## Eruvin Daf 92a

###### Eruvin 92a:1
[Eruvin 92a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:1)

מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה. וּתְנַן: כּוֹתֶל שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת, גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרוֹחַב אַרְבָּעָה — מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. הָיוּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ פֵּירוֹת — אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין מִכָּאן וְאוֹכְלִים, וְאֵלּוּ עוֹלִין מִכָּאן וְאוֹכְלִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹרִידוּ לְמַטָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say this,** that the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that all courtyards constitute a single domain, even if each courtyard established an independent *eiruv*? **But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that **the *halakha* is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned:** With regard to **a wall between two courtyards, ten** handbreadths **high and four** handbreadths **wide, they establish two *eiruvin*,** one for each courtyard, **but they do not establish one *eiruv*.** If **there was fruit atop** the wall, **these,** the residents of one courtyard, **may ascend from here and eat** it, **and those,** the residents of the other courtyard, **may ascend from there and eat** it, **provided that they do not take** the fruit **down** from atop the wall to the courtyards. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, all the courtyards are considered a single domain. Why may they not bring the fruit down?


###### Eruvin 92a:2
[Eruvin 92a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:2)

מַאי ״לְמַטָּה״ — לְמַטָּה לַבָּתִּים. וְהָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא זֶה עוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְאוֹכֵל, וְזֶה עוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ וְאוֹכֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **What is** the meaning of the word **down** in this context? It means **down to the houses;** however, it is indeed permitted to bring the fruit down to the courtyards. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya** explicitly **teach** in a *Tosefta*: **Provided that neither will this** one **stand** below **in his place** in his courtyard **and eat, nor** will **that** one **stand in his place** in his courtyard **and eat?**


###### Eruvin 92a:3
[Eruvin 92a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי רַבִּי לֹא שְׁנָאָהּ, רַבִּי חִיָּיא מִנַּיִן לוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to** Ravina: No proof can be cited from this *baraita* of Rabbi Ḥiyya with regard to the mishna. **If Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **did not** explicitly **teach it** in this manner, **from where does** his student **Rabbi Ḥiyya** know it? If a *halakha* is not taught by the mishna itself, it should not be distorted to have it correspond with a *Tosefta*.


###### Eruvin 92a:4
[Eruvin 92a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:4)

אִתְּמַר: שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת וְחוּרְבָּה אַחַת בֵּינֵיהֶם, אַחַת עֵירְבָה וְאַחַת לֹא עֵירְבָה, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: נוֹתְנִין אוֹתָהּ לָזוֹ שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבָה, אֲבָל לְשֶׁעֵירְבָה — לָא. דִילְמָא אָתֵי לְאַפּוֹקֵי מָאנֵי דְבָתִּים לְחוּרְבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated** that *amora’im* dispute the following case: If there were **two courtyards and** there was **one ruin between them,** and the residents of **one** courtyard **established an *eiruv*** for themselves, while the residents of **the other** courtyard **did not establish an *eiruv*** for themselves, **Rav Huna said:** The Sages **confer** the right to utilize the ruin **to** the residents of **that** courtyard **that did not establish an *eiruv*; however, to** the residents of the courtyard **that established an *eiruv*, no,** they do not confer the right to utilize the ruin. It is prohibited due to a decree, **lest people come to take out vessels** from one **of the houses to the ruin,** which is prohibited, as no *eiruv* was established with the ruin itself. However, this concern does not extend to the courtyard whose residents did not establish an *eiruv*. They are not permitted to move objects from their houses to the courtyard, and therefore there is no reason to issue a decree prohibiting the carrying of objects from the courtyard to the ruin.


###### Eruvin 92a:5
[Eruvin 92a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:5)

וְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: אַף לְשֶׁעֵירְבָה, וּשְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת. וְאִם תֹּאמַר שְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת, מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין נוֹתְנִין חָצֵר שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבָה לְחָצֵר שֶׁעֵירְבָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Ḥiyya bar Rav** disagreed with Rav Huna and **said:** Rights to the ruin are conferred **to** the residents of the courtyard **that established an *eiruv*,** and consequently, it is **prohibited** for residents of **both** courtyards to carry objects. **And if you say** that it should be **permitted** for residents of **both** to move articles to the ruin, that is incorrect. As if that were so, **for what** reason did the Sages **not confer** the right to carry in **the courtyard that did not establish an *eiruv*, to the** residents of the **courtyard that established an *eiruv*?** If there is no cause for concern, it should always be permitted to the residents of a courtyard that established an *eiruv* to carry from their courtyard to a different courtyard whose residents did not establish an *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 92a:6
[Eruvin 92a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:6)

הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּמִנַּטְרִי מָאנֵי דְבָתִּים בְּחָצֵר, אָתֵי לְאַפּוֹקֵי. הָכָא בְּחוּרְבָּה, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מִנַּטְרִי מָאנֵי דְחָצֵר בְּחוּרְבָּה, לָא אָתֵי לְאַפּוֹקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this contention: **There,** in the case of courtyards, **since the vessels from the houses are protected in the courtyard** as well, there is a concern lest people **come to take them out** from the house to the courtyard, where they could be confused with those vessels already in the courtyard, and they might come to move those objects into the other courtyard. **Here, in** the case of **a ruin, since the vessels from the courtyard are not protected in the ruin,** there is **no** concern lest people **come to take out** the vessels from the courtyard into the ruin. Therefore, it is possible that residents of both courtyards would be permitted to utilize the ruin.


###### Eruvin 92a:7
[Eruvin 92a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:7)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, חִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: אַף לְשֶׁעֵירְבָה, וּשְׁתֵּיהֶן מוּתָּרוֹת. וְאִם תֹּאמַר: שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֲסוּרוֹת — לְפִי שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִים חָצֵר שֶׁלֹּא עֵירְבָה לְחָצֵר שֶׁעֵירְבָה. הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּמִנַּטְרִי מָאנֵי דְבָתִּים בְּחָצֵר — לָא שָׁרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן, דְּאָתֵי לְאַפּוֹקֵי. אֲבָל בְּחוּרְבָּה לָא מִנַּטְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** a different version of the previous discussion. **Ḥiyya bar Rav** disagreed with Rav Huna and **said:** The ruin belongs **even to** the residents of the courtyard **that established an *eiruv*, and** it is **permitted** for residents of **both** to carry in the ruin. **And if you say** they should **both** be **prohibited** to do so in accordance with the argument presented above, **that** the Sages **do not confer** the right to carry in **the courtyard that did not establish an *eiruv* to the** residents of the **courtyard that established an *eiruv*,** this proof can be refuted. **There, since the vessels from the houses are protected in the courtyard, the Sages did not permit** carrying **them,** due to the concern **lest** people **come to take them out** from the house to the courtyard and from there to the other courtyard. **However, in** the case of **a ruin,** the vessels **are not protected** in the ruin, and therefore, there is no cause for concern.


###### Eruvin 92a:8
[Eruvin 92a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** גַּג גָּדוֹל סָמוּךְ לְקָטָן — הַגָּדוֹל מוּתָּר, וְהַקָּטָן אָסוּר. חָצֵר גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה לִקְטַנָּה — גְּדוֹלָה מוּתֶּרֶת וּקְטַנָּה אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּפִתְחָהּ שֶׁל גְּדוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **a large roof** was **adjacent to a small roof,** and the boundary between them was no wider than ten cubits, use of **the large one is permitted,** i.e., one may bring objects up to the roof from the house below and carry them on the roof, **and** use of **the small one is prohibited.** A similar *halakha* applies to **a large courtyard that was breached into a small** one, in a manner that one entire side of the small courtyard was breached, but the breach was less than ten cubits; it is **permitted** for the residents of **the large** courtyard to carry, **but** it is **prohibited** for the residents of **the small one** to do so. The rationale for this difference is **because** in that case, the legal status of the breach **is like** that of **the entrance of the large** courtyard. As the breach in the wall of the larger courtyard is surrounded on both sides by the remaining portions of that wall, and the breach is no greater than ten cubits wide, its legal status is like that of an entrance in the wall of the courtyard, and therefore it is permitted to carry in the large courtyard. With regard to the small courtyard, however, since one entire side of the small courtyard was breached, there remains no partition whatsoever on that side and carrying in that courtyard is therefore prohibited.


###### Eruvin 92a:9
[Eruvin 92a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵי תַּרְתֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara poses a question: **Why does** the mishna **teach** the same *halakha* **twice?** Why is it necessary to repeat the ruling with regard to both roofs and courtyards when the cases are apparently identical?


###### Eruvin 92a:10
[Eruvin 92a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:10)

לְרַב, קָתָנֵי גַּג דּוּמְיָא דְחָצֵר: מָה חָצֵר מִנַּכְרָא מְחִיצְתָּא, אַף גַּג נָמֵי מִנַּכְרָא מְחִיצְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **According to** the opinion of **Rav,** with regard to the lenient ruling that the residents may carry on a roof, the repetition comes to **teach** the *halakha* of **a roof similar to** that of **a courtyard: Just as a courtyard, its partitions are conspicuous, so too a roof, its** extended **partitions,** based on the principle: Extend and raise the walls of the house, must be **conspicuous** for it to be permitted for the residents to carry on their account. In other words, the roof must not extend beyond the walls of the house.


###### Eruvin 92a:11
[Eruvin 92a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:11)

וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, גַּג דּוּמְיָא דְחָצֵר: מָה חָצֵר דְּקָא דָרְסִי לַהּ רַבִּים, אַף גַּג נָמֵי דְּקָא דָרְסִי לֵיהּ רַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Whereas **according to** the opinion of **Shmuel,** the repetition should be understood in the opposite manner, as it comes to teach the *halakha* of **a roof similar to** that of **a courtyard: Just as a courtyard** is a place **where multitudes tread, so too, the roof** is a place **where multitudes tread.** However, if it is not used by many people, even the small roof is permitted, as the principle: Extend and raise the walls of the house, is applied to the wall between the houses, despite the fact that the partition is not conspicuous.


###### Eruvin 92a:12
[Eruvin 92a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:12)

יָתֵיב רַבָּה וְרַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָן, וְיָתֵיב אַבָּיֵי גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וְיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין דָּיוֹרֵי גְדוֹלָה בַּקְּטַנָּה, וְאֵין דָּיוֹרֵי קְטַנָּה בַּגְּדוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan were sitting, and Abaye was sitting beside them, and they sat and said: Learn from the mishna** that the rights of **the residents of the large** courtyard extend **into the small one, but** the rights of **the residents of the small** courtyard do **not** extend **into the large one.**


###### Eruvin 92a:13
[Eruvin 92a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/92a:13)

כֵּיצַד? גְּפָנִים בַּגְּדוֹלָה — אָסוּר לִזְרוֹעַ אֶת הַקְּטַנָּה. וְאִם זָרַע — זְרָעִין אֲסוּרִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How so?** If there are **vines in the large** courtyard, **it is prohibited to sow** crops **in the small one,** even at a distance of four cubits, due to the prohibition against planting other food crops in a vineyard. **And if he sowed** crops, **the seeds are prohibited.** As the small courtyard is considered part of the large one, the vines in the larger courtyard render the seeds in the smaller courtyard prohibited.