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

Daf Yomi

November 6, 2020 | 讬状讟 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 89

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker in loving Memory of her much-missed mother Arlene Goodstein, Enya Bat Chana v’ Moshe’s 5th yahrzeit. “My mother’s presence is felt every day with all the wonderful things she taught us, her love of Judaism and Israel, and all the strength she gave us. She would be very proud of her daughter studying Talmud.”
Can one carry from roof to roof or enclosure to enclosure or courtyard to courtyard? There are three opinions. What is the background to these approaches? According to the rabbis, the roof follows the house and one cannot carry from one to the other. Rav and Shmuel debate whether according to the rabbis one could carry on the roof itself or only 4 cubits?聽 Their argument depends on using imaginary walls (gut asik mechitzta) – in what situations can we use that principle?

 

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗讘诇 注讬专讘讜 诪讜转专讬谉


They taught this halakha only with regard to a case where the residents of the two upper stories did not establish an eiruv together, but if they established a joint eiruv, they are all permitted to pour water into the courtyard.


讜讻讬 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讛转诐:


The Gemara asks: And where they did not establish an eiruv, what is the reason that the residents who did not dig a pit may not pour water into the courtyard? Rav Ashi said: It is a decree, lest people come to take out vessels filled with water from their houses into the courtyard, to pour into the pit. In the absence of an eiruv, this practice is prohibited.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉



诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讙讙讜转 讛注讬专 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讙讙 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讗讜 谞诪讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 专砖讜转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜


MISHNA: All the roofs of the city are considered one domain. It is permitted to carry from one roof to another, even if the residents of the houses did not establish an eiruv between them. The Sages did not prohibit carrying between roofs, as it is rare to transfer an item from one roof to another. However, it is only permitted to transfer objects between roofs provided that one roof is neither ten handbreadths higher nor ten handbreadths lower than the adjacent roof. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Each and every one of the roofs is a domain in and of itself. It is permitted to carry from one to the other only if the residents of both houses established an eiruv.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讜讗讞讚 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 诇转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转:


Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, courtyards, and enclosures are all one domain with regard to vessels that were inside them when Shabbat began, and one may therefore carry from one of these areas to another. However, they are not one domain with regard to vessels that were inside the house when Shabbat began and were later taken into one of the above domains. A vessel that was inside the house when Shabbat began and subsequently carried to one of these areas may be carried from one roof, courtyard, or enclosure to another only if an eiruv had been established between the domains.


讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻砖诐 砖讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讻讱 讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇诪注诇讛


GEMARA: Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi 岣nina bar Avin were sitting, and Abaye was sitting beside them, and they sat and said: Granted, the Rabbis maintain: Just as residents are divided into separate domains below, and they may not carry from house to house without an eiruv, so are residents divided into separate domains above, on the rooftops, and it is prohibited to carry from one roof to another without an eiruv.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讻砖诐 砖讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讻讱 讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讗诪讗讬 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 讜讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讚讻诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讙 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜谞诪讜讱 注砖专讛 谞诪讬


However, Rabbi Meir, what does he maintain; what is the rationale for his opinion? If he maintains that just as residents are divided into separate domains below, so are residents divided into separate domains above, why, in his opinion, are they considered one domain? And if he maintains that they are not divided into separate domains, as any place above ten handbreadths off the ground is considered one domain, even if a roof is ten handbreadths higher or ten handbreadths lower than the adjacent roof, it should likewise be permitted to carry from one roof to the other.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讻讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 讜讛谉 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讻讙讜谉 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讗住讜专 诇讻转祝 注诇讬讜 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 转诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 转诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐


Abaye said to them: Have you not heard that which Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said that Rabbi Meir would say: Any place that you find two domains, i.e., places set apart from each other by disparity in height or by boundaries, and yet they are halakhically one domain, for example, a pillar ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide situated in a private domain, it is prohibited to adjust a burden on one鈥檚 shoulders upon it, by rabbinic decree, due to the concern lest he come to do the same thing on a mound in the public domain. The legal status of a mound ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide located in a public domain is that of a private domain. In that case, it is prohibited by Torah law to transfer an object from the public domain to the mound. Here too, in the case of roofs, Rabbi Meir prohibited transferring objects between roofs with a height disparity of ten handbreadths, by rabbinic decree, due to the concern lest one come to transfer an object from the public domain to a mound in a public domain.


