Eruvin 84a (פד.) — the Talmud in English

“The people of the upper stories”.

That is: It might have entered our minds that the tanna stated an unequivocal matter, and that he was speaking even of a balcony over which there is another story, from which one ascends to the upper stories by an additional ladder that is ten handbreadths higher than the balcony. [Ritva] [See illustration 2]

And why did they call them

the people

of the balcony—

even though they live in the upper stories above the balcony—because

they ascend by way of the balcony

[they ascend through the balcony].

It follows that the pillar or mound in the courtyard is considerably lower than the upper stories [above the balcony], and nevertheless it is assigned to the residents of the upper stories.

Apparently, anything

whose use

by this one,

the residents of the upper stories, is

by lowering, while by that one,

the residents of the courtyard, it is

by throwing—

is assigned to the one whose use is by lowering.

If so, this is difficult for Rav, who says that both are prohibited?!

And we answer:

as

in the case

that Rav Huna said—

later in this discussion—that the Mishna is not speaking of residents of upper stories who live above the balcony, but rather

of those

residents of the upper stories

who live

on the floor of the

balcony

itself, whose entrances are level with the balcony.

Here too—

of those who live on the balcony!

And the upper stories are not ten handbreadths higher than the pillar. It follows that for the residents of the upper stories its use is through an entrance, while for the residents of the courtyard it is by throwing [Ritva].

And we raise an objection to this:

if so, say the latter clause

of the Mishna:

Less than this

[less than a height of ten handbreadths from the courtyard]—it is assigned

to the courtyard.

But now, according to the way you established it—that the residents of the upper stories live level with the balcony—presumably the balcony is not so high that there are ten handbreadths from it to the top of the mound, nor are there ten handbreadths from the upper stories that open onto it [Ritva].

And this is difficult:

why

is it assigned to the courtyard?

For its use is

for this one—

even for the residents of the upper stories—

through an entrance,

since it is not ten handbreadths high,

and

its use is also

for this one—

for the residents of the courtyard—

through an entrance.

If so, why is it assigned only to the courtyard?!

That works according to what we initially established in the question: The Mishna is speaking of residents of an upper story that is ten handbreadths higher than the balcony. If so, its use is for this one—for the residents of the upper stories—by lowering, and for that one—for the residents of the courtyard—through an entrance; and it is assigned to the courtyard, whose use of it is through an entrance.

But according to what we answered on behalf of Rav, this is difficult?!

And we answer:

What does “to the courtyard” mean

—as the Mishna teaches—

it means: also to the courtyard

.

That is: Both domains have control over it,

and both are prohibited

from using it, because its use is through an entrance for this one and through an entrance for that one.

And we support our resolution:

it is also reasonable

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

The proof is:

from the fact that the latter clause teaches: In what case is this statement said? When it is adjacent

to the balcony,

but when it is distant—

even if it is ten handbreadths high,

it belongs

to the courtyard.

What does “to the courtyard”

mean, as the latter clause teaches?

If you say

that this is what it means: It is assigned

to the courtyard, and it is permitted

for the residents of the courtyard to use it.

Why

do we give it to the residents of the courtyard? Their use of it is not more convenient, since they use it by throwing, than that of the residents of the balcony, who must throw to it because of the pillar’s distance,

and it is the domain of both of them!

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that

what does “to the courtyard”

mean, as the latter clause teaches—that it is assigned

also to the courtyard

—

and both are prohibited.

If so,

here too,

in the statement that “less than this it is assigned to the courtyard,”

what does “to the courtyard” mean?

It means: also to the courtyard,

as it says,

and both are prohibited.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from here!

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

We learned: The surrounding wall of a pit and a rock that are ten handbreadths high

—

to the balcony.

Less than this—

to the courtyard.

Rav Huna said

in answer,

Rav Huna

[whom we cited above]: Here it is speaking

of those who live at

the same level as the

balcony,

so that for the residents of the upper stories its use is through an entrance, while for the residents of the courtyard it is by throwing.

And we challenge this:

The case of a rock is understandable,

as we answered.

But

a pit

is used by drawing water from the pit, and one draws it from the bottom. It follows that even residents of upper stories level with the balcony require lowering in order to draw water. Nevertheless, it is assigned to them and not to the residents of the courtyard, who use it by throwing, and this accords with Shmuel.

And

what is there

here

to say

so that this will not be difficult for Rav?!

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said

in answer:

Here

it is speaking

of a pit full of water

up to the rim of the surrounding wall;

we are dealing

with that case. The upper water in the pit is within less than ten handbreadths of the residents of the balcony [Ritva], so that for residents of an upper story level with the balcony its use is through an entrance, while for the residents of the courtyard it is by throwing.

And we challenge this:

But it becomes deficient!

That is: It follows that it is permitted even after they have made extensive use of it on Shabbat and the pit has become deficient, in which case its use is by lowering for the residents of the balcony and by throwing for the residents of the courtyard. Nevertheless, it is assigned to the residents of the balcony, and this is difficult for Rav.

