Eruvin 93b (צג:) — the Talmud in English

1. Just as in the case of two courtyards between which there is a partition ten handbreadths high, the inhabitants of the two courtyards establish two separate eruvin in order to permit carrying within each courtyard, but they may not establish one eruv to permit carrying from a house in one courtyard to the other courtyard; so too, if the ground of one courtyard is ten handbreadths higher than that of the other, they establish two separate eruvin and may not establish one.

The elevated area is called a gidud, a term meaning “edge.” As Rashi wrote above, on page 6a, it means: its edge is higher than that of the other courtyard.

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

gidud

that was

five

handbreadths high [that is, the ground of one courtyard was five handbreadths higher than that of the other],

and

on top of the gidud there was an additional

partition

of

five

handbreadths,

the heights may not be combined

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

until the

height of the partition is

either entirely in the gidud or entirely in the partition.

The beraita raises an objection

to Rav Ḥisda:

Two courtyards,

the ground of

one

courtyard being higher

than

the ground of

the other.

And

if the

upper courtyard was ten handbreadths higher than the lower one,

or if it had

in the upper courtyard

a five-handbreadth gidud

handbreadths high

and a five-handbreadth partition

high,

they establish two eruvin and may not establish one.

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

If the partition was

less than this

they establish one eruv!

For they are open to one another, since there is no ten-handbreadth partition between them.

But they may not establish two eruvin.

The beraita should therefore pose a difficulty to Rav Ḥisda, since it explicitly states that a five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition are combined?!

Rava said—

he explains:

Rav Ḥisda agrees

that a gidud and a partition are combined

with

regard to the

lower courtyard.

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

since

it

sees

from the level of its ground

the face of

a partition

ten

handbreadths high.

That is, since a person standing in the lower courtyard encounters a conspicuous partition ten handbreadths high, he does not regard it as a five-handbreadth partition placed upon a five-handbreadth gidud.

Likewise, when the entire height is in the gidud, it is considered a conspicuous partition with regard to both courtyards, since the upper courtyard uses its courtyard up to its edge and regards itself as ten handbreadths higher than the other courtyard.

But with regard to the upper courtyard, when half the partition is in the gidud and half in the partition, a ten-handbreadth partition is not conspicuous to the upper courtyard. Therefore, with regard to the upper courtyard, it is not considered a partition.

The law of these two courtyards is:

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

The upper courtyard, however, since it has no partition with regard to itself, is considered open to the lower courtyard, and the inhabitants of the lower courtyard prohibit it.

The Gemara challenges Rava’s explanation: It is evident from the beraita that even with regard to the upper courtyard, the gidud and the partition are combined.

For

if so—as Rav Ḥisda said, that it is considered a partition only with regard to the lower courtyard and not with regard to the upper one—the tanna of the beraita should have stated as follows:

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 courtyard,

which has a separating partition with regard to itself,

establishes two eruvin—that is, each courtyard establishes an eruv for itself, since the other courtyard does not prohibit it.

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

And it may not establish one,

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

But

the upper courtyard,

which has no separating partition with regard to itself,

may not establish an eruv—

not one,

since it cannot establish an eruv with the inhabitants of the lower courtyard. For this purpose, it is sufficient that, with regard to the lower courtyard, there is a partition without an opening separating it from the upper courtyard and preventing them from establishing one joint eruv.

Nor

may the upper courtyard establish even

two eruvin.

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

And since the beraita did not state this, but instead stated: “They establish two,” it implies that even the upper courtyard may establish an eruv for itself?!

Rabbah bar Rav Ulla said—

he explains:

The tanna of the beraita means as follows: If there is, at the “opening of the upper courtyard,” a five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition, they establish two eruvin and may not establish one [Gaon Yaakov].

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

And it is discussing

a case where

on both sides of the opening

there were

enclosures [the term refers to the “enclosures” forming the doorposts of an opening], made of an ordinary partition ten handbreadths high,

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

up to

those

ten cubits.

Now there is no difficulty as to why the lower courtyard does not prohibit the upper one. For even if we remove those ten cubits consisting of a five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition, there is an ordinary partition ten handbreadths high on the sides. Although it contains an opening, it separates the upper courtyard from the lower one, and the upper courtyard is not rendered prohibited.

Therefore the beraita states: If they wish, “they establish two eruvin,” that is, each courtyard establishes an eruv for itself, since with regard to both courtyards there is a partition: with regard to the upper courtyard, a partition with an opening, and with regard to the lower courtyard, a solid partition.

Those five handbreadths on the gidud are effective in causing that “they may not establish one,” since those five handbreadths complete, with regard to the lower courtyard, a partition ten handbreadths high, and it “seals” the opening between them. Therefore they cannot establish one joint eruv.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this:

If so—as you interpret the beraita, that the five-handbreadth partition existed only at the opening—

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: It states: If there is—in the opening of the upper courtyard—a five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition, they establish two eruvin and may not establish one.

If it is less than this—

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

they establish one eruv and may not establish two.

Since there is no ten-handbreadth partition between them, they are considered open to one another.

According to your explanation, this is difficult: Why may they not establish two eruvin when the opening of the upper courtyard does not have a combined height of ten handbreadths?

But

if one wishes,

[either of the courtyards] to establish

one,

let it establish one!

Since there is an “opening” with regard to both of them, as the partition does not reach ten handbreadths at the place of the combination, and it is considered nonexistent.

And

if one wishes

to establish

two,

also

let it establish two!

For they are not open to one another, since the enclosures of the partition, ten handbreadths high, separate them. Even though it is “open” in the middle, they can still establish two eruvin!

Rabbah, son of Rava, said—

he explains:

The beraita is discussing a case where the lower courtyard was breached in its entirety toward the upper one.

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

Consequently, when the partition and gidud are insufficient to complete the measure of a partition, the lower courtyard is considered entirely breached toward the upper courtyard.

We therefore regard the lower courtyard as a courtyard entirely breached toward the upper one, while the upper courtyard—with its ten-handbreadth enclosures—is considered separated from the lower courtyard by a partition containing an opening, as we said in our Mishna [above, on page 92a].

Therefore, if the gidud and the partition combine to reach the measure of a partition, they establish two eruvin, since with regard to the lower courtyard, the gidud and partition between it and the upper courtyard combine to make it a separate courtyard. With regard to the upper courtyard, the enclosures render it a separate courtyard.

They may not establish one eruv, because with regard to the lower courtyard it is a solid partition.

But if the combination of the gidud and the partition is less than the measure of a ten-handbreadth partition—so that the lower courtyard is considered as though it were entirely breached toward the upper one—the lower courtyard cannot establish an eruv on its own.

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

But they may not establish two, meaning that the lower courtyard cannot establish an eruv for itself, since it is open toward the upper courtyard.

The Gemara challenges this explanation: This is still insufficient to resolve the difficulty.

For the beraita implies, by stating “they may not establish two,” that when it is less than this, even the upper courtyard cannot establish an eruv for itself.

The difficulty nevertheless remains:

For the beraita implies, by stating “they may not establish two,” that when the combined height is less than ten handbreadths, even the upper courtyard cannot establish an eruv for itself.

The difficulty therefore remains:

If so—that the five-handbreadth partition existed only at the opening—the tanna of the beraita should have stated as follows:

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 courtyard,

which is entirely breached, may establish

one, but may not establish two.

Two—

that is, for itself—

it may not establish.

But

the upper courtyard—

if it wishes

to establish

two, it may establish two.

For it is separated from the lower courtyard by a partition.

And

if it wishes

to establish

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

Why, then, does the beraita state that even the upper courtyard may not establish an eruv for itself?!

And we answer:

Indeed, if the upper courtyard wished to establish an eruv for itself, it could establish one!

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

And when it states:

“If it is less than this, they establish one eruv and may not establish two”—

it refers to the lower courtyard.

It cannot establish an eruv except together with the upper courtyard, so that the upper courtyard will not prohibit it; but if the upper courtyard wished, it could establish an eruv for itself, and the lower courtyard would remain prohibited.

Marimar taught: A five-handbreadth gidud and a five-handbreadth partition—

are combined

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

Ravina found Rav Aḥa, son of Rava.

He said—

he asked

him

Ravina asked: Did

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

He said to him

Rav Aḥa said to Ravina:

No,

Ameimar said nothing at all about it!

And we conclude:

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

are combined!

Rav Hoshaya raised a question: Residents who come

into a courtyard

on Shabbat.

For example: Two courtyards that each established an eruv for itself, after which the wall between them fell. It is now considered as though residents were added to the courtyard, since everything became one courtyard—

what is the law: do they prohibit

one another, as do two ordinary courtyards that are open to one another, even though during part of Shabbat each courtyard had been separate? [This matter was already mentioned above, on page 79b.]

Rav Ḥinnana said [Baḥ]:

Come and hear

from our Mishna:

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

And it was initially understood that it was breached on Shabbat [for the Mishna states this without qualification, implying that it applies even on Shabbat—Ritva], and nevertheless the small courtyard is prohibited because the residents of the large courtyard were added to it. We see, then, that even on Shabbat they prohibit one another.

Rabbah said—

he rejects this proof:

Say,

the Mishna is discussing a case in which it

was breached before nightfall.

Abaye said to Rabbah

:

Do not say

[Rabbah]:

“Say that it was breached before nightfall,” for that implies that this is what you mean: One cannot resolve the question from this Mishna, since it is “possible” that it was breached before nightfall; nevertheless, the matter remains uncertain.

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 should say:

this is what you ought to say:

Certainly, the Mishna must be discussing a case in which it

and inevitably, it is a case in which

was breached before nightfall!

that the Mishna is speaking!

For you are the one who said

a statement from which it can be proven that residents who come on Shabbat do prohibit one another, leaving no uncertainty at all.

For you said:

“I asked”—

[as above, on page 17a: I asked]

him, Rav Huna, and

he, Rav Huna,

asked Rav Yehuda: If one established an eruv—

an inhabitant of one courtyard with the adjacent courtyard—

through

the basis of

the opening

in the partition between them,

and the opening became sealed

on Shabbat; or if he

established an eruv through

the

the

window—which likewise functions as an opening between two courtyards, permitting them to establish one joint eruv—

and the window became sealed

on Shabbat,

what is

the law: are they permitted to carry from one courtyard to the other through holes [that are not the measure of a window, namely, four by four handbreadths] throughout Shabbat?

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

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

it remains permitted!

Here too, with regard to residents who come on Shabbat, they do not prohibit one another from carrying within each courtyard, since it was permitted for them during part of Shabbat; and since it was permitted, it remains permitted!

It was stated:

1. Two courtyards that did not each establish an eruv for itself and did not establish an eruv between them: it is permitted to carry from one to the other objects that remained in the courtyard throughout Shabbat, because the courtyards constitute one domain.

It is prohibited to carry from a house in one courtyard to the other courtyard. Even objects that remained in the house throughout Shabbat and were then taken out to the courtyard may not be carried from one courtyard to the other [as explained in the Mishna at the beginning of this chapter].

2. If each courtyard established an eruv for itself, Rav and Shmuel disagreed about the matter [above, on page 91a], whether it is permitted to carry from one courtyard to the other objects that remained in the courtyard throughout Shabbat.

According to Rav, it is prohibited [since it is common for objects that remained in the house throughout Shabbat to be present in the courtyard—for they established an eruv in order to take objects from their houses into the courtyard—and we decree lest one also take those objects into his fellow’s courtyard].

According to Shmuel, it is permitted.

3. The wall between two courtyards—each of which established an eruv for itself, but they did not establish an eruv between them—fell before nightfall.

According to Rav, it is prohibited to carry from one courtyard to the other objects that remained in the courtyard throughout Shabbat. Consequently, each courtyard is a domain that was entirely breached toward a place that is prohibited to it, and it is comparable to a karmelit. One may not carry in it even objects that remained in the courtyard throughout Shabbat, except within four cubits.

But according to Shmuel, who permits objects that remained in the courtyard throughout Shabbat to be carried from one courtyard to the other, the courtyard is not rendered prohibited for carrying objects that remained in the courtyard throughout Shabbat.

4.

The wall between two courtyards—

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

fell

on Shabbat:

Rav said:

Even though at the beginning of Shabbat it was permitted to carry all objects within each courtyard separately, now that the wall between them has fallen,

one may carry in it only within four cubits

even objects that remained in the courtyard throughout Shabbat [and this is its law if the wall fell before nightfall].

For Rav maintains that we do not say: Since Shabbat was permitted, it remains permitted.

And Shmuel said: