Eruvin 21

Chapter 21

א איפכא מאי

1 What, [however, is the law where these are] reversed?1 - Come and hear what was taught: ['A cross-beam spanning the] entrance [to a blind alley] at a height of more than twenty cubits should be lowered but if [the entrance] had the shape of a doorway there is no need to lower it'.2

ב ת"ש דתניא מבוי שהוא גבוה מעשרים אמה ימעט ואם יש לו צורת הפתח אינו צריך למעט

2 What [about the effectiveness of] a cornice in respect of its width? - Come and hear what was taught: '[A cross-beam spanning the] entrance [to a build alley] at a height of more than twenty cubits should be lowered, and [an entrance] that is wider than ten cubits should be reduced [in width], but if it had the shape of a doorway, there is no need to reduce [the height of the beam] and if it 'has a cornice there is no need to reduce'. Does not this3

ג 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

3 refer to the last clause?4 No; [it may refer] to the first clause.5

ד מאי לאו אסיפא לא ארישא

4 Rab Judah taught Hiyya B'Rab in the presence of Rab: It is not necessary to reduce [its width].6 Teach him, [Rab] said to him,7

ה מתני ליה רב יהודה לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב אינו צריך למעט א"ל אתנייה צריך למעט

5 'It is necessary to reduce it'. Said R'Joseph From the words of our Master8

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

6 we may infer that a courtyard the greatest part [of the walls] of which consists of doors and windows cannot be converted into a permitted domain9 by [the construction] of the shape of a doorway.

ז מ"ט 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

7 What is the reason? Since [an entrance] wider than ten cubits causes the prohibition of an alley and a breach [in a wall] that is larger than its standing [portions] causes the prohibition of a courtyard [the two may be compared]: As [an opening that is] wider than ten cubits, which causes the prohibition of an alley cannot be ritually rectified by means of the shape of a doorway, so also a [wall] the breach in which is larger than its standing [portions], which causes the prohibition of a courtyard, cannot be ritually rectified by means of the shape of a doorway.

ח מה ליותר מעשר האוסר במבוי שכן לא התרת בו אצל פסי ביראות לר"מ תאמר בפרוץ מרובה על העומד האוסר בחצר שכן התרת אצל פסי ביראות לדברי הכל

8 - [This, however, is no proper analogy, for the shape of a doorway] may well [be ineffective in the case of an opening] wider than ten cubits, which causes the prohibition of an alley, since it10 cannot effect permissibility in the case of enclosures of wells, in accordance with the views of R'Meir;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 17b. It is, therefore, quite logical that as it cannot effect permissibility in the case of the enclosures, so it cannot effect it in an alle the opening of which is wider than ten cubits.');">11

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

9 but how could you apply [this restriction] to the case where a breach [in a wall] is larger than its standing portions, though it causes the prohibition of a courtyard, when this12 was permitted in respect of enclosures of wells in accordance with the opinion of all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to R. Meir who does not allow a breach that was wider than ten cubits, and much more so according to R. Judah who allows a breach of thirteen cubits and a third.');">13

י שרובן ס"ד אלא אימא שריבה בהן פתחים וחלונות ובלבד שיהא עומד מרובה על הפרוץ

10 May it be suggested [that the following] provides support to his view?14 [It was taught: The space enclosed by] such walls as consist mostly of doors and windows is permitted,15

יא אמר רב כהנא כי תניא ההיא בפיתחי שימאי

11 provided the standing portions exceed the gaps?16 - [You say:] 'As consist mostly'! Is this conceivable?17

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

12 - Rather read: '[The space] in which there were many18 doors and windows [is permitted] provided the standing portions exceed the gaps?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that even where an opening has the shape of a doorway (as is the case with the 'doors and windows' spoken of) the space enclosed cannot be regarded as a permitted domain unless the total width of the standing portions exceeds that of the breaches, in agreement with the view of Rab.');">19

יג ואף ר' יוחנן סבר לה להא דרב דאמר רבין בר רב אדא א"ר יצחק מעשה באדם אחד מבקעת בית חורתן שנעץ ד' קונדיסין בארבע פינות השדה ומתח זמורה עליהם ובא מעשה לפני חכמים והתירו לו לענין כלאים

13 - Said R'Kahana: That20 may have been taught in respect of Semitic<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Palestinian. is derived from the second son of Noah whose descendants lived in Palestine (R. Han. in Tosaf. s.v. a.l.) . Aliter. Desolate or incomplete (Rashi) .');">21

יד ואמר ר"ל כדרך שהתירו לו לענין כלאים כך התירו לו לענין שבת ר' יוחנן אמר לכלאים התירו לו לענין שבת לא התירו לו

14 doors.22 What is meant by 'Semitic doors'? - R'Rehumi23

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

15 and R'Joseph differ on this point. One explains: [Doors] that have no [proper] side-posts, and the other explains: Such as have no lintel.24

טז אלא על גבן ובמאי אילימא בעשר בהא לימא ר' יוחנן בשבת לא

16 R'Johanan also holds the same view as Rab.25 For Rabin son of R'Adda stated in the name of R'Isaac: It once happened that a man of the valley of Beth Hiwartan26

יז אלא לאו ביתר מעשר

17 drove four poles27 in the four corners of his fiel and stretched across [each two of] them a rod,28

יח לא לעולם בעשר ומן הצד ובדרב חסדא קא מיפלגי

18 and when the case was submitted to the Sages they allowed him [its use] in respect of kil'ayim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. They regarded the doorway shaped structures as valid partitions which enable the owner to grow vines on one side though corn was grown in close proximity on the other. In the absence of a partition it is necessary, in accordance with the laws of kil'ayim, to leave a distance of four cubits between a vineyard and a cornfield.');">29 And [in connection with this statement] Resh Lakish remarked: As they allowed him [its use] In respect of kil'ayim so have they allowed it to him in respect of the Sabbath,30

יט ורמי דר' יוחנן אדר' יוחנן ורמי דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש משום ר' יהודה בר' חנינא

19 but R'Johanan said: Only in respect of kil'ayim did they allow him [its use]; they did not allow it in respect of the Sabbath. Now [what is the form, of the construction] with which we are here dealing? If it be suggested [that it is one where the rods were attached] sideways,31 surely [it could be objected] did not R'Hisda rule that the shape of a doorway that was made [with the cross-reed attached] sideways is of no validity?32 Consequently [it must be a case where the reeds were placed] on top of the poles. Now, how33 [far were the poles from one another]? If [it be suggested] less than ten cubits, [the difficulty arises] would R'Johanan in such a case have said that in respect of the Sabbath there is no validity [in such a door]?34 Must it not [consequently be conceded that the distance was] greater than ten cubits?35 - No; [the distance] in fact [might have been] within that of ten cubits, and [the reeds might have been attached] sideways, but the principle on which they36 differ is that laid down by R'Hisda.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish does not adopt the principle; hence his opinion that, though the reeds were attached sideways, the shape of the doorway is a valid one in respect of the Sabbath as in that of kil'ayim. R. Johanan, however, upholds the principle in the case of the Sabbath since its sanctity is great, but not in that of kil'ayim which is of comparatively lesser importance and subject to lesser restrictions. Hence his view that the doorway under discussion is valid in respect of the latter but invalid in that of the former.');">37 An incongruity, however, was pointed out between two rulings of R'Johanan38 as well as between two rulings of Resh Lakish.39 For Resh Lakish stated in the name of R'Judah son of R'Hanina:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter