## Eruvin Daf 87b

###### Eruvin 87b:1
[Eruvin 87b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:1)

הָכָא רְשׁוּיוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, **here,** Rav Dimi is referring to **domains by rabbinic law.** As the transfer of objects from a private domain to a *karmelit* is prohibited only by rabbinic decree, the Sages did not prohibit this transfer when it is accomplished by way of an exempt domain.


###### Eruvin 87b:2
[Eruvin 87b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:2)

וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּרְשׁוּיוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן נָמֵי אָמַר, (דְּתַנְיָא): כּוֹתֶל שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת, גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וְרוֹחַב אַרְבָּעָה — מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that transferring objects from one domain to another by way of an exempt domain is prohibited **even in** the case of **domains** that apply **by rabbinic law. As we learned** in a mishna: In the case of **a wall that is between two courtyards,** if it is **ten handbreadths high and four** handbreadths **wide,** the residents **establish two *eiruvin*,** a separate one for each courtyard, **but they do not establish one** joint ***eiruv*.**


###### Eruvin 87b:3
[Eruvin 87b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:3)

הָיוּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ פֵּירוֹת — אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין מִכָּאן וְאוֹכְלִין, וְאֵלּוּ עוֹלִין מִכָּאן וְאוֹכְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If there was produce on top** of the wall, **these,** the residents of one courtyard, **may ascend from this** side **and eat** them, **and those,** the residents of the other courtyard, **may ascend from the other** side **and eat** them, provided that they do not bring the produce down from the top of the wall to the courtyards.


###### Eruvin 87b:4
[Eruvin 87b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:4)

נִפְרַץ הַכּוֹתֶל, עַד עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת — מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, וְאִם רָצוּ מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּפֶתַח. יוֹתֵר מִכָּאן — מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the wall is breached,** a distinction applies: If the breach is **up to ten cubits** wide, **they may establish two *eiruvin*, and if they wish, they may establish one *eiruv*, for it is like an entrance.** This breach is similar to any opening of less than ten cubits. If the breach is **more than this, they may establish one *eiruv*, but they may not establish two *eiruvin*.** A breach of this size nullifies the partition, as the two courtyards merge into a single domain.


###### Eruvin 87b:5
[Eruvin 87b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:5)

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: אֵין בּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה מַאי? אָמַר רַב: אֲוִיר שְׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת שׁוֹלֶטֶת בּוֹ, וְלֹא יָזִיז בּוֹ מְלֹא נִימָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed this** mishna and raised a question: If this wall **is not four** handbreadths thick, **what is** the *halakha*? **Rav said:** In that case, **the air of two domains controls it.** As the wall is not broad enough to be considered a domain of its own, its top belongs to both courtyards, and it is therefore prohibited to both of them. Accordingly, **one may not move** anything **on** top of the wall even as much as **a hairsbreadth.**


###### Eruvin 87b:6
[Eruvin 87b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:6)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵלּוּ מַעֲלִין מִכָּאן וְאוֹכְלִין, וְאֵלּוּ מַעֲלִין מִכָּאן וְאוֹכְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan** disagreed and **said: These,** the residents of one courtyard, **may carry up** their food **from** their courtyard to the top of the wall **and eat** it there, **and those,** the residents of the other courtyard, **may** likewise **carry up** their food **from** their courtyard **and eat** it there. The entire top of the wall has the status of an exempt domain that can be combined with either courtyard, provided that the residents of the different courtyards do not exchange food between them.


###### Eruvin 87b:7
[Eruvin 87b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:7)

וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה — מוּתָּר לִבְנֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְלִבְנֵי רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכַתֵּף עָלָיו, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲלִיפוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his** regular line of **argument** here, **for when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A place that contains less than four by four** handbreadths is an exempt domain. Consequently, if this place is located between a public domain and a private domain, **it is permitted for the people of the private domain and for the people of the public domain to load** their burdens **onto their shoulders in it, as long as they do not exchange** objects with each other by way of the exempt domain. Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan prohibited exchanging articles between two domains, even if they are rabbinic domains.


###### Eruvin 87b:8
[Eruvin 87b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:8)

הָהִיא זְעֵירִי אַמְרַהּ. וְלִזְעֵירִי קַשְׁיָא הָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** ruling concerning a wall between two courtyards, **Ze’eiri stated it** in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rav Dimi transmitted a different tradition of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Nonetheless, **this** *halakha* concerning a water channel between two windows **is difficult according to Ze’eiri.**


###### Eruvin 87b:9
[Eruvin 87b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:9)

זְעֵירִי מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּאַמַּת הַמַּיִם גּוּפַהּ. וְרַב דִּימִי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Ze’eiri **explains** that the measures mentioned in the *baraita* are referring **to the water channel itself.** That is to say, the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Sages does not concern the width of the banks of the channel but the width of the channel itself, as they dispute the basic parameters of a *karmelit*. **And** Ze’eiri maintains that the teaching of **Rav Dimi,** that a *karmelit* can be no less than four handbreadths wide, **is** in fact the subject of a dispute between ***tanna’im*.**


###### Eruvin 87b:10
[Eruvin 87b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:10)

וְתִיהְוֵי כִּי חוֹרֵי כַּרְמְלִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **And let** the water channel that passes through the courtyard **be** treated at least **like the cavities of a *karmelit*,** even if it is not wide enough to be considered a *karmelit* on its own. Just as the cavities in the wall of a private domain are considered a private domain even if they do not include the prescribed measure of a private domain, the water channel passing through the courtyard should likewise be considered as a cavity of the larger water channel in the street. It should therefore have the status of a *karmelit*.


###### Eruvin 87b:11
[Eruvin 87b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:11)

אַבָּיֵי בַּר אָבִין וְרַב חֲנִינָא בַּר אָבִין דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין חוֹרִין לְכַרְמְלִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥanina bar Avin both said: There is no** category of **cavities for a *karmelit*.** As a *karmelit* is only a rabbinic in origin, the *halakha* is not so stringent with regard to this domain. Consequently, a *karmelit* does not annex nearby cavities.


###### Eruvin 87b:12
[Eruvin 87b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:12)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא יֵשׁ חוֹרִין לְכַרְמְלִית — הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּסְמוּכָה. הָכָא, בְּמוּפְלֶגֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: You** can **even say** that in general **there are holes for a *karmelit*,** but **this applies only to** holes that are **adjacent** to the *karmelit*, and are therefore nullified by it. **Here, however,** we are dealing with a water channel **that is** far **removed** from the *karmelit*. Therefore, it does not assume the status of the *karmelit*.


###### Eruvin 87b:13
[Eruvin 87b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:13)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דַּעֲבַד לַהּ נִיפְקֵי אַפּוּמַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said** a different explanation of the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis: The measures of three and four handbreadths refer neither to the width of the water trench nor to the width of its banks. Rather, we are dealing with a case **where one fashioned outlets for** the water channel **at its ends,** i.e., one formed gaps in the partitions to allow the water to flow.


###### Eruvin 87b:14
[Eruvin 87b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:14)

וְאָזְדוּ רַבָּנַן לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis follow their** regular line of **argument,** that the principle of *lavud* applies only to a gap less than three handbreadths wide. An opening less than three handbreadths is therefore considered completely closed, while one of four is not viewed as closed. **And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel follows his** regular line of **argument,** that the principle of *lavud* applies even to a gap of four handbreadths.


###### Eruvin 87b:15
[Eruvin 87b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** גְּזוּזְטְרָא שֶׁהִיא לְמַעְלָה מִן הַמַּיִם אֵין מְמַלְּאִין הֵימֶנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לָהּ מְחִיצָה גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, בֵּין מִלְּמַעְלָה, בֵּין מִלְּמַטָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **a balcony that** extends **over** a body of **water,** if a hole was opened in the floor, its residents **may not draw** water **from it** through the hole **on Shabbat, unless they erected for it a partition ten handbreadths high** around the hole. It is permitted to draw water by means of that partition, **whether** it is positioned **above** the balcony, in which case the partition is seen as descending downward, **or** whether it is placed **below** the balcony.


###### Eruvin 87b:16
[Eruvin 87b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:16)

וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי גְזוּזְטְרָאוֹת זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ, עָשׂוּ לְעֶלְיוֹנָה וְלֹא עָשׂוּ לְתַחְתּוֹנָה — שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת עַד שֶׁיְּעָרְבוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And likewise,** with regard to **two** such **balconies, one above the other,** if **they erected** a partition **for the upper balcony but they did not erect** one **for the lower one,** the residents **are both prohibited** from drawing water through the upper one, **unless they establish an *eiruv*** between them.


###### Eruvin 87b:17
[Eruvin 87b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:17)

**גְּמָ׳** מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כַּחֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא. דְּתַנְיָא, חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא אוֹמֵר: גְּזוּזְטְרָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ אַרְבַּע עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת חוֹקֵק בָּהּ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה, וּמְמַלֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara comments: **The mishna** is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Ḥananya ben Akavya, as it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Ḥananya ben Akavya says:** If **a balcony that contains four** cubits **by four cubits** is suspended above water, **one may carve out** a hole of **four** handbreadths **by four** handbreadths **in it and draw** water through it. The section of the floor surrounding the hole is considered as though it bent downward and formed a partition ten handbreadths high on all sides. Consequently, no other partition is necessary.


###### Eruvin 87b:18
[Eruvin 87b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:18)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן זִימְרָא: לֹא הִתִּיר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא אֶלָּא בְּיַמָּהּ שֶׁל טְבֶרְיָא, הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לָהּ אוֹגָנִים, וַעֲיָירוֹת וְקַרְפֵּיפוֹת מַקִּיפוֹת אוֹתָהּ, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר מֵימוֹת — לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya permitted** a balcony that is not surrounded by partitions **only in** the case of **the Sea of Tiberias,** the Sea of Galilee, **as it has** clearly defined **banks** that are visible on all sides, **and towns and enclosures surround it.** It is therefore considered part of an inhabited area. **But with regard to other waters,** such as larger seas, **no,** he did not permit them.


###### Eruvin 87b:19
[Eruvin 87b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:19)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים הִתִּיר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא לְאַנְשֵׁי טְבֶרְיָא: מְמַלְּאִין מַיִם מִגְּזוּזְטְרָא בַּשַּׁבָּת, וְטוֹמְנִין בְּעֵצָה, וּמִסְתַּפְּגִין בַּאֲלוּנְטִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Our Sages taught** a *baraita*: **Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya permitted three activities to the inhabitants of Tiberias: They may draw water** from the sea **through** a hole cut out of **a balcony on Shabbat, and they may insulate** produce **in the pods** of legumes, **and they may dry themselves** on Shabbat **with a towel [*aluntit*].**


###### Eruvin 87b:20
[Eruvin 87b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:20)

מְמַלְּאִין מַיִם מִגְּזוּזְטְרָא בַּשַּׁבָּת: הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. וְטוֹמְנִין בְּעֵצָה מַאי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: הִשְׁכִּים לְהָבִיא פְּסוֹלֶת, אִם בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו טַל — הֲרֵי הוּא בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies this *baraita*: **They may draw water through** a hole cut out of **a balcony on Shabbat** is the *halakha* **that we stated** above. **And they may insulate** produce **in the pods** of legumes; **what is** this *halakha*? **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: If one **rose early** in the morning **to bring residue** from the field, e.g., the straw of wheat or the stalks or pods of legumes, in order to store his produce in them, the following distinction applies: **If** he rose early **because** the residue still **has dew on it,** and he wants to use this moisture for his produce, **this** instance **is considered** to be in the following category: **If** any water **be put.** Food or produce can contract ritual impurity only if it has come into contact with a liquid, either directly through the action of its owner, or without his direct intervention but with his approval. This is derived from the verse: “But if any water be put on the seed, and any part of their carcass falls on it, it shall be unclean to you” (Leviticus 11:38). Returning to our issue, if this person rose early because the residue still has dew on it, the produce he stores in it is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, as it has come into contact with the dew with its owner’s approval.


###### Eruvin 87b:21
[Eruvin 87b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/87b:21)

וְאִם בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִבָּטֵל מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ — אֵינוֹ בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״. וּסְתָם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** one rose early only **in order not to neglect his** usual **work,** this **is not considered** an instance of **if it be put,** as it was not his intention to place the dew on the produce. Unintended contact with a liquid does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. **And normally,** unless they specify otherwise,