Eruvin 92aעירובין צ״ב א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 92a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
92aצ״ב א

מי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והא אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן כותל שבין שתי חצירות גבוה עשרה ורוחב ארבעה מערבין שנים ואין מערבין אחד היו בראשו פירות אלו עולין מכאן ואוכלים ואלו עולין מכאן ואוכלים ובלבד שלא יורידו למטה

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this, that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that all courtyards constitute a single domain, even if each courtyard established an independent eiruv? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned: With regard to a wall between two courtyards, ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, they establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard, but they do not establish one eiruv. If there was fruit atop the wall, these, the residents of one courtyard, may ascend from here and eat it, and those, the residents of the other courtyard, may ascend from there and eat it, provided that they do not take the fruit down from atop the wall to the courtyards. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, all the courtyards are considered a single domain. Why may they not bring the fruit down?

מאי למטה למטה לבתים והא תני רבי חייא ובלבד שלא יהא זה עומד במקומו ואוכל וזה עומד במקומו ואוכל

The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the word down in this context? It means down to the houses; however, it is indeed permitted to bring the fruit down to the courtyards. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya explicitly teach in a Tosefta: Provided that neither will this one stand below in his place in his courtyard and eat, nor will that one stand in his place in his courtyard and eat?

אמר ליה וכי רבי לא שנאה רבי חייא מנין לו

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: No proof can be cited from this baraita of Rabbi Ḥiyya with regard to the mishna. If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not explicitly teach it in this manner, from where does his student Rabbi Ḥiyya know it? If a halakha is not taught by the mishna itself, it should not be distorted to have it correspond with a Tosefta.

אתמר שתי חצירות וחורבה אחת ביניהם אחת עירבה ואחת לא עירבה אמר רב הונא נותנין אותה לזו שלא עירבה אבל לשעירבה לא דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דבתים לחורבה

It was stated that amora’im dispute the following case: If there were two courtyards and there was one ruin between them, and the residents of one courtyard established an eiruv for themselves, while the residents of the other courtyard did not establish an eiruv for themselves, Rav Huna said: The Sages confer the right to utilize the ruin to the residents of that courtyard that did not establish an eiruv; however, to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, no, they do not confer the right to utilize the ruin. It is prohibited due to a decree, lest people come to take out vessels from one of the houses to the ruin, which is prohibited, as no eiruv was established with the ruin itself. However, this concern does not extend to the courtyard whose residents did not establish an eiruv. They are not permitted to move objects from their houses to the courtyard, and therefore there is no reason to issue a decree prohibiting the carrying of objects from the courtyard to the ruin.

וחייא בר רב אמר אף לשעירבה ושתיהן אסורות ואם תאמר שתיהן מותרות מפני מה אין נותנין חצר שלא עירבה לחצר שעירבה

And Ḥiyya bar Rav disagreed with Rav Huna and said: Rights to the ruin are conferred to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, and consequently, it is prohibited for residents of both courtyards to carry objects. And if you say that it should be permitted for residents of both to move articles to the ruin, that is incorrect. As if that were so, for what reason did the Sages not confer the right to carry in the courtyard that did not establish an eiruv, to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv? If there is no cause for concern, it should always be permitted to the residents of a courtyard that established an eiruv to carry from their courtyard to a different courtyard whose residents did not establish an eiruv.

התם כיון דמנטרי מאני דבתים בחצר אתי לאפוקי הכא בחורבה כיון דלא מנטרי מאני דחצר בחורבה לא אתי לאפוקי

The Gemara refutes this contention: There, in the case of courtyards, since the vessels from the houses are protected in the courtyard as well, there is a concern lest people come to take them out from the house to the courtyard, where they could be confused with those vessels already in the courtyard, and they might come to move those objects into the other courtyard. Here, in the case of a ruin, since the vessels from the courtyard are not protected in the ruin, there is no concern lest people come to take out the vessels from the courtyard into the ruin. Therefore, it is possible that residents of both courtyards would be permitted to utilize the ruin.

איכא דאמרי חייא בר רב אמר אף לשעירבה ושתיהן מותרות ואם תאמר שתיהן אסורות לפי שאין נותנים חצר שלא עירבה לחצר שעירבה התם כיון דמנטרי מאני דבתים בחצר לא שרו בהו רבנן דאתי לאפוקי אבל בחורבה לא מנטרי:

Some say a different version of the previous discussion. Ḥiyya bar Rav disagreed with Rav Huna and said: The ruin belongs even to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, and it is permitted for residents of both to carry in the ruin. And if you say they should both be prohibited to do so in accordance with the argument presented above, that the Sages do not confer the right to carry in the courtyard that did not establish an eiruv to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, this proof can be refuted. There, since the vessels from the houses are protected in the courtyard, the Sages did not permit carrying them, due to the concern lest people come to take them out from the house to the courtyard and from there to the other courtyard. However, in the case of a ruin, the vessels are not protected in the ruin, and therefore, there is no cause for concern.

מתני׳ גג גדול סמוך לקטן הגדול מותר והקטן אסור חצר גדולה שנפרצה לקטנה גדולה מותרת וקטנה אסורה מפני שהיא כפתחה של גדולה:

MISHNA: If a large roof was adjacent to a small roof, and the boundary between them was no wider than ten cubits, use of the large one is permitted, i.e., one may bring objects up to the roof from the house below and carry them on the roof, and use of the small one is prohibited. A similar halakha applies to a large courtyard that was breached into a small one, in a manner that one entire side of the small courtyard was breached, but the breach was less than ten cubits; it is permitted for the residents of the large courtyard to carry, but it is prohibited for the residents of the small one to do so. The rationale for this difference is because in that case, the legal status of the breach is like that of the entrance of the large courtyard. As the breach in the wall of the larger courtyard is surrounded on both sides by the remaining portions of that wall, and the breach is no greater than ten cubits wide, its legal status is like that of an entrance in the wall of the courtyard, and therefore it is permitted to carry in the large courtyard. With regard to the small courtyard, however, since one entire side of the small courtyard was breached, there remains no partition whatsoever on that side and carrying in that courtyard is therefore prohibited.

גמ׳ למה ליה למיתני תרתי

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: Why does the mishna teach the same halakha twice? Why is it necessary to repeat the ruling with regard to both roofs and courtyards when the cases are apparently identical?

לרב קתני גג דומיא דחצר מה חצר מנכרא מחיצתא אף גג נמי מנכרא מחיצתא

The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rav, with regard to the lenient ruling that the residents may carry on a roof, the repetition comes to teach the halakha of a roof similar to that of a courtyard: Just as a courtyard, its partitions are conspicuous, so too a roof, its extended partitions, based on the principle: Extend and raise the walls of the house, must be conspicuous for it to be permitted for the residents to carry on their account. In other words, the roof must not extend beyond the walls of the house.

ולשמואל גג דומיא דחצר מה חצר דקא דרסי לה רבים אף גג נמי דקא דרסי ליה רבים

Whereas according to the opinion of Shmuel, the repetition should be understood in the opposite manner, as it comes to teach the halakha of a roof similar to that of a courtyard: Just as a courtyard is a place where multitudes tread, so too, the roof is a place where multitudes tread. However, if it is not used by many people, even the small roof is permitted, as the principle: Extend and raise the walls of the house, is applied to the wall between the houses, despite the fact that the partition is not conspicuous.

יתיב רבה ורבי זירא ורבה בר רב חנן ויתיב אביי גבייהו ויתבי וקאמרי שמע מינה ממתניתין דיורי גדולה בקטנה ואין דיורי קטנה בגדולה

Rabba, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan were sitting, and Abaye was sitting beside them, and they sat and said: Learn from the mishna that the rights of the residents of the large courtyard extend into the small one, but the rights of the residents of the small courtyard do not extend into the large one.

כיצד גפנים בגדולה אסור לזרוע את הקטנה ואם זרע זרעין אסורין

How so? If there are vines in the large courtyard, it is prohibited to sow crops in the small one, even at a distance of four cubits, due to the prohibition against planting other food crops in a vineyard. And if he sowed crops, the seeds are prohibited. As the small courtyard is considered part of the large one, the vines in the larger courtyard render the seeds in the smaller courtyard prohibited.