Eruvin 92a — the Talmud in English

Who said that Rabbi Yohanan said this—

that courtyards are one domain, even if they made an eruv [as above, page 91a]?

But Rabbi Yohanan said

a principle:

the halakha follows an unattributed Mishna.

And

we learned

in the Mishna: A wall that is between two courtyards, ten handbreadths high

handbreadths and

four wide

handbreadths—

they may make

the courtyards

two [separate eruvin],

but they may not carry from this one to that one. And

they may not make

one

eruv,

to permit carrying even from this one to that one.

And if

there were atop it—

of this wall that is four wide—

produce:

These

the people who are in the one courtyard

go up from here and eat.

And these

who are in the second courtyard

go up from here and eat.

And

provided that they do not lower

the produce

down

because the wall is shared by the two courtyards, whereas the courtyards, each one is a different domain.

And now this is difficult: courtyards are one domain; and why is it forbidden to lower [the produce] from the wall [which is like a courtyard] to the courtyard below?!

It must be that the case is where the courtyards made eruvin, each one separately; and therefore it is forbidden to lower from the wall to the courtyard, for we decree lest one bring up to the wall vessels that spent the Shabbat in the houses, or lest he bring that produce which spent the Shabbat on the wall into the houses [according to Rabbenu Yehonatan, above, page 24 in the pages of the Rif].

We see from the unattributed Mishna that when the courtyards made eruvin, each one for itself, we decree, and it is forbidden to take from courtyard to courtyard even vessels that spent the Shabbat in it—and this is unlike Rabbi Yohanan?!

And we reject this: Rabbi Yohanan, who did not decree, explains the Mishna as follows:

What

is “[provided that they do not lower

down”]—

down, into the houses

that are in the courtyards, since bringing [produce] from a shared courtyard into the houses is forbidden where the members of the two courtyards did not make one eruv together.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

But Rabbi Hiyya taught

in a beraita:

provided that this one does not stand in his place

on the floor of the courtyard

and eat

from the produce that is brought to him from atop the wall,

and

not

this one stand in his place

and

eat.

And it is proven that it is forbidden to lower even into the courtyard itself!

He said to him,

Rav Ashi to Ravina:

And is it so

that,

if

Rabbi did not teach it in this Mishna in the form in which Rabbi Hiyya taught it [and indeed he certainly did not hold like him, for if he held like him, he should have explained it—Ritba], and if so,

Rabbi Hiyya,

Rabbi’s student—

from where did he get

this explanation?!

Rather, in fact, the explanation of the Mishna—for Rabbi Yohanan and for Shmuel—is as we explained: “provided that they do not lower down”—into the houses!

It was stated:

Two courtyards and one ruin

[which is not open to the public domain, and carrying in it independently is permitted]

between them.

Now, if it happened that

one

of the courtyards

made an eruv

by itself, and vessels of the houses are common in that courtyard,

and

if

one

of the courtyards

did not make an eruv

by itself, and vessels of the houses are not common in it:

Rav Huna said: They assign it—

the ruin between the two courtyards—

to the one that did not make an eruv.

That is, they permit carrying to the ruin and from it to the courtyard that did not make an eruv.

And the reason is: since a courtyard and a ruin are one domain, except that if vessels of the houses are common in the courtyard, Rav Huna holds like Rav, that it is forbidden to carry from one domain to another because of a decree.

Therefore, this one that did not make an eruv, in which there are no vessels of the houses, is permitted to carry to the ruin and from it.

But to this one that made an eruv and in which there are vessels of the houses, they do not assign the ruin, for carrying to the ruin and from it is forbidden to it, because of the decree concerning carrying vessels of the houses.

And Hiyya bar Rav said

in the name of his father,

Rav:

They assign the ruin

even to the

courtyard

that made an eruv.

And Hiyya bar Rav explains that Hiyya bar Rav’s intention was to say:

And both are forbidden!

Since we decree that if they take out from the courtyard that did not make an eruv to the ruin, perhaps they will also take out to it from the courtyard that made an eruv.

And Hiyya bar Rav proves that this indeed was Rav’s intention, to forbid both:

And if

[you say]

you say

that my father’s intention was to say

“both are permitted”,

even the courtyard that made an eruv—then necessarily we do not decree at all lest they also take out the vessels of the houses.

And if so, this is difficult:

why

does Rav hold, concerning two courtyards that are adjacent to one another and in which vessels of the houses are common, that

they do not assign a courtyard that did not make an eruv to a courtyard that made an eruv?

