ורבי יוחנן אמר אלו מעלין מכאן ואוכלין ואלו מעלין מכאן ואוכלין
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: These residents of one courtyard may raise food from their courtyard to the top of the wall and eat it there, and they may lower the food from the wall to the courtyard; and those residents of the other courtyard may raise food from their courtyard and eat it there, and they may lower the food from the wall to the courtyard. This is because the wall is considered nonexistent, and its domain is viewed as part of the two courtyards.
תנן אלו עולין מכאן ואוכלין ואלו עולין מכאן ואוכלין עולין אין מעלין לא
We learned in the mishna: If there was produce on top of the wall, these residents of one courtyard may ascend from this side and eat from it, and those residents of the other courtyard may ascend from that side and eat from it. The Gemara infers from this: To ascend, yes, it is permitted, but to raise food from the courtyard to the top of the wall, no, it is not permitted. This presents a challenge to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion.
הכי קאמר יש בו ארבעה על ארבעה עולין אין מעלין לא אין בו ארבעה על ארבעה מעלין נמי
The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: If the top of the wall between the two courtyards is four by four handbreadths, then to ascend, yes, it is permitted. However, to raise food, no, it is prohibited, because in that case the top of the wall is considered a domain in its own right. But if it is not four by four handbreadths, it is an exempt domain, and therefore they may raise their food onto the wall as well.
ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן מקום שאין בו ארבעה על ארבעה מותר לבני רשות הרבים ולבני רשות היחיד לכתף עליו ובלבד שלא יחליפו
And Rabbi Yoḥanan followed his line of reasoning in this regard, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a place that does not have an area of four by four handbreadths and is situated between a public and a private domain, it is permissible for both the people in the public domain and for the people in the private domain to adjust the burden on their shoulders upon it, provided they do not exchange objects between them from one domain to the other domain. This demonstrates that in the case of an exempt domain, Rabbi Yoḥanan was not concerned that one might carry from one domain to another, and permitted members of both domains to use it.
ורב לית ליה דרב דימי אי ברשויות דאורייתא הכי נמי
The Gemara asks: And does Rav, who prohibits carrying in that case even as much as a hair’s breadth, not accept the opinion of Rav Dimi in this matter? The Gemara answers: If this referred to an exempt domain situated between two domains by Torah law, i.e., between a public and a private domain, so too, Rav would agree that the members of both domains may adjust their burdens there.
הכא במאי עסקינן ברשויות דרבנן וחכמים עשו חיזוק לדבריהם יותר משל תורה
However, with what are we dealing here, in the case of the wall? We are dealing with domains by rabbinic law, and the Sages reinforced their statements even more than those of the Torah. Due to their severity, Torah laws are generally observed. Therefore, there is no need to impose decrees and enactments in order to preserve them. The same is not true of rabbinic decrees; if people ignore the preventive measures, they might come to violate the entire enactment.
אמר רבה (אמר) רב הונא אמר רב נחמן כותל שבין שתי חצירות צידו אחד גבוה עשרה טפחים וצידו אחד שוה לארץ נותנין אותו לזה ששוה לארץ
Rabba said that Rav Huna said that Rav Naḥman said: With regard to a wall that is between two courtyards, and one side facing one courtyard is ten handbreadths high, and the other side is level with the ground of the second courtyard, i.e., the second courtyard is built on a higher plane, so that the wall is less than ten handbreadths above its floor, in this case the Sages grant the use of the top of the wall on Shabbat only to the courtyard in which the wall is level with the ground.
משום דהוה לזה תשמישו בנחת ולזה תשמישו בקשה וכל לזה בנחת ולזה בקשה נותנין אותו לזה שתשמישו בנחת
The reason is because the use of the wall is convenient for one side, i.e., the higher courtyard, but difficult for the other side. The wall can be used more conveniently by the residents of the higher courtyard. And the principle is that in any case with regard to Shabbat where an action is convenient for one party and difficult for another, the Sages grant it to the one for whom its use is convenient.
אמר רב שיזבי אמר רב נחמן חריץ שבין שתי חצירות צידו אחד עמוק עשרה וצידו אחד שוה לארץ נותנין אותו לזה ששוה לארץ משום דהוה ליה לזה תשמישו בנחת ולזה תשמישו בקשה וכו׳
Similarly, Rav Sheizvi said that Rav Naḥman said: In the case of a ditch between two courtyards, one side of which is ten handbreadths deep, and the other side of which is level with the ground of the second courtyard, i.e., is less than ten handbreadths below it, the Sages grant the use of the ditch to the courtyard in which the ditch is level with the ground. This is because it is a case in which the use of the ditch is convenient for one side, where it is close to level with the ground, and difficult for the other, where the ditch is ten handbreadths deep, and whenever use of an item is convenient for one party and inconvenient for another, it is granted to the one for whom it is convenient.
וצריכי דאי אשמעינן כותל משום דבגובהא משתמשי אינשי אבל חריץ בעומקא לא משתמשי אינשי אימא לא
The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to cite both of these cases, as it would not have been possible to learn one from the other, since, had Rav Naḥman taught us only the case with regard to a wall, one could have said that the halakha applies only in that case, because people use an elevated surface. Even for the residents of the lower courtyard, it is relatively easy to use this wall. However, with regard to a ditch, people do not use a deep surface, as it is troublesome to bend down and place an item in a ditch. In that case, one might say that it may not be used by the residents of either courtyard.
ואי אשמעינן בחריץ משום דלא בעיתא תשמישתא אבל כותל דבעיתא תשמישתא אימא לא צריכא
And likewise, had he taught us only the case with regard to a ditch, one could have said that the halakha applies only in that case, because its use does not cause worry, as anything placed in the ditch is protected. However, with regard to a wall, the use of which causes worry that the objects placed there are liable to fall, one might say that it may not be used by the residents of either courtyard. Therefore, it was necessary to state both of these rulings.
בא למעטו אם יש במיעוטו ארבעה מותר להשתמש בכל הכותל כולו ואם לאו אין משתמש אלא כנגד המיעוט
With regard to a wall between two courtyards, the Gemara states: If one comes to diminish the height of the wall by placing a stone next to it, or by building a platform in order to permit its use or to utilize it as a passageway to another courtyard, the following distinction applies: If the diminished section is at least four handbreadths wide, it is permitted to use the entire wall. This area has the status of an entrance and the two courtyards are considered one, which renders the entire wall permitted. However, if the diminished section is not at least four handbreadths wide, one may use only the area of the wall opposite the diminished section, but no more.
מה נפשך אי אהני מעוטא בכוליה כותל לישתמש אי לא אהני אפילו כנגד המיעוט נמי לא אמר רבינא כגון שעקר חוליא מראשו
The Gemara challenges this ruling: Whichever way you look at it, this ruling is difficult. If the diminishing was effective, although it extends less than four handbreadths, let him use the entire wall; and if the diminishing was not effective, even the area corresponding to the diminished section should also not be permitted for use, as this section is insignificant. Ravina said: Here, it refers to a case where one removed a segment of stone from the top of the wall. Since the wall is actually less than ten handbreadths high along that section, it is fit for use as is an opening in the wall.
אמר רב יחיאל כפה ספל ממעט
Rav Yeḥiel said: If one overturned a basin and placed it next to a wall, such that the wall is no longer ten handbreadths high, it effectively diminishes the height of the wall.
ואמאי דבר הניטל בשבת הוא ודבר הניטל בשבת אינו ממעט לא צריכא דחבריה בארעא
The Gemara asks: And why should this be so? Isn’t this basin an item that may be moved on Shabbat, i.e., something that one is permitted to handle? And the principle is that an item that may be moved on Shabbat does not diminish a wall. Since it can be removed at any moment on Shabbat, such an object cannot be viewed as a permanent part of the wall. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary; this basin can be considered a permanent part of the wall in a case where he attached the basin to the ground by covering it with soil. The basin may then not be moved on Shabbat due to the prohibition of handling soil.
וכי חבריה בארעא מאי הוי והא תניא פגה שהטמינה בתבן וחררה שהטמינה בגחלים אם מגולה מקצתה נטלת בשבת
The Gemara challenges this explanation: And if one attached the basin to the ground, what of it? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to an unripe fig that one buried in straw intended for kindling, so that it would ripen, or a cake that one buried in coals before Shabbat, and the coals were extinguished, if part of either one is visible, it may be moved on Shabbat. This is not prohibited, although as a result one will move the straw or the coals, which are set aside.
הכא במאי עסקינן דאית ליה אוגניים
The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the top of the basin has a rim that is fully buried in the ground, so that removing the basin will dislodge the earth under which it is buried in a manner similar to digging, which is prohibited on Shabbat.
וכי אית ליה אוגניים מאי הוי והתנן הטומן לפת וצנון תחת הגפן בזמן
The Gemara further challenges this explanation: And if the basin has a rim, what of it? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to one who buries a turnip or a radish in the ground beneath a vine for safekeeping, when