Commentary for Eruvin 14:2

but the alley is forbidden. But why [should this be so]? Should it not rather be [subject to the same law] as that of an alley that terminated in a backyard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's reason, it is now assumed, is that the alley, owing to the breach in the courtyard, is exposed on two sides to public domains. Now since Rab Judah spoke of a backyard (which, as it has no inhabitants to claim right of passage through the alley, cannot affect its ritual fitness) and not of a courtyard (which is inhabited) , it follows that if an alley terminated in the latter, it becomes ritually unfit on account of the right of passage through it of the inhabitants of the courtyard. Rab, on the other hand, spoke of a courtyard and not of a backyard. And, since he does not mention the right of passage but the breach that was made, it follows that the exposure of the alley on two sides to public domains is the only reason for its unfitness, and that the right of passage of the inhabitants of the courtyard does not affect its fitness. The two principles then that were laid down by Rab Judah, viz. (a) that the opening out of an alley into a public domain through a backyard does not destroy its ritual fitness and (b) that the opening also of a courtyard into an alley does destroy its fitness, are thus opposed by those of Rab who maintains (a) that the opening out of an alley into a public domain through a courtyard or, for the same reason, through a backyard does destroy its ritual fitness and');">⁵</span> - The other replied: I do not know,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From whom Rab Judah received the ruling.');">⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 14:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.