Eruvin 183

מי אמר ר' יוחנן הכי והא אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן כותל שבין שתי חצירות גבוה עשרה ורוחב ארבעה מערבין שנים ואין מערבין אחד היו בראשו פירות אלו עולין מכאן ואוכלים ואלו עולין מכאן ואוכלים ובלבד שלא יורידו למטה

Could R'Johanan have made such a statement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the halachah was in agreement with R. Simeon that all courtyards are regarded as a single domain even where separate 'erub were prepared for each.');">¹</span> seeing that R'Johanan laid down that the halachah is in agreement with an anonymous Mishnah, and we learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Anonymously.');">²</span> If a wall between two courtyards was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths thick, two 'erubs may be prepared but not one. If there was fruit on the top of it, the tenants on either side may climb up and eat there, provided they do not carry it down?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 76b q.v. notes. Since it is forbidden to carry' the fruit down into either courtyard, it is obvious that it is forbidden to carry any object from one courtyard into another; and this ruling, since it is contained in all anonymous Mishnah, must, according to R. Johanan, represent the halachah. Now, if it is granted, as Rab maintained Supra, that a distinction is drawn between courtyards for each of which a separate 'erub had been provided and courtyards for which none had been provided, the Mishnah cited can be explained to refer to courtyards of the former class; but if no distinction is drawn and R. Simeon, according to R. Johanan's interpretation, regards all courtyards as one domain in either case, how is this rule to be reconciled with the Mishnah?');">³</span> - The meaning of 'down' is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is below'?');">⁴</span>

מאי למטה למטה לבתים והא תני רבי חייא ובלבד שלא יהא זה עומד במקומו ואוכל וזה עומד במקומו ואוכל

'down into the houses'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the courtyards, however, this is permitted.');">⁵</span> But did not R'Hiyya learn: Provided neither of the tenants<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that this shall not . . and this etc.'');">⁶</span> stands in his place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in his own courtyard or on the top of the wall, from which it is obvious that the movement of objects is forbidden not only into the houses but also from one courtyard into the other.');">⁷</span> and eats?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.M. reads: provided they do not carry it down but each one stands in his place].');">⁸</span> - The other replied: Since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and when'.');">⁹</span>

אמר ליה וכי רבי לא שנאה ר' חייא מנין לו

Rabbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah I, the compiler of the MISHNAH:');">¹⁰</span> has not taught this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He only spoke of the prohibition to carry it 'down', (cf. n. 4,) meaning to take it into the houses.');">¹¹</span> whence could R'Hiyya<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was Rabbis disciple. R. Hiyya compiled Baraithas, and the authorship of the Tosefta is attributed to him.');">¹²</span> know it! It was stated: If there were two courtyards with a ruin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On none of whose side it was fully exposed to the public domain and that belonged either to the owners of the adjoining houses or to another person.');">¹³</span>

אתמר שתי חצירות וחורבה אחת ביניהם אחת עירבה ואחת לא עירבה אמר רב הונא נותנין אותה לזו שלא עירבה אבל לשעירבה לא דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דבתים לחורבה

between them and the tenants of the one prepared an 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For their courtyard alone, so that they' were allowed to move objects from their houses into it.');">¹⁴</span> and the tenants of the other did not prepare one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which they are forbidden to carry into it any objects from their houses.');">¹⁵</span> [the ruin] said R'Huna, is to be assigned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Irrespective of whether it belonged to one of the house owners or to a stranger.');">¹⁶</span> that courtyard for which no 'erub had been prepared,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the tenants of that courtyard are permitted to carry objects from their courtyard into the ruin.');">¹⁷</span> but not to the one for which an 'erub had been prepared, since the tenants of the latter might be tempted to carry objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which happened to be in their courtyard (cf. supra n. 10) .');">¹⁸</span>

וחייא בר רב אמר אף לשעירבה ושתיהן אסורות וא"ת שתיהן מותרות מפני מה אין נותנין חצר שלא עירבה לחצר שעירבה

from their houses into the ruin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No such precaution is necessary in the case of the other courtyard since no objects from the houses (cf. supra n. 11) may be carried into it. R. Huna, a disciple of Rab, follows his master's principle (supra 91a) .');">¹⁹</span> Hiyya B'Rab, however, said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the name of his father (v Rashi a.l.) .');">²⁰</span> It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruin.');">²¹</span> is also assigned to the courtyard for which an 'erub had been prepared, and both, therefore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a preventive measure is necessary to prevent mistaken application of the rule for the courtyard for which no 'erub had been prepared to the one for which an 'erub had been prepared.');">²²</span> are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the opinion of Hiyya.');">²³</span>

התם כיון דמנטרי מאני דבתים בחצר אתי לאפוקי הכא בחורבה כיון דלא מנטרי מאני דחצר בחורבה לא אתי לאפוקי

subject to restrictions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neither from the one nor from the other may objects be moved into the ruin.');">²⁴</span> For were you to suggest that both are exempt from restrictions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that Rab's (cf. supra p. 636, n. 16) ruling that the ruin 'is also assigned etc.' implies a relaxation of the law and that even from the courtyard in which an 'erub had been prepared the moving of objects into the ruin is permitted.');">²⁵</span> why [I would ask,] is not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the ruling of R. Simeon in our Mishnah which, according to Rab's interpretation (supra 91a) 'applies only where no 'erub had been prepared but not where one had been prepared'.');">²⁶</span> a courtyard for which no 'erub had been prepared assigned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the ruin, according to the suggestion.');">²⁷</span> to the courtyard for which one had been prepared?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. why should not the tenants of the latter be permitted to carry objects from their courtyard into the former.');">²⁸</span>

איכא דאמרי חייא בר רב אמר אף לשעירבה ושתיהן מותרות ואם תאמר שתיהן אסורות לפי שאין נותנים חצר שלא עירבה לחצר שעירבה התם כיון דמנטרי מאני דבתים בחצר לא שרו בהו רבנן דאתי לאפוקי אבל בחורבה לא מנטרי:

- [No].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is no argument against the suggestion that the meaning is that both are free from restrictions.');">²⁹</span> In that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there', the ruling of R. Simeon according to Rab's interpretation.');">³⁰</span> since the objects from the houses are safe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'are watched', 'protected'.');">³¹</span> in the courtyard one might carry [many of them) thither];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. so manly objects are likely to he carried from the houses into the courtyard that they might easily be mixed up with those of the courtyard and carried like them to the next courtyard. Hence the restriction.');">³²</span> but here in the case of a ruin, since the objects from th houses are not safe in a ruin, no one would carry many of them thither.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. As objects from the houses are not likely to be mixed up with those of the courtyard no preventive measure was considered necessary. The case of the ruin, therefore, is no criterion for that spoken of by R. Simeon, and it may well be maintained, as suggested, that in the former case both are free from restrictions'.');">³³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> גג גדול סמוך לקטן הגדול מותר והקטן אסור חצר גדולה שנפרצה לקטנה גדולה מותרת וקטנה אסורה מפני שהיא כפתחה של גדולה:

Others read: Hiyya B'Rab said: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruin,');">³⁴</span> is also assigned to the courtyard for which an 'erub had been prepared; and both, therefore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 1.');">³⁵</span> are<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably; in the opinion of Hiyya.');">³⁶</span> free from restrictions. For should you insist that both are subject to restrictions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that neither from the one nor from the other may objects be moved into the ruin.');">³⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למה לי' למיתני תרתי

since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2 and text.');">³⁸</span> a courtyard for which no 'erub had been provided is not assigned to the one for which one had been provided,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it is evident that a preventive measure had been enacted against the possibility of mixing up the objects from the houses with those from the courtyard and the carrying of the former like the latter into the next courtyard (cf supra p. 636, n. 18) .');">³⁹</span> [it can be retorted]: In that case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there', the ruling of R. Simeon according to Rab's interpretation.');">³⁰</span> since the objects from the houses are safe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'are watched', 'protected'.');">³¹</span> in the courtyard the Rabbis did not relax the restrictions because otherwise people might carry them out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the courtyard (cf. supra p. 637, n. 8) .');">⁴⁰</span>

לרב קתני גג דומיא דחצר מה חצר מנכרא מחיצתא אף גג נמי מנכרא מחיצתא

In a ruin, however, they are not safe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 637, n. 9.');">⁴¹</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A LARGE ROOF WAS CLOSE TO A SMALLER ROOF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former projecting on both sides of the latter and the line of contact being no longer than ten cubits.');">⁴²</span> THE USE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the taking up of objects from the house below.');">⁴³</span> OF THE LARGER ONE IS PERMITTED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The occupiers of the adjoining house impose no restrictions on its tenants since the projecting portion of the larger roof (cf. supra n. 3) , by the rule of upward extension, forms side-posts to the middle section common to both roofs which, being no bigger than ten cubits (cf. loc. cit.) , is regarded as a doorway of the larger roof.');">⁴⁴</span> BUT THAT OF THE LESSER ONE IS FORBIDDEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 4; since it is fully exposed to the larger roof, the occupiers of the larger house impose restrictions on its use,');">⁴⁵</span>

ולשמואל גג דומיא דחצר מה חצר דקא דרסי לה רבים אף גג נמי דקא דרסי ליה רבים

IF THE FULL WIDTH OF A WALL OF A SMALL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Asheri, and cur. edd. supra 8a, 9b. Cur. edd. a.l. and Alfasi 'large'.');">⁴⁶</span> COURTYARD WAS BROKEN DOWN SO THAT THE YARD FULLY OPENED INTO A LARGE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n.');">⁴⁷</span> COURTYARD, THE USE OF THE LARGER ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the movement of objects from its houses into it.');">⁴⁸</span> IS PERMITTED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an 'erub had been prepared by its tenants. For the reason cf supra n. 5; mut. mut.');">⁴⁹</span> BUT THAT OF THE SMALLER ONE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the movement of objects from its houses into it.');">⁴⁸</span>

יתיב רבה ורבי זירא ורבה בר רב חנן ויתיב אביי גבייהו ויתבי וקאמרי שמע מינה ממתניתין דיורי גדולה בקטנה ואין דיורי קטנה בגדולה

IS FORBIDDEN, BECAUSE THE GAP IS REGARDED AS A DOORWAY TO THE FORMER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to the latter. Hence it is (cf. supra nn. 5f) that the use of the former is permitted while that of the latter is forbidden.');">⁵⁰</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What was the point<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'wherefore to me'.');">⁵¹</span> in teaching<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');">⁵²</span> the same principles twice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'two'; in case of (a) roofs and (b) courtyards.');">⁵³</span> According to Rab's view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That walls must be distinguishable.');">⁵⁴</span>

כיצד גפנים בגדולה אסור לזרוע את הקטנה ואם זרע זרעין אסורין

this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The repetition of the same principle.');">⁵⁵</span> was intended to teach us that a ROOF is subject to the same limitations as a COURTYARD: As in a courtyard the walls are distinguishable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it has proper walls.');">⁵⁶</span> SO must the walls be distinguishable in the case of a roof also;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e the roof must not project beyond the walls. If it does the rule of upward extension cannot apply.');">⁵⁷</span> and according to Samuel's view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the rule of upward extension is applicable even where the walls are indistinguishable when viewed from the roof.');">⁵⁸</span> a no ROOF was meant to be compared to a COURTYARD: As a courtyard is a place upon which many people tread so must a roof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If its use is to be forbidden.');">⁵⁹</span> be one on which many people tread.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If many people do not tread upon it, the rule of upward extension is applied even where the walls are indistinguishable from above.');">⁶⁰</span> Rabbah and R'Zera and Rabbah son of R'Hanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., 'Abin'.');">⁶¹</span> were sitting at their studies, Abaye sitting beside them, and in the course of their session they argued as follows: From our Mishnah it may be inferred that the occupiers of the larger one influence the rights of those of the lesser but those of the latter do not influence those of the former. If, for instance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how?'');">⁶²</span> vines were planted in the larger one, it is forbidden to sow in the lesse one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the latter is regarded as a part of the former in which it is forbidden to sow vines and corn together (v. Glos. s.v. kil'ayim) .');">⁶³</span> and if it was sown, the seeds are forbidden; and