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

Daf Yomi

November 9, 2020 | 讻状讘 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.

Eruvin 92

Today’s daf is dedicated with gratitude to Hashem by Tina and Shalom Lamm to celebrate a new grandchild, Kedem Nachum Isaac, born to their children, Peninah and Eitan Kaplansky.
The gemara questions Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion regarding Rabbi Shimon based on a mishna. If there are two courtyards with a churva in between and one made an eruv and one didn’t, can each of them carry to the churva or neither of them or both of them? The mishna discusses the case of a large roof opening up into a smaller one and the same for a courtyard. Why is it necessary to bring both cases? Some rabbis explained that the larger courtyard absorbs the residents of the smaller one but the smaller one does not absorb the larger one. They bring 5 different areas of halacha and explain the ramifications like giving a divorce document to a woman by placing it in the other courtyard or praying with nine people of the minyan in one space and one in the other, and other cases. Abaye disagrees with them on the basis that how can having a mechitza make the two areas seem closer? The rabbis try to disprove his logical argument.

诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讜讞讘 讗专讘注讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讬讜 讘专讗砖讜 驻讬专讜转 讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讜专讬讚讜 诇诪讟讛


Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion that all courtyards constitute a single domain, even if each courtyard established an independent eiruv? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned: With regard to a wall between two courtyards, ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, they establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard, but they do not establish one eiruv. If there was fruit atop the wall, these, the residents of one courtyard, may ascend from here and eat it, and those, the residents of the other courtyard, may ascend from there and eat it, provided that they do not take the fruit down from atop the wall to the courtyards. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, all the courtyards are considered a single domain. Why may they not bring the fruit down?


诪讗讬 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 诇讘转讬诐 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讝讛 注讜诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讝讛 注讜诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜讗讜讻诇


The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the word down in this context? It means down to the houses; however, it is indeed permitted to bring the fruit down to the courtyards. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya explicitly teach in a Tosefta: Provided that neither will this one stand below in his place in his courtyard and eat, nor will that one stand in his place in his courtyard and eat?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 专讘讬 诇讗 砖谞讗讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讜


Rav Ashi said to Ravina: No proof can be cited from this baraita of Rabbi 岣yya with regard to the mishna. If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not explicitly teach it in this manner, from where does his student Rabbi 岣yya know it? If a halakha is not taught by the mishna itself, it should not be distorted to have it correspond with a Tosefta.


讗转诪专 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讞讜专讘讛 讗讞转 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讗讞转 注讬专讘讛 讜讗讞转 诇讗 注讬专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讝讜 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讛 讗讘诇 诇砖注讬专讘讛 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讞讜专讘讛


It was stated that amora鈥檌m dispute the following case: If there were two courtyards and there was one ruin between them, and the residents of one courtyard established an eiruv for themselves, while the residents of the other courtyard did not establish an eiruv for themselves, Rav Huna said: The Sages confer the right to utilize the ruin to the residents of that courtyard that did not establish an eiruv; however, to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, no, they do not confer the right to utilize the ruin. It is prohibited due to a decree, lest people come to take out vessels from one of the houses to the ruin, which is prohibited, as no eiruv was established with the ruin itself. However, this concern does not extend to the courtyard whose residents did not establish an eiruv. They are not permitted to move objects from their houses to the courtyard, and therefore there is no reason to issue a decree prohibiting the carrying of objects from the courtyard to the ruin.


讜讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 讗祝 诇砖注讬专讘讛 讜砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 砖转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讞爪专 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讛 诇讞爪专 砖注讬专讘讛


And 岣yya bar Rav disagreed with Rav Huna and said: Rights to the ruin are conferred to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, and consequently, it is prohibited for residents of both courtyards to carry objects. And if you say that it should be permitted for residents of both to move articles to the ruin, that is incorrect. As if that were so, for what reason did the Sages not confer the right to carry in the courtyard that did not establish an eiruv, to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv? If there is no cause for concern, it should always be permitted to the residents of a courtyard that established an eiruv to carry from their courtyard to a different courtyard whose residents did not establish an eiruv.


讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪谞讟专讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 讘讞爪专 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讻讗 讘讞讜专讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪谞讟专讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讞爪专 讘讞讜专讘讛 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬


The Gemara refutes this contention: There, in the case of courtyards, since the vessels from the houses are protected in the courtyard as well, there is a concern lest people come to take them out from the house to the courtyard, where they could be confused with those vessels already in the courtyard, and they might come to move those objects into the other courtyard. Here, in the case of a ruin, since the vessels from the courtyard are not protected in the ruin, there is no concern lest people come to take out the vessels from the courtyard into the ruin. Therefore, it is possible that residents of both courtyards would be permitted to utilize the ruin.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 讗祝 诇砖注讬专讘讛 讜砖转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬诐 讞爪专 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讛 诇讞爪专 砖注讬专讘讛 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪谞讟专讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 讘讞爪专 诇讗 砖专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讚讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讗讘诇 讘讞讜专讘讛 诇讗 诪谞讟专讬:


Some say a different version of the previous discussion. 岣yya bar Rav disagreed with Rav Huna and said: The ruin belongs even to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, and it is permitted for residents of both to carry in the ruin. And if you say they should both be prohibited to do so in accordance with the argument presented above, that the Sages do not confer the right to carry in the courtyard that did not establish an eiruv to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, this proof can be refuted. There, since the vessels from the houses are protected in the courtyard, the Sages did not permit carrying them, due to the concern lest people come to take them out from the house to the courtyard and from there to the other courtyard. However, in the case of a ruin, the vessels are not protected in the ruin, and therefore, there is no cause for concern.


诪转谞讬壮 讙讙 讙讚讜诇 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 讞爪专 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇拽讟谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讜拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛:


MISHNA: If a large roof was adjacent to a small roof, and the boundary between them was no wider than ten cubits, use of the large one is permitted, i.e., one may bring objects up to the roof from the house below and carry them on the roof, and use of the small one is prohibited. A similar halakha applies to a large courtyard that was breached into a small one, in a manner that one entire side of the small courtyard was breached, but the breach was less than ten cubits; it is permitted for the residents of the large courtyard to carry, but it is prohibited for the residents of the small one to do so. The rationale for this difference is because in that case, the legal status of the breach is like that of the entrance of the large courtyard. As the breach in the wall of the larger courtyard is surrounded on both sides by the remaining portions of that wall, and the breach is no greater than ten cubits wide, its legal status is like that of an entrance in the wall of the courtyard, and therefore it is permitted to carry in the large courtyard. With regard to the small courtyard, however, since one entire side of the small courtyard was breached, there remains no partition whatsoever on that side and carrying in that courtyard is therefore prohibited.


讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬 转专转讬


GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: Why does the mishna teach the same halakha twice? Why is it necessary to repeat the ruling with regard to both roofs and courtyards when the cases are apparently identical?


诇专讘 拽转谞讬 讙讙 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞爪专 诪讛 讞爪专 诪谞讻专讗 诪讞讬爪转讗 讗祝 讙讙 谞诪讬 诪谞讻专讗 诪讞讬爪转讗


The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rav, with regard to the lenient ruling that the residents may carry on a roof, the repetition comes to teach the halakha of a roof similar to that of a courtyard: Just as a courtyard, its partitions are conspicuous, so too a roof, its extended partitions, based on the principle: Extend and raise the walls of the house, must be conspicuous for it to be permitted for the residents to carry on their account. In other words, the roof must not extend beyond the walls of the house.


讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讙讙 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞爪专 诪讛 讞爪专 讚拽讗 讚专住讬 诇讛 专讘讬诐 讗祝 讙讙 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 讚专住讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬诐


Whereas according to the opinion of Shmuel, the repetition should be understood in the opposite manner, as it comes to teach the halakha of a roof similar to that of a courtyard: Just as a courtyard is a place where multitudes tread, so too, the roof is a place where multitudes tread. However, if it is not used by many people, even the small roof is permitted, as the principle: Extend and raise the walls of the house, is applied to the wall between the houses, despite the fact that the partition is not conspicuous.


讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 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 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讬讜专讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讘拽讟谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬 拽讟谞讛 讘讙讚讜诇讛


Rabba, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabba bar Rav 岣nan were sitting, and Abaye was sitting beside them, and they sat and said: Learn from the mishna that the rights of the residents of the large courtyard extend into the small one, but the rights of the residents of the small courtyard do not extend into the large one.


讻讬爪讚 讙驻谞讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗住讜专 诇讝专讜注 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讗诐 讝专注 讝专注讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉


How so? If there are vines in the large courtyard, it is prohibited to sow crops in the small one, even at a distance of four cubits, due to the prohibition against planting other food crops in a vineyard. And if he sowed crops, the seeds are prohibited. As the small courtyard is considered part of the large one, the vines in the larger courtyard render the seeds in the smaller courtyard prohibited.


讙驻谞讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 讙驻谞讬诐 讘拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专 诇讝专讜注 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇讛


The vines, however, are permitted, as the small courtyard does not extend into and impact upon the large one. The converse is also true: If there are vines in the small courtyard, it is permitted to sow other crops in the large one ab initio, even if they are not planted four cubits away from the vines, because the vines are not considered to be located in the larger courtyard, and therefore there is no prohibition whatsoever.


讗砖讛 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜讙讟 讘拽讟谞讛 诪转讙专砖转 讗砖讛 讘拽讟谞讛 讜讙讟 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谞讛 诪转讙专砖转


Likewise, if there were two adjacent courtyards, and a wife, who owned both courtyards, was standing in the large courtyard, and her husband threw her a bill of divorce into the small courtyard, she is divorced. Her presence in the larger courtyard extends to the smaller one, and she is therefore considered to be standing in the small courtyard. If, however, the wife was in the small courtyard and the bill of divorce was thrown into the large one, she is not divorced.


爪讘讜专 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讘拽讟谞讛 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 爪讬讘讜专 讘拽讟谞讛 讜砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉


Likewise, with regard to communal prayer, if the congregation was in the large courtyard, and the prayer leader was in the small one, they fulfill their obligation through his prayer, as the congregation is considered to be in the small one as well. However, if the congregation was in the small courtyard, and the prayer leader was in the large one, they do not fulfill their obligation.


转砖注讛 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜讬讞讬讚 讘拽讟谞讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 转砖注讛 讘拽讟谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉


The same principle applies to a prayer quorum: If there were nine men in the large courtyard and one man in the small one, they join together to form the necessary quorum of ten, as the small courtyard is subsumed within the large one, and the individual is considered to be in the large courtyard. However, if there were nine men in the small courtyard and one in the large one, they do not join together.


爪讜讗讛 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讘拽讟谞讛 爪讜讗讛 讘拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讘讙讚讜诇讛


Furthermore, if there was excrement in the large courtyard, it is prohibited to recite Shema in the small one, as the excrement is considered to be in the small courtyard as well, and it is prohibited to recite Shema in the presence of excrement. If, however, there was excrement in the small courtyard, it is permitted to recite Shema in the large one.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专 砖讗讬诇诪诇讬 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讝讜专注 讜讗讬诇讜 讛砖转讗 讗住讜专讛


Abaye said to them: If so, we have found a partition that causes prohibition. According to these principles, the existence of a partition renders sowing crops prohibited; in the absence of a partition sowing the crops would have been permitted due to their distance from the vines. Ostensibly, this is a counterintuitive conclusion. As, were there no partition at all, it would be sufficient to distance oneself four cubits from the vine and sow the crop, whereas now that the area is divided into two courtyards by means of a partition, it is prohibited to sow the crop in the entire small courtyard.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讞爪专 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇拽讟谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讜拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛


Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: And didn鈥檛 we find a partition that causes prohibition? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: With regard to a large courtyard that was breached into a small one, it is permitted for the residents of the large courtyard to carry, but it is prohibited for the residents of the small one to do so. That is because in that case, the legal status of the breach is like that of the entrance of the large courtyard.


讜讗讬诇讜 讛砖讜讛 讗转 讙讬驻讜驻讬讛 讙讚讜诇讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专讛


And if he were to even its protrusions by constructing partitions in the larger courtyard so that the large courtyard no longer protruded beyond the smaller one, carrying in the large courtyard would also be prohibited, as it would now be completely breached into the smaller courtyard. Apparently, in this case, construction of additional partitions causes prohibition.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 住讬诇讜拽 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讜讗


Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: The two cases are not comparable, as there, adding partitions in order to even the protrusions is not considered establishment of partitions. On the contrary, it is effectively the removal of partitions. These partitions are designed to negate the original partitions of the courtyard.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗 讗转诪专


Rava said to Abaye: And didn鈥檛 we find a partition that causes prohibition? But wasn鈥檛 it stated:


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.

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...
alon shvut women

Rooftops and Courtyards

Eruvin Daf 92 We start the daf trying to understand Rav's opinion. We move on to the status of courtyards...

Eruvin 92

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 92

诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 讻讜转诇 砖讘讬谉 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讜专讜讞讘 讗专讘注讛 诪注专讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讬讜 讘专讗砖讜 驻讬专讜转 讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讜专讬讚讜 诇诪讟讛


Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion that all courtyards constitute a single domain, even if each courtyard established an independent eiruv? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned: With regard to a wall between two courtyards, ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, they establish two eiruvin, one for each courtyard, but they do not establish one eiruv. If there was fruit atop the wall, these, the residents of one courtyard, may ascend from here and eat it, and those, the residents of the other courtyard, may ascend from there and eat it, provided that they do not take the fruit down from atop the wall to the courtyards. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, all the courtyards are considered a single domain. Why may they not bring the fruit down?


诪讗讬 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 诇讘转讬诐 讜讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讝讛 注讜诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讝讛 注讜诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜讗讜讻诇


The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the word down in this context? It means down to the houses; however, it is indeed permitted to bring the fruit down to the courtyards. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya explicitly teach in a Tosefta: Provided that neither will this one stand below in his place in his courtyard and eat, nor will that one stand in his place in his courtyard and eat?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 专讘讬 诇讗 砖谞讗讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讜


Rav Ashi said to Ravina: No proof can be cited from this baraita of Rabbi 岣yya with regard to the mishna. If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not explicitly teach it in this manner, from where does his student Rabbi 岣yya know it? If a halakha is not taught by the mishna itself, it should not be distorted to have it correspond with a Tosefta.


讗转诪专 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 讜讞讜专讘讛 讗讞转 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讗讞转 注讬专讘讛 讜讗讞转 诇讗 注讬专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讝讜 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讛 讗讘诇 诇砖注讬专讘讛 诇讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 诇讞讜专讘讛


It was stated that amora鈥檌m dispute the following case: If there were two courtyards and there was one ruin between them, and the residents of one courtyard established an eiruv for themselves, while the residents of the other courtyard did not establish an eiruv for themselves, Rav Huna said: The Sages confer the right to utilize the ruin to the residents of that courtyard that did not establish an eiruv; however, to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, no, they do not confer the right to utilize the ruin. It is prohibited due to a decree, lest people come to take out vessels from one of the houses to the ruin, which is prohibited, as no eiruv was established with the ruin itself. However, this concern does not extend to the courtyard whose residents did not establish an eiruv. They are not permitted to move objects from their houses to the courtyard, and therefore there is no reason to issue a decree prohibiting the carrying of objects from the courtyard to the ruin.


讜讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 讗祝 诇砖注讬专讘讛 讜砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 砖转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讞爪专 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讛 诇讞爪专 砖注讬专讘讛


And 岣yya bar Rav disagreed with Rav Huna and said: Rights to the ruin are conferred to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, and consequently, it is prohibited for residents of both courtyards to carry objects. And if you say that it should be permitted for residents of both to move articles to the ruin, that is incorrect. As if that were so, for what reason did the Sages not confer the right to carry in the courtyard that did not establish an eiruv, to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv? If there is no cause for concern, it should always be permitted to the residents of a courtyard that established an eiruv to carry from their courtyard to a different courtyard whose residents did not establish an eiruv.


讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪谞讟专讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 讘讞爪专 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讛讻讗 讘讞讜专讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪谞讟专讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讞爪专 讘讞讜专讘讛 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬


The Gemara refutes this contention: There, in the case of courtyards, since the vessels from the houses are protected in the courtyard as well, there is a concern lest people come to take them out from the house to the courtyard, where they could be confused with those vessels already in the courtyard, and they might come to move those objects into the other courtyard. Here, in the case of a ruin, since the vessels from the courtyard are not protected in the ruin, there is no concern lest people come to take out the vessels from the courtyard into the ruin. Therefore, it is possible that residents of both courtyards would be permitted to utilize the ruin.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗诪专 讗祝 诇砖注讬专讘讛 讜砖转讬讛谉 诪讜转专讜转 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 砖转讬讛谉 讗住讜专讜转 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬诐 讞爪专 砖诇讗 注讬专讘讛 诇讞爪专 砖注讬专讘讛 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪谞讟专讬 诪讗谞讬 讚讘转讬诐 讘讞爪专 诇讗 砖专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讚讗转讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讗讘诇 讘讞讜专讘讛 诇讗 诪谞讟专讬:


Some say a different version of the previous discussion. 岣yya bar Rav disagreed with Rav Huna and said: The ruin belongs even to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, and it is permitted for residents of both to carry in the ruin. And if you say they should both be prohibited to do so in accordance with the argument presented above, that the Sages do not confer the right to carry in the courtyard that did not establish an eiruv to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, this proof can be refuted. There, since the vessels from the houses are protected in the courtyard, the Sages did not permit carrying them, due to the concern lest people come to take them out from the house to the courtyard and from there to the other courtyard. However, in the case of a ruin, the vessels are not protected in the ruin, and therefore, there is no cause for concern.


诪转谞讬壮 讙讙 讙讚讜诇 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 讞爪专 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇拽讟谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讜拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛:


MISHNA: If a large roof was adjacent to a small roof, and the boundary between them was no wider than ten cubits, use of the large one is permitted, i.e., one may bring objects up to the roof from the house below and carry them on the roof, and use of the small one is prohibited. A similar halakha applies to a large courtyard that was breached into a small one, in a manner that one entire side of the small courtyard was breached, but the breach was less than ten cubits; it is permitted for the residents of the large courtyard to carry, but it is prohibited for the residents of the small one to do so. The rationale for this difference is because in that case, the legal status of the breach is like that of the entrance of the large courtyard. As the breach in the wall of the larger courtyard is surrounded on both sides by the remaining portions of that wall, and the breach is no greater than ten cubits wide, its legal status is like that of an entrance in the wall of the courtyard, and therefore it is permitted to carry in the large courtyard. With regard to the small courtyard, however, since one entire side of the small courtyard was breached, there remains no partition whatsoever on that side and carrying in that courtyard is therefore prohibited.


讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬 转专转讬


GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: Why does the mishna teach the same halakha twice? Why is it necessary to repeat the ruling with regard to both roofs and courtyards when the cases are apparently identical?


诇专讘 拽转谞讬 讙讙 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞爪专 诪讛 讞爪专 诪谞讻专讗 诪讞讬爪转讗 讗祝 讙讙 谞诪讬 诪谞讻专讗 诪讞讬爪转讗


The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rav, with regard to the lenient ruling that the residents may carry on a roof, the repetition comes to teach the halakha of a roof similar to that of a courtyard: Just as a courtyard, its partitions are conspicuous, so too a roof, its extended partitions, based on the principle: Extend and raise the walls of the house, must be conspicuous for it to be permitted for the residents to carry on their account. In other words, the roof must not extend beyond the walls of the house.


讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讙讙 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞爪专 诪讛 讞爪专 讚拽讗 讚专住讬 诇讛 专讘讬诐 讗祝 讙讙 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 讚专住讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬诐


Whereas according to the opinion of Shmuel, the repetition should be understood in the opposite manner, as it comes to teach the halakha of a roof similar to that of a courtyard: Just as a courtyard is a place where multitudes tread, so too, the roof is a place where multitudes tread. However, if it is not used by many people, even the small roof is permitted, as the principle: Extend and raise the walls of the house, is applied to the wall between the houses, despite the fact that the partition is not conspicuous.


讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 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 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讬讜专讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讘拽讟谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讬讜专讬 拽讟谞讛 讘讙讚讜诇讛


Rabba, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabba bar Rav 岣nan were sitting, and Abaye was sitting beside them, and they sat and said: Learn from the mishna that the rights of the residents of the large courtyard extend into the small one, but the rights of the residents of the small courtyard do not extend into the large one.


讻讬爪讚 讙驻谞讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗住讜专 诇讝专讜注 讗转 讛拽讟谞讛 讜讗诐 讝专注 讝专注讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉


How so? If there are vines in the large courtyard, it is prohibited to sow crops in the small one, even at a distance of four cubits, due to the prohibition against planting other food crops in a vineyard. And if he sowed crops, the seeds are prohibited. As the small courtyard is considered part of the large one, the vines in the larger courtyard render the seeds in the smaller courtyard prohibited.


讙驻谞讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 讙驻谞讬诐 讘拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专 诇讝专讜注 讗转 讛讙讚讜诇讛


The vines, however, are permitted, as the small courtyard does not extend into and impact upon the large one. The converse is also true: If there are vines in the small courtyard, it is permitted to sow other crops in the large one ab initio, even if they are not planted four cubits away from the vines, because the vines are not considered to be located in the larger courtyard, and therefore there is no prohibition whatsoever.


讗砖讛 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜讙讟 讘拽讟谞讛 诪转讙专砖转 讗砖讛 讘拽讟谞讛 讜讙讟 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谞讛 诪转讙专砖转


Likewise, if there were two adjacent courtyards, and a wife, who owned both courtyards, was standing in the large courtyard, and her husband threw her a bill of divorce into the small courtyard, she is divorced. Her presence in the larger courtyard extends to the smaller one, and she is therefore considered to be standing in the small courtyard. If, however, the wife was in the small courtyard and the bill of divorce was thrown into the large one, she is not divorced.


爪讘讜专 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讘拽讟谞讛 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 爪讬讘讜专 讘拽讟谞讛 讜砖诇讬讞 爪讘讜专 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉


Likewise, with regard to communal prayer, if the congregation was in the large courtyard, and the prayer leader was in the small one, they fulfill their obligation through his prayer, as the congregation is considered to be in the small one as well. However, if the congregation was in the small courtyard, and the prayer leader was in the large one, they do not fulfill their obligation.


转砖注讛 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜讬讞讬讚 讘拽讟谞讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 转砖注讛 讘拽讟谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉


The same principle applies to a prayer quorum: If there were nine men in the large courtyard and one man in the small one, they join together to form the necessary quorum of ten, as the small courtyard is subsumed within the large one, and the individual is considered to be in the large courtyard. However, if there were nine men in the small courtyard and one in the large one, they do not join together.


爪讜讗讛 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讘拽讟谞讛 爪讜讗讛 讘拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专 诇拽专讜转 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讘讙讚讜诇讛


Furthermore, if there was excrement in the large courtyard, it is prohibited to recite Shema in the small one, as the excrement is considered to be in the small courtyard as well, and it is prohibited to recite Shema in the presence of excrement. If, however, there was excrement in the small courtyard, it is permitted to recite Shema in the large one.


讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专 砖讗讬诇诪诇讬 讗讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 诪专讞讬拽 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讝讜专注 讜讗讬诇讜 讛砖转讗 讗住讜专讛


Abaye said to them: If so, we have found a partition that causes prohibition. According to these principles, the existence of a partition renders sowing crops prohibited; in the absence of a partition sowing the crops would have been permitted due to their distance from the vines. Ostensibly, this is a counterintuitive conclusion. As, were there no partition at all, it would be sufficient to distance oneself four cubits from the vine and sow the crop, whereas now that the area is divided into two courtyards by means of a partition, it is prohibited to sow the crop in the entire small courtyard.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讞爪专 讙讚讜诇讛 砖谞驻专爪讛 诇拽讟谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讜转专转 讜拽讟谞讛 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讻驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讚讜诇讛


Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: And didn鈥檛 we find a partition that causes prohibition? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: With regard to a large courtyard that was breached into a small one, it is permitted for the residents of the large courtyard to carry, but it is prohibited for the residents of the small one to do so. That is because in that case, the legal status of the breach is like that of the entrance of the large courtyard.


讜讗讬诇讜 讛砖讜讛 讗转 讙讬驻讜驻讬讛 讙讚讜诇讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专讛


And if he were to even its protrusions by constructing partitions in the larger courtyard so that the large courtyard no longer protruded beyond the smaller one, carrying in the large courtyard would also be prohibited, as it would now be completely breached into the smaller courtyard. Apparently, in this case, construction of additional partitions causes prohibition.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 住讬诇讜拽 诪讞讬爪讜转 讛讜讗


Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: The two cases are not comparable, as there, adding partitions in order to even the protrusions is not considered establishment of partitions. On the contrary, it is effectively the removal of partitions. These partitions are designed to negate the original partitions of the courtyard.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗 讗转诪专


Rava said to Abaye: And didn鈥檛 we find a partition that causes prohibition? But wasn鈥檛 it stated:


Scroll To Top