Eruvin — Daf 95a

קורה ד' מתיר בחורבה ורב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה קורה ד' מתיר במים מני

להך לישנא דאמרת בעשר לא פליגי בעשר ודברי הכל להך לישנא דאמרת בעשר פליגי כרב

לימא אביי ורבא בפלוגתא דרב ושמואל קמיפלגי דאיתמר סיכך על גבי אכסדרה שיש לה פצימין כשירה אין לה פצימין אביי אמר כשירה ורבא אמר פסולה

אביי אמר כשירה אמר פי תקרה יורד וסותם ורבא אמר פסולה לא אמר פי תקרה יורד וסותם לימא אביי כרב ורבא כשמואל

אליבא דשמואל כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי אליבא דרב אביי כרב ורבא עד כאן לא קאמר רב התם אלא דהני מחיצות לאכסדרה עבידי אבל הכא דהני מחיצות לאו לסוכה עבידי לא:

רבי יוסי אומר אם מותרין: איבעיא להו רבי יוסי לאסור או להתיר

אמר רב ששת לאסור וכן אמר רבי יוחנן לאסור תניא נמי הכי אמר רבי יוסי כשם שאסורין לעתיד לבא כך אסורין לאותו שבת

איתמר רב חייא בר יוסף אמר הלכה כרבי יוסי ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי יהודה

ומי אמר שמואל הכי והתנן א"ר יהודה בד"א בעירובי תחומין אבל בעירובי חצירות מערבין בין לדעת בין שלא לדעת לפי שזכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין שלא בפניו

ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהודה ולא עוד אלא כל מקום ששנה רבי יהודה בעירובין הלכה כמותו

וא"ל רב חנא בגדתאה לרב יהודה אמר שמואל אפילו במבוי שניטל קורתו או לחייו וא"ל בעירובין אמרתי לך ולא במחיצות

אמר רב ענן לדידי מיפרשא לי מיניה דשמואל כאן שנפרצה לכרמלית כאן שנפרצה לרשות הרבים:

מתני׳ הבונה עלייה על גבי שני בתים וכן גשרים המפולשים מטלטלין תחתיהן בשבת דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אוסרין

ועוד א"ר יהודה מערבין למבוי המפולש וחכמים אוסרין:

גמ׳ אמר רבה לא תימא היינו טעמא דרבי יהודה משום דקא סבר ב' מחיצות דאורייתא אלא משום דקסבר פי תקרה יורד וסותם

איתיביה אביי יתר על כן א"ר יהודה מי שיש לו שני בתים משני צידי רה"ר עושה לחי מכאן ולחי מכאן או קורה מכאן וקורה מכאן ונושא ונותן באמצע אמרו לו אין מערבין רה"ר בכך

א"ל מההיא אין מהא ליכא למשמע מינה

אמר רב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא מדקתני ועוד א"ר יהודה מערבין במבוי המפולש וחכמים אוסרין

אי אמרת בשלמא משום דקא סבר פי תקרה יורד וסותם היינו דקתני ועוד

אלא אי אמרת משום דקא סבר שתי מחיצות דאורייתא מאי ועוד שמע מינה:

הדרן עלך כל גגות

מתני׳ המוצא תפילין מכניסן זוג זוג ר"ג אומר שנים שנים בד"א בישנות אבל בחדשות פטור

מצאן צבתים או כריכות מחשיך עליהן ומביאן

that a cross-beam1 of the width of four handbreadths2 effects permissibility3 in a ruin4 and that of R. Nahman who, citing Rabbah b. Abbuha, ruled that a cross-beam of the width of four handbreadths5 effects permissibility6 in the case of water,7 whose view is represented there? According to the version which reads8 ‘where [a breach was not wider than] ten cubits there is no divergence of opinion’ [these9 would be a case where the cross-beam was no longer than] ten cubits and would represent the unanimous opinion; while according to the version which reads,10 ‘They only differ where it was not wider than ten cubits’, these11 would represent the view of Rab. Must it be assumed that Abaye and Raba12 differ on the same principles as those on which Rab and Samuel differed? For it was stated: If an exedra13 that had side-posts14 was covered with boughs,15 it16 is valid as a sukkah;16 but if it had no side-posts, Abaye ruled, it is still valid while Raba ruled7 It is invalid. Abaye ruled that it was valid because the edge of the ceiling is deemed to descend and to close up,17 while Raba ruled that it was invalid because he does not uphold the principle that the edge of the ceiling is deemed to descend and to close up.18 Now must it be assumed that Abaye is of the same view as Rab while Raba is2of the same view as Samuel? According to the view of Samuel there is no divergence of opinion between them.19 They differ only on the view of Rab. Abaye, of course, holds the same view as Rab, while Raba20 maintains that Ra+ upheld his view only there21 because the walls22 were expressly made for the exedra, but not here where the walls23 were not expressly made for the sukkah.24 R. JOSE RULED: IF THEY ARE PERMITTED. The question was raised: Did R. Jose intend to add restrictions25 or to relax them?26 — R. Shesheth replied: To add restricëions; and so too said R. Johanan: To add restrictions. So it was also taught: R. Jose ruled: As they are forbidden on future Sabbaths so are they forbidden on that Sabbath. It was stated: R. Hiyya b. Joseph27 ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose, but Samuel ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah. But could Samuel have given such a ruling seeing that we have learnt: ‘R. Judah ruled: This applies only to ‘erubs of Sabbath limits but in the case of ‘erubs of courtyards one may be prepared for a person irrespective of whether he is aware of it or not, since a benefit may be conferred on a man in his absence but no disability may be imposed on him in his absence’;28 and in connection with this Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah; and, furthermore, wherever R. Judah taught a law concerning ‘erub the halachah is in agreement with him’;29 and when R. Hana of Bagdad asked Rab Judah, ‘Did Samuel say this even in respect of an alley whose cross-beam or side-post has been taken away?’ he replied: ‘Concerning ‘erubs did I tell you, but not concerning partitions’?30 R. Anan replied: It was explained to me by Samuel that one statement31 referred to a courtyard32 in which a breach was made towards a karmelith33 while the other34 referred to one in which a breach was made towards a public domain.35 MISHNAH. IF ONE BUILDS AN UPPER ROOM ON THE TOP OF TWO HOUSES36 AND IN THE CASE OF VIADUCTS37 THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS UNDER THESE ON THE SABBATH IS PERMITÃED;38 SO R. JUDAH. BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS. R. JUDAH MOREOVER RULED: AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED FOR AN ALLEY THAT IS A THOROUGHFARE;39 BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS. GEMARA. Rabbah stated: Do not presume that R. Judah's reason40 is41 that Pentateuchally two walls42 are sufficient but rather that41 the edge of ceiling43 is deemed to descend downwards and to enclose the space below. Abaye raised an objection against him: ‘A more lenient rule than this did R. Judah lay down: If a man had two houses on the two sides respectively of a public domain he may construct one side-post on one side of any of the houses, and another on the other side, or one cross-beam on one side of any of the houses and another on the other side, and then he may move thingo about in the space between them; but they said to him: A public domain cannot be provided with an ‘erub in such a manner!44 — The other replied: Front that ruling45 your contention is justified,46 from this one,47 however, you cannot derive it. R. Ashi observed: A deduction from the wording of our Mishnah also justified [Rabbah's explanation], since it was stated: R. JUDAH MOREOVER RULED: AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED FOR AN ALLEY THAT IS A THOROUGHFARE; BUT THE SAGES FORBID THIS. Now if you grant his48 reason49 to be that the edge of the ceiling is deemed to descend and to enclose the space below, one can well see why the expression of MOREOVER50 was used; but if you maintain that his reason49 is51 that Pentateuchally two walls are sufficient, what52 is the justification for the expression MOREOVER?53 This is conclusive.54 MISHNAH. IF A MAN FINDS TEFILLIN55 HE SHAll BRING THEM IN,56 ONE PAIR AT A Time.57 R. GAMALIEL RULED: TWO PAIRS AT A TIME.58 THIS APPLIES TO OLD ONES59 BUT IN THE CASE OF NEW ONES60 HE IS EXEMPT.61 IF HE FOUND THEM62 ARRANGED IN PACKETS63 OR TIED UP IN BUNDLES63 HE SHALL WAIT BY THEM UNTIL. IT IS DARK AND THEN BRING THEM IN. handbreadths, would have had no validity. separated the water of the one courtyard from the water of the other. three walls is valid. principle of the downward extension of the edges of an exedra (though these were expressly made for that structure) could not accept that principle in the case of a sukkah (where these were not originally intended to form a part of the sukkah). walls. ones whose legal existence depends on a principle which is in itself a relaxation of the law cannot be regarded as valid by allowing a further relaxation of the law. be forbidden on future Sabbaths? of the reply Rab Judah gave to R. Hana, could it be maintained that Samuel pronounced the halachah here to be in agreement with R. Judah's ruling? Rabbinically forbidden. As no Pentateuchal law would he infringed, even if an object were carried from the courtyard into the karmelith or vice versa, Samuel adopted the lenient rule of R. Judah in a case where the courtyard was a permitted domain when the Sabbath began. maintain that this must not be presumed to be R. Judah's reason? proper tefillin.