## Eruvin Daf 20a

###### Eruvin 20a:1
[Eruvin 20a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:1)

תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי אִילָן? הָכָא נָמֵי, תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי גָּדֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that the *baraita* teaches **two types of tree; here too,** then, you can say that it teaches **two types of fence,** and therefore no proof can be brought from this *baraita*.


###### Eruvin 20a:2
[Eruvin 20a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:2)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: חָצֵר שֶׁרֹאשָׁהּ נִכְנָס לְבֵין הַפַּסִּין — מַהוּ לְטַלְטֵל מִתּוֹכָהּ לְבֵין הַפַּסִּין, וּמִבֵּין הַפַּסִּין לְתוֹכָהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye** further **inquired of Rabba:** With regard to **a courtyard, the** open **end of which interposed between the boards** surrounding a well, **what is** the law **with regard to carrying from inside** the courtyard **to** the area **between the** upright **boards, and from** the area **between the boards into** the courtyard? Rabba **said to him: It is permitted.**


###### Eruvin 20a:3
[Eruvin 20a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:3)

שְׁתַּיִם, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye then asked him: And if **two** adjacent courtyards interposed between the boards surrounding a well, **what** is the law? Is it permitted to carry from inside them to the area between the boards, and vice versa? Rabba **said to him** in response: **It is prohibited.**


###### Eruvin 20a:4
[Eruvin 20a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:4)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שְׁתַּיִם אֲסוּרִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ עֵירְבוּ. גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ ״עֵירוּב מוֹעִיל לְבֵין הַפַּסִּין״. רָבָא אָמַר: עֵירְבוּ מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said:** In the case of **two** courtyards, it **is prohibited** to carry, **even if** the residents of the two courtyards **made an *eiruv*** together. This is because of **a decree lest they** come to **say** that **an *eiruv* is effective for** the area **between the** upright **boards. Rava,** however, disagreed and **said:** If **they made an *eiruv*** together, it **is permitted** to carry between the courtyards and the area between the boards, and vice versa; with the preparation of the *eiruv*, the two courtyards are regarded as one.


###### Eruvin 20a:5
[Eruvin 20a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לָךְ — חָצֵר שֶׁרֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד נִכְנָס לְבֵין הַפַּסִּין מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל מִתּוֹכָהּ לְבֵין הַפַּסִּין וּמִבֵּין הַפַּסִּין לְתוֹכָהּ, אֲבָל שְׁתַּיִם אָסוּר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבוּ, אֲבָל עֵירְבוּ מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rava:** What **was taught** in a *baraita* **supports your** opinion, for the *baraita* states: In the case of **a courtyard, one end of which interposes between the** upright **boards** surrounding a well, **it is permitted to carry from inside** the courtyard **to** the area **between the** upright **boards, and from** the area **between the** upright **boards into** the courtyard, **but** if there were **two** adjacent courtyards, **this is prohibited. With regard to which case was this statement made?** The statement applies **where** the residents of the two courtyards **did not make an *eiruv*** together; **but if they made an *eiruv*** together, it **is permitted** to carry between the courtyards and the area between the boards, and vice versa.


###### Eruvin 20a:6
[Eruvin 20a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:6)

לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא?! אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: הָתָם דְּהָדְרָן וְעָרְבָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** that **this is a refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Huna,** for the *baraita* explicitly contradicts his opinion? The Gemara rejects this argument: **Rav Huna** could have **said to you: There,** the *baraita* is dealing with a case where the two courtyards **later became joined** by means of the wall that separated them being breached, and it is clear to all that it is a single courtyard, so that there is no concern that people will say that an *eiruv* is effective for the area between the boards.


###### Eruvin 20a:7
[Eruvin 20a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:7)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: יָבְשׁוּ מַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלוּם נַעֲשֵׂית מְחִיצָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל מַיִם, מַיִם אֵין כָּאן מְחִיצָה אֵין כָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye asked Rabba** yet another question: If **the water** in the cistern **dried up on Shabbat, what is** the law? Is it still permitted to carry between the boards? Rabba **said to him:** The boards **are considered** a valid **partition only on account of the water;** since **there is no** longer any **water here, there is** also **no** longer a valid **partition here.**


###### Eruvin 20a:8
[Eruvin 20a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:8)

בָּעֵי רָבִין: יָבְשׁוּ מַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת וּבָאוּ בְּשַׁבָּת מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: יָבְשׁוּ בְּשַׁבָּת לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דִּבְעַי מִינֵּיהּ דְּמָר וּפְשֵׁיט לִי דַּאֲסִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravin raised a dilemma: If the water** in the well **dried up on Shabbat, and** then **on** the same **Shabbat** it rained and other water **came** in its place, **what is** the law? Is the original allowance to carry restored? **Abaye said to him:** The case where the water **dried up on Shabbat should not be a dilemma for you, for I** already **raised this dilemma before my Master,** Rabba, **and he resolved for me that it is prohibited to** carry in the enclosed area.


###### Eruvin 20a:9
[Eruvin 20a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:9)

בָּאוּ נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ — דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מְחִיצָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה בְּשַׁבָּת, וְתַנְיָא: כׇּל מְחִיצָה הָעֲשׂוּיָה בְּשַׁבָּת, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס בֵּין בִּרְצוֹן — שְׁמָהּ מְחִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The case where other water **came** on Shabbat **should also not be a dilemma for you, for** this **is** a case of **a partition erected on Shabbat, and it was** already **taught** in a *baraita*: **Any partition erected on Shabbat, whether** it was erected **unwittingly, or whether intentionally, whether by unavoidable accident, or whether willingly, it is called** a valid **partition.** The fact that it was erected in a prohibited manner, in violation of prohibitions related to building, does not negate its effectiveness.


###### Eruvin 20a:10
[Eruvin 20a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:10)

וְלָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִזְרוֹק, אֲבָל לְטַלְטֵל — לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravin raised a difficulty: **Was it not stated with regard** to this *halakha* that **Rav Naḥman said: They only taught** that such a partition is called a partition as a stringency; it is prohibited by Torah law **to throw** objects from an area enclosed by such a partition into the public domain and vice versa, **but to carry in it** as a full-fledged private domain is **not** permitted by the Sages?


###### Eruvin 20a:11
[Eruvin 20a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:11)

כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב נַחְמָן — אַמֵּזִיד אִיתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this objection: **Rav Naḥman’s statement applies** only in a case where the partition was erected **intentionally.** Since the partition was erected intentionally on Shabbat, the Sages imposed a penalty that it is prohibited to carry within the enclosed area. However, in the case of a partition that was erected unwittingly or that arose by itself, no such penalty was imposed, and it is permitted to carry there.


###### Eruvin 20a:12
[Eruvin 20a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַזּוֹרֵק לְבֵין פַּסֵּי הַבֵּירָאוֹת חַיָּיב. פְּשִׁיטָא, אִי לָאו מְחִיצָה הִיא — הֵיכִי מִשְׁתְּרֵי לֵיהּ לְמַלּאוֹת?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar said: One who throws** an object from the public domain **into** the area **between the** upright **boards surrounding a well is liable.** The Gemara asks: This is **obvious,** for **were it not** a valid **partition, how could he be permitted to draw** water from the well? This shows that it is a full-fledged private domain.


###### Eruvin 20a:13
[Eruvin 20a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:13)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דַּעֲבַד כְּעֵין פַּסֵּי בֵירָאוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְזָרַק לְתוֹכָהּ — חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar’s ruling **is only necessary** to teach that in the case **where one arrange** an enclosure **similar to the** upright **boards surrounding a well in the public domain,** in a place where there was no well, **and threw** an object **into it** from the public domain, **he is liable.**


###### Eruvin 20a:14
[Eruvin 20a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:14)

הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! אִי לָאו דִּבְעָלְמָא מְחִיצָה הִיא — גַּבֵּי בוֹר הֵיכִי מִשְׁתְּרֵי לֵיהּ לְטַלְטֹלֵי? לָא צְרִיכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא בָּקְעִי בָּהּ רַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Isn’t this obvious as well?** As, **were it not** regarded as **a partition in general, how could he be permitted to carry in** the case of **a cistern?** The Gemara explains: **It is only necessary** to teach you that **even though** such a partition does not bar entry and **many** people **pass through it,** it is nonetheless considered a partition in regard to Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 20a:15
[Eruvin 20a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:15)

וּמַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — דְּלָא אָתוּ רַבִּים וּמְבַטְּלִי מְחִיצְתָּא, הָא אֲמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חֲדָא זִימְנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is he teaching us** by this statement, **that the** passage of **many** people **does not come and negate** the effectiveness of **a partition? But Rabbi Elazar stated** this idea **once** before.


###### Eruvin 20a:16
[Eruvin 20a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:16)

דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה דֶּרֶךְ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מַפְסַקְתָּן — יְסַלְּקֶנָּה לִצְדָדִין, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: כָּאן הוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן שֶׁל מְחִיצּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna: **Rabbi Yehuda says** the following with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well: **If the path of the public domain** passes through the area of the wells and the posts and **obstructs them, he** must **divert it to the sides,** or else the partition is invalid. **And the Rabbis say: He need not** divert the path of the public domain, for even if many people pass through there, the partition is valid. With regard to this mishna, **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both said: Here,** the Rabbis **informed you of the strength of partitions.** Therefore, we see that Rabbi Elazar already expressed his opinion that the validity of a partition is not canceled by the passage of many people through it.


###### Eruvin 20a:17
[Eruvin 20a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:17)

אִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא ׳כָּאן׳ — וְלָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ׳כָּאן׳ — וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If** it was derived **from there** alone, **I would have said** that what Rabbi Elazar meant is that **here** the Rabbis informed you of the strength of partitions, **but he,** Rabbi Elazar, **does not agree** with them. **He** therefore **teaches us** in his present ruling that what he meant is that **here** they informed you of this law **and he agrees** with them.


###### Eruvin 20a:18
[Eruvin 20a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:18)

וְלֵימָא הָא, וְלָא בָּעֵי הָךְ! חֲדָא מִכְּלַל חֲבֶירְתָּהּ אִיתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **let** Rabbi Elazar **say this** ruling that one who throws an object into the area enclosed by upright boards is liable, **and he would not have need to** make his **other** comment that here the Rabbis informed you of the strength of partitions. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar did not in fact make two statements, but rather **one was stated by inference from the other.** He only made one of these statements explicitly; the other was reported by his students in his name based on an inference from what he had said.


###### Eruvin 20a:19
[Eruvin 20a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/20a:19)

מוּתָּר לְהַקְרִיב לַבְּאֵר וְכוּ׳. תְּנַן הָתָם: לֹא יַעֲמוֹד אָדָם בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְיִשְׁתֶּה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְיִשְׁתֶּה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מַכְנִיס רֹאשׁוֹ וְרוּבּוֹ לִמְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹתֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **It is permitted to bring** the upright boards **closer to the well,** provided that the enclosed area is large enough for a cow to stand in and drink, with its head and most of its body inside the partitioned space. Similarly, **we learned there** in a mishna: **A person may not stand in a public domain and drink in the private domain,** and likewise he may not stand **in the private domain and drink in a public domain, unless he brings his head and most of his** body **into the place where he is drinking.**