Eruvin 153

ורבי יוחנן אמר אלו מעלין מכאן ואוכלין ואלו מעלין מכאן ואוכלין

R'Johanan, however, ruled: The tenants on either side may carry up their food and eat it there.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And similarly they may also carry it down. The top of the wall is in his opinion a 'free' domain and may, therefore, be regarded as merged with the one courtyard or the other to suit the convenience of the respective tenants.');">¹</span> We learned, THE TENANTS ON EITHER SIDE MAY CLIMB UP AND EAT THERE. Does not this imply that they may only CLIMB UP but not 'carry up'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could R. Johanan maintain that it is also permissible to 'carry up'?');">²</span>

תנן אלו עולין מכאן ואוכלין ואלו עולין מכאן ואוכלין עולין אין מעלין לא

- It is this that was meant: If the top consists of an area of four handbreadths by four they MAY CLIMB UP but may not carry up, and if it consists of less than four by four they may also carry up. R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the ruling he gave here, according to which the top of the wall is regarded as a 'free' domain.');">³</span> follows a principle of his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Enunciated elsewhere.');">⁴</span>

הכי קאמר יש בו ארבעה על ארבעה עולין אין מעלין לא אין בו ארבעה על ארבעה מעלין נמי

For when R'Dimi came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine into Babylon.');">⁵</span> he stated in the name of R'Johanan: On a place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Situated between a private and a public domain.');">⁶</span> whose area is less than four handbreadths by four<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is raised three handbreadths from the ground and, had its area been no less than four handbreadths by four, would have constituted a karmelith from which it is forbidden to move objects either into a public or into a private domain.');">⁷</span>

ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן מקום שאין בו ארבעה על ארבעה מותר לבני רשות הרבים ולבני רשות היחיד לכתף עליו ובלבד שלא יחליפו

it is permissible both for the people of the public domain and for those of the private domain to rearrange their burdens,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although by so doing they are moving them from the public or the private domain into that place.');">⁸</span> provided they do not exchange them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus carry indirectly from a private domain into a public one, or vice versa, which is a form of transfer that is Rabbinically forbidden. Pentateuchally only direct transfer from one into the other of the domains mentioned is forbidden, since there must be 'lifting' from the one and direct 'putting down' in the other while in the case under discussion before the object was finally put down it was temporarily put down in, and lifted up from the free domain (v. supra go) . At any rate it follows that it Johanan, by permitting the people of either domain 'to rearrange their burdens' on a place having the area he mentioned, upholds the principle of the existence of a free domain.');">⁹</span> Does not Rab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose view differs from that of R. Johanan (supra 76b ad fin.) .');">¹⁰</span>

ורב לית ליה דרב דימי אי ברשויות דאורייתא הכי נמי

however, uphold the tradition of R'Dimi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is in fact based on a principle in a Mishnah (Shab. 6a) which Rab could not very well oppose.');">¹¹</span> - If it were a case of Pentateuchal domains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a proper public or private domain.');">¹²</span> the law would have been so indeed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Dimi reported in the name of R. Johanan.');">¹³</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן ברשויות דרבנן וחכמים עשו חיזוק לדבריהם יותר משל תורה

but here we are dealing with Rabbinical domains,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Courtyards which are Pentateuchally private domains but were Rabbinically subjected to some of the restrictions of a public domain.');">¹⁴</span> and the Sages<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Rabbis.');">¹⁵</span> have applied to their enactments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a safeguard against laxity.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רבה (אמר) רב הונא אמר רב נחמן כותל שבין שתי חצירות צידו אחד גבוה עשרה טפחים וצידו אחד שוה לארץ נותנין אותו לזה ששוה לארץ

higher restrictions than to those of the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, being universally respected, required no such safeguards.');">¹⁷</span> Rabbah son of R'Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Marginal gloss. Cur. edd. read in parenthesis, 'Raba said that R. Huna said',');">¹⁸</span> citing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., 'Rabbah b. Bar Hana in the name of'.');">¹⁹</span>

משום דהוה לזה תשמישו בנחת ולזה תשמישו בקשה וכל לזה בנחת ולזה בקשה נותנין אותו לזה שתשמישו בנחת

R'Nahman ruled: A wall between two courtyards, one of whose sides was ten handbreadths high<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Above the floor level of the courtyard adjacent to it.');">²⁰</span> and the other one of which was on a level with the ground,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the other courtyard whose floor was on a higher level than that of the former, and was within tell handbreadths from the top of the wall. By 'level with the ground' a height of less than ten handbreadths is to be understood.');">²¹</span> is assigned to that courtyard with the floor of which it is level,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. only the tenants of that courtyard are allowed to carry their objects up to, and down from, the top of the wall. To the tenants of the other courtyard this is forbidden.');">²²</span>

אמר רב שיזבי אמר רב נחמן חריץ שבין שתי חצירות צידו אחד עמוק עשרה וצידו אחד שוה לארץ נותנין אותו לזה ששוה לארץ משום דהוה ליה לזה תשמישו בנחת ולזה תשמישו בקשה וכו'

because the use of it is convenient to the latter but inconvenient to the former, and any place the use of which is convenient to one and inconvenient to another, is to be assigned to the one to whom its use is convenient. R'Shezbi laid down in the name of R'Nahman: A trench between two courtyards, whose one side was ten handbreadths deep<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the level of the floor of the courtyard adjacent to it was ten handbreadths higher than the level of the bed of the trench.');">²³</span> and whose other side was on a level with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. 'not lower than ten handbreadths from',');">²⁴</span>

