Eruvin 86a (פו.) — the Talmud in English

Make room

more prominently among distinguished people, as is fitting,

for

a wealthy man who is

the son of one worth two hundred maneh.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: Rabbi!

Do you really think that Ben Bunais is less wealthy than this man, whom you gave a place inferior to his?!

Yet Bunais,

this man's father [

Ben Bunais ],

has a thousand ships at sea.

And opposite them, a thousand towns on land,

and he deserves a place of honor!

He said to him,

Rabbi said to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: What could I do? From his clothing, he appeared to me to be less wealthy. Therefore,

when you arrive at

Bunais,

his father, say to him: Do not send him in these garments [

clothing ]

before me.

Rabbi honors the wealthy,

as we said.

And likewise,

Rabbi Akiva—

as he and Rabbi were born under the same constellation, according to Iyun Yaakov—

honors the wealthy!

And why did they honor them?

As Rava bar Mari expounded

the verse:

“The world will endure before God

through kindness and truth from [

with a patah ]

which will preserve it.”

When will the world endure before God?

When

there are wealthy people

who

perform

acts of kindness and truth

and provide

from [

food ] to the poor; and they

will preserve it,

they will safeguard the world. And we return to the Mishna, and explain what constitutes the homeowner's “possession,” in which case another person dwelling in the house does not prohibit the members of the courtyard:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said:

Even if the homeowner possesses only

something such as a plowshare peg [

Rabbenu Ḥananel ], another person dwelling in the house does not prohibit the members of the courtyard.

Rav Naḥman said: The school of Shmuel taught:

If the homeowner has in that house

an object that may be moved on Shabbat [

which is permitted to move on Shabbat ], then the person dwelling there

prohibits

them, since this is not considered the homeowner's “possession”: if the resident wishes to do so, he can remove it outside.

Only if the homeowner has there

an object that may not be moved on Shabbat,

then he

does not prohibit.

It was taught likewise: If he has

the homeowner

untithed produce,

which is muktzeh, or

if he has large iron plates,

which are large pieces of iron that may not be moved on Shabbat because they are muktzeh [Meiri; see Rashi ],

or any object that may not be moved on Shabbat—

he does not prohibit.

Mishna:

One who leaves his house

which he has in a courtyard together with the other dwellings,

and goes to spend Shabbat in another city, whether a gentile -

who also prohibits the members of the courtyard until they rent his domain from him, as explained above at the beginning of chapter “One who resides”—

or whether an Israelite—

prohibits them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

This is because Rabbi Meir maintains that a dwelling without its owner is still considered a dwelling.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not prohibit,

since a dwelling without its owner is not considered a dwelling.

Rabbi Yosei says: A gentile prohibits,

because although a dwelling without its owner is not considered a dwelling, we are concerned that he may come on Shabbat.

But

an Israelite does not prohibit,

since

it is not the practice of an Israelite to come on Shabbat.

Rabbi Shimon says:

a. An Israelite who went to spend Shabbat elsewhere and explicitly diverted his attention from returning—for example, when asked, he said that he did not intend to return home on that Shabbat—does not prohibit.

b. If he did not divert his attention, for example, if they heard him say that he intended to return on Shabbat, he prohibits in every case, for we consider him as though he were at home.

c. If he did not explicitly reveal his intention,

even if he left his house and went to spend Shabbat with his daughter in the same city—

he does not prohibit.

For even without an explicit statement, we say

that he has already removed from his heart

any intention of returning home, and he does not prohibit [explained according to Biur Halakha].

Gemara:

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And

that which we said—that even without an explicit statement he has diverted his attention—

applies specifically

when he went to spend Shabbat with

his daughter.

But

if he went to spend Shabbat with

his son, he does not.

For a person does not divert his attention from his own house in order to live with his daughter-in-law, his son's wife, lest she quarrel with him and he leave their house.

This is what

people say:

Even if

a male dog barks at you [

a male “dog” barked at you, like your son-in-law ],

enter!

Do not fear him; enter the house of your son-in-law and daughter.

But if

a little female dog barks at you [

a female “dog,” such as your daughter-in-law ],

leave,

go out of their house and flee to your own place! [explained according to Biur Halakha].

Mishna: [

The matter of “a cistern between two courtyards” is explained according to Rashi's method and according to Gaon Yaakov.]

Two courtyards belonging to two people, with a partition between them extending along the entire courtyard, without an opening between them, so that they cannot establish an eruv together [or even if there is an opening between them but they did not establish an eruv—Shulḥan Arukh].

And there is a water cistern beneath the partition, half in this person's courtyard and half in that person's courtyard. [See illustration.]

Strictly speaking, the members of one courtyard should draw water from the half of the cistern in their courtyard, and the members of the second courtyard should draw water from the half in their courtyard.

However, when one draws water from his half, he also brings into his courtyard some of the water from his fellow's half. Thus he removes water from his fellow's courtyard into his own courtyard, and from there into his house.

Therefore, the Sages said that the cistern must be remedied by making a partition between its two parts; this is sufficient, even though water from one person's courtyard still enters the other person's courtyard.

Therefore:

A cistern between two courtyards

with a partition extending over and hanging above the cistern—

one may not draw water from it on Shabbat,

because the water of one courtyard is brought into the other.