And we answer:

Since when it is full

[when it was full] at twilight, it was

permitted—

when it becomes deficient

during the course of Shabbat, it is

also permitted. For we say: Once Shabbat has been permitted, it remains permitted! [Ritva; see there.]

We challenge this answer:

And we challenge the answer:

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

the pit according to the fundamental law, and a pit is liable to become deficient,

when it is full

at twilight,

it is also prohibited!

For from this point onward we regard it as lacking, and both domains have control over it [Ritva; see what Tosafot wrote].

Rather, Abaye said

another answer to the objection raised against Rav from the case of the pit, which is assigned to the residents of the balcony, who use it by lowering, and is not assigned also to the residents of the courtyard, who use it by throwing:

Here we are dealing with a pit full of produce

, as he proceeds to explain.

It might have entered our minds that one uses the pit in order to take produce from it.

And therefore we ask:

But the produce becomes deficient

as one continues taking it, and it is already considered deficient now; so it should be prohibited?!

And we answer: Here it is speaking

of

produce that is

tevel

[produce from which the required gifts have not been separated, and which may not be moved because it is muktze due to its prohibited use], and one cannot take any of the produce at all.

And the Mishna is speaking of a case in which one comes to use the surface of the produce for some purpose [according to the implication of Rashi].

This is also precise

: It is speaking of something that does not become deficient,

as it teaches

“a pit,”

analogous to a rock,

which the Mishna teaches together with the pit.

And we conclude:

infer from here.

And now we ask: Since you establish the pit as a case in which its use is through an entrance for the residents 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 the case of a rock and not teach the case of a pit?!

That works if it is speaking of a water pit, whose use is by lowering, in which case it is necessary to teach the case of a pit in order to inform us that when its use is by lowering for one and by throwing for the other, it is given to the residents of the balcony, who use it by lowering.

But now that the pit is being taught as analogous to the rock, the case of a pit need not be taught at all?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach the case of a pit as well.

For if it had taught us

only the case of a

rock,

that it is permitted for the residents of the balcony to use it, we might have said that this applies specifically to a rock, since

there is no basis for instituting a decree

concerning it at all.

But in the case of a pit

full of produce, we might have said that it is prohibited, because we should

institute a decree

concerning a pit full of tevel produce, on account of

the possibility that it will at times be full of

ordinary

produce that has been prepared

[from which the required gifts have been separated], which is liable to become deficient. Therefore,

it is necessary!

Come and hear

support for Rav:

The residents of a courtyard,

the residents of the house beneath the upper story,

and the residents of the upper story, who forgot and did not establish an eruv

between them—

the residents of the courtyard may use

the outer side of the wall of the house

in the lower ten

handbreadths,

and the residents of the upper story may use the upper ten

handbreadths,

the upper ones

of the wall of the house, adjacent to the upper story.

Since the residents of the courtyard use those upper ten handbreadths by throwing, as they are ten handbreadths higher than the courtyard,

while for the residents of the upper story, to whom these ten handbreadths are adjacent, this is considered use through an entrance; therefore they are assigned to the residents of the upper story.

How so?

If a projection

four handbreadths wide

extends from the wall

of the house

below ten

handbreadths from the ground of the courtyard, it is assigned

to the courtyard.

Above ten

handbreadths [this does not mean above ten handbreadths from the courtyard, but above the end of the tenth handbreadth, when measuring downward from the upper story]—it is assigned

to the upper story.

[See illustration.]

And now this is difficult: It implies that

specifically

those projections

between them

[that are between the lower ten handbreadths and the upper ten handbreadths] in the wall

are prohibited

for both of them to use.

And although for the residents of the upper story their use is by lowering, while for the residents of the courtyard it is by throwing, it is not assigned to the one whose use is by lowering. This is difficult for Shmuel?!

Rav Naḥman said: Here we are dealing with a wall

that is

nineteen

handbreadths

high.

[See the illustration on the previous page.]

And this is the interpretation of the beraita: Since the residents of the courtyard use [are able to use] the lower ten handbreadths through an entrance, and the residents of the upper story use [are able to use] the upper ten through an entrance, it follows that the lower nine handbreadths are exclusively for the residents of the courtyard through an entrance, and the upper nine handbreadths are exclusively for the residents of the upper story through an entrance. But the tenth handbreadth [from each direction] that is between them is through an entrance for both of them.

And

there

was a projection extending from it

[from the wall].

If it was

below ten

handbreadths from the upper story [and not from the courtyard, as we might have thought], when measuring downward from it—that is, to the end of the nine handbreadths from the ground of the courtyard—it is assigned to the courtyard, because it is

for this one

[for the residents of the courtyard]

through an entrance, and for that one by lowering.

And if the projection was

above ten

handbreadths from the ground of the courtyard [and not from the upper story, as we might have thought], that is, in the upper nine handbreadths, it is assigned to the upper story. Because it is

for this one

[for the residents of the upper story]

through an entrance, and for that one

[for the residents of the courtyard]

by throwing.