Eruvin 169

Chapter 169

א בור שבין שתי חצירות מופלגת מכותל זה ארבעה ומכותל זה ארבעה זה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא וזה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא ורב יהודה דידיה אמר אפילו קניא

1 If a cistern1 between two courtyards2 was removed four handbreadths frown the one wall3 and four handbreadths from the other wall,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the courtyard opposite. If the distances between the cistern and courtyards were less than four handbreadths access to the cistern through the courtyard windows (cf. supra n. 2) would have been equally easy from both courtyards and the use of the cistern would, therefore, have been forbidden to the tenants of both on account (cf. infra 86a) of the restrictions they would impose upon one another.');">4 each owner may construct some slight projection from his wall5

ב אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף הא דרב יהודה דשמואל היא דאי דרב הא אמר אין אדם אוסר על חבירו דרך אויר

2 and may then draw the water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through his window. The two domains represented by the two courtyards, since they are four handbreadths distant from the cistern, cannot impose restrictions on its use, while the use of the alley itself cannot in any way be affected since neither house doors nor courtyard doors opened into it. The very requirement of the projection is in fact unnecessary for the purpose of bringing about the permissibility of the use of the cistern. It rather serves merely as a distinguishing mark to prevent people from the use of a domain in which more than one mall has a share, unless a joint 'erub had been duly prepared.');">6 Rab Judah on his own, however, ruled: Even a reed suffices.7 Said Abaye to R'Joseph, This ruling of Rab Judah8 must be Samuel's,9 for should it be contended that It is10

ג ודשמואל מהיכא אילימא מהא דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל גג הסמוך לרשות הרבים צריך סולם קבוע להתירו דילמא כדרב פפא

3 Rab's the difficulty would arise: Did he not rule that no man could impose restrictions upon another through the air?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not even a reed should have been required in this case where the bucket has to be thrust through a spice of four handbreadths in the air. The ruling must consequently be Samuel's.');">11 From which ruling of Samuel, however, could this8 be derived?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that Abaye did not hear Rab Judah's ruling in conjunction with the one he specifically reported in the name of Samuel. Had he been assumed to have heard the two in the form recorded supra this question could never have arisen.');">12 If it be suggested: From the following which R'Nahman reported In the name of Samuel, viz. , If a roof adjoins a public domain a permanent ladder is required to render it permissible for use,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 84b q.v. notes; and in the absence of such a ladder the people in the public domain and the tenants of the courtyard impose restrictions upon one another in the use of the roof. Now since a roof is usually inaccessible from a public domain except by means of thrusting the only way by which a man in that domain could make use of the roof would be by thrusting some object or objects on it through the air. This being forbidden by Samuel it follows that in his opinion restrictions are imposed even through the air.');">13 - [could it not be retorted]: that the reason there14

ד אלא מהא זה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא וזה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא טעמא דאפיק הא לא אפיק אמרינן אדם אוסר על חבירו דרך אויר

4 might be in agreement with the opinion of R'Papa?15 - It is rather from this ruling:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, in the opinion of Abaye, Rab Judah deduced Samuel's view on the necessity for some projection. Abaye, it is now concluded, did hear Rab Judah's ruling in the form in which it was recorded supra.');">16 'Each owner constructs some slight projection from his wall and he may then draw the water'.17 The reason then18 is that a projection was made,19

ה ודרב מהיכא אילימא מהא שתי גזוזטראות זו למעלה מזו עשו מחיצה לעליונה ולא עשו מחיצה לתחתונה שתיהן אסורות עד שיערבו

5 but if no projection had been made it would have been maintained that a man imposes restrictions upon another through the air.20 From which ruling of Rab, however, was the view21 here attributed to him derived? If it be suggested from this: 'If two balconies were situated in positions one higher than the other, and a partition was made for the upper one but not for the lower one restrictions are imposed on the use of both until all their tenants have joined in one 'erub';22 in connection with which R'Huna stated in the name of Rab: 'This23

ו ואמר רב הונא אמר רב לא שנו אלא בסמוכה אבל במופלגת ארבעה עליונה מותרת ותחתונה אסורה

6 was learnt only in respect of [a balcony] that is near24 but where it was25 four handbreadths away,26 the use of the upper one is permitted and that of the lower one is forbidden',27 could it not be retorted that the case here28

ז דלמא שאני הכא דכיון דלזה בזריקה ושלשול ולזה בשלשול לחודיה כלזה בזריקה ולזה בפתח דמי

7 comes under a different category29 because, owing to the fact that access in the case of the one group30 is by means of thrusting as well as by means of lowering31 while in that of the other32 it is by means of lowering only, the case is analogous to that where one gains access by means of thrusting33

ח אלא מהא דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב שני בתים ושלש חורבות ביניהם זה משתמש בסמוך שלו על ידי זריקה וזה משתמש בסמוך שלו על ידי זריקה

8 and the other by means of a door?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. easy and convenient access; and, since the tenants of the lower balcony are in the position of the former while those of the upper one are in the position of the latter, Rab justifiably ruled that 'the use of the upper one is permitted and that of the lower one is forbidden'. What proof however, is there that Rab also maintains that no restrictions can be imposed through the air even where, as in the case of the cistern between the two courtyards, the tenants can use it in exactly the same manner?');">34 - It is rather from this ruling: which R'Nahman cited in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha who had it from Rab:35 If there were three ruins36 between two houses37 each occupier may use38 the ruin nearest to him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he can never, even on a weekday, make proper use of that ruin into which no doors opened, and access to which can be gained only through a window, its exposure through the broken walls to the adjacent ruins does not deprive him of the right of using it.');">39 by means of thrusting40

Previous Chapter Next Chapter