וצריכי דאי אשמעינן כותל משום דבגובהא משתמשי אינשי אבל חריץ בעומקא לא משתמשי אינשי אימא לא

the floor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the courtyard adjacent to it whose level was lower than that of the former.');">²⁵</span> is assigned to that courtyard with whose floor it is on a level,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 2. mut. mut.');">²⁶</span> because its use is convenient to the latter but inconvenient to the former etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be concluded as in the previous discussion of the wall.');">²⁷</span>

ואי אשמעינן בחריץ משום דלא בעיתא תשמישתא אבל כותל דבעיתא תשמישתא אימא לא צריכא

And [the enunciation of] both cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of 'wall' and 'trench'.');">²⁸</span> was required. For if we had been informed only of the law of the wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permitting the use of the top of the wall.');">²⁹</span>

בא למעטו אם יש במיעוטו ארבעה מותר להשתמש בכל הכותל כולו ואם לאו אין משתמש אלא כנגד המיעוט

it might have been assumed to apply to it alone, because people make use of a raised structure, but not to a trench, since people do not make use of a depression in the ground.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And its use is, therefore, despite its comparatively low altitude, forbidden to the tenants of both courtyards.');">³⁰</span> And if we had been informed of the law of the trench only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 9 mut. mut.');">³¹</span> it might have been assumed to apply to it alone, because its use involves no anxiety<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since any object put into it remains safely in its position.');">³²</span>

מה נפשך אי אהני מעוטא בכוליה כותל לישתמש אי לא אהני אפילו כנגד המיעוט נמי לא אמר רבינא כגון שעקר חוליא מראשו

but not to a wall the use of which involves anxiety.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The objects might fall off');">³³</span> Hence the enunciation of both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of 'wall' and 'trench'.');">²⁸</span> was necessary.

אמר רב יחיאל כפה ספל ממעט

If the height of the wall was reduced,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if he came to reduce it'. This, it is now assumed, implies the raising of the floor level of the courtyard by means of a mound or a bench close to the wall and within ten handbreadths from the top of it.');">³⁴</span> it is permitted to use all the wall if the reduction extended<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Along the base of the wall.');">³⁵</span> to four handbreadths;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An eminence of such dimensions is regarded as a kind of doorway to the top of the wall since it facilitates approach between the top and the courtyard.');">³⁶</span>

ואמאי דבר הניטל בשבת הוא ודבר הניטל בשבת אינו ממעט לא צריכא דחבריה בארעא

otherwise, one may use only that part<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the top.');">³⁷</span> that was parallel to the reduction. What, however, is your view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is your desire', sc. whatever the assumption a difficulty arises.');">³⁸</span>

וכי חבריה בארעא מאי הוי והא תניא פגה שהטמינה בתבן וחררה שהטמינה בגחלים אם מגולה מקצתה נטלת בשבת

If it is that the reduction is effective,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,that it is regarded as a valid doorway.');">³⁹</span> one should be permitted to have the use of all the wall, and if it is not effective,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it represents no doorway at all.');">⁴⁰</span> even the use of the part that was parallel to the reduction should not be permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'also not'.');">⁴¹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן דאית ליה אוגניים

- Rabina replied: This is a case, for instance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not as has been previously assumed that the floor of the courtyard had been raised.');">⁴²</span> where a section of its<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wall's.');">⁴³</span> top has been pulled down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the gap resulting was four handbreadths wide it may well be regarded as a valid doorway through which all the top of the wall may be Freely used. if, however, it was smaller it cannot be regarded as a doorway to the wall but the space in the gap may be freely used since the wall below it is within ten handbreadths from the courtyard floor level and cannot be regarded as a separate domain.');">⁴⁴</span>

וכי אית ליה אוגניים מאי הוי והתנן הטומן לפת וצנון תחת הגפן בזמן

R'Yehiel ruled: If a bowl is inverted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And placed at the side of a wall that intervened between two courtyards.');">⁴⁵</span> a valid reduction is thereby effected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the wall rises to less than ten handbreadths above the back of the inverted bowl.');">⁴⁶</span> But why? Is not the bowl an object that may be moved away on the Sabbath and that as such<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and a thing that may be taken on the Sabbath'.');">⁴⁷</span> causes no reduction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An objection against R. Yehiel.');">⁴⁸</span> - This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Yehiel's ruling.');">⁴⁹</span> is was required only in a case where the bowl was attached to the ground.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' in which case it may not be moved from its place throughout the Sabbath.');">⁵⁰</span> But what matters it even if it was attached to the ground, seeing that it was taught: An unripe fruit that had been put into straw<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To ripen. Straw that had been set aside for the manufacture of bricks or similar purpose may not be moved from its place on the Sabbath on account mukzeh v. Glos.');">⁵¹</span> or a cake that had been put among coals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That were aglow when the Sabbath began but were extinguished now. Such coals may not be moved on the Sabbath. Burning coals are subject to greater restrictions (cf. Ker. 20a) .');">⁵²</span> may be taken out on the Sabbath if a part of it remained uncovered?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 123a. As a part of the bowl also remains uncovered by the ground its removal on the Sabbath is equally permitted. How then could R. Yehiel regard a bowl in such a condition as an effective reduction.');">⁵³</span> - Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Yehiel's ruling.');">⁴⁹</span> we are dealing with a case, for instance, where the bowl had rims.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That were buried in the ground. A bowl in such a condition may not be removed from its place on the Sabbath, since its removal would inevitably disturb the earth under which its rim is buried, and the person removing it would be guilty of performing an act that resembled the forbidden work of digging.');">⁵⁴</span> But what matters it even if it had rims, seeing that we learned: If a man buried<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For storage purposes.');">⁵⁵</span> turnips or radishes under a vine, leaving<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the time'.');">⁵⁶</span>