Eruvin 86b (פו:) — the Talmud in English

A beam

that is

four

handbreadths wide

permits drawing water from a cistern situated between two courtyards, when the beam is placed across its width in the middle of the cistern. [See illustration.] And now, this poses a difficulty from the statement of Rabba bar Avuh, who was older than Rav Yehuda, according to Rav Yehuda, who holds that it is not sufficient for the partition to stand above; rather, he requires the heads of the reeds to be sunk into the water, so that one will not draw water from his fellow’s domain [Tosafot in the name of Rashi]. How does this beam permit drawing water from the cistern?

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?

The bucket passes

beneath the entire width of the beam

to the other side

of the beam, into his fellow’s portion,

and brings

water from his fellow’s portion into his own?!

But according to Rav Huna, we require only some indication that one should not transfer objects there directly, and a beam is likewise sufficient [Tosafot in the name of Rashi].

And we answer:

the Sages know that a bucket does not travel more than four handbreadths,

and therefore it does not draw water from his fellow’s portion.

And we object: This still poses a difficulty according to Rav Yehuda, who requires an intervening partition. How does this beam help?

But the water flows

beneath the beam; so how does he draw water from beneath the beam [Tosafot]?!

And on the basis of this difficulty we reject the statement of Rav Yehuda, and say:

Rather,

a partition above, close to the edge of the cistern, and a beam placed across the middle of the cistern are indeed effective,

because the Sages were lenient with regard to water.

As

Rabbi Tavla asked Rav: A partition

suspended—

what is the ruling as to whether it permits

transferring objects

in a ruin,

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

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

It is a leniency with which the Sages were lenient with regard to water!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: The partition should not be

larger 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 not within the edges of the cistern,

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

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

As we learned: One who

pulls downward—from above to below, this is termed pulling down [Rashi, Sukkah 16a]—

the walls from above to below,

who began weaving the partition beside the roofing and continued weaving downward.

If [Bach and Rashi]

the walls

are

the walls

three handbreadths above the ground,

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

the sukkah is invalid

the sukkah.

But if he began weaving

from below upward, if

the walls

are 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 from below upward,

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

ten handbreadths high,

that is sufficient,

so too 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!

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 in the Mishna it cannot be inferred that suspended walls suffice for the walls of a sukkah, and from Rabbi Yosei concerning a sukkah it cannot be inferred that a suspended partition suffices in the case described in the Mishna.

No,

Bach

Rabbi Yehuda agreed with Rabbi Yosei:

For

Rabbi Yehuda said this only

here,

with regard to courtyard eruvs, which are rabbinic. But

with regard to

a sukkah, which is by Torah law, no!

Nor did Rabbi Yosei agree with Rabbi Yehuda:

For

Rabbi Yosei said this only with regard to a sukkah, where the prohibition is a positive mitzva

“You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days.”

But Shabbat, where

transferring from one domain to another, among domains defined by Torah law,

is punishable by stoning—

he did not say

that a suspended partition would be effective there.

And accordingly, even with regard to transferring from one domain to another among rabbinic domains [from one person’s domain to another’s], a suspended partition is ineffective, for whenever the Sages instituted a decree, they modeled it on Torah law.

And

if you will say:

Since Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to Shabbat that a suspended partition is ineffective [Rashi, Sukkah],

that incident that took place in Sepphoris,

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

in accordance with whose opinion was it done?

Surely it was done in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, as he was the head of Sepphoris, and everyone acted according to his ruling?!

I can say to you:

It was not done in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, but in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,

after Rabbi Yosei had died!

And this is the incident:

When Rav Dimi arrived, he said: Once they forgot

in Sepphoris

and did not bring the Torah scroll

to the synagogue

while it was still day,

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

And since there were additional residences in that courtyard and they had not established an eruv, they could not carry on Shabbat from that house to the synagogue through a courtyard without an eruv.

Therefore,

the next day,

on Shabbat,

they spread a sheet

sheets

over the posts

that stood 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 carried out in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, since it involved a suspended partition, as the sheets were raised above the ground.

And we raise an objection concerning it: How can you say,

“They spread

a sheet”?

Is it permitted initially

to spread one?

But

it was taught in a beraita:

Everyone

Rabbi Eliezer and those who dispute him, who disputed the matter of adding to a temporary tent

agree that one may not make a complete temporary tent

on Shabbat,

on Shabbat,

so how could you permit spreading sheets on Shabbat?!

And we answer: Do not say: “They spread sheets.”

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 matter,

as they were both very lenient with regard to water [Rashi] and did not require a partition to be visibly intended for the sake of water [Gaon Yaakov; see the Ritva].

Rabbi Yehuda—

this is the matter we said,

that he is lenient with regard to a partition extending across the cistern, even though it does not have an indication that the partition was made for the sake of water.

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya—

as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya says: With regard to a balcony

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

if it is four cubits by four cubits,

squared, which is twenty-four handbreadths by twenty-four handbreadths,