Eruvin 86a — the Talmud in English

Make room

for one more important among the great, as befits

a

wealthy man who is

the son of two hundred maneh.

Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei said to him: Rabbi!

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

But Bunais,

this man's father [that is,

Ben Bunais],

has a thousand ships at sea.

And corresponding to them, a thousand towns on land,

and he deserves an honored place!

He said to him,

Rabbi said to Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei: What shall I do, since according to his garments 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

[clothes]

before me.

Rabbi honors the wealthy,

as we have said.

And likewise

Rabbi Akiva—

for he and Rabbi were born under the same constellation, Iyyun Yaakov—

honors the wealthy!

And why did they honor them?

As Rava bar Mari expounded

upon the verse:

“The world shall sit before God

kindness and truth from

[with a patah]

will preserve him.”

When shall the world sit before God?

At a time

when there are wealthy people

who

perform

kindness and truth

and provide

from

[food] for the poor, and they

will preserve him,

they will preserve the world. And we return to the Mishna, and explain what the “holding of the hand” of the homeowner is, in which case another person residing in the house does not prohibit the other members of the courtyard:

Rabba bar bar Hanna said:

Even if the homeowner has only

something such as a plow peg

[R. Hananel], another person residing in the house does not prohibit the members of the courtyard.

Rav Naḥman said: The tannai of the school of Samuel:

If the homeowner has in that house

something that may be carried on Shabbat

[which is permitted to be moved on Shabbat], then the one residing there

prohibits,

for this is not considered the homeowner's “holding of the hand,” since if the resident wishes, he can take it outside.

And only if the homeowner has there

something that may not be carried 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 iron bars,

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

and anything that may not be carried on Shabbat—

does not prohibit.

Mishna:

One who leaves his house,

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

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

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

or whether an Israelite—

he prohibits; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir holds that a dwelling without its owner is called a dwelling.

Rabbi Judah says: He does not prohibit,

because a dwelling without its owner is not called a dwelling.

Rabbi Yosei says: A gentile prohibits,

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

But

an Israelite does not prohibit,

since

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

Rabbi Shimon says:

a. An Israelite who went to spend Shabbat elsewhere and explicitly diverted his attention, for example, they asked him and he said that he does not intend to return to his house on this Shabbat—he does not prohibit.

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

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

returning to his house, and he does not prohibit [explained according to Biur Halakha].

Gemara:

Rav said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

And

concerning what we say, that even without an explicit statement he has diverted his attention—

specifically

that 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 house in order to dwell with his son's wife, his daughter-in-law, lest she quarrel with him and he leave their house.

And this is

what people say:

Even if

a male dog barks at you

[“a dog” in the masculine, like your son-in-law],

enter!

Do not fear him, and 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]—

go out,

leave 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 along the entire length of the courtyard, without an opening between them, and they cannot make an eruv together [or even if there is an opening between them and they did not make an eruv—Shulhan Arukh].

And a water cistern beneath the partition—half of it is in this one's courtyard and half of it is in that one's courtyard. [See illustration.]

The strict law would be that the members of one courtyard fill from the half of the cistern in their courtyard, and the members of the second courtyard fill from the half of the cistern in their courtyard.

However, when one fills from his half, he brings into his courtyard also water from his fellow's half, and it turns out that he takes from his fellow's courtyard into his own courtyard, and from there into his house.

Therefore, the Sages said that the cistern must be rectified by making a partition between the two parts of the cistern, and this suffices, even though water from this one's courtyard still comes into that one's courtyard.

Therefore:

a cistern between two courtyards,

with a partition extending and suspended over the mouth of the cistern—

one may not fill from it on Shabbat,

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

Unless they made for it

the cistern

a partition

specifically made for it,

ten handbreadths high.

Whether

this partition was

below

[Rav Huna and Rav Judah dispute in the Gemara what “below” means],

or from within its rim

[its lips—Ritba] of the cistern.

That is to say: If he wishes, he may make the partition above 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 say concerning it, ‘draw down and lower’ the partition, provided that it be [entirely immersed] within the rim of the cistern, so that it appears as a separation.”

