Eruvin 85b (פה:) — the Talmud in English

And

the

middle one

the middle ruin, which both use by way of airspace,

is prohibited, and below the Gemara explains this clause. [See illustration.] We see, then, that one householder does not prohibit the other in a ruin that is not adjacent to him, since his use there is by way of airspace [Gaon Yaakov. The Ritva explains the proof differently].

Rav Bruna sat and stated this teaching

Rav Beruna was sitting and reciting this halakha

concerning two houses and three ruins, in the name of Rav.

Rabbi Elazar bar Bei Rav said to him,

as he had understood that the reason Rav permitted the adjacent ruins and prohibited the middle one was that in each ruin the adjacent house used it by way of lowering, whereas the more distant house used it by throwing across the gap and by lowering; and each ruin is assigned to the house adjacent to it, since its use there is more convenient for that house than for the other.

And in the middle one, which both use equally, both are prohibited.

This was because Rabbi Elazar understood that it was impossible to explain that Rav’s reason was that a person does not prohibit his fellow through airspace, as we said.

For if so, both should be permitted to use the middle one, since they use it by way of airspace [as we said concerning the pit between two courtyards].

And since Rav said that the middle one is prohibited, infer from this that Rav holds that a person does prohibit through airspace.

Consequently, the reason that the adjacent ruins are permitted must be that use of them is more convenient for one than for the other.

Therefore Rabbi Elazar expressed his astonishment to Rav Beruna: Is it possible that

Rav said this

[as the Gemara proceeds to explain what, according to this interpretation, troubled him]?!

Rav Beruna said to him:

Rav Bruna:

Yes!

Rabbi Elazar said to him:

Show me his lodging

[show me where Rav is staying], so that I may go and ask him!

He showed him

Rav Beruna showed Rabbi Elazar Rav’s lodging.

Rabbi Elazar came

to

Rav

at his lodging,

and said to him:

Is it possible that

the Master said this?!

Rav said to him:

Rav

Yes.

He said

and Rabbi Elazar expressed his astonishment

to him,

Rabbi Elazar to Rav:

But it is the Master who said

[above]: that where

for one it is by lowering and for the other by throwing

to a height of ten handbreadths, although use is certainly more convenient for the one who uses it by lowering, we do not assign it to him,

and both are prohibited,

because ultimately use is difficult for both, and we assign it to one rather than to the other only where use for one is through a proper entrance and for the other is difficult.

And since this is so, why did you assign the ruin to the one adjacent to it, who uses it with difficulty by way of lowering, even though it is more convenient for him than for the other?!

Rav said to him:

The reason I assign each ruin to the house adjacent to it is not as you said.

Rather, I assign it to him for this reason: His fellow uses it by way of airspace, and a person does not prohibit his fellow through airspace.

But you were troubled—as we said—that if so, why is the middle one prohibited? Let both use it, since their use is by way of airspace?!

I will tell you:

Do you think

that the case is

that they stand

[that the three ruins stand]

in a straight line,

with the middle one very far and distant from each house?!

No,

that is not the case. Rather,

they stand

all three

in a tripod formation

[the shape of the vowel segol], with the ruin at the head of the tripod as long as the two ruins beneath it together, and adjacent to both houses. Therefore, “the middle one is prohibited,” since both houses use it by way of lowering. [See illustration.]

We now return to the opinion of Shmuel, who holds concerning the pit between two courtyards that a person prohibits his fellow through airspace, requiring some remedial measure; and the Gemara expresses astonishment at this:

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Shall we say that Shmuel does not accept the ruling of Rav Dimi,

from which it is demonstrated that a person does not prohibit his fellow through airspace?

For when Rav Dimi came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A place

situated between a private domain and a public domain

that does not have four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths is a place exempt from carrying.

Therefore,

it is permitted for the members of the public domain and for the members of the

private domain to place their burdens upon it

[to adjust their burdens upon it],

provided that they do not exchange

from the private domain to the public domain [even if they placed the object in the middle, in a place exempt from carrying, as above, page 77a].

We see, then, that the members of the public domain do not transform that place into a shared domain, thereby prohibiting the members of the private domain from taking something out of their houses into that place. Since the use is only upon a place of less than four handbreadths, it is an inferior form of use, considered use through airspace, and does not prohibit [Ritva], contrary to Shmuel, who requires some remedial measure.