That is: the members of the courtyard that made an eruv are forbidden to carry to the second courtyard that is not included in an eruv [and the same applies to the courtyard that is included in an eruv], because of a decree lest they take out from courtyard to courtyard even the vessels of the houses.

And if you say that Rav holds, concerning the ruin, that both are permitted, why did he forbid [carrying] in adjacent courtyards? Yet according to your words Rav did not decree! Rather, necessarily, concerning the ruin too Rav said that both are forbidden.

And we reject Hiyya bar Rav’s explanation of Rav’s words:

In fact, I can say to you that Rav intended to permit both, and even this one that made an eruv is permitted to carry to the ruin.

And although in ordinary cases of two courtyards, if one courtyard made an eruv it is forbidden to take out to the courtyard that did not make an eruv, here is different, since even the courtyard that made an eruv is permitted to take out to the ruin.

And the reason for the matter is:

there,

ordinarily, in two adjacent courtyards,

since vessels of the houses are guarded

[the vessels of the houses are kept in the courtyard, and from Rashi it somewhat appears that the reading “of the houses” is absent]

in the courtyard

of the other one to which he carries, because the courtyard to which he carries is suitable for guarding vessels, and it is customary to take many vessels out to the courtyard—

it comes

they will come to err and

take out,

and to take out to the other courtyard also the vessels of the houses [according to the meaning of Rashi; and the Ritba brought it in another manner].

But

here, in the ruin—

concerning which we are discussing forbidding taking out to it from the courtyard—

since the vessels of the courtyard are not guarded in the ruin,

and it is not customary to take many vessels out to the ruin, even if they take vessels out to it,

it will not come

they will not come to err and

take out

to the ruin also the vessels of the houses.

There are those who say

as follows:

Hiyya bar Rav said

in the name of Rav: They assign the ruin

even to the

courtyard

that made an eruv.

And Hiyya bar Rav explains it:

And both are permitted!

And if you say

that

both are forbidden

was Rav’s intention, and you can even prove this:

since

Rav holds ordinarily

that they do not assign a courtyard that did not make an eruv to a courtyard that made an eruv,

it follows that he holds that we decree, and this one that made an eruv is forbidden; and necessarily, if Rav equated the laws of the two courtyards, his intention was to say that the second courtyard too is forbidden.

This is not so.

For only

there,

in an ordinary courtyard, did Rav decree,

since vessels of the houses are guarded in the courtyard.

And therefore

the Sages did not permit them

since

it will come to take out

the vessels of the houses to the other courtyard.

But in a ruin they are not guarded

there, the vessels of the houses; and therefore we do not decree.

Mishna:

A. Roofs or courtyards of two people that have a partition between them—even if there is a breach in the partition—it is permitted for the owner of the roof or the owner of the courtyard to carry from his house to his roof or to his courtyard, and the other does not forbid it for him.

In what case is this said? When this breach has the status of an “entrance.” That is, it is less than ten cubits, and on the sides of the breach there are “cheek-pieces” [like doorposts].

But if there are no cheek-pieces on the sides of the breach, or if it is ten cubits wide or more, the place of the breach is not considered an “entrance,” but rather a “breach.” Therefore, it is forbidden to take out from the house to the roof or to the courtyard.

And the reason for the matter is that since the two domains have been breached into one another, “all of them are like the dwellers of one domain” [see Rashi, page 76b, s.v. “more than this”]. Therefore, one who takes out from the house to the roof or to the courtyard is like one who takes out from his own house to the roof and courtyard shared by him and his fellow. And it is forbidden to take out from his private domain to a shared domain until the members of the shared domain make an eruv among themselves.

This law applies even according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon at the beginning of the chapter, who hold that roofs are one domain.

For even according to them, they are considered one domain only with regard to permitting the removal of an object from roof to roof. But to take an object from his house to his fellow’s roof is forbidden according to everyone until they make an eruv.

Therefore, if it happened that his roof was breached into his fellow’s roof, it is forbidden to take out from his house even to his own roof, since the breach causes his roof to be considered as though it were shared by him and his fellow.

B.

A large roof

[wide]

adjacent to a

roof

small

[narrow], and the large one extends beyond the small one on both sides—although they are open to one another—

the large one is permitted

to take out to it from the house!

Because we say concerning the walls of the house, which extend beyond the narrow house, “draw up the partition,” and they become like cheek-pieces for the “breach” of the large roof into the small one; and its breach into the small one is not considered a breach, but rather an entrance.

But the small roof, which has no cheek-pieces for its roof, has its entire side breached to the large roof; the designation “breach” applies to it there.

And therefore:

the small one is forbidden

to take out to it from the house.

[And at the end of the Mishna it will be explained why the cheek-pieces of the large roof do not help to make even the small roof like one that has cheek-pieces, although they are outside it.]

And as for why we do not say concerning the wall of the house between the two roofs, “draw up the partition,” with the result that the roofs are not open to one another—Rav and Shmuel disputed this, above, page 89b.

According to Rav: because it is a partition that is not discernible to those standing on the roof, and therefore we do not say concerning it, “draw up the partition.”

According to Shmuel: because it is a trampled partition, for the case is where there are dwellers on this roof and on that roof who pass from here to there, and trample upon and nullify the imaginary partition of “draw up the partition.”

C. And likewise

a large courtyard

[wide]

that was breached into a small one

[narrow], and the breach was across the entire width of the small courtyard, while the partition of the large one remained extending beyond the small one on both sides—

the large one is permitted

to take out to it from the house [and if it is a courtyard of many, they are permitted specifically if they made an eruv], since cheek-pieces remained for it on its sides.

And the small one is forbidden,

since with regard to the small one, for which no cheek-pieces remained, it is a “breach,” and the members of the large courtyard forbid the members of the small courtyard to carry, since with regard to the small one, their courtyard is a shared courtyard with the large courtyard, because the small courtyard is breached in its entirety into the large courtyard.

And therefore the small one is forbidden—

because it is like the entrance of the large one!

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna the laws of adjacent roofs and courtyards, each law separately.

And we raised a question about it:

Why does he need

the tanna of the Mishna

to teach two,

to repeat in doubled form the laws of a roof and a courtyard, when he could teach them briefly as one general rule?! And we answer:

For Rav—

who ordinarily holds that concerning partitions that are not discernible we do not say “draw up the partition”—for this reason he taught both, to teach:

a roof analogous to a courtyard.

Just as a courtyard

speaks of a case where

the partition is discernible, so too a roof

will not permit the large roof for carrying, except where

the partition is discernible,

where the partitions surrounding the roof are discernible to those standing on the roof, for the roof does not project beyond the width of the house below.

But if its partitions are not discernible, carrying four cubits throughout it is forbidden, since it is a domain without partitions—that is, a karmelit—because it is impossible to say “draw up the partition,” according to Rav.

And according to Shmuel—

who disagrees ordinarily and holds that even concerning partitions that are not discernible we say “draw up the partition”—for this reason he taught a roof and a courtyard, to teach:

a roof analogous to a courtyard.

Just as a courtyard

speaks of a case

where the many trample it,

those who pass between courtyard and courtyard,

so too a roof—

this matter, that the small one is not permitted with the walls of the house separating between house and house—speaks of a case

where the many trample it,

and therefore it is not a partition to separate between the roofs.

Rabba, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabba bar Rav Hanan were sitting.

And Abaye was sitting with them.

And they sat and said: Learn from the Mishna

which teaches in it: “because it is like the entrance of the large one.” Evidently, the whole of it—the small courtyard—is made like one entrance of the large one [Rashi]:

The dwellers of

the courtyard

large

are considered as though they “rule”

over the small one,

and draw it toward themselves.

And the dwellers of the small one do not “rule”

over

the large one. Rather, we consider it as though the entire small courtyard were inside the large courtyard, just as the entrance is part of the large one; but we do not consider the large one as though it were in the small one.

With regard to kilayim.

How,

in what matter does this principle find expression?

With regard to kilayim.

For if it happened that he planted

vines in the

courtyard

large

[and he is permitted to distance himself within the large courtyard four cubits from the vines and sow grain, and this does not constitute kilayim]—

it is forbidden

for him

to sow the small one

with grain, when it is breached in the manner of our Mishna, if there are not four cubits from the place where the vines were planted to the entrance of the large one, even though there are four cubits to the place where the grain is sown [Ritba].

And if he sowed

without distancing four cubits from the entrance of the large one,

the seeds

of the grain

are forbidden

because of kilayim of a vineyard! Since with regard to the small courtyard, in which the seeds are located, the matter is considered as though they were sown as kilayim with the vines in the large one.