## Eruvin Daf 9a

###### Eruvin 9a:1
[Eruvin 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:1)

מְשׁוּכָה אוֹ תְּלוּיָה, פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת. שְׁלֹשָׁה — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת, אַרְבָּעָה — צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא קוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**drawn away** from the alleyway walls **or suspended** in the air, the following distinction applies: If the cross beam is **less than three** handbreadths from the walls, **one is not required to bring a different** cross **beam,** for it is considered attached to the walls based on the principle of *lavud*, which views two solid surfaces as connected if the gap between them is less than three handbreadths wide. However, if the distance is **three** or more handbreadths from the walls, **he is required to bring a different** cross **beam** in order to permit carrying in the alleyway. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** who holds that the principle of *lavud* applies to a gap of up to four handbreadths wide, **says:** If the cross beam is **less than four** handbreadths from the wall, **one is not required to bring a different** cross **beam;** but if the distance is **four** handbreadths from the wall, **he is required to bring a different** cross **beam.**


###### Eruvin 9a:2
[Eruvin 9a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:2)

מַאי לָאו — מְשׁוּכָה מִבַּחוּץ, וּתְלוּיָהּ מִבִּפְנִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara wishes to clarify the *baraita*: **What, is it not** that when the *baraita* speaks of a cross beam that is **drawn away** from the alleyway walls, it is referring to a cross beam that is distanced from the alleyway walls and situated **on the outside** in the public domain, similar to the case of the cross beam resting on pegs mentioned above? **And** when it speaks of a cross beam that is **suspended,** isn’t it referring to a cross beam that is distanced from the alleyway walls and placed **on the inside** in the alleyway? This interpretation contradicts Rava’s statement above that disqualifies such a cross beam.


###### Eruvin 9a:3
[Eruvin 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:3)

לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי מִבִּפְנִים. מְשׁוּכָה — מֵרוּחַ אַחַת, וּתְלוּיָה — מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this interpretation: **No,** both **this,** the cross beam that is drawn away, **and that,** the crossbeam that is suspended, are located **on the inside** of the alleyway. The difference between them is that the cross beam that is **drawn away** is distanced from the wall **from one direction,** while a **suspended** cross beam does not lie on the alleyway walls at all, but is distanced from them **from both directions.**


###### Eruvin 9a:4
[Eruvin 9a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:4)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מֵרוּחַ אַחַת אָמְרִינַן לָבוּד, מִשְׁתֵּי רוּחוֹת — לָא אָמְרִינַן לָבוּד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Lest you say** that if the cross beam is distanced from the wall **from one direction, we say** that the principle of ***lavud*** applies, and it is as if the cross beam is joined to the wall; but if it is distanced from the wall **from two directions, we do not say** that the principle of ***lavud*** applies. The *baraita*, therefore, comes and **teaches us** that there is no difference in this regard.


###### Eruvin 9a:5
[Eruvin 9a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:5)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מְשׁוּכָה וְהִיא תְּלוּיָה, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּעַץ שְׁתֵּי יְתֵידוֹת עֲקוּמּוֹת עַל שְׁנֵי כּוֹתְלֵי מָבוֹי, שֶׁאֵין בְּגוֹבְהָן שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְאֵין בְּעַקְמוּמִיתָן שְׁלֹשָׁה. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אוֹ ״לָבוּד״ אָמְרִינַן, אוֹ ״חֲבוֹט״ אָמְרִינַן, לָבוּד וַחֲבוֹט לָא אָמְרִינַן. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** The *baraita* refers to a cross beam that is **drawn away** from the walls **and** also **suspended** in the air. **And what are the circumstances** where this would be the case? **For example, where he inserted two bent pegs on** the tops of **the two alleyway walls,** and **the height** of the pegs from the top of the walls **is less than three** handbreadths, **and their bend** inward **is less than three handbreadths,** and a cross beam rests on top of them. **Lest you say** that **we either say *lavud*,** i.e., we consider the cross beam to be virtually extended and thus connected to the wall, **or we say *ḥavut*,** pressed down, that we consider the cross beam to be pressed down vertically; but **we do not say** both ***lavud* and *ḥavut*.** The *baraita* therefore **teaches us** that even in that case we say that any item adjacent to another with a gap of less than three handbreadths between them is considered connected to it, whether to the side or below, and even in both directions at once.


###### Eruvin 9a:6
[Eruvin 9a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:6)

תָּנֵי רַבִּי זַכַּאי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֵּין לְחָיַיִם וְתַחַת הַקּוֹרָה נִידּוֹן כְּכַרְמְלִית. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבַרָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zakkai taught** the following *baraita* **before Rabbi Yoḥanan:** The area **between the side posts and beneath the** cross **beam** has the **legal status** of a ***karmelit*,** and it is forbidden to carry in it. Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: Exit** and **teach** this *halakha* **outside,** i.e., this *baraita* is not in accordance with the accepted *halakha*, and therefore it should not be made part of the regular learning in the study hall.


###### Eruvin 9a:7
[Eruvin 9a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:7)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּחַת הַקּוֹרָה, אֲבָל בֵּין לְחָיַיִן אָסוּר. וְרָבָא אָמַר: בֵּין לְחָיַיִם נָמֵי מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara records a dispute with regard to the scope of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: **Abaye said: Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is reasonable** with regard to the area **beneath the** cross **beam,** as only the area beneath the cross beam should be considered a private domain, **but between the side posts,** carrying **is** indeed **prohibited,** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai. **And Rava said:** The entire statement of Rabbi Zakkai is to be rejected, as Rabbi Yoḥanan asserted, and **even** in the area **between the side posts** carrying **is permitted.**


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

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה, מוּתָּר לִבְנֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְלִבְנֵי רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכַתֵּף עָלָיו, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲלִיפוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: From where do I** know to **say this,** that carrying is permitted even between the side posts? **For when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A place that has** an area of **less than four by four** handbreadths and is located between a public and private domain but belongs to neither has the status of an exempt domain with regard to carrying on Shabbat. Therefore, **it is permitted for** both **the people in the public domain** as well as **the people in the private domain to** use it for **loading** their burdens **onto their shoulders, so long as they do not exchange** objects with one another. Therefore, a place having an area of less than four handbreadths is not considered a *karmelit*, but rather an exempt domain, where carrying is permitted. Consequently, the area between the side posts should likewise be considered an exempt domain, and carrying should be permitted within it.


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

וְאַבָּיֵי, הָתָם בְּגָבוֹהַּ שְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye** said that this offers no proof, as **there,** with regard to Rav Dimi’s statement, the area being discussed **is** at least **three** handbreadths **high,** setting it apart from the other domains. It is therefore considered a domain in its own right, and has the *halakha* of an exempt domain.


###### Eruvin 9a:10
[Eruvin 9a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:10)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ — דְּאָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: תּוֹךְ הַפֶּתַח, צָרִיךְ לֶחִי אַחֵר לְהַתִּירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara considers the position of Abaye: **Abaye said: From where do I** know to **say this,** that the area between the side posts has the *halakha* of a *karmelit*? **For Rav Ḥama bar Guria said that Rav said:** The area **within the opening,** i.e., the doorway between two entrance posts that serve as side posts to permit carrying in the alleyway, **requires another side post** in order **to permit** carrying there, for the entrance posts alone do not suffice. This demonstrates that it is forbidden to carry in the space between the side posts without another side post.


###### Eruvin 9a:11
[Eruvin 9a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: דְּאִית בֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה, וְהָאָמַר רַב חָנִין בַּר רָבָא אָמַר רַב: תּוֹךְ הַפֶּתַח, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה צָרִיךְ לֶחִי אַחֵר לְהַתִּירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say that** this is a case where the doorway **has** an area **four by four** handbreadths, and therefore an additional side post is required to permit carrying there, this is not a valid argument. **For didn’t Rav Ḥanin bar Rava say that Rav said:** The area **within the opening** itself, **even if it does not have** an area of **four by four** handbreadths, **requires an additional side post** in order **to permit** carrying within it. This indicates that the area between the side posts is not to be used.


###### Eruvin 9a:12
[Eruvin 9a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:12)

וְרָבָא — הָתָם דְּפָתוּחַ לְכַרְמְלִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava** replies that a distinction must be made between the cases: **There,** the case of Rav’s ruling refers to a scenario where the alleyway’s entrance **opens to a *karmelit*,** and thus the space between the entrance posts is also viewed as a *karmelit*, and an additional side post is required.


###### Eruvin 9a:13
[Eruvin 9a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:13)

אֲבָל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מַאי — שְׁרֵי? יַצִּיבָא בְּאַרְעָא וְגִיּוֹרָא בִּשְׁמֵי שְׁמַיָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question: **But** if the entrance opens **to a public domain, what** would be the *halakha*? Would it be **permitted** to carry there even without an additional side post? If so, it follows that the *halakha* of a *karmelit* is more stringent than that of a public domain. However, this seems untenable, for carrying in a *karmelit* is prohibited only by rabbinic decree, owing to the similarity between a *karmelit* and the public domain. This is similar to a situation where **a permanent resident is** down **on the ground, while a stranger is** raised up **to the highest heaven,** the very opposite of the appropriate state of affairs.


###### Eruvin 9a:14
[Eruvin 9a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:14)

אִין, מָצָא מִין אֶת מִינוֹ וְנֵיעוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Yes,** it is possible that this is the ruling, for we can say that **it has found its own type and been awakened.** In other words, as the area within the entranceway is not a defined domain, it doesn’t have the status of an independent domain. Therefore, when it opens into a *karmelit*, to which it is similar, its status is negated, and it joins with the *karmelit* to form a single unit. However, when it opens into a public domain, it cannot join with it because it is not similar to a public domain, which has a totally different set of laws; and therefore it is considered part of the alleyway, and it is permitted to carry within it.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרָבָא: וְאַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרָא דְּבֵין לְחָיַיִן אָסוּר? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָבוֹי שֶׁרְצָפוֹ בִּלְחָיַיִן פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה — בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: And you do not hold** that in the area **between the side posts** carrying **is prohibited? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If **an alleyway was lined with side posts, each** one set more than three but **less than four** handbreadths apart from its neighbor, **we have arrived** in this matter **at the dispute** between **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis** with regard to the measure of *lavud*.


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

לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּאָמַר: אָמְרִינַן לָבוּד, מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ עַד חוּדּוֹ הַפְּנִימִי שֶׁל לֶחִי הַפְּנִימִי. לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: לָא אָמְרִינַן לָבוּד, מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ עַד חוּדּוֹ הַפְּנִימִי שֶׁל חִיצוֹן. אֲבָל בֵּין לְחָיַיִן דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אָסוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
How so? According **to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** who **said** that if the gap between two items is less than four handbreadths, **we say** that the principle of ***lavud*** applies; all the side posts are considered a single side post. **He may** therefore only **utilize** the alleyway **up to the inner edge of the innermost side post,** but no more. However, according to **the Rabbis,** who **say** that **we do not say** the principle of ***lavud*** applies unless the gap is less than three handbreadths, he **may utilize** the alleyway **up to the inner edge of the outermost** side post. This discussion demonstrates that the argument revolves around the question as to which side post establishes the permitted area. **But** with regard to the area **between the side posts, all agree** that carrying **is prohibited.**


###### Eruvin 9a:17
[Eruvin 9a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:17)

וְרָבָא, הָתָם נָמֵי דְּפָתוּחַ לְכַרְמְלִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava** answers that **there too,** it refers to a case where the alleyway’s entrance **opens to a *karmelit*.**


###### Eruvin 9a:18
[Eruvin 9a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/9a:18)

אֲבָל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מַאי — שְׁרֵי? יַצִּיבָא בְּאַרְעָא וְגִיּוֹרָא בִּשְׁמֵי שְׁמַיָּא! אִין, מָצָא מִין אֶת מִינוֹ וְנֵיעוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** if the entrance opens **to a public domain, what** is its legal status – would carrying be **permitted?** If so, the *halakha* of a *karmelit* is more severe than that of a public domain. Once again, this can be likened to a situation where **a permanent resident is** down **on the ground, while a stranger** is raised up **to the highest heaven.** The Gemara answers: **Yes,** indeed, this is the ruling, but one should not be perplexed, as we have explained: **it has found its own type and been awakened.**