Eruvin

that there are two kinds of trees? [Well then] in this case also [one might submit that there are] two kinds of wall. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: If a courtyard opened out on one side1 into [an area] between the strips of wood [around a well], is it [permitted] to move objects from its interior into that between the strips and from between the strips to its interior? The other replied: This is permitted.2 ‘What if two [courtyards opened out3 in a similar manner]?’ — ‘It is forbidden’,4 the other replied. Said R. Huna: [In the case of] two [courtyards the movement of objects is] forbidden even [where the tenants]5 have prepared an ‘erub,6 this being a preventive measure against the possible assumption7 that an ‘erub is effective in the case of a space enclosed by strips of wood.8 Raba said: If [the tenants]9 prepared10 an ‘erub11 [the movement of objects12 is] permitted.13 Said Abaye to Raba: ‘[A ruling] was taught which provides support to your view: If a courtyard opens out on one side14 into [an area] between the strips of wood [around a well] it is permitted to move objects from its interior into that between the strips and from between the strips to the interior, but if two [courtyards opened out in this manner the movement of objects12 is] forbidden. This, however, applies only where [the tenants] prepared no ‘erub but where they10 did prepare an ‘erub’ they are allowed [to move their objects]’.12 Must it be said that this15 presents an objection against R. Huna? — R. Huna can answer you: There15 [it is a case] where [a breach]16 also combined them.17 Abaye enquired of Raba: What [is the ruling18 where] the water dried up on the Sabbath?19 The other replied: [The enclosure] was recognized20 [as a valid] partition only on account of the water, [and since] no water is here available, there is here no [validity] in the partition either. Rabin enquired: What [is the ruling18 where] the water dried up on the Sabbath and on [the same] Sabbath [other water] appeared?21 — Abaye replied: Where they were dried up on the Sabbath you have no need to ask, for I have already asked [this question] from the Master22 and he made it plain to me that it23 was forbidden. [As regards water that] appeared [on the Sabbath] you have also no need to enquire, for [the enclosure] would thus be a partition made on the Sabbath, concerning which it was taught: Any partition that was put up on the Sabbath is valid whether [this was done] unwittingly, intentionally, under compulsion or willingly.24 But has it not been stated in connection with this ruling that R. Nahman said: This25 applied only26 to throwing27 but not to moving?28 R. Nahman's statement was made only in respect of [a partition that was put up]29 intentionally.30 R. Eleazar said: One who throws [any object]31 into [the area] between strips [of wood] around wells is liable.32 [Is33 not this] obvious, for if [the strips had] not [Pentateuchally constituted a valid] partition how could it have been permitted to draw water?34 — [The ruling]35 was necessary only [for this purpose:] That [a man] who put up, in a public domain, [an enclosure]36 similar to that of strips of wood around wells, and threw an object into it, is liable.32 But is not this also obvious, [for if such an imperfect enclosure] would not [have been regarded as a valid] partition elsewhere,37 how could one be permitted to move any objects [within such an imperfect enclosure] in the case of a cistern? — [The ruling]38 was rather necessary [for this purpose:] Although many people cross the enclosure [it is regarded as a private domain].39 What [principle,] however, does he thereby teach us? That even [the passage of] many people does not destroy [the validity of] a partition? But [this, it may be contended, was already] once said [by] R. Eleazar. For have we not learnt: R. Judah ruled: If a public road cuts through then,40 it should be diverted to [one of the] sides,41 and the Sages ruled: This was not necessary;42 and both R. Johanan and R. Eleazar remarked: Here they43 informed you of the unassailable validity44 of partitions?45 — If [the principle had to be derived] from there46 it might have been presumed that only ‘Here [etc.]’;47 but that he himself is not of the same opinion; hence we were told48 [that not only] ‘Here [etc.],’ but he himself also is of the same opinion. Then why did he not state this ruling and there would have been no need for the other?49 — The one was derived from the other. IT IS PERMITTED TO BRING [THE STRIPS] CLOSE TO THE WELL etc. Elsewhere we learned: A man must not stand in a public domain and drink in a private domain, or in a private one and drink in a public one, unless he puts his head and the greater part of his body into the domain in which he drinks, tenants of the courtyard. because courtyards can be combined in this manner only where there was a door between them or where they opened out into a proper alley whose length exceeds its width. A well enclosure was not given the status of an alley because it is rectangular and open on its four sides. because the permissibility of the imperfect enclosure was solely due to the existence of the water in the well which is now no longer available? causes it to become a private domain. partition is in all respects valid? this penalty does not apply to an unwitting act it cannot obviously apply to a partition of which Abaye spoke, which came into existence automatically. guilty of carrying from a private domain into a public domain since an enclosed area that is not a private domain even Pentateuchally must assume the status of the public domain in which it is situated. MS.M. reads: ‘how could the Rabbis permit the movement (of objects)’. principle?