Eruvin 92b (צב:) — the Talmud in English

But the

vines

in the larger courtyard are

permitted.

This follows the principle that “the inhabitants of the smaller courtyard do not govern the larger courtyard.”

And likewise, if he planted

vines in the smaller courtyard—

it is permitted to sow the larger courtyard

with grain. For with regard to the larger courtyard, it is considered an “entrance,” and an entrance functions as a partition. And we learned in Kilayim: If there was a fence between a vineyard and a grain field, the owner of this one may adjoin his vineyard to the fence on this side, and the owner of that one may adjoin his grain to the fence on that side, because the partition separates them.

And likewise with regard to receiving the get in the courtyard of a woman who is being divorced. For by this same reasoning, the smaller courtyard is considered the entrance of the larger one, as though it were inside the larger courtyard, whereas the larger courtyard is considered separated from the smaller one by a partition and an entrance. Regarding the larger and smaller courtyards of a woman—who can acquire a get through 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 of the

larger one, and

her husband gives her a

get in the

courtyard of the

smaller one,

she is

divorced

with this get, “for she is considered as standing in the smaller courtyard, since the entire smaller courtyard belongs in relation to the larger one” [Rashi].

But if

the woman is in the smaller courtyard, and the get is in the larger courtyard—she

is not divorced,

“for the larger courtyard does not follow the smaller one” [Rashi].

And likewise:

a congregation

praying

in a

courtyard

that is large, while the prayer leader

is standing

in the smaller one—they

fulfill their obligation,

since “the prayer leader who is in the smaller courtyard belongs here [in the larger one].”

But if

the congregation is in the smaller courtyard and the prayer leader is in the larger one—they

do not fulfill their obligation,

because the partition separates them. One cannot say: Let us associate the congregation in the smaller courtyard with the congregation in the larger one, “for the majority cannot be associated with the one.”

And likewise:

nine

people praying

in a

courtyard

that is large, while one

is praying

in the smaller one,

they join to form the quorum, for we associate him with the majority in the larger courtyard, and it is considered communal prayer.

But

nine in the smaller courtyard,

who constitute the majority,

and one in the larger courtyard

do not join, because the partition separates them.

They cannot be considered as being in the larger courtyard, since we do not associate the majority with the one. And likewise with regard to reciting the Shema in a place where there is excrement.

If there was

excrement in

the courtyard of the

larger one—it

is forbidden to recite the Shema in the smaller one

[even if he distances himself four cubits, the measure of distancing from excrement. But if the excrement was four cubits distant from the entrance of the larger courtyard, it is permitted, as we said with regard to kilayim, Ritva].

But

excrement in the smaller courtyard—it

is permitted to recite the Shema in the larger one,

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

Now we return to what we said with regard to kilayim: Although generally, if one distances four cubits from a vineyard and sows, there is no violation of kilayim, nevertheless, if he sowed in the smaller courtyard, the seeds become forbidden even if there are more than four cubits between the seeds and the vineyard.

Said

Abaye, who

said

to Rabba, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabba bar Rav Hanan,

challenged

who was sitting with them:

If so, we find a partition that causes prohibition!

For were there no partition

at all between the larger and smaller courtyards, and the entire courtyard were one,

(distances four cubits

and—the Gra erased it]

he may sow,

provided that there are four cubits between them.

But now,

since there is a partition in the larger courtyard,

the entire smaller courtyard is forbidden,

for we associate all of it with the larger courtyard, and it turns out that the partition in the larger courtyard causes the prohibition?!

Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: And

what,

do we not find a partition that causes prohibition?

But did we not learn

in our Mishna:

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

But if

he made additional partitions and

aligned

with them

the side walls

of the larger courtyard—that is, he narrowed the width of the larger courtyard by making parallel partitions inside the larger one, thereby “removing” the side walls outside it—,

the larger courtyard is also forbidden,

for now that its side walls have been nullified, it is entirely open to the smaller courtyard. It follows that the partitions with which he aligned the side walls cause the larger courtyard to become forbidden; thus, we do find a partition that causes prohibition?!

Abaye said

to Rabbi Zeira: That is not comparable!

There,

when he aligned its side walls,

the removal of the partitions

of the side walls

is what occurred,

and that is why it became forbidden, not because of the addition of the partitions. But here, the addition of the partition between the larger and smaller courtyards caused the smaller courtyard to become forbidden because of the additional partition.

Rava said to Abaye: And

what,

do we not find a partition that causes prohibition?!

But it was stated: