## Eruvin Daf 16b

###### Eruvin 16b:1
[Eruvin 16b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:1)

אֲתָאן לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּאָמַר: פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה לָבוּד. דְּאִי רַבָּנַן: מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְעַד אַרְבָּעָה? שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַרְבָּעָה חַד הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**we have arrived at** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said:** Concerning any gap **less than four** handbreadths wide, the principle of ***lavud*** is applied. **As had** it been taught in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** why does the *baraita* list **from three to four** handbreadths as a separate category? In the case of both **three and four** handbreadths, the *halakha* **is one** and the same: The principle of *lavud* does not apply from three handbreadths upward.


###### Eruvin 16b:2
[Eruvin 16b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:2)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִדְּרֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן, סֵיפָא נָמֵי רַבָּנַן, וּמוֹדוּ רַבָּנַן דְּכׇל לְמִישְׁרֵא כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, אִי אִיכָּא מָקוֹם אַרְבָּעָה — חֲשִׁיב, וְאִי לָא — לָא חֲשִׁיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: From** the fact **that the first clause is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, the latter clause** must **also be** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis. And the Rabbis concede that** with regard to **any case** where the *halakha* **permits** sowing other species in the area **opposite** the standing portion, **if there is an area of four** handbreadths, **it is** considered **a significant** partition, which permits sowing; **and if not, it is not** considered **a significant** partition and does not permit sowing. Accordingly, there is a difference between a fence of three handbreadths and one of four handbreadths, as even the Rabbis concede that a fence of four handbreadths is more significant.


###### Eruvin 16b:3
[Eruvin 16b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:3)

רָבָא אָמַר: מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְכִי אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמְרִינַן לָבוּד — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל לְמַטָּה, הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּמְחִיצָה שֶׁהַגְּדָיִים בּוֹקְעִין בָּהּ — לָא אָמְרִינַן: לָבוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: From** the fact **that the latter clause is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the first clause** must **also be** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said** that **we say** the principle of ***lavud*** in the case of a gap up to four handbreadths wide, **this applies above,** off the ground, e.g., in the case of a cross beam suspended at a distance from the wall. **However, below,** near the ground, **it is like a partition through which goats can pass,** and therefore he too agrees that **we do not say** the principle of ***lavud*** in that case.


###### Eruvin 16b:4
[Eruvin 16b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּפָנוֹת הַלָּלוּ שֶׁרוּבָּן פְּתָחִים וְחַלּוֹנוֹת מוּתָּר, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹמֵד מְרוּבֶּה עַל הַפָּרוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the dispute with regard to a breach equal to the standing segments of a partition and cites another proof. **Come** and **hear** that which was taught in the following *baraita*: With regard to an area enclosed by **these walls,** in a case **where most of them** consist of **entrance and windows,** it is **permitted** to carry on Shabbat within the area, **provided that the standing** segments **are greater than the breached** segments.


###### Eruvin 16b:5
[Eruvin 16b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:5)

״שֶׁרוּבָּן״, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא: שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶן פְּתָחִים וְחַלּוֹנוֹת מוּתָּר, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹמֵד מְרוּבֶּה עַל הַפָּרוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the formulation of the *baraita*: **Can it enter your mind that** the *baraita* is referring to a case where **most of** the walls are entrances and windows? If so, the standing segments are certainly not greater than the breached segments. **Rather,** emend the *baraita* as follows: Carrying in the area enclosed by these walls, **to which one added** many **entrances and windows, is permitted, provided that the standing** segments **are greater than the breached** segments.


###### Eruvin 16b:6
[Eruvin 16b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:6)

הָא כַּפָּרוּץ אָסוּר, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב פָּפָּא תְּיוּבְתָּא. וְהִילְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara draws an inference: **If** the standing segments **equal the breached** segments, carrying **is prohibited** in that enclosure. This is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Pappa.** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is **a conclusive refutation.** Nevertheless, **the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Pappa.**


###### Eruvin 16b:7
[Eruvin 16b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:7)

תְּיוּבְתָּא וְהִילְכְתָא?! אִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּדַיְיקָא מַתְנִיתִין כְּווֹתֵיהּ. דִּתְנַן: לֹא יִהְיוּ פְּרָצוֹת יְתֵירוֹת עַל הַבִּנְיָן. הָא כַּבִּנְיָן מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara wonders: **A conclusive refutation and the *halakha*?** The Gemara answers: **Yes,** that is the case, **because the precise reading of the mishna is in accordance with** the opinion of Rav Pappa. **As we learned** in the mishna the following phrase: Provided…**there will not be breaches** in the partition **greater** than **the built** segment. This is clearly indicating that if the breached segments are **equal to the built** segments, carrying **is permitted,** as maintained by Rav Pappa.


###### Eruvin 16b:8
[Eruvin 16b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** מַקִּיפִין שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲבָלִים זֶה לְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה, וָזֶה לְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ בֵּין חֶבֶל לַחֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If a caravan is camped in a field, and the travelers seek to construct partitions to render the area fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat, **one surrounds** the area with **three ropes, one above another, and** a third **one above** the **other** two. One is permitted to carry within the circumscribed area **provided that there will not be** a gap of **three handbreadths between** one **rope and the next.**


###### Eruvin 16b:9
[Eruvin 16b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:9)

שִׁיעוּר חֲבָלִים וְעוֹבְיָין יָתֵר עַל טֶפַח, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא הַכֹּל עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The measure of the ropes and their** combined **thickness** must be **greater than a handbreadth, so that the entire** partition, consisting of three ropes and the empty spaces between them, **will be ten handbreadths** high.


###### Eruvin 16b:10
[Eruvin 16b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:10)

מַקִּיפִין בְּקָנִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בֵּין קָנֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Alternatively, **one** may **surround** the area **with boards** that stand upright, **provided that there will not be** a gap of **three handbreadths between one board and the next.**


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

בִּשְׁיָירָא דִּבְּרוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא דִּבְּרוּ בִּשְׁיָירָא, אֶלָּא בַּהוֹוֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When the Sages issued this ruling, **they spoke** exclusively **of a caravan;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,** who maintains that a partition of this kind, which consists of only horizontal or vertical elements, is permitted exclusively in exigent circumstances. Otherwise, full-fledged partitions are required. **However, the Rabbis say: They spoke of a caravan** in the mishna **only** because they spoke **in the present,** citing the most typical case. Those traveling in caravans were typically unable to erect full-fledged partitions, so they would surround their camps with ropes or boards. However, the *halakha* in the mishna applies in all cases.


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

כׇּל מְחִיצָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל שְׁתִי וְשֶׁל עֵרֶב — אֵינָהּ מְחִיצָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי דְּבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna cites an additional dispute: **Any partition that is not** constructed **of** both **warp and woof,** i.e., vertical and horizontal elements, **is not a partition;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.** He holds that the vertical boards and the horizontal ropes are not considered a partition, even in the exigent circumstances of a caravan. **However, the Rabbis say: One of the two elements,** either vertical or horizontal, is sufficient.


###### Eruvin 16b:13
[Eruvin 16b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:13)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ, עוֹמֵד מְרוּבֶּה עַל הַפָּרוּץ בִּשְׁתִי — הָוֵי עוֹמֵד. בָּעֵי רַב הַמְנוּנָא: בְּעֵרֶב מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Hamnuna said** that **Rav said:** It was concluded in the previous mishna that the Rabbis **said** that **in** the case of a partition that consists only of **warp,** i.e., vertical, elements, if **the standing** segment of the partition **is greater than the breached** segment, the fence **is** considered **standing. Rav Hamnuna raised a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* in the case of a partition that consists only of **woof,** i.e., horizontal, elements? Is it also considered standing if the standing segment is greater than the breached segment, or not?


###### Eruvin 16b:14
[Eruvin 16b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:14)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תָּא שְׁמַע: שִׁיעוּר חֲבָלִים וְעוֹבְיָין יָתֵר עַל טֶפַח, שֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּל עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. וְאִי אִיתָא — לְמָה לִי יָתֵר עַל טֶפַח?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: **The measure of the ropes and their** combined **thickness** must be **greater than a handbreadth, so that the entire** partition **will be ten handbreadths** high. **And if it is** so that, in a case where the standing segment is greater than the breached segment, the partition is considered standing even in the case of a fence that consists of horizontal elements, **why do I need** ropes with a combined thickness of **greater than a handbreadth?**


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

לֶיעְבֵּיד פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְחֶבֶל מַשֶּׁהוּ, פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְחֶבֶל מַשֶּׁהוּ, פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה וְחֶבֶל מַשֶּׁהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Instead, **let one leave** a space slightly **less than three** handbreadths, **and** place **a rope of any size,** leave another space slightly **less than three** handbreadths, **and** place another **rope of any size,** leave a third space slightly **less than four** handbreadths, **and** place **a** third **rope** of **any size.** The ropes between which there is a space less than three handbreadths should be considered joined, based on the principle of *lavud*. The entire partition should be considered standing because the standing segment, measuring six handbreadths, is greater than the breached segment, which measures four handbreadths.


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

וְתִיסְבְּרָא? הַאי פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה הֵיכָא מוֹקֵים לֵיהּ? אִי מוֹקֵים לֵיהּ תַּתַּאי, הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּמְחִיצָה שֶׁהַגְּדָיִים בּוֹקְעִין בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents a difficulty: **And** how can **you understand** that this would be effective? **Where does he position** the space of slightly **less than four** handbreadths? **If he positions it at the bottom, its** legal status **is like** that of **a partition through which goats pass,** which is not a valid partition.


###### Eruvin 16b:17
[Eruvin 16b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:17)

אִי מוֹקֵים לֵיהּ עִילַּאי, אָתֵי אַוֵּירָא דְּהַאי גִּיסָא וּדְהַאי גִּיסָא וּמְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If he positions it at the top,** then **the air on this side, above** the uppermost rope, **and on that side,** below that rope, **come and negate it.** As there are more than three handbreadths between them the upper and lower ropes, they are not joined together based on the principle of *lavud*. The four handbreadths below the uppermost rope and the airspace above it combine to negate the connection.


###### Eruvin 16b:18
[Eruvin 16b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:18)

אִי מוֹקֵים לֵיהּ בְּמִיצְעֵי, הָוֵה לֵיהּ עוֹמֵד מְרוּבֶּה עַל הַפָּרוּץ מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת. שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ עוֹמֵד מְרוּבֶּה עַל הַפָּרוּץ מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת הָוֵי עוֹמֵד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If he positions it in the middle,** then **the standing** segment of the partition **is greater than the breached** segment, provided that the standing portions **on the two sides** of the breach are combined. However, if each side is considered separately, the breach is greater than the standing portion. If it is nevertheless deemed a partition, **conclude from it** that even if **the standing** segment **is greater than the breached** segment only when the standing segments **on the two sides** of the breach are combined, the partition is considered **standing.** However, that circumstance was raised as a dilemma and remained unresolved.


###### Eruvin 16b:19
[Eruvin 16b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:19)

אֶלָּא רַב הַמְנוּנָא הָכִי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: כְּגוֹן דְּאַיְיתִי מַחְצֶלֶת דְּהָוֵי שִׁבְעָה וּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וַחֲקַק בַּהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה, וּשְׁבַק בַּהּ אַרְבָּעָה וּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וְאוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Hamnuna raised the following dilemma:** What is the *halakha* in a case **where one brought a mat that is seven** handbreadths **and any** additional amount, **and carved in it** a hole **three** handbreadths wide, **and left four** handbreadths above the hole **and any** additional amount below it, **and positioned** the mat **less than three** handbreadths off the ground?


###### Eruvin 16b:20
[Eruvin 16b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:20)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: The dilemma he raised** is with regard to the legal status of a ten-handbreadth **partition suspended** off the ground. That dilemma is **similar to that which Rabbi Tavla raised** as **a dilemma before Rav: Does a suspended partition** act as if it were a partition that reaches the ground and **render it permitted** for one to carry **in a ruin?** Rav **said to him: A suspended partition renders it permitted** for one to carry **only** when it is suspended over **water,** as there is **a leniency** introduced **by the Sages with regard to water.**


###### Eruvin 16b:21
[Eruvin 16b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:21)

מַקִּיפִין בְּקָנִים וְכוּ׳. בִּשְׁיָרָא אִין, בְּיָחִיד לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מְחִיצּוֹת שַׁבָּת לֹא הִתִּירוּ לְיָחִיד יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **One** may **surround** the area **with boards** that stand upright, provided there will not be a gap of three handbreadths between one board and the next. Rabbi Yehuda said that this leniency, which allows the establishment of a partition consisting exclusively of horizontal or vertical elements, was stated only with regard to a caravan. The Gemara infers: **With regard to a caravan, yes,** it is permitted; **with regard to an individual, no,** it is not permitted. **Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says:** With regard to **all** unsteady **partitions of Shabbat,** e.g., those consisting exclusively of horizontal or vertical elements, the Sages **did not permit** their use **for an individual** if the space that they enclose is **greater than two *beit se’a*?** This indicates that, for an area of up to two *beit se’a*, Rabbi Yehuda permits these partitions even for an individual.


###### Eruvin 16b:22
[Eruvin 16b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:22)

כִּדְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: לָא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִיתֵּן לָהֶן כׇּל צָרְכָּן, הָכָא נָמֵי לִיתֵּן לָהֶן כׇּל צָרְכָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna can be understood **in accordance with that which Rav Naḥman, and some say** it was **Rav Beivai bar Abaye, said** with regard to a different statement: This *halakha* **was necessary only** in order **to provide** those traveling in the caravan with space to satisfy **all their needs. Here, too,** in the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda’s statement can be understood as coming **to provide** those traveling in the caravan with space to satisfy **all their needs.** In other words, Rabbi Yehuda does not dispute the fundamental effectiveness of a partition of this kind, even for an individual. When he says that the *halakha* applies solely to a caravan, he means that it applies only in the case of a caravan, regardless of the size of the area in question. However, in the case of an individual, a partition of that kind is effective only if it encloses an area up to two *beit se’a*.


###### Eruvin 16b:23
[Eruvin 16b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:23)

הֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב נַחְמָן וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי? אַהָא דִּתְנַן: כׇּל מְחִיצָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב אֵינָהּ מְחִיצָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Where was** this statement **of Rav Naḥman, and some say** of **Rav Beivai bar Abaye, stated?** It was stated with regard **to this** ruling at the end of the mishna: **Any partition that is not** made of both **vertical and horizontal** elements **is not a partition;** this is the statement of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Eruvin 16b:24
[Eruvin 16b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:24)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֶחָד יָחִיד וְאֶחָד שְׁיָירָא לַחֲבָלִים. וּמָה בֵּין יָחִיד לִשְׁיָירָא? יָחִיד נוֹתְנִין לוֹ בֵּית סָאתַיִם, שְׁנַיִם נוֹתְנִין לָהֶם בֵּית סָאתַיִם, שְׁלֹשָׁה נַעֲשׂוּ שְׁיָירָא וְנוֹתְנִין לָהֶן בֵּית שֵׁשׁ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Did Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda,** actually **say this? Wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: For **both an individual and a caravan,** partitions made of **ropes** are effective? **And what,** then, **is** the difference **between an individual and a caravan?** With regard to an **individual,** the *halakha* **provides him** with an area of **two *beit se’a*,** in which he may carry by virtue of partitions of this kind. With regard to **two** individuals as well, the *halakha* **provides them** with an area of **two *beit se’a*. Three** individuals **assume the** legal **status of a caravan, and** the *halakha* **provides** each of **them** with an area of two *beit se’a*, for a total of **six *beit*** *se’a*. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Eruvin 16b:25
[Eruvin 16b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:25)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד יָחִיד וְאֶחָד שְׁיָירָא נוֹתְנִין לָהֶן כׇּל צָרְכָּן, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בֵּית סָאתַיִם פָּנוּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** With regard to **both an individual and** those traveling in **a caravan, one provides them** with space to satisfy **all their needs, provided that there will not be an unoccupied space of two *beit se’a*.** They may not enclose an area that is two *beit se’a* larger than the space that they require. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, relies on the ruling that ropes render an area fit for one to carry within it, even for an individual.


###### Eruvin 16b:26
[Eruvin 16b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:26)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: לָא נִצְרְכָא, אֶלָּא לִיתֵּן לָהֶן כׇּל צָרְכָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman, and some say** it was **Rav Beivai bar Abaye, said:** The opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, in the mishna **was necessary only to provide them** with the space to satisfy **all their needs** in the case of a properly constructed partition consisting of both horizontal and vertical elements. A partition consisting of exclusively horizontal or vertical elements renders an area of six *beit se’a* fit for one to carry within it, only in the case of a caravan.


###### Eruvin 16b:27
[Eruvin 16b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:27)

דָּרַשׁ רַב נַחְמָן מִשּׁוּם רַבֵּינוּ שְׁמוּאֵל: יָחִיד — נוֹתְנִין לוֹ בֵּית סָאתַיִם, שְׁנַיִם — נוֹתְנִין לְהוּ בֵּית סָאתַיִם, שְׁלֹשָׁה — נַעֲשׂוּ שְׁיָירָא וְנוֹתְנִין לָהֶן בֵּית שֵׁשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman taught in the name of Rabbeinu Shmuel:** With regard to an **individual,** the *halakha* **provides him** with an area of **two *beit se’a*.** With regard to **two** individuals, the *halakha* **provides them** with an area of **two *beit se’a*** as well. **Three** individuals **assume the** legal **status of a caravan, and** the *halakha* **provides** each of **them** with an area of two *beit se’a*, for a total of **six *beit*** *se’a*.


###### Eruvin 16b:28
[Eruvin 16b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:28)

שָׁבַקְתְּ רַבָּנַן וְעָבְדַתְּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman was asked: **Did you abandon** the majority opinion of **the Rabbis and act in accordance with** the individual opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?**


###### Eruvin 16b:29
[Eruvin 16b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/16b:29)

הֲדַר אוֹקֵים רַב נַחְמָן אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ וּדְרַשׁ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם טָעוּת הֵן בְּיָדִי. בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ: יָחִיד — נוֹתְנִין לוֹ בֵּית סָאתַיִם, שְׁנַיִם — נוֹתְנִין לָהֶן בֵּית סָאתַיִם, שְׁלֹשָׁה — נַעֲשׂוּ שְׁיָירָא וְנוֹתְנִין לָהֶן כָּל צָרְכָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman then placed a speaker** standing **over him, and taught: The matters that I stated before you are an error on my part. Indeed, this** is what the Rabbis **said:** With regard to an **individual,** the *halakha* **provides him** with an area of **two *beit se’a*.** With regard to **two** individuals, the *halakha* **provides them** with an area of **two *beit se’a*** as well. **Three** individuals **assume the** legal **status of a caravan, and** the *halakha* **provides them** with space to satisfy **all their needs.**