עירובין 84 — Soncino English Talmud

¹was meant the tenants of an upper storey and that the reason why they are described as the GALLERY IS because they ascend to their quarters by way of the gallery, does it not clearly follow that any area that is accessible to one by means of lowering and to the other by means of throwing up is assigned to the one who uses it by means of lowering? — As R. Huna explains [below that the reference is] to those who dwelt on the gallery so [it may] also here [be explained that the reference is] to those who dwelt on the gallery. If so, read the final clause: AND ANY LOWER LEVEL BELONGS TO THE COURTYARD; but why, Seeing that it is easily accessible to both? — The meaning of TO THE COURTYARD is to the courtyard also, and both are forbidden access to it. This is also borne out by a process of reasoning, since in a subsequent clause It was stated: THIS, HOWEVER, APPLIES ONLY TO ONE THAT ADJOINS THE GALLERY, BUT ONE THAT IS REMOVED FROM IT, EVEN IF TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, BELONGS TO THE COURTYARD. For what could be the meaning of the phrase, TO THE COURTYARD? If it be suggested that the meaning is: To the courtyard and that its use is permitted, [it could be objected:]. Why, seeing that it is a domain common to the two of them? Consequently it must be admitted that TO THE COURTYARD means: To the courtyard also and that both are forbidden access to it, so it should here also be explained that the meaning of the phrase, TO THE COURTYARD is: To the courtyard also and that both are forbidden access to it. This is conclusive. We have learnt: THE BANK AROUND A CISTERN, OR A ROCK, THAT IS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH BELONGS TO THE GALLERY, BUT IF IT IS LOWER IT BELONGS TO THE COURTYARD! — R. Huna replied: [The meaning is], to those who dwelt on the gallery. This may be a satisfactory explanation in the case of the rock; what, however, can be said as regards A CISTERN? — R. Isaac son of Rab Judah replied: We are here dealing with the case of a cistern that was full of water. But is it not being diminished? — Since the use of the cistern is permitted when full it is also permitted when some of the water is wanting. On the contrary! Since Its use would be forbidden when it is not full should it not also be forbidden when full? Rather, explained Abaye, we are here dealing with a cistern that was full of fruit. Might not these also be diminished? — [It is a case] where they are tebel. A textual deduction leads to the same conclusion: Since it has been put on a par with ROCK. This is conclusive. But why should it be necessary to mention both CISTERN and ROCK? — Both are required. For if we had been informed of the law in the case of the ROCK only, the ruling might have been presumed to apply to that alone, since no preventive measure in that case could be called for, but that in the case of a cistern a preventive measure should be enacted, since it might sometimes be full of properly prepared fruit, hence both were required. Come and hear: If the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants of the upper storey forgot to prepare a joint ‘erub, the former may use the lower ten handbreadths and the latter may use the upper ten handbreadths. In what circumstances? If a bracket projected from the wall at a lower altitude than ten handbreadths it is assigned to the courtyard, but if it was higher than ten handbreadths it is assigned to the upper storey. Thus it follows, does it not, that the space intervening is forbidden? — R. Nahman replied: Here we are dealing with the case of a wall nineteen handbreadths high, from which a bracket projected. If [it projected] at a lower altitude than ten handbreadths, it is easily accessible to the one [group of tenants] while to the other [group it is only accessible] by means of lowering their things, but [if it projected] at a higher altitude [than ten handbreadths] it is easily accessible to the latter while to the former [it is accessible only] by means of thrusting.47^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ

^ᵃnote:Whose quarters are on a higher level than the balcony and consequently are also higher than a mound of the height of ten handbreadths or any similar eminence in the courtyard.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘and why (cf. Bah) do they call it’.
^ᶜnote:Since the tenants of the upper storey may, and the tenants of the courtyard may not use the eminence.
^ᵈnote:As, in this case, the tenants of the upper storey.
^ᵉnote:In this case the tenants of the courtyard.
^ᶠnote:An eminence of the height of ten handbreadths in the courtyard would thus be either on a level with their quarters or slightly higher or lower, but always by no more than ten handbreadths (cf. infra n. 10).
^ᵍnote:That GALLERY designates the tenants who dwell on it.
^ʰnote:Should it be assigned to the courtyard.
^ⁱnote:To the gallery (which is usually not higher than ten handbreadths) as well as to the courtyard. Since both groups of tenants can have easy access to it restrictions on its use should be mutually imposed.
^ʲnote:The tenants of the courtyard as well as those of the gallery.
^ᵏnote:That TO THE COURTYARD means: Not only the tenants of the gallery but also those of the courtyard.
^ˡnote:V. p. 583, n. 11.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘but what’.
