Gemara Eruvin (Eruvin tractate) has been sponsored by Mr. Isaac Gemal and his wife Celia for their success, for their children’s success, for health, happiness, Beracha (blessing), parnasah vehatzlachah bechol ma'aseh yedeihem (livelihood and success in all their endeavors). Daf yud-bet (page twelve). Today’s daf has been dedicated by the Assa family in honor of their parents, Yosef and Norma Assa, Hashem aleihem yichyu (may Hashem grant them life). Today’s daf is also being studied le'ilui nishmat (for the elevation of the soul) Chacham Baruch Refael ben Miryam and Avraham ben Ester. Ruach Hashem tenuchem beGan Eden (may the spirit of Hashem rest them in Eden), Amen. We begin on yud-alef amud sheni (page eleven, second side), three lines from the bottom.
Rabbi Eliezer omer lechayim (sideposts). We learned in our Mishnah that if a person needs to adjust a mavoi (alleyway), there is a three-way machloket (dispute) about how to adjust it. Beit Shammai said you need a lechi (sidepost) and a korah (crossbeam). Beit Hillel said lechi o korah (either a sidepost or a crossbeam). Rabbi Eliezer said shnei lechayim (two sideposts), which means that you need two sideposts to make the adjustment.
So the Gemara asks, Iba'ya lehu (they asked the question): in the beit midrash (study hall), they asked, “Rabbi Eliezer, lechayim vekorah ka'amar o dilma lechayim belo korah ka'amar?” (Did he mean sideposts and a crossbeam, or sideposts without a crossbeam?) The Gemara’s question is whether, when he said two lechayim, he included a korah, or meant just two lechayim without a korah. In other words, was he going beyond Beit Shammai? Beit Shammai said you need a lechi and a korah, and Rabbi Eliezer was saying, “No, you need two lechayim and a korah”? Or was he saying only, “You need two lechayim, but you don’t need the korah”? That is the Gemara’s safek (uncertainty).
Ta shema (come and hear): ma'aseh beRabbi Eliezer (an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer), shehalach etzel Rabbi Yose ben Perida talmido (his student). He went to his student in Ovlin (the name of a place) and saw him sitting in a mavoi that had only one lechi.
The Ritva points out that it had one lechi and a korah. He proves that Rabbi Yose was a talmid (student) of Rabbi Eliezer, who was a talmid of Beit Shammai. Therefore, Rabbi Yose, who was Rabbi Eliezer’s student, probably followed Beit Shammai by putting up a lechi and a korah. So when the Gemara says here that Rabbi Eliezer found him with lechi echad (one sidepost), it means one lechi, but there was also a korah on top.
Amar lo beni (he said to him, “My son”), so he said, “Aseh lechi acher (make another sidepost).” He said, “Do me a favor. Put another lechi on the other side.” Amar lo, “Vechi lesotmo ani tzarich?” (Do I need to seal it?) He said to him, “What do you mean? Do I need to close the mavoi? Does that mean I have to make a full-fledged wall on the fourth side? Do you need it to be so sealed? Why do I need another lechi?” Amar leih, “Yisatem umah bekach” (he said to him, “Let it be sealed; what does it matter?”). He told him, “Seal it. What’s the difference?”
That is the first story. That is the story we are going to analyze for our proof. But the Gemara is going to quote the end of the baraita, which is not really relevant to what we are discussing, but we quote it anyway. Amar Rashbag, “Lo nechleku Beit Shammai uVeit Hillel al mavoi shehu pachot me'arba amot” (They did not dispute a mavoi less than four cubits, which is permitted with a sidepost or a crossbeam). Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not argue about a mavoi that is less than four amot. She'eino tzarich kelum: when it is less than four amot, Rashbag says it needs nothing—not a lechi and not a korah.
Al mah nechleku (what did they argue about)? What were Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel arguing about? Al rachav me'arba amot, ve'ad eser: where it was four amot or wider, up to ten. SheBeit Shammai omrim lechi vekorah: Beit Shammai says that in that case you need a lechi and a korah. Uveit Hillel omrim o lechi o korah.
Now we go back to our proof. Katani mihat: we have a partial quotation from the baraita. “Vechi lesotmo ani tzarich?” When Rabbi Yose answered his rabbi, who had told him, “Put another lechi there,” he said, “What? Do I have to seal it?” In other words, does it have to be sealed?
I amrat bishlama lechayim vekorah: if you say that the adjustment was two lechayim and a korah, mishum hachi amar, that is why he said, “Vechi lesotmo ani tzarich?” As we learned from the Ritva, he already had a lechi and a korah, and his rabbi told him to put another lechi. So what would he end up with? Two lechayim and a korah. That is like a tzurat hapetach (doorway frame), a complete adjustment, as if it were a fourth wall. That is why he said, “Why are you telling me to put another lechi? Is that really to make a ceiling on the fourth side?”
Mashma: what did Rabbi Eliezer hold? That when he said two lechayim, he meant two lechayim plus a korah. Ela, i amart lechayim belo korah: but if it is just two lechayim and the korah is not necessary, mai lesotmo? Then what does “seal it” mean? There is no stimah (sealing) when you have two lechayim; that fourth side is not considered satum (sealed).
So the Gemara says, hachi ka'amar: this is what he meant to say: “Vechi lesotmo belechayim ani tzarich?” Really, there was only a lechi there, and Rabbi Eliezer came and told him, “Put another lechi.” When he told him to put another lechi, Rabbi Yose answered, “Do I have to seal it with lechayim?” In other words, he was not saying to make a regular ceiling with two lechayim and a korah; he was asking, “Do I have to put two lechayim and seal the fourth side that way?”
So we have no proof that Rabbi Eliezer holds that you need two lechayim and a korah. It could be just two lechayim. According to the baraita that says he had put up a lechi and a korah, Rabbi Eliezer was telling him, “Your korah is worthless. The korah doesn’t mean anything. You just need two lechayim.” In other words, according to my way of adjusting it, the korah serves no purpose. So just put another lechi and pay no attention to your korah. Therefore, according to the maskana (conclusion) here, Rabbi Eliezer could hold what he says: shnei lechayim means only two lechayim. You have no proof that he means anything more.
Amar mar: we have a statement that we just quoted in the baraita. Amar Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: “Lo nechleku Beit Shammai uVeit Hillel al mavoi shehu pachot me'arba amot.” They did not argue about a mavoi that is less than four amot wide. She'eino tzarich kelum: according to Rashbag, if it is less than four amot, it needs nothing.
So the Gemara says, what do you mean? Veha tenan: “Mishum Rabbi Yishmael, amar talmid echad lifnei Rabbi Akiva.” A student said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael in front of Rabbi Akiva—this is actually a quote from our Mishnah: “Lo nechleku Beit Shammai uVeit Hillel al mavoi shehu pachot me'arba amot shehu nitar o belechi o vekorah.” He learned that, according to our Mishnah, when it is less than four amot, everyone agrees that you can manage with a lechi or a korah. That means you need something, not nothing. So how can Rashbag come along and say that when it is less than four amot, you do not need any adjustment? We learned in our Mishnah that a mavoi less than four amot needs a minimal adjustment.
If Rashbag’s shitah (position) were as such, he would already have been listed in our Mishnah, because that would be another opinion. The fact that Rashbag was not mentioned in our Mishnah suggests that the opinion we are quoting from him is not what it seems to be. Our Mishnah discussed a mavoi less than four amot and said that you need a lechi or a korah. How can Rashbag now say that if it is less than four amot, you need nothing?
So amar Rav Ashi, hachi ka'amar: “Eino tzarich lechi vekorah keVeit Shammai, velo lechayin keRabbi Eliezer, ela o lechi o korah keVeit Hillel.” Therefore, when Rashbag made his statement, “Less than four amot, velo kelum” (and nothing at all), what he really meant was that if it is less than four amot, you do not need to take on the stringency of Beit Shammai by putting up both, nor do you need to take on the stringency of Rabbi Eliezer by putting up two lechayim. Ela, in that case, you can follow Beit Hillel: a lechi or a korah. Rashbag is really saying the same thing as our Mishnah.
Rashi points out that when it says velo kelum, it means you do not need anything regarding the additional opinions: not the lechi and korah of Beit Shammai, nor the two lechayim of Rabbi Eliezer. You just need a lechi or a korah.
Now the Gemara asks, vechama? How much less than four amot can a mavoi be and still need a tikun (adjustment)? We said less than four amot, but is there a minimum size for a mavoi? The Gemara says, vechama? Amar Rav Achlai, ve'itima Rav Yechiel, ad arba'ah. The minimum size of the opening of a mavoi is four tefachim (handbreadths). Anything less than four tefachim does not even need an adjustment, because it is not considered a petach (opening).
Amar Rav Sheshet amar Rav Yirmeyah bar Abba amar Rav: “Modim chachamim leRabbi Eliezer befasei chatzer” (the Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer regarding the sideposts of a courtyard). Now we are discussing a chatzer (courtyard). We learned that there is a mavoi and there is a chatzer. A mavoi is the alleyway, and a chatzer is the courtyard where the homes are. As we are going to learn later in the Gemara, there is a different configuration of the length and width of a mavoi from that of a chatzer. A mavoi is always narrower than it is long. That is the klal (general rule) for a mavoi: like an alleyway, it is narrow and long. A chatzer, on the other hand, is more like a square, or has a greater width than length.
In any event, the Gemara says that a chatzer also needs an adjustment, because it may open onto a mavoi, a domain that is also forbidden to it. Or it may open onto another chatzer. Can a chatzer be narrow and long? No. A chatzer that is narrow and long is a mavoi. The Gemara is going to tell us that it has the din (law) of a mavoi. The Gemara is now going to say how you adjust a chatzer, because sometimes the chatzer can also open onto the reshut harabbim (public domain). How do you adjust it? The Gemara wants to say that we adjust it the way Rabbi Eliezer adjusts a mavoi. How does Rabbi Eliezer adjust a mavoi? With two lechayim. So Rav wants to say that the Chachamim (Sages) agree with Rabbi Eliezer that you need two pasin (sideposts) for a chatzer. What is a pas? A sidepost: the wall juts out on both sides, so you have two sideposts. If you remember, we had a picture to help you visualize it. Go back to picture number 72: you see a chatzer with two sideposts, called pasin. That is how you would adjust it. Rav says everyone agrees that for a chatzer you need two.
VeRav Nachman amar: “Halachah keRabbi Eliezer bepasei chatzer.” Rav Nachman goes out of his way to say that the halachah (law) follows Rabbi Eliezer regarding the pasin of a chatzer, meaning you need two sideposts. The Gemara says: amar Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, “Man modim?” Who are these rabbis you say agree—that is, you said, “Modim Chachamim”—that you need two sideposts? Who are they? Identify those rabbis.
The Gemara says: Rebbi. Indeed, it is Rebbi. As we learned in the daf a few days ago, Rebbi held that when it comes to a chatzer, you need two sideposts. Rav Nachman then came along and said that the halachah is like Rabbi Eliezer. When you say “halachah,” that implies that someone else argues. So the Gemara says: mikhlal defaligi—it implies that someone argues. Man palig aleih? Who argues that you do not need two pasin? The Gemara says: Rabbanan (the Sages). It is the opinion of the rabbis in that Mishnah.
De-tanya: we have a baraita (early rabbinic teaching), actually a baraita: “Chatzer niteret befas echad” (a courtyard is permitted with one sidepost). The Tanna kamma (first Tanna) says that a chatzer is permitted even with one sidepost, and those are the Chachamim who argue with Rabbi Eliezer. Rebbi says, “Bishnei fasin” (with two sideposts). Clearly, then, there is a machloket tannaim (dispute among the Tannaim) about adjusting a chatzer: do you need one sidepost or two?
