Eruvin 92b — the Talmud in English

But the

vines

in the large courtyard

are permitted.

According to the principle that “the inhabitants of the small courtyard do not rule over the large courtyard.”

And likewise, if he planted

vines in the small courtyard—

it is permitted to sow the large courtyard

with grain. For with regard to the large courtyard, it is considered an “opening,” and an opening is like a partition. And we learned in Kilayim: If there was a fence between a vineyard and a grain field, this one may adjoin his vineyard to the fence on this side, and that one may adjoin his seeds to the fence on that side, since the partition separates.

And likewise with regard to receiving the get in the courtyard of the woman who is being divorced. For by this same reasoning, the small courtyard is considered like the opening of the large one, and as though it is within the large one, whereas the large courtyard is considered separated by a partition and an opening from the small one—the large and small courtyards of a woman [who can acquire the get by the law of a “courtyard”], according to the one who says in tractate Gittin that a woman is not divorced when her husband places the get in her courtyard unless she is standing inside her courtyard: If

the woman is in the

courtyard

large and

her husband gave her

a get in the

courtyard

small,

she

is divorced

by this get, “for she is like one standing in the small courtyard, since the entire small courtyard belongs to the large one” [Rashi].

But if

the woman is in the small courtyard, and the get is in the large courtyard—she

is not divorced,

“for the large one does not follow the small one” [Rashi].

And likewise:

a congregation,

praying

in a

courtyard

large, and a prayer leader

standing

in the small one—they

fulfill their obligation,

since “the prayer leader who is in the small one belongs here [in the large one].”

But if

the congregation is in the small one and the prayer leader is in the large one—they

do not fulfill their obligation,

because the partition separates them. And one cannot say: Let us assign the congregation in the small one to the congregation in the large one, “for the majority is not assigned to one.”

And likewise:

nine

praying

in a

courtyard

large, and one individual

praying

in the small one,

they join for the quorum, for we assign him to the majority in the large one, and it is considered communal prayer.

But

nine in the small one,

who are the majority,

and one in the large one,

do not join, because the partition separates.

And they are not to be considered as situated in the large one, for we do not assign the majority to one. And likewise with regard to reciting the Shema in a place where there is excrement.

If there was

excrement in the

courtyard

large—it is

forbidden to recite the Shema in the small one [and even if he distances himself four cubits, the measure of distancing from excrement. But if the excrement was four cubits distant from the opening of the large one, it is permitted, as we said with regard to kilayim, Ritba].

But

But

excrement in the small one—it is

permitted to recite the Shema in the large one,

even without distancing four cubits [Shulchan Arukh], because the partition separates.

And now we return to what we said with regard to kilayim: Even though in general, whenever one distances four cubits from the vineyard and sows, there is no kilayim. Nevertheless, if he sowed in the small courtyard, even if there are more than four cubits between the seeds and the vineyard, the seeds become forbidden.

Said

Abaye, puzzled

to them—

to Rabbah, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabbah bar Rav Hanan—

Abaye,

who was sitting with them:

If so, we have found a partition for prohibition!

For if there were no partition

at all between the large and the small courtyards, and the entire courtyard were one,

(he distances four cubits

and—the Vilna Gaon erased it—

and sows

if there are at least four cubits between them.

But now—

since there is a partition in the large one—

the entire small one is forbidden,

for we assign all of it to the large one, and it follows that the partition in the large one causes prohibition?!

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: And

why

have we not found a partition for prohibition?

But we learned

in our Mishna:

A large courtyard that was breached into a small one—the large one is permitted and the small one is forbidden, because it is like the opening of the large one!

But if

he made additional partitions and

leveled

by means of them

its side-walls

of the large one—that is, he narrowed the width of the large courtyard by making parallel partitions inside the large one, and “removed” the side-walls outside it,

the large one is also forbidden,

for now, once its side-walls have been nullified, it is completely open to the small one. And it follows that the partitions by which he leveled the side-walls cause prohibition to the large one—thus we have found a partition for prohibition?!

He said to him,

Abaye to Rabbi Zeira: It is not comparable!

There,

when he leveled its side-walls,

the removal of the partitions

[the side-walls]

is

the cause, and for that reason they became forbidden, and not because of the addition of the partitions. But here, the addition of the partition between the large and small courtyards caused prohibition to the small courtyard because of the surplus partition.

Rava said to Abaye: And

why

have we not found a partition for prohibition?!

But it was stated: