## Eruvin Daf 9b

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

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁרְצָפוֹ בִּלְחָיַיִם פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה בְּמֶשֶׁךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides an alternative explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. **Rav Ashi said:** According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, carrying in the area between the side posts is actually permitted. The dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis concerning the principle of *lavud* is in a case **where** there was an alleyway **that one lined with side posts, each** positioned **less than four** handbreadths from the next, and the side posts extend **for a length of four cubits.**


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

לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דְּאָמַר: אָמְרִינַן לָבוּד — הָוֵה לֵיהּ מָבוֹי, וְצָרִיךְ לֶחִי אַחֵר לְהַתִּירוֹ. וּלְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי: לָא אָמְרִינַן לָבוּד — לֹא צָרִיךְ לֶחִי אַחֵר לְהַתִּירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said** that for a gap of up to four handbreadths **we say** that the principle of ***lavud*** applies, all the side posts are considered a single side post, and since the side post in that case is four cubits long, **it is** considered a separate **alleyway;** therefore, it **requires an additional side post to permit** carrying in **it. And according to the Rabbis, who say** that **we do not say** that the principle of ***lavud*** applies unless the gap is less than three handbreadths, this area **does not require an additional side post to permit** carrying within it.


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

וּלְרִבֵּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, לֶהֱוֵי כְּנִרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** even **according to** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** why is another side post required? **Let it** have the same legal status **as** a side post that is **visible from the outside,** protruding from the wall of the alleyway, **but** appears to be **even** with the wall **from the inside.** Since it is evident from the outside that it is a side post and not part of the building, carrying is permitted there.


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

מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הָא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נִרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם לֶחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **As** Rav Ashi’s **reason is only according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **didn’t** he say that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** If a side post is **visible from the outside,** protruding from the wall of the alleyway, **but** it appears to be **even** with the wall **from the inside,** it **is not considered** to have the legal status **of a side post?**


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

אִיתְּמַר: נִרְאֶה מִבִּפְנִים וְשָׁוֶה מִבַּחוּץ — נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם לֶחִי. נִרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים, רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי, חַד אָמַר: נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם לֶחִי, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵינוֹ נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם לֶחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
An amoraic dispute **was stated:** If a side post is **visible from the inside,** protruding from the wall of the alleyway, **but** it appears to be **even** with the wall **from the outside,** it **is considered a side post.** However, if a side post is **visible from the outside** protruding from the wall, **but** it appears to be **even** with the wall **from the inside,** there is a disagreement between **Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to its status. **One said: It is considered** to have the legal status **of a side post. And** the other **one said: It is not considered** to have the legal status **of a side post.**


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

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא הוּא דְּאָמַר ״נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם לֶחִי״, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: כּוֹתֶל שֶׁצִּידּוֹ אֶחָד כָּנוּס מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, בֵּין שֶׁנִּרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים, וּבֵין שֶׁנִּרְאֶה מִבִּפְנִים וְשָׁוֶה מִבַּחוּץ נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם לֶחִי, תִּסְתַּיֵּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **Conclude that Rabbi Ḥiyya** is the one **who said** that **it is considered** to have the legal status **of a side post, as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught:** In the case of **a wall** at the entrance to an alleyway **whose one side is more recessed than the other, whether** the recess **is visible from outside** the alleyway **but** appears to be **even from the inside, or** the recess **is visible from the inside but** appears to be **even from the outside,** it **is considered** to have the legal status **of a side post.** The Gemara states: Indeed, **conclude** that Rabbi Ḥiyya is the one who said it has the legal status of a side post.


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

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִי לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ הָא?! אֶלָּא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ וְלָא סָבַר לַהּ, רַבִּי חִיָּיא נָמֵי לָא סָבַר לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who explicitly said that a side post of that kind is not considered a side post, **did he not hear this** *halakha*? The *Tosefta* was widely known. **Rather, he heard it, but he does not hold** in accordance with **it.** Perhaps, then, **Rabbi Ḥiyya also does not hold** in accordance with **it.**


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

הַאי מַאי?! בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא סָבַר לַהּ — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא תָּנֵי לַהּ. אֶלָּא רַבִּי חִיָּיא, אִי אִיתָא דְּלָא סָבַר לַהּ, לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **What is this** comparison? **Granted, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not hold** in accordance with **that** *halakha*. **That is why he did not teach it. But Rabbi Ḥiyya, if it is** true **that he does not hold** in accordance with **it, why would he teach it?**


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

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: נִרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים — נִידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם לֶחִי. אָמַר רַבָּה, וּמוֹתְבִינַן אַשְּׁמַעְתִּין: חָצֵר קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה לִגְדוֹלָה — גְּדוֹלָה מוּתֶּרֶת וּקְטַנָּה אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּפִתְחָהּ שֶׁל גְּדוֹלָה. וְאִם אִיתָא, קְטַנָּה נָמֵי תִּשְׁתְּרֵי בְּנִרְאֶה מִבַּחוּץ וְשָׁוֶה מִבִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Rav Huna said:** If a side post is **visible from the outside,** protruding from the wall of the alleyway, **but** appears to be **even** with the wall **from the inside, it is considered** to have the legal status **of a side post. Rabba said: And we raise an objection to our** own ***halakha*** from a mishna: With regard to **a small courtyard that was breached** along the entire length of one of its walls so that it opens **into a large** courtyard, in **the large one** it **is permitted** to carry **and** in **the small one** it **is prohibited** to carry. This is **because** the breach **is considered an entrance of the large** courtyard. The wall of the smaller courtyard was breached along its entire length, therefore there is no visible partition from inside the smaller courtyard. However, the partition is noticeable from the outside, i.e., in the large courtyard, since the breach is flanked on both sides by the remaining segments of the wall of the large courtyard. **And if it is so,** that a partition that is visible from the outside is considered a partition, carrying in **the small** courtyard **should also be permitted** in this case, **as** the wall **is visible from the outside but** appears to be **even from the inside.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: בְּנִכְנָסִין כּוֹתְלֵי קְטַנָּה לִגְדוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said:** This mishna is referring to a case **where the walls of the small** courtyard **protrude into the large one,** i.e., the breached wall of the small courtyard is not in line with the wall of the large one. Therefore, even when viewed from the outside there are no walls visible, and that is why carrying is prohibited there.


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

וְלֵימָא לָבוּד וְתִשְׁתְּרֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let us say** that the principle of ***lavud*** applies, **and** then carrying **will be permitted** even in the small courtyard. The ends of the breached wall should be considered attached to the side walls of the large courtyard, rendering the wall of the large courtyard visible. Then it will be permitted to carry in the small courtyard based on the principle governing side posts visible from the outside.


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּמַפְלְגִי טוּבָא? וְהָא תָּנֵי רַב אַדָּא בַּר אֲבִימִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: קְטַנָּה, בְּעֶשֶׂר. גְּדוֹלָה, בְּאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say that** the walls of the smaller courtyard **are too separate** from the walls of the larger courtyard, such that the distance between the walls is too great for the principle of *lavud* to apply, **didn’t Rav Adda bar Avimi teach before Rabbi Ḥanina:** The **small** courtyard of which they speak is referring even **to** one **ten cubits** wide; the **large** one is referring even **to** one **eleven** cubits wide? Apparently, this *halakha* applies even when the difference in width between the courtyards is a single cubit, which is six handbreadths. Assuming the small courtyard is located equidistant from the ends of the large courtyard, only three handbreadths separate it on each side from the wall of the large one. Therefore, the principle of *lavud* applies.


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

אָמַר רָבִינָא: בְּמוּפְלָגִין מִכּוֹתֶל זֶה בִּשְׁנַיִם, וּמִכּוֹתֶל זֶה בְּאַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** It is a case **where** the walls of the smaller courtyard **are separated from this wall** of the larger courtyard **by two** handbreadths **and from this wall** of the larger courtyard on the other side **by four** handbreadths. Since there is a distance of more than three handbreadths, the principle of *lavud* does not apply.


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

וְלֵימָא לָבוּד מֵרוּחַ אַחַת, וְתִשְׁתְּרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let us say** that the principle of ***lavud*** applies **from one direction,** then carrying **will be permitted** even in the small courtyard.