Unless they made for it

the cistern

a partition

specifically for this purpose,

ten handbreadths high.

Whether

this partition was

below [

Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda disagree in the Gemara about what “below” means ],

or whether it was within the rim [

its edges—Ritva ] of the cistern.

That is, if he wishes, he may make the partition higher up in the cistern, “even though it does not touch the water. The Sages were lenient with regard to water [to rely on a suspended partition], for they apply to it the principle of gud aḥit [extend and lower] the partition, provided that it is [entirely sunk] within the rim of the cistern, so that it appears as a separation”

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Beit Shammai say:

He places the partition

below,

and the amoraim disagree over its interpretation [as will be explained shortly in the Gemara].

And Beit Hillel say:

He places the partition even

above,

and the amoraim disagree over its interpretation [as will be explained shortly in the Gemara]; and certainly placing it below is effective.

He said

and disagreed,

Rabbi Yehuda

with all the tannaim: No special partition made for the water is required at all in order to permit drawing from the cistern,

for

after all,

the partition—

the one that the Sages say must be made—

will not be greater [

better ]

than the wall between them.

That is, the partition between the courtyards that extends over the cistern is sufficient to permit drawing water, since Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the Sages were lenient with regard to water and permit a suspended partition even in this case.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said,

in explaining the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel [and it follows that one also learns from this what the first tanna means by “below”—Gaon Yaakov]:

Below,

as Beit Shammai say, means

literally below.

That is, the partition must descend until it reaches close to the water in the cistern; however, the ends of the reeds of the partition need not “touch” the water [Rashi. But this explanation is not maintained in the conclusion, as will be stated below in the name of Gaon Yaakov].

Above,

as Beit Hillel say, means

literally above.

That is, if he wishes, he may place it inside the cistern close to its upper rim, even far from the water.

Both this and that are in the cistern,

for even according to Beit Hillel, who say “above,” the entire ten-handbreadth partition must be sunk within the cistern. [Thus, Beit Hillel's position is the same as that of the first tanna.]

And Rav Yehuda said:

Below:

This means

below the water.

That is, the partition must be inserted into the bottom of the cistern.

Above:

This means

above the water.

That is, even if it is above the water and does not touch it, it is effective, provided that it is close to the surface of the water in the cistern. [Thus, Rav Yehuda's “above” is Rav Huna's “below.”]

But literally above, close to the rim of the cistern—as Rav Huna said—is not effective.

He said

and challenged

Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan Abaye: Regarding what Rav Yehuda said, that “below” means below the water,

but “literally below” [close only to the water] is not effective—what is his reason?!

For

what is the difference between “literally below,” which is not effective, since the water is mixed,

the water flows from one side to the other “beneath” the partition?

Below the water as well

should not be effective, for

the water is mixed “above” the partition, which is only ten handbreadths high, and sometimes the water is more than ten handbreadths deep?!

He said to him,

Abaye said: Have you not heard that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, and they attributed it to Rabbi Ḥiyya—

must the upper ends of the reeds be visible

to explain the “below” mentioned in the Mishna

one handbreadth above the water,

the upper ones,

so that he does not draw directly from his fellow's domain [Tosafot in the name of Rashi ]? Although the water is still mixed now, and even an iron partition would not solve this completely, we do whatever is possible, so that it appears as though the water has been divided and neither person draws from his fellow's water, Ritva and Gaon Yaakov.

so that one does not draw water openly from his fellow’s domain [Tosafot in the name of Rashi]. Although the water still flows together, and even an iron partition would not solve this completely, we do whatever is possible so that it appears as though the water has been divided and neither person draws from the other’s water, Ritva and Gaon Yaakov.

Furthermore,

Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan challenged Abaye:

Regarding what Rav Yehuda said,

that

“above”

means

above the water

and close to it—but literally above, close to the rim of the cistern, is not effective.

What is his reason?!

What is the difference with regard to “literally above”,

which is far from the water,

that it is not

effective, since the separating partition is not discernible in the water and

the water is openly mixed

?

If so,

above the water as well

should not be effective, for

after all

it is still

mixed,

and what separation is there? The partition does not touch the water?!

He said to him,

Abaye said: Have you not heard that Rabbi Yaakov Karkina'a taught:

the lower ends of the reeds must be sunk

in

the water by one handbreadth,

so that he does not draw directly from his fellow's domain [Tosafot in the name of Rashi ]?! And we challenge this:

But what of that which Rav Yehuda said: In abandoned buildings, when they collapse, beams remain in place above, inserted from one wall to the opposite wall. If

In the manner of ruined buildings, when they collapse, beams remain in them above, inserted from one wall to the other. And if such a

such a beam

remains,

four

handbreadths wide, it

renders it permitted in the ruin

to move objects beneath the beam. [See illustration.]

Although there are no partitions there, and strictly speaking it should be a karmelit, we say, “the edge of the roof descends and seals,” with regard to the two edges on either side of the beam; thus the area beneath the beam is enclosed by partitions.

But if it is not four handbreadths wide, it does not.

Since a partition made for a space less than four handbreadths wide is not a partition.

And Rav Naḥman said

in the name of

Rabba bar Avuha: