Talmud - Eruvin 12a עירובין י״ב א׳

at the town of Ovelin, and found him dwelling in an alleyway that had only one side post. He said to him: My son, set up another side post. Rabbi Yosei said to him: Am I required to close it up? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Let it be closed up; what does it matter?

We learned in that same Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that this alleyway does not require anything to render it permitted for one to carry within it. About what did they disagree? About an alleyway that is wider than four cubits, and up to ten cubits; as Beit Shammai say: It is permitted to carry within it only if there is both a side post and a cross beam, and Beit Hillel say: It requires either a side post or a cross beam.

The Gemara explains the proof from this Tosefta. In any case, it teaches: Rabbi Yosei ben Perida said to Rabbi Eliezer: Am I required to seal it? Granted, if you say that Rabbi Eliezer requires two side posts and a cross beam, for that reason the disciple said: Am I required to seal it? However, if you say that he requires side posts without a cross beam, what is the meaning of to seal it? The entrance to the alleyway remains open from above.

The Gemara rejects this argument: No absolute proof can be cited from here, as perhaps this is what he is saying: Am I required to seal it with side posts?

The Master said in the Tosefta: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that it does not require anything to render it permitted to carry within it. But didn’t we learn in the mishna: A certain disciple said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway whose width is less than four cubits, as they both agree that carrying in an alleyway of that sort is permitted by either a side post or a cross beam. How could Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel have said that according to Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel even that minimal action is unnecessary?

Rav Ashi said: This is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying. It neither requires both a side post and a cross beam, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, nor does it require two side posts, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer; rather, it requires either a side post or a cross beam, in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel with regard to a large alleyway. When it said that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not require anything, it meant anything more than that required by Beit Hillel.

The Gemara asks: And how narrow must an alleyway be so that it would not require even a side post, according to all opinions? Rav Aḥlei said, and some say it was Rav Yeḥiel who said: Up to a width of four handbreadths, the alleyway requires nothing in order to render it permitted for one to carry within it.

Rav Sheshet said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the upright boards of a courtyard. That is to say, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only about the number of side posts needed to permit carrying within an alleyway. However, they agree that if a courtyard was breached into the public domain, it can be considered closed only if upright boards of wall, similar to side posts, remain on both sides of the breach. But Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the upright boards of wall that are required in a courtyard.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Who are the Rabbis to whom Rav referred when he stated that they concede to Rabbi Eliezer? He was referring to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Furthermore, as Rav Naḥman said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one can learn by inference that the Sages dispute this issue as well. Who are the ones who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: In a courtyard that was breached into the public domain, with the width of the breach not exceeding ten cubits, it is permitted to carry if one upright board remains on one side of the breach. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is permitted only if there remain two upright boards, one on each side of the breach.

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A courtyard that was breached requires two upright boards of wall on either side of the breach, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say that? But weren’t you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The upright boards in a courtyard must be four handbreadths wide? This indicates that only one board is necessary. And if you say that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires one upright four handbreadths board from here, one side of the breach, and one upright four handbreadths board from there, the other side of the breach, this is difficult.

But didn’t Rav Adda bar Avimi teach the following baraita before Rabbi Ḥanina, and some say it was before Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, with regard to the halakha governing a small courtyard that was breached along its entire length into a large courtyard. The baraita teaches that the residents of the large courtyard may use their courtyard even if the small courtyard has a width of ten cubits, and the large one has a width of eleven cubits. In this case, the difference between the length of the smaller courtyard and that of the larger courtyard is only one cubit, i.e., six handbreadths. Therefore, there cannot be upright boards of four handbreadths on each side, as together they would amount to more than a cubit.

The Gemara resolves this difficulty: When Rabbi Zeira ascended from his sea travels, he explained the contradiction between the statements of Rav Yoḥanan in the following manner: If there is a upright board in only one direction, it must be four handbreadths, however, if there are upright boards from two directions, it suffices if there is any amount here, on one side, and any amount there, on the other side.

And that which Adda bar Avimi taught with regard to the difference in size between the two courtyards is not universally accepted, as according to Rabbi Zeira it is sufficient if one courtyard is four handbreadths larger than the other. Rather, it is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who requires two upright boards of wall in a breached courtyard. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that a side post must be at least three handbreadths wide. Consequently, the two upright boards together must be at least six handbreadths, which is why the minimum difference between the smaller and the larger courtyards is a cubit.

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A breached courtyard is permitted if one upright board of wall remains on one side of the breach. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel really say this? But didn’t Shmuel say to Rav Ḥananya bar Sheila: You must not perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling to permit carrying in a breached courtyard, unless there remains standing either the majority of the wall or two upright boards on either side of the breach.

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: I do not know how to resolve this contradiction. All I know is that there was an incident in a shepherds’ village with regard to a narrow inlet of the sea that penetrated a courtyard, breaching one of its walls in its entirety, and the matter came before Rav Yehuda, and he required only one upright board of wall to remain in order to permit it.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: You speak of a narrow inlet of the sea, but an inlet is different and nothing can be derived from that case, for we know that this is a leniency in which the Sages lessened the requirements in cases involving water. In these cases, the Sages did not require properly constructed partitions, but were satisfied with inferior ones.

The Gemara supports the assertion that the Sages were more lax with regard to water from the following dilemma that Rabbi Tavla raised before Rav: Does a suspended partition permit carrying in a ruin? Do we say that the remnants of the walls that are suspended in the air are considered as if they descend to the ground, closing off the area so that it is regarded as a private domain? Rav said to him: A suspended partition of this kind permits carrying only in the case of water; this is a leniency in which the Sages lessened the requirements in cases involving water.

The Gemara continues: In any case, it is difficult. The contradiction between the conflicting statements of Shmuel remains unresolved.

The Gemara resolves the difficulty: When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the house of their teacher, they explained the contradiction in the following manner: If there is an upright board from only one direction, it must be of four handbreadths; but if there are upright boards from two directions, i.e., both sides of the breach, it suffices if there is a bit here, on one side, and bit here, on the other side.

Rav Pappa said: If this issue is difficult for me to understand, this is my difficulty: For Shmuel said to Rav Ḥananya bar Sheila: You must not perform an action, i.e., issue a ruling to permit carrying in a breached courtyard, unless there remains standing either most of the wall or two upright boards on either side of the breach.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need most of the wall? An upright board of four handbreadths should suffice. The Gemara further explains the difficulty: And if you say, what is the meaning of most of the wall mentioned here? It is referring to the special case where the wall is seven handbreadths wide, so that four handbreadths constitutes most of the wall, this too is difficult. Even if the wall is seven handbreadths wide, why do I require an upright board of four handbreadths to seal? Three handbreadths and any amount should suffice, as Rav Aḥlei, and some say it was Rav Yeḥiel who said: A narrow alleyway up to four handbreadths wide requires nothing at all. Here too, after sealing up slightly more than three handbreadths, the remaining gap that remains is less than four handbreadths, so nothing further should be required.

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that here, the statement of Shmuel is referring to a courtyard, where even a breach of less than four handbreadths requires action. There, the statement of Rav Aḥlei, is referring to an alleyway. And if you wish, say that the statement of Rav Aḥlei is itself subject to a dispute between the tanna’im.

The Sages taught the following baraita: With regard to a narrow inlet of the sea that enters into a courtyard, partially breaching one of its walls, one may not fill water from it on Shabbat. The inlet is a karmelit, from which it is prohibited to carry into a private domain, e.g. a courtyard. This is the halakha unless there is a partition ten handbreadths high at one side of the wall’s breach, which would incorporate the inlet as part of the courtyard. In what case is this statement said? Where the breach through which the water enters is more than ten cubits wide; but if it is only ten cubits wide, nothing is required.”

The Gemara asks: The baraita indicates that one may not fill water from the inlet because that would involve carrying from a karmelit into a private domain, but in the courtyard itself one may indeed carry. But isn’t the courtyard breached along its entirety, i.e., more than ten cubits, into a place that is prohibited to it? Since it is prohibited to carry to or from the inlet, it should also be prohibited to carry within the courtyard itself.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Eruvin 12a examines the debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel over side posts and cross beams required to permit carrying in narrow alleyways.