עירובין ו׳ ב:י״ד-ז׳ א:א׳

One who has two houses opposite each other on the two sides of the public domain, and he wishes to carry from one house to the other on Shabbat via the public domain, he may place a side post from here, on one side of one of the houses, and an additional side post from here, on the other side. Alternatively, he may place a cross beam from here, from one end of one house, and an additional cross beam from here, from the other side of the house, and then he may carry objects and place them in the area between them, for in this manner he turns the middle area into a private domain. The Rabbis said to him: One cannot render a public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv in this manner. Apparently, there is no way to establish an absolute public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv.,The Gemara questions its previous conclusion: And if you say that it is only in this manner, by way of a side post or a cross beam, that a public domain cannot be rendered fit for carrying, but by means of doors it can be rendered fit for carrying. But this is not true, as didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to Jerusalem, were it not for the fact that its doors are locked at night, one would be liable for carrying in it on Shabbat, because its thoroughfares are regarded as a public domain? This shows that the presence of a door is not sufficient to render it permitted to carry in a public domain; rather, the door must actually be locked.,And similarly, Ulla stated: With regard to the city entrances [abbulei] of Meḥoza, which meet the criteria for a public domain, were it not for the fact that their doors are locked, one would be liable for carrying in them, because they are regarded as a public domain. Apparently, without the actual locking of doors it is impossible to establish a public domain fit for carrying by means of the symbolic partitions of a side post or a cross beam. If so, how can the Sages in the baraita argue about how to establish a public domain fit for carrying?,Rather, Rav Yehuda said: The wording of the baraita must be emended so that this is what it says: How does one render alleyways that are not themselves public domains but are open on two opposite sides into the public domain fit for carrying by means of an eiruv? He constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side.,It was stated that the amora’im differed on how the halakha is to be decided with regard to this issue. Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the anonymous first tanna of the baraita, and it is sufficient to have the form of a doorway on one side and a side post or cross beam on the other side in order to render it permitted to carry in an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides to the public domain. And Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, following the position of Beit Hillel, who also require a door on one side.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages concerning the position of Beit Hillel: According to Ḥananya, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, must this door be locked or need it not be locked? Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, who, as mentioned earlier, rules in accordance with Beit Hillel: The door need not be locked. And similarly, Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: The door need not be locked. Some say that Rav Mattana said: A case involving this very issue happened to me, and Shmuel said to me: The door need not be locked.,They raised a dilemma before Rav Anan with regard to this issue: Need the door be locked or need it not be locked? He said to them: Come and see these city entrances of Neharde’a that open on two opposite sides into the public domain, the gateways of which were filled up halfway with earth, so that the doors themselves could not possibly be locked. Mar Shmuel regularly goes in and out through them, but has never said anything to the people of Neharde’a about them. This shows that it is not necessary for the doors to be locked.,Rav Kahana rejected this proof and said: Those doors in Neharde’a were partially blocked, and therefore there was no need to lock them, but in general, the door of an alleyway that opens on both sides into the public domain must be locked.,The Gemara relates that when Rav Naḥman came to Neharde’a, he said: Clear away the earth, so that the doors can be locked. The Gemara attempts to understand Rav Naḥman’s instruction: Let us say that Rav Naḥman holds that the door of an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides must be locked. The Gemara explains: No, this is not proof. In order for carrying to be permitted in such an alleyway, it is enough that the doors be fit to be locked, even if they are not actually locked.,The Gemara describes a certain crooked, L-shaped alleyway that was in Neharde’a, upon which they imposed the stringency of Rav and the stringency of Shmuel, and required it to have doors. The Gemara attempts to understand this ruling: The stringency of Rav, namely, that which he said, that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides. But this is difficult, for didn’t Rav say that the law follows the anonymous first tanna of the baraita, who says that even an open alleyway itself does not require doors, and that an opening in the form of a doorway suffices?,The Gemara answers: They required doors in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya. But this too is difficult, for if the doors were required in accordance with Shmuel’s opinion, didn’t Shmuel say that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an alleyway that is closed on one side, which does not need any doors at all? The Gemara explains: The doors were required in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an alleyway that is open on two opposite sides. Therefore, they adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel: Rav’s stringency that an L-shaped alleyway is deemed an open alleyway, and Shmuel’s stringency that an open alleyway requires a door.,The Gemara poses a question: But do we adopt the respective stringencies of two authorities who disagree on a series of issues? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel may do so. If he wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person. And if he wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and also the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, he should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies.,The Gemara first raises a problem concerning the wording of the baraita: The baraita is itself difficult to understand, because it contains an internal contradiction between its clauses: You first said that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and then you reversed that and said that one who wishes to act in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai may do so.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita’s statement that a person may act as he wishes was made before the Divine Voice emerged and announced that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel; and here, the statement that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel was made after the Divine Voice issued this ruling.,And if you wish, say a different answer: Both this statement and that statement were made after the Divine Voice announced that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel, and the latter statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not pay attention to a Divine Voice that attempts to intervene in matters of halakha, for according to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.,The Gemara suggests yet another resolution: And if you wish, say instead that this is what the baraita is saying: Wherever you find two tanna’im or two amora’im who disagree with each other in the manner of the disputes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, one should not act either in accordance with the leniency of the one Master and in accordance with the leniency of the other Master, nor should one act in accordance with the stringency of the one Master and in accordance with