Amar Rabbi Assi amar Rabbi Yochanan: “Chatzer tzerichah shenei fasin” (a courtyard needs two sideposts). Rabbi Yochanan also holds that a chatzer needs two pasin to be adjusted. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Assi: “Mi amar Rabbi Yochanan hachi?” Did Rabbi Yochanan really say that you need two pasin to adjust a chatzer? “Veha at hu de-amart mishmeih deRabbi Yochanan,” but you also said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, “Pasei chatzer tzerichin sheyehei bahem dalet” (the courtyard sideposts must have four). You quoted Rabbi Yochanan as saying that the pas of a chatzer has to be at least four tefachim wide.
At this point, the Gemara assumes that you need only one pas, four tefachim wide. What do you mean? Rabbi Assi, you just said that Rabbi Yochanan says you need two pasin. So the Gemara says: “Vechi teima arba'ah mikan ve'arba'ah mikan?” Yes, he did: each one has to be four tefachim, one on each side. The Gemara says that cannot be: “Veha tani Rav Ada bar Avimi kameih deRabbi Chanina, ve'amri lah kameih deRav Chanina bar Pappa: ketannah be'eser ugedolah be'achat esreh” (the small one is ten, the large one eleven). You remember that we learned earlier about a chatzer gedolah (large courtyard) that opened into a chatzer ketannah (small courtyard). The Gemara said that the chatzer gedolah was one amah (cubit) larger than the small one, which is six tefachim. Six tefachim would mean that it has posts three tefachim wide on each side. So how could Rabbi Yochanan say that you need two posts of four tefachim, when we clearly said that where there is a chatzer gedolah, and you can carry in it, it has posts of only three tefachim each? Could Rabbi Yochanan say that?
So the Gemara says, “Ki salik Rabbi Zeira miyamma,” when Rabbi Zeira came up from the water—he seems to have been traveling—“pirshah” (he explained): “Beruach achat be'arba'ah” (on one side, four). If you put the adjustment on one side of the chatzer, it has to be four tefachim. “Mishtei ruchot mashehu lechan umashehu lechan” (on two sides, something on this side and something on that side). But if you put it on both sides, even a minimal amount can suffice. That means Rabbi Yochanan holds that sometimes you can get away with one post, and sometimes you need two. If it is four tefachim, one post is enough as an adjustment. But if you put less than four tefachim on both sides, then you can get away with a mashehu (a minimal amount) on one side and a mashehu on the other. So both statements of Rabbi Yochanan can coexist: sometimes you have one, and sometimes you have two.
The Gemara then asks about what Rav Ada bar Avimi taught: the chatzer gedolah was six tefachim bigger, meaning it was an amah bigger. Why say it was eleven amot? If you are telling me now that you need only two minimal sideposts, you could say it was ten amot plus two tefachim. The Gemara says, “Rabbi hi.” That follows Rebbi’s opinion, that the sideposts must be at least three tefachim each, and there must be one on both sides. So the statement about eleven amot follows Rebbi, who says you need two. What is the minimum size of each pas? Three tefachim. That is why it says an additional amah. Vesavar lah keRabbi Yosei: Rebbi holds like Rabbi Yosei, who says the pas has to be three tefachim.
Amar Rav Yosef amar Rav Yehudah amar Shmuel: “Chatzer niteret bepas echad” (a courtyard is permitted with one sidepost). Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that a chatzer is permitted with just one pas, one sidepost. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: “Mi amar Shmuel hachi?” Did Shmuel really say that a chatzer is adjusted with just one pas? But you said that Shmuel told Rav Chananyah bar Sheila, “At lo ta'avid uvda” (do not perform an act)—do not carry in the chatzer—“ela o berov dofen” (unless most of the wall is in place), or make sure it has two pasin. You see that Shmuel clearly said you cannot carry in a chatzer unless you have two pasin. How could Rav Yosef then quote Shmuel as saying that one pas is enough?
So he answers, “Va'ana lo yada'na de'uvda havah bedura dire'uta?” (Don’t you think I know there was a case in the village of the shepherds?) Doesn’t that story prove what I was saying? What was the story in the village of the shepherds? “Leshon yam hanichnas lechatzer” (a tongue of sea entering the courtyard). There was literally a tongue of river entering the chatzer. You have a chatzer open in front of a river, and the river itself juts into the chatzer. If you look at picture number 95, you see it: there was flooding in the chatzer. Part of the river went right into the chatzer itself.
The Gemara says: “Leshon yam hanichnas lechatzer havah.” There was a case where the yam (sea) went into the chatzer, “ve'ata lekammei deRav Yehudah.” They went before Rav Yehudah for a ruling, “velo itzrechei ela pas echad.” He said that as long as you have one pas, you can draw water in the chatzer itself.
Let’s understand this. A yam has the din of a karmelit (semi-public domain). A karmelit is a place where you cannot carry on Shabbat. We learned earlier that when a chatzer opens onto an area that is asur (forbidden) to it, meaning you cannot transfer anything from a karmelit into a chatzer, then, unless you make an adjustment, you are not only unable to take anything from the yam into the chatzer; you are forbidden to carry in the chatzer itself. We have a rule: if a domain opens onto an area that is forbidden to it, that domain itself becomes forbidden. So they went to the rabbi and wanted to know: this is open; can we draw water from the chatzer itself? There was water in the chatzer. He told them, “As long as you have one pas, it’s okay.”
What do you mean? Rav Yosef says, “I know that story.” Rav Yehudah clearly said that you need only one. “Why are you telling me I don’t know what I’m saying? I’m telling you one because I know the story.” The Gemara says he answered, “Oh, leshon yam ka'amart?” You’re talking about a case of a leshon yam, a specific case where the water went into the chatzer? “Kalu shehekelu chachamim bemayim.” That is a special leniency the rabbis give in situations involving water. Normally you need two pasin, but when it comes to drawing water, the Chachamim are lenient: you do not need complete adjustments, and even minor adjustments are okay.