^ⁿnote:GALLERY is assumed to mean the tenants of the upper storey (for whom the gallery is a means of approach to their houses) who can use the RANK or the ROCK by lowering their things, while the tenants of the courtyard can use it only by thrusting their things up to it. Now since it is ruled that the former may use the BANK etc. does not an objection arise against Rab who maintained (Supra 83b) that in such circumstances the two groups of tenants impose restrictions upon each other?
^ᵒnote:Of the phrase To THE GALLERY.
^ᵖnote:And not in the upper storey. Cf. supra p. 583, n. 7 mut. mut.
^ᵠnote:Which, being more or less on a level with the balcony and easily accessible to its tenants, may well be assigned for their use.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘what is there to say’.
^ˢnote:Whose bottom cannot he reached even by the tenants of the gallery except by lowering their buckets while the tenants of the courtyard can use it only by means of thrusting their buckets into it across its bank. Now since in this case of thrusting by the latter and of lowering by the former the use of the bank was granted to the former, the objection again arises against Rab who in such circumstances maintained that both groups of tenants are forbidden access.
^ᵗnote:The surface being more or less on a level with the gallery and therefore easily accessible to its tenants. Hence its assignment to the gallery.
^ᵘnote:By the using up of the water near the surface.
^ᵛnote:In consequence of which the tenants of the gallery would have to lower their buckets. Why then should the use of the cistern be permitted even in that case?
^ʷnote:To the tenants of the gallery.
^ˣnote:By the removal of some of the fruit.
^ʸnote:Such may not be moved from their place on the Sabbath.
^ᶻnote:Lit., since it was taught similarly’.
^ᵃᵃnote:Which cannot be reduced on the Sabbath by mere use. Both standing in juxtaposition they must be assumed to be on a par.
^ᵃᵇnote:If it is to be assumed that the cistern was full of fruit that cannot be diminished on the Sabbath as a rock that cannot be diminished.
^ᵃᶜnote:Seeing that one could easily be inferred from the other.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘there is not (reason) to make a preventive measure
^ᵃᵉnote:Forbidding its use.
^ᵃᶠnote:Which may be handled on the Sabbath and which might, therefore, be removed during the Sabbath day.
^ᵃᵍnote:But each group prepared one for itself.
^ᵃʰnote:Along the wall.
^ᵃⁱnote:Since these are easily accessible to them, while to the tenants of the upper storey they are inaccessible except by the lowering of their objects into that level.
^ᵃʲnote:Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. In this case access is easy to the tenants of the upper storey while to those of the courtyard it is accessible only by thrusting.
^ᵃᵏnote:Four handbreadths in width.
^ᵃˡnote:This is now assumed to mean that the bracket was higher than ten handbreadths measured from the upper storey downwards in the direction of the ground of the courtyard.
^ᵃᵐnote:Between the ten handbreadths from the ground and ten handbreadths from the upper storey.
^ᵃⁿnote:Because access to it is equally difficult to both groups of tenants. Those of the upper storey can use it only by lowering their things, while those of the courtyard can use it only by thrusting up their things. This ruling being in agreement with Rab's view, does not an objection arise against Samuel?
^ᵃᵒnote:So that no space intervened between the lower ten and the upper ten handbreadths.
^ᵃᵖnote:From the ground of the courtyard.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., ‘to this (as if) by a door’, Sc. the tenants of the courtyard can easily use that space that is not higher than ten handbreadths.
^ᵃʳnote:Hence the ruling that the use of the bracket ‘is assigned to the courtyard’.
^ᵃˢnote:From the ground of the courtyard.
^ᵃᵗnote:Cf. supra n. 7 mut. mut.
^ᵃᵘnote:Its use must consequently be granted to the tenants of the upper storey.

²Come and hear: If two balconies were situated [in positions] higher than each 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! — R. Adda b. Ahabah replied: This is a case where the tenants of the lower balcony come to fill their buckets by way of the upper one. Abaye replied: This is a case where the balconies were situated within ten handbreadths from each other, but the ruling is to be understood to be in the form of ‘not only but’: Not only where a partition was made for the lower one and none for the upper one are both forbidden, since, owing to the fact that they are situated with tell handbreadths from each other, their tenants impose restrictions upon each other, but even where the partition was made for the upper, and none was made for the lower, in which case it might have been assumed that, owing to the fact that its use is convenient for the former and difficult for the latter, it should be assigned to those to whom its use is convenient, hence we were informed that, since they are situated within ten handbreadths from, they also impose restrictions upon each other; as is the ruling in the case R. Nahman cited in the name of Samuel: If a roof adjoins a public domain a permanent ladder is required to render it permissible for use. Thus it is only a ‘permanent ladder’ that effects permissibility but not an occasional one; but why? Obviously because on account of the fact that they are situated within ten handbreadths from each other, the people in them impose restrictions upon each other. R. Papa demurred: Is it not possible that this applies Only to a roof on which many people are in the habit of putting down their skull-caps and turbans? Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled:^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ

^ᵃᵛnote:On the same wall at the sea-shore above the water.
^ᵃʷnote:Being nevertheless drawn away from each other in a manner that left a space of less than four handbreadths between them and thus enabling persons on the lower balcony to draw their water by throwing a bucket into a hole (v. following n.) in the floor of the upper balcony.
^ᵃˣnote:Round a hole, four handbreadths wide, in the floor of the balcony through which water is to be drawn from the sea.
^ᵃʸnote:Jointly by the tenants of both balconies (cf. infra 88a).
^ᵃᶻnote:A partition round such a hole, though in relation to the sea it is a suspended one, is deemed to extend downwards and penetrating to the bed of the sea (cf. Supra 12a) and forming a private domain through which the water of the sea may be taken up in buckets to the balcony. In the absence of such a device the movement of water or any other objects from the sea which has the status of a karmelith into the balcony which has that of a private domain is forbidden on the Sabbath.
^ᵇᵃnote:Sc. neither the tenants of the upper balcony may draw water from the sea through the hole nor may those of the lower one throw their buckets into that hole to draw water through it.
^ᵇᵇnote:Infra 87b. In the absence of a joint ‘erub the hole within the partition remains a mixed domain belonging to two different groups of tenants who impose restrictions upon each other and is, therefore, forbidden to both. Now here it is a case of use by lowering on the part of the tenants of the upper balcony and by thrusting on the part of those of the lower one, and yet it was ruled that both groups are forbidden; how then could Samuel maintain (supra 83b) that access is granted to ‘the tenants that can use it by means of lowering’?
^ᵇᶜnote:By means of a ladder.
^ᵇᵈnote:So that both groups of tenants use the hole in exactly the same manner both lowering and none thrusting their buckets.
^ᵇᵉnote:Sc. the position of the upper balcony was by less than ten handbreadths higher than the lower, in consequence of which there can be no existence for a third domain between the two, the use of which should be allowed to the one or the other of these two adjacent domains. A third domain of such a character is possible only where the two adjacent domains were separated from each other by a trench, or a wall that was ten handbreadths deep or high or by a space of similar height.
^ᵇᶠnote:In reply to the possible objection: If the prohibition of the use of the hole is due to the proximity of the balconies and not to the manner in which use of it was made, why was the ruling limited to the case where ‘a partition was made for the upper one seeing that the same ruling should apply even where it was made for the lower one?
^ᵇᵍnote:Lit., ‘and he implied (the formula) it is not required’.
^ᵇʰnote:So that the tenants of the former use it by lowering and the tenants of the latter use it by thrusting.
^ᵇⁱnote:In agreement with Samuel.
^ᵇʲnote:Thus indicating that in such a case the manner of use is of no consequence.
^ᵇᵏnote:That was less than ten handbreadths high (cf. R. Tam in Tosaf. a.l. whose interpretation is here followed).
^ᵇˡnote:On one of its sides, while on its other sides it adjoins a courtyard.
^ᵇᵐnote:By the tenants of the courtyard. Though a ladder cannot effect the permissibility of a karmelith (cf. Maharsha, a.l.) the roof which is a private domain within, and is consequently no proper karmelith, may well be rendered permissible by connecting it with a permanent ladder with the courtyard.
^ᵇⁿnote:Lit., ‘yes’.
^ᵇᵒnote:Though even such an occasional ladder facilitates the use of the roof by the tenants of the courtyard to whom the roof is thereby much more easily accessible than to the people in the public domain who have not the use of even an occasional ladder.
^ᵇᵖnote:Sc. in view of the fact that even an occasional ladder facilitates the use of the roof by the courtyard tenants (cf. prev. n.) why should not the use of the roof be permitted to them?
^ᵇᵠnote:Lit., ‘not?’
^ᵇʳnote:The courtyard and the public domain.
^ᵇˢnote:In agreement with Abaye's explanation.
^ᵇᵗnote:The ruling that an occasional ladder cannot effect permissibility.
^ᵇᵘnote:On weekdays.
^ᵇᵛnote:Sc. though they cannot conveniently put upon it any heavy loads, they can well use it for putting down light objects such as skull-caps which on a hot day people usually put down there while they rest and cool themselves. As the use of the roof is thus equally accessible to, and convenient for both the people in the public domain and those in the courtyard, a permanent ladder is justifiably required if the roof (an imperfect karmelith) is to be permanently connected with the courtyard and disconnected from the public domain. This ruling, therefore, cannot be adduced as a support for Abaye's submission. (For other interpretations of the passage cf. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l.).