהודה מכשיר עד ארבעים וחמשים אמה ותני בר קפרא עד מאה

The Gemara poses a question: And still, is it possible that Rabbi Yehuda derived his opinion from the doorway of the Entrance Hall? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits, one must diminish its height; and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit up to forty and fifty cubits. And in a different baraita, bar Kappara taught the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: It is fit up to a hundred cubits.

בשלמא לבר קפרא גוזמא אלא לרב יהודה מאי גוזמא בשלמא לרבי יהודה ארבעים גמר מפתחו של אולם אלא חמשים מנא ליה

The Gemara clarifies its question: Granted, according to bar Kappara, the phrase: Up to a hundred, can be understood as an exaggeration, not as an exact number. All that Rabbi Yehuda meant to say is that it is permitted to carry in the alleyway even if the cross beam is significantly higher than twenty cubits. However, according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, what exaggeration is there? He certainly meant precisely what he said. Granted, with regard to forty cubits, Rabbi Yehuda derived it from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. However, with regard to fifty cubits, from where does he derive it? Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda did not derive the dimensions of an entrance from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. He derived them from a different source.

אמר רב חסדא הא מתניתא אטעיתיה לרב דתניא מבוי שהוא גבוה מעשרים אמה יותר מפתחו של היכל ימעט הוא סבר מדרבנן מפתחו של היכל גמרי רבי יהודה מפתחו של אולם גמר ולא היא רבי יהודה מפתחא דמלכין גמר

Rav Ḥisda said: It was this baraita that misled Rav and led him to explain that Rabbi Yehuda derived the measurements of an entrance from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to a cross beam spanning the entrance to an alleyway that is higher than twenty cubits, higher than the doorway of the Sanctuary, one must diminish its height. Rav maintains: From the fact that the Rabbis derived the dimensions of an entrance from the doorway of the Sanctuary, Rabbi Yehuda must have derived those dimensions from the doorway of the Entrance Hall. But that is not so. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda derived the dimensions of an entrance from the entrance of kings, whose regular practice was to erect their entrances exceedingly high and wide.

ורבנן אי מפתחו של היכל גמירי ליבעו דלתות כהיכל אלמה תנן הכשר מבוי בית שמאי אומרים לחי וקורה ובית הלל אומרים לחי או קורה

The Gemara asks: And, according to the Rabbis, if they derived their opinion from the doorway of the Sanctuary, let them require doors in order to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, just as there were doors in the Sanctuary. Why then did we learn in the mishna: With regard to the method of rendering an alleyway fit for carrying within it, Beit Shammai say: Both a side post placed adjacent to one of the sides of the alleyway’s entrance and a cross beam over the entrance to the alleyway are required. And Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a cross beam is sufficient. However, not even according to the more stringent opinion of Beit Shammai are doors required.

דלתות היכל לצניעות בעלמא הוא דעבידן

The Gemara answers: The Sanctuary doors were made solely for the purpose of privacy, but served no practical function. The doorway of the Sanctuary did not require doors to be considered an entrance. It was a full-fledged entrance even without them.

אלא מעתה לא תיהני ליה צורת הפתח דהא היכל צורת הפתח הויא לו אפילו הכי עשר אמות הוא דרויח אלמה תנן אם יש לו צורת הפתח אף על פי שרחב מעשר אמות אינו צריך למעט

The Gemara raises another question: But if so, that the Rabbis derive their opinion from the entrance to the Sanctuary, the form of a doorway, i.e., two vertical posts on the two sides, with a horizontal cross beam spanning the space between them, should not be effective if the alleyway is more than ten cubits wide, as the Sanctuary had the form of a doorway, and even so, it was no more than ten cubits wide. Why then did we learn in the mishna: If the entrance has the form of a doorway, then even if it is wider than ten cubits, he need not diminish its width?

מידי הוא טעמא אלא לרב הא מתני ליה רב יהודה לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב אינו צריך למעט ואמר ליה אתנייה צריך למעט

The Gemara answers: As that is the reason only according to Rav, who holds that the Rabbis derive their opinion from the doorway of the Sanctuary. Didn’t Rav Yehuda teach this mishna to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Rav, saying that if the entrance had the form of a doorway he need not diminish it, and Rav said to him to teach a different version: He must diminish it. Apparently, according to Rav himself, the form of a doorway does not render it permitted to carry within the alleyway if its entrance is wider than the doorway of the Sanctuary, and therefore the question about the form of a doorway poses no difficulty to his opinion.

אלא מעתה

The Gemara raises an additional difficulty: However, if that is so,