Study Eruvin folio 15A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
It was stated that the amora’im disagreed about a side post that stands by itself, i.e., a side post at the entrance to an alleyway that was not put there for the express purpose of permitting one to carry on Shabbat. Abaye said: It is a valid side post. Rava said: It is not a valid side post.
The Talmud first narrows the scope of the dispute: In a place where the inhabitants of the alleyway did not rely on it from yesterday, e.g., the alleyway had another side post that fell down on Shabbat, all agree that it is not a valid side post. Where they disagree is in a case where they relied o
The Talmud comments: It might enter your mind to say that just as they disagree with regard to a side post, they also disagree with regard to whether a partition that was not erected to serve that function is considered a valid partition.
Come and hear a proof based upon what we learned in the following Mishnah: With regard to one who makes his sukka among the trees, and the trees serve as its walls, it is a valid sukka. This proves that the trees function as partitions even though they were not erected for this purpose. The Talmud r
The Talmud tries to present another proof. Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If there was a tree there, or a fence, or a barrier of reeds that are interconnected and form a hedge, it is judged to be a valid double post, i.e., it qualifies as a partition suitable to enclose a public well, as wil