Where do we see that we are lenient when it comes to water? The Gemara says, “Ki deva'e mineh Rav Tavla meRav,” like the question Rav Tavla asked Rav: “Mechitzah teluyah” (a suspended partition), let’s say you have a hanging wall, “mahu shetatir bechurbah?” Would a hanging wall permit carrying in a churbah (ruined building)? Rav answered, “Ein mechitzah teluyah materet ela bemayim” (a suspended partition permits only in water). He told him, “No, you need full walls.” That is, suppose you have a ruined building where the walls do not go all the way down to the ground. He wanted to know whether those walls count as walls. The answer was, “No, you need regular walls that reach the ground. The only time we say you don’t need full walls is when it comes to water.” Kalu shehekelu chachamim bemayim.
What example are they specifically referring to? Picture number 96: you have the side of a house, and you want to draw water with a pail from the ocean into the house. The ocean, or yam, is considered a karmelit; the house is considered a reshut hayachid (private domain). The rabbis allowed you to place a box—you see the orange box—which is called a mechitzah teluyah. It is actually a wall, but it does not reach all the way down to the water. Its walls are four tefachim by four tefachim and ten tefachim high. We consider the wall as if it extends all the way down into the water. Therefore, when you draw the water, it is like drawing it from a reshut hayachid into a reshut hayachid. This is called a mechitzah teluyah.
He told him, “Listen, we are not usually lenient about a mechitzah teluyah.” If you had a ruined building with hanging walls, that would not work; the walls have to reach the ground. However, when it comes to water, the rabbis were lenient because they wanted people to be able to draw water on Shabbat. So, going back to our story, Rav Yosef says, “Why don’t you think I know the story in the shepherds’ village? They had a case where the water went into the chatzer, and Rav Yehudah clearly said all you need is one pas.” Abaye answers, “What are you talking about? You are bringing proof from water. We know the rabbis are more lenient in situations involving water, just as they were lenient in the case of a mechitzah teluyah.”
The Gemara says, “Mikol makom kashya” (in any event, it is difficult). Bottom line, we are back to our question. In one place Rav Yosef says that, according to Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel, you need only one pas. But we have another statement saying you need two pasin: Shmuel said that unless you have most of the wall or two pasin, you cannot carry. How do we reconcile the stirah (contradiction) in Shmuel?
The Gemara says, “Mikol makom kashya.” “Ki atu Rav Pappa veRav Huna bereh deRav Yehoshua mi-vei Rav,” when these two rabbis came from Rav’s beit midrash, “perashuha: meruach echad be'arba'ah, mishtei ruchot mashehu lechan umashehu lechan.” They explained it as we learned earlier regarding Rabbi Yochanan: it depends. When you have a pas of arba'ah tefachim, one side is enough. But when you adjust both sides, even a mashehu is enough. So sometimes you have one side and sometimes two; it depends on how big your pas is. If your pas is four tefachim, one side is enough. If it is less than four tefachim, you need to make the adjustment on both sides. Therefore, Shmuel said one in one case and two in another, depending on the size of the pas.
Amar Rav Pappa: “I kashya li, ha kashya li” (if I have a difficulty, this is my difficulty). Rav Pappa says, “No, that is not really the question. One pas or two is reconcilable. But I have another question regarding Shmuel’s shitah: Shmuel told Rav Chananyah bar Sheila, ‘At lo ta'avid uvda,’ you should not carry in the chatzer ‘ela o berov dofen,’ unless you have most of the wall, ‘o bishnei pasin,’ or two pasin.”
The Gemara says, “Lamah li rov dofen?” Why did he tell him that most of the wall has to be closed? “Bepas arba'ah sagi” (a four-handbreadth sidepost suffices). He should just have told him to put up a pas of four. What is this about closing most of the wall? The Gemara says, “Vechi teima mai berov dofen?” Maybe when it says berov dofen, it means bedofen sheva (a wall seven handbreadths wide). The whole opening of the chatzer was seven tefachim. So if he puts up four, which is a pas of four, that is rov dofen, most of the wall. It was seven tefachim, and he put up four; that is already most of the wall.
The Gemara says, “Lamah li arba'ah?” If it is seven, why do you have to put up four to get most of the wall? “Bishlosha umashehu sagi” (three and a little suffices). Just three and a little is good. As I explained, it is not most of the wall; rather, once you close three and a little, you are left with less than four open. We learned that when the opening is less than four, it is not considered a petach, and therefore you do not need any adjustment.
So that is the answer. The Gemara is trying to understand what Shmuel told these people to do to adjust their chatzer. He told them they need rov dofen. Why do they need most of the wall? Just put up a pas of four. They say, “No, perhaps it was seven. So he told them to close most of it. Most of seven is, let’s say, four, so they would put up a pas of four to close most of the wall.” The Gemara says, “No. If the case was seven, all you would have to put up is three and a little, because then you would be left with less than four open. Less than four open is fine, as we learned earlier; you do not need anything.”
The Gemara says, “Lamah li arba'ah?” I am reading four lines from the bottom. “Why do you need four tefachim? Bishlosha umashehu sagi deha amar Rav Achlai, we learned in the name of Rav Achlai, ve'iteima Rav Yechiel, ad arba'ah.” Until four, you need an adjustment; less than four, you need nothing. The Gemara answers, “Ve'i ba'it eima kan bechatzer kan bemavoi.” The difference is that Rav Achlai made his statement about a mavoi. A mavoi is not really where residents live, so when it is less than four tefachim, it needs no adjustment. But a chatzer needs an adjustment even when it is less than four. Therefore, he told them that three and a little is not enough. We are not trying to make the opening of the chatzer less than four, because even then it would need an adjustment. What was he trying to get them to do? Close most of the wall. He was telling them, “Put up a pas of four so that most of the seven is closed.”
The Gemara says, “Ve'i ba'it eima deRav Achlai gufeh tanna'ei hi.” Or I could tell you that Rav Achlai’s law about a mavoi also applies to a chatzer: if it is less than four, it needs no adjustment. But that statement itself is a tanna'ei (dispute among Tannaim). Rav Achlai said that when a mavoi is less than four, it needs no adjustment, but that is one opinion. Other Tannaim say that even when a mavoi is less than four, and likewise a chatzer, it does need an adjustment. So the only way he could tell them what to do was to put up a pas of four, so that most of the wall would be closed, because the opening was seven. Then it would be kasher (valid).
The Gemara says, “Tanu rabbanan” (the Sages taught): “Leshon yam hanichnas lechatzer.” Our case is again a yam that goes into the chatzer. “Ein memal'in heimenu beShabbat” (one may not draw from it on Shabbat). You are not allowed to draw water from the chatzer. The water is running into the chatzer itself. The Gemara says you are not allowed to draw water even from the chatzer, because the chatzer opens onto the karmelit. The water is in a karmelit, and we said that whenever something opens onto an area that is asur to it, you cannot carry there. The Gemara says, “Ein memal'in heimenu beShabbat ela im ken yesh lo mechitzah gevohah yud tefachim” (one may not draw from it on Shabbat unless it has a partition ten handbreadths high). In other words, you need a wall at least ten tefachim high.
The Gemara says, “Bameh devarim amurim,” meaning you need a wall by the chatzer, in front of the yam. The Gemara will explain. Picture number 97 shows exactly what we are referring to. You see walls, including sideposts that come out from the chatzer; it is not totally breached. There is a wall coming out from the side of the chatzer. However, the Gemara is going to say that the wall is breached. You see a breach in the wall on the left side. The Gemara says, “Bameh devarim amurim shepirtzah beyoter me'asarah.” When do we say you cannot carry in the chatzer? If the opening from the breach in the wall is more than ten amot, then it is considered a breach, and you cannot carry in the chatzer. “Aval asarah,” however, if it is ten or less—that is, if the entire breach on the side of the chatzer facing the yam is ten or less—“eino tzarich klum.” It needs nothing. Why? Because the walls jut out on both sides. They are considered like the pasin, and that is the adjustment.
The Gemara says, “Memale hu delo memaleinan, ha tiltulei metaltelinan?” Can we infer that you cannot fill with water when the pirtzah (breach) is more than ten amot, but you can carry in that area? The Gemara says, how could you carry there? “Veha nifretzah chatzer bimlo'ah lemakom ha'assur lah.” We have a rule: the chatzer is breached to an area that is forbidden to it. The yam is forbidden because it is a karmelit. The rule is that when an area is breached to an area that is asur to it, you cannot carry even in the original area. So why does the Gemara say you cannot fill with water? It should say that you cannot only fill with water; you cannot carry there at all. The fact that it says you cannot fill with water suggests that you can carry in the chatzer, as if the chatzer is considered a reshut harabim. It is only with respect to the water that you cannot draw it. What is the distinction?
The Gemara answers, “Hacha bemai askinan de'it lei gidudei” (here we are dealing with a case where there are remaining wall remnants). Rashi explains—and picture number 98 shows it—that part of the chatzer wall is submerged underwater. There is actually a wall separating the chatzer from the yam. You cannot see the wall because it is under the water. So the wall means that it is not parutz (breached); technically, even though the wall is not visible, there is a boundary under the water. The chatzer is therefore permitted. Only above the wall is there water flowing from the yam into the chatzer. With respect to the water, since it is level with the chatzer, you cannot draw it up because it opens onto the karmelit. But in the chatzer itself, since there is a wall—even though it is not visible, there is a separation—it is permitted to carry.
Rashi says at the top: “De'it lei gidudei, mah shenish'ar min hapirtzah” (what remains of the breach), “begovah asarah, aval hayam kisahu” (ten high, but the sea covered it). That means there is a wall ten high; it is just that the yam is covering it. So technically, there is a separation, even though it is underwater. That is enough to permit carrying in the chatzer. But with respect to the water, where it is level with the chatzer, there is no distinction between the water itself, so the rabbis made a gezeirah (decree): you cannot carry from the water unless you have the two sideposts with a breach of less than ten amot.
The Gemara continues. Again, look at picture 98: you see the gidudei, the walls that are breached but under the water. That is what the picture is showing. The water is above that mechitzah (partition), which is not visible. The Gemara says: amar Rav Yehudah, “Mavoi shelo nishtatefu vo” (a mavoi whose residents did not join in a partnership). Let’s review the laws of shituf (joint partnership). Besides the adjustment needed in a mavoi—you have a lechi and a korah, or whatever is required according to each opinion—which allows carrying in the mavoi, you also need another adjustment called shitufei mevo'ot (partnerships of alleyways).
A mavoi has chatzerot (courtyards) on each side of it. Each person in a chatzer has a home, and everyone in the homes is going to go out and carry into the mavoi. The mavoi becomes a shared, common area. The people of the chatzer can carry into the mavoi only if each chatzer joins with the others. For example, they can become partners in a piece of bread and leave it in one of the chatzerot. Then all the chatzerot are considered one, and they can carry in the mavoi.
So technically, for a mavoi you need two things. You need the adjustment of the lechi and the korah, and that is called an eruv (joining). Then you need the shitufei mevo'ot, a joint partnership among all the residents of the chatzerot of the mavoi. That is called shitufei mevo'ot. In the chatzer, you also need an adjustment. Besides the pasin in front of the chatzer, you need what is called eruvei chatzerot (courtyard partnerships). The residents of the chatzer must become partners with each other. They take one piece of bread for the people of the chatzer and leave it in one of the homes. Then they all have the right to carry from their homes into the chatzer. That is called eruvei chatzerot. The other arrangement is called shitufei mevo'ot.
Now the Gemara makes a statement. Amar Rav Yehudah says, “Mavoi shelo nishtatefu vo”: you have a mavoi whose residents did not make shitufei mevo'ot. “Hikhshiro belechi” (if they prepared it with a sidepost): they adjusted it by putting a lechi at the end of it. “Hazorek letocho chayav” (one who throws into it is liable). If you throw into that area from the reshut harabim, you are chayav (liable), because putting up a lechi makes the mavoi a reshut hayachid. If somebody throws from a reshut harabim into a reshut hayachid, he is chayav.
“Hikhshiro bekorah” (if they prepared it with a crossbeam): if the way you adjust the mavoi is with a korah over it, “hazorek letocho patur” (one who throws into it is exempt). In that case, you have not made the mavoi a reshut hayachid. It still has the din of a reshut harabim, and therefore, if you throw from the reshut harabim into that mavoi, which has a korah over it, you are patur (exempt).
The Gemara wants to analyze this. First, let’s understand the difference between a lechi and a korah. If you have a lechi, they are learning that the lechi acts like a wall. So now you have four walls: the three walls of the mavoi, and the lechi itself as the fourth wall. It is therefore a reshut hayachid in totality. When you throw from the reshut harabim into this mavoi, you are chayav. A korah, on the other hand, is only a heker (recognition). It does not make the mavoi a reshut hayachid. According to this opinion, it is only a heker, and if you throw into it, you are patur because it has the din of a reshut harabim.
Let’s read that in Rashi. Look at the second line: “Hikhshiro belechi tikno belechi hazorek letocho mereshut harabim chayav dekasavar lechi mishum mechitzah. Hikhshiro bekorah hazorek letocho patur dekora mishum heker.” The opinion holds that there are arba mechitzot (four partitions) de'oraita (by Torah law), bein lekula bein lechumra, whether for leniency or stringency. In this case, for carrying inside the mavoi, perhaps we will tell you that three walls are enough. But when throwing into it, we will be stringent and give it the status of a reshut hayachid, in order to make the person chayav.
That is the Gemara’s statement: you have a mavoi whose residents did not make a shituf; a lechi has the din of a reshut hayachid, while a korah, if you throw into it, leaves it with the status of a reshut harabim. The Gemara says, “Matkif lah Rav Sheshet” (Rav Sheshet raised an objection): “Ta'ama delo nishtatefu.” It sounds as though the whole reason for this law is that they did not make a shituf mevo'ot. “Ha nishtatefu vo,” it sounds as though if they did make a shituf mevo'ot, and all the residents of the chatzerot made a shituf, “afilu hikhshiro bekorah namei chayav” (even if prepared with a crossbeam, he is liable). It sounds as though if you put up a korah, it would make it a reshut hayachid because they made a shituf, and therefore, if you throw into it, you are chayav.
The Gemara says, “Vekhi kikar zu asato reshut hayachid o reshut harabim?” How does this piece of bread affect whether it is a reshut hayachid or a reshut harabim? Is the kikar (loaf) a wall? The only issue here should be whether the lechi is a wall or the korah is a wall. So why did the Gemara say that a mavoi whose residents did not make a shituf, and that has a korah, is still a reshut harabim, and if you throw into it you are not chayav? That implies that if you put up a korah and made a shituf, it is a reshut hayachid. Does the kikar make it a reshut hayachid or a reshut harabim? It is not the kikar that makes it; it is the walls.
The Gemara proves this: “Vehatanya” (and it was taught), we have a baraita: “Chatzerot shel rabim” (courtyards belonging to many). Rashi says that there are many houses opening into a chatzer. The law is that until the residents make an eruv among themselves, they cannot carry from their homes into the chatzer. The Gemara says, “Umevo'ot she'einam mefulashim” (and alleyways that are not open through). Or you have a mavoi that is closed, a mavoi she'eino mefulash (a closed-ended alleyway), meaning that it has three walls. “Bein irbo bein lo irbo” (whether they joined or did not join): whether you made an eruv, meaning eruvei chatzerot, or did not make one—or, for that matter, whether you made shitufei mevo'ot or did not—“hazorek letochan chayav” (one who throws into them is liable). Bottom line, if it is a reshut hayachid, it is a reshut hayachid. The eruv makes no difference. Whether you made eruvei chatzerot or not, if the chatzer has the proper adjustment, the eruvei chatzerot do not change its status as a reshut.
So how can you tell me above that if the residents of a mavoi did not make a shituf, then when there is a korah on top, it is considered a reshut harabim? And if they did make the shituf, the korah makes it a reshut hayachid? What does the shitufei mevo'ot do?
The Gemara says, “Ela iy itmar hachi itmar.” Say the statement this way: Amar Rav Yehudah, “Mavoi she'eino ra'uy leshituf” (an alleyway unfit for a partnership). We are talking about a mavoi that cannot have a shituf. Why? It is a mavoi mefulash (open-ended alleyway). The case we were discussing above is a mavoi open on both sides. Such a mavoi cannot have a shituf.
What happens then? “Hikhshiro belechi”: if you put an adjustment on one side, “hazorek letocho chayav,” because that lechi is considered the third wall. You have two walls, and it is open on both sides. Put a lechi there, and it is considered the third wall. So mide'oraita, by Torah law, if you have three walls, it is a reshut hayachid, and if you throw into it, you are chayav. “Hikhshiro bekorah”: if you put a korah on the third side, you do not have a third wall, because a korah is only a heker. You have two walls and a heker, so if you throw into it, “hazorek letocho patur.”
So we were not talking about a mavoi satum (closed-ended alleyway). A mavoi satum has three walls and is considered a reshut hayachid. We are talking about a mavoi mefulash, where you have only two walls. With two walls, you need a third wall to make it a reshut hayachid. How do you make the third wall? You put up a lechi. The lechi is considered the third wall, so if you throw into it, you are chayav. If you put a korah on the third side, since the korah is mishum heker (as a marker), it is not considered a third wall. You have only two walls, so it is still considered a reshut harabim, and if you throw into it, you are patur. The Gemara is not discussing whether you made a shituf. It is talking about a mavoi that cannot have a shituf because it is a mavoi mefulash.
So the Gemara says, “Alma,” what do we see from this? “Kasavar lechi mishum mechitzah vekorah mishum heker.” We have proved that the lechi is a wall and the korah is a heker. Very simply, gentlemen: you have a mavoi mefulash with two walls. It is open on both sides. Could you carry in such a place? Of course not. You put a lechi on one side. If you say the lechi is a wall, then on that side it is as if you have a wall. How many walls do you have now? Three. We are not discussing carrying in the mavoi; that is not the discussion. We are talking about throwing into it. Since the mavoi has three walls, it is considered a reshut, so you are chayav.
If you have a mavoi mefulash and put a korah on top, we are still not discussing carrying in the mavoi. If you throw into it, what is the din? Patur. Why? Because a korah is mishum heker; it is not considered a mechitzah. So the entire discussion there was about a mavoi mefulash.
The Gemara says, “Vechen amar Rabbah.” Rabbah also said, “Lechi mishum mechitzah vekorah mishum heker.” Rabbah also said that a lechi works as a wall, while a korah works as a heker. “VeRava amar,” but Rava says, “Ha zeh veha zeh mishum heker” (both this and that are for recognition). Both the lechi and the korah are a heker.
The Gemara says, “Eitibei Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba leRava.” Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba asked Rava: “Hazorek lemavoi” (one who throws into an alleyway). A person throws into a mavoi from the reshut harabim. “Yesh lo lechi” (it has a sidepost): if it has a lechi, he is chayav. That suggests that the lechi serves as a wall and makes the mavoi a reshut. “Ein lo lechi, patur.”
Again, we are obviously talking about throwing into a mavoi that is mefulash. The Gemara’s question is that when you have a lechi there, it makes a wall. Now you have a wall, and therefore you should be chayav. That is why you are chayav. So you see that a lechi is a wall. The Gemara says, hachi ka'amar: “Eino tzarich ela lechi” (it needs only a sidepost). The meaning is this: if you have a mavoi that needs only a lechi, it is not a mavoi mefulash; it is a mavoi satum, a closed mavoi. What adjustment does a closed mavoi need? Only a lechi. The Gemara says, “If it needs only a lechi, hazorek letocho chayav.” If you throw into it, you are chayav, because even without the lechi you have three walls. Min haTorah, three walls are considered a reshut hayachid.
So the stam (anonymous teaching) was saying this: if you have a mavoi that needs only a lechi, what type of mavoi is it? A mavoi satum. It has three walls. If you throw into a mavoi that has three walls, what is the din? Min haTorah, it is considered a reshut hayachid. Therefore, I do not need the lechi to be a wall. The lechi is not a wall; you are chayav based on the three walls themselves, which make it a reshut hayachid.
“Lechi vedavar acher” (a sidepost and something else): if it is a type of mavoi where a lechi is not enough, and you need a lechi and something else—for example, a lechi and a tzurat hapetach—then it is a mavoi mefulash. “Hazorek letocho patur,” because you have only two walls. Min haTorah, two walls are not considered a reshut hayachid. So I can tell you that the lechi is always a heker. The discussion is whether it is a three-walled mavoi or a two-walled mavoi. If it has three walls and you throw into it, you are chayav because min haTorah it is a reshut hayachid. If it has two walls and a lechi, you are patur because it is a reshut harabim.
“Eitibei,” we have a question: “Yeter al ken amar Rabbi Yehudah.” Rabbi Yehudah said furthermore. Originally, Rabbi Yehudah gave a case of two houses on opposite sides of the reshut harabim, with a tunnel—an overground tunnel—above the houses. Rabbi Yehudah holds that you can carry underneath it. That is not a tunnel; I’m sorry, a bridge. You can carry underneath the bridge because he learns that one house is one wall, the house on the other side is another wall, and the side of the bridge goes down and acts as a third wall. First Rabbi Yehudah said you can carry in a case where you have three walls. Three walls min haTorah are considered a reshut hayachid. Then it says yeter al ken: he went a step further. If he goes a step further, he is telling us that min haTorah, two walls are already considered a reshut hayachid.
How? He said, “Yeter al ken amar Rabbi Yehudah: mi sheyesh lo shenei batim bishenei tzidei reshut harabim” (two houses on two sides of the public domain). A person has two houses on opposite sides of the reshut harabim. “Oseh lechi mikan velechi mikan” (make a sidepost here and a sidepost there): put a lechi on one side of the house and a lechi on the other. What does that do for you? It is as if you close it up. It is as if you made a third wall. Now you have three walls, plus a lechi on the other side. Did putting in the two lechayim make four walls? “O korah mikan vekorah mikan” (or a crossbeam here and a crossbeam there): place crossbeams across the street, from one house to the other, on both sides. “Venoseh venoten be'emtza” (and one carries in the middle). Then you can carry in the middle.
The rabbis came to him. What is Rabbi Yehudah obviously saying? That these lechayim can become walls; he is making his third and fourth walls with the lechi. Did the Rabbis agree? No. “Amru lo ein me'arvin reshut harabim bekach” (they said, one may not establish an eruv in the public domain this way). The Rabbis said, “No. When it comes to a reshut harabim, as you are trying to do here, because this is a public domain, and you have two houses on both sides and are trying to carry in the public domain, you cannot adjust a reshut harabim like that.” That implies that they argue only because you cannot adjust a reshut harabim that way. If it were a mavoi, you could adjust it.
What does that mean? A lechi really is a mechitzah. The Rabbis are only saying that you cannot use mechitzot to make a reshut harabim into a reshut hayachid. But outside a reshut harabim, the Rabbis would agree that if you put up a lechi, it is considered a mechitzah. That is a question on Rava. You just told me that Rava says a lechi is mishum heker. From the Rabbis’ words it sounds as if a lechi is mishum mechitzah. Why? They argued with Rabbi Yehudah only because this is a reshut harabim, implying that if you put that lechi in a mavoi, it works. So how is Rava going to answer this?
The Gemara says, “Amru lo”—sorry—“hatam kasavar Reb Yehudah shtei mechitzot de'oraita” (there, Rabbi Yehudah holds that two partitions are by Torah law). The Gemara answers: you misunderstood Rabbi Yehudah. Those lechayim are not walls; they are hekers. Why? Rabbi Yehudah says that min haTorah the two houses are considered two walls, and a reshut hayachid needs only two walls mide'oraita (by Torah law). So mide'oraita, you can already carry in that reshut harabim because it has two walls on its sides. When you put the lechi there, what are you doing? It is only a heker. You did not need to create a third or fourth wall. So no one was discussing walls here.
We originally thought, in our question, that Rabbi Yehudah must hold that min haTorah you need at least three walls. So at least one lechi must serve as a wall. The Rabbis would say that you cannot use a lechi as a wall in this case, implying that you could use it as a wall in a mavoi. The Gemara says, “No. We were never using the lechi here as a wall. Why? Rabbi Yehudah says you don’t need a wall, because min haTorah two walls are enough for a reshut hayachid. So why are you putting the lechi there? It is two walls, plus a lechi as a heker on both sides.” Therefore, Rava’s position stands. The Rabbis were saying that you cannot put a lechi in such a place because you need a third wall, and a lechi is not a wall. So you see that a lechi can be a heker, and there is no question on Rava.
Amar Rav Yehudah amar Rav: mavoi she'orko kerochbo (an alleyway whose length equals its width). If you have a mavoi whose length equals its width, it is square. “Eino nitar belechi mashehu” (it is not permitted with a minimal sidepost), because it is not considered a mavoi. Amar Rav Chiya bar Ashi amar Rav: “Mavoi she'orko kerochbo eino nitar bekorah tefach” (it is not permitted with a one-handbreadth crossbeam). If you have a square mavoi, with its width equal to its length, it cannot be adjusted with a korah. They are basically saying the same thing: one rabbi says it cannot be adjusted with a sidepost, and the other says it cannot be adjusted with a crossbeam, because it is not a mavoi.
Amar Rebbi Zeira: kama—what is the shiur (measure)? No, I’m sorry. Amar Rebbi Zeira, we read it this way: “Kama mechavnan shema'ata desavei” (how precise are the teachings of the elders). How wise and perceptive were the statements of the elders! Who just made these statements? Rav, and Rav Chiya bar Ashi in the name of Rav. So you are saying how wise they were. Why were their statements so wise? “Keivan de'orko kerochbo havei lechatzer” (since its length equals its width, it is a courtyard). When its length equals its width, it is no longer a mavoi, because that is the configuration of a chatzer. “Vechatzer eino nitar belechi vekorah” (and a courtyard is not permitted with a sidepost and crossbeam). We learned that a chatzer cannot be adjusted with a lechi or a korah. How do you adjust a chatzer? “Ela befas arba'ah.” You need at least a sidepost of arba'ah. That is why you are saying how wise they were: a chatzer needs a pas.
Amar Rabbi Zeira: “I kashya li, ha kashya li” (if I have a difficulty, this is my difficulty). If there is a question I can ask about these rabbis, it is this: “Lehevei hai lechi kepas mashehu venishtarei” (let this sidepost count as a minimal sidepost, and permit it). Why can’t the lechi serve as the pas? What is a pas? A sidepost. I understand why you want to call it a chatzer and not a mavoi, because its width and depth are equal. But why do you need this pas? Just put—
The Gemara answers, “Ishtamitatei” (it escaped his notice): Rabbi Zeira forgot what Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: “Pasei chatzer tzerichin sheyehei bahen arba'ah” (courtyard sideposts must be four handbreadths). He forgot the law that says the pas has to be four tefachim wide. So he came along and said, “I just don’t understand: why can’t you get away with putting a lechi in a chatzer? Call it a chatzer; put a lechi there; let the lechi be the pas.” He forgot that the pas has to be at least four tefachim wide, while a lechi can be a mashehu.
Amar Rav Nachman: “Naktinan” (we have a tradition). “Eizehu mavoi shenitar belechi vekorah?” (which alleyway is permitted with a sidepost and crossbeam?) What is a legitimate mavoi that can be adjusted with a lechi or a korah? “Kol she'orko yeter al rochbo” (any whose length exceeds its width), as we always learn. Its entrance is smaller, let’s say, and it is longer than it is wide. The Gemara says, “Uvatim vachatzerot petuchin letocho” (and houses and courtyards open into it). Furthermore, you need at least two chatzerot, with two houses in each of those chatzerot, opening into the mavoi. So we are giving you a couple of conditions again: the mavoi has to be narrow and longer than it is wide, and two chatzerot, with two houses, have to open into it.
The Gemara says, “Ve'eizehu chatzer” (and what is a courtyard?), “she'einah niteret belechi vekorah” (which is not permitted with a sidepost and crossbeam), “ela bepas arba'ah”: it needs a sidepost of four tefachim. “Kol shemeruba'at” (any that is squared). It has to be squared—not necessarily a perfect square; it can have equal length and width, or its width can be longer than its length. That is also considered a chatzer.
The Gemara asks: you said squared—“Meruba'at in, agulah lo?” (squared, yes; rounded, no?) Does it have to be a square? If it is rounded, is it not considered a chatzer? Suppose there are no corners; it is a rounded chatzer. Are you going to say it is not considered a chatzer? In other words, if it is agulah (rounded), can I get away with a lechi? You said that a chatzer needs a pas if it is squared, which implies that if it were rounded, I could get away with a lechi. Does that make sense?
“Hachi ka'amar” (this is what he meant to say): “I orkah yoter al rochbah” (if its length exceeds its width). If you have a chatzer whose length is greater than its width, it looks like a mavoi, but it is a chatzer because it has houses. “Havya leih mavoi” (it becomes an alleyway): we give it the status of a mavoi. “Umavoi belechi vekorah sagya” (an alleyway suffices with a sidepost and crossbeam). If not, “havya lah chatzer” (it becomes a courtyard), and it has the regular din of a chatzer, which needs a pas. So when it said agulah, it did not mean rounded. It meant that if the chatzer is configured like a mavoi—not squared, but with a narrow entrance and a long length—you can adjust the chatzer like a mavoi.
The Gemara asks, “Vechamah?” How much longer does it have to be than its width for a chatzer to have the din of a mavoi, so that it can be adjusted with a lechi or a korah? That is the question, vechamah. Shmuel thought to say, “Ad de'ika pi shenayim berochbah” (until its length is twice its width). He holds that the length has to be at least double the width for it to be considered a mavoi. Rav said to him, “Hachi amar chavivi” (this is what my uncle said). Rashi says that he was his uncle. “Afilu mashehu” (even a little). He said, no: even a little longer. As long as the length is even a little greater than its width, the chatzer takes on the din of a mavoi and can be adjusted with a lechi or a korah.
Baruch Hashem le'olam. Olam amen ve'amen (forever, amen and amen).