Eruvin — Daf 10a

רבי היא דאמר בעינן שני פסין דתניא חצר ניתרת בפס אחד רבי אומר בשני פסין

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים אינו נידון משום לחי ורבי סבר לה כר' יוסי ודרבי זירא ודרבינא ליתא משום הכי קטנה בעשר וגדולה באחת עשרה משום דר' סבר לה כר' יוסי

אלא אי אמרת נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים נידון משום לחי ודרבי זירא ודרבינא איתא ור' לא סבר לה כר' יוסי גדולה באחת עשרה למה לי

ממה נפשך אי למשרייה לגדולה קאתי בעשר ושני טפחים סגיא ואי למיסרה לקטנה קאתי לאשמועינן דמפלגי טובא

אלא לאו ש"מ נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים אינו נידון משום לחי ש"מ

א"ר יוסף לא שמיע לי הא שמעתתא

א"ל אביי את אמרת ניהלן ואהא אמרת ניהלן דאמר רמי בר אבא אמר רב הונא לחי המושך עם דפנו של מבוי פחות מד' אמות נידון משום לחי ומשתמש עם חודו הפנימי ד' אמות נידון משום מבוי ואסור להשתמש בכולו

ואת אמרת לן עלה שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה בין לחיין אסור ושמע מינה משך מבוי בארבע ושמע מינה נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים נידון משום לחי

והלכתא נראה מבחוץ ושוה מבפנים נידון משום לחי תיובתא והלכתא

אין משום דתני רבי חייא כוותיה:

והרחב מעשר ימעט: אמר אביי תנא והרחב מעשר ימעט ר' יהודה אומר אינו צריך למעט ועד כמה

סבר רב אחי קמיה דרב יוסף למימר עד שלש עשרה אמה ושליש וקל וחומר מפסי ביראות

ומה פסי ביראות שהתרתה בהן פרוץ מרובה על העומד לא התרתה בהן יותר משלש עשרה אמה ושליש מבוי שלא התרתה בו פרוץ מרובה על העומד אינו דין שלא תתיר בו יותר משלש עשרה אמה ושליש

והיא הנותנת פסי ביראות שהתרתה בהן פרוץ מרובה על העומד לא תתיר בהן יותר משלש עשרה אמה ושליש מבוי שלא התרתה בו פרוץ מרובה על העומד תתיר בו יותר מי"ג אמות ושליש

אי נמי לאידך גיסא פסי ביראות דאקילת בהו חד קולא אקיל בהו קולא אחרינא מבוי כלל כלל לא

תני לוי מבוי שהוא רחב עשרים אמה נועץ קנה באמצעיתו ודיו הוא תני לה והוא אמר לה דאין הלכה כאותה משנה איכא דאמרי אמר שמואל משמיה דלוי אין הלכה כאותה משנה