And we answer:

There,

in Rabbi Yohanan’s statement, the case concerns

domains established by Torah law

[a private domain and a public domain].

But

here,

concerning the pit between two courtyards,

the domains are established by rabbinic law,

since both are private domains,

and the Sages reinforced their words more than those of Torah law,

and prohibited even use by way of airspace, requiring some remedial measure.

We now return to Rav, who holds that a person does not prohibit his fellow through airspace at all; and the Gemara expresses astonishment at this:

Ravina said to Rava: Is it possible that Rav said this?!

But it was stated: Two houses

belonging to one person

on opposite sides of a public domain:

Rabba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: It is prohibited to throw from one to the other

through the public domain, even above ten handbreadths from its ground, and although above ten handbreadths is a place exempt from carrying, it is nevertheless prohibited!

And it initially entered our minds that it is prohibited for this reason: Since the members of the public domain sometimes use that airspace, it becomes like a shared courtyard, and therefore it is prohibited to take something from the house into that airspace [Ritva].

And Shmuel said: It is permitted to throw from one to the other.

The difficulty now is this: According to Rav himself, use of airspace is not considered use; so why should the members of the public domain prohibit them?!

He said

in response

to him,

Rava to Ravina:

Did we not establish

the dispute between Rav and Shmuel as referring to a case

where one

house is

high

and one

house

is low? [See illustration.]

And Rav holds that it is prohibited to throw even from the high house to the low one, lest one throw from the low house to the high house,

and sometimes it rolls

and

falls,

so that it does not reach the high house but falls into the public domain,

and he may come to carry it

from the public domain into the private domain, thereby transgressing a prohibition of Torah law.

There is therefore no difficulty at all concerning Rav, since he prohibits it for another reason.

Mishna:

For an eruv of courtyards, one places it in a house in the courtyard.

But

one who places his eruv

the eruv with which the courtyard was joined

in a gatehouse

[a house through which one enters the courtyard],

a portico

[a corridor in front of the houses],

or a balcony

[to which upper rooms open, and everyone ascends to it by a staircase and passes through it to his upper room]—

it is not an eruv,

since it is not a place suitable for dwelling, because people enter and leave through it.

And one who resides there

[in these three places]

does not prohibit it

[the owner of the courtyard] from carrying, and he need not participate in the courtyard eruv. This is because a person’s residence there is not considered a residence.

One who places his eruv—the eruv with which the courtyard was joined—in

a hay house, a cattle house, a wood house, or a storehouse—

it is an eruv.

one places there

And one who resides there,

when the owner of the house lent his hay house—or one of the other places mentioned—to another person [and there is no hay in it—Gaon Yaakov; see Tosafot] for him to live there,

prohibits

him,

[the owner of the courtyard], until he joins the eruv with him, since his house opens into the courtyard.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If there is there

in the hay house or in any lent house [Meiri; see Sefat Emet]

“a hold”

belonging to the owner of the house,

such that the owner of the house has a place in the dwelling of this person where he keeps his vessels for safekeeping,

he does not prohibit

the tenant

him,

the one residing in the courtyard, because by virtue of the owner’s hold in his rented house, “the entire domain of the courtyard belongs to him, the owner of the house, as though he resides with him in the house” [Rashi].

Therefore, if the owner of the house is not here on Shabbat, he does not prohibit, and his tenant likewise does not prohibit.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said: Wherever the Sages said, ‘One who resides there does not prohibit’,

such as those listed in the Mishna—

one who places his eruv

there

does not have an eruv.

Except for a gatehouse

of a courtyard

belonging to one individual,

for although one who resides in the gatehouse does not prohibit the owner of the courtyard [Tosafot of the Rosh], one who places his eruv there, for example when joining it with another courtyard, has a valid eruv.

And wherever the Sages said that one may not place an eruv there,

an eruv of courtyards, even though it is in a courtyard [such as those listed in the Mishna], nevertheless

one may place there

the bread of a

joining

of alleyways, since there is no requirement that the joining be placed in a dwelling house, as there is with an eruv.

