Eruvin 91a — the Talmud in English

And likewise,

the enclosures are an independent domain

, since they are not made for dwelling.

Indeed, it is permitted to carry only from roof to roof, from courtyard to courtyard, and from enclosure to enclosure.

But from one of these to another—not. And even when they belong to one person.

The reason is: from a roof to a courtyard it is forbidden according to Rabbi Meir, by decree on account of a mound in the public domain, as we see that in the Mishna he forbids even from a high roof to a low one; and all the more so is it forbidden when the roof belongs to one owner and the courtyard to another owner. And from a courtyard to an enclosure it is likewise forbidden according to Rabbi Meir, just as the Sages forbid

[as explained in the beraita below], on account of these being two kinds of domains, whose names are not the same and whose uses are not the same.

And from a roof to an enclosure, Rabbi Meir forbids for two reasons:

The first: like from a roof to a courtyard, a decree on account of a mound.

And the second: like from a courtyard to an enclosure, since they are two kinds of domains.

b. According to

the Sages

in the Mishna, who forbade carrying from roof to roof, this applies to roofs, where the dwellings below are divided, and it is as though they are also divided above.

But

roofs and courtyards—

are one domain

.

That is to say: it is permitted to carry from a roof to a courtyard, or from courtyard to courtyard, even when there is a change of ownership, since they are not regularly used for dwelling.

The enclosures—

are another domain

, and it is permitted to carry only from enclosure to enclosure, even when there is a change of ownership, since they are not regularly used for dwelling. But it is forbidden to carry from roofs and courtyards to enclosures, even when they belong to one owner [and even when the enclosures are less than two beit se'a]. Since the roofs and courtyards are used for dwelling, whereas the enclosure has another use, and they differ in their names, it is forbidden to carry from one to another.

The prohibition against carrying between two kinds of domains was heard by Rav Yehuda from his teachers, and it is precise in the Mishna. For from the fact that Rabbi Shimon disputes in the Mishna and says, “All of them are one domain,” and permits carrying among all these three from one to another, we learn that according to the Sages it is forbidden [and this matter is likewise supported by the beraita below, as Rashi explained].

c. According to

Rabbi Shimon

, who says in our Mishna, “One—roofs, and one—courtyards, and one—enclosures: they are one domain,” do not say that he came only to say that it is permitted to carry from roof to roof, or from courtyard to courtyard, or from enclosure to enclosure. Rather,

all of them—

are one domain

. And it is permitted to carry even from one of these to another, even though the use of an enclosure is not similar to the use of a roof and courtyard, and even though it differs from it in its name.

A beraita supports Rav

, who said—above, folio 89a—that according to the Sages, who forbid carrying from roof to roof, it is forbidden to carry even within the roof itself, since it is breached in its entirety toward a roof that is forbidden to it; and we do not say, “Extend and raise the partitions” of the house below to separate them, since they are not discernible to those standing on the roof!

And

a beraita supports Rav Yehuda

, that according to Rabbi Shimon all of them are one domain.

A beraita supports Rav: all the roofs of the city—

are one domain

for carrying from one to another,

but it is forbidden to bring up or take down from the roofs to the courtyard, and from the courtyard to the roofs

, by decree on account of a mound in the public domain.

And

utensils that had rested in the courtyard—

it is permitted to carry them within

that

courtyard

, even though the residents of the houses in the courtyard did not make an eruv, and the same law is that it is permitted to carry them to other courtyards.

And utensils that had rested

on the roofs—

it is permitted to carry them on the roofs

, from roof to roof.

Provided that a roof is not ten

handbreadths higher than its fellow,

or ten

handbreadths lower than its fellow,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: each and every one

of the roofs

is an independent domain

, and one may not carry from roof to roof.

And one may not carry within it

—even on the roof itself—

except within four

cubits.

And this is explicitly in accordance with Rav!

A beraita supports Rav Yehuda:

Rabbi said: When we would study Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa, we would bring up oil

in order to anoint with it,

and a valuntit

[a towel] in order to dry oneself with it,

from roof to roof, and from a roof to a courtyard, and from courtyard to courtyard, and from a courtyard to an enclosure, and from an enclosure to another enclosure

, even though in all these there was a change of ownership,

until we reached the spring in which we would bathe.

Here it is explicit that all of them are one domain for carrying from one to another, even with a change of ownership.

And we conclude the entire beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda said

, to prove that all of them are one domain:

There was an incident during a time of danger, and we would bring up a Torah scroll from a courtyard to a roof, and from a roof to a courtyard, and from a courtyard to an enclosure, in order to read from it!

They said to him: A time of danger is not a proof!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: one—roofs

and one—courtyards are one domain:

Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

: it is permitted to take out from courtyard to courtyard.

And this is when they did not make an eruv

of the residents of the houses in the courtyard. And they are not permitted to take out from their houses to the courtyard, and utensils that had rested in the house are not commonly found in the courtyard.

But if they made an eruv

of the residents of the houses in the courtyard, and utensils that had rested in the house are commonly found in the courtyard,

no

, Rabbi Shimon does not permit carrying from courtyard to courtyard, even utensils that had rested in the courtyard.

For we decree: perhaps one will come to take out

even

utensils

[utensils]

that

had rested in the

houses, to a courtyard

elsewhere. And this is forbidden; and so we learned, that all courtyards are one domain with regard to carrying utensils that had rested within them, but not utensils that had rested inside the house.

And Shmuel said:

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

whether they made an eruv or whether they did not make an eruv

, for we do not decree.

And Rabbi Yohanan likewise said: (Who whispered to you

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon—

whether they made an eruv, and whether they did not make an eruv.

Rav Hisda raised an objection against Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan

, who permitted carrying according to Rabbi Shimon even where utensils of the houses are commonly found in the courtyard:

They will

say

: Do people perhaps say: Are there

two utensils in one courtyard—

this one

that had rested in the courtyard

is permitted

to take it out to another courtyard,

whereas this one

that had rested in the house

is forbidden

to take it out?!

That is to say: if we permit utensils that had rested in the courtyard, people will not accept the distinction between these utensils and utensils that had rested in the house, and they will come to take out utensils that had rested in the houses, since they are commonly found in the courtyard [Ritba].

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning, for he does not decree.

For we learned

above, on folio 45b, concerning tehumim, that if a person stood outside the boundary and did not acquire a place of residence, he has only four cubits around him. And if on his two sides there were two people, each of whom was two cubits distant from him, the middle person can transfer an object to either side, but the two standing on the sides can bring only to the middle person; however, they are forbidden to transfer from one side to the other, because they are more than four cubits distant from one another.

Rabbi Shimon said: To what is this comparable—

To three courtyards that are open to one another, and

they themselves are also

open

each by another entrance

to the public domain, and the outer courtyards made an eruv with the middle one

, but the two outer courtyards did not make an eruv with one another.

That

one

, the middle one,

is permitted with them

, with each of the outer ones.

And they are permitted with it

But the two outer ones—

are forbidden with one another.

Whereas the Sages forbid even between the middle one and the outer ones, because they decree lest they come to transfer an utensil from one outer courtyard to the second outer courtyard.

And it is proven that Rabbi Shimon was not concerned about this!

And Rabbi Shimon did not decree

not to carry from the outer courtyards to the middle courtyard because of the concern

that perhaps one will come to take out utensils

, lest they come to take out utensils

from this courtyard

of this outer courtyard

to that courtyard

the second of the outer courtyards!

And

therefore,

here too we do not decree, lest one come to take out utensils from the houses to the courtyard.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

against the one who forbids taking out where they made an eruv, from our Mishna:

For we learned:

Rabbi Shimon says: one—roofs, and one—courtyards, and one—enclosures: they are one domain for utensils that had rested within them, but not for utensils that had rested inside the house.

And this is difficult:

if you say that it is well

that the Mishna speaks

of a case where they made an eruv—

this is how you find utensils

that

had

rested in

houses

in a

courtyard

, for they brought them there by means of the eruv.

But if you say

that the Mishna speaks

of a case where they did not make an eruv

—for if they made an eruv, it is forbidden to take out even utensils that had rested in the courtyard—

how do you find utensils of the houses in the courtyard

, such that we needed to forbid taking them out?!

He

, Rav Sheshet,

raised this objection

, this difficulty.

And he

also

resolves it:

The case in the Mishna, where it is forbidden to take out utensils that had rested in the house, is

with a kumta

[a hat—Rashi above, folio 84b]

and a sudra

, a garment, which had rested inside the house, and he brought them out to the courtyard by way of wearing them [which is permitted even without a courtyard eruv]. And it is forbidden to take them out to another courtyard, since they had rested in the house.