Eruvin 79a — the Talmud in English

But if

they did not nullify

explicitly,

it is not

nullification.

And why did you say here that the placing of earth without specification nullifies the airspace of the ditch?!

He said

Rab Huna

explained: Who is the tanna

of this Mishna in tractate

Ohalot—

Rabbi Yosei

[who is mentioned in this matter, as follows]—

is. But our Mishna here is according to the Sages.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

if

the tanna

of Ohalot

is Rabbi Yosei—

but

we have heard the opposite from him!

As it was taught

in the Tosefta of Ohalot concerning compressed impurity:

Rabbi Yosei says:

If there was

straw and

it was known that

he has no intention

be

of clearing it,

but he did not nullify it explicitly,

it is like unspecified earth,

whose intended clearing or non-clearing is unknown,

and it is nullified!

If there was

earth and

it was known that

he intends

be

to clear it, it is like unspecified straw, and it is not nullified!

For unspecified earth, or straw when there is no intention to clear it, is nullified.

Earth with the intention of clearing it, and unspecified straw, are not nullified.

And now the difficulty is: how did you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that stones and earth require nullification? But here we see that even when unspecified, it is nullified?!

Rather, Rav Asi said,

say this:

Who is the tanna

of our Mishna in

Eruvin—

it is Rabbi Yosei,

for this is what he holds concerning impurity, as we cite from the beraita of Ohalot.

And the Mishna of Ohalot is according to the Sages, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said

to explain the distinction:

And is

impurity being compared to Shabbat

[are you raising a difficulty from impurity against Shabbat]?!

Leave aside the prohibition of Shabbat,

that is, an object forbidden to move on Shabbat, such as earth and stones, which are muktzeh, for an unspecified object is nullified,

since even a purse,

which is forbidden to move on Shabbat,

a person nullifies!

Rav Ashi said:

And is

a house being compared to a ditch?!

Granted, a ditch is standing to be filled

[it stands to be sealed]; therefore, unspecified earth is nullified, even according to the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yosei.

But a house—

like that of Ohalot—and is it

standing to be filled,

to seal it,

indeed?!

And therefore the Sages hold that unspecified earth is not nullified.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he placed upon it a plank four handbreadths wide,

and so on: they may establish two eruvin, and if they wish, they may establish one:

Rava said: They taught this only—

that the plank must be four handbreadths wide—

when he placed

the plank

across the width

of the ditch, like a bridge, for as long as it is not four handbreadths wide, it is not considered an opening.

But

if he placed the plank upon stakes

along the length

of the ditch, on the inside [adjacent to the edge of the ditch], whose width was exactly four handbreadths,

even if

the width of the plank was

any amount, also, if they wish, they may establish one eruv. [See illustration

1]

For he reduced

the width of the ditch

from four

handbreadths, and it does not interrupt; therefore, if he did so along a length of four handbreadths, the measure of an opening, it suffices.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise, two balconies, one opposite the other,

if he placed a plank between them, they may establish two eruvin, and if they wish, they may establish one:

Rava said

[according to the version of the Bach]:

This that we learned: And likewise, two balconies “one opposite the other”,

teaches:

One opposite the other, yes.

One not opposite the other

where one was drawn away from the place of the other toward the east and one was drawn away toward the west [and the public domain runs from east to west], they may not establish one eruv. [See illustration] 2

Because when they place the plank from one to the other, it will extend from the corner of one to the corner of the other, and people do not make an opening at a corner.

And also, because the bridge is not straight but stands diagonally, a person is afraid to cross it [Mishna Berura].

Or one above the other—[see illustrations]

—[see illustrations]—

no, they may not establish one eruv, because since one end of the bridge is higher than the other, a person is afraid to cross it [Binyan Yehonatan].

And we said this only

[according to the meaning of the Shulchan Arukh, and not according to our version and the version of the Bach]—that where it is one not opposite the other or one above the other it is ineffective—

when there are three handbreadths between this and that.

That is, the distance between the balconies in the case of “one not opposite the other,” and the height between the balconies in the case of “one above the other,” is three handbreadths; it does not refer to the distance between the balconies themselves [according to the Mishna Berura].

But if there are not three between this and that,

handbreadths—if the distance or the height was less than three handbreadths, for it is considered lavud [Mishna Berura]—it is effective.

For

it is a crooked balcony

[for it is as though the plank were placed evenly—Mishna Berura. See also the Ritva, what he wrote concerning the Gemara’s wording “a crooked balcony”].

Mishna:

A haystack

[a stack of straw]

that is between two courtyards,

which separates them across their entire width, when it is

ten handbreadths high—

they may establish

the courtyards

two

eruvin.

And they may not establish one.

These—

who are in this courtyard—

feed

their animals from the haystack

from here, and these feed from here.

For they need not be concerned lest as a result of this the haystack be reduced from a height of ten handbreadths along a length greater than ten cubits—as follows—and the courtyards become like one courtyard, so that they prohibit one another, and perhaps they will not pay attention and will continue to carry from their houses into their courtyard as they had become accustomed at the beginning.

And it teaches us that we are not concerned, because an animal does not reduce so much by its eating during one Shabbat.

If

the straw

was reduced from a

height of

ten handbreadths—across the entire width of the courtyard, so that it is “breached in its entirety,” or it was breached by more than ten cubits, which is more than the measure of an “opening”—

they may establish one eruv, and they may not establish two,

for it is considered like one courtyard.

But if it was reduced to ten cubits, it is considered like an “opening,” and if they wish they may establish two, and if they wish they may establish one.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: These feed from here, and these feed from here:

Rav Huna said: Provided that he does not place

by hand from the haystack

into his basket, and feed

his animal

from it.

For in such a case we are concerned lest he take much from the haystack, until it is reduced from a height of ten handbreadths, and he will not be aware of it.

And we raise a difficulty against this: since you said that it is forbidden to place it by hand, then the Mishna is difficult, for it teaches “these feed,” which implies that he positions his animal upon the haystack:

and

is it

permitted to position

[to place the animal]

it

[the animal], and we do not issue a decree lest he take it by hand and give it to it?

Evidently, the rabbinic prohibition is stringent for him, and he will not transgress it?!

But Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: A person may position his animal upon grass on Shabbat,

and we are not concerned lest he uproot the grass by hand and give it to the animal, since it is a prohibition from the Torah.

And

a person may not position his animal upon muktzeh on Shabbat,

for since it is only by rabbinic enactment that it is forbidden to move it by hand, we are concerned lest he take it by hand and give it to the animal.

We see, then, that it is forbidden even to position his animal where the prohibition against taking it by hand is only rabbinic. And why do we permit, in the Mishna, positioning his animal upon the haystack?!

And we answer: “feed” in the Mishna does not mean that it is permitted to position his animal by hand upon the haystack.

Rather,

he stands before it

[the owner stands before the animal so that it will not go elsewhere but only to the haystack]

and it goes

the animal on its own

and eats,

for the Sages did not issue a decree to such an extent.

And now we raise the opposite difficulty:

And he should not place straw into his basket—

lest it be reduced and he not be aware of it, as Rav Huna said—

but it was taught

that even in such a case it is permitted, for it was taught:

A house that is between two courtyards—

filled with houses—and the house has an entrance to each courtyard—

and he filled it with straw,

for they placed inside it a haystack extending across the entire width of the house [and empty space remained in the house on both sides of the haystack]—

they may establish

the courtyards

two

eruvin, for the entrance that had been—the way through the house—between the two courtyards was sealed, and they had no other entrance.

And they may not establish one. [See illustration]

And they give half of the house to this courtyard, and half to the other courtyard.

And therefore:

this—

the members of one courtyard—

places into his basket and feeds

from the straw,

and

this—

the members of the second courtyard—

places into his basket and feeds.

If the straw was reduced from

a height of

ten handbreadths,

and the partition was nullified, and they had not established one eruv together—

both are forbidden

in the house, since the house is not divided, and they prohibit one another.

What does he do

if he wishes to permit carrying from the house to the members of one courtyard?

He locks

the entrance of

his house

that opens to his courtyard, and through this he removes himself from the house.

And

he nullifies his domain

that he has in that house to the members of the other courtyard [and later it will explain why both locking and nullification are necessary, and nullification alone does not suffice].

And through this,

he is forbidden

in that house, while

his fellow is permitted,

as with any shared domain after one has nullified it to his fellow: he is forbidden in it, while his fellow, to whom it was nullified, is permitted in it.

And likewise you say concerning a pit of straw

[a wide pit into which straw is placed]

that is between two Shabbat boundaries,

half of which stands within the boundary of one city and half within the boundary of another city [the ends of their boundaries meet in the middle of the pit]: these take on the festival day from within their boundary and eat, and these take from within their boundary and eat, and they are not concerned lest those who are in this boundary take from the other boundary. [See illustration]

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita:

This one places into his basket and feeds, and this one places into his basket and feeds,

which is difficult for Rav Huna, who forbids it.

They said

to answer our difficulty:

A house—

the case discussed in the beraita—

since there are

partitions and

[Rashi does not have this reading, as the Ritva wrote]

a ceiling—

when it is reduced, the matter is noticeable to him

[it is evident that it has been reduced and diminished below ten, because it becomes distant from the ceiling], and there is no concern lest it be reduced without his awareness. But

here—

in the Mishna, concerning a haystack in a courtyard—

the matter is not noticeable to him

if it is reduced from a height of ten, and we are concerned lest it be reduced without his awareness. We learned in the earlier beraita:

If the straw was reduced from ten handbreadths—

both are forbidden:

And we raise a difficulty:

But

if the straw was not reduced and it is still high

ten—

it is permitted

to carry from the house, since there is a partition dividing it,

even though the ceiling is raised very high

[and even though the ceiling is very high and far from the partition].

Learn from this: partitions

[temporary—Tosafot]

that do not reach the ceiling are called partitions.

And this is difficult according to the one who said above that it is not a partition, concerning five groups who spent Shabbat in one hall, with each group having an entrance to a courtyard.

[For there it says: If the partition between them does not reach the ceiling, it is not effective to divide the dwellings and make each group like a house in its own right, opening to the courtyard. Rather, they are considered like one house, and they do not need to establish an eruv for their courtyard. And if there are additional dwellings in the courtyard, one eruv suffices for all of them, and they do not all need to contribute to the eruv.]

He said

Abaye

answered: Here we are dealing with a house thirteen [handbreadths] less something high. And the straw is ten [handbreadths] high.

There are not three handbreadths between the straw and the roof, for we say lavud, and it is as though the partitions reach the ceiling.