Eruvin — Daf 85a

בור שבין שתי חצירות מופלגת מכותל זה ארבעה ומכותל זה ארבעה זה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא וזה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא ורב יהודה דידיה אמר אפילו קניא

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף הא דרב יהודה דשמואל היא דאי דרב הא אמר אין אדם אוסר על חבירו דרך אויר

ודשמואל מהיכא אילימא מהא דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל גג הסמוך לרשות הרבים צריך סולם קבוע להתירו דילמא כדרב פפא

אלא מהא זה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא וזה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא טעמא דאפיק הא לא אפיק אמרינן אדם אוסר על חבירו דרך אויר

ודרב מהיכא אילימא מהא שתי גזוזטראות זו למעלה מזו עשו מחיצה לעליונה ולא עשו מחיצה לתחתונה שתיהן אסורות עד שיערבו

ואמר רב הונא אמר רב לא שנו אלא בסמוכה אבל במופלגת ארבעה עליונה מותרת ותחתונה אסורה

דלמא שאני הכא דכיון דלזה בזריקה ושלשול ולזה בשלשול לחודיה כלזה בזריקה ולזה בפתח דמי

אלא מהא דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב שני בתים ושלש חורבות ביניהם זה משתמש בסמוך שלו על ידי זריקה וזה משתמש בסמוך שלו על ידי זריקה

If a cistern1 between two courtyards2 was removed four handbreadths frown the one wall3 and four handbreadths from the other wall,4 each owner may construct some slight projection from his wall5 and may then draw the water.6 Rab Judah on his own, however, ruled: Even a reed suffices.7 Said Abaye to R. Joseph, This ruling of Rab Judah8 must be Samuel's,9 for should it be contended that It is10 Rab's the difficulty would arise: Did he not rule that no man could impose restrictions upon another through the air?11 From which ruling of Samuel, however, could this8 be derived?12 If it be suggested: From the following which R. Nahman reported In the name of Samuel, viz., If a roof adjoins a public domain a permanent ladder is required to render it permissible for use,13 — [could it not be retorted]: that the reason there14 might be in agreement with the opinion of R. Papa?15 — It is rather from this ruling:16 ‘Each owner constructs some slight projection from his wall and he may then draw the water’.17 The reason then18 is that a projection was made,19 but if no projection had been made it would have been maintained that a man imposes restrictions upon another through the air.20 From which ruling of Rab, however, was the view21 here attributed to him derived? If it be suggested from this: ‘If two balconies were situated in positions one higher than the other, and a partition was made for the upper one but not for the lower one restrictions are imposed on the use of both until all their tenants have joined in one ‘erub’;22 in connection with which R. Huna stated in the name of Rab: ‘This23 was learnt only in respect of [a balcony] that is near24 but where it was25 four handbreadths away,26 the use of the upper one is permitted and that of the lower one is forbidden’,27 could it not be retorted that the case here28 comes under a different category29 because, owing to the fact that access in the case of the one group30 is by means of thrusting as well as by means of lowering31 while in that of the other32 it is by means of lowering only, the case is analogous to that where one gains access by means of thrusting33 and the other by means of a door?34 — It is rather from this ruling: which R. Nahman cited in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha who had it from Rab:35 If there were three ruins36 between two houses37 each occupier may use38 the ruin nearest to him39 by means of thrusting40 access to the cistern through the courtyard windows (cf. supra n. 2) would have been equally easy from both courtyards and the use of the cistern would, therefore, have been forbidden to the tenants of both on account (cf. infra 86a) of the restrictions they would impose upon one another. from the cistern, cannot impose restrictions on its use, while the use of the alley itself cannot in any way be affected since neither house doors nor courtyard doors opened into it. The very requirement of the projection is in fact unnecessary for the purpose of bringing about the permissibility of the use of the cistern. It rather serves merely as a distinguishing mark to prevent people from the use of a domain in which more than one mall has a share, unless a joint ‘erub had been duly prepared. handbreadths in the air. The ruling must consequently be Samuel's. the name of Samuel. Had he been assumed to have heard the two in the form recorded supra this question could never have arisen. courtyard impose restrictions upon one another in the use of the roof. Now since a roof is usually inaccessible from a public domain except by means of thrusting the only way by which a man in that domain could make use of the roof would be by thrusting some object or objects on it through the air. This being forbidden by Samuel it follows that in his opinion restrictions are imposed even through the air. now concluded, did hear Rab Judah's ruling in the form in which it was recorded supra. from it. balcony upon those of the other. those of the upper one are in the position of the latter, Rab justifiably ruled that ‘the use of the upper one is permitted and that of the lower one is forbidden’. What proof however, is there that Rab also maintains that no restrictions can be imposed through the air even where, as in the case of the cistern between the two courtyards, the tenants can use it in exactly the same manner? can be gained only through a window, its exposure through the broken walls to the adjacent ruins does not deprive him of the right of using it.