## Eruvin Daf 44a

###### Eruvin 44a:1
[Eruvin 44a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:1)

אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אוֹ דִילְמָא, בִּדְלָא מָלוּ גַּבְרֵי עָסְקִינַן, וְקָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**or is** the ***halakha* not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel? Or perhaps we are dealing with** a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could **not be filled with people** who had established an *eiruv* and were permitted to establish a human partition for Neḥemya. In that case, there were enough people to establish partitions from where Neḥemya was standing to within two cubits from the limit, **and** the dilemma that Rav Ḥisda **raised** was: **Is** the ***halakha* in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who says that someone who went two cubits outside of his Shabbat limit may reenter it, **or is** the ***halakha* not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer?**


###### Eruvin 44a:2
[Eruvin 44a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:2)

פְּשִׁיטָא בִּדְלָא מָלוּ גַּבְרֵי עָסְקִינַן, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּדְמָלוּ גַּבְרֵי עָסְקִינַן, מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? הָאָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּדִיר וְסַהַר וּסְפִינָה! אֶלָּא וַדַּאי בִּדְלָא מָלוּ גַּבְרֵי עָסְקִינַן, וּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **obvious that we are dealing with** a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could **not be filled with people, as if it should enter your mind that we are dealing with** a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could be fully **filled with people, what is** Rav Ḥisda’s **dilemma? Didn’t Rav say:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel with regard to a pen, a stable, and a boat? Rather, we** must be **dealing with** a case where the space between Neḥemya and the Shabbat limit could **not be filled with people, and** the dilemma that **he raised was** about the ruling **of Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Eruvin 44a:3
[Eruvin 44a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:3)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״יִכָּנֵס״. מַאי ״יִכָּנֵס״ — לָאו בְּלֹא מְחִיצָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This** interpretation is **also precise** and implicit in Rav Naḥman’s answer, **for** Rav Naḥman **said to** Rav Ḥisda: Establish a human partition for him, and **let him reenter** his Shabbat limit. **Doesn’t** the statement: **Let him reenter,** mean that he may reenter even **without a partition** along those two additional two cubits, i.e., that after he passes through the human partitions, he would still need to cross the remaining two cubits on his own without the benefit of a partition?


###### Eruvin 44a:4
[Eruvin 44a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: נָפַל דּוֹפְנָהּ — לֹא יַעֲמִיד בָּהּ אָדָם בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים. וְלֹא יִזְקוֹף אֶת הַמִּטָּה לִפְרוֹס עָלֶיהָ סָדִין, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין אֹהֶל עֲרַאי בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rava** with regard to the principle of making a human partition on Shabbat, from a *baraita*: **If the wall** of a *sukka* **fell** on a Festival or on Shabbat, thus rendering the *sukka* unfit for the mitzva, **one may not position people, animals or utensils there** in its place in order to form a wall, **nor may one turn a bed upright in order to spread a sheet over it,** which will thereby serve as a partition, **because one may not make a temporary tent for the first** time **on a Festival, and, needless to say,** this is prohibited **on Shabbat.** This indicates that a human partition may not be erected on Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 44a:5
[Eruvin 44a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִי מֵהָא, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא לָךְ מֵהָא: עוֹשֶׂה אָדָם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ דּוֹפֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאכַל וְיִשְׁתֶּה וְיִשַׁן. וְיִזְקוֹף אֶת הַמִּטָּה וְיִפְרוֹס עָלֶיהָ סָדִין כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּפּוֹל חַמָּה עַל הַמֵּת וְעַל הָאוֹכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him: You state to me** that this is prohibited **from this** *baraita*, **but I** can **state to you** that it is permitted **from this** other *baraita*: **A person may position his fellow as a wall, so that he may eat, drink, and sleep** in a *sukka*, **and** he is likewise permitted to **turn a bed upright** in order to **spread a sheet over it, so that the sun should not beat down on a corpse, or on food.**


###### Eruvin 44a:6
[Eruvin 44a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:6)

קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא — רַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: פְּקַק הַחַלּוֹן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁקָּשׁוּר וְתָלוּי — פּוֹקְקִין בּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו — אֵין פּוֹקְקִין בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ פּוֹקְקִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: If so, these two *baraitot* **contradict one another.** The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult; this** *baraita* that teaches that it is prohibited reflects the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** whereas **this** other *baraita* that teaches that it is permitted reflects the opinion of **the Rabbis. As we learned** in a mishna: With regard to **a window shutter** that is not fixed to the wall with hinges, **Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is tied** to the wall **and hangs** from the window, **one may shut** the window **with it; but if not, one may not shut** the window **with it,** since one may not erect a tent, even a temporary one, on Shabbat. **But the Rabbis say: In either case, one may shut** the window **with it.** This indicates that the Rabbis permit constructing a temporary wall of this sort on Shabbat, and they also permit the construction of a temporary wall in the case of a *sukka*.


###### Eruvin 44a:7
[Eruvin 44a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:7)

וְהָא: אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין אֹהֶל עֲרַאי בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּשַׁבָּת. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא לְהוֹסִיף, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹסִיפִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּשַׁבָּת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוֹסִיפִין בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּיוֹם טוֹב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But wasn’t it stated with regard to this** dispute: **Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All agree that one may not make a temporary tent for the first** time **on a Festival, and, needless to say,** this is prohibited **on Shabbat.** The Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer **disagree only with regard to adding** a temporary tent to a permanent structure, as in the case of a window shutter. **As Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add** a temporary tent to a permanent structure even **on a Festival; and, needless to say,** this is prohibited **on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add** a temporary tent to a permanent structure **on Shabbat, and needless to say,** this is permitted **on a Festival.** This indicates that there is no opinion that grants license to construct a temporary wall for the first time.


###### Eruvin 44a:8
[Eruvin 44a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:8)

אֶלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא — כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנְיָא: עֲשָׂאָהּ לִבְהֵמָה דּוֹפֶן לַסּוּכָּה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר פּוֹסֵל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara resolves the contradiction differently: This is **not difficult,** as **this** *baraita* that permits the positioning of an animal or a person as a wall was taught **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** and **this** *baraita* that prohibits it was taught **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who positions an animal** to serve **as the wall of a *sukka*, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit,** out of concern that the animal might leave, whereas **Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.**


###### Eruvin 44a:9
[Eruvin 44a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:9)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּקָא פָּסֵיל הָתָם — אַלְמָא לָא מְחִיצָה הִיא, הָכָא שָׁרֵי, דְּלָאו מִידֵּי קָא עָבֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir, who deems** the wall **unfit there,** with regard to a *sukka*, **apparently** holds that a partition established from a living creature **is not a partition** and he would **here,** in the case of Shabbat, rule that it is **permitted** to construct such a wall, as **he is not doing anything,** since it is not considered actual construction.


###### Eruvin 44a:10
[Eruvin 44a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:10)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּקָא מַכְשִׁיר הָתָם — אַלְמָא מְחִיצָה הִיא, הָכָא אָסַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, **Rabbi Yehuda, who deems** the wall **to be fit there,** with regard to a *sukka*, **apparently** holds that it **is a** proper **partition;** and he would **here,** in the case of Shabbat, **prohibit** the construction of such a partition.


###### Eruvin 44a:11
[Eruvin 44a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:11)

וְתִיסְבְּרָא? אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּהֵמָה. אָדָם וְכֵלִים מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **And** how can **you understand** it in that manner? **Say** that **you heard that Rabbi Meir** deemed the *sukka* to be unfit in the case where **an animal** was used to serve as a partition, but **did you hear** that he deemed the *sukka* to be similarly unfit if **a person or utensils** were used as walls? The reason that an animal may not be used as a partition, according to his opinion, is because it might leave. This concern does not apply to people or utensils, since a person is under his own control and can remain standing, and utensils do not move themselves. Since the *baraita* validates partitions established with people and utensils as well as animals, it cannot be based on the opinion of Rabbi Meir.


###### Eruvin 44a:12
[Eruvin 44a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:12)

וְתוּ — רַבִּי מֵאִיר אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — לְהוֹסִיף נָמֵי אָסַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** even if you do not differentiate as above, and instead assume that the consideration that the animal might leave is pertinent, **according to whose** opinion does **Rabbi Meir** state his opinion with regard to constructing a temporary tent on Shabbat? **If** it is **according to** the opinion of his teacher **Rabbi Eliezer,** this is difficult, as **he even prohibited adding** a window shutter, i.e., a temporary tent, to a permanent structure.


###### Eruvin 44a:13
[Eruvin 44a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:13)

אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, אֵימַר דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן לְהוֹסִיף, לְכַתְּחִילָּה מִי אֲמוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** you must say that he stated his opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** However, even according to their opinion, **say that the Rabbis** only **said** that one is permitted **to add** a temporary tent to a permanent structure; but **did they say that** it is permitted to construct a partition or a tent **for the first time?**


###### Eruvin 44a:14
[Eruvin 44a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:14)

אֶלָּא: הָא וְהָא רַבָּנַן. וְכֵלִים אַכֵּלִים לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא — בְּדוֹפֶן שְׁלִישִׁית, הָא — בְּדוֹפֶן רְבִיעִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** say that both **this** *baraita* **and that** *baraita* follow the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and this is the resolution of the various contradictions: With regard to the contradiction between the one ruling concerning **utensils** and the other ruling concerning **utensils,** this is **not difficult,** as **this** ruling that prohibits the construction of an additional wall refers **to** the **third wall** of a *sukka*, which renders it fit for the mitzva; whereas **this** other ruling that permits the construction of an additional wall refers **to** the **fourth wall** of a *sukka*, which is insignificant, as a *sukka* need not have four walls.


###### Eruvin 44a:15
[Eruvin 44a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/44a:15)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: נָפַל דּוֹפְנָהּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** interpretation **is also precise** in the wording of the *baraita*, **as** the *baraita* that prohibits the construction of an additional wall uses the following phrase: **If its wall fell.** This indicates a wall that is significant, i.e., a wall that renders it fit for use, rather than any wall, as stated in the *baraita* that permits it. The Gemara concludes: **Learn from this** that the correct resolution is to differentiate between the third and fourth wall of a *sukka*.