## Eruvin Daf 93b

###### Eruvin 93b:1
[Eruvin 93b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:1)

גִּידּוּד חֲמִשָּׁה וּמְחִיצָה חֲמִשָּׁה — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בְּגִידּוּד אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בִּמְחִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**An embankment,** a height disparity between two surfaces **of five** handbreadths, **and** an additional **partition of five** handbreadths **do not join** together to form a partition of ten handbreadths, the minimum height for a partition to enclose a private domain. It is regarded as a partition of ten handbreadths **only if** the barrier **is** composed **entirely of the embankment or if it is** composed **entirely of a partition.**


###### Eruvin 93b:2
[Eruvin 93b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:2)

מֵיתִיבִי: שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ וְעֶלְיוֹנָה גְּבוֹהָה מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ גִּידּוּד חֲמִשָּׁה וּמְחִיצָה חֲמִשָּׁה — מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Gemara raises an objection** from a *baraita*: If there were **two courtyards, one above the other, and** the **upper one was ten handbreadths higher than the lower one, or if it had an embankment of five** handbreadths **and a partition** of **five** handbreadths, the two courtyards are considered separate domains **and they establish two *eiruvin*,** one for each courtyard, **and they do not establish one *eiruv*.** If the height disparity was **less than** ten handbreadths, the two areas are considered a single domain, and **they establish one *eiruv* and they do not establish two *eiruvin*.**


###### Eruvin 93b:3
[Eruvin 93b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:3)

אָמַר (רַב): מוֹדֶה רַב חִסְדָּא בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה, הוֹאִיל וְרוֹאֶה פְּנֵי עֲשָׂרָה. אִי הָכִי: תַּחְתּוֹנָה — תְּעָרֵב שְׁנַיִם וְלֹא תְּעָרֵב אֶחָד, עֶלְיוֹנָה — לֹא תְּעָרֵב לֹא אֶחָד וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav said: Rav Ḥisda concedes** that an embankment and a partition combine **with regard to the lower** courtyard, **since it faces a wall of ten,** i.e., there is a full partition of ten handbreadths before its residents. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** according to this reasoning, the residents of the **lower** courtyard, from whose perspective there is a valid partition, should **establish two *eiruvin*,** i.e., an independent *eiruv*, **and do not establish one *eiruv*** together with the upper courtyard, while the residents of **the upper** courtyard **establish neither one *eiruv* nor two.** The residents of the upper courtyard neither establish an *eiruv* on their own, as it is breached into the lower one, nor can they establish an *eiruv* together with the lower courtyard, because the latter is separated from it.


###### Eruvin 93b:4
[Eruvin 93b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:4)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה עֶלְיוֹנָה מְגוּפֶּפֶת עַד עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Ulla said:** The *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the **upper** courtyard had full-fledged ten-handbreadth-high walls that **protruded** on both sides of the section of the partition that was merely five handbreadths high, a protrusion that extended **up to ten cubits.** In this case, the upper courtyard is properly enclosed by a partition ten handbreadths high, while the section that is only five handbreadths high is deemed an entrance. Consequently, even the residents of the upper courtyard can establish an *eiruv* on their own. But the two courtyards cannot be merged by a single *eiruv*, because the lower courtyard is enclosed by a partition from which there is no entrance to the upper courtyard.


###### Eruvin 93b:5
[Eruvin 93b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:5)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן — מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם, אִי בָּעֲיָא — חַד תְּעָרֵב, אִי בָּעֲיָא — תְּרֵי תְּעָרֵב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so, say the latter clause** of that same *baraita*: If the height disparity was **less than** ten handbreadths, **they** are considered a single domain, and the residents therefore **establish one *eiruv*, but they do not establish two *eiruvin*.** According to the explanation suggested above, that there is a partition ten handbreadths high between the courtyards with an entrance of sorts between them, **if they wish, they establish one *eiruv*,** and **if they wish, they establish two *eiruvin*.** That is the *halakha* in a case of two courtyards with an entrance between them.


###### Eruvin 93b:6
[Eruvin 93b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:6)

אָמַר רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה בִּמְלוֹאָהּ לָעֶלְיוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba, son of Rava, said:** The *baraita* refers to a case **where the lower** courtyard **was fully breached into the upper one,** i.e., the gap in the wall spanned the entire width of the lower courtyard. In that case, the residents of the lower courtyard establish a joint *eiruv* with the upper courtyard; however, they may not establish an *eiruv* of their own, in accordance with the mishna in which we learned that if a large courtyard is breached into a smaller one, 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.


###### Eruvin 93b:7
[Eruvin 93b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:7)

אִי הָכִי, תַּחְתּוֹנָה חַד תְּעָרֵב, תְּרֵי לָא תְּעָרֵב. עֶלְיוֹנָה, אִי בָּעֲיָא — תְּרֵי תְּעָרֵב, אִי בָּעֲיָא — חַד תְּעָרֵב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** the *halakha* should be that the residents of the **lower** courtyard **establish one *eiruv*** together with the upper one, but they **do not establish two *eiruvin*,** i.e., the residents cannot establish an independent *eiruv* for their courtyard. However, with regard to **the upper one, if** its residents **wish,** they **establish one *eiruv*** together with the lower courtyard, and **if** they **wish,** they **establish two *eiruvin*.** The residents of the upper courtyard can establish an independent *eiruv* for their courtyard, as the larger courtyard renders it prohibited for the residents of the smaller courtyard to carry, but not vice versa.


###### Eruvin 93b:8
[Eruvin 93b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:8)

אִין הָכִי נָמֵי. וְכִי קָתָנֵי ״פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן מְעָרְבִין אֶחָד וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין שְׁנַיִם״, אַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes, it is indeed so;** that is the *halakha*. **And when** the *baraita* **teaches:** If the height disparity was **less than** ten handbreadths, the residents **establish one *eiruv*, but they do not establish two *eiruvin*,** this statement is not referring to both courtyards, but only **to the lower** one.


###### Eruvin 93b:9
[Eruvin 93b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:9)

דְּרַשׁ מָרִימָר: גִּידּוּד חֲמִשָּׁה וּמְחִיצָה חֲמִשָּׁה — מִצְטָרְפִין. אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תָּנֵי מָר מִידֵּי בִּמְחִיצָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. וְהִלְכְתָא: גִּידּוּד חֲמִשָּׁה וּמְחִיצָה חֲמִשָּׁה מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mareimar taught: An embankment of five** handbreadths **and an** additional **partition of five** handbreadths above it **combine** to form a partition of ten handbreadths. **Ravina met Rav Aḥa, son of Rava,** and **said to him:** Has **the Master taught anything with regard to** this **partition,** whether it is effective or not? **He said to him: No.** The Gemara concludes: The ***halakha*** is that **an embankment of five** handbreadths **and a partition of five** handbreadths **combine** to form an effective partition of ten handbreadths.


###### Eruvin 93b:10
[Eruvin 93b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:10)

בָּעֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: דָּיוֹרִין הַבָּאִין בְּשַׁבָּת, מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּאָסְרוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hoshaya raised a dilemma:** What is the ruling with regard to **residents who arrive on Shabbat,** i.e., who join the residents of a courtyard on Shabbat, e.g., if the wall between two courtyards collapsed on Shabbat so that new residents arrive in one courtyard from the other. Had these people arrived before Shabbat they would have rendered it prohibited for the residents to carry in the courtyard unless they participated with the original residents in their *eiruv*. **Do** these residents **render it prohibited** for the original residents to carry in the courtyard, even if they arrive on Shabbat itself?


###### Eruvin 93b:11
[Eruvin 93b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:11)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, תָּא שְׁמַע: חָצֵר גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁנִּפְרְצָה לִקְטַנָּה — הַגְּדוֹלָה מוּתֶּרֶת וְהַקְּטַנָּה אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּפִתְחָהּ שֶׁל גְּדוֹלָה. אָמַר רַבָּה: אֵימַר מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נִפְרְצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said: Come** and **hear** a resolution to the dilemma from the mishna: With regard to **a large courtyard that was breached into a small** courtyard, 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. It is permitted to carry in the large courtyard **because** the breach **is** regarded **like the entrance of the large** courtyard. Apparently, even if the breach occurred on Shabbat, it is prohibited for the residents of the small courtyard to carry. **Rabba said: Say** that the mishna is dealing with a case where **it was breached while it was still day,** i.e., on Friday. However, there is no prohibition if the breach occurred on Shabbat itself.


###### Eruvin 93b:12
[Eruvin 93b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לָא תֵּימָא מָר ״אֵימַר״, אֶלָּא וַדַּאי מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם נִפְרְצָה. דְּהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר, בְּעַי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב הוּנָא וּבְעַי מִינֵּיהּ מֵרַב יְהוּדָה: עֵירַב דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּתַח וְנִסְתַּם הַפֶּתַח, עֵירַב דֶּרֶךְ חַלּוֹן וְנִסְתַּם הַחַלּוֹן, מַהוּ? וְאָמַר לִי: שַׁבָּת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּתְּרָה הוּתְּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: The Master should not state: Say,** indicating that it is possible to explain the mishna in this manner. **Rather,** the mishna is **certainly** referring to a case where the courtyard **was breached while it was still day. As Master,** you **are the one who said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna, and I raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda:** If one **established an *eiruv*** to join one courtyard to another **via** a certain **opening, and that opening was sealed** on Shabbat, or if one established an *eiruv* **via** a certain **window, and that window was sealed** on Shabbat, **what is** the *halakha*? May one continue to rely on this *eiruv* and carry from one courtyard to the other via other entrances? **And he said to me: Once** it **was permitted** to carry from courtyard to courtyard at the onset of **Shabbat, it was permitted** and remains so until the conclusion of Shabbat. According to this principle, if a breach that adds residents occurs on Shabbat, the breach does not render prohibited activities that were permitted when Shabbat began.


###### Eruvin 93b:13
[Eruvin 93b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:13)

אִתְּמַר, כּוֹתֶל שֶׁבֵּין שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת שֶׁנָּפַל, רַב אָמַר: אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is stated** that *amora’im* disagreed: With regard to **a wall between two courtyards,** whose residents did not establish a joint *eiruv*, **that collapsed** on Shabbat, **Rav said: One may carry in** the joint courtyard **only within four cubits,** as carrying in each courtyard is prohibited due to the other, because they did not establish an *eiruv* together. Rav does not accept the principle that an activity that was permitted at the start of Shabbat remains permitted until the conclusion of Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 93b:14
[Eruvin 93b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/93b:14)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel said:**