Eruvin 84a — the Talmud in English

“The people of the upper rooms”.

That is: it might have entered our mind that the tanna stated an unconditional matter, and that he is speaking even of such a balcony above which there is another story, and from it one ascends to the upper rooms above by another ladder, which is ten [handbreadths] high from the balcony. [Ritva] [see illustration 2]

And why do they call them

the people of

the balcony—

even though they dwell in the upper rooms above the balcony—because

they ascend by the balcony

they ascend by way of the balcony.

And it emerges that the pillar or mound in the courtyard is much lower than the upper rooms [above the balcony], and nevertheless they assign it to the people of the upper rooms.

Evidently, everything that

the use of

for this one,

for the people of the upper rooms, is

by lowering, and for this one,

for the people of the courtyard, is

by throwing—

they assign it to the one whose use is by lowering.

And since this is so, it is difficult for Rav, who says that both are forbidden?!

And we answer:

As

there

as Rav Huna said—

later in this discussion—that the Mishna is not speaking of people of upper rooms dwelling above the balcony, but rather

of those

people of the upper rooms

dwelling

on the story that is in

the balcony

itself, whose entrances are level with the balcony.

Here too—

for those dwelling in the balcony!

And the upper rooms are not ten handbreadths higher than the pillar, and it emerges that for the people of the upper rooms it is “through an entrance,” and for the people of the courtyard it is by throwing [Ritva].

And we raise an objection to it:

If so, say the latter clause

of the Mishna:

Less than this

[from a height of ten [handbreadths] facing the courtyard]—they assign it

to the courtyard.

And now, according to how you established it—that the people of the upper rooms dwell level with the balcony—presumably the balcony is not so high that there are ten handbreadths from it to the top of the mound, and not even from the upper rooms that open onto it [Ritva].

And it is difficult:

Why

do they assign it to the courtyard?

But its use is

for this one—

even for the people of the upper rooms—

through an entrance,

since they are not ten [handbreadths] high,

and

its use also

for this one—

for the people of the courtyard—

is through an entrance.

And if so, why do they assign it only to the courtyard?!

This works according to how we established it in the question, that it is speaking of people of an upper room who are ten [handbreadths] higher than the balcony. If so, it is for this one—for the people of the upper rooms—by lowering, and for this one—for the people of the courtyard—through an entrance, and they assign it to the courtyard, which uses it through an entrance.

But according to how we answered according to Rav, it is difficult?!

And we answer:

What is “to the courtyard”—

which it teaches in the Mishna—

it means “also to the courtyard”

he says.

That is: both domains have control over it,

and both are forbidden

in it, because it is for this one through an entrance and for this one through an entrance.

And we support our resolution:

This too stands to reason,

that the Mishna is speaking of dwellings level with the balcony, and it says “also to the courtyard.”

And the proof is:

from what it teaches in the latter clause: In what case is this statement said? When it is near

to the balcony,

but when it is distant—

even if it is ten handbreadths high,

it belongs

to the courtyard.

What is “to the courtyard”

which it teaches in the latter clause?

If you say

that this is what it says: they assign it

to the courtyard, and it is permitted

for the people of the courtyard to use it.

Why

do we give it to the people of the courtyard? After all, its use is not more convenient for the people of the courtyard, who use it by throwing, than for the people of the balcony, who also need to throw because of the distance of the pillar, and

it is the domain of both of them!

Rather,

necessarily,

what is “to the courtyard”

which it teaches in the latter clause—they assign it

also to the courtyard

he says,

and both are forbidden.

If so,

here too

in this case where we say: less than this, they assign it to the courtyard,

what is “to the courtyard”—

“also to the courtyard”

he says,

and both are forbidden.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from it!

We raise another objection from the latter clause of the Mishna, similar to the objection we raised to Rav from the first clause of the Mishna:

We learned: The rim of the pit and the rock that are ten [handbreadths] high—

for the balcony.

Less than this—

for the courtyard.

And it might have entered our mind that it is speaking of people of upper rooms higher than the balcony, so that it is for them by lowering, and nevertheless we give it to them, and we do not say like Rav, that since for the people of the upper rooms it is by lowering and for the people of the courtyard by throwing, both are forbidden [Ritva].

Said

the one who answers

Rav Huna

[whom we brought above]: here it is speaking

of those dwelling

level with

the balcony,

so that for the people of the upper rooms it is through an entrance and for the people of the courtyard by throwing.

And we raise an objection to it:

This works for a rock,

as we answered.

But

a pit,

whose use is drawing water from the pit, and they draw from its bottom, it emerges that even the people of the upper rooms dwelling level with the balcony require lowering in order to draw. And nevertheless, they assign it to them and not to the people of the courtyard, who use it by throwing, and this is like Shmuel.

And

what is there

here

to say

that it should not be difficult for Rav?!

Said

the one who answers

Rav Yitzchak, son of Rav Yehuda: here

it is speaking

of a pit full of water

up to the edge of the rim

we are dealing,

and the upper water in the pit is within less than ten [handbreadths] of the people of the balcony [Ritva], so that for the people of the upper rooms dwelling level with the balcony its use is through an entrance, and for the people of the courtyard by throwing.

And we raise an objection to it:

But it becomes deficient!

That is: it implies that it is permitted even after they have used it extensively on Shabbat and the pit has become deficient, so that for the people of the balcony it is by lowering and for the people of the courtyard by throwing, and nevertheless they assign it to the people of the balcony, which is difficult for Rav.

And we answer:

Since when it was full

[when it was full] at twilight it was

permitted—

when it becomes deficient

during Shabbat

it is also permitted.

For we say: Shabbat—since it was permitted, it remains permitted! [Ritva, and see there].

And we raise an objection to the answer:

On the contrary, since when it becomes deficient it is forbidden

the pit according to the essential law, and a pit is likely to become deficient,

when it is full—

at twilight—

it is also forbidden!

For already from now we consider it as deficient, and the domain of both controls it [Ritva, and see what Tosafot wrote].

Rather, Abaye said

another answer to that which we objected to Rav from the pit, which they assign to the people of the balcony who use it by lowering, and they do not assign it also to the people of the courtyard who use it by throwing:

here we are dealing with a pit full of produce,

as he proceeds to explain it.

And it might have entered our mind that one uses the pit to take produce from it.

And therefore we raise an objection:

But they become deficient

the produce when he takes from it continuously, and already now it is considered deficient, so it should be forbidden?!

And we answer: here it is speaking

of

produce

that is tevel

[tevel, and forbidden to move since it is muktzeh on account of prohibition], and he cannot take any of the produce at all.

And the Mishna is speaking of a case in which he comes to use upon the produce for some use [according to the meaning of Rashi].

It is also precise

that it is speaking of something that does not become deficient:

for it teaches

a pit

analogous to a rock,

which it teaches in the Mishna together with a pit.

And we conclude:

infer from it.

And now we raise an objection: since you established the pit as a case where its use is through an entrance for the people of the balcony—

why do I need it to teach

also

a pit, and why do I need it to teach

also

a rock?

That is: let it teach a rock and not teach a pit?!

And this is fine if it is speaking of a water pit whose use is by lowering; the pit is needed to inform us that for this one it is by lowering and for this one by throwing, and we give it to the people of the balcony who use it by lowering.

But now, since the pit is speaking analogously to the rock, let it not teach a pit at all?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach a pit as well.

For if it had informed us

only

of a rock

that it is permitted for the people of the balcony to use it, I would have said that specifically a rock, since

there is no basis to decree

anything concerning it.

But a pit

full of produce, I would have said that it is forbidden, for

we should decree

concerning a pit full of tevel, because

at times it is full

the pit

of prepared produce

and it is destined to become deficient; therefore

it is necessary!

Come and hear

to support Rav:

The people of the courtyard,

the people of the house beneath the upper room,

and the people of the upper room, who forgot and did not establish an eruv

between themselves—

the people of the courtyard use

the outer side of the wall of the house

in the ten

handbreadths

the lower ones, and the people of the upper room use in the ten

handbreadths

the upper ones—

of the wall of the house—that are adjacent to the upper room.

Since the people of the courtyard use those upper ten handbreadths by throwing, because they are ten [handbreadths] higher than the courtyard.

And for the people of the upper room, since these ten [handbreadths] are adjacent to them, it is considered use through an entrance, and therefore they assign them to the people of the upper room.

How so?

A projection

four [handbreadths] wide

projecting from the wall

of the house

below ten

handbreadths from the ground of the courtyard, they assign it

to the courtyard.

Above ten

handbreadths [the intention is not above ten handbreadths from the courtyard, but above, from the end of the tenth handbreadth, when you measure from the direction of the upper room downward, ten handbreadths]—they assign it

to the upper room.

See illustration.

And now it is difficult: it implies,

that

those projections

that are between

in the wall—

it is forbidden

for both to use them.

And although for the people of the upper room they are by lowering, and for the people of the courtyard by throwing, they do not assign it to the one whose use is by lowering. This is difficult for Shmuel?!

Rav Nahman said: here we are dealing with a wall

that is

nineteen

handbreadths

high.

See the illustration on the preceding page.

And this is the explanation of the beraita: since the people of the courtyard use [are able to use] through an entrance in the lower ten handbreadths, and the people of the upper room use [are able to use] through an entrance in the upper ten, it emerges that the lower nine handbreadths are only for the people of the courtyard through an entrance, and the upper nine handbreadths are only for the people of the upper room through an entrance. But the tenth handbreadth [from each direction], which is between them, is through an entrance for both of them.

And

there was

a projection extending from it

If it was

below ten

below ten

from the upper room [and not from the courtyard, as might have entered our mind], when you measure from it downward, namely, to the end of nine handbreadths from the ground of the courtyard—they assign it to the courtyard, because it is

for this one

through an entrance, and for this one by lowering.

above ten

And if the projection was

above ten

from the ground of the courtyard [and not from the upper room, as might have entered our mind], namely, the upper nine handbreadths—they assign it to the upper room. Because it is

for this one

through an entrance, and for this one by throwing.

through an entrance, and for that one

[for the residents of the courtyard]

by throwing.