Eruvin

R. Johanan, however, ruled: The tenants on either side may carry up their food and eat it there.1 We learned, THE TENANTS ON EITHER SIDE MAY CLIMB UP AND EAT THERE. Does not this imply that they may only CLIMB UP but not ‘carry up’?2 — It is this that was meant: If the top consists of an area of four handbreadths by four they MAY CLIMB UP but may not carry up, and if it consists of less than four by four they may also carry up. R. Johanan3 follows a principle of his.4 For when R. Dimi came5 he stated in the name of R. Johanan: On a place6 whose area is less than four handbreadths by four7 it is permissible both for the people of the public domain and for those of the private domain to rearrange their burdens,8 provided they do not exchange them.9 Does not Rab,10 however, uphold the tradition of R. Dimi?11 — If it were a case of Pentateuchal domains12 the law would have been so indeed,13 but here we are dealing with Rabbinical domains,14 and the Sages15 have applied to their enactments16 higher restrictions than to those of the Torah. 17 Rabbah son of R. Huna18 citing19 R. Nahman ruled: A wall between two courtyards, one of whose sides was ten handbreadths high20 and the other one of which was on a level with the ground,21 is assigned to that courtyard with the floor of which it is level,22 because the use of it is convenient to the latter but inconvenient to the former, and any place the use of which is convenient to one and inconvenient to another, is to be assigned to the one to whom its use is convenient. R. Shezbi laid down in the name of R. Nahman: A trench between two courtyards, whose one side was ten handbreadths deep23 and whose other side was on a level with24 the floor,25 is assigned to that courtyard with whose floor it is on a level,26 because its use is convenient to the latter but inconvenient to the former etc.27 And [the enunciation of] both cases28 was required. For if we had been informed only of the law of the wall29 it might have been assumed to apply to it alone, because people make use of a raised structure, but not to a trench, since people do not make use of a depression in the ground.30 And if we had been informed of the law of the trench only31 it might have been assumed to apply to it alone, because its use involves no anxiety32 but not to a wall the use of which involves anxiety.33 Hence the enunciation of both28 was necessary. If the height of the wall was reduced,34 it is permitted to use all the wall if the reduction extended35 to four handbreadths;36 otherwise, one may use only that part37 that was parallel to the reduction. What, however, is your view?38 If it is that the reduction is effective,39 one should be permitted to have the use of all the wall, and if it is not effective,40 even the use of the part that was parallel to the reduction should not be permitted!41 — Rabina replied: This is a case, for instance,42 where a section of its43 top has been pulled down.44 R. Yehiel ruled: If a bowl is inverted45 a valid reduction is thereby effected.46 But why? Is not the bowl an object that may be moved away on the Sabbath and that as such47 causes no reduction?48 — This49 is was required only in a case where the bowl was attached to the ground.50 But what matters it even if it was attached to the ground, seeing that it was taught: An unripe fruit that had been put into straw51 or a cake that had been put among coals52 may be taken out on the Sabbath if a part of it remained uncovered?53 — Here49 we are dealing with a case, for instance, where the bowl had rims.54 But what matters it even if it had rims, seeing that we learned: If a man buried55 turnips or radishes under a vine, leaving56 be regarded as merged with the one courtyard or the other to suit the convenience of the respective tenants. would have constituted a karmelith from which it is forbidden to move objects either into a public or into a private domain. Rabbinically forbidden. Pentateuchally only direct transfer from one into the other of the domains mentioned is forbidden, since there must be ‘lifting’ from the one and direct ‘putting down’ in the other while in the case under discussion before the object was finally put down it was temporarily put down in, and lifted up from the free domain (v. supra go). At any rate it follows that it Johanan, by permitting the people of either domain ‘to rearrange their burdens’ on a place having the area he mentioned, upholds the principle of the existence of a free domain. a public domain. from the top of the wall. By ‘level with the ground’ a height of less than ten handbreadths is to be understood. the tenants of the other courtyard this is forbidden. trench. means of a mound or a bench close to the wall and within ten handbreadths from the top of it. between the top and the courtyard. top of the wall may be Freely used. if, however, it was smaller it cannot be regarded as a doorway to the wall but the space in the gap may be freely used since the wall below it is within ten handbreadths from the courtyard floor level and cannot be regarded as a separate domain. place on the Sabbath on account mukzeh v. Glos. Sabbath. Burning coals are subject to greater restrictions (cf. Ker. 20a). permitted. How then could R. Yehiel regard a bowl in such a condition as an effective reduction. since its removal would inevitably disturb the earth under which its rim is buried, and the person removing it would be guilty of performing an act that resembled the forbidden work of digging.