the stringency of the other Master. Rather, one should act either in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the one Master, or in accordance with both the leniencies and the stringencies of the other Master.,All of this is suggested to explain the wording of the baraita. In any case, it is difficult to explain the law with regard to the alleyway in Neharde’a, concerning which they simultaneously adopted the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In fact, they acted entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rav, and the reason that they required doors and did not rely on the opening in the form of a doorway alone is due to that which Rav Huna said that Rav said: This is the halakha; however, a public ruling is not issued to that effect ab initio. Although Rav maintains that an opening in the form of a doorway is sufficient in an open alleyway, a public ruling is not issued to that effect; rather, the ruling is stringent, in accordance with Ḥananya’s position, and requires doors.,The Gemara asks: And according to the statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava that Rav said, as Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said with regard to the same issue: This is the halakha and a public ruling is issued to that effect, what can be said? Why did the residents of Neharde’a adopt the stringencies of the two authorities?,Rav Sheizvi said: The principle of dictating when we do not act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities applies only in a case where the two stringencies contradict one another. In these types of cases, following both stringencies would result in an internal contradiction.,The Gemara illustrates this principle with an example from the laws governing the spine and skull. As we learned in a mishna: The spine and the skull of a corpse that are incomplete do not impart ritual impurity via a tent as a corpse would; rather, they impart impurity only through contact or if they are carried as individual bones. This basic law was unanimously accepted, but the details were the subject of dispute: How much is considered a deficiency in the spine for this purpose? Beit Shammai say: If it is missing two vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: Even if it is missing only one vertebra. And similarly, they argued over the deficiency in the skull: Beit Shammai say: It must be missing piece the size of a drill hole, and Beit Hillel say: It must be missing an amount that, when removed from a living person, would cause him to die, which is a larger amount.,And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argued likewise with respect to a tereifa, a kosher animal suffering from a wound or illness that will cause it to die within twelve months, and which is prohibited to be eaten even after the required ritual slaughter. Beit Shammai say that an animal is regarded as a tereifa if it is missing two vertebrae, while Beit Hillel hold that it is a tereifa if it lacks even one. In such a situation, a person must not be stringent with regard to the halakhot of tereifa in accordance with the view of Beit Hillel, and at the same time be stringent with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity of a corpse in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai, for the two disputes relate to the same issue, and one must not act in accordance with two contradictory opinions.,Rav Sheizvi continues: However, in a case where the two stringencies do not contradict one another, we may indeed act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities. Therefore, the stringencies adopted in the case of the alleyway in Neharde’a were legitimate, for the two stringencies related to two separate issues: Rav’s stringency was that an L-shaped alleyway is regarded like an open alleyway, and Shmuel’s stringency was that an open alleyway requires a door.,The Gemara challenges Rav Sheizvi’s assertion: Is it true that we do not act in accordance with the stringencies of two authorities in a case where the two stringencies contradict one another? Rav Mesharshiya raised an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who gathered the fruit of a citron tree on the first of the month of Shevat and applied the laws of two tithes to it. After teruma and the first tithe have been separated, an additional tithe is separated from what is left. During the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the Sabbatical cycle, second tithe is set aside to be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owner, while during the third and sixth years, poor man’s tithe is set aside to be distributed to the needy. When tithing the fruit picked on the first of Shevat, Rabbi Akiva set aside both additional tithes, second tithe and poor man’s tithe: He set aside one in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, who say that the new year for trees begins on the first of Shevat, and as that day belongs to the new year, a tithe must be set aside in accordance with the law of that year; and he set aside one in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, that the new year for trees is the fifteenth of Shevat, and any fruit picked prior to that date must be tithed in accordance with the law of the previous year. Apparently, Rabbi Akiva adopted for himself two contradictory stringencies.,The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva did not act in this way in order to be stringent in accordance with both opinions, but because he was in doubt with regard to his tradition and did not know whether Beit Hillel said the New Year for trees falls on the first of Shevat or on the fifteenth of Shevat, and therefore he acted stringently here and stringently there.,The Gemara resumes its discussion of alleyways that are open on two opposite sides. Rav Yosef sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The dispute between the anonymous first tanna of the baraita and Ḥananya refers to a case where there is a main street [seratya] from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a main street from here, on the other side. Alternatively, it refers to a case where there is a plaza [pelatya] from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a plaza from here, on the other side.,But if there is a main street from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, a valley being a karmelit, which is neither a public domain nor a private domain, in which carrying is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, or if there is a valley from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, one constructs an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side of the alleyway, and places a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side. One is thereby permitted to carry in the alleyway even according to the opinion of Ḥananya.,The Gemara raises a question about this ruling: Now, if you say that where there is a main street from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a valley from here, on the other side, it is sufficient to construct an opening in the form of a doorway from here, on one side, and a side post or a cross beam from here, on the other side, was it necessary to state that these are sufficient if there is a valley from here, on one side of the alleyway, and a valley from here, on the other side?,The Gemara answers: This is what he intended to say: If there is a main street from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side, it is considered as if there were a valley from here, on one side, and a valley from here, on the other side.,The Gemara continues: And when Rav Yosef reported this ruling, he concluded with a statement in the name of Rav Yehuda himself, without attributing it to one of Rav Yehuda’s teachers: If the alleyway terminated in a backyard, i.e., a closed-off area behind a group of houses, then even if there is a breach in the wall between the yard and the public domain beyond it, nothing is needed on this side of the alleyway, as it is considered closed.,Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This ruling of Rav Yehuda is a ruling of his teacher Shmuel, and not of his other teacher, Rav.