Eruvin 85b — the Talmud in English

And

the

middle one [the middle ruin], which both of them use by way of the air,

is

forbidden, and below he explains this for that final clause. [See illustration.] Behold, we see that one householder does not forbid his fellow regarding a ruin that is not adjacent to him, since his use there is by way of the air [Gaon Yaakov. And the Ritva explained the proof differently].

Rav Bruna was sitting and saying this teaching

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

Rabbi Elazar bar Bei Rav said to him,

for he had thought that the reason Rav permitted the adjacent ruins and forbade the middle one was that each ruin was used by the house adjacent to it by way of lowering, while the house distant from it used it by way of throwing across and by way of lowering; and each ruin is assigned to the house adjacent to it, since its use there is more comfortably than that of its fellow.

And regarding the middle one, which both use equally, both are forbidden.

And because Rabbi Elazar had thought that it is impossible to explain that Rav’s reason is that a person does not forbid his fellow by way of the air, as we said:

For if so, regarding the middle one, let both be permitted, since they use it by way of the air [as we say concerning the pit between two courtyards].

And since Rav says that the middle one is forbidden, infer from this that Rav holds that a person forbids by way of the air.

And necessarily, the reason that the adjacent ruins are permitted is that for this one the use is more comfortably than for his fellow.

Therefore Rabbi Elazar expressed astonishment to Rav Bruna: Is it so that

Rav said this [and below he explains what troubled him according to this interpretation]?!

He said to him,

Rav Bruna:

Yes!

Rabbi Elazar said to him:

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

He showed him

Rav Bruna showed Rabbi Elazar Rav’s lodging.

Rabbi Elazar came

before

Rav,

to his lodging,

and

said to him: Is it that

the Master said this?!

Rav said to him:

Yes!

He said

and Rabbi Elazar expressed astonishment

to him,

Rabbi Elazar to Rav:

But it is the Master who said [above]: Where

for this one it is by lowering and for this one by throwing,

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

and both are forbidden,

since, in the end, the use for both of them is difficult; and we do not give one more than the other except where for this one it is through a complete doorway and for that one it 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 his fellow?!

Rav said to him: My reason for assigning each ruin to the house adjacent to it is not as you said.

Rather, this is why we assign it to him: since his fellow uses it by way of the air, and a person does not forbid his fellow by way of the air.

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

I will say to you:

Do you think

that it is speaking of

standing [that three ruins stand]

in a row, with the middle one very distant and far from each house?!

No,

it is not speaking in this manner, but

of standing

all three

like a tripod [the shape of the vowel segol]. The ruin at the head of the tripod is as long as the two ruins beneath it, and is adjacent both to this house and to that house. Therefore “the middle one is forbidden,” for both houses use it by lowering. [See illustration.]

[are positioned]

And now we return to Shmuel, who holds concerning the pit between two courtyards that a person forbids his fellow by way of the air, requiring any repair, and we raise an objection to it:

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

which proves from it that a person does not forbid his fellow by way of the air?

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

that stands between a private domain and a public domain,

which does not have four

handbreadths

by four, is a place of exemption. And therefore: It is permitted for the members of the public domain and for the members of

the private domain to shoulder 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 it in the middle, in a place of exemption, as above, page 77a].

Behold, we see that the members of the public domain do not make that place into a shared domain, to forbid the members of the private domain from taking out from their houses to that place. Since the use is only upon a place less than four [handbreadths], it is an inferior use and is considered use of the air, and it does not forbid [Ritva], unlike Shmuel, who requires any repair.

located between a private domain and a public domain

And we answer:

There—in Rabbi Yohanan’s statement—this is speaking of

domains according to Torah law [the private domain and the public domain].

But

here—concerning the pit between two courtyards—

they are rabbinic domains, since both are private domains,

and the Sages gave greater reinforcement to their words than to Torah law, and forbade even use by way of the air, requiring any repair.

And now we return to Rav, who holds: A person does not forbid his fellow by way of the air at all, and we raise an objection to it:

Ravina said to Rava: Did Rav say this?!

But it was stated: Two houses

belonging to one person,

on the two sides of a public domain: Rabba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: It is forbidden to throw from this one to that one

through the public domain, even above ten handbreadths from its floor; although above ten handbreadths is a place of exemption, it is forbidden!

And it entered our minds that it is forbidden for this reason: Since the members of the public domain sometimes use that air, that air becomes like a shared courtyard; therefore it is forbidden to take out from the house into that air [Ritva].

And Shmuel said: It is permitted to throw from this one to that one.

And now this is difficult: According to Rav himself, use of the air is not use, so why do the members of the public domain forbid?!

He said

Rava

to him,

Ravina, in reply:

Did we not establish

the dispute between Rav and Shmuel as speaking in a case where

one house is raised [high]

and

one house is lower [low]? [See illustration.]

And Rav holds that it is forbidden to throw even from the higher one to the lower one, lest he throw from the lower house to the higher house, and

sometimes it rolls

and

falls, so that it does not reach the higher one but falls into the public domain,

and he will come to bring

from the public domain to the private domain, thereby transgressing a prohibition according to Torah law.

And now there is no difficulty against Rav at all, since he forbids it for another reason.

The difficulty is now apparent: According to Rav himself, use through the air is not considered use; why, then, do the members of the public domain cause a prohibition?

Mishna:

Courtyard eruvin: one places it in a house in the courtyard.

But

one who places his eruv—with which they made the courtyard’s eruv—

in a gatehouse [a house through which one enters the courtyard],

a portico [a corridor before the houses],

or a balcony [upper rooms open onto it, and everyone ascends to it by a staircase and passes through it to his upper rooms]—

it is not an eruv, since it is not a place fit for dwelling, because of those entering and leaving.

And one who dwells there [in these three places]—

does not forbid him [the owner of the courtyard] to carry, and he does not need to participate in the courtyard’s eruv, since the person’s dwelling there is not considered a dwelling.

One who places his eruv—with which they made the courtyard’s eruv—in

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

this is an eruv.

sometimes the object rolls

And one who dwells there,

the owner of the house having lent his hay house—or the other places mentioned—to another person [and there is no hay in it—Gaon Yaakov, and see Tosafot] in order to dwell there—

this person

forbids

him [the owner of the courtyard], until he makes an eruv with him, since his house opens onto the courtyard.

Rabbi Judah says: If there is there—

in the hay house or in any lent house [Meiri, and see Sefat Emet]—

“a grasp of the hand”

belonging to the owner of the house,

meaning that the owner of the house has a place in this person’s dwelling, where he puts his utensils for safekeeping,

he does not forbid

the resident

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

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

Gemara:

Rav Judah, son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilat, said: Everywhere that the Sages said: One who dwells there does not forbid,

as in those of our Mishna—

one who places his eruv

there

it is not an eruv.

Except for a gatehouse

of a

private courtyard,

for although one who dwells in a gatehouse does not forbid the owner of the courtyard [Tosafot HaRosh], one who places his eruv there, such as when he makes an eruv with another courtyard, it is an eruv.

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

of courtyards, even though it is in a courtyard [such as those of our Mishna], nevertheless

one places there

the bread of

a partnership of alleyways, since it is unnecessary for the partnership to be placed in a dwelling house, as is required for an eruv.

Except for “the air of an alleyway,

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

And we raise a difficulty:

What does this teach us?

But

we learned it

in our Mishna:

One who places his eruv in a gatehouse, a portico, or a balcony—it is not an “eruv.”

And it implies:

An eruv

of courtyards

is what it is not; but a partnership

of alleyways

is.

And we answer: The law of

a private gatehouse

where one places an eruv,

and

the law of

the air of an alleyway

where one does not place a partnership, is what

he needed to teach us,

for

these laws were not taught

in our Mishna.

It was also taught so

that one places a partnership in them, as we said.

For it was taught:

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

this is an eruv.

And it is difficult concerning this:

But we did not learn in our Mishna

that this is not an eruv?!

And necessarily

say

in the beraita:

this is a partnership.

Behold, we see that it is unnecessary to place the partnership in a dwelling house.

And now we raise a difficulty concerning the body of the beraita, which teaches: One who places his eruv “in a courtyard or an alleyway”—this is a partnership:

But

a partnership in an alleyway is not guarded [it is not protected], and it is not effective even for a partnership?!

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

Rather

say: One who places his eruv

in a courtyard

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

the

Rav Judah 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 courtyard members’ homes, who invited them to eat from his own food [Tosafot, page 73],

and the day became sanctified over them,

while they had not yet made an eruv—behold,

the bread on the table,

which the householder placed there for everyone and which is considered as though they had all already acquired it [Tosafot there],

they rely upon it for the sake of a courtyard eruv.

And some say, they rely upon it

for the sake of a partnership

of alleyways.

Rabba said: They do not disagree,

Shmuel and “some say.”

Here, when they are reclining in a house,

we say that they rely upon it for the sake of an “eruv.”

Here, when they are reclining in a courtyard—

which is not fit for placing an eruv there—and concerning this we say: They rely upon it for the sake of a “partnership.”

Abaye said to Rabba: A beraita supports you,

that alleyway partnerships may be made in a courtyard [Gaon Yaakov]:

For it was taught:

Courtyard eruvin—

in a courtyard. And partnerships

of alleyways—

in an alleyway.

And we raised a question about it:

How did you say

“courtyard eruvin—

in a courtyard”?

But we learned

in our Mishna:

One who places his eruv in a

gatehouse, portico, or balcony—it is not an eruv,

since it is not a place of dwelling.

And if you hold that courtyard eruvin may be made in a courtyard that is not fit for dwelling, he can also place it in a gatehouse?!

And we already answered concerning it: Say

in the beraita: One who places

a courtyard eruv—

in a house in this courtyard, to exclude a house in another courtyard. And it teaches “in a courtyard” to say that he must place it in a house in that same courtyard that they are joining.

And likewise

alleyway partnerships—

in a courtyard that is in an alleyway,

to exclude a courtyard that does not open into it. And this is why it teaches “in an alleyway,” to say: in a courtyard of that alleyway, and not in another courtyard.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: If there is there

in the hay house

a grasp of the hand

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

And we explain:

What are the circumstances of a grasp of the hand?

For example, the courtyard of the son of Bunais [Bach],

who was wealthy and lent the houses in the courtyard to others, and had utensils in all of them, for because of his wealth he had many utensils.

When

the son of Bunais

came before Rabbi,

who was among his students, Rashi, Gittin 59a,

Rabbi said to them [Rabbi, who honored the wealthy, as below]:

Clear

for him

a place

of importance, as is fitting

for

a

wealthy man

who has

one hundred maneh!

After him,

another person came,

who appeared to Rabbi to be wealthier than the son of Bunais,

Rabbi said to them:

because these are not places of residence.

And if you hold that courtyard eruvs are placed in a courtyard that is not suitable for residence, may one then place them even in a gatehouse?

We have already answered this:

Say

that the beraita means: One who places

a courtyard eruv

in a house in that courtyard, excluding a house in another courtyard. It says “in a courtyard” to teach that it must be placed in a house in the same courtyard that is being joined.

Likewise,

mavoi partnerships—

in a courtyard located in the passageway,

excluding a courtyard that does not open onto it. This is why it says “in a passageway”: in a courtyard belonging to that passageway, and not in another courtyard.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If there is there

in the hay house

a retained possession

belonging to the homeowner, he does not prohibit carrying:

And we explain:

What are the circumstances of retained possession?

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 utensils in all of them, since his wealth provided him with many utensils.

When Ben Bunais came

before

Rabbi

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

Rabbi said to them

[Rabbi honored wealthy people, as will be explained]:

Clear

for him

a place

of honor, as is fitting

for

a

wealthy

son

who possesses

one hundred maneh!

After him,

another man came

whom Rabbi regarded as wealthier than Ben Bunais,

Rabbi said to them

: