עירובין 85 — Soncino English Talmud

¹If a cistern between two courtyards was removed four handbreadths frown the one wall and four handbreadths from the other wall, each owner may construct some slight projection from his wall and may then draw the water. Rab Judah on his own, however, ruled: Even a reed suffices. Said Abaye to R. Joseph, This ruling of Rab Judah must be Samuel's, for should it be contended that It is Rab's the difficulty would arise: Did he not rule that no man could impose restrictions upon another through the air? From which ruling of Samuel, however, could this be derived? 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, — [could it not be retorted]: that the reason there might be in agreement with the opinion of R. Papa? — It is rather from this ruling: ‘Each owner constructs some slight projection from his wall and he may then draw the water’. The reason then is that a projection was made, but if no projection had been made it would have been maintained that a man imposes restrictions upon another through the air. From which ruling of Rab, however, was the view 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’; in connection with which R. Huna stated in the name of Rab: ‘This was learnt only in respect of [a balcony] that is near but where it was four handbreadths away, the use of the upper one is permitted and that of the lower one is forbidden’, could it not be retorted that the case here comes under a different category because, owing to the fact that access in the case of the one group is by means of thrusting as well as by means of lowering while in that of the other it is by means of lowering only, the case is analogous to that where one gains access by means of thrusting and the other by means of a door? — It is rather from this ruling: which R. Nahman cited in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha who had it from Rab: If there were three ruins between two houses each occupier may use the ruin nearest to him by means of thrusting40^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

^ᵃnote:In an alley into which no courtyard or house doors opened.
^ᵇnote:Between which intervened the alley (cf. prev. n.) into which a window from each courtyard opened.
^ᶜnote:Of the one courtyard.
^ᵈnote:Of the courtyard opposite. If the distances between the cistern and courtyards were less than four handbreadths 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.
^ᵉnote:Towards the cistern. Lit., ‘this (one) brings out a projection of any size
^ᶠnote:Through his window. The two domains represented by the two courtyards, since they are four handbreadths distant 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.
^ᵍnote:As a projection for the purpose mentioned.
^ʰnote:That provision for some sort of a projection is necessary.
^ⁱnote:Not Rab's who also was his teacher.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘for if’.
^ᵏnote:And not even a reed should have been required in this case where the bucket has to be thrust through a spice of four handbreadths in the air. The ruling must consequently be Samuel's.
^ˡnote:It is now assumed that Abaye did not hear Rab Judah's ruling in conjunction with the one he specifically reported in the name of Samuel. Had he been assumed to have heard the two in the form recorded supra this question could never have arisen.
^ᵐnote:Supra 84b q.v. notes; and in the absence of such a ladder the people in the public domain and the tenants of the 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.
^ⁿnote:For the prohibition in the absence of a permanent ladder.
^ᵒnote:That the roof can be used from the public domain, by people who put upon it their skull-caps and turbans.
^ᵖnote:That, in the opinion of Abaye, Rab Judah deduced Samuel's view on the necessity for some projection. Abaye, it is now concluded, did hear Rab Judah's ruling in the form in which it was recorded supra.
^ᵠnote:Supra q.v. notes.
^ʳnote:Why the drawing of the water is permitted.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘that he brought out’.
^ᵗnote:And since Samuel required only ‘some slight projection’ Rab Judah deduced that ‘even a reed suffices’.
^ᵘnote:That no man can impose restrictions upon another through the air.
^ᵛnote:Supra 84b q.v. notes.
^ʷnote:That restrictions are imposed by the tenants of the lower balcony upon those of the upper one.
^ˣnote:Sc. though it was vertically ten handbreadths lower than the upper one it was horizontally within four handbreadths from it.
^ʸnote:Horizontally.
^ᶻnote:So that its tenants cannot use the upper balcony except by thrusting their buckets through the air.
^ᵃᵃnote:Which shows that, according to Rab, no restrictions can be imposed through the air by the tenants of the one balcony upon those of the other.
^ᵃᵇnote:That of the two balconies.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., ‘perhaps it is here different’.
^ᵃᵈnote:The people on the lower balcony.
^ᵃᵉnote:Thrusting their buckets to the upper balcony and then lowering it through the hole in the floor into the water.
^ᵃᶠnote:The tenants of the upper one.
^ᵃᵍnote:Difficult and inconvenient use.
^ᵃʰnote:Sc. easy and convenient access; and, since the tenants of the lower balcony are in the position of the former while 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?
^ᵃⁱnote:That Rab's view was deduced.
^ᵃʲnote:Inhabited by none and their walls were broken down so that the interiors were fully exposed.
^ᵃᵏnote:Which had windows opening towards the ruins and the occupiers of which were the sole owners of the ruins.
^ᵃˡnote:Through his windows.
^ᵃᵐnote:As he can never, even on a weekday, make proper use of that ruin into which no doors opened, and access to which 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.
^ᵃⁿnote:Throughout its area even far away from the window, or by lowering things immediately below it.

²while the use of the middle ruin is forbidden. R. Berona, sitting at his studies, was enunciating this ruling when R. Eleazar, a student at the college, asked him, ‘Did Rab actually say this?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied. ‘Will you’, the first asked: ‘show me his lodgings?’ When the other showed them to him he approached Rab and asked him, ‘Did the Master say this?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied. ‘But’, the first objected, ‘did not the Master state: Where it is accessible to one by means of lowering things and to the other by means of thrusting both are forbidden access’? — ‘You imagine’, the other replied: ‘that they stood in a straight line; but no, they stood in a triangle’. Said R. Papa to Raba: Must it be assumed that Samuel does not uphold the view of R. Dimi, seeing that when R. Dimi came posed even through the air. How, then, he wondered, could Rab allow each occupier to use the ruin adjacent to his house seeing that the occupier opposite should impose restrictions on its use through the air since he can use it by throwing his things into it? he stated in the name of R. Johanan: On a place whose area is less than four handbreadths by four it is permissible both for the people of the public domain and for those of the private domain to re-arrange their burdens, provided they do not exchange them? — There it is a case of domains, access between which is Pentateuchally forbidden, while here it is a case of domains, access between which is only Rabbinically forbidden, and the Sages have applied to their enactments, heavier restrictions than to those of the Torah. Said Rabina to Raba: Did Rab say this? Was it not in fact stated: If two houses stood on the two sides respectively of a public domain it is forbidden, said Rabbah son of R. Huna In the name of Rab, to throw any object from one into the other, and Samuel ruled: It is permitted to throw from one into the other? — Have we not explained, the other replied, that one was higher and the other lower so that it may sometimes happen that the object might drop and roll away and one might in consequence be tempted to carry it. MISHNAH. IF A MAN DEPOSITED HIS ‘ERUB IN A GATE-HOUSE, AN EXEDRA OR A GALLERY IT IS NOT A VALID ‘ERUB; AND NO ONE WHO DWELLS IN IT IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS. AN ‘ERUB DEPOSITED IN A STRAW-SHED, A CATTLE-SHED, A WOOD-SHED OR STOREHOUSE IS VALID; AND ANYONE WHO DWELLS IN IT IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS. R. JUDAH RULED: IF THE HOUSEHOLDER HAS THERE ANY HOLDING THE TENANT IMPOSES NO RESTRICTIONS. GEMARA. R. Judah son of R. Samuel b. Shilath stated: If concerning any place the Sages ruled that ‘No one who dwells in it imposes restrictions’ the ‘erub that is deposited [in such a place] is no valid ‘erub, the only exception being the gate-house of an individual owner; and if concerning any place the Sages ruled that ‘no ‘erub may be deposited in it’, shittuf may nevertheless be deposited in it, the only exception being the air space of an alley. But what does he teach us, seeing that we learned: IF A MAN DEPOSITED HIS ‘ERUB IN A GATE-HOUSE, AN EXEDRA ON A GALLERY IT IS NOT A VALID ‘ERUB, from which it follows only that it is NOT A VALID ‘ERUB but that it is nevertheless a valid shittuf. — He found it necessary to make his statement on account of the law relating to the ‘gate-house of an individual owner’ and to the ‘air space of an alley’ which we have not learnt In our Mishnah. So it was also taught: ‘If a man deposited his ‘erub in a gate-house, an exedra, a gallery, a courtyard or an alley his ‘erub is valid’, but have we not learnt: IT IS NOT A VALID ‘ERUB? Read, therefore, ‘the shittuf is valid.’ But can the food for shittuf be safely preserved in an alley? — Read: In a courtyard that is situated in the alley. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If members of a party were dining when the sanctity of the Sabbath day overtook them, they may rely upon the bread on the table to serve the purpose of ‘erub or, as others say, the purpose of shittuf. Rabbah observed: There is really no divergence of opinion between them, since the former refers to a party dining in a house while the latter refer to one dining in a courtyard. Said Abaye to Rabbah, It was taught in agreement with your view: ‘Erubs of courtyards should be deposited in a courtyard and shittufs of alleys in an alley,’ and when the objection was raised: How could it be said that ‘erubs of courtyards should be deposited in a courtyard’ seeing that we learned, IF A MAN DEPOSITED HIS ‘ERUB IN A GATE-HOUSE OR EXEDRA OR A GALLERY IT IS NOT A VALID ‘ERUB? [It was replied,] Read: ‘Erubs of courtyards should be deposited in a house that was situated in the courtyard, and food for the shittuf of an alley should be deposited in a courtyard that was in the alley. R. JUDAH RULED: IF . . . HAS THERE ANY HOLDING etc. What is one to understand by a HOLDING? — One, for instance, like that in the courtyard of Bonyis. The son of Bonyis once visited Rabbi. ‘Make room’, the latter called out, ‘for the owner of a hundred maneh’. Another person entered, when he called out,^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^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^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ^ᶜᵍ^ᶜʰ^ᶜⁱ^ᶜʲ^ᶜᵏ^ᶜˡ^ᶜᵐ^ᶜⁿ^ᶜᵒ^ᶜᵖ^ᶜᵠ^ᶜʳ^ᶜˢ^ᶜᵗ^ᶜᵘ^ᶜᵛ

^ᵃᵒnote:To the occupiers of either house. The reason is discussed infra. Now since the two ruins that were adjacent to the houses may be used by the respective occupiers, despite the use that each is able on weekdays to make of the ruin adjacent to his neighbour's house by thrusting objects into it through the air, it follows that in the opinion of Rab no restrictions can be imposed by one person upon another through his use of the air.
^ᵃᵖnote:Of Rab, just cited by R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha.
^ᵃᵠnote:v. marg. glosses. Cur. edd. ‘Eliezer.
^ᵃʳnote:R. Eleazar's view was that Rab, who forbade the use of the middle ruin though neither of the occupiers of the house could use It except by throwing his things into it through the air, was of the opinion that restrictions are imposed
^ᵃˢnote:V. p. 591, n. 15.
^ᵃᵗnote:From which it follows that if the use of a place is not as convenient to one of the parties as in the case of access through an open door, though that party's use by lowering is easier than the other party's use by thrusting, restrictions are nevertheless imposed. How then, seeing that according to Rab restrictions are imposed through the air (cf. prev. n.), could the use of a ruin be permitted to the occupier of the house nearest to it in view of the fact that his access to it is only less difficult than that of the occupier of the opposite house but not really convenient?
^ᵃᵘnote:The three ruins.
^ᵃᵛnote:So that the air space of a ruin intervened between either house and the central ruin.
^ᵃʷnote:Lit., ‘like a tripod’. One ruin was adjacent to both houses and faced the other two that stood in a straight line and were respectively adjacent to one of the houses and separated from the other by the ruin adjacent to it. The use of the central ruin is forbidden to both occupiers, not for the reason assumed by R. Eleazar, but because both, who through their windows have equally direct, though inconvenient, access to it, impose restrictions upon each other. The use of the other two ruins too is permitted respectively to both because in the case of either ruin one of the occupiers has direct access and the other has only indirect access by means of thrusting his things into it through the air through which no restriction can be imposed.
^ᵃˣnote:In laying down supra that a man may impose restrictions upon another through the air.
^ᵃʸnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ᵃᶻnote:Situated between a public and a private domain.
^ᵇᵃnote:And is consequently too insignificant to constitute a domain of its own.
^ᵇᵇnote:Since in relation to either it loses its identity.
^ᵇᶜnote:If exchange also were permitted people might erroneously assume that it is permitted to carry objects from a private domain into a public one and vice versa. Now, a place having an area so small as the one described has no legal existence in respect of the Sabbath laws and is, therefore, analogous to mere air space and, since it was ruled that it may be freely used, and that no provision such e.g. as a projection is necessary, Samuel who did prescribe a projection in the case of use through the air cannot very well agree with it.
^ᵇᵈnote:R. Dimi's ruling.
^ᵇᵉnote:A public and a private one.
^ᵇᶠnote:As people are usually careful in the observance of Pentateuchal restrictions no special provision, such as that of a projection, was considered necessary.
^ᵇᵍnote:A cistern between two courtyards.
^ᵇʰnote:Both Pentateuchally private.
^ᵇⁱnote:As a precaution against possible laxity in their observance.
^ᵇʲnote:That each occupier may thrust things into the ruin nearest to his house because the occupier of the opposite house cannot impose restrictions through the air.
^ᵇᵏnote:Both belonging to the same owner.
^ᵇˡnote:Though it passes the public domain at a higher level than ten handbreadths from the ground; the reason presumably being that the people of the public domain impose restrictions through the air of their domain through which the object must pass.
^ᵇᵐnote:Now since Rab presumably laid down here (cf. prev. n.) that restrictions may be imposed through the air, how could he have ruled supra that restrictions through the air cannot be imposed?
^ᵇⁿnote:As a reason for the prohibition.
^ᵇᵒnote:Of the two houses under discussion.
^ᵇᵖnote:Of the two houses under discussion.
^ᵇᵠnote:Where an object is thrown from the lower to the upper house.
^ᵇʳnote:From the public into the private domain which is Pentateuchally forbidden. Samuel's ruling here that ‘it is permitted’ to throw objects from one house into the other, it may be added, presents no contradiction against his ruling supra that restrictions are imposed through the air, since the former case relates to domains access between which is Pentateuchally forbidden while the latter relates to such as are only Rabbinically forbidden. Greater safeguards, as has been explained supra, were required in the case of a Rabbinical enactment than in that of a Pentateuchal one.
^ᵇˢnote:Of courtyards.
^ᵇᵗnote:Since none of these is a proper dwelling-house.
^ᵇᵘnote:Upon the occupier (or occupiers) of the courtyard, even if that tenant did not make a contribution to the ‘erub of the courtyard.
^ᵇᵛnote:Lit., ‘behold this is ‘erub’.
^ᵇʷnote:To whom the householder has loaned its use.
^ᵇˣnote:Upon the use of the courtyard, on account of its door that opened into that courtyard.
^ᵇʸnote:In the straw-shed etc. In his courtyard, which he loaned to the tenant.
^ᵇᶻnote:Lit., ‘a holding (or grasping) of the hand (or place’), sc. if he is entitled to use a section of the place for his own storage.
^ᶜᵃnote:Because the entire courtyard with all its rooms and sheds are deemed to be the dwelling quarters of the householder while the tenant in question has no individual status but that of one of his household.
^ᶜᵇnote:Cf. Bah.
^ᶜᶜnote:Of the courtyard. Our Mishnah refers to the gate-house of a courtyard that was owned by several people.
^ᶜᵈnote:Of courtyards.
^ᶜᵉnote:Sc. the food prescribed for the purpose.
^ᶜᶠnote:The essence of an ‘erub of courtyards is the legal fusion of all the houses and rooms in a courtyard into one common dwelling, that dwelling being the place in which the ‘erub is deposited. As in its essence it must constitute a ‘dwelling’, only a place or structure that is used as a dwelling is suitable for the purpose. Shittuf however, which combines only courtyards, in which people do not actually dwell, has no connection with the principle of ‘a dwelling’ and the food for it may, therefore, be deposited even in a place that is not used for dwelling purposes.
^ᶜᵍnote:R. Judah.
^ᶜʰnote:By the statement he cited in the name of R. Samuel b. Shilath.
^ᶜⁱnote:That the food for Shittuf may be deposited even in those structures where no ‘erub may be deposited.
^ᶜʲnote:How then are the two rulings to be reconciled?
^ᶜᵏnote:This providing support for the ruling cited by R. Judah.
^ᶜˡnote:Lit., ‘shittuf in an alley is not preserved’.
^ᶜᵐnote:Sc. only one whose door opened into the alley.
^ᶜⁿnote:MS.M., ‘Rab’ (cf. the parallel passage supra 73b, where cur. edd. also read ‘Rab’).
^ᶜᵒnote:Those who read ‘erub’ and those who read ‘shittuf’.
^ᶜᵖnote:Which is a suitable place for an ‘erub.
^ᶜᵠnote:In which only the food for shittuf, but not that for ‘erub, may be deposited.
^ᶜʳnote:Suk. 3b.
^ᶜˢnote:Because a proper dwelling house is an essential. How then could an open courtyard be used for the purpose?
^ᶜᵗnote:But neither can an ‘erub be deposited in the courtyard itself nor a shittuf in the alley itself.
^ᶜᵘnote:A rich man who allowed people to occupy various rooms in his courtyard but reserved for himself the right to a holding in each room for the purpose of storing in it some of his own goods.
^ᶜᵛnote:Lit., , ‘said to them’.