אלא היכי עביד אמר שמואל משמיה דלוי

— [This ruling1 is in agreement with the view of] Rabbi2 who laid down that two posts are required. For it was taught: A courtyard3 may be converted into a permitted domain by means of one post,4 but Rabbi ruled: [Only] by two posts.5 [But] what [an interpretation is] this! If you concede [that a side-post that can be] seen from without but appears even from within cannot be regarded as a valid side-post,6 and that Rabbi holds the same view as R. Jose,7 and [that the replies] of R. Zera and Rabina8 are not to be accepted, it will be quite intelligible why [the measurement of the] small courtyard [was given] as ten cubits and that of the large one as eleven, the reason being that he9 is of the same opinion as R. Jose.10 If, however, you contend [that a side-post that can be] seen from without though it appears even from within may be regarded as a valid side-post, and [that the replies] of R. Zera and Rabina are to be accepted,11 and that Rabbi12 is not of the same opinion as R. Jose,13 what [it may be asked] was the object [of giving the measurement of the] large courtyard as eleven cubits? For whatever the explanation advanced14 [a difficulty arises]. If [it be suggested] that the object15 was16 to [explain why] the large courtyard was17 permitted, [it could well be objected that a length of] ten cubits and two handbreadths would have been enough,18 and if the object was16 to [provide a reason19 for] the prohibition of the small courtyard,20 why [it may equally be objected] did he not inform us [of a case] where [the walls] were much wider apart?21 Hence22 it must be concluded [that a post that can be] seen from without but appears even from within23 cannot be regarded as a valid side-post. This is conclusive. R. Joseph remarked: I did not hear that reported ruling24 [from my teachers].25 Said Abaye to him:26 You yourself told us that ruling, and it was in connection with the following that you told it to us. For Rami b. Abba said in the name of R. Huna that ‘a post which formed an extension of the wall of an alley,27 [provided it was] less than four cubits [in length], may be regarded as a valid side-post and one may use [the alley] as far as its inner edge,28 [but if it was] four cubits long it must be regarded as an alley and it is forbidden to make use29 of any part of the alley’;30 and you told us in connection with this, that three rulings may be inferred from this statement: ‘It may be inferred that the space between side-posts is a forbidden domain,31 and it may be inferred [that the minimum] length of an alley is four cubits,32 and it may also be inferred [that a post that can be] seen from without though it appears even from within may be regarded as a valid side-post’.33 And the law is [that a post that is] visible from without though it appears even from within may be regarded as a valid side-post. A refutation and a law?34 — Yes, because R. Hiyya taught in agreement with him.35 AND [ANY ENTRANCE] THAT IS WIDER THAN TEN CUBITS SHOULD BE REDUCED. Said Abaye, a Tanna taught: And [any entrance] that is wider than ten cubits should be reduced, but R. Judah ruled that it was not necessary to reduce it.36 But up to what extent37 [is reduction unnecessary]?38 R. Ahi39 [discoursing] before R. Joseph intended to reply: To the extent of thirteen cubits and a third, [this being deduced] a minori ad majus from [the law relating to] enclosures40 round wells:41 If [in the case of] enclosures round wells, where [the use of the wells]42 is permitted even though the broken [portions of the enclosure] exceed the standing ones, no [break] wider than thirteen cubits and a third is permitted, how much more reason is there that no [opening] wider than thirteen cubits and a third should be permitted [in the case of] an alley [the use of] which is not permitted where its broken portions exceed the standing ones. But [in fact] this [very law]43 provides [ground for all argument to the contrary]: [in the case of] enclosure of wells, where [the use of the wells] was permitted even if the broken [portions of an enclosure] exceeded the standing ones, no [gap] wider than thirteen cubits and a third could well be permitted,44 [but in the case of] an alley, [the use of which] is not permitted where the broken portions [of its walls] exceeded their standing ones45 [an opening] wider than thirteen cubits and a third may well be permitted. Or else, [the argument might run] in another direction: [As regards] enclosures of wells, since the law was relaxed in one respect,46 it could also be relaxed in another,47 [but as regards] an alley no [opening wider than ten cubits may have been allowed] at all.48 Levi learned: If [an entrance to] all alley was twenty cubits wide a reed may be inserted in the center of it and this is sufficient.49 He himself has learnt it and he himself said that the halachah is not in agreement with that teaching.50 Some there are who read: Samuel laid down in the name of Levi that the halachah was not in agreement with that teaching.50 How, then, does one proceed?51 — Samuel replied in the name of Levi: be converted into a doorway by the means that follow. breach into a doorway. ad fin.) is forbidden. courtyard wall. that of the smaller one allows of two side-posts, each of the width of three handbreadths, one on either side of the breach, and thereby the permissibility of the use of the larger courtyard is effected. The object of the measurements given would thus be to indicate the grounds on which the permissibility of the use of the larger courtyard is based. that advanced by R. Zera or Rabina. side-posts was only two handbreadths in width. have been permitted on account of the side-posts (obtained by labud) which, though invisible from within, are visible from without. for the prohibition was the inapplicability, owing to the wide gap, of the principle of labud. From this the conclusion, that were it not for this inapplicability, the smaller courtyard also would have been permitted (cf. previous note), would inevitably have followed. to enable the larger courtyard to be permitted and since the smaller one in such circumstances remains forbidden. rulings. its external side recedes from the external side of the alley wall. 54-57) would be accepted as law?