Eruvin 86b — the Talmud in English

A beam

four

cubits

wide—

permits carrying from the water

in a pit located between two courtyards, when the beam is placed across its width in the middle of the pit. [See illustration.] But now, according to this, a difficulty arises from the statement of Rabba bar Avuha [who was junior to Rav Yehuda—Ritva]. According to Rav Yehuda, who holds that it is not sufficient for the partition to stand above the water, but requires the heads of the poles to be sunk into the water, so that one will not draw water from another person's domain [Tosafot citing Rashi], how can this beam permit drawing water from the pit?

For the bucket passes

under the entire width of the beam

to the other side

of the beam, into his fellow's section,

and brings

water from his fellow's section into his own section?!

But according to Rav Huna, it is necessary only that there be some indication that one should not carry there openly, and a beam is likewise sufficient [Tosafot citing Rashi].

And we answer:

The Sages have established that a bucket does not travel more than four handbreadths,

and therefore one does not draw water from his fellow's section.

But we challenge this: The difficulty still remains according to Rav Yehuda, who requires a partition that interrupts between the sections. How can this beam be effective?

But the water flows together

beneath the beam; how, then, can one draw water from beneath the beam [Tosafot]?!

And because of this difficulty, we reject Rav Yehuda's statement and say:

Rather,

a partition above the water, close to the edge of the pit, is indeed effective, as is a beam placed across the middle of the pit,

because the Sages were lenient with regard to water.

As

Rabbi Tavla asked Rav: A partition

suspended—

can it permit

carrying

in a ruin,

where suspended partitions are normally found [Rashi above, page 12]?

He said to him: A suspended partition permits carrying only with regard to water.

The Sages were lenient with regard to water!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: A partition shall not be

greater than the wall between them:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yehuda,

who is lenient with regard to a suspended partition, even when it was not made for the sake of the water and was not placed within the edges of the pit,

stated his view in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

As he said: A suspended partition permits carrying even on dry land.

As we learned: One who lowers

[any movement from above to below is called lowering—Rashi, Sukkah 16a]

walls from above downward,

who began weaving the partition next to the roofing and continued weaving downward,

if

[Baḥ and Rashi]

the walls are

three handbreadths

above the ground,

so that young goats can pass beneath them, it is considered a suspended partition, and

the sukkah is invalid,

the sukkah.

But if he began weaving

from below upward, if the walls are

the walls

ten handbreadths

high, the measure of the height of a partition, even though they do not reach the roofing,

the sukkah is valid,

the sukkah.

Rabbi Yosei says: Just as when one weaves from below upward,

even though the walls do not reach the roofing, if they are

ten handbreadths

high, that is sufficient,

so too when one weaves from above downward,

it is sufficient for the walls to be

ten handbreadths

high, even though they do not reach the ground. For Rabbi Yosei holds that a suspended partition permits carrying!

And we reject Rabba bar bar Ḥana's statement:

That is not so!

Rather,

neither did Rabbi Yehuda agree with Rabbi Yosei, nor did Rabbi Yosei agree with Rabbi Yehuda!

That is to say: From Rabbi Yehuda's statement in the Mishna, it cannot be inferred that suspended walls are sufficient for the walls of a sukkah; and from Rabbi Yosei's statement concerning a sukkah, it cannot be inferred that a suspended partition is sufficient in the case of the Mishna.

No,

[Baḥ]

Rabbi Yehuda agreed with Rabbi Yosei:

For

Rabbi Yehuda spoke only

here,

with regard to the joining of courtyards, which is rabbinic. But

in

the sukkah, which is mandated by Torah law, he did not.

And Rabbi Yosei did not agree with Rabbi Yehuda:

For

Rabbi Yosei spoke only with regard to the sukkah, where the prohibition is the violation of a positive commandment

["You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days"].

But with regard to Shabbat, when

carrying an object from one domain to another through domains defined by Torah law

is punishable by stoning—

Rabbi Yosei did not say

that a suspended partition is effective there.

And since this is so, even with regard to carrying from one domain to another through domains defined by rabbinic law [from one person's domain to another's], a suspended partition is not effective, because whenever the Sages instituted a rule, they modeled it on Torah law.

And

if you say:

Since Rabbi Yosei agrees with regard to Shabbat that a suspended partition is not effective [Rashi, Sukkah],

that incident that occurred in Tzippori,

when they permitted carrying on Shabbat by means of a suspended partition—

according to whose opinion was it done?

Surely it was done according to Rabbi Yosei, since he was the leading authority of Tzippori, and everyone acted according to his instructions?!

I can tell you:

It was not done according to Rabbi Yosei's opinion; rather, it was done according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,

after Rabbi Yosei had died!

And this is the incident:

When Rav Dimi came, he said: Once they forgot

in Tzippori

and did not bring the Torah scroll

to the synagogue

while it was still day,

from a house in the courtyard to which the synagogue opened.

Since there were additional residences in that courtyard and the residents had not joined together, they could not carry on Shabbat from that house to the synagogue through a courtyard whose residents had not joined together.

Therefore,

the next day,

on Shabbat,

they spread a sheet

[sheets]

over the posts

that stood there on both sides of the route from the house to the synagogue. The route between them thereby became like a small alleyway, opening only to the house and the synagogue; the other residences in the courtyard did not prohibit carrying there, since they did not open onto that small alleyway [see Sefat Emet],

and they brought the Torah scroll and read from it.

[See illustration.]

And that incident, in which they relied on the sheets, was done according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Yosei's son, since it involved a suspended partition, as the sheets were above the ground.

And we challenge this: How can you say

"they spread

a sheet"?

Is one permitted to spread it initially

to spread it?

But

it is taught in a

baraita:

[Rabbi Eliezer and those who dispute with him, who disputed in the addition concerning a temporary shelter]

everyone agrees that one may not make a complete temporary shelter

on Shabbat,

so how could you permit spreading sheets on Shabbat?!

And we answer: Do not say, "They spread a sheet."

Rather: They found sheets already spread over the posts, and they brought the Torah scroll and read from it.

Rabba said: Rabbi Yehuda,

of the Mishna,

and Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya stated the same view,

in that they were very lenient with regard to water [Rashi] and did not require an indication that the partition had been made for the sake of the water [Gaon Yaakov; see Ritva].

Rabbi Yehuda—

this is what we said,

that he is lenient with regard to a partition extending across the pit, even though there is no indication that the partition was made for the sake of the water.

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya—

as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya says: With regard to a balcony

that has no partitions, standing above the sea, which is a karmelit, and one wishes to draw water from it and bring it into the balcony, which is a private domain—

if it is four cubits by four cubits,

square, meaning twenty-four handbreadths by twenty-four handbreadths,