Eruvin 77a (עז.) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yohanan said: These may ascend from here and eat, and those may ascend from here and eat.

Rashi explained: The residents of the courtyards are permitted to bring objects from their courtyard up to the top of the wall, and likewise to lower them, since it is an exempt place, and is treated leniently as belonging to both sides.

And we challenge Rabbi Yohanan from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

A wall between two courtyards that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, with produce on top of it—

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

And we infer:

They may ascend

the residents of the courtyard and eat produce on top of it—

yes.

But

they may bring up

produce in order to eat it on top of the wall—

no.

This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who permits even bringing produce up onto the top of the wall.

For it entered our minds at this stage that Rabbi Yohanan permits this even when the wall is four handbreadths wide, since, as it is ten handbreadths high and it is not convenient to use there, it is not considered the domain of the residents of the courtyards [Tosafot]?!

And we answer:

This is what it is saying: If it contains four by four handbreadths, they may ascend—

yes; they may bring up—

no.

But

if it does not contain four by four handbreadths—

they may also bring up.

And Rabbi Yohanan follows

the principle he stated, that a place smaller than four by four handbreadths is not significant enough to be a domain in its own right—

his own position.

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

A. A place that is four by four handbreadths wide and more than three handbreadths high constitutes a domain of its own, and is a karmelit. If this domain stands between the public domain and the private domain, it is rabbinically prohibited to carry into it, whether from the private domain or from the public domain.

But

a place that does not contain four by four

handbreadths, which stands between the private domain and the public domain—even though it is three handbreadths high—does not constitute a domain of its own, and is an exempt place. [See illustration]

Therefore,

it is permitted

both

for the residents of the public domain and

both

for the residents of the private domain to shoulder objects onto it

[to adjust the loads they carry on their shoulders on it], and there is no prohibition of carrying involved.

Provided that they do not exchange

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

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rav—

who disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan concerning a wall that does not contain four handbreadths—does he

not accept Rav Dimi's statement?

But there is a Mishna in tractate Shabbat. For we learned: A person may stand on a threshold, take an object from a poor person and give it to him, or take an object from the householder and give it to him.

And this is permitted because a threshold is an exempt place, since it does not contain four by four handbreadths?!

And we explain:

If it concerns Torah domains,

such as the public domain and the private domain, as in Rav Dimi's statement,

so too

Rav agrees. Since the matter is one of Torah law, we are not concerned that they might exchange their objects.

But

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

since the entire prohibition against carrying from one person's domain to another's is rabbinic.

And the Sages reinforced their words more than matters of Torah,

because, as people are not so careful about this, we are concerned that they may come to carry from one courtyard to another! Ritva.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav Naḥman said: A wall

[four handbreadths wide—Shulḥan Arukh]

between two courtyards,

whose

one side

—the side of one courtyard—

is ten handbreadths above the ground, while its one side

—the side of the second courtyard—

is level with the ground,

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

is assigned

for use and for carrying objects to it from the house

to the one whose side is level with the ground.

The residents of the second courtyard are prohibited from using it. [See illustration 1]

Because, for this one,

whose side is level with the ground,

its use is convenient

[it is easy for them to use it],

whereas for that one

whose side is ten handbreadths above the ground,

its use is difficult

[it is difficult for them to use it].

And whenever

for

one

its use is

convenient, while for the other

its use is

difficult—

it is assigned to the one whose use is convenient.

And similarly,

Rav Shizvi said that Rav Naḥman said: A trench

[four handbreadths wide]

between two courtyards,

belonging to both of them and extending along the entire length of the courtyards [as it too constitutes a partition], whose

one side is ten handbreadths deep

handbreadths,

while its one side is level with the ground,

that is, it is not ten handbreadths deep, because the ground of one courtyard is lower,

is assigned

for carrying

to the one whose side is level with the ground.

The residents of the second courtyard are prohibited from using it. [See illustration 2]

Because for this one its use is convenient, while for the other its use is difficult.

And whenever use is convenient for one and difficult for the other—

it is assigned to the one whose use is convenient.

Both statements are necessary,

these two statements of Rav Naḥman:

For had he taught us

Rav Naḥman only the matter of the

wall,

we might have said that his reason

is that people use an elevated surface

[people use something that is elevated above the ground], and since this person, whose side is level with it, uses it more conveniently, the wall is assigned to him.

But a trench,

which

people do not use when it is deep,

since they must bend down in order to use it [Rav Hai Gaon], and this use is not convenient, so that even for the one whose side is level with it its use is difficult,

I might say, no

—it is not assigned to one more than to the other. Therefore, he teaches us this.

