כֵּיצַד מִשְׁתַּתְּפִין בַּתְּחוּמִין. מֵנִיחַ אֶת הֶחָבִית וְאוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי זֶה לְכָל בְּנֵי עִירִי, לְכָל מִי שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל אוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה. וְכֹל שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, מֻתָּר. מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ, אָסוּר, שֶׁאֵין מְעָרְבִין מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ: How does one participate in the joining of Shabbat boundaries? One who wishes to establish a joining of Shabbat boundaries for himself and others places a barrel of food in the location he designates as their place of residence, and says: This is for all the residents of my town, for anyone who wishes to go on Shabbat to a house of mourning or to a house of a wedding feast situated beyond the Shabbat limit.Anyone who accepted upon himself while it was still day, i.e., before the onset of Shabbat, that he will rely on the eiruv, is permitted to rely upon it; but if one did so only after nightfall, he is prohibited to rely upon it, as the principle is that one may not establish an eiruv after nightfall.
כַּמָּה הוּא שִׁעוּרוֹ, מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת לְכָל אֶחָד. מְזוֹנוֹ לְחֹל וְלֹא לְשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לְשַׁבָּת וְלֹא לְחֹל. וְזֶה וָזֶה מִתְכַּוְּנִין לְהָקֵל. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר, מִכִּכָּר בְּפֻנְדְּיוֹן, מֵאַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת לְכִכָּר מִשָּׁלֹשׁ לְקָב. חֶצְיָהּ לְבַיִת הַמְנֻגָּע, וַחֲצִי חֶצְיָהּ לִפְסֹל אֶת הַגְּוִיָּה: What is the measure for an joining of Shabbat boundaries? It consists of a quantity of food sufficient for two meals for each and every one of those included in the eiruv. The tanna’im disagree with regard to the size of these two meals. It is referring to one’s food that he eats on a weekday and not on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is referring to the amount he eats on Shabbat and not on a weekday. And both this Sage, Rabbi Meir, and that Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, intended to be lenient, as Rabbi Meir maintains that people eat more food on Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Yehuda believes that they consume more on a weekday. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Food for two meals is the size of a loaf bought with a pundeyon, which is one-forty-eighth of a sela, when four se’a of wheat are sold for a sela. Rabbi Shimon says: Food for two meals is two of three parts of a loaf, when three loaves are prepared from a kav of wheat. In other words, the measure is two-thirds of a loaf the size of one-third of a kav. Having discussed measures with regard to a loaf of bread, the mishna states that half of this loaf is the amount called a half [peras], a measure relevant for the halakhot of a leprous house. If one enters a house afflicted with leprosy and remains there long enough to eat this amount of food, the clothes he is wearing become ritually impure. And half of its half, a quarter of this loaf, is the amount of ritually impure food that disqualifies the body. In other words, impure food of this amount imparts ritual impurity to the body of the eater, and disqualifies him by rabbinic law from eating teruma.
אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר וְאַנְשֵׁי מִרְפֶּסֶת שֶׁשָּׁכְחוּ וְלֹא עֵרְבוּ, כֹּל שֶׁגָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, לַמִּרְפֶּסֶת. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן, לֶחָצֵר. חֻלְיַת הַבּוֹר וְהַסֶּלַע, גְּבוֹהִים עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, לַמִּרְפֶּסֶת. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן, לֶחָצֵר. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בִּסְמוּכָה. אֲבָל בְּמֻפְלֶגֶת, אֲפִלּוּ גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, לֶחָצֵר. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא סְמוּכָה, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְחוֹקָה אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים: If both the residents of houses that open directly into a courtyard and the residents of apartments that open onto a balcony from which stairs lead down to that courtyard forgot and did not establish an eiruv between them, anything in the courtyard that is ten handbreadths high,e.g., a mound or a post, is part of the balcony. The residents of the apartments open to the balcony may transfer objects to and from their apartments onto the mound or post. Any post or mound that is lower than this height is part of the courtyard. A similar halakha applies to an embankment that surrounds a cistern or a rock: If the embankments that surround a cistern or rock are ten handbreadths high, they belong to the balcony; if they are lower than this, they may be used only by the inhabitants of the courtyard. In what case are these matters, the halakha that anything higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the balcony, stated? When the mound or embankment is near the balcony. But in a case where the embankment or mound is distant from it, even if it is ten handbreadths high, the right to use the embankment or mound goes to the members of the courtyard. And what is considered near? Anything that is not four handbreadths removed from the balcony.
הַנּוֹתֵן אֶת עֵרוּבוֹ בְּבֵית שַׁעַר, אַכְסַדְרָה וּמִרְפֶּסֶת, אֵינוֹ עֵרוּב. וְהַדָּר שָׁם, אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עָלָיו. בְּבֵית הַתֶּבֶן וּבְבֵית הַבָּקָר וּבְבֵית הָעֵצִים וּבְבֵית הָאוֹצָרוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה עֵרוּב. וְהַדָּר שָׁם, אוֹסֵר עָלָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם יֶשׁ שָׁם תְּפִיסַת יָד שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר עָלָיו: With regard to one who placed his eiruv of courtyards in a gatehouse or in a portico, a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, or one who deposited it in a balcony, this is not a valid eiruv. And one who resides there, in any of these structures, does not render it prohibited for the homeowner and the other residents of the courtyard to carry, even if he did not contribute to the eiruv. If, however, one deposited his eiruv in a hay shed or in a cowshed or in a woodshed or in a storehouse, this is a valid eiruv, as it is located in a properly guarded place. And one who resides there with permission, if he neglected to contribute to the eiruv, he renders it prohibited for the homeowner and the other residents of the courtyard to carry. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the homeowner has there, in the hay shed or the other places listed above, a right of usage, i.e., if he is entitled to use all or part of the area for his own purposes, then the one who lives there does not render it prohibited for the homeowner, as the area is considered the homeowner’s quarters, and the person living there is classified as a member of his household.
הַמַּנִּיחַ בֵּיתוֹ וְהָלַךְ לִשְׁבּוֹת בְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת, אֶחָד נָכְרִי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹסֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, נָכְרִי אוֹסֵר, יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר, שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָבֹא בְשַׁבָּת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ הִנִּיחַ בֵּיתוֹ וְהָלַךְ לִשְׁבּוֹת אֵצֶל בִּתּוֹ בְאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר, שֶׁכְּבָר הִסִּיעַ מִלִּבּוֹ: One who leaves his house, which is located in a shared courtyard, and goes to spend Shabbat in a different town, whether he is a gentile or a Jew, he renders it prohibited for the other residents to use the courtyard as though he were still at home; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not render it prohibited for them, as he left behind him an empty residence. Rabbi Yosei says: A gentile renders it prohibited but a Jew does not render it prohibited, as it is not the manner of a Jew to come home on Shabbat. A Jew will not return home, therefore his empty residence does not render it prohibited. By contrast, a gentile might return over the course of Shabbat. Therefore, he is not considered to have fully uprooted himself from his house, and he renders it prohibited. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if the Jew left his house and went to spend Shabbat with his daughter who lived in the same town, he does not render it prohibited. Although he can return home at any time, it is assumed that he has already removed from his mind any thought of going back there and has established his Shabbat residence away from his home.
בּוֹר שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵרוֹת, אֵין מְמַלְּאִין מִמֶּנּוּ בְשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לוֹ מְחִצָּה גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים בֵּין מִלְמַעְלָה, בֵּין מִלְּמַטָּה, בֵּין מִתּוֹךְ אֹגְנוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מִלְּמַטָּה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מִלְמָעְלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לֹא תְהֵא מְחִצָּה גְדוֹלָה מִן הַכֹּתֶל שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם: In the case of a cistern that is located between two courtyards, situated partly in each courtyard, one may not draw water from it on Shabbat, lest the residents of one courtyard draw water from the domain of the other courtyard, unless a partition ten handbreadths high was erected for it as a separation between the domains. This partition is effective whether it is below, in the water, or whether it is within the airspace of the cistern below the rim, above the surface of the water. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: This is the subject of an early dispute of tanna’im, as Beit Shammai said that the partition, which permits drawing water, must be placed below; and Beit Hillel said it should be positioned above. Rabbi Yehuda said: A partition is no better than the wall between them. A wall dividing the two courtyards passes over the cistern, therefore it is not necessary to erect an additional partition in the cistern’s airspace.
אַמַּת הַמַּיִם שֶׁהִיא עוֹבֶרֶת בֶּחָצֵר, אֵין מְמַלְּאִין הֵימֶנָּה בְשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לָהּ מְחִצָּה גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים בַּכְּנִיסָה וּבַיְצִיאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כֹּתֶל שֶׁעַל גַּבָּהּ תִּדּוֹן מִשּׁוּם מְחִצָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַעֲשֶׂה בָאַמָּה שֶׁל אָבֵל שֶׁהָיוּ מְמַלְּאִין מִמֶּנָּה עַל פִּי זְקֵנִים בְּשַׁבָּת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בָהּ כַּשִּׁעוּר: With regard to a water channel that passes through a courtyard, the residents may not draw water from it on Shabbat, unless they erected for it a partition ten handbreadths high at the entrance and at the exit of the courtyard. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no need for a special partition, as the wall that runs on top of it, i.e., the courtyard wall, is considered as a partition. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving a water channel that passed through the courtyards of the town of Avel, from which the residents would draw water from it on Shabbat by the authority of the Elders, relying on the courtyard wall suspended above it. They said to him: It is due to the fact that channel was not of the size that requires a partition, i.e., it was less than ten handbreadths deep or less than ten handbreadths wide, it was permitted to draw water from it even without a partition.
גְּזֻזְטְרָא שֶׁהִיא לְמַעְלָה מִן הַמַּיִם, אֵין מְמַלְּאִין הֵימֶנָּה בְשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לָהּ מְחִצָּה גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, בֵּין מִלְמַעְלָה בֵּין מִלְּמַטָּה. וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי גְזֻזְטְרָאוֹת זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ. עָשׂוּ לָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְלֹא עָשׂוּ לַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיְּעָרֵבוּ: With regard to a balcony that extends over a body of water, if a hole was opened in the floor, its residents may not draw water from it through the hole on Shabbat, unless they erected for it a partition ten handbreadths high around the hole. It is permitted to draw water by means of that partition, whether it is positioned above the balcony, in which case the partition is seen as descending downward, or whether it is placed below the balcony. And likewise, with regard to two such balconies, one above the other, if they erected a partition for the upper balcony but they did not erect one for the lower one, the residents are both prohibited from drawing water through the upper one, unless they establish an eiruv between them.
חָצֵר שֶׁהִיא פְחוּתָה מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, אֵין שׁוֹפְכִין בְּתוֹכָהּ מַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לָהּ עוּקָה מַחֲזֶקֶת סָאתַיִם מִן הַנֶּקֶב וּלְמַטָּה, בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁמִּבַּחוּץ צָרִיךְ לִקְמוֹר, מִבִּפְנִים אֵין צָרִיךְ לִקְמוֹר: With regard to a courtyard that is less than four cubits by four cubits in area, one may not pour waste water into it on Shabbat, unless a pit was fashioned to receive the water, and the pit holds two se’a in volume from its edge below. This halakha applies whether the pit was fashioned outside the courtyard or whether it was dug inside the courtyard itself. The only difference is as follows: If the pit was dug outside in the adjoining public domain, it is necessary to arch over it, so that the water will not flow into the public domain. If it was dug inside the courtyard, it is not necessary to arch over it.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, בִּיב שֶׁהוּא קָמוּר אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, שׁוֹפְכִין לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֲפִלּוּ גַג אוֹ חָצֵר מֵאָה אַמָּה, לֹא יִשְׁפֹּךְ עַל פִּי הַבִּיב, אֲבָל שׁוֹפֵךְ מִגַּג לְגַג, וְהַמַּיִם יוֹרְדִין לַבִּיב. הֶחָצֵר וְהָאַכְסַדְרָה מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of a drainage ditch whose first four cubits are arched over in the public domain, one may pour waste water into it on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: Even if a roof or a courtyard is a hundred cubits in area, one may not pour water directly onto the mouth of the drainage ditch. However, he may pour it upon the roof, from which the water spills into the drain of its own accord. A courtyard and a portico, a roofed but unwalled structure in front of a house, combine for the four cubits by virtue of which it is permitted to pour water even into a courtyard that lacks a pit.
וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי דְיוֹטָאוֹת זוֹ כְנֶגֶד זוֹ, מִקְצָתָן עָשׂוּ עוּקָה וּמִקְצָתָן לֹא עָשׂוּ עוּקָה, אֶת שֶׁעָשׂוּ עוּקָה, מֻתָּרִין, וְאֶת שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ עוּקָה, אֲסוּרִין: And likewise, with regard to two upper stories [deyotaot], one opposite the other in the same small courtyard, if the residents of one of them fashioned a pit in the courtyard, and the residents of the other did not fashion a pit, those who fashioned a pit are permitted to pour their waste water into the courtyard, whereas those who did not fashion a pit are prohibited to do so.