## Eruvin Daf 12a

###### Eruvin 12a:1
[Eruvin 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:1)

לְאוֹבָלִין וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב בְּמָבוֹי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא לֶחִי אֶחָד. אָמַר לוֹ: בְּנִי, עֲשֵׂה לֶחִי אַחֵר. אָמַר לוֹ: וְכִי לְסוֹתְמוֹ אֲנִי צָרִיךְ? אָמַר לוֹ יִסָּתֵם, וּמָה בְּכָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**at** the town of **Ovelin, and found him dwelling in an alleyway that had only one side post. He said to him: My son, set up another side post.** Rabbi Yosei **said to him: Am I required to close it up?** Rabbi Eliezer **said to him: Let it be closed up; what does it matter?**


###### Eruvin 12a:2
[Eruvin 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:2)

אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל מָבוֹי שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ כְּלוּם, עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ, עַל רָחָב מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד עֶשֶׂר. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֶחִי וְקוֹרָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אוֹ לֶחִי אוֹ קוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in that same *Tosefta*: **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway** whose width **is less than four cubits,** as they both agree **that** this alleyway **does not require anything** to render it permitted for one to carry within it. **About what did they disagree? About** an alleyway that is **wider than four cubits, and up to ten** cubits; **as Beit Shammai say:** It is permitted to carry within it only if there is both **a side post and a** cross **beam, and Beit Hillel say:** It requires **either a side post or a** cross **beam.**


###### Eruvin 12a:3
[Eruvin 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:3)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת ״וְכִי לְסוֹתְמוֹ אֲנִי צָרִיךְ״, אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לְחָיַיִן וְקוֹרָה — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי אָמַר ״וְכִי לְסוֹתְמוֹ אֲנִי צָרִיךְ״. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְחָיַיִן בְּלֹא קוֹרָה — מַאי לְסוֹתְמוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof from this *Tosefta*. **In any case, it teaches:** Rabbi Yosei ben Perida said to Rabbi Eliezer: **Am I required to seal it? Granted, if you say** that Rabbi Eliezer requires two **side posts and a** cross **beam, for that** reason the disciple **said: Am I required to seal it? However, if you say** that he requires **side posts without a** cross **beam, what** is the meaning of **to seal it?** The entrance to the alleyway remains open from above.


###### Eruvin 12a:4
[Eruvin 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:4)

הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְכִי לְסוֹתְמוֹ בִּלְחָיַיִן אֲנִי צָרִיךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: No absolute proof can be cited from here, as perhaps **this is what he is saying: Am I required to seal it with side posts?**


###### Eruvin 12a:5
[Eruvin 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:5)

אָמַר מָר: אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל מָבוֹי שֶׁפָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ כְּלוּם. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: 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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** in the *Tosefta*: **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said** that **Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree about an alleyway** whose width **is less than four cubits,** as they both agree **that it does not require anything** to render it permitted to carry within it. **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: **A certain disciple said before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about an alleyway** whose width **is less than four cubits,** as they both agree **that** carrying in an alleyway of that sort **is permitted by either a side post or a** cross **beam.** How could Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel have said that according to Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel even that minimal action is unnecessary?


###### Eruvin 12a:6
[Eruvin 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:6)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לֶחִי וְקוֹרָה כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְלֹא לְחָיַיִן כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֶלָּא: אוֹ לֶחִי אוֹ קוֹרָה, כְּבֵית הִלֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: This is** what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel **is saying. It neither requires** both **a side post and a** cross **beam, in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Shammai, nor** does it require two **side posts, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer; rather,** it requires **either a side post or a** cross **beam, in accordance with** the statement of **Beit Hillel** with regard to a large alleyway. When it said that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not require anything, it meant anything more than that required by Beit Hillel.


###### Eruvin 12a:7
[Eruvin 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:7)

וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב אַחְלַי: וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יְחִיאֵל: עַד אַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And how** narrow must an alleyway be so that it would not require even a side post, according to all opinions? **Rav Aḥlei said, and some say** it was **Rav Yeḥiel** who said: **Up to** a width of **four** handbreadths, the alleyway requires nothing in order to render it permitted for one to carry within it.


###### Eruvin 12a:8
[Eruvin 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:8)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּפַסֵּי חָצֵר. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּפַסֵּי חָצֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said** that **Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said** that **Rav said: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the** upright **boards of a courtyard.** That is to say, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only about the number of side posts needed to permit carrying within an alleyway. However, they agree that if a courtyard was breached into the public domain, it can be considered closed only if upright boards of wall, similar to side posts, remain on both sides of the breach. **But Rav Naḥman said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the** upright **boards of** wall that are required in **a courtyard.**


###### Eruvin 12a:9
[Eruvin 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:9)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאן מוֹדִים? — רַבִּי. הֲלָכָה מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי, [מַאן פְּלִיג עֲלֵיהּ] — רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: חָצֵר נִיתֶּרֶת בְּפַס אֶחָד. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בִּשְׁנֵי פַסִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Who** are the Rabbis to whom Rav referred when he stated that they **concede** to Rabbi Eliezer? He was referring to **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. Furthermore, as Rav Naḥman said that the ***halakha*** is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one can learn **by inference that** the Sages **dispute** this issue as well. **Who** are the ones who **disagree with** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is **the Rabbis, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: In **a courtyard** that was breached into the public domain, with the width of the breach not exceeding ten cubits, it **is permitted** to carry if **one** upright **board** remains on one side of the breach. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** It is permitted only if there remain **two** upright **boards,** one on each side of the breach.


###### Eruvin 12a:10
[Eruvin 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חָצֵר צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי פַסִּין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פַּסֵּי חָצֵר צְרִיכִין שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהֶן אַרְבָּעָה. וְכִי תֵּימָא: אַרְבָּעָה מִכָּאן וְאַרְבָּעָה מִכָּאן —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Asi said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A courtyard** that was breached **requires two** upright **boards** of wall on either side of the breach, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan** really **say that? But weren’t you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The** upright **boards in a courtyard must be four** handbreadths wide? This indicates that only one board is necessary. **And if you say** that Rabbi Yoḥanan requires one upright **four** handbreadths board **from here,** one side of the breach, **and** one upright **four** handbreadths board **from there,** the other side of the breach, this is difficult.


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

וְהָתָנֵי רַב אַדָּא בַּר אֲבִימִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפִּי: קְטַנָּה בְּעֶשֶׂר, וּגְדוֹלָה בְּאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t Rav Adda bar Avimi teach** the following *baraita* **before Rabbi Ḥanina, and some say** it was **before Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi,** with regard to the *halakha* governing a small courtyard that was breached along its entire length into a large courtyard. The *baraita* teaches that the residents of the large courtyard may use their courtyard even if the **small** courtyard has a width of **ten** cubits, **and the large** one has a width of **eleven** cubits. In this case, the difference between the length of the smaller courtyard and that of the larger courtyard is only one cubit, i.e., six handbreadths. Therefore, there cannot be upright boards of four handbreadths on each side, as together they would amount to more than a cubit.


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

כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא מִיַּמֵּי פָּרְשַׁהּ: בָּרוּחַ אַחַת בְּאַרְבָּעָה, מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת — מַשֶּׁהוּ לְכָאן וּמַשֶּׁהוּ לְכָאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resolves this difficulty: **When Rabbi Zeira ascended from** his **sea** travels, **he explained** the contradiction between the statements of Rav Yoḥanan in the following manner: If there is a upright board **in** only **one direction,** it must be **four** handbreadths, however, if there are upright boards **from two directions,** it suffices if there is **any amount here,** on one side, **and any amount there,** on the other side.


###### Eruvin 12a:13
[Eruvin 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:13)

וְהָדְתָנֵי אַדָּא בַּר אֲבִימִי — רַבִּי הִיא, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And that which Adda bar Avimi taught** with regard to the difference in size between the two courtyards is not universally accepted, as according to Rabbi Zeira it is sufficient if one courtyard is four handbreadths larger than the other. Rather, **it is** in accordance with the view of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who requires two upright boards of wall in a breached courtyard. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** who says that a side post must be at least three handbreadths wide. Consequently, the two upright boards together must be at least six handbreadths, which is why the minimum difference between the smaller and the larger courtyards is a cubit.


###### Eruvin 12a:14
[Eruvin 12a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:14)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָצֵר נִיתֶּרֶת בְּפַס אֶחָד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב חֲנַנְיָה בַּר שֵׁילָא: אַתְּ לָא תַּעֲבֵיד עוֹבָדָא אֶלָּא אוֹ בְּרוֹב דּוֹפֶן אוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי פַסִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:** A breached **courtyard is permitted** if **one** upright **board** of wall remains on one side of the breach. **Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel** really **say this? But didn’t Shmuel say to Rav Ḥananya bar Sheila: You must not perform an action,** i.e., issue a ruling to permit carrying in a breached courtyard, **unless** there remains standing **either the majority of the wall or two** upright **boards** on either side of the breach.


###### Eruvin 12a:15
[Eruvin 12a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וַאֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא, דְּעוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּדוּרָה דִרְעוּתָא, לְשׁוֹן יָם הַנִּכְנָס לְחָצֵר הֲוָה. וַאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, וְלָא אַצְרְכֵיהּ אֶלָּא פַּס אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to** Abaye: **I do not know** how to resolve this contradiction. All I know is that **there was an incident in a shepherds’ village** with regard to **a narrow inlet of the sea that penetrated a courtyard,** breaching one of its walls in its entirety, **and** the matter **came before Rav Yehuda, and he required only one** upright **board** of wall to remain in order to permit it.


###### Eruvin 12a:16
[Eruvin 12a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְשׁוֹן יָם קָאָמְרַתְּ, קַל הוּא שֶׁהֵקֵלּוּ חֲכָמִים בְּמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to** Rav Yosef: **You speak of a narrow inlet of the sea,** but an inlet is different and nothing can be derived from that case, for we know that **this is a leniency in which the Sages lessened** the requirements **in** cases involving **water.** In these cases, the Sages did not require properly constructed partitions, but were satisfied with inferior ones.


###### Eruvin 12a:17
[Eruvin 12a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:17)

כְּדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי טַבְלָא מֵרַב: מְחִיצָה תְּלוּיָה, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּתִּיר בְּחוּרְבָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין מְחִיצָה תְּלוּיָה מַתֶּרֶת אֶלָּא בְּמַיִם, קַל הוּא שֶׁהֵקֵלּוּ חֲכָמִים בְּמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara supports the assertion that the Sages were more lax with regard to water from the following **dilemma** that **Rabbi Tavla raised before Rav: Does a suspended partition permit** carrying **in a ruin?** Do we say that the remnants of the walls that are suspended in the air are considered as if they descend to the ground, closing off the area so that it is regarded as a private domain? Rav **said to him: A suspended partition** of this kind **permits** carrying **only** in the case of **water; this is a leniency in which the Sages lessened** the requirements **in** cases involving **water.**


###### Eruvin 12a:18
[Eruvin 12a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:18)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **In any case, it is difficult.** The contradiction between the conflicting statements of Shmuel remains unresolved.


###### Eruvin 12a:19
[Eruvin 12a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:19)

כִּי אֲתוֹ רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִבֵּי רַב פֵּירְשׁוּהָ: מֵרוּחַ אַחַת — בְּאַרְבָּעָה, מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת — מַשֶּׁהוּ לְכָאן וּמַשֶּׁהוּ לְכָאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resolves the difficulty: **When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the house of their teacher, they explained** the contradiction in the following manner: If there is an upright board **from** only **one direction,** it must be **of four** handbreadths; but if there are upright boards **from two directions,** i.e., both sides of the breach, it suffices if there is **a bit here,** on one side, **and bit here,** on the other side.


###### Eruvin 12a:20
[Eruvin 12a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:20)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי — הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב חֲנַנְיָה בַּר שֵׁילָא: אַתְּ לָא תַּעֲבֵיד עוֹבָדָא אֶלָּא אוֹ בְּרוֹב דּוֹפֶן אוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי פַסִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: If** this issue **is difficult for me** to understand, **this is my difficulty: For Shmuel said to Rav Ḥananya bar Sheila: You must not perform an action,** i.e., issue a ruling to permit carrying in a breached courtyard, **unless** there remains standing **either most of the wall or two** upright **boards** on either side of the breach.


###### Eruvin 12a:21
[Eruvin 12a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:21)

לְמָה לִי רוֹב דּוֹפֶן? בְּפַס אַרְבָּעָה סַגִּי! וְכִי תֵּימָא מַאי בְּרוֹב דּוֹפֶן בְּדוֹפֶן שִׁבְעָה, דִּבְאַרְבְּעָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ רוֹב דּוֹפֶן, לְמָה לִי אַרְבָּעָה? בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וּמַשֶּׁהוּ סַגִּי! דְּהָא אָמַר רַב אַחְלַי וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יְחִיאֵל: עַד אַרְבָּעָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I need most of the wall?** An upright **board of four** handbreadths **should suffice.** The Gemara further explains the difficulty: **And if you say, what is** the meaning of **most of the wall** mentioned here? It is referring to the special case where the **wall** is **seven** handbreadths wide, so that **four** handbreadths **constitutes most of the wall,** this too is difficult. Even if the wall is seven handbreadths wide, **why do I** require an upright board of **four** handbreadths to seal? **Three** handbreadths **and any amount should suffice, as Rav Aḥlei, and some say** it was **Rav Yeḥiel who said:** A narrow alleyway **up to four** handbreadths wide requires nothing at all. Here too, after sealing up slightly more than three handbreadths, the remaining gap that remains is less than four handbreadths, so nothing further should be required.


###### Eruvin 12a:22
[Eruvin 12a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:22)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כָּאן — בְּחָצֵר, כָּאן — בְּמָבוֹי, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּרַב אַחְלַי גּוּפֵיהּ תַּנָּאֵי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that **here,** the statement of Shmuel is referring **to a courtyard,** where even a breach of less than four handbreadths requires action. **There,** the statement of Rav Aḥlei, is referring **to an alleyway. And if you wish, say** that the statement of **Rav Aḥlei is itself** subject to a dispute between the ***tanna’im*.**


###### Eruvin 12a:23
[Eruvin 12a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:23)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְשׁוֹן יָם הַנִּכְנָס לְחָצֵר — אֵין מְמַלְּאִין הֵימֶנּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ מְחִיצָה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁפִּירְצָתוֹ בְּיוֹתֵר מֵעֲשָׂרָה, אֲבָל עֲשָׂרָה — אֵין צָרִיךְ כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** the following *baraita*: With regard to **a narrow inlet of the sea that enters into a courtyard,** partially breaching one of its walls, **one may not fill** water **from it on Shabbat.** The inlet is a *karmelit*, from which it is prohibited to carry into a private domain, e.g. a courtyard. This is the *halakha* **unless there is a partition ten handbreadths high** at one side of the wall’s breach, which would incorporate the inlet as part of the courtyard. **In what** case **is this statement said? Where the breach** through which the water enters **is more than ten** cubits wide; **but** if it is only **ten** cubits wide, **nothing is required.”**


###### Eruvin 12a:24
[Eruvin 12a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/12a:24)

מִמְלָא הוּא דְּלָא מְמַלְּאִינַן, הָא טַלְטוֹלֵי מְטַלְטְלִינַן. וְהָא נִפְרְצָה חָצֵר בִּמְלוֹאָהּ לְמָקוֹם הָאָסוּר לָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The *baraita* indicates that **one may not fill** water from the inlet because that would involve carrying from a *karmelit* into a private domain, **but** in the courtyard itself **one may** indeed **carry. But isn’t the courtyard breached along its entirety,** i.e., more than ten cubits, **into a place that is prohibited to it?** Since it is prohibited to carry to or from the inlet, it should also be prohibited to carry within the courtyard itself.