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

The School of Shammai say:

He places the partition

below,

and the amoraim dispute its explanation [as will be explained in the Gemara shortly].

And the School of Hillel say:

He places the partition even

above,

and the amoraim dispute its explanation [as will be explained in the Gemara shortly], and all the more so [it is effective] below.

Rabbi

said and disputed

Rabbi Judah

with all the tannaim: There is no need to make any special partition, made for the sake of the water, in order to permit filling from the cistern,

for

indeed

the partition—

the one that the Sages say should be made—

cannot be greater

[better]

than the wall between them.

That is to say: The partition of the courtyards, which extends over the cistern, suffices to permit filling, since Rabbi Judah holds that the Sages were lenient with regard to water with a suspended partition, even in this case.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said,

to explain the dispute between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel [and consequently one also learns from this what “below” means according to the first tanna, Gaon Yaakov]:

“Below”

as the School of Shammai say means

literally below.

That is to say: The partition should descend and reach close to the water in the cistern, but it is not necessary for the ends of the reeds of the partition to “touch” the water [Rashi. However, this explanation is not maintained in the conclusion, as stated below in the name of Gaon Yaakov].

“Above”

as the School of Hillel say means

literally above.

That is to say: If he wishes, he may place it inside the cistern close to the upper rim of the cistern, even far from the water.

And both this and that are in the cistern,

for even according to the School of Hillel, who say “above,” the entire ten-handbreadth partition must be immersed inside the cistern. [And it follows that the School of Hillel is the same as the first tanna.]

And Rav Judah said:

“Below”:

It means

below the water.

That is to say: The partition must be inserted into the bottom of the cistern.

“Above”:

It means

above the water.

That is to say: Even if it is above the water and does not touch the water, it is also effective, provided that it is close to the surface of the water in the cistern [and it follows that Rav Judah's “above” is Rav Huna's “below”].

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

He said

and raised a difficulty,

Rabba bar Rav Hanan to Abaye: Concerning what Rav Judah said, “below” means below the water,

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

For

what is different about “literally below,” which is not effective, since the waters are intermingled,

for the water comes from here to there “beneath” the partition?

Below the water also

should not be effective, for

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

He said to him,

Abaye: Have you not heard this which Rav Judah said in the name of Rav, and they attributed it to Rabbi Hiyya—

must the tops of the reeds be visible

to explain the “below” stated in the Mishna—

above the water by one handbreadth,

the upper ones,

above the water by one handbreadth,

so that he does not explicitly draw from his fellow's domain [Tosafot in the name of Rashi], although now also the waters are intermingled, and even an iron partition would not help for this. We do whatever is possible, so that it appears as though the waters are divided and neither one draws from the other, Ritba and Gaon Yaakov.

Furthermore

Rabba bar Rav Hanan raised a difficulty to Abaye:

Concerning what Rav Judah said,

that

“above”

means

above the water

and close to it, but “literally above,” close to the rim of the cistern, does not.

What is his reason?!

What is different about “literally above”,

which is far from the water,

which does not

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

the waters are intermingled

explicitly?

If so,

above the water also

should not be effective, for

indeed

still

the waters are intermingled,

and what separation is there? After all, the partition does not touch the water?!

He said to him,

Abaye: Have you not heard this which Rabbi Yaakov Korḥina'a taught:

the lower ends of the reeds must be immersed

the lower ones

one handbreadth in the water,

so that he does not explicitly draw from his fellow's domain [Tosafot in the name of Rashi]?! And we raise a difficulty:

But concerning what Rav Judah said:

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

beam remains,

four handbreadths

wide,

handbreadths,

it permits carrying in the ruin beneath the beam. [See illustration.]

under the beam. [See illustration.]

And although there are no partitions there, and the strict law would be that it is a karmelit, we say, “the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,” concerning the two edges on the two sides of the beam, and it follows that the place beneath the beam is enclosed by partitions.

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

For a partition made with a space of less than four handbreadths is not a partition.

And Rav Naḥman said

in the name of

Rabba bar Avuha: