## Eruvin Daf 15a

###### Eruvin 15a:1
[Eruvin 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:1)

אִיתְּמַר: לֶחִי הָעוֹמֵד מֵאֵלָיו, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: הָוֵי לֶחִי, רָבָא אָמַר: לָא הָוֵי לֶחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed about **a side post that stands by itself,** i.e., a side post at the entrance to an alleyway that was not put there for the express purpose of permitting one to carry on Shabbat. **Abaye said: It is a** valid **side post. Rava said: It is not a** valid **side post.**


###### Eruvin 15a:2
[Eruvin 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:2)

הֵיכָא דְּלָא סָמְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא הָוֵי לֶחִי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי הֵיכָא דְּסָמְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: הָוֵי לֶחִי, דְּהָא סָמְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל. רָבָא אָמַר: לָא הָוֵי לֶחִי, כֵּיוָן דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּהָכִי עֲבִידִי, לָא הָוֵי לֶחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara first narrows the scope of the dispute: In a place **where** the inhabitants of the alleyway **did not rely on it from yesterday,** e.g., the alleyway had another side post that fell down on Shabbat, **all agree that it is not a** valid **side post. Where they disagree is** in a case **where they relied on it from yesterday. Abaye said: It is a** valid **side post, as they relied on it from yesterday. Rava said: It is not a** valid **side post; since it was not originally erected for this purpose, it is not** considered **a** valid **side post.**


###### Eruvin 15a:3
[Eruvin 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:3)

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כִּי הֵיכִי דִּפְלִיגִי בְּלֶחִי פְּלִיגִי נָמֵי בִּמְחִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It might **enter your mind** to say that **just as they disagree with regard to a side post, they also disagree with regard to** whether **a partition** that was not erected to serve that function is considered a valid partition.


###### Eruvin 15a:4
[Eruvin 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָעוֹשֶׂה סוּכָּתוֹ בֵּין הָאִילָנוֹת וְאִילָנוֹת דְּפָנוֹת לָהּ — כְּשֵׁירָה. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁנְּטָעָן מִתְּחִילָּה לְכָךְ. אִי הָכִי פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לִיגְזוֹר דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאִישְׁתַּמּוֹשֵׁי בְּאִילָן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof based upon what we learned in the following mishna: With regard to **one who makes his *sukka* among the trees, and the trees serve as its walls, it is** a **valid** *sukka*. This proves that the trees function as partitions even though they were not erected for this purpose. The Gemara responds: **With what are we dealing here,** in this mishna? To a case **where he planted** the trees **from the outset for this** purpose. The Gemara asks: **If so,** it is **obvious** that the trees constitute valid walls. The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** the Sages **should issue a** decree to prohibit using a *sukka* with trees as its walls, due to a concern that **perhaps one will come to use the tree** on the Festival and detach a branch or leaf in the process, the mishna therefore **teaches us** that no such decree was made and the *sukka* is permitted.


###### Eruvin 15a:5
[Eruvin 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה שָׁם אִילָן אוֹ גָּדֵר אוֹ חִיצַת הַקָּנִים — נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם דְּיוֹמָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara tries to present another proof. **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: If **there was a tree there, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds** that are interconnected and form a hedge, **it is judged** to be **a** valid **double post,** i.e., it qualifies as a partition suitable to enclose a public well, as will be explained below. This indicates that a partition not constructed to serve as a partition is nonetheless valid.


###### Eruvin 15a:6
[Eruvin 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:6)

הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן מִתְּחִילָּה לְכָךְ. אִי הָכִי מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? [קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן], חִיצַת הַקָּנִים קָנֶה קָנֶה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, כְּדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Here, too, with what are we dealing?** With a case **where one constructed them from the outset for this** purpose. The Gemara asks: **If so, what does it teach us;** is it not obvious that it is a valid double post? The Gemara answers: **It teaches us** that **a barrier of reeds** is a valid partition if the distance between **one reed and the next is less than three handbreadths, as Abaye raised** this **dilemma to Rabba,** and the *baraita* teaches that it is valid.


###### Eruvin 15a:7
[Eruvin 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אִילָן הַמֵּסֵיךְ עַל הָאָרֶץ, אִם אֵין נוֹפוֹ גָּבוֹהַּ מִן הָאָרֶץ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים — מְטַלְטְלִין תַּחְתָּיו. הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — שֶׁנְּטָעוֹ מִתְּחִילָּה לְכָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof. **Come** and **hear** a proof from the following mishna: With regard to **a tree** whose branches **hang over** from a height of greater than ten handbreadths and reach almost to **the ground, if** the ends of **its branches are not higher than three handbreadths from the ground, one may carry under it;** the branches constitute partitions all around, and it is therefore permissible to carry in the enclosed area. The Gemara responds: **Here, too, with what are we dealing?** With a case **where he planted** the tree **from the outset for this** purpose.


###### Eruvin 15a:8
[Eruvin 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:8)

אִי הָכִי, לִיטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלּוֹ! אַלְּמָה אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא בֵּית סָאתַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, it should** be permitted to **carry in all of it** no matter how large the area. **Why,** then, **did Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, say: One may only carry** under the tree if its branches enclose an area no larger than **two *beit se’a*,** i.e., five thousand square cubits? If the area is larger, it is not considered a courtyard, and carrying there is prohibited. This indicates that the branches are not considered full-fledged partitions.


###### Eruvin 15a:9
[Eruvin 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:9)

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי דִּירָה שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישָׁהּ לַאֲוִיר, וְכׇל דִּירָה שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישָׁהּ לַאֲוִיר, אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בָּהּ אֶלָּא בֵּית סָאתַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The reason that carrying is permitted only if the enclosed area is less than this size is **because it is a dwelling whose use is for** the open **air** beyond it, i.e., it is used by guards who are watching the fields beyond it, rather than as an independent dwelling place, **and** the *halakha* with regard to **any dwelling whose use is for** the open **air** beyond it is that **one may carry in it only if** its area is no larger than **two *beit se’a*.**


###### Eruvin 15a:10
[Eruvin 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁבַת בְּתֵל שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְהוּא מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם, וְכֵן בְּנֶקַע שֶׁהוּא עָמוֹק עֲשָׂרָה, וְהוּא מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם, וְקָמָה קְצוּרָה וְשִׁיבּוֹלוֹת מַקִּיפוֹת אוֹתָהּ — מְהַלֵּךְ אֶת כּוּלָּהּ וְחוּצָה לָהּ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof. **Come** and **hear** that which was taught in the following *baraita*: With regard to **one** who **established his Shabbat** abode **on a mound that was ten** handbreadths **high and** its area was anywhere **from four cubits to** the **two *beit se’a*; and similarly,** one who established his Shabbat abode **in a** natural **cavity** of a rock **that is ten** handbreadths **deep and** its area was anywhere **from four cubits to two *beit se’a*;** and similarly, one who established his Shabbat abode in a field of **reaped grain, and** rows of **stalks** ten handbreadths high that have not been reaped **surround it,** serving as a partition enclosing the reaped area, **he may walk in the entire** enclosed area, **and outside it** an additional **two thousand cubits.** This indicates that a partition not specifically constructed to serve as a partition is nonetheless valid.


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁעָשָׂה מִתְּחִילָּה לְכָךְ, בִּשְׁלָמָא קָמָה לְחַיֵּי, אֶלָּא תֵּל וָנֶקַע — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **here, too,** it is a case **where he made it from the outset for this** purpose, there is a difficulty. **Granted,** in the case of the **grain,** this answer is **all right; but** with regard to **a mound and a cavity, what can be said?** They were there from time immemorial and were not constructed to serve as partitions.


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

אֶלָּא: בִּמְחִיצוֹת כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּהָוְיָא מְחִיצָה, כִּי פְּלִיגִי — בְּלֶחִי. אַבָּיֵי לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: לֶחִי מִשּׁוּם מְחִיצָה, וּמְחִיצָּה הָעֲשׂוּיָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ הָוְיָא מְחִיצָה. וְרָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: לֶחִי מִשּׁוּם הֶיכֵּר, אִי עֲבִידָא בְּיָדַיִם הָוְיָא הֶיכֵּר, וְאִי לָא לָא הָוֵי הֶיכֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara rejects its previous argument and explains: **With regard to partitions, all agree that** a partition that stands by itself **is a partition,** despite the fact that it was not erected for that purpose. **Where they disagree** is **with regard to a side post. Abaye follows his** usual line of **reasoning, as he said** that **a side post** serves **as a partition, and a partition that stands by itself is a** valid **partition. And Rava follows his** usual line of **reasoning, as he said** that **a side post** serves **as a conspicuous marker.** Therefore, **if it was made with** a person’s **hands** for that purpose, **it is** considered **a conspicuous marker; and if not, it is not** considered **a conspicuous marker.**


###### Eruvin 15a:13
[Eruvin 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אַבְנֵי גָדֵר הַיּוֹצְאוֹת מִן הַגָּדֵר מוּבְדָּלוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, אֵין צָרִיךְ לֶחִי אַחֵר. שְׁלֹשָׁה — צָרִיךְ לֶחִי אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now attempts to prove which side is correct according to this version of the dispute. **Come** and **hear** a proof from the *Tosefta*: With regard to **stones of a wall that protrude from the wall** and are **separated from each other** by **less than three** handbreadths, **there is no need for another side post** in order to permit carrying in the alleyway; the protruding stones join together to form a side post. However, if they are separated by **three** handbreadths, **there is a need for another side post.** This indicates that a side post is valid even if it was not erected for that purpose.


###### Eruvin 15a:14
[Eruvin 15a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:14)

הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁבְּנָאָן מִתְּחִילָּה לְכָךְ. אִי הָכִי, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לְמֵיסַר בִּנְיָינָא הוּא דַּעֲבִידָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Here, too,** we are dealing with a case **where one built them from the outset for this** purpose. The Gemara comments: **If so, it is obvious** that the side post is valid. The Gemara explains: **Lest you say** that it was only **in order to connect the building** to another building that **he built** the wall with protruding stones, **it teaches us** that it is a valid side post. We are not concerned that onlookers might assume that the wall was not originally built as a side post.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: כּוֹתֶל שֶׁצִּידּוֹ אֶחָד כָּנוּס מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, בֵּין שֶׁנִּרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים, וּבֵין שֶׁנִּרְאֶה מִבִּפְנִים וְשָׁוֶה מִבַּחוּץ — נִדּוֹן מִשּׁוּם לֶחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof: **Come** and **hear** the following *Tosefta* **taught by Rabbi Ḥiyya: A wall, one side of which is more recessed than the other, whether** the indentation **is visible from the outside and** the wall looks **even from the inside, or** it **is visible from the inside and** the wall looks **even from the outside, it is considered a side post.** This indicates that a side post is valid even if it was not erected for that purpose.


###### Eruvin 15a:16
[Eruvin 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:16)

הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ מִתְּחִילָּה לְכָךְ. אִי הָכִי, מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: נִרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים — נִדּוֹן מִשּׁוּם לֶחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here, too,** it is a case **where one fashioned it from the outset for this** purpose, to serve as a side post. The Gemara asks: **If so, what does it teach us?** The Gemara answers: **This teaches us** that a side post that **is visible from the outside and** looks **even** with the wall **from the inside is considered a side post,** although this view is not universally accepted.


###### Eruvin 15a:17
[Eruvin 15a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:17)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּרַב הֲוָה יָתֵיב בְּהָהוּא מְבוֹאָה, הֲוָה יָתֵיב רַב הוּנָא קַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי כּוּזָא דְמַיָּא. עַד דַּאֲתָא, נְפַל לֶחְיָא. אַחְוִי לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ קָם אַדּוּכְתֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא: לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר לִסְמוֹךְ אַדִּיקְלָא? אָמַר: דָּמֵי הַאי מֵרַבָּנַן כְּמַאן דְּלָא פָּרְשִׁי אִינָשֵׁי שְׁמַעְתָּא, מִי סָמְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof: **Come** and **hear** the following story: **Rav was sitting in a certain alleyway,** and **Rav Huna was sitting before him. He said to his attendant: Go, bring me a** small **pitcher of water. By the time he came** back with the water, **the side post** at the entrance to the alleyway **had fallen.** Rav **signaled to him with his hand** that he should stop, and the attendant **stood in his place. Rav Huna said to** Rav: **Doesn’t the Master hold** that it is permissible **to rely on the palm tree** located at the entrance to this alleyway as a side post? Rav **said: This scholar,** Rav Huna, **is comparable to one who does not know the teachings** of the Sages. **Did we rely on** the palm tree **from yesterday?** Since we did not, carrying in the alleyway is not permitted.


###### Eruvin 15a:18
[Eruvin 15a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:18)

טַעְמָא — דְּלָא סָמְכִינַן, הָא סָמְכִינַן — הָוֵי לֶחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Based on Rav’s response, the Gemara argues as follows: **The reason** that the palm tree could not serve as a side post is **because we did not rely** on the palm tree from yesterday. This indicates that **had we relied** on it, **it would be a** valid **side post,** thus proving that a side post that was not erected for that purpose is nonetheless valid, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.


###### Eruvin 15a:19
[Eruvin 15a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:19)

לֵימָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא בִּדְלָא סָמְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ פְּלִיגִי, הָא סָמְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ — הָוֵה לֶחִי. לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּהָהוּא בַּרְקָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי בַּר חָבוּ דַּהֲווֹ פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא כּוּלֵּי שְׁנַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that **Abaye and Rava disagree** only in a case **where they did not rely on it** before Shabbat, but in a case **where they did rely on it,** all agree **it is a** valid **side post?** The Gemara answers: This **should not enter your mind, as there was a certain balcony [*barka*] that was in the house of Bar Ḥavu that Abaye and Rava disagreed about their entire lives.** The residents of the alleyway began relying on a pillar upon which the balcony rested as their side post. Since Abaye and Rava disagreed about this case, it is clear that their disagreement applies even when the residents had relied on the item as a side post from before Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 15a:20
[Eruvin 15a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/15a:20)

**מַתְנִי׳** בַּכֹּל עוֹשִׂין לְחָיַיִן אֲפִילּוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר. וּמְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם גּוֹלֵל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One may construct side posts from anything, even a living creature,** provided that it was properly attached to the entrance of the alleyway, **and Rabbi Meir prohibits** using a living creature as a side post. The mishna continues with a similar dispute: Even a living creature **imparts ritual impurity** if it used as the **covering of a grave.**