## Eruvin Daf 95a

###### Eruvin 95a:1
[Eruvin 95a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:1)

קוֹרָה אַרְבָּעָה מַתִּיר בְּחוּרְבָּה, וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: קוֹרָה אַרְבָּעָה מַתִּיר בְּמַיִם, מַנִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A** cross **beam four** handbreadths wide **renders** carrying **in a ruin** that is breached into a public domain **permitted,** as the edge of the cross beam is considered to descend and seal the breach. **And** that which **Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said: A** cross **beam four** handbreadths wide **renders** carrying **in water permitted** like a partition. In accordance with **whose** opinion were these rulings stated?


###### Eruvin 95a:2
[Eruvin 95a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:2)

לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּעֶשֶׂר לָא פְּלִיגִי: בְּעֶשֶׂר, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל. לְהַךְ לִישָּׁנָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּעֶשֶׂר פְּלִיגִי: כְּרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **According to this version that you stated,** that Rav and Shmuel **agree with regard to** an opening no wider than **ten** cubits, here it is referring **to** a cross beam that is no longer than **ten** cubits, **and everyone,** both Rav and Shmuel, **agrees** with these rulings. **According to that** other **version that you stated,** that **they disagree with regard to** an opening no wider than **ten** cubits, these rulings are **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav** alone.


###### Eruvin 95a:3
[Eruvin 95a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:3)

לֵימָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּאִיתְּמַר: סִיכֵּךְ עַל גַּבֵּי אַכְסַדְרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ פַּצִּימִין — כְּשֵׁירָה, אֵין לָהּ פַּצִּימִין, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: כְּשֵׁירָה, וְרָבָא אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that **Abaye and Rava are disagreeing with regard to the** point that was the subject of a **dispute between Rav and Shmuel. As it was stated:** If one **placed roofing on top of a portico that has doorposts,** i.e., pillars that form the beginnings of partitions, **it is a valid *sukka*.** If, however, he placed the roofing atop a portico that **has no doorposts,** there is a dispute. **Abaye said: It is a valid *sukka*. And Rava said: It is invalid.**


###### Eruvin 95a:4
[Eruvin 95a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:4)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר כְּשֵׁירָה, אָמַר פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם. וְרָבָא אָמַר פְּסוּלָה, לָא אָמַר פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם. לֵימָא אַבָּיֵי כְּרַב, וְרָבָא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Abaye said: It is valid.** As **he said: The edge of a roof descends and seals.** Since the portico is roofed, it is considered to have partitions as well. **And Rava said: It is invalid,** as **he did not say: The edge of a roof descends and seals. Let us say** that **Abaye** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav, and Rava** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Shmuel?**


###### Eruvin 95a:5
[Eruvin 95a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:5)

אַלִּיבָּא דִשְׁמוּאֵל כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְרַב: אַבָּיֵי כְּרַב. וְרָבָא — עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַב הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּהָנֵי מְחִיצוֹת לְאַכְסַדְרָה עֲבִידִי. אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּהָנֵי מְחִיצוֹת לָאו לְסוּכָּה עֲבִידִי — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **According to** the opinion of **Shmuel, everyone,** including Abaye, **agrees** that this *sukka* is invalid. **Where they disagree** is **according to** the opinion of **Rav. Abaye** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav** in a straightforward manner. **And Rava** claims: **Rav stated** his opinion, that the edge of the portico descends and seals, **only there, where those partitions** formed by the roof **were built for the portico,** and they are therefore viewed as sealing it. **However, here, where these partitions were not built for** the mitzva of ***sukka*, no,** even Rav would agree that the partitions are not sufficiently significant to utilize for the purpose of this mitzva.


###### Eruvin 95a:6
[Eruvin 95a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:6)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִם מוּתָּרִין. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֶאֱסוֹר, אוֹ לְהַתִּיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **Rabbi Yosei says: If they are permitted** to carry there on that Shabbat, they are likewise permitted to do so in the future, and if they are prohibited from carrying there in the future, they are also prohibited from carrying there on that Shabbat **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Did **Rabbi Yosei** intend **to prohibit** carrying even on that Shabbat, **or to permit** carrying even in the future?


###### Eruvin 95a:7
[Eruvin 95a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:7)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לֶאֱסוֹר. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֶאֱסוֹר. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרִין לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, כָּךְ אֲסוּרִין לְאוֹתוֹ שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said:** His intention was **to prohibit** carrying even on that Shabbat. **And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** His intention was **to prohibit** carrying even on that Shabbat. **This** opinion **was also taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei said: Just as they are prohibited** from carrying **in the future, so are they prohibited** from carrying **on that Shabbat.**


###### Eruvin 95a:8
[Eruvin 95a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:8)

אִיתְּמַר, רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated: Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, while Shmuel said** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Eruvin 95a:9
[Eruvin 95a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:9)

וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי?! וְהָתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּעֵירוּבֵי תְחוּמִין. אֲבָל בְּעֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת — מְעָרְבִין בֵּין לְדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, וְאֵין חָבִין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise: **But did Shmuel** really **say this? Didn’t we learn** in a mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda said: In what** case **are these matters,** that an *eiruv* may be established for a person only with his knowledge, **stated?** It is **with regard to a joining of** Shabbat **boundaries, but with regard to a joining of courtyards, one may establish an *eiruv*** for another person **both with his knowledge and without his knowledge, because one may act in a person’s interest** even when **not in his presence, but one may act to** his **disadvantage only in his presence.** One may take unilateral action on another’s behalf when it is to that other person’s benefit. However, if it is to that person’s disadvantage, or when the action entails both benefits and disadvantages, he may act on the other person’s behalf only if he was explicitly appointed as his agent. A joining of courtyards is always to a person’s benefit, and therefore it can be established even without his knowledge. However, with regard to a joining of Shabbat boundaries, any distance that a person gains in one direction he forfeits in the opposite direction. Consequently, this type of *eiruv* may be established only with his knowledge.


###### Eruvin 95a:10
[Eruvin 95a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:10)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּעֵירוּבִין — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. And furthermore, anyplace where Rabbi Yehuda taught with regard to** the *halakhot* of ***eiruv*, the *halakha* is in accordance with his** opinion.


###### Eruvin 95a:11
[Eruvin 95a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:11)

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָא בַּגְדָּתָאָה לְרַב יְהוּדָה: אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל אֲפִילּוּ בְּמָבוֹי שֶׁנִּיטַּל קוֹרָתוֹ אוֹ לְחָיָיו? וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּעֵירוּבִין אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא בִּמְחִיצוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Ḥana of Baghdad said to Rav Yehuda:** Did **Shmuel state** this ruling **even with regard to an alleyway whose** cross **beam or side post was removed** during Shabbat? **And** Rav Yehuda **said to him: I spoke to you with regard to** the acquisition of **an *eiruv*, and not with regard to partitions.** The Gemara asks: How, then, could Shmuel rule that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this case, after explicitly stating that the *halakha* is not in accordance with his opinion in the case of fallen partitions?


###### Eruvin 95a:12
[Eruvin 95a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:12)

אָמַר רַב עָנָן: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: כָּאן שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה לְכַרְמְלִית, כָּאן שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Anan said:** This matter **was explained to me** personally **by Shmuel** himself: **Here,** where Shmuel rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is in a case **where** the courtyard **was breached into a *karmelit*.** In that case the *halakha* is lenient, as there is no concern lest one transgress a Torah prohibition. **There,** where Shmuel states that the *halakha* is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is in a case **where** the courtyard **was breached into a public domain,** and the *halakha* is therefore stringent, due to the concern lest one transgress a Torah prohibition.


###### Eruvin 95a:13
[Eruvin 95a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַבּוֹנֶה עֲלִיָּיה עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁנֵי בָתִּים, וְכֵן גְּשָׁרִים הַמְפוּלָּשִׁים — מְטַלְטְלִין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן בַּשַּׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who builds an upper story atop two houses** on opposite sides of a public domain that passes beneath it, **and likewise bridges with a thoroughfare** beneath them that rest on walls on opposite sides of a public domain, **one** may **carry beneath** the upper story and beneath the bridge **on Shabbat.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,** who maintains that these areas are considered private domains. **And the Rabbis prohibit** carrying in these areas.


###### Eruvin 95a:14
[Eruvin 95a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:14)

וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מְעָרְבִין לְמָבוֹי הַמְפוּלָּשׁ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One** may **establish an *eiruv*** even **for an alleyway that is open** at both ends, with no need for any additional measures, **and the Rabbis prohibit** doing so.


###### Eruvin 95a:15
[Eruvin 95a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:15)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבָּה: לָא תֵּימָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא סָבַר שְׁתֵּי מְחִיצוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר: פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabba said: Do not say this is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason; that he maintains** that **by Torah law two partitions** constitute a private domain, i.e., the areas beneath the upper story and the bridge are considered private domains, as each has two partitions, one on each side of the public domain. Rather, the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is **because he maintains** that **the edge of a roof descends and seals.** The edges of the upper story and the bridge are considered to seal the areas beneath them.


###### Eruvin 95a:16
[Eruvin 95a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:16)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: יָתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי בָתִּים מִשְּׁנֵי צִידֵּי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, עוֹשֶׂה לֶחִי מִכָּאן וְלֶחִי מִכָּאן, אוֹ קוֹרָה מִכָּאן וְקוֹרָה מִכָּאן, וְנוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בָּאֶמְצַע. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵין מְעָרְבִין רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בְּכָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** Rabba from a *baraita*: **Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said:** With regard to **one who has two houses on two sides of a public domain** and seeks to carry from one house to the other on Shabbat via the public domain, **he places a side post from here,** adjacent to one of the houses, **and** another **side post from there,** adjacent to the other house, **or** he places **a** cross **beam from here and** another cross **beam from there, and he may** subsequently **carry** objects **and place** them **in the middle** of the area, as he transformed it into a private domain. His colleagues **said to him: One cannot establish an *eiruv*** to transform a **public domain** into a private domain **in this manner.** Clearly, the rationale for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in that case is not that the edge of the roof descends and seals, as the area is not covered. Rather, he apparently holds that by Torah law, two walls suffice to form a private domain.


###### Eruvin 95a:17
[Eruvin 95a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵהַהִיא — אִין, מֵהָא — לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba **said to him: From that** *baraita*, **yes,** it is indeed possible to arrive at this conclusion. But **from this,** the mishna, **nothing can be learned from this** source, as there could be a different reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.


###### Eruvin 95a:18
[Eruvin 95a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:18)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מְעָרְבִין בְּמָבוֹי הַמְפוּלָּשׁ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: The mishna is also precise** in its wording, as it indicates that the rationale for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is that the edge of a roof descends and seals. **As** the mishna **teaches: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: One** may **establish an *eiruv*** even **for an alleyway that is open** at both ends, **and the Rabbis prohibit** doing so.


###### Eruvin 95a:19
[Eruvin 95a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:19)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא סָבַר פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״וְעוֹד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say** that the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s leniency with regard to carrying beneath an upper story and a bridge is **that he maintains** that **the edge of a roof descends and seals, that is** why the mishna **states: And furthermore,** to introduce the ruling for an alleyway. In other words, the *tanna* of our mishna is saying that the ruling applies not only to a roofed area, but also to an unroofed alleyway, despite the fact that the reason there is that two partitions suffice to create a private domain by Torah law.


###### Eruvin 95a:20
[Eruvin 95a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:20)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא סָבַר שְׁתֵּי מְחִיצוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — מַאי ״וְעוֹד״?! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, if you say** that Rabbi Yehuda permitted the first case as well **because he maintains** that **by Torah law two partitions** suffice to create a private domain, **what** is the need for the introduction: **And furthermore?** The rationale for the second ruling is no different from the rationale for the first. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from here** that this is correct.


###### Eruvin 95a:21
[Eruvin 95a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:21)

**הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ כׇּל גַּגּוֹת**


###### Eruvin 95a:22
[Eruvin 95a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:22)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַמּוֹצֵא תְּפִילִּין** — מַכְנִיסָן זוּג זוּג. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּישָׁנוֹת, אֲבָל בַּחֲדָשׁוֹת — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who finds phylacteries** outside the city on Shabbat, where they are in danger of becoming lost or damaged, **brings them in** to his house **pair** by **pair** by donning them in the manner in which they are typically donned for the mitzva. **Rabban Gamliel says:** He brings them in **two** pairs by **two** pairs. **In what** case **is this statement** that one is permitted to carry phylacteries inside **said?** It is **with regard to old** phylacteries, which have already been used and are designated for the mitzva. **However, with regard to new** ones, as it is unclear whether they are phylacteries or merely amulets in the form of phylacteries, he is **exempt** from performing the task.


###### Eruvin 95a:23
[Eruvin 95a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/95a:23)

מְצָאָן צְבָתִים אוֹ כְרִיכוֹת — מַחְשִׁיךְ עֲלֵיהֶן וּמְבִיאָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one finds** phylacteries **tied in bundles or in wrapped piles,** in which case he is unable to carry them in pairs, **he** sits there and **waits with them until dark,** guarding them until the conclusion of Shabbat, **and** then **brings them in** to his house.