עירובין 85:2 — Soncino English Talmud

while 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,^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^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ

^ᵃnote: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.
^ᵇnote:Of Rab, just cited by R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha.
^ᶜnote:v. marg. glosses. Cur. edd. ‘Eliezer.
^ᵈnote: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
^ᵉnote:V. p. 591, n. 15.
^ᶠnote: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?
^ᵍnote:The three ruins.
^ʰnote:So that the air space of a ruin intervened between either house and the central ruin.
^ⁱnote: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.
^ʲnote:In laying down supra that a man may impose restrictions upon another through the air.
^ᵏnote:From Palestine to Babylon.
^ˡnote:Situated between a public and a private domain.
^ᵐnote:And is consequently too insignificant to constitute a domain of its own.
^ⁿnote:Since in relation to either it loses its identity.
^ᵒnote: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.
^ᵖnote:R. Dimi's ruling.
^ᵠnote:A public and a private one.
^ʳnote:As people are usually careful in the observance of Pentateuchal restrictions no special provision, such as that of a projection, was considered necessary.
^ˢnote:A cistern between two courtyards.
^ᵗnote:Both Pentateuchally private.
^ᵘnote:As a precaution against possible laxity in their observance.
^ᵛnote: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.
^ʷnote:Both belonging to the same owner.
^ˣnote: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.
^ʸnote: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?
^ᶻnote:As a reason for the prohibition.
^ᵃᵃnote:Of the two houses under discussion.
^ᵃᵇnote:Of the two houses under discussion.
^ᵃᶜnote:Where an object is thrown from the lower to the upper house.
^ᵃᵈnote: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.
^ᵃᵉnote:Of courtyards.
^ᵃᶠnote:Since none of these is a proper dwelling-house.
^ᵃᵍnote:Upon the occupier (or occupiers) of the courtyard, even if that tenant did not make a contribution to the ‘erub of the courtyard.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘behold this is ‘erub’.
^ᵃⁱnote:To whom the householder has loaned its use.
^ᵃʲnote:Upon the use of the courtyard, on account of its door that opened into that courtyard.
^ᵃᵏnote:In the straw-shed etc. In his courtyard, which he loaned to the tenant.
^ᵃˡnote: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.
^ᵃᵐnote: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.
^ᵃⁿnote:Cf. Bah.
^ᵃᵒnote:Of the courtyard. Our Mishnah refers to the gate-house of a courtyard that was owned by several people.
^ᵃᵖnote:Of courtyards.
^ᵃᵠnote:Sc. the food prescribed for the purpose.
^ᵃʳnote: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.
^ᵃˢnote:R. Judah.
^ᵃᵗnote:By the statement he cited in the name of R. Samuel b. Shilath.
^ᵃᵘnote:That the food for Shittuf may be deposited even in those structures where no ‘erub may be deposited.
^ᵃᵛnote:How then are the two rulings to be reconciled?
^ᵃʷnote:This providing support for the ruling cited by R. Judah.
^ᵃˣnote:Lit., ‘shittuf in an alley is not preserved’.
^ᵃʸnote:Sc. only one whose door opened into the alley.
^ᵃᶻnote:MS.M., ‘Rab’ (cf. the parallel passage supra 73b, where cur. edd. also read ‘Rab’).
^ᵇᵃnote:Those who read ‘erub’ and those who read ‘shittuf’.
^ᵇᵇnote:Which is a suitable place for an ‘erub.
^ᵇᶜnote:In which only the food for shittuf, but not that for ‘erub, may be deposited.
^ᵇᵈnote:Suk. 3b.
^ᵇᵉnote:Because a proper dwelling house is an essential. How then could an open courtyard be used for the purpose?
^ᵇᶠnote:But neither can an ‘erub be deposited in the courtyard itself nor a shittuf in the alley itself.
^ᵇᵍnote: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.
^ᵇʰnote:Lit., , ‘said to them’.