Commentary for Eruvin 184:10

אמר ליה רבא לאביי ולא מצינו מחיצה לאיסור והא אתמר

COURTYARD, THE USE OF THE LARGER ONE IS PERMITTED, BUT THAT OF THE SMALLER ONE IS FORBIDDEN, BECAUSE THE GAP IS REGARDED AS A DOORWAY TO THE FORMER; but if its projections<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sections of the larger courtyard that projected on both sides of the smaller one.');">²³</span> had been straightened<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By building partitions that cut out these projections from the larger courtyard.');">²⁴</span> the use of the large One also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, on account of the partitions d, is now fully exposed to the smaller one as the latter is exposed to it.');">²⁵</span> would have been forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is another case where a partition is the cause of a prohibition.');">²⁶</span> - There,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case just cited.');">²⁷</span> the other replied, it is a case of the removal of partitions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The putting up of the new partitions removes the former partitions so that one cancels out the other. In the case cited by Abaye, however, there is only one set of partitions and these very partitions are the cause of the prohibition.');">²⁸</span> 'Do we not', retorted Raba to Abaye, 'find a partition to be the cause of a prohibition? Has it not in fact been stated:

Explore commentary for Eruvin 184:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.