## Eruvin Daf 8a

###### Eruvin 8a:1
[Eruvin 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:1)

וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק אַדַּעְתִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא בֵּין שֶׁעֵירְבוּ וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ פְּלִיגִי: בְּעֵירְבוּ בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי, בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard **to what first entered our minds,** that Rav and Shmuel **disagree both** in the case **where** the residents of the alleyway and the residents of the yard **established an *eiruv*** together, **as well as** in the case **where they did not establish an *eiruv*** together, explanation is necessary. The Gemara seeks to explicate **on what** point **they disagree in** the case **where they established a** joint ***eiruv*,** and **on what** point **they disagree** in the case **where they did not establish a** joint ***eiruv*.** That is to say, what is the crux of the argument in these two cases?


###### Eruvin 8a:2
[Eruvin 8a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:2)

בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ — פְּלִיגִי בְּנִרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: In the case **where they did not establish** a joint ***eiruv*,** Rav and Shmuel **disagree concerning** the *halakha* governing an alleyway that **appears** closed **from the outside.** Outside the alleyway there is a wider courtyard, so that from the perspective of those standing in the courtyard, the breach at the end of the alleyway seems like an entrance, and the alleyway appears to be closed, **but** appears to be **even from the inside.** From the perspective of those inside the alleyway, the breach is even with the walls of the alleyway, so that the breach does not look like an entrance, and the alleyway appears to be open. The dispute revolves around the question of whether an alleyway of this kind is considered open or closed. According to the authority who says that it is considered a closed alleyway, one is permitted to carry within an alleyway that terminates in a backyard in this manner.


###### Eruvin 8a:3
[Eruvin 8a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:3)

בְּעֵירְבוּ — קָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף. דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁכָּלֶה לְאֶמְצַע רְחָבָה, אֲבָל כָּלֶה לְצִידֵּי רְחָבָה — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And in the case **where they established a** joint ***eiruv*, they disagree about** the principle stated by **Rav Yosef. For Rav Yosef said:** The allowance to carry in an alleyway that terminates in a backyard **was only taught** in a case **where** the alleyway **terminates in the middle of the backyard,** so that when viewed from the yard, the alleyway appears to be closed. **But** if it **terminates on** one of **the sides of the backyard,** so that the alleyway and yard appear continuous, carrying in the alleyway **is prohibited.**


###### Eruvin 8a:4
[Eruvin 8a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:4)

אָמַר רַבָּה: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״לְאֶמְצַע רְחָבָה מוּתָּר״, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה, אֲבָל זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba** took the discussion one step further and **said: That which you say:** Where the alleyway terminates **in the middle of the backyard,** carrying **is permitted,** this **was only stated** with regard to a case where the breach in the back wall of the alleyway into the yard and the breach in the facing wall of the yard into the public domain **are not opposite one another. But** if the two breaches **are opposite one another,** carrying within the alleyway **is prohibited.**


###### Eruvin 8a:5
[Eruvin 8a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:5)

אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה מוּתָּר״, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא רְחָבָה דְרַבִּים, אֲבָל רְחָבָה דְיָחִיד, זִימְנִין דְּמִימְּלַךְ עֲלַהּ וּבְנֵי לַהּ בָּתִּים, וְהָוֵי לַהּ כְּמָבוֹי שֶׁכָּלֶה לֵהּ לְצִידֵּי רְחָבָה וְאָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiya** continued this line of thought and **said: That which you say:** If the two breaches **are not opposite one another,** carrying within the alleyway **is permitted,** this **was only stated** with regard to the case where **the backyard** belongs to **many** people. **But** if **the yard** belongs to **a** single **individual, he might sometime change his mind about it and build houses** in that part of the yard that is wider than the alleyway, **and** then the alleyway **will become like an alleyway that terminates on** one of **the sides of the backyard,** which is **prohibited.** If the owner of the yard closes off one side of the yard with houses, the alleyway will no longer terminate in the middle of the yard, but on one of its sides, in which case carrying will be forbidden. Consequently, although the houses have not yet been built, adjustments must be made in the alleyway to permit carrying, so that no problems should arise in the future.


###### Eruvin 8a:6
[Eruvin 8a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:6)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁנֵי לַן בֵּין רְחָבָה דְרַבִּים לִרְחָבָה דְיָחִיד — דְּאָמַר רָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמָבוֹי אֶחָד שֶׁצִּידּוֹ אֶחָד כָּלֶה לַיָּם וְצִידּוֹ אֶחָד כָּלֶה לְאַשְׁפָּה, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, וְלֹא אָמַר בָּהּ לֹא הֶיתֵּר וְלֹא אִיסּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Mesharshiya adds: **And from where do you say that we distinguish between a backyard** that belongs to **many** people **and a backyard** that belongs to **a** single **individual? As Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said:** There was **an incident involving a certain alleyway,** where **one of its sides terminated in the sea and one of its sides terminated in a refuse heap,** resulting in an alleyway closed on both sides. **And the incident came before Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, so that he may rule on whether these partitions are sufficient or whether some additional construction is necessary, **and he did not say** anything **about it, neither permission nor prohibition.**


###### Eruvin 8a:7
[Eruvin 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:7)

אִיסּוּר לָא אֲמַר בַּהּ — דְּהָא קָיְימִי מְחִיצּוֹת. הֶיתֵּר לָא אֲמַר בַּהּ — חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תִּינָּטֵל אַשְׁפָּה, וְיַעֲלֶה הַיָּם שִׂרְטוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **did not state** a ruling indicating **a prohibition** to carry **in** the alleyway, **for partitions,** i.e., the sea and the refuse heap, indeed **stand,** and the alleyway is closed off on both sides. However, **he** also **did not state** a ruling granting **permission** to carry **in** the alleyway, **for we are concerned that perhaps the refuse heap will be removed** from its present spot, leaving one side of the alleyway open. **And,** alternatively, perhaps **the sea will raise up sand,** and the sandbank will intervene between the end of the alleyway and the sea, so that the sea can no longer be considered a partition for the alleyway.


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

וּמִי חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא תִּינָּטֵל אַשְׁפָּה? וְהָתְנַן: אַשְׁפָּה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, חַלּוֹן שֶׁעַל גַּבָּהּ — זוֹרְקִין לָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **Are we** really **concerned that perhaps the refuse heap will be removed? But didn’t we learn** in a mishna: **A refuse heap in the public domain** that is **ten handbreadths high,** so that it has the status of a private domain, and there is **a window above** the pile of refuse, i.e., the window is in a house adjacent to the refuse heap, **we may throw** refuse from the window **onto** the heap **on Shabbat.** Carrying on Shabbat from one private domain, i.e., the house, to another, i.e., the refuse heap, is permitted. We are not concerned that someone might remove some of the refuse, thus lowering the heap until it is no longer a private domain, such that throwing refuse upon it is prohibited. This seems to present a contradiction, for in some cases we are concerned that the refuse heap might be removed, but in other cases we are not.


###### Eruvin 8a:9
[Eruvin 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:9)

אַלְמָא שָׁנֵי בֵּין אַשְׁפָּה דְרַבִּים לְאַשְׁפָּה דְיָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Apparently,** we **distinguish between a public refuse heap and a private refuse heap,** such that in the case of a private refuse heap we cannot assume that it will remain in place permanently, as it is likely to be emptied at some point.


###### Eruvin 8a:10
[Eruvin 8a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:10)

הָכָא נָמֵי, שָׁנֵי בֵּין רְחָבָה דְרַבִּים לִרְחָבָה דְיָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Here, too,** we **distinguish between a backyard** belonging to **many** people, where buildings are not likely to be added, **and a backyard** belonging to **a** single **individual,** where he might consider making changes and add buildings.


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

וְרַבָּנַן מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The case involving an alleyway opening on one side to the sea and on the other side to a refuse heap was brought before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who did not rule on the matter. The Gemara inquires: **And the Rabbis** of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s generation, **what** was their opinion with regard to this case? The fact that we are told that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not want to issue a ruling indicates that his colleagues disagreed with him.


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

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר אַבְדִּימִי, תָּנָא: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין; אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר אַבְדִּימִי, תָּנָא: וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין; אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef bar Avdimi said: It was taught** in a *baraita*: **And the Rabbis prohibit** carrying in such an alleyway. **Rav Naḥman said: The *halakha* is in accordance with the statement of** the **Rabbis. There are some who state** a different version of the previous statements as follows: **Rav Yosef bar Avdimi said: It was taught** in a *baraita*: **And the Rabbis permit** carrying in such an alleyway. **Rav Naḥman said: The *halakha* is not in accordance with the opinion of** the **Rabbis.**


###### Eruvin 8a:13
[Eruvin 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:13)

מָרִימָר פָּסֵיק לַהּ לְסוּרָא בְּאוּזְלֵי. אָמַר: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה הַיָּם שִׂרְטוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Mareimar would block off** the ends of the alleyways of **Sura,** which opened to a river, **with nets** to serve as partitions. **He said:** Just as **we are concerned that perhaps the sea will raise up sand,** so too, we are concerned that the river will raise up sand, and hence we cannot rely on its banks to serve as partitions.


###### Eruvin 8a:14
[Eruvin 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:14)

הָהוּא מָבוֹי עָקוֹם דַּהֲוָה בְּסוּרָא, כְּרוּךְ בּוּדְיָא אוֹתִיבוּ בֵּיהּ בְּעַקְמוּמִיתֵיהּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָא לָא כְּרַב וְלָא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל. לְרַב דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָתוֹ כִּמְפוּלָּשׁ — צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח בָּעֵי. לִשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָתוֹ כְּסָתוּם — הָנֵי מִילֵּי לֶחִי מְעַלְּיָא. אֲבָל הַאי, כֵּיוָן דְּנָשֵׁיב בֵּיהּ זִיקָא וְשָׁדֵי לֵיהּ — לֹא כְּלוּם הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further relates: With regard to **a certain crooked** L-shaped **alleyway that was in Sura,** the residents of the place **rolled up a mat** and **placed it at the turn** to serve as a side post to permit carrying within it. **Rav Ḥisda said: This** was done **neither in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav nor in accordance with** that of **Shmuel.** The Gemara explains: **According to Rav,** who **said** that **the *halakha* of** a crooked L-shaped alleyway **is like that of an** alleyway that is **open** on two opposite sides, it **requires** an opening in **the form of a doorway.** And even **according to Shmuel,** who **said** that **its *halakha* is like that of an** alleyway that is **closed** at one side, so that carrying is permitted by means of a side post, **this applies only** to a case where **a proper side post** was erected. **But** with regard to **this** mat, **once the wind blows upon it, it throws it over; it is** regarded as **nothing** and is totally ineffective.


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

וְאִי נָעֵיץ בֵּיהּ סִיכְּתָא וְחַבְּרֵיהּ — חַבְּרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **But if a peg was inserted** into the mat, **and** thus the mat was properly **attached** to the wall, it is considered **attached** and serves as an effective side post.


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

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: מָבוֹי שֶׁנִּפְרַץ בִּמְלוֹאוֹ לְחָצֵר, וְנִפְרְצָה חָצֵר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ — חָצֵר מוּתֶּרֶת, וּמָבוֹי אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara examines Rav Yirmeya bar Abba’s statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. **As to the matter itself, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: An alleyway that was breached along the entire** length of its back wall **into a courtyard, and** likewise **the courtyard was breached on its opposite side** into the public domain, **the courtyard is permitted** for carrying, **and the alleyway is prohibited** for carrying.


###### Eruvin 8a:17
[Eruvin 8a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא לְרַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי, לֹא מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ הִיא זוֹ? ״חָצֵר קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה לִגְדוֹלָה — גְּדוֹלָה מוּתֶּרֶת וּקְטַנָּה אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּפִתְחָהּ שֶׁל גְּדוֹלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Ulla said to Rav Beivai bar Abaye: My Master, is this** case **not** the same as **our Mishna? A smaller courtyard that was breached** along the entire length of one of its walls **into a larger** courtyard, the **larger one is permitted** for carrying, **and the smaller one is prohibited, because** the breach **is** regarded **as the entrance to the larger** courtyard. With regard to the larger courtyard, the breach running the entire length of the smaller courtyard is considered like an entrance in one of its walls, for the breach is surrounded on both sides by the remaining portions of the wall of the larger courtyard, and therefore carrying is permitted. With regard to the smaller courtyard, however, one wall is missing in its entirety, and therefore carrying is forbidden. This seems to be exactly the same as the case of an alleyway that was breached along the entire length of its back wall into a courtyard.


###### Eruvin 8a:18
[Eruvin 8a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:18)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מֵהָתָם הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָא דָרְסִי בָּהּ רַבִּים, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּקָא דָרְסִי בַּהּ רַבִּים — אֵימָא אֲפִילּוּ חָצֵר נָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He,** Rav Beivai bar Abaye, **said to him,** Rabba bar Ulla: **If** this was learned **from there** alone, **I would have said** that we must distinguish between the cases: The Mishna’s ruling **only applies in a place where many people do not tread.** The breach between the smaller and larger courtyard will not cause more people to pass through the larger courtyard, and therefore it remains a unit of its own. **But in a place where many people tread,** i.e., in the case where a courtyard is breached on one side into an alleyway and on the other side into the public domain, you might **say** that carrying is prohibited **even** in the **courtyard as well,** owing to the people passing through it from the alleyway to the public domain.


###### Eruvin 8a:19
[Eruvin 8a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:19)

וְהָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: חָצֵר שֶׁהָרַבִּים נִכְנָסִין לָהּ בָּזוֹ וְיוֹצְאִין לָהּ בְּזוֹ, רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לַטּוּמְאָה, וּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לַשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But didn’t we** already **learn this as well,** that the mere fact that many people tread through a courtyard does not forbid carrying, for we learned in the Tosefta: **A courtyard** that was properly surrounded by partitions, **into** which **many people enter on this** side **and exit on that** side, is considered **a public domain** with regard to the *halakhot* of **ritual impurity,** so that in cases of doubt, we say that the person or article is pure, **but** it is still **a private domain** with regard to the *halakhot* of **Shabbat.** Therefore, we see that with regard to Shabbat, the sole criterion is the existence of partitions, and the fact that many people pass through the courtyard does not impair its status as a private domain.


###### Eruvin 8a:20
[Eruvin 8a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/8a:20)

אִי מֵהָתָם הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי, זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this argument: **If** this was derived **there** alone, **I would have said** that this **only applies** in a case where the two breaches are **not opposite one another,**