## Eruvin Daf 11b

###### Eruvin 11b:1
[Eruvin 11b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:1)

פֵּיאָה מוּתֶּרֶת לְעִנְיַן כִּלְאַיִם, אֲבָל לֹא לְשַׁבָּת. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כִּמְחִיצּוֹת לְשַׁבָּת דְּלָא, כָּךְ מְחִיצּוֹת לְכִלְאַיִם דְּלֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A braid** of vines plaited around poles to form a partition **is permitted with regard to diverse kinds,** i.e., it is considered a partition that renders planting grapevines in close proximity to other crops permitted, **but not with regard to Shabbat. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Just as** such a braid is **not** considered a **partition with regard to Shabbat, so** too it is **not** considered **a partition with regard to diverse kinds.** Their opinions in the dispute here apparently contradict their opinions in the dispute cited above.


###### Eruvin 11b:2
[Eruvin 11b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:2)

בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — דִידֵיהּ, הָא — דְרַבֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted,** the apparent contradiction between one statement **of Reish Lakish** and the other statement **of Reish Lakish** poses **no difficulty, as this** statement, according to which such a braid of vines is an effective partition even with regard to Shabbat, reflects **his** own opinion; **that** statement, according to which it is an effective partition only with regard to diverse kinds, reflects the opinion **of his teacher,** Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. **However,** the apparent contradiction between one statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan and** the other statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan,** poses **a difficulty.**


###### Eruvin 11b:3
[Eruvin 11b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:3)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא: הָתָם — עַל גַּבָּן, הָכָא — מִן הַצַּד, שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי מִן הַצַּד, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say** that **there,** where Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled that a braid of vines is an effective partition with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where the vines were placed **on top of** the posts, while **here,** where he rules that it is ineffective even with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where they were attached to the posts **from the side,** it works out **well. However, if you say** that both **this and that** are cases where the vines were attached **from the side, what is there to say?**


###### Eruvin 11b:4
[Eruvin 11b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:4)

לְעוֹלָם, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי מִן הַצַּד: הָתָם — בְּעֶשֶׂר, הָכָא — בְּיוֹתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** both **this and that** are cases where the vines were attached to the side posts **from the side. There,** where Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled that the braid is an effective partition with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case **where** the poles were only **ten** cubits apart; **here,** where he rules that it is ineffective even with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case **where** the poles were **more than ten** cubits apart.


###### Eruvin 11b:5
[Eruvin 11b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:5)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁנֵי לַן בֵּין עֶשֶׂר לְיוֹתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר — דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהָלַךְ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֵצֶל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּקִי בְּהִלְכוֹת כִּלְאַיִם, וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב בֵּין הָאִילָנוֹת וּמָתַח זְמוֹרָה מֵאִילָן לְאִילָן. וְאָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, אִי גְּפָנִים כָּאן מַהוּ לִזְרוֹעַ כָּאן? אָמַר לוֹ: בְּעֶשֶׂר מוּתָּר, בְּיוֹתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where do you say that we distinguish between** an opening of **ten** cubits **and** an opening of **more than ten** cubits? **As Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: That is not** the way that **the incident** transpired. **As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, even though** Rabbi Yehoshua himself was an **expert in the *halakhot* of diverse kinds and found him sitting among the trees, and** Rabbi Yehoshua **stretched a vine from one tree to another and said to him: Rabbi, if there are grapevines here,** in the enclosed area, **what** is the *halakha* with regard to **sowing** diverse kinds of seeds **here,** on the other side of the partition? Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri **said to him:** In a case **where** the trees are only **ten** cubits apart, it is **permitted;** however, **where** they are **more than ten** cubits apart, it is **prohibited.**


###### Eruvin 11b:6
[Eruvin 11b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:6)

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא עַל גַּבָּן יוֹתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר אָסוּר — וְהָתַנְיָא: הָיוּ שָׁם קָנִין הַדּוֹקְרָנִין וְעָשָׂה לָהֶן פֵּיאָה מִלְמַעְלָה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר מוּתָּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the case: **With what are we dealing** here? **If you say** that the vines were placed **on top of** the trees, when they are **more than ten** cubits apart **is it prohibited? But wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* with regard to diverse kinds: **If there were forked reeds there and he plaited a braid** of vines **above them,** then **even** if the reeds were set **more than ten** cubits apart, **it is permitted?** With regard to diverse kinds, the form of a doorway when properly constructed is certainly effective.


###### Eruvin 11b:7
[Eruvin 11b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:7)

אֶלָּא לָאו מִן הַצַּד, וְקָאֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּעֶשֶׂר מוּתָּר, יוֹתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר אָסוּר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** is it **not** referring to a case where he attached the vines to the trees **from the side, and he is saying to him: In** a case where the trees are only **ten** cubits apart, it is **permitted;** however, **in** a case where the trees are **more than ten** cubits apart, **it is prohibited?** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from it** that there is a distinction between poles that are ten cubits apart and poles that are more than ten cubits apart, and that this distinction resolves the contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Eruvin 11b:8
[Eruvin 11b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:8)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ מִן הַצַּד — לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now examines **the matter itself** with regard to Rav Ḥisda’s statement cited above. **Rav Ḥisda said:** If **one prepared** an opening in **the form of a doorway from the side,** placing the horizontal cross beam to the sides, rather than on top, of the vertical posts, **he has not done anything.**


###### Eruvin 11b:9
[Eruvin 11b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:9)

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח שֶׁאָמְרוּ, צְרִיכָה שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּרִיאָה כְּדֵי לְהַעֲמִיד בָּהּ דֶּלֶת, וַאֲפִילּוּ דֶּלֶת שֶׁל קַשִּׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Ḥisda** also **said: The** opening in the **form of a doorway of which** the Sages **spoke must be strong enough to mount a door in it, and even** if it is merely a flimsy **door of straw.**


###### Eruvin 11b:10
[Eruvin 11b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:10)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי: צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח צְרִיכָה הֶיכֵּר צִיר. מַאי הֶיכֵּר צִיר? אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: אַבְקָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The** opening in the **form of a doorway requires a mark** in the doorpost **for hinges.** The Gemara asks: **What is a mark for hinges? Rav Avya said: Loops [*avkata*]** into which the hinge is inserted, so that it will be possible to mount a door in the doorway.


###### Eruvin 11b:11
[Eruvin 11b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:11)

אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְתַלְמִידֵי דְּרַב אָשֵׁי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲמַר מָר מִידֵּי בְּצוּרַת הַפֶּתַח? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: לֹא אָמַר וְלֹא כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Aḥa, the son of Rav Avya,** once **found the students of Rav Ashi** and **said to them: Did the Master,** Rav Ashi, **say anything with regard to** an opening in **the form of a doorway? They said to him: He said nothing,** implying that an indication for hinges is unnecessary.


###### Eruvin 11b:12
[Eruvin 11b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:12)

תָּנָא: צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח שֶׁאָמְרוּ, קָנֶה מִכָּאן וְקָנֶה מִכָּאן וְקָנֶה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן. צְרִיכִין לִיגַּע, אוֹ אֵין צְרִיכִין לִיגַּע? רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אֵין צְרִיכִין לִיגַּע. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: צְרִיכִין לִיגַּע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A Sage **taught** a *baraita*: **The form of a doorway of which they spoke** consists of **a reed from here,** on one side, **and a reed from there,** on the opposite side, **and a reed on top of them.** The Gemara asks: **Need** the lower reeds reach high enough **to touch** the upper reed, **or do they not need to touch** it? **Rav Naḥman said: They do not need to touch** it; **and Rav Sheshet said: They need to touch** it.


###### Eruvin 11b:13
[Eruvin 11b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:13)

אֲזַל רַב נַחְמָן וַעֲבַד עוֹבָדָא בֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ רַב גַּדָּא: זִיל, שְׁלוֹף שְׁדִינְהוּ. אֲזַל, שְׁלַף, שְׁדִינְהוּ. אַשְׁכְּחוּהוּ דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, חַבְשׁוּהוּ. אֲזַל רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, קָם אַבָּבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גַּדָּא, פּוֹק תָּא! נְפַק וַאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Naḥman went** ahead **and performed an action in the house of the Exilarch in accordance with his** own **opinion.** He constructed an opening in the form of a doorway such that the upper reed was not in contact with the lower reeds. **Rav Sheshet said to his attendant, Rav Gadda: Go, remove** those reeds and **throw them** away. The attendant **went, removed** the reeds, and **threw them** away. Members **of the Exilarch’s court found him** and **imprisoned him** for destroying the form of a doorway that permitted them to carry. **Rav Sheshet went** and **stood at the door** of the prison, and **called** out **to him: Gadda, go out** and **come** to me. The Exilarch’s men released him, and **he went out and came** to Rav Sheshet.


###### Eruvin 11b:14
[Eruvin 11b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:14)

אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לְרַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תָּנֵי מָר מִידֵּי בְּצוּרַת הַפֶּתַח? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, תְּנֵינָא: כִּיפָּה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב בִּמְזוּזָה, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם יֵשׁ בְּרַגְלֶיהָ עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּיבֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Sheshet** once **found Rabba bar Shmuel** and **said to him: Did the Master teach anything with regard to** the *halakhot* of **the form of a doorway? He said to him: Yes, we learned** in a *baraita*: With regard to **an arched gateway, Rabbi Meir deems** the owner **obligated to** affix **a *mezuza*, and the Rabbis deem** him **exempt. However, they** both **agree that if its supports,** the vertical sides of the gate before it arches, **are ten** handbreadths high, **that** the gate **requires** a *mezuza*.


###### Eruvin 11b:15
[Eruvin 11b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:15)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים אִם גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה וְאֵין בְּרַגְלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשָׁה, אִי נָמֵי: יֵשׁ בְּרַגְלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְאֵין גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה — וְלֹא כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In order to explain the dispute, **Abaye said: Everyone agrees that if** the entire arch **is ten** handbreadths **high, but its supports are less than three** handbreadths high, or, **alternatively,** if **its supports are three** handbreadths high but the entire arch **is less than ten** handbreadths **high,** the arch requires **no** *mezuza* **at all.** Both of these gateways lack the requisite parameters of the form of a doorway to require a *mezuza*.


###### Eruvin 11b:16
[Eruvin 11b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:16)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּיֵשׁ בְּרַגְלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשָׁה וּגְבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה, וְאֵין רְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה, וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ לָחוֹק לְהַשְׁלִימָהּ לְאַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Where they disagree is in** a case where **the supports are three** handbreadths high **and** the entire arch is **ten** handbreadths **high,** and at the height of ten handbreadths the arch **is less than four** handbreadths **wide; however, there is** room **to carve out** the area **to complete it to four** handbreadths, so that the opening of the arch measures four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths high.


###### Eruvin 11b:17
[Eruvin 11b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:17)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: חוֹקְקִין לְהַשְׁלִים, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין חוֹקְקִין לְהַשְׁלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye explains the dispute: **Rabbi Meir holds** that **one carves** out the area **to complete** the four handbreadths, i.e., the arch is considered as though it has already been carved out, and the opening has the necessary dimensions. **And the Rabbis hold** that **one does not carve out** the arch **to complete** the four handbreadths. Since the opening is not actually four handbreadths wide at a height of ten handbreadths, no *mezuza* need be affixed. Rabba bar Shmuel indicates that everyone agrees that the lintel need not touch the doorposts of the entrance; if the arch’s opening were four handbreadths wide at a height of ten handbreadths, it would require a *mezuza* even though the ceiling is separated by the arch and does not touch the doorposts directly. So too, with regard to the form of a doorway, the upper reed need not touch the lower reeds, contrary to the opinion of Rav Sheshet.


###### Eruvin 11b:18
[Eruvin 11b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לְהוּ — לָא תֵּימָא לְהוּ לְבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא וְלָא מִידֵּי מֵהָא מַתְנִיתָא דְכִיפָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet **said to** Rabba bar Shmuel: **If you find them, do not say to** the members of **the Exilarch’s household anything with regard to this *baraita* of an arched gateway,** as it is proof against my opinion.


###### Eruvin 11b:19
[Eruvin 11b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:19)

**מַתְנִי׳** הֶכְשֵׁר מָבוֹי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֶחִי וְקוֹרָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אוֹ לֶחִי אוֹ קוֹרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לְחָיַיִן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There is a basic dispute with regard to the method of **rendering an alleyway fit** for one to carry within it on Shabbat. **Beit Shammai say:** Both **a side post and a** cross **beam** are required. **Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a** cross **beam. Rabbi Eliezer says:** Two **side posts** are required, one on each side of the alleyway.


###### Eruvin 11b:20
[Eruvin 11b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:20)

מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל מָבוֹי שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, שֶׁהוּא נִיתָּר אוֹ בְּלֶחִי אוֹ בְּקוֹרָה. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ — עַל רָחָב מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד עֶשֶׂר, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֶחִי וְקוֹרָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אוֹ לֶחִי אוֹ קוֹרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה נֶחְלְקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In the name of Rabbi Yishmael, one student said before Rabbi Akiva: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway that is less than four cubits** wide, as they both agree **that** carrying **is rendered permitted by either a side post or a** cross **beam. With regard to what did they disagree? It is with regard to** an alleyway that is **wider than four cubits, and up to ten** cubits wide; **as Beit Shammai say:** It requires both **a side post and a** cross **beam. And Beit Hillel say:** It requires **either a side post or a** cross **beam. Rabbi Akiva said** to the disciple: It is not so, as **they disagree** both **about this** case, i.e., an alleyway that is less than four cubits wide, **and about that** case, i.e., an alleyway that is between four and ten cubits wide.


###### Eruvin 11b:21
[Eruvin 11b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:21)

**גְּמָ׳** כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כַּחֲנַנְיָה וְלָא כְּתַנָּא קַמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** Before clarifying the various opinions in the mishna, the Gemara seeks to determine: **In accordance with whose** opinion was this mishna taught? Apparently, it is **neither in accordance with** the opinion of **Ḥananya, nor in accordance with** the unattributed opinion of **the first *tanna*** of the *baraita*, who disagree about an alleyway that is open to a public domain on two opposite sides. The dispute is whether the form of a doorway on one end and a side post and a cross beam on the other end suffice to render it permitted for one to carry within it, or whether actual doors are required, at least on one end. However, they both agree that a side post and a cross beam alone are not effective. Since at this point the Gemara assumes that the dispute in the mishna between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel applies to all alleyways, whether closed on one side or open on two opposite sides to the public domain, these opinions reflect an entirely different position.


###### Eruvin 11b:22
[Eruvin 11b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:22)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: הֶכְשֵׁר מָבוֹי סָתוּם כֵּיצַד? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֶחִי וְקוֹרָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אוֹ לֶחִי אוֹ קוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **this is what** the mishna **is saying: How is a closed alleyway rendered fit** for one to carry within it on Shabbat? **Beit Shammai say:** It requires both **a side post and a** cross **beam. And Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a** cross **beam.**


###### Eruvin 11b:23
[Eruvin 11b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:23)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֶחִי וְקוֹרָה, לְמֵימְרָא דְּקָא סָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: אַרְבַּע מְחִיצּוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the basis of each opinion. **Beit Shammai say:** It requires both **a side post and a** cross **beam. Is that to say** that **Beit Shammai hold** that in order for an area to be considered a private domain, **four partitions are** required **by Torah law?** Since a side post with a cross beam qualifies as a partition, the fact that they do not permit carrying within an alleyway without a side post indicates that they maintain that a private domain requires four partitions.


###### Eruvin 11b:24
[Eruvin 11b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:24)

לָא, לִזְרוֹק — מִשָּׁלֹשׁ הוּא דְּמִיחַיַּיב, לְטַלְטֵל — עַד דְּאִיכָּא אַרְבַּע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **No,** there is no proof, as one cannot conclude the parameters for a private domain based on the number of walls required to permit carrying. As with regard to the Torah prohibition **to throw** an object into a private domain from the public domain, **once** an enclosed area has **three** partitions, **one is liable** by Torah law. However, to permit one **to carry** an object within a private domain, the Rabbis decreed that it is not permitted **until there are** partitions on all **four** sides.


###### Eruvin 11b:25
[Eruvin 11b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:25)

בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים אוֹ לֶחִי אוֹ קוֹרָה. לֵימָא קָא סָבְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל שָׁלֹשׁ מְחִיצּוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to draw an inference from that which **Beit Hillel say: Either a side post or a** cross **beam** is required. **Is that to say** that **Beit Hillel hold that** at least **three partitions** are required **by Torah law,** and that an area with fewer is not considered a private domain?


###### Eruvin 11b:26
[Eruvin 11b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:26)

לָא, לִזְרוֹק — מִשְּׁתַּיִם הוּא דְּמִיחַיַּיב, לְטַלְטֵל — עַד דְּאִיכָּא שָׁלֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument as well: **No** proof can be cited from here. With regard to the Torah prohibition **to throw** an object into a private domain from the public domain, **once** an enclosed area has merely **two** partitions, **one is liable** by Torah law. However, to permit one **to carry** an object within a private domain, the Rabbis decreed that it is not permitted **until there are** partitions on **three** sides. A cross beam and a side post do not function as partitions but merely as conspicuous markers, so that one does not mistakenly carry outside the alleyway.


###### Eruvin 11b:27
[Eruvin 11b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:27)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר לְחָיַיִן. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְחָיַיִן וְקוֹרָה קָאָמַר, אוֹ דִילְמָא לְחָיַיִן בְּלֹא קוֹרָה קָאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** Two **side posts** are required. A **dilemma was raised** before the Sages: Did **Rabbi Eliezer** intend to **say** that two **side posts and a** cross **beam** are required, adding a stringency to Beit Shammai’s opinion, that in addition to the cross beam not one, but two side posts are required? **Or perhaps he** intended to **say** that two **side posts without a** cross **beam** are required.


###### Eruvin 11b:28
[Eruvin 11b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/11b:28)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁהָלַךְ אֵצֶל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן פְּרִידָא תַּלְמִידוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma from that which was related in the *Tosefta*. There was **an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who went to Rabbi Yosei ben Perida, his disciple,**