עירובין 92 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Could R. Johanan have made such a statement, seeing that R. Johanan laid down that the halachah is in agreement with an anonymous Mishnah, and weÊlearned: If aïwalà between two courtyards was ten handbreadths high and four handbr‰adths thick, two ‘eru·s may be prepared but not one. If there was fruit on the top of it, the tenants on either side may cli€b up and eat there, provided they do not carrywit down? — The meaning of ‘down’ is ‘down into the houses’. But did not R. Hiyya learn: Provided neither of the tenants stands in his place and eats? — The other replied: Since Rabbi has not taught this ruling whence could R. Hiyya know it! Iô was stated: If there were two courtyards with a ruin between them and the tenants of the one prepared an ‘erub and the tenants of the other did not prepare one, [the ruin] said R. Huna, is to be assigned that courtyard for which no ‘erub had been prepared, but not to the one for which an ‘erub had been prepared, since the tenants of the latter might be tempted to carry objects from their houses into the ruin. Hiyya b. Rab, however, said: It is also assigned to the courtyard for which an ‘erub had been prepared, and both, therefore, are subject to restrictions. For wereXyou to suggest that both are exempt from restrictions, why [I would ask,] is not a courtyard for whic— no ‘erub had been prepared assigned to the courtyard for which one had been prepared? — [No]. In that case since the objects from the houses are safe ÿn the courtyard one might carry [many of them) thither]; but here in the case of a ruin, since the objects from the houses are not safe in a ruin, no one would carry many of them thither. Others read: Hiyya b. Rab said: It is also assigned to the courtyard for which an ‘erub had been prepared; and both, therefore, are free from restrictions. For should you insist that both are subject to restrictions since a courtyard for which no ‘erub had been provided is not assigned to the one for which one had been provided, [it can be retorted]: In that case, since the objects from the houses are safe in the courtyard the Rabbis did not relax the restrictions because otherwise people might carry them out. In a ruin, however, they are not safe. MISHNAH. IF A LARGE ROOF WAS CLOSE TO A SMALLER ROOF THE USE OF THE LARGER ONE IS PERMITTED BUT THAT OF THE LESSER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF THE FULL WIDTH OF A WALL OF A SMALL COURTYARD WAS BROKEN DOWN SO THAT THE YARD FULLY OPENED INTO A LARGE COURTYARD, THE USE OF THE LARGER ONE IS PERMITTED, BUT THAT OF THE SMALLER ONE IS FORBIDDEN, BECAUSE THE GAP IS REGARDED AS A DOORWAY TO THE FORMER. GEMARA. What was the point in teaching the same principles twice? According to Rab's view, this was intended to teach us that a ROOF is subject to the same limitations as a COURTYARD: As in a courtyard the walls are distinguishable SO must the walls be distinguishable in the case of a roof also; and according to Samuel's view a no ROOF was meant to be compared to a COURTYARD: As a courtyard is a place upon which many people tread so must a roof be one on which many people tread. Rabbah and R. Zera and Rabbah son of R. Hanan were sitting at their studies, Abaye sitting beside them, and in the course of their session they argued as follows: From our Mishnah it may be inferred that the occupiers of the larger one influence the rights of those of the lesser but those of the latter do not influence those of the former. If, for instance, vines were planted in the larger one, it is forbidden to sow in the lesser one, and if it was sown, the seeds are forbidden; and^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^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ

^ᵃnote:That the halachah was in agreement with R. Simeon that all courtyards are regarded as a single domain even where separate ‘erub were prepared for each.
^ᵇnote:Anonymously.
^ᶜnote:Supra 76b q.v. notes. Since it is forbidden to carry’ the fruit down into either courtyard, it is obvious that it is forbidden to carry any object from one courtyard into another; and this ruling, since it is contained in all anonymous Mishnah, must, according to R. Johanan, represent the halachah. Now, if it is granted, as Rab maintained Supra, that a distinction is drawn between courtyards for each of which a separate ‘erub had been provided and courtyards for which none had been provided, the Mishnah cited can be explained to refer to courtyards of the former class; but if no distinction is drawn and R. Simeon, according to R. Johanan's interpretation, regards all courtyards as one domain in either case, how is this rule to be reconciled with the Mishnah?
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘what is below’?
^ᵉnote:Into the courtyards, however, this is permitted.
^ᶠnote:Lit., ‘that this shall not . . . and this etc.’
^ᵍnote:Sc. in his own courtyard or on the top of the wall, from which it is obvious that the movement of objects is forbidden not only into the houses but also from one courtyard into the other.
^ʰnote:[MS.M. reads: provided they do not carry it down but each one stands in his place].
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘and when’.
^ʲnote:R. Judah I, the compiler of the Mishnah.
^ᵏnote:He only spoke of the prohibition to carry it ‘down’, (cf. n. 4,) meaning to take it into the houses.
^ˡnote:Who was Rabbis disciple. R. Hiyya compiled Baraithas, and the authorship of the Tosefta is attributed to him.
^ᵐnote:On none of whose side it was fully exposed to the public domain and that belonged either to the owners of the adjoining houses or to another person.
^ⁿnote:For their courtyard alone, so that they’ were allowed to move objects from their houses into it.
^ᵒnote:In consequence of which they are forbidden to carry into it any objects from their houses.
^ᵖnote:Irrespective of whether it belonged to one of the house owners or to a stranger.
^ᵠnote:I.e., the tenants of that courtyard are permitted to carry objects from their courtyard into the ruin.
^ʳnote:Which happened to be in their courtyard (cf. supra n. 10).
^ˢnote:No such precaution is necessary in the case of the other courtyard since no objects from the houses (cf. supra n. 11) may be carried into it. R. Huna, a disciple of Rab, follows his master's principle (supra 91a).
^ᵗnote:In the name of his father (v Rashi a.l.).
^ᵘnote:The ruin.
^ᵛnote:Since a preventive measure is necessary to prevent mistaken application of the rule for the courtyard for which no ‘erub had been prepared to the one for which an ‘erub had been prepared.
^ʷnote:In the opinion of Hiyya.
^ˣnote:Neither from the one nor from the other may objects be moved into the ruin.
^ʸnote:Sc. that Rab's (cf. supra p. 636, n. 16) ruling that the ruin ‘is also assigned etc.’ implies a relaxation of the law and that even from the courtyard in which an ‘erub had been prepared the moving of objects into the ruin is permitted.
^ᶻnote:In the ruling of R. Simeon in our Mishnah which, according to Rab's interpretation (supra 91a) ‘applies only where no ‘erub had been prepared but not where one had been prepared’.
^ᵃᵃnote:As is the ruin, according to the suggestion.
^ᵃᵇnote:Sc. why should not the tenants of the latter be permitted to carry objects from their courtyard into the former.
^ᵃᶜnote:This is no argument against the suggestion that the meaning is that both are free from restrictions.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘there’, the ruling of R. Simeon according to Rab's interpretation.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘are watched’, ‘protected’.
^ᵃᶠnote:Sc. so manly objects are likely to he carried from the houses into the courtyard that they might easily be mixed up with those of the courtyard and carried like them to the next courtyard. Hence the restriction.
^ᵃᵍnote:Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. As objects from the houses are not likely to be mixed up with those of the courtyard no preventive measure was considered necessary. The case of the ruin, therefore, is no criterion for that spoken of by R. Simeon, and it may well be maintained, as suggested, that in the former case both are free from restrictions’.
^ᵃʰnote:The ruin,
^ᵃⁱnote:Cf. supra n. 1.
^ᵃʲnote:Presumably; in the opinion of Hiyya.
^ᵃᵏnote:Sc. that neither from the one nor from the other may objects be moved into the ruin.
^ᵃˡnote:V. supra n. 2 and text.
^ᵃᵐnote:From which it is evident that a preventive measure had been enacted against the possibility of mixing up the objects from the houses with those from the courtyard and the carrying of the former like the latter into the next courtyard (cf supra p. 636, n. 18).
^ᵃⁿnote:Into the courtyard (cf. supra p. 637, n. 8).
^ᵃᵒnote:V. supra p. 637, n. 9.
^ᵃᵖnote:The former projecting on both sides of the latter and the line of contact being no longer than ten cubits.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., the taking up of objects from the house below.
^ᵃʳnote:The occupiers of the adjoining house impose no restrictions on its tenants since the projecting portion of the larger roof (cf. supra n. 3), by the rule of upward extension, forms side-posts to the middle section common to both roofs which, being no bigger than ten cubits (cf. loc. cit.), is regarded as a doorway of the larger roof.
^ᵃˢnote:Cf. supra n. 4; since it is fully exposed to the larger roof, the occupiers of the larger house impose restrictions on its use,
^ᵃᵗnote:So Asheri, and cur. edd. supra 8a, 9b. Cur. edd. a.l. and Alfasi ‘large’.
^ᵃᵘnote:Cf. prev. n.
^ᵃᵛnote:I.e., the movement of objects from its houses into it.
^ᵃʷnote:If an ‘erub had been prepared by its tenants. For the reason cf supra n. 5; mut. mut.
^ᵃˣnote:But not to the latter. Hence it is (cf. supra nn. 5f) that the use of the former is permitted while that of the latter is forbidden.
^ᵃʸnote:Lit., ‘wherefore to me’.
^ᵃᶻnote:In our Mishnah.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lit., ‘two’; in case of (a) roofs and (b) courtyards.
^ᵇᵇnote:That walls must be distinguishable.
^ᵇᶜnote:The repetition of the same principle.
^ᵇᵈnote:Since it has proper walls.
^ᵇᵉnote:I.e the roof must not project beyond the walls. If it does the rule of upward extension cannot apply.
^ᵇᶠnote:That the rule of upward extension is applicable even where the walls are indistinguishable when viewed from the roof.
^ᵇᵍnote:If its use is to be forbidden.
^ᵇʰnote:If many people do not tread upon it, the rule of upward extension is applied even where the walls are indistinguishable from above.
^ᵇⁱnote:MS.M., ‘Abin’.
^ᵇʲnote:Lit., ‘how?’
^ᵇᵏnote:Because the latter is regarded as a part of the former in which it is forbidden to sow vines and corn together (v. Glos. s.v. kil'ayim).

²the vines are permitted; if vines grew in the lesser one it is permitted to sow in the larger one. If a woman was in the larger one, and her get was in the lesser one she is divorced thereby; but if the woman was in the lesser one and her get in the larger, she is not divorced. If a congregation was in the larger one and the Reader in the lesser one, they have dully performed their duty, but if the congregation was in the lesser one and the Reader in the larger one they have not performed their duty. If nine men were in the larger courtyard and one was in the lesser one they may all be combined, but if nine men were in the lesser one and one man in the larger one they may not be combined. If excrement was in the larger one it is forbidden to read the portions of the shema’ in the lesser one, but if it was in the lesser one it is permitted to read the shema’ in the larger one. Said Abaye to them, If so, do we not find here a case where a partition is a cause of prohibition, for in the absence of a partition one may sow at a distance of four cubits whereas now this is forbidden?’ But, retorted R. Zera to Abaye, do we not elsewhere also find a case where a partition is a cause of prohibition? Have we not in fact learnt: IF THE FULL. WIDTH OF A WALL OF A SMALL. COURTYARD WAS BROKEN DOWN SO THAT THE YARD FULLY OPENED INTO A LARGE COURTYARD, THE USE OF THE LARGER ONE IS PERMITTED, BUT THAT OF THE SMALLER ONE IS FORBIDDEN, BECAUSE THE GAP IS REGARDED AS A DOORWAY TO THE FORMER; but if its projections had been straightened the use of the large One also would have been forbidden? — There, the other replied, it is a case of the removal of partitions. ‘Do we not’, retorted Raba to Abaye, ‘find a partition to be the cause of a prohibition? Has it not in fact been stated:^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

^ᵇˡnote:Since the lesser courtyard cannot influence the larger one which remains independent of it.
^ᵇᵐnote:Even ab initio.
^ᵇⁿnote:Cf. supra n. 6. The line of contact between the courtyards being regarded as a doorway to the larger one and, a doorway having the status of a partition, the corn may be sown even in close proximity to the vines (cf. B.B. 26a). In this case, since they were planed first, the vines also remain permitted (cf. Men. 15a).
^ᵇᵒnote:Which her husband threw to her.
^ᵇᵖnote:And she was the owner of both courtyards.
^ᵇᵠnote:Even according to the view (Git. 77b) that a woman cannot be divorced by the thrusting of a get into her domain unless she was herself present at the time within that domain.
^ᵇʳnote:Since the lesser courtyard is regarded as a part of the larger one in which she was actually present,
^ᵇˢnote:Because the larger courtyard forms no part of the lesser one, while the woman within the latter (who, as a rule, has no desire to acquire a get to be divorced) cannot be deemed to be transferred to the larger courtyard.
^ᵇᵗnote:Sheliah zibbur, lit., ‘the messenger of the congregation’, who reads the prayers for, and on behalf of those who are themselves unable to read them.
^ᵇᵘnote:Of prayer. The Reader in the lesser courtyard which is regarded as a part of the larger one is deemed to be in the same place as the congregation.
^ᵇᵛnote:since the Reader in the larger courtyard, which (as explained supra) is independent of the’ lesser one, cannot be regarded as present with them in the lesser one, while a whole congregation cannot be deemed to be transferred from their position and shifted towards the position of an individual.
^ᵇʷnote:To form a quorum of ten, the minimum number required for a public religious service (cf. supra p. 639, n. 15 mut. mut.)
^ᵇˣnote:Cf. supra n. 1 mut. mut.
^ᵇʸnote:Keri'ath shema’, lit., ‘the reading of the shema’, the passages from Deut. VI, 4-9 XI, 13-21, and Num. XV, 37-41 the first of which begins with the words ‘Shema’ Yisroel’ (‘Hear, O Israel’). The three passages form the central part of the morning and evening services.
^ᵇᶻnote:Which is deemed to be a part of the former.
^ᶜᵃnote:Which (as explained supra) is separated from the lesser one by a virtual doorway which has the status of a partition.
^ᶜᵇnote:Sc. the virtual doorway (formed, by the projection of the sections of the larger courtyard on both sides of the smaller one) which has the status of a partition.
^ᶜᶜnote:I.e., but for the projections on both sides of the smaller one which have the status of a partition.
^ᶜᵈnote:From the vines; lit., ‘removes four cubits and sows’.
^ᶜᵉnote:On account of the imaginary partition.
^ᶜᶠnote:Since the entire area of the smaller courtyard is forbidden ground.
^ᶜᵍnote:Cf. relevant note on our Mishnah.
^ᶜʰnote:The sections of the larger courtyard that projected on both sides of the smaller one.
^ᶜⁱnote:By building partitions that cut out these projections from the larger courtyard.
^ᶜʲnote:Which, on account of the partitions d, is now fully exposed to the smaller one as the latter is exposed to it.
^ᶜᵏnote:Which is another case where a partition is the cause of a prohibition.
^ᶜˡnote:The case just cited.
^ᶜᵐnote:The putting up of the new partitions removes the former partitions so that one cancels out the other. In the case cited by Abaye, however, there is only one set of partitions and these very partitions are the cause of the prohibition.