住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻转砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬讙讬转


Abaye and 岣nina bar Avin understood by inference from this ruling that in the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it would be prohibited to adjust one鈥檚 burden even on a mortar and even on a vat that were overturned in a private domain and that are large enough to constitute private domains in their own right.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 注诪讜讚 讜讗诪转 讛专讬讞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 拽讜讘注 诇讛谉 诪拽讜诐


Abaye said to them: The Master, Rabba, said as follows: Rabbi Meir spoke only in the case of a pillar or the raised base of a millstone. Since a person fixes a place for them they are comparable to a mound in a public domain in that they are rarely moved. However, the Sages did not issue a decree in the case of portable objects.


讜讛专讬 讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讚拽讘讜注 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讙讙讬谉 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪谉 讞爪讬专讜转 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪谉 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty. There is the case of a wall that is between two courtyards, which is fixed, and nevertheless Rav Yehuda said: When you analyze the matter, you will find that according to Rabbi Meir all roofs form a single domain in and of themselves, and likewise all courtyards form a single domain in and of themselves, and all enclosures form a single domain in and of themselves. It is permitted to carry from one courtyard to another, although it is not permitted to carry from a courtyard to a roof.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 讚专讱 讻讜转诇


What, is it not that it is permitted to move objects from one courtyard to another via a dividing wall, even though it is ten handbreadths high? This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who prohibits the transfer of an object from one place to a place ten handbreadths higher or lower.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讚专讱 驻转讞讬诐:


Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: No, that explanation is incorrect, as Rav Yehuda meant to say that according to Rabbi Meir it is permitted to carry in and carry out between one courtyard and another, or from one enclosure to another, via the openings between them. However, Rabbi Meir concedes that one may not transfer objects over the wall that separates the two domains, as the wall is considered a domain in and of itself.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 专砖讜转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜: 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜


We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that each and every one of the roofs is a domain in and of itself. It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following issue. Rav said: According to the Rabbis, one may move objects on each roof only within four cubits. As, according to the Rabbis, the legal status of roofs is like that of courtyards, in that it is prohibited to carry from one roof to another, and each roof is fully open to a domain into which carrying is prohibited. Therefore, it is also prohibited to carry objects farther than four cubits on each roof. And Shmuel said: It is permitted to move objects throughout each entire roof.


讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讛谞讬讻专讜转 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讬讻专讜转


The Gemara comments: With regard to partitions that are conspicuous, i.e., detached houses whose walls are distinct, everyone agrees that it is permitted to carry throughout each roof. Where they disagree is with regard to partitions that are not conspicuous, i.e., attached houses, which appear as though they share a common roof although they are owned by different people.


专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讗 讗诪专 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诪讞讬爪转讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讚讗诪专 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诪讞讬爪转讗


Rav said: One may carry on each roof only within four cubits. Rav does not state the principle: Extend and raise the partitions between the houses below, which states that the walls of the houses are considered to extend upward and create partitions between the roofs. And Shmuel said: It is permitted to carry throughout each entire roof, as he states the principle: Extend and raise the partitions.


转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚


The Gemara asks a question based on that which we learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that each and every one of the roofs


专砖讜转 诇注爪诪讜 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 拽砖讬讗


is a domain in and of itself. This indicates that each roof constitutes a discrete domain, and one may carry throughout this entire domain. Granted according to the opinion of Shmuel, this works out well, but according to the opinion of Rav, it is difficult.


讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖诇讗 讬讟诇讟诇 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛 讜砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛


The Gemara answers that the Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The ruling in the mishna is not a leniency permitting one to carry throughout the entire roof; rather, it is a stringency, ruling that one may not move an object two cubits on this roof and two cubits on that roof. The tanna rules that even the allowance to carry within four cubits is restricted to a single roof.


讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讘讘诇 讛讜讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛谞讬 讚讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讙讙谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: When we were in Babylonia we would say that the Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: One may move an object on each roof only within four cubits, and those Sages of the school of Shmuel taught a baraita in accordance with their opinion: They have only their own roof.


诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讙讙谉 诇讗讜 讚砖专讜 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讜诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 砖诇讗 讬讟诇讟诇 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛 讜砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛 讜砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛


The Gemara seeks to clarify this baraita. What is the meaning of the statement: They have only their own roof? Is it not that they are permitted to move an object throughout each entire roof? This baraita poses a difficulty to Rav. The Gemara rejects this contention: And is this baraita any stronger a proof than our mishna, which we established as a stringency, that one may not move an object two cubits on this roof and two cubits on that roof? So too, this baraita is teaching that one may not carry two cubits on this roof and two cubits on that roof.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讙讙 讙讚讜诇 讛住诪讜讱 诇拽讟谉 讛讙讚讜诇 诪讜转专 讜讛拽讟谉 讗住讜专


Rav Yosef said, after an illness had caused him to forget his knowledge: I have not heard this halakha of Shmuel鈥檚 with regard to roofs. His student Abaye said to him: You yourself said it to us, and it was about this that you said it to us: With regard to a large roof that is adjacent to a small one, carrying on the large one is permitted, as its partitions are distinct where it extends beyond the small one, and carrying on the small one is prohibited, as it is breached along its entire length into the other roof, onto which it is prohibited to carry.


讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 讚讬讜专讬谉 注诇 讝讛 讜讚讬讜专讬谉 注诇 讝讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讛讗 讚拽讟谉 诪讞讬爪讛 谞讚专住转


And you said to us about it: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They only taught this halakha in a case where there are residents on this roof and residents on that roof, as the extended, virtual partition of the small roof is considered a trampled partition. The residents trample this virtual partition as they move from one roof to the other, and the entire length of the small roof is considered breached into the large one.


讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 注诇 讝讛 讜注诇 讝讛 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉


However, if there are no residents on this roof and none on that one, carrying on both roofs is permitted. Presumably, Shmuel鈥檚 reasoning is that in this case the walls of the houses below extend upward and form partitions between the roofs, in accordance with the principle: Extend and raise the partitions.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讻讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 注诇 讝讛 讚讙讚讜诇 诪讬砖转专讬 讘讙讬驻讜驻讬 讜拽讟谉 谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讝讛 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉


Rav Yosef said to him: I remember it now. I said to you as follows: They taught this halakha, that carrying is prohibited on the small roof, only with regard to a case where there was an actual partition on all sides of this roof and an actual partition on all sides of that roof, not only between the two roofs. In that case, carrying on the large roof is permitted by means of the remnants of the partition on either side of the opening, and carrying on the small roof is prohibited because it is fully breached into the larger one. However, if there is no partition, neither on all sides of this roof nor on all sides of that roof, carrying on both of them is prohibited.


讜讛讗 讚讬讜专讬谉 讗诪专转 诇谉 讗讬 讗诪专讬 诇讻讜 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讻讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 诪讞讬爪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 注诇 讝讛 讚讙讚讜诇 诪讬砖转专讬 讘讙讬驻讜驻讬 讜拽讟谉 谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜


Abaye raised a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 you speak to us of residents? Rav Yosef replied: If I spoke to you of residents, this is what I said to you: They taught this halakha, that carrying is prohibited on the small roof, only in a case where there is an actual partition that renders the area fit for residence on all sides of this roof, and an actual partition that renders the area fit for residence on all sides of that roof, as carrying on the large roof is permitted by means of the remnants of the partition on either side of the opening, and carrying on the small roof is prohibited because it is fully breached into the larger one.


讗讘诇 讬砖 诪讞讬爪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 注诇 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 注诇 讛拽讟谉 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谉 砖专讬 诇讘谞讬 讙讚讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 注讘讜讚 诪讞讬爪讛 住诇讜拽讬 住诇讬拽讜 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 诪讛讻讗


However, if there is a partition that renders the area fit for a residence on all sides of the large roof, but there is no partition that renders the area fit for a residence on the small roof, carrying even on the small roof is permitted for the residents of the large roof. What is the reason for this? Since the residents of the small roof did not erect a partition around their roof, they thereby removed themselves from here and transferred the right to their domain to the residents of the large roof.


讻讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注砖讛 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 诇讙讙讜 讛讜转专 讘讻诇 讛讙讙讬谉 讻讜诇谉


This is in accordance with that which Rav Na岣an said: If one affixed a permanent ladder to his roof, while the owners of the neighboring roofs did not do so, it is permitted for him to carry on all the roofs. The failure of the other owners to erect a ladder indicates that they relinquished the right to their roofs to the one who affixed the permanent ladder.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘谞讛 注诇讬讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讬转讜 讜注砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛 讚拽讛 讗专讘注 讛讜转专 讘讻诇 讛讙讙讬谉 讻讜诇谉


Abaye said: If a person built an upper story atop his house, by surrounding the roof with walls, and erected before its entrance a small partition [dakka] four cubits high that opens to other roofs, it is permitted for him to carry on all the roofs. His construction of the partition is indicative of his plans to utilize the other roofs, while the failure of the other owners to do so indicates that they conceded use of their roofs to him.


讗诪专 专讘讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛讚拽讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讛讚讬 转专讘讬爪讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 讚讗诪专


Rava said: Sometimes the small partition leads to prohibition. What are the circumstances of this case? It is a case where the partition was erected facing toward the garden of his house and the sides facing the other roofs were sealed. The reason is that through his actions he 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 87-93 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a ledge over water and how one can draw water from it. We will...

Eruvin 89

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 89

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讜 讗讘诇 注讬专讘讜 诪讜转专讬谉


They taught this halakha only with regard to a case where the residents of the two upper stories did not establish an eiruv together, but if they established a joint eiruv, they are all permitted to pour water into the courtyard.


讜讻讬 诇讗 注讬专讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讝讬专讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讛转诐:


The Gemara asks: And where they did not establish an eiruv, what is the reason that the residents who did not dig a pit may not pour water into the courtyard? Rav Ashi said: It is a decree, lest people come to take out vessels filled with water from their houses into the courtyard, to pour into the pit. In the absence of an eiruv, this practice is prohibited.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 诪砖转转驻讬谉



诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讙讙讜转 讛注讬专 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讙讙 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讗讜 谞诪讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 专砖讜转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜


MISHNA: All the roofs of the city are considered one domain. It is permitted to carry from one roof to another, even if the residents of the houses did not establish an eiruv between them. The Sages did not prohibit carrying between roofs, as it is rare to transfer an item from one roof to another. However, it is only permitted to transfer objects between roofs provided that one roof is neither ten handbreadths higher nor ten handbreadths lower than the adjacent roof. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Each and every one of the roofs is a domain in and of itself. It is permitted to carry from one to the other only if the residents of both houses established an eiruv.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讙讙讜转 讜讗讞讚 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讗讞讚 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 诇转讜讻谉 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讬诐 砖砖讘转讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转:


Rabbi Shimon says: Roofs, courtyards, and enclosures are all one domain with regard to vessels that were inside them when Shabbat began, and one may therefore carry from one of these areas to another. However, they are not one domain with regard to vessels that were inside the house when Shabbat began and were later taken into one of the above domains. A vessel that was inside the house when Shabbat began and subsequently carried to one of these areas may be carried from one roof, courtyard, or enclosure to another only if an eiruv had been established between the domains.


讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讬转讬讘 讗讘讬讬 讙讘讬讬讛讜 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻砖诐 砖讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讻讱 讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇诪注诇讛


GEMARA: Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi 岣nina bar Avin were sitting, and Abaye was sitting beside them, and they sat and said: Granted, the Rabbis maintain: Just as residents are divided into separate domains below, and they may not carry from house to house without an eiruv, so are residents divided into separate domains above, on the rooftops, and it is prohibited to carry from one roof to another without an eiruv.


讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬 拽住讘专 讻砖诐 砖讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讻讱 讚讬讜专讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讗诪讗讬 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛谉 讜讗讬 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讚讻诇 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讙 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜谞诪讜讱 注砖专讛 谞诪讬


However, Rabbi Meir, what does he maintain; what is the rationale for his opinion? If he maintains that just as residents are divided into separate domains below, so are residents divided into separate domains above, why, in his opinion, are they considered one domain? And if he maintains that they are not divided into separate domains, as any place above ten handbreadths off the ground is considered one domain, even if a roof is ten handbreadths higher or ten handbreadths lower than the adjacent roof, it should likewise be permitted to carry from one roof to the other.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讻讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖转讬 专砖讜讬讜转 讜讛谉 专砖讜转 讗讞转 讻讙讜谉 注诪讜讚 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讞讘 讗专讘注讛 讗住讜专 诇讻转祝 注诇讬讜 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 转诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 转诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐


Abaye said to them: Have you not heard that which Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said that Rabbi Meir would say: Any place that you find two domains, i.e., places set apart from each other by disparity in height or by boundaries, and yet they are halakhically one domain, for example, a pillar ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide situated in a private domain, it is prohibited to adjust a burden on one鈥檚 shoulders upon it, by rabbinic decree, due to the concern lest he come to do the same thing on a mound in the public domain. The legal status of a mound ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide located in a public domain is that of a private domain. In that case, it is prohibited by Torah law to transfer an object from the public domain to the mound. Here too, in the case of roofs, Rabbi Meir prohibited transferring objects between roofs with a height disparity of ten handbreadths, by rabbinic decree, due to the concern lest one come to transfer an object from the public domain to a mound in a public domain.


住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻转砖转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讙讬讙讬转


Abaye and 岣nina bar Avin understood by inference from this ruling that in the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it would be prohibited to adjust one鈥檚 burden even on a mortar and even on a vat that were overturned in a private domain and that are large enough to constitute private domains in their own right.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 注诪讜讚 讜讗诪转 讛专讬讞讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 拽讜讘注 诇讛谉 诪拽讜诐


Abaye said to them: The Master, Rabba, said as follows: Rabbi Meir spoke only in the case of a pillar or the raised base of a millstone. Since a person fixes a place for them they are comparable to a mound in a public domain in that they are rarely moved. However, the Sages did not issue a decree in the case of portable objects.


讜讛专讬 讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讚拽讘讜注 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讙讙讬谉 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪谉 讞爪讬专讜转 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪谉 拽专驻讬驻讜转 专砖讜转 诇注爪诪谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty. There is the case of a wall that is between two courtyards, which is fixed, and nevertheless Rav Yehuda said: When you analyze the matter, you will find that according to Rabbi Meir all roofs form a single domain in and of themselves, and likewise all courtyards form a single domain in and of themselves, and all enclosures form a single domain in and of themselves. It is permitted to carry from one courtyard to another, although it is not permitted to carry from a courtyard to a roof.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 讚专讱 讻讜转诇


What, is it not that it is permitted to move objects from one courtyard to another via a dividing wall, even though it is ten handbreadths high? This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who prohibits the transfer of an object from one place to a place ten handbreadths higher or lower.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 诇讛讻谞讬住 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讚专讱 驻转讞讬诐:


Rav Huna bar Yehuda said that Rav Sheshet said: No, that explanation is incorrect, as Rav Yehuda meant to say that according to Rabbi Meir it is permitted to carry in and carry out between one courtyard and another, or from one enclosure to another, via the openings between them. However, Rabbi Meir concedes that one may not transfer objects over the wall that separates the two domains, as the wall is considered a domain in and of itself.


讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 专砖讜转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜: 讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜


We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that each and every one of the roofs is a domain in and of itself. It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about the following issue. Rav said: According to the Rabbis, one may move objects on each roof only within four cubits. As, according to the Rabbis, the legal status of roofs is like that of courtyards, in that it is prohibited to carry from one roof to another, and each roof is fully open to a domain into which carrying is prohibited. Therefore, it is also prohibited to carry objects farther than four cubits on each roof. And Shmuel said: It is permitted to move objects throughout each entire roof.


讘诪讞讬爪讜转 讛谞讬讻专讜转 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讞讬爪讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讬讻专讜转


The Gemara comments: With regard to partitions that are conspicuous, i.e., detached houses whose walls are distinct, everyone agrees that it is permitted to carry throughout each roof. Where they disagree is with regard to partitions that are not conspicuous, i.e., attached houses, which appear as though they share a common roof although they are owned by different people.


专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讗 讗诪专 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诪讞讬爪转讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讻讜诇讜 讚讗诪专 讙讜讚 讗住讬拽 诪讞讬爪转讗


Rav said: One may carry on each roof only within four cubits. Rav does not state the principle: Extend and raise the partitions between the houses below, which states that the walls of the houses are considered to extend upward and create partitions between the roofs. And Shmuel said: It is permitted to carry throughout each entire roof, as he states the principle: Extend and raise the partitions.


转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚


The Gemara asks a question based on that which we learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that each and every one of the roofs


专砖讜转 诇注爪诪讜 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 拽砖讬讗


is a domain in and of itself. This indicates that each roof constitutes a discrete domain, and one may carry throughout this entire domain. Granted according to the opinion of Shmuel, this works out well, but according to the opinion of Rav, it is difficult.


讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖诇讗 讬讟诇讟诇 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛 讜砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛


The Gemara answers that the Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The ruling in the mishna is not a leniency permitting one to carry throughout the entire roof; rather, it is a stringency, ruling that one may not move an object two cubits on this roof and two cubits on that roof. The tanna rules that even the allowance to carry within four cubits is restricted to a single roof.


讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讘讘诇 讛讜讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讛谞讬 讚讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 转谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讙讙谉


The Gemara raises a difficulty. But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: When we were in Babylonia we would say that the Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: One may move an object on each roof only within four cubits, and those Sages of the school of Shmuel taught a baraita in accordance with their opinion: They have only their own roof.


诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讙讙谉 诇讗讜 讚砖专讜 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讜诪讬 讗诇讬诪讗 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 砖诇讗 讬讟诇讟诇 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛 讜砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛 讜砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讘讙讙 讝讛


The Gemara seeks to clarify this baraita. What is the meaning of the statement: They have only their own roof? Is it not that they are permitted to move an object throughout each entire roof? This baraita poses a difficulty to Rav. The Gemara rejects this contention: And is this baraita any stronger a proof than our mishna, which we established as a stringency, that one may not move an object two cubits on this roof and two cubits on that roof? So too, this baraita is teaching that one may not carry two cubits on this roof and two cubits on that roof.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗转 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讜讗讛讗 讗诪专转 谞讬讛诇谉 讙讙 讙讚讜诇 讛住诪讜讱 诇拽讟谉 讛讙讚讜诇 诪讜转专 讜讛拽讟谉 讗住讜专


Rav Yosef said, after an illness had caused him to forget his knowledge: I have not heard this halakha of Shmuel鈥檚 with regard to roofs. His student Abaye said to him: You yourself said it to us, and it was about this that you said it to us: With regard to a large roof that is adjacent to a small one, carrying on the large one is permitted, as its partitions are distinct where it extends beyond the small one, and carrying on the small one is prohibited, as it is breached along its entire length into the other roof, onto which it is prohibited to carry.


讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 讚讬讜专讬谉 注诇 讝讛 讜讚讬讜专讬谉 注诇 讝讛 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讛讗 讚拽讟谉 诪讞讬爪讛 谞讚专住转


And you said to us about it: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They only taught this halakha in a case where there are residents on this roof and residents on that roof, as the extended, virtual partition of the small roof is considered a trampled partition. The residents trample this virtual partition as they move from one roof to the other, and the entire length of the small roof is considered breached into the large one.


讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬谉 注诇 讝讛 讜注诇 讝讛 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉


However, if there are no residents on this roof and none on that one, carrying on both roofs is permitted. Presumably, Shmuel鈥檚 reasoning is that in this case the walls of the houses below extend upward and form partitions between the roofs, in accordance with the principle: Extend and raise the partitions.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讻讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 诪讞讬爪讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 注诇 讝讛 讚讙讚讜诇 诪讬砖转专讬 讘讙讬驻讜驻讬 讜拽讟谉 谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗 注诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 注诇 讝讛 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉


Rav Yosef said to him: I remember it now. I said to you as follows: They taught this halakha, that carrying is prohibited on the small roof, only with regard to a case where there was an actual partition on all sides of this roof and an actual partition on all sides of that roof, not only between the two roofs. In that case, carrying on the large roof is permitted by means of the remnants of the partition on either side of the opening, and carrying on the small roof is prohibited because it is fully breached into the larger one. However, if there is no partition, neither on all sides of this roof nor on all sides of that roof, carrying on both of them is prohibited.


讜讛讗 讚讬讜专讬谉 讗诪专转 诇谉 讗讬 讗诪专讬 诇讻讜 讚讬讜专讬谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 诇讻讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬砖 诪讞讬爪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 注诇 讝讛 讜诪讞讬爪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 注诇 讝讛 讚讙讚讜诇 诪讬砖转专讬 讘讙讬驻讜驻讬 讜拽讟谉 谞驻专抓 讘诪诇讜讗讜


Abaye raised a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 you speak to us of residents? Rav Yosef replied: If I spoke to you of residents, this is what I said to you: They taught this halakha, that carrying is prohibited on the small roof, only in a case where there is an actual partition that renders the area fit for residence on all sides of this roof, and an actual partition that renders the area fit for residence on all sides of that roof, as carrying on the large roof is permitted by means of the remnants of the partition on either side of the opening, and carrying on the small roof is prohibited because it is fully breached into the larger one.


讗讘诇 讬砖 诪讞讬爪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 注诇 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬谉 专讗讜讬讛 诇讚讬专讛 注诇 讛拽讟谉 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谉 砖专讬 诇讘谞讬 讙讚讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 注讘讜讚 诪讞讬爪讛 住诇讜拽讬 住诇讬拽讜 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 诪讛讻讗


However, if there is a partition that renders the area fit for a residence on all sides of the large roof, but there is no partition that renders the area fit for a residence on the small roof, carrying even on the small roof is permitted for the residents of the large roof. What is the reason for this? Since the residents of the small roof did not erect a partition around their roof, they thereby removed themselves from here and transferred the right to their domain to the residents of the large roof.


讻讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注砖讛 住讜诇诐 拽讘讜注 诇讙讙讜 讛讜转专 讘讻诇 讛讙讙讬谉 讻讜诇谉


This is in accordance with that which Rav Na岣an said: If one affixed a permanent ladder to his roof, while the owners of the neighboring roofs did not do so, it is permitted for him to carry on all the roofs. The failure of the other owners to erect a ladder indicates that they relinquished the right to their roofs to the one who affixed the permanent ladder.


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘谞讛 注诇讬讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讬转讜 讜注砖讛 诇驻谞讬讛 讚拽讛 讗专讘注 讛讜转专 讘讻诇 讛讙讙讬谉 讻讜诇谉


Abaye said: If a person built an upper story atop his house, by surrounding the roof with walls, and erected before its entrance a small partition [dakka] four cubits high that opens to other roofs, it is permitted for him to carry on all the roofs. His construction of the partition is indicative of his plans to utilize the other roofs, while the failure of the other owners to do so indicates that they conceded use of their roofs to him.


讗诪专 专讘讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛讚拽讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚注讘讬讚讗 诇讛讚讬 转专讘讬爪讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 讚讗诪专


Rava said: Sometimes the small partition leads to prohibition. What are the circumstances of this case? It is a case where the partition was erected facing toward the garden of his house and the sides facing the other roofs were sealed. The reason is that through his actions he said


Scroll To Top