And had he taught us

Rav Naḥman only

the trench,

because

its use is not precarious,

as whatever is placed in it remains secure,

but in the case of a wall, whose use is precarious,

because objects fall from it [and the expression “precarious” indicates that the objects are as though frightened lest they fall],

I might say, no,

because its use is not convenient for either of them.

For this reason,

it is necessary

to state both of these statements of Rav Naḥman.

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

one comes to reduce its height

below ten handbreadths on one side of the wall by placing a platform or something similar next to the wall, so that for the residents of one courtyard its use will be convenient. [See illustration 1]

Now,

if the reduction

along the length of the wall is

four

handbreadths [the Shulḥan Arukh adds: and it projects four handbreadths. This is not Rashi's view; see Tosafot on the second page, s.v. “If”],

it is permitted

for the residents of this courtyard

to use the entire wall

and to bring objects up onto it from the vessels of the house, since it is convenient to ascend by way of it to the top of the wall, as the height from it to the top is not ten handbreadths [Mishna Berura; see also Rashi's wording].

But if not, one may use only the section opposite the reduction,

and not the entire wall.

And we raise a difficulty about this:

Whichever way you look at it?!

For

if the reduction is effective,

even though it is not four handbreadths wide, then

the entire wall

as well

should be usable,

since just as it makes use convenient opposite the reduction, it also makes use convenient for the entire wall, because one can 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 the section opposite the reduction should not be usable,

since it is nullified and is regarded as nonexistent?!

Ravina

answered:

He said:

We are not dealing here with a reduction made by placing a platform beside the wall, for that certainly is not effective at all—even opposite the reduction—because it is not convenient to stand on it and use the wall, and it is regarded as nonexistent [Mishna Berura].

Rather, what are we dealing with here?

For example, one removed

[demolished]

one section

of

the top

of the wall, while the ground of one courtyard was higher than that of the other; by removing the section, the height on the side of this courtyard became less than ten handbreadths, whereas on the second courtyard's side—where the ground was lower—the height remained ten handbreadths [Ma'amar Mordekhai; see Mishna Berura]. [See illustration 2]

Therefore: If the section that was removed was four handbreadths long, it is permitted to use the entire wall, since one ascends from his courtyard to the place from which the section was removed, and from there to the entire wall.

But if it is not four handbreadths long, it is not convenient to ascend by way of it to the top of the wall, and consequently it is not permitted to use the entire wall [Mishna Berura; see Rashi].

Nevertheless, it is permitted to use the place from which the section was removed, since there one's use is convenient: one stands on the ground and uses it there [Mishna Berura].

Rav Yeḥiel said: If one inverted

in one of the courtyards

a basin

along four handbreadths of the wall [Ritva], thereby reducing its height below ten handbreadths, so that its use—for the residents of this courtyard—would be convenient,

it reduces it!

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

And we raise a difficulty about this:

And why

is a reduction by means of a basin effective? Is a basin not

an object that may be moved on Shabbat

[as it is not muktzeh and it is permitted to remove it from there],

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

the height, because we are concerned that one might remove it [Rashba]?!

And we answer:

It is necessary only when he affixed it to the ground

[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 secure it there [Ritva]. Therefore, we raise a difficulty about this:

And if he affixed it to the ground—

what difference does that make?

The basin can still be removed on Shabbat, even though by removing the basin one necessarily moves the earth as well, which is muktzeh.

For

it was taught

that a case of this kind is permitted:

An unripe fig

[a green fig]

that one buried in straw

in order for it to ripen there,

and a cake of bread

[bread]

that one buried

on the eve of Shabbat

in coals,

which have now been extinguished—

If some of

the fig or the cake

is uncovered,

it

may be taken on Shabbat,

by holding it in the exposed place.

Although by taking it one moves the straw, which is muktzeh [as the case concerns straw set aside for firing bricks], and the muktzeh coals, it is permitted because moving from the side [where one does not move the muktzeh itself, but rather the fig or the cake] is not considered moving.

Here too, it should be permitted to remove the basin on Shabbat. If so, how can it constitute a reduction [Ritva]?!

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here?—

With a basin that has projecting rims

[a doubled rim extending inward, Rashi, Bava Metzia 24a]. These rims enter the ground and are buried there.

And it entered our minds at this stage that in such a case it is prohibited to remove it, because it is like digging [Ritva; see Rashi].

And we still raise a difficulty:

And if it has projecting rims—

what difference does that make?

But we learned

that even in a case of this kind it is permitted:

One who buries a turnip and a radish beneath a grapevine

in order to preserve them in the ground, as this is their usual manner [Rashi, Shabbat 50:].