Except for “the airspace of an alleyway”,

where one may not place a joining; rather, it must be placed in a courtyard in the alleyway or in a house in the alleyway.

And the Gemara asks:

What does this teach us?

But

we already learned

it in our Mishna:

One who places his eruv in a gatehouse, portico, or balcony does not have an “eruv”.

And it follows that

an eruv

of courtyards

is what it is not, but a joining

of alleyways

is.

And we answer: The law of

a gatehouse belonging to one individual, where one may place an eruv,

and the law of

and

the law of

the airspace of an alleyway, where one may not place a joining, is what

is what

he needed

to teach us.

For

these laws

are not taught

in the Mishna.

It was also taught so

that a joining is placed in them, as we said.

As it was taught:

One who places his eruv in a gatehouse, portico, balcony, courtyard, or alleyway—

it is an eruv.

And this is difficult:

But we learned

in our Mishna

‘This is not an eruv’?!

And necessarily,

say

in the beraita:

It is a joining.

We see, then, that the joining need not be placed in a dwelling house.

The Gemara now expresses astonishment concerning the body of the beraita, which teaches that one who places his eruv “in a courtyard or alleyway” has a valid joining:

But

a joining in an alleyway is not protected

[guarded], and is ineffective even for a joining?!

And we answer: Do not say, “in a courtyard or alleyway.”

Rather,

say: One who places his eruv

in a courtyard

that is in an alleyway

[and the meaning is: in a courtyard that opens into the alleyway that is being joined, and not in a courtyard that does not belong to this alleyway]!

[meaning, in a courtyard that opens onto the passageway being joined, and not in a courtyard that does not belong to this passageway].

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel

[this statement was already mentioned above, page 73b, in the name of Rav]:

Members of a group who were reclining

at one of the members’ houses in the courtyard, where he had invited them to eat from his food [Tosafot, page 73],

and the day became holy upon them

while they had not yet joined an eruv—

the bread on the table,

which the owner of the house had placed there on behalf of all of them and which is considered as though they had all already acquired it [Tosafot there],

may be relied upon as an eruv

of courtyards.

And some say:

It may be relied upon

as a joining

of alleyways.

Rabba said: They do not disagree,

Shmuel and “some say.”

Here, where they were reclining in a house,

we say that the bread may be relied upon as an “eruv.”

Here, where they were reclining in a courtyard—

which is not suitable for placing an eruv there—we say that the bread may be relied upon as a “joining.”

Abaye said to Rabba: A beraita supports you,

that a joining of alleyways may be placed in a courtyard [Gaon Yaakov]:

As it was taught:

An eruv of courtyards—

in a courtyard. And a joining

of alleyways—

in an alleyway.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

How can you say

“an eruv of courtyards—

in a courtyard”?

But we learned

in our Mishna:

One who places his eruv in a

gatehouse, portico, or balcony does not have an eruv,

since it is not a place of dwelling.

And if you maintain that an eruv of courtyards may be placed in a courtyard that is not suitable for dwelling, one could also place it in a gatehouse?!

And we have already answered this:

Say

in the beraita: One who places

an eruv of courtyards

in a house in this courtyard, as opposed to a house in another courtyard. And it teaches “in a courtyard” to say that one must place it in a house in the same courtyard that is being joined.

Likewise,

And similarly,

a joining of alleyways—

in a courtyard that is in the alleyway, as opposed to a courtyard that does not open into it. This is why it teaches “in an alleyway,” to say: in a courtyard belonging to that alleyway, and not in another courtyard.

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If there is there

in the hay house

a hold

belonging to the owner of the house, he does not prohibit:

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of a hold?

For example, the courtyard of Ben Bunais,

[according to the Bach], who was wealthy and lent the houses in his courtyard to others, while he had vessels in all of them, since his wealth afforded him many vessels.

When

Ben Bunais

came before Rabbi,

[he was one of Rabbi’s students, Rashi, Gittin 59a],

Rabbi said to them

Rabbi, who honored the wealthy, as follows:

Clear

for

him

an honorable place, appropriate

for a

wealthy

son

who has

a hundred maneh!

After him,

another man came,

who appeared to Rabbi to be wealthier than Ben Bunais,

and Rabbi said to them

Rabbi: