Eruvin 39

תרי גווני אילן הכא נמי תרי גווני גדר

that there are two kinds of trees? [Well then] in this case also [one might submit that there are] two kinds of wall. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: If a courtyard opened out on one side<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whose head enters'.');">¹</span>

בעא מיניה אביי מרבה חצר שראשה נכנס לבין הפסין מהו לטלטל מתוכה לבין הפסין ומבין הפסין לתוכה א"ל מותר

into [an area] between the strips of wood [around a well], is it [permitted] to move objects from its interior into that between the strips and from between the strips to its interior? The other replied: This is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both are private domains and the enclosure around the well has no tenants who might affect the 'erub of the tenants of the courtyard.');">²</span> 'What if two [courtyards opened out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Side by side, there being a partition between them.');">³</span>

שתים מאי אמר ליה אסור

in a similar manner]? ' - 'It is forbidden',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To move objects from these yards into the well enclosure.');">⁴</span> the other replied. Said R'Huna: [In the case of] two [courtyards the movement of objects is] forbidden even [where the tenants]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By relying on a door that communicated between the two yards.');">⁵</span>

אמר רב הונא שתים אסורין ואפילו עירבו גזירה שמא יאמרו עירוב מועיל לבין הפסין רבא אמר עירבו מותר

have prepared an 'erub,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby their domains were united into one.');">⁶</span> this being a preventive measure against the possible assumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of people who were unaware that a door communicated between the two courtyards.');">⁷</span> that an 'erub is effective in the case of a space enclosed by strips of wood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into which two courtyards opened, even where there was no door between the yards. Such an 'erub is ineffective because courtyards can be combined in this manner only where there was a door between them or where they opened out into a proper alley whose length exceeds its width. A well enclosure was not given the status of an alley because it is rectangular and open on its four sides.');">⁸</span>

א"ל אביי לרבא תניא דמסייע לך חצר שראשה אחד נכנס לבין הפסין מותר לטלטל מתוכה לבין הפסין ומבין הפסין לתוכה אבל שתים אסור בד"א שלא עירבו אבל עירבו מותרין

Raba said: If [the tenants]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the two courtyards.');">⁹</span> prepared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 137, n. 9.');">¹⁰</span> an 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby their domains were united into one.');">¹¹</span>

לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב הונא אמר לך רב הונא התם דהדרן וערבן

[the movement of objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From these yards into the well enclosure and vice versa.');">¹²</span> is] permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No preventive measure having been enacted against the possibility assumed by R. Huna.');">¹³</span> Said Abaye to Raba: '[A ruling] was taught which provides support to your view: If a courtyard opens out on one side<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'whose head enters'.');">¹⁴</span>

בעא מיניה אביי מרבה יבשו מים בשבת מהו א"ל כלום נעשית מחיצה אלא בשביל מים מים אין כאן מחיצה אין כאן

into [an area] between the strips of wood [around a well] it is permitted to move objects from its interior into that between the strips and from between the strips to the interior, but if two [courtyards opened out in this manner the movement of objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From these yards into the well enclosure and vice versa.');">¹²</span> is] forbidden. This, however, applies only where [the tenants] prepared no 'erub but where they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 137, n. 9.');">¹⁰</span>

בעי רבין יבשו מים בשבת ובאו בשבת מהו א"ל אביי יבשו בשבת לא תיבעי לך דבעי מיניה דמר ופשיט לי דאסיר

did prepare an 'erub' they are allowed [to move their objects]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From these yards into the well enclosure and vice versa.');">¹²</span> Must it be said that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha cited by Abaye.');">¹⁵</span> presents an objection against R'Huna? - R'Huna can answer you: There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha cited by Abaye.');">¹⁵</span>

באו נמי לא תיבעי לך דהוה ליה מחיצה העשויה בשבת ותניא כל מחיצה העשויה בשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון שמה מחיצה

[it is a case] where [a breach]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the walls of the courtyards on the sides that were opposite those adjoining the well enclosure.');">¹⁶</span> also combined them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The breach makes it manifest that the two yards are combined into one domain.');">¹⁷</span> Abaye enquired of Raba: What [is the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards moving objects on the Sabbath within a well enclosure.');">¹⁸</span>

ולאו אתמר עלה אמר ר"נ לא שנו אלא לזרוק אבל לטלטל לא

where] the water dried up on the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is movement permitted because the enclosure was a private domain when the Sabbath began, or is it forbidden because the permissibility of the imperfect enclosure was solely due to the existence of the water in the well which is now no longer available?');">¹⁹</span> The other replied: [The enclosure] was recognized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'made'.');">²⁰</span> [as a valid] partition only on account of the water, [and since] no water is here available, there is here no [validity] in the partition either.

כי איתמר דר"נ אמזיד איתמר

Rabin enquired: What [is the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As regards moving objects on the Sabbath within a well enclosure.');">¹⁸</span> where] the water dried up on the Sabbath and on [the same] Sabbath [other water] appeared?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the original permissibility restored?');">²¹</span> - Abaye replied: Where they were dried up on the Sabbath you have no need to ask, for I have already asked [this question] from the Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah, who was his teacher and guardian.');">²²</span>

אמר ר"א הזורק לבין פסי הביראות חייב (א"ל) פשיטא אי לאו מחיצה היא היכי משתרי ליה למלאות

and he made it plain to me that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 138, n. 9.');">²³</span> was forbidden. [As regards water that] appeared [on the Sabbath] you have also no need to enquire, for [the enclosure] would thus be a partition made on the Sabbath, concerning which it was taught: Any partition that was put up on the Sabbath is valid whether [this was done] unwittingly, intentionally, under compulsion or willingly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 101b, infra 25a.');">²⁴</span>

לא צריכא דעבד כעין פסי ביראות ברה"ר וזרק לתוכה חייב

But has it not been stated in connection with this ruling that R'Nahman said: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the enclosed area is a private domain.');">²⁵</span> applied only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they only learned'.');">²⁶</span> to throwing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it is forbidden to throw any object into it from a public domain, since the partition which is Pentateuchally valid causes it to become a private domain.');">²⁷</span>

הא נמי פשיטא אי לאו דבעלמא מחיצה היא גבי בור היכי משתרי ליה לטלטלי לא צריכא אע"ג דקא בקעי בה רבים

but not to moving?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the moving of objects within it is forbidden Rabbinically. How then could Abaye maintain that the partition is in all respects valid?');">²⁸</span> R'Nahman's statement was made only in respect of [a partition that was put up]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">²⁹</span> intentionally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of the moving of objects being a penalty imposed in Rabbinic law for one's wilful transgression. As this penalty does not apply to an unwitting act it cannot obviously apply to a partition of which Abaye spoke, which came into existence automatically.');">³⁰</span>

ומאי קמ"ל דלא אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצתא הא א"ר אלעזר חדא זימנא

R'Eleazar said: One who throws [any object]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a public domain.');">³¹</span> into [the area] between strips [of wood] around wells is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bring a sin-offering; because the area is regarded as a properly constituted private domain.');">³²</span> [Is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'He said to him' is In cur. edd. enclosed in parenthesis.');">³³</span>

דתנן רבי יהודה אומר אם היתה דרך רה"ר מפסקתן יסלקנה לצדדין וחכ"א אינו צריך רבי יוחנן ור"א דאמרי תרווייהו כאן הודיעך כחן של מחיצות

not this] obvious, for if [the strips had] not [Pentateuchally constituted a valid] partition how could it have been permitted to draw water?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to fill' (Sc. the cattle troughs or buckets) from the well which is a private domain. By so doing one would be guilty of carrying from a private domain into a public domain since an enclosed area that is not a private domain even Pentateuchally must assume the status of the public domain in which it is situated. MS.M. reads: 'how could the Rabbis permit the movement (of objects) '.');">³⁴</span> - [The ruling]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Eleazar.');">³⁵</span> was necessary only [for this purpose:] That [a man] who put up, in a public domain, [an enclosure]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which there was no well.');">³⁶</span>

אי מהתם הוה אמינא כאן ולא סבירא ליה קא משמע לן כאן וסבירא ליה

similar to that of strips of wood around wells, and threw an object into it, is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bring a sin-offering; because the area is regarded as a properly constituted private domain.');">³²</span> But is not this also obvious, [for if such an imperfect enclosure] would not [have been regarded as a valid] partition elsewhere,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note.');">³⁷</span> how could one be permitted to move any objects [within such an imperfect enclosure] in the case of a cistern? - [The ruling]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Eleazar.');">³⁸</span>

ולימא הא ולא בעי הך חדא מכלל חבירתה איתמר:

was rather necessary [for this purpose:] Although many people cross the enclosure [it is regarded as a private domain].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the man who throws any object into it on the Sabbath is liable to a sin-offering.');">³⁹</span> What [principle,] however, does he thereby teach us? That even [the passage of] many people does not destroy [the validity of] a partition?

מותר להקריב לבאר וכו': תנן התם לא יעמוד אדם ברשות הרבים וישתה ברשות היחיד ברשות היחיד וישתה ברשות הרבים אלא אם כן מכניס ראשו ורובו למקום שהוא שותה

But [this, it may be contended, was already] once said [by] R'Eleazar. For have we not learnt: R'Judah ruled: If a public road cuts through then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The boards around a well.');">⁴⁰</span> it should be diverted to [one of the] sides,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, otherwise, the validity of the enclosure as a private domain would be destroyed on account of the public road.');">⁴¹</span> and the Sages ruled: This was not necessary;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 6b, infra 22a.');">⁴²</span> and both R'Johanan and R'Eleazar remarked: Here they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. and Rashi. Cur. edd. 'he etc.'');">⁴³</span> informed you of the unassailable validity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'their strength'.');">⁴⁴</span> of partitions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 22a; which even the crossing by many people does not affect. Why then should R. Eleazar repeat the same principle?');">⁴⁵</span> - If [the principle had to be derived] from there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement attributed to R. Johanan and R. Eleazar.');">⁴⁶</span> it might have been presumed that only 'Here [etc.]';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that R. Eleazar was merely pointing out the implication of the view of the Sages.');">⁴⁷</span> but that he himself is not of the same opinion; hence we were told<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By his ruling here.');">⁴⁸</span> [that not only] 'Here [etc.],' but he himself also is of the same opinion. Then why did he not state this ruling and there would have been no need for the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Here etc.'');">⁴⁹</span> - The one was derived from the other. IT IS PERMITTED TO BRING [THE STRIPS] CLOSE TO THE WELL etc. Elsewhere we learned: A man must not stand in a public domain and drink in a private domain, or in a private one and drink in a public one, unless he puts his head and the greater part of his body into the domain in which he drinks,