Eruvin 77a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yohanan said: These raise [the produce] from here and eat, and these raise [the produce] from here and eat.

And Rashi explained: The members of the courtyards are permitted to raise [objects] from their courtyard to the top of the wall, and likewise to lower them, since it is a mekom patur, and it is nullified to this side and to that side for leniency.

And we raise an objection against Rabbi Yohanan from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

“A wall between two courtyards, ten [handbreadths] high and four [handbreadths] wide. If there was produce on its top” —

these ascend from here and eat, and these ascend from here and eat.

And we infer:

“ascend”

the members of the courtyard and eat produce on its top,

yes.

But

“raise”

produce in order to eat it on its top,

no.

And this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who permits even raising produce onto its top.

For it might have entered our minds now that Rabbi Yohanan permits even [when the wall is] four [handbreadths] wide, since, because it is ten [handbreadths] high and its use there is not convenient, it is not considered the domain of the members of the courtyards [Tosafot]?!

And we answer:

This is what it says: If it has four by four [handbreadths], “they ascend” —

yes; “they raise” —

no;

but

if it does not have four by four [handbreadths] —

they may also raise [produce].

And Rabbi Yohanan proceeds —

who said that a place that is less than four by four [handbreadths] is not significant enough to be a domain in its own right —

according to his own reasoning.

For when Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan [said]:

A. A place that is four by four handbreadths wide and higher than three handbreadths separates out as a domain of its own, and it is a karmelit. And if this domain stands between the public domain and the private domain, it is rabbinically prohibited to carry into it both from the private domain and from the public domain.

But

a place that does not have four by four

handbreadths, which stands between the private domain and the public domain, although it is three handbreadths high, does not separate out as a domain of its own, and it is a mekom patur. [See illustration]

And therefore:

it is permitted

both

for the members of the public domain and

both

for the members of the private domain to place their loads upon it [to adjust the loads on their shoulders], and there is no prohibition of carrying out in it.

There is no prohibition of carrying into it.

Provided that they do not exchange

the members of the public domain and the members of the private domain their loads with one another after they have been placed there [Rav Hai Gaon].

And we wonder:

But Rav —

who disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan concerning a wall that does not have four [handbreadths] — is it the case that

he does not hold of Rav Dimi’s teaching?

But it is a baraita in tractate Shabbat. For we learned: “A person stands on the threshold, takes from a poor person and gives to him, [or takes] from the householder and gives to him.”

And is this not because the threshold is a mekom patur, since it does not have four by four [handbreadths]?!

And we explain:

If [we are dealing] with Torah domains,

such as the public domain and the private domain, as in Rav Dimi’s teaching,

so too

Rav agrees. Since it is a matter of Torah law, we are not concerned that they might exchange [the objects].

But

here, with what are we dealing? With rabbinic domains,

for the entire prohibition of carrying from this person’s domain to that person’s domain is rabbinic.

And the Sages strengthened their words more than those of the Torah,

since people are not so careful with it, we are concerned that they will come to carry from one courtyard to another! Ritba.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Nahman: A wall [four [handbreadths] wide — Shulhan Arukh]

[four handbreadths wide—Shulchan Arukh]

that is between two courtyards,

which

on one side

— on the side of one courtyard —

is ten handbreadths high from the ground, and on one side

— on the side of the second courtyard —

is level with the ground,

meaning: it is less than ten handbreadths high, and the wall belongs to both of them —

they assign it

for use and for carrying out to it from the house

to the one for whom it is level with the ground.

And the members of the second courtyard are prohibited from using it. [See illustration 1]

Because, for this one,

for whom it is level with the ground,

its use is convenient [it is convenient for them to use it],

[it is convenient for them to use it], while

whereas for that one

for whom it is ten [handbreadths] high from the ground,

its use is difficult [it is difficult for them to use it].

[it is difficult for them to use it].

And whenever

for

for this one

its use is

convenient, and for that one

its use is

difficult —

they assign it to the one whose use is convenient.

And similarly

Rav Shizbi said in the name of Rav Nahman: A ditch [four [handbreadths] wide]

[four handbreadths wide]

that is between two courtyards,

belonging to two people along the entire length of the courtyards [for it too is a partition], which

on one side is ten [handbreadths] deep

handbreadths,

and on one side is level with the ground,

meaning: its depth is not ten [handbreadths], for the ground of one courtyard is lower —

they assign it

for carrying

to the one for whom it is level with the ground.

And the members of the second courtyard are prohibited from using it. [See illustration 2]

Because for this one its use is convenient, and for that one its use is difficult.

And whenever [its use is] convenient for this one and difficult for that one —

they assign it to the one whose use is convenient.

And [these teachings] are necessary,

these two statements of Rav Nahman:

For if he had taught us

Rav Nahman only that teaching concerning the

wall,

we might have said that his reason is

because people use [a place] at a height [people use something elevated above the ground], and since this one, for whom it is level with the ground, uses it more conveniently, they assign the wall to him.

[people use something that is raised above the ground], and since the person whose side is level with it uses it more easily, they assign the wall to him.

But a ditch

that

people do not use at a depth,

since they need to bend down and use it [Rav Hai Gaon], and this use is not convenient, and even for the one for whom it is level with the ground its use is difficult,

I might say: no,

they do not assign it to one more than to the other. Therefore it teaches us [otherwise].

And if he had taught us

Rav Nahman only

concerning the ditch,

because

its use is not precarious,

for what is placed in it is protected,

but a wall, whose use is precarious,

for objects fall from it [and the expression “precarious use” is as though the objects are frightened lest they fall],

I might say: no,

for its use is inconvenient for both of them.

For this reason

it is necessary

to have both of these statements of Rav Nahman.

A wall between two courtyards, ten [handbreadths] high and four [handbreadths] wide, which both courtyards are prohibited from using because use is difficult for both of them, and

one came to reduce it

from a height of ten handbreadths on one side of the wall, by placing a platform or something similar beside the wall, so that for the members of one courtyard its use would be convenient. [See illustration 1]

Now,

if in its reduction

along the length of the wall there are

four

handbreadths [the Shulhan Arukh added: and it projects four [handbreadths]. This is not Rashi’s method; see Tosafot on page 77b, s.v. “if”],

it is permitted

for the members of this courtyard

to use the entire wall

and to raise objects onto it from the vessels of the house, since it is convenient to ascend by way of it to the top of the wall, because from it to its top there is not a height of ten [handbreadths] [Mishna Berura; and see Rashi’s wording].

And if not, one may use only opposite the reduction,

and not the entire wall.

And we wonder about this:

What do you say?!

For

if the reduction is effective,

even though it is not four handbreadths, then

throughout the entire wall

as well

he should use it,

for just as it is effective in making the use convenient opposite the reduction, so too it is effective for the entire wall, enabling him to ascend by way of that reduction to the top of the wall.

And

if it is not effective

for the entire wall because it is not four [handbreadths] wide, then

even opposite the reduction as well, he should not use it,

for it is nullified and is considered as though it does not exist?!

He said

in answer,

Ravina:

We are not dealing here with a reduction by means of a platform at the side of the wall, for that certainly is not effective at all — even opposite the reduction — because it is not convenient to stand upon it and use it, and it is considered as though it does not exist [Mishna Berura].

Rather, with what are we dealing here?

For example, he uprooted

[demolished]

one course

of stones

from its top

of the wall, and the ground of one courtyard was higher than that of the other, and through uprooting the course there remained a height of less than ten handbreadths on the side of this courtyard, whereas in the second courtyard — whose ground was lower — a height of ten handbreadths still remained [Maamar Mordekhai; and see Mishna Berura]. [See illustration 2]

And therefore: if the length of the course that he uprooted was four handbreadths, it is permitted to use the entire wall, since he ascends from his courtyard to that place from which the course was uprooted, and from there to the entire wall.

But if its length is not four handbreadths, it is not convenient to ascend by way of it to the top of the wall, and since this is so, it is not permitted to use the whole of it [Mishna Berura; and see Rashi].

Nevertheless, in that place from which he uprooted the course, it is permitted to use [the wall], since there its use is convenient, as he stands on the ground and uses it there [Mishna Berura].

Rav Yehiel said: He overturned

in one of the courtyards

a basin

four handbreadths in length from the wall [Ritba], and reduced its height from ten handbreadths, so that its use — for the members of this courtyard — would be convenient,

it reduces [the wall]!

And the members of that courtyard are permitted to use it on Shabbat. [See illustration]

And we wonder about this:

But why

is a reduction by means of a basin effective? For a basin

is an object that may be moved on Shabbat [it is not muktzeh and it is permitted to take it from there],

[it is not set aside as unusable, and it is permitted to remove it from there],

and an object that may be moved on Shabbat does not reduce,

for we are concerned that he might take it away [Rashba]?!

And we answer:

It is necessary [to say this] when he attached it to the ground

[when he attached the basin to the ground].

And it entered our minds that he placed earth and clods of soil around it in order to fix it there [Ritba]. And therefore we wonder about this:

But when he attached it to the ground —

what has happened?

But the basin can still be moved on Shabbat, even though by uprooting the basin he necessarily moves the earth, which is muktzeh.

For

it was taught

that something like this is permitted:

an unripe fig

[an unripe fig]

that was concealed in straw

in order to ripen in it,

and a cake

[bread]

that was concealed

before Shabbat

in coals,

which have now gone out —

if

the fig or the cake is

partially exposed,

it

may be taken on Shabbat,

by holding it at the exposed place.

And although by taking it he moves the straw, which is muktzeh [for we are dealing with straw designated for firing bricks], and the muktzeh coals, it is permitted to do this, since “moving from the side” [where he does not move the muktzeh itself, but rather the fig and the cake] is not considered moving.

Here too, it should be permitted to take the basin on Shabbat. And since this is so, how is it a reduction [Ritba]?!

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here? —

With a basin that has rims

[a double lip toward its inside, Rashi, Bava Metzia 24a]. And the rims enter the ground and are buried there.

And it entered our minds now that in such a case it is prohibited to take it, because it is like digging [Ritba; and see Rashi].

And we still wonder:

But if it has rims —

what has happened?

But we learned

that even in such a case it is permitted:

“One who conceals a turnip and a radish beneath a grapevine”

so that they will be preserved in the ground, as is their manner [Rashi, Shabbat 50]: