Eruvin 93b — the Talmud in English

A. Just as in the case of two courtyards between which there is a partition ten handbreadths high, the residents of the two courtyards establish two separate eruvin in order to permit each courtyard for itself, and they do not establish one eruv to permit carrying from a house in this courtyard to the other courtyard, so too, if the floor of one courtyard was higher than that of the other by ten handbreadths, they establish two separate eruvin, and they do not establish one.

The elevated place is called “gidud,” which is an expression meaning “edge,” as Rashi wrote above, on folio 6a; that is, its edge is higher than that of the other.

B. However, if the courtyards were separated from one another by a

gidud

that was

five

handbreadths high [so that the floor of one of the courtyards was five handbreadths higher than that of the other],

and

in addition to the gidud there was

a partition

of

five

handbreadths—

the height of the gidud and the partition are not combined

the height of the gidud and the partition to complete the measure of a partition, which is ten handbreadths [and the law of the courtyards will be explained shortly],

unless

the height of the partition is

either entirely in the gidud or entirely in the partition.

Meitivi

against Rav Hisda:

Two courtyards,

whose floor of one courtyard

this

was higher

than

the floor of the courtyard

this.

And

the courtyard

above was higher than the lower one by ten handbreadths.

Or if there was in it

in the upper one

a five-handbreadth gidud

handbreadths

and a five-handbreadth partition

handbreadths—

they establish two, and they do not establish one.

For there is a partition without an opening between them, formed by combining a five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition.

If the partition was of a measure

less than this—

they establish one!

For they are breached toward one another, since there is not a partition of ten between them.

and they do not establish two.

And let this beraita pose a difficulty to Rav Hisda, for it is explicitly stated in it that a five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition are combined?!

He said,

explaining:

Rava: Rav Hisda concedes

that the gidud and the partition are combined

with regard to

the

lower courtyard.

That is, with regard to the lower courtyard, we consider the two courtyards separated from one another by a partition,

since

it

sees

from the surface of its floor

the face of

the height of a partition of

ten

handbreadths.

That is, since for a person standing in the lower courtyard there is a recognizable partition of ten handbreadths, and he does not see it as a partition of five placed upon a gidud of five.

And likewise, when it is all gidud, it is considered a recognizable partition with regard to both of them, since the upper courtyard uses its courtyard up to its edge, and sees itself as higher than the other by ten handbreadths.

But with regard to the upper courtyard, when half of the partition is in the gidud and half in the partition, a partition of ten is not recognizable to the upper one. Therefore, with regard to the upper one, it is not considered a partition.

And the law of these two courtyards is:

The lower one establishes an eruv for itself, and the upper one does not prohibit it, since the lower one is separated from the upper one.

But the upper one, which does not have a partition with regard to it, is considered breached toward the lower one, and the residents of the lower one prohibit it.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rava’s explanation: surely it is proven in the beraita that even with regard to the upper one the gidud and the partition are combined.

For

if so—

as Rav Hisda said, that it is a partition only with regard to the lower one, and not with regard to the upper one—the author of the beraita should have stated as follows:

The lower one

which has a separating partition with regard to it—

should establish two!

That is, it should establish an eruv for itself, since the other one does not prohibit it.

and it should not establish one,

since there is no opening between them through which they could establish one together.

But

the upper one,

which does not have a separating partition with regard to it,

should not establish an eruv—

not one,

since it cannot establish an eruv with the residents of the lower one, because for this matter it is sufficient that with regard to the lower one there is a partition without an opening, separating them and preventing their establishing an eruv together.

and it should not

the upper one establish even

two.

That is, it should not establish an eruv for itself, since the lower one prohibits it, for with regard to the upper one there is no separating partition.

And since the beraita does not teach this, but rather teaches: “they establish two,” it follows that even the upper one establishes an eruv for itself?!

He said,

explaining:

Rabba bar Rav Ulla:

The author of the beraita is saying this: or if, at the “opening of the upper one,” there is a five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition, they establish two and do not establish one [Gaon Yaakov].

That is, the partition was not five handbreadths high [only] across the entire gidud, but was only along ten cubits, the measure of an “opening.”

And it is speaking

of a case in which

on the two sides of the opening

there was an enclosing partition

[from the expression “gיפופים,” which are the doorposts of the opening] with an ordinary partition, ten handbreadths high,

up to

those

ten cubits.

And now it is not difficult why the lower one does not prohibit the upper one. For even if we remove those ten cubits that consist of a gidud of five and a partition of five, there is an ordinary partition on the sides, ten high. And although it has an opening, it separates between the upper and the lower, and the upper one is not prohibited.

Therefore the beraita teaches: if they wish, “they establish two,” that is, each one for itself, since with regard to both of them there is a partition: with regard to the upper one, a partition with an “opening,” and with regard to the lower one, a closed partition.

And those five handbreadths upon the gidud accomplish that “they do not establish one,” for those five handbreadths complete, with regard to the lower one, a partition ten high, and it “closes” the opening between them; therefore they cannot establish an eruv together.

And we raise an objection to this:

If so—

as you establish the beraita, that it had a partition of five only at the place of the opening—

say the latter clause

of the beraita, which teaches: or if there is in it—in the opening of the upper one—a five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition, they establish two and do not establish one.

Less than this

than a height of ten handbreadths at the place where the gidud and the partition combine to reach ten—

they establish one and do not establish two.

Since there is no partition of ten between them, and they are considered breached toward one another.

And according to your words it is difficult: why do they not establish two when at the opening of the upper one there is no combination reaching ten handbreadths?

But

if it wishes

each of the courtyards] to establish

one—

let it establish one!

Since there is an “opening” with regard to both of them, because the partition is not ten high at the place of the combination, and it is considered as though it were absent.

And

if it wishes

to establish

two—

also

let it establish!

For they are not breached toward one another, since the enclosing parts of the partition, ten high, separate between them. And although it is “open” in its middle, they can still establish two!

He said,

explaining:

Rabba, son of Rava:

The beraita is speaking of

a case in which the lower courtyard was breached in its entirety toward the upper one.

That is, the lower one was a small [narrow] courtyard adjoining a large [wide] one, and that partition which combined with the gidud extended across the entire width of the small one.

And it follows that when the partition and the gidud are insufficient to complete the measure of a partition, the lower one is considered breached in its entirety.

And we consider the lower one as a courtyard breached in its entirety toward the upper one, and the upper one—which has enclosing parts of ten—as separated from the lower one by a partition that has an opening, as we said in our Mishna [above, folio 92a].

Therefore, if the gidud and the partition combine to the measure of a partition, they establish two, since with regard to the lower one the gidud and the partition between it and the upper one combine to make it like a separate courtyard. And with regard to the upper one, the enclosing parts make it a separate courtyard.

And they do not establish one, because with regard to the lower one it is a closed partition.

But if the combination of the gidud and the partition is less than the measure of ten of a partition—so that the lower one is as though it were breached in its entirety toward the upper one—the lower one cannot establish an eruv by itself.

Therefore, they establish one, whichever way one considers it: with regard to the lower one, the two of them are like one courtyard, and with regard to the upper one, there are here two courtyards with a partition containing an opening between them, which establish one if they wish.

But they do not establish two; that is, the lower one cannot establish an eruv for itself, because it is breached toward the upper one.

And we raise an objection to this explanation: this is not sufficient to explain the difficulty.

For it follows from the beraita, since it teaches “and they do not establish two,” that when it is less than this, even the upper one cannot establish an eruv for itself.

And it is still difficult:

If so—

that the partition of five was only at the place of the opening—the author of the beraita should have stated as follows:

The lower one,

which is breached in its entirety,

one, let it establish.

Two—

that is, for itself—

it should not establish.

But

the upper one—

if it wishes

to establish

two, let it establish.

For it is separated from the lower one by a partition. And

if it wishes

to establish

one, let it establish.

Since with regard to the lower one it is one courtyard, and with regard to the upper one there are two courtyards with an opening between them, and in either case they establish one.

And why does the beraita teach that even the upper one does not establish an eruv for itself?!

And we answer:

Indeed, it is so,

that if the upper one wished to establish an eruv for itself, it does so!

And

when it teaches: “less than this, they establish one and do not establish two”

it refers to the lower one.

For it cannot establish an eruv except together with the upper one, so that the upper one should not prohibit it; but the upper one, if it wishes, establishes an eruv for itself, and the lower one is prohibited.

Marimar expounded: A five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition

are combined

both with regard to the lower one and with regard to the upper one.

Ravina found Rav Aha, son of Rava.

He said,

he asked

him,

Ravina:

Did Ameimar say anything concerning a five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition [Bach]?

Rav Aha said to him

Rav Aha to Ravina:

No,

Ameimar did not say anything about it, not at all!

And we conclude:

And the halakha is: a five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition

are combined!

Rav Hoshaya asked: Residents who come

to a courtyard

on Shabbat.

For example: two courtyards that each established an eruv for itself, and the wall between them fell, so that now it is considered as though residents were added to the courtyard, since everything became like one courtyard—

what is the law: do they prohibit

these upon those, like other two courtyards breached toward one another, even though for part of Shabbat each courtyard was separate? [And this matter was already mentioned above, on folio 79b.]

Rav Hinnana said [Bach]:

Come and hear

from our Mishna:

A large courtyard that was breached toward a small one: the large one is permitted and the small one is prohibited, because it is like the opening of the large one!

And it entered our minds that it was breached on Shabbat [for it is taught without qualification, implying even on Shabbat—Ritba], and nevertheless the small one is prohibited because of the residents of the large one who were added to it. We see, then, that even on Shabbat they prohibit.

He said,

rejecting it:

Rabba: Say,

that the Mishna is speaking of a case in which

it was breached while it was still day.

Abaye said to Rabba:

to Rabba:

Let my master not say

Rabba:

“Say

that it was breached while it was still day,” for this implies that this is what you are saying: from this Mishna you cannot resolve it, because it is “possible” that it is speaking of a breach that occurred while it was still day, but in any event it has not emerged from the realm of doubt.

Rather

this is what you ought to say:

certainly,

and inevitably, it is a case in which

it was breached while it was still day

that the Mishna is speaking!

For you are the one who said

a matter from which it can be proven that residents who come on Shabbat prohibit, and there is no doubt at all.

For you said:

“I asked”

[as above, folio 17a: I asked]

him of Rav Huna, and

he, Rav Huna,

“I asked Rav Judah: If one established an eruv”

a resident of one courtyard with the courtyard adjoining it

through

[relying upon]

the opening

that was in the partition between them,

and the opening became blocked

on Shabbat, or

he established an eruv through

the

window

which also is like an opening between two courtyards, to permit establishing an eruv together—

and the window became blocked

on Shabbat—

what is the law,

that they should be permitted to carry from this one to that one through holes [that do not have the measure of a window, which is four by four handbreadths] throughout the entire Shabbat?

Do we say: since it was permitted for part of Shabbat, it was permitted for all of it, or not?

And he said to me: Shabbat, since it was permitted

it was permitted!

And here too, with regard to residents who come on Shabbat, they do not prohibit one another from carrying, each one in its courtyard, since they were permitted in this respect for part of Shabbat, and since it was permitted, it was permitted!

It was stated:

A. Two courtyards that did not establish an eruv, each one for itself, and did not establish an eruv between them: it is permitted to carry from this one to that one vessels that spent Shabbat in the courtyard, because the courtyards are one domain.

And it is prohibited to carry from a house in this courtyard to the other courtyard. And even vessels that spent Shabbat in a house and went out to the courtyard are prohibited to carry from this one to that one [as was explained in the Mishna at the beginning of our chapter].

B. If each courtyard established an eruv for itself, Rav and Samuel disputed the matter [above, folio 91a], whether it is permitted to carry from courtyard to courtyard vessels that spent Shabbat within the courtyard.

]According to Rav, it is prohibited [since it is common for there to be in the courtyard vessels that spent Shabbat in the house—for they established an eruv in order to take them from their houses to the courtyard—and we decree lest one take those vessels as well to his fellow’s courtyard].

And according to Samuel, it is permitted.

C. A wall between two courtyards—each of which established an eruv for itself, and they did not establish an eruv between them—which fell while it was still day.

According to Rav, it is prohibited to carry from courtyard to courtyard vessels that spent Shabbat in the courtyard. It follows that each courtyard is a domain breached in its entirety toward a place forbidden to it, since it is prohibited to carry from one to the other; it is like a karmelit, and one may carry in it even vessels that spent Shabbat in the courtyard only within four cubits.

But according to Samuel, who permits carrying from one courtyard to the other vessels that spent Shabbat in the courtyard, the courtyard is not prohibited with regard to carrying vessels that spent Shabbat in the courtyard.

D.

A wall between two courtyards

each of which established an eruv for itself, and they did not establish an eruv between them—

that fell

on Shabbat:

Rav said:

Although at the beginning of Shabbat it was permitted to carry all the vessels in each courtyard separately, now that the wall between them has fallen—

one may carry in it only within four cubits,

even vessels that spent Shabbat in the courtyard [and its law is as it would be if the wall had fallen while it was still day].

For Rav holds that we do not say: since Shabbat was permitted, it was permitted.

And Samuel said: