Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

November 1, 2020 | 讬状讚 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents,聽 Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Eruvin 84

Today’s daf is dedicated by Debbie Ziering in loving memory of her mother, Evelyn Trotzky, Esther Chava bat Avraham z”l on her 23rd yahrtzeit. “A woman of quiet strength, grace and dignity, taken from us much too early.” And for a refuah shleima of David ben Eidel.

Rav and Shmuel disagree in a place that is accessible to one location by lowering down and the other by throwing – what is the law? To Rav, it is equally accessible to both and if they did not make a eruv with each other, meither can carry there. Shmuel holds that it is easier to access something by lowering than by throwing and therefore it is permitted for the one who it is accessible to by lowering. The gemara brings tannaitic sources, including our mishna, to prove who is right.

讘谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 诪专驻住转 讚拽住诇拽讬 讘诪专驻住转 讗诇诪讗 讻诇 诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 讜诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讝讛 砖讘砖诇砖讜诇


It is referring to the residents of an upper story above the balcony; and if so, why do we call the upper story a balcony? Because the residents of the upper story ascend and descend to and from their apartments by way of the balcony. From here the Gemara infers: With regard to any place that can be used by one set of residents only by lowering an object down to it and by another set of residents only by throwing an object on top of it, we grant Shabbat use of it to those who can use it by lowering, as the residents of the upper story who use the area ten handbreadths high do so by means of lowering. Apparently, the mishna supports Shmuel and presents a difficulty to Rav.


讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗讜转谉 讛讚专讬诐 讘诪专驻住转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讜转谉 讛讚专讬谉 讘诪专驻住转


The Gemara rejects this argument: As Rav Huna said with regard to a different issue discussed in a subsequent mishna, that the tanna is referring to those who live in apartments that open directly onto the balcony rather than those who live in an upper story; here too, the tanna is speaking of those who live in apartments that open directly onto the balcony. In this case, the use of an area ten handbreadths high is convenient for the residents of the balcony, as it is on their level; whereas its use is relatively inconvenient for the residents of the courtyard. Consequently, the right to use this area is granted to the residents of the balcony.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇讞爪专 讗诪讗讬 诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讛讜讗


The Gemara raises an objection: If so, say the next clause of the mishna: Anything that is lower than this, i.e., lower than ten handbreadths, its use belongs to the courtyard. But why should this be the halakha? This is similar to a case of residents of two courtyards who have equally convenient access to a certain area. The residents of this courtyard access the area through one entrance, and the residents of that courtyard access the area through another entrance. In our case, the use of the area is equally convenient for the inhabitants of both the balcony and the courtyard; why should the latter be granted exclusive right of use?


诪讗讬 诇讞爪专 讗祝 诇讞爪专 讜砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉


The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase to the courtyard? It means also to the courtyard. In other words, even the residents of the courtyard can make use of this mound or post, and therefore residents of both the courtyard and the balcony are prohibited. If residents of two domains can conveniently use a single area and they did not establish an eiruv between their domains, they are all prohibited to carry in that area.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘住诪讜讻讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讜驻诇讙转 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讞爪专 诪讗讬 诇讞爪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讞爪专 讜砖专讬 讗诪讗讬 专砖讜转讗 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗


The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to explain the mishna in this manner, as it was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: In what case is this statement said? When the mound or embankment is near the balcony; but in a case where it is distant from it, even if it is ten handbreadths high, its use belongs to the courtyard. What, then, is the meaning of the phrase to the courtyard in this context? If you say it means to the residents of courtyard, and therefore the use of the mound or embankment is permitted to them, why should this be so? It is the domain of the residents of both the courtyard and the balcony, as the mound or embankment is positioned near enough to the balcony for its residents to use it as well.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讞爪专 讗祝 诇讞爪专 讜砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 诇讞爪专 讗祝 诇讞爪专 讜砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase to the courtyard? It means also to the courtyard. And, consequently, as the residents of both the courtyard and the balcony can use it, both are prohibited to carry there on Shabbat. Here too, in the earlier part of the mishna, what is the meaning of the clause to the courtyard? It likewise means also to the courtyard, and therefore both sets of residents are prohibited to carry. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the correct interpretation of this phrase.


转谞谉 讞讜诇讬讬转 讛讘讜专 讜讛住诇注 砖讛谉 讙讘讜讛讬谉 注砖专讛 诇诪专驻住转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇讞爪专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗讜转谉 讛讚专讬诐 讘诪专驻住转


The Gemara attempts to adduce further proof from the mishna to resolve the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: The embankments that surround a cistern or a rock that are ten handbreadths high may be used by the balcony; if they are lower than that height, the right to use them belongs to the courtyard. The Gemara assumes that the phrase to the balcony is referring to the residents of an upper story, who access their apartments through the balcony. The mishna indicates that if one set of residents can make use of a place by lowering and another set of residents can use it by throwing, the use of the place is granted to those who lower their objects, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel and contrary to the opinion of Rav. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna said that the phrase to the balcony is to be understood here literally as referring to those who live in apartments that open directly onto the balcony.


转讬谞讞 住诇注 讘讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case of a rock, the residents of the balcony can use it conveniently, as its surface is more or less level with the balcony itself. But with regard to a cistern, what can be said? The water in the cistern is lower than the balcony and can be reached only by lowering a bucket down to it. How, then, can it be argued that the cistern is conveniently used by the residents of the balcony but not by the residents of the courtyard?


讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讘讘讜专 诪诇讗讛 诪讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讞住专讗


Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Yehuda, said: We are dealing here with a cistern full of water, as the water can be drawn from the cistern鈥檚 upper portion, near the balcony. The Gemara raises an objection: But doesn鈥檛 the cistern gradually lose its water as the liquid near the surface is drawn out? Although the water might at first reach the balcony, the water level gradually recedes. Eventually, the only way to reach the water will be by lowering a bucket into the cistern.


讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诪诇讬讗 砖专讬讗 讻讬 讞住专讗 谞诪讬 砖专讬讗 讗讚专讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 讞住专讗 讗住讬专讗 讻讬 诪诇讬讗 谞诪讬 讗住讬专讗


The Gemara answers: Since it is permitted to draw water from the cistern when it is full, it is likewise permitted even when it is lacking. The Gemara counters this argument: On the contrary, you should say that since the cistern is prohibited when it is lacking, it should likewise be prohibited even when it is full.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘讘讜专 诪诇讬讗讛 驻讬专讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讞住专讬


Rather, Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a cistern full of produce, as the upper produce is near the balcony. The Gemara raises an objection: But doesn鈥檛 the amount of produce also diminish, as the produce is removed, increasing the distance between the pile and the balcony?


讘讟讬讘诇讗


The Gemara answers: This teaching is referring to untithed produce, which one may not tithe on Shabbat. Since this produce may not be used, the height of the pile will remain constant for the duration of Shabbat.


讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚住诇注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches the halakha of an embankment of a cistern together with that of a rock. Just as in the case of the rock only the upper surface is used, so too, in the case of the embankment of the cistern, the mishna is referring to the use of the surface of the cistern and not its contents. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the correct explanation.


讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讘讜专 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住诇注 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 住诇注 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 讗讘诇 讘讜专 诇讬讙讝讜专 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪诇讬讗 驻讬专讜转 诪转讜拽谞讬谉 爪专讬讻讗


The Gemara asks: But if this is indeed correct, and the cistern and rock are similar in all respects, why do I need the tanna to state the case of a cistern, and why do I need him to state the case of a rock as well? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach both cases. As had the mishna taught us only about a rock, one might have said that only a rock may be used by the residents of the balcony, as there is no need to decree in case its height is diminished. But with regard to a cistern, perhaps we should decree and prohibit its use, as at times it might be filled with tithed produce, which may be removed and eaten, thereby diminishing its height. It was therefore necessary to teach us that this is not a concern, and a cistern, as well as a rock, may be used by the residents of the balcony.


转讗 砖诪注 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 讜讗谞砖讬 注诇讬讬讛 砖砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 诪砖转诪砖讬谉 讘注砖专讛 讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜讗谞砖讬 注诇讬讬讛 诪砖转诪砖讬谉 讘注砖专讛 讛注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讻讬爪讚 讝讬讝 讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讞爪专 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇注诇讬讬讛


Returning to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel, the Gemara suggests a different proof: Come and hear a baraita: If the residents of houses opening directly into a courtyard and the residents of apartments in an upper story forgot and did not establish an eiruv together, the residents of the courtyard may use the lower ten handbreadths of the wall near them, and the residents of the upper story may use the upper ten handbreadths adjacent to them. How so? If a ledge protrudes from the wall below ten handbreadths from the ground, its use is for the residents of the courtyard; but if it protrudes above ten handbreadths, its use is for the residents of the upper story.


讛讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗住讜专


The Gemara infers: Consequently, a ledge situated between this and between the other, i.e., in-between the courtyard and the upper story, is prohibited. This middle area has the status of a place that can be used by one set of residents by lowering and by another set of residents by throwing, and yet they are both prohibited, in accordance with the opinion of Rav and in opposition to the opinion of Shmuel.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讗 讘讻讜转诇 转砖注讛 注砖专 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讝讬讝 讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讜 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛


Rav Na岣an said: No proof can be adduced from this teaching, as here we are dealing with a wall of nineteen handbreadths that has a protruding ledge. If the ledge protrudes below ten handbreadths from the ground, for this set of residents, those of the courtyard, it can be used as an entrance, and for that set of residents, those of the upper story, it can be used only by lowering. If the ledge protrudes above ten handbreadths, for this set of residents, those in the balcony, it can be accessed as an entrance, and for that set of residents, those of the courtyard, it can be used only by throwing. In this case, there is no middle area between the ten-handbreadths available to each set of residents. Consequently, this case cannot serve as a proof with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.


转讗 砖诪注 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 注砖讜 诇注诇讬讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注砖讜 诇转讞转讜谞讛 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 注讚 砖讬注专讘讜


The Gemara attempts to cite yet another proof to resolve the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Come and hear a mishna: If a balcony extends over a body of water, and the residents of the balcony cut out a hole in the floor and constructed a partition ten handbreadths high around the hole, water may be drawn through the hole on Shabbat. If there are two balconies of this kind, one above the other, and they erected a partition for the upper balcony but they did not erect one for the lower one, they are both prohibited from drawing water, unless they establish an eiruv between them. This mishna apparently is referring to a case where the residents of the upper balcony draw water by lowering their buckets down, whereas the residents of the lower balcony hoist their bucket to the upper one and draw water from there, i.e., one balcony draws the water by lowering and the other by throwing. The mishna rules that they are both prohibited, in accordance with the opinion of Rav and contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讘讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 转讞转讜谞讛 讚专讱 注诇讬讜谞讛 诇诪诇讗讜转


Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here we are dealing with a case where the residents of the lower balcony go up to the upper balcony by means of a ladder to draw their water from there. Since they themselves are located in the upper balcony when they draw their water, both sets of residents gain access to their water by lowering.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 注砖讜 诇转讞转讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注砖讜 诇注诇讬讜谞讛 讚讗住讬专讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讘讙讜 注砖专讛 讚讛讚讚讬 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗住专谉 讗讛讚讚讬


Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a case, where the two balconies are situated within ten handbreadths of each other, and the tanna was speaking in the style of: There is no need. In other words, the mishna should be understood in the following manner: There is no need to say that if they erect a partition for the lower balcony but they did not erect one for the upper one, they are both prohibited to draw water. The reason is that since they are positioned within ten handbreadths of each other, they render it prohibited for one another anyway.


讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讜 诇注诇讬讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注砖讜 诇转讞转讜谞讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讝讛 讘谞讞转 讜诇讝讛 讘拽砖讛 诇讬转讘讬讛 诇讝讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘谞讞转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讙讜 注砖专讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗住专谉 讗讛讚讚讬


Rather, the halakha is the same even if they established a partition for the upper balcony and they did not establish a partition for the lower one, despite the fact that it might have entered your mind to say the following: Since for this, the residents of the upper balcony, its use is convenient, while for that lower balcony, its use is demanding, as the lower balcony can draw water only by hoisting its bucket upward, the use of the hole should therefore be granted to the one whose use is convenient. This reasoning would render the hole permitted to the upper balcony and prohibited to the lower balcony. To counter this hypothetical argument, the mishna teaches us that since the upper and lower balconies are located within ten handbreadths of each other, they render it prohibited for one another.


讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讙 讛住诪讜讱 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 诇讛转讬专讜 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 讗讬谉 住讜诇诐 注专讗讬 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讛讚讚讬 拽讬讬诪讬 讗住专谉 讗讛讚讚讬


This is similar to a teaching that Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: In the case of a roof that is adjacent to a public domain, there must be a fixed ladder from the courtyard to the roof to permit the use of the roof to the residents of the courtyard. The Gemara infers: If there is a fixed ladder, yes, the residents of the courtyard may use the roof; if there is merely a temporary ladder, no, they are prohibited to use it. What is the reason for this distinction? Is it not that since the balcony and the public domain are situated within ten handbreadths of each other, the residents of both render it prohibited for one another, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye? Since the residents of the balcony are located within ten handbreadths of the public domain, the presence of people in the public domain renders the use of the roof prohibited for the inhabitants of the balcony. The only way for the members of the balcony to be permitted to use the roof is by means of a fixed ladder that has the status of a proper door.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻砖专讘讬诐 诪讻转驻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讻讜诪转讗 讜住讜讚专讗


Rav Pappa strongly objected to this argument, claiming that this proof can be refuted: But perhaps this applies only to a roof upon which many people place their hats [kumta] and shawls when they are in need of rest. Even if the people in the public domain are not situated within ten handbreadths of the roof, they can still use it conveniently if they wish to place light objects upon it on a temporary basis. If there was not a fixed ladder, the residents of the courtyard would not be permitted to use the roof, as it serves the public domain as well. Consequently, no proof can be adduced from here either. In summary, no compelling proof has been found either for Rav鈥檚 opinion or for Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:


Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents,聽 Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 80-86 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will discuss if various people can make an eruv for others, including mothers-in-law for daughters-in-law and parents...
alon shvut women

Shared Spaces?

Eruvin Daf 84 Discussing the dispute between Rav and Shmuel and seeing if our mishna supports either side regarding: the...

Eruvin 84

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 84

讘谞讬 注诇讬讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 诪专驻住转 讚拽住诇拽讬 讘诪专驻住转 讗诇诪讗 讻诇 诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 讜诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讝讛 砖讘砖诇砖讜诇


It is referring to the residents of an upper story above the balcony; and if so, why do we call the upper story a balcony? Because the residents of the upper story ascend and descend to and from their apartments by way of the balcony. From here the Gemara infers: With regard to any place that can be used by one set of residents only by lowering an object down to it and by another set of residents only by throwing an object on top of it, we grant Shabbat use of it to those who can use it by lowering, as the residents of the upper story who use the area ten handbreadths high do so by means of lowering. Apparently, the mishna supports Shmuel and presents a difficulty to Rav.


讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗讜转谉 讛讚专讬诐 讘诪专驻住转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讜转谉 讛讚专讬谉 讘诪专驻住转


The Gemara rejects this argument: As Rav Huna said with regard to a different issue discussed in a subsequent mishna, that the tanna is referring to those who live in apartments that open directly onto the balcony rather than those who live in an upper story; here too, the tanna is speaking of those who live in apartments that open directly onto the balcony. In this case, the use of an area ten handbreadths high is convenient for the residents of the balcony, as it is on their level; whereas its use is relatively inconvenient for the residents of the courtyard. Consequently, the right to use this area is granted to the residents of the balcony.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇讞爪专 讗诪讗讬 诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讛讜讗


The Gemara raises an objection: If so, say the next clause of the mishna: Anything that is lower than this, i.e., lower than ten handbreadths, its use belongs to the courtyard. But why should this be the halakha? This is similar to a case of residents of two courtyards who have equally convenient access to a certain area. The residents of this courtyard access the area through one entrance, and the residents of that courtyard access the area through another entrance. In our case, the use of the area is equally convenient for the inhabitants of both the balcony and the courtyard; why should the latter be granted exclusive right of use?


诪讗讬 诇讞爪专 讗祝 诇讞爪专 讜砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉


The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the phrase to the courtyard? It means also to the courtyard. In other words, even the residents of the courtyard can make use of this mound or post, and therefore residents of both the courtyard and the balcony are prohibited. If residents of two domains can conveniently use a single area and they did not establish an eiruv between their domains, they are all prohibited to carry in that area.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘住诪讜讻讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讜驻诇讙转 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讞爪专 诪讗讬 诇讞爪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讞爪专 讜砖专讬 讗诪讗讬 专砖讜转讗 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗


The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to explain the mishna in this manner, as it was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: In what case is this statement said? When the mound or embankment is near the balcony; but in a case where it is distant from it, even if it is ten handbreadths high, its use belongs to the courtyard. What, then, is the meaning of the phrase to the courtyard in this context? If you say it means to the residents of courtyard, and therefore the use of the mound or embankment is permitted to them, why should this be so? It is the domain of the residents of both the courtyard and the balcony, as the mound or embankment is positioned near enough to the balcony for its residents to use it as well.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讞爪专 讗祝 诇讞爪专 讜砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 诇讞爪专 讗祝 诇讞爪专 讜砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase to the courtyard? It means also to the courtyard. And, consequently, as the residents of both the courtyard and the balcony can use it, both are prohibited to carry there on Shabbat. Here too, in the earlier part of the mishna, what is the meaning of the clause to the courtyard? It likewise means also to the courtyard, and therefore both sets of residents are prohibited to carry. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the correct interpretation of this phrase.


转谞谉 讞讜诇讬讬转 讛讘讜专 讜讛住诇注 砖讛谉 讙讘讜讛讬谉 注砖专讛 诇诪专驻住转 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 诇讞爪专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗讜转谉 讛讚专讬诐 讘诪专驻住转


The Gemara attempts to adduce further proof from the mishna to resolve the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. We learned in the mishna: The embankments that surround a cistern or a rock that are ten handbreadths high may be used by the balcony; if they are lower than that height, the right to use them belongs to the courtyard. The Gemara assumes that the phrase to the balcony is referring to the residents of an upper story, who access their apartments through the balcony. The mishna indicates that if one set of residents can make use of a place by lowering and another set of residents can use it by throwing, the use of the place is granted to those who lower their objects, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel and contrary to the opinion of Rav. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna said that the phrase to the balcony is to be understood here literally as referring to those who live in apartments that open directly onto the balcony.


转讬谞讞 住诇注 讘讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case of a rock, the residents of the balcony can use it conveniently, as its surface is more or less level with the balcony itself. But with regard to a cistern, what can be said? The water in the cistern is lower than the balcony and can be reached only by lowering a bucket down to it. How, then, can it be argued that the cistern is conveniently used by the residents of the balcony but not by the residents of the courtyard?


讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讘讘讜专 诪诇讗讛 诪讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讞住专讗


Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Yehuda, said: We are dealing here with a cistern full of water, as the water can be drawn from the cistern鈥檚 upper portion, near the balcony. The Gemara raises an objection: But doesn鈥檛 the cistern gradually lose its water as the liquid near the surface is drawn out? Although the water might at first reach the balcony, the water level gradually recedes. Eventually, the only way to reach the water will be by lowering a bucket into the cistern.


讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诪诇讬讗 砖专讬讗 讻讬 讞住专讗 谞诪讬 砖专讬讗 讗讚专讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 讞住专讗 讗住讬专讗 讻讬 诪诇讬讗 谞诪讬 讗住讬专讗


The Gemara answers: Since it is permitted to draw water from the cistern when it is full, it is likewise permitted even when it is lacking. The Gemara counters this argument: On the contrary, you should say that since the cistern is prohibited when it is lacking, it should likewise be prohibited even when it is full.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘讘讜专 诪诇讬讗讛 驻讬专讜转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讞住专讬


Rather, Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a cistern full of produce, as the upper produce is near the balcony. The Gemara raises an objection: But doesn鈥檛 the amount of produce also diminish, as the produce is removed, increasing the distance between the pile and the balcony?


讘讟讬讘诇讗


The Gemara answers: This teaching is referring to untithed produce, which one may not tithe on Shabbat. Since this produce may not be used, the height of the pile will remain constant for the duration of Shabbat.


讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚住诇注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches the halakha of an embankment of a cistern together with that of a rock. Just as in the case of the rock only the upper surface is used, so too, in the case of the embankment of the cistern, the mishna is referring to the use of the surface of the cistern and not its contents. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the correct explanation.


讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讘讜专 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住诇注 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 住诇注 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 讗讘诇 讘讜专 诇讬讙讝讜专 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪诇讬讗 驻讬专讜转 诪转讜拽谞讬谉 爪专讬讻讗


The Gemara asks: But if this is indeed correct, and the cistern and rock are similar in all respects, why do I need the tanna to state the case of a cistern, and why do I need him to state the case of a rock as well? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach both cases. As had the mishna taught us only about a rock, one might have said that only a rock may be used by the residents of the balcony, as there is no need to decree in case its height is diminished. But with regard to a cistern, perhaps we should decree and prohibit its use, as at times it might be filled with tithed produce, which may be removed and eaten, thereby diminishing its height. It was therefore necessary to teach us that this is not a concern, and a cistern, as well as a rock, may be used by the residents of the balcony.


转讗 砖诪注 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 讜讗谞砖讬 注诇讬讬讛 砖砖讻讞讜 讜诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗谞砖讬 讞爪专 诪砖转诪砖讬谉 讘注砖专讛 讛转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜讗谞砖讬 注诇讬讬讛 诪砖转诪砖讬谉 讘注砖专讛 讛注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讻讬爪讚 讝讬讝 讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讞爪专 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇注诇讬讬讛


Returning to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel, the Gemara suggests a different proof: Come and hear a baraita: If the residents of houses opening directly into a courtyard and the residents of apartments in an upper story forgot and did not establish an eiruv together, the residents of the courtyard may use the lower ten handbreadths of the wall near them, and the residents of the upper story may use the upper ten handbreadths adjacent to them. How so? If a ledge protrudes from the wall below ten handbreadths from the ground, its use is for the residents of the courtyard; but if it protrudes above ten handbreadths, its use is for the residents of the upper story.


讛讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗住讜专


The Gemara infers: Consequently, a ledge situated between this and between the other, i.e., in-between the courtyard and the upper story, is prohibited. This middle area has the status of a place that can be used by one set of residents by lowering and by another set of residents by throwing, and yet they are both prohibited, in accordance with the opinion of Rav and in opposition to the opinion of Shmuel.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讗 讘讻讜转诇 转砖注讛 注砖专 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讝讬讝 讬讜爪讗 诪诪谞讜 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘砖诇砖讜诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讝讛 讘驻转讞 讜诇讝讛 讘讝专讬拽讛


Rav Na岣an said: No proof can be adduced from this teaching, as here we are dealing with a wall of nineteen handbreadths that has a protruding ledge. If the ledge protrudes below ten handbreadths from the ground, for this set of residents, those of the courtyard, it can be used as an entrance, and for that set of residents, those of the upper story, it can be used only by lowering. If the ledge protrudes above ten handbreadths, for this set of residents, those in the balcony, it can be accessed as an entrance, and for that set of residents, those of the courtyard, it can be used only by throwing. In this case, there is no middle area between the ten-handbreadths available to each set of residents. Consequently, this case cannot serve as a proof with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.


转讗 砖诪注 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 注砖讜 诇注诇讬讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注砖讜 诇转讞转讜谞讛 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 注讚 砖讬注专讘讜


The Gemara attempts to cite yet another proof to resolve the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Come and hear a mishna: If a balcony extends over a body of water, and the residents of the balcony cut out a hole in the floor and constructed a partition ten handbreadths high around the hole, water may be drawn through the hole on Shabbat. If there are two balconies of this kind, one above the other, and they erected a partition for the upper balcony but they did not erect one for the lower one, they are both prohibited from drawing water, unless they establish an eiruv between them. This mishna apparently is referring to a case where the residents of the upper balcony draw water by lowering their buckets down, whereas the residents of the lower balcony hoist their bucket to the upper one and draw water from there, i.e., one balcony draws the water by lowering and the other by throwing. The mishna rules that they are both prohibited, in accordance with the opinion of Rav and contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讘讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 转讞转讜谞讛 讚专讱 注诇讬讜谞讛 诇诪诇讗讜转


Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here we are dealing with a case where the residents of the lower balcony go up to the upper balcony by means of a ladder to draw their water from there. Since they themselves are located in the upper balcony when they draw their water, both sets of residents gain access to their water by lowering.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讬讬诪讬谉 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 注砖讜 诇转讞转讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注砖讜 诇注诇讬讜谞讛 讚讗住讬专讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讘讙讜 注砖专讛 讚讛讚讚讬 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗住专谉 讗讛讚讚讬


Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a case, where the two balconies are situated within ten handbreadths of each other, and the tanna was speaking in the style of: There is no need. In other words, the mishna should be understood in the following manner: There is no need to say that if they erect a partition for the lower balcony but they did not erect one for the upper one, they are both prohibited to draw water. The reason is that since they are positioned within ten handbreadths of each other, they render it prohibited for one another anyway.


讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讜 诇注诇讬讜谞讛 讜诇讗 注砖讜 诇转讞转讜谞讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讝讛 讘谞讞转 讜诇讝讛 讘拽砖讛 诇讬转讘讬讛 诇讝讛 砖转砖诪讬砖讜 讘谞讞转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讙讜 注砖专讛 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗住专谉 讗讛讚讚讬


Rather, the halakha is the same even if they established a partition for the upper balcony and they did not establish a partition for the lower one, despite the fact that it might have entered your mind to say the following: Since for this, the residents of the upper balcony, its use is convenient, while for that lower balcony, its use is demanding, as the lower balcony can draw water only by hoisting its bucket upward, the use of the hole should therefore be granted to the one whose use is convenient. This reasoning would render the hole permitted to the upper balcony and prohibited to the lower balcony. To counter this hypothetical argument, the mishna teaches us that since the upper and lower balconies are located within ten handbreadths of each other, they render it prohibited for one another.


讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙讙 讛住诪讜讱 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 爪专讬讱 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 诇讛转讬专讜 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 讗讬谉 住讜诇诐 注专讗讬 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讛讚讚讬 拽讬讬诪讬 讗住专谉 讗讛讚讚讬


This is similar to a teaching that Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: In the case of a roof that is adjacent to a public domain, there must be a fixed ladder from the courtyard to the roof to permit the use of the roof to the residents of the courtyard. The Gemara infers: If there is a fixed ladder, yes, the residents of the courtyard may use the roof; if there is merely a temporary ladder, no, they are prohibited to use it. What is the reason for this distinction? Is it not that since the balcony and the public domain are situated within ten handbreadths of each other, the residents of both render it prohibited for one another, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye? Since the residents of the balcony are located within ten handbreadths of the public domain, the presence of people in the public domain renders the use of the roof prohibited for the inhabitants of the balcony. The only way for the members of the balcony to be permitted to use the roof is by means of a fixed ladder that has the status of a proper door.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻砖专讘讬诐 诪讻转驻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讻讜诪转讗 讜住讜讚专讗


Rav Pappa strongly objected to this argument, claiming that this proof can be refuted: But perhaps this applies only to a roof upon which many people place their hats [kumta] and shawls when they are in need of rest. Even if the people in the public domain are not situated within ten handbreadths of the roof, they can still use it conveniently if they wish to place light objects upon it on a temporary basis. If there was not a fixed ladder, the residents of the courtyard would not be permitted to use the roof, as it serves the public domain as well. Consequently, no proof can be adduced from here either. In summary, no compelling proof has been found either for Rav鈥檚 opinion or for Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇


Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:


Scroll To Top