Torah Community Connections

Week 17 - Wednesday - 22 March 2000

ERUVIN: CHAPTER 9 : MISHNA 2

A large roof next to a small one - the large is permitted and the small is prohibited. A large courtyard that is breached into a small - the large is permitted and the small is prohibited because it is as a doorway of the large. A courtyard that is breached to the public domain - if a person carries in from it into the private domain or from the private domain into it, he is lable; so Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say: From it into the public domain, or from the public domain to within it - he is exempt, because it is as a karmelit.

Kahati

A large roof next to a small one - and there is a railing around the two roofs, as in the diagram: the large - roof - is permitted - one may bring up vessels onto it on the Shabbat from the house below, and the small roof does not restrict the large roof, and the small - roof - is prohibited - it is forbidden to bring up vessels onto it on the Shabbat from the house because it is totally breached to the large roof, which forbids the carrying within it. Regarding the large roof however, the open part between the roofs is not regarded as a breach, but rather as a doorway to the small roof, for the large roof has larger partitions on either side (i.e., the railing). If the breach does not exceed ten amot, the small roof does not restrict the large roof. So also, a large courtyard that is breached into a small - e.g., the entire wall between the small courtyard and the large one has fallen down and as a result the small courtyard has only three partitions remaining, while the large courtyard has two partitions on either side of the breach (as in the diagram of the roofs), the large is permitted - the inhabitants of the large courtyard may carry from their houses to the courtyard and vice versa if they had made an eruv, and the small is prohibited - the inhabitants of the small courtyard may not carry from their houses to the courtyard and vice versa for it is entirely breached and therefore the large courtyard restricts it; but, the small courtyard does nor restrict the large one, because it - the breach, is - considered - as a doorway of the large - courtyard, since the partitions remain on either side, and it does not exceed ten amot. The Gemara explains that the small courtyard is restricted only if the courtyard was breached before the Shabbat. But if it was breached on the Shabbat, the use of the small courtyard is also permitted, for since it was permitted for part of the Shabbat, the use of the small courtyard is also permitted, for since it was permitted for part of the Shabbat (before it was breached), it was permitted for the entire Shabbat.

A courtyard that is breached to the public domain - the entire wall between the courtyard and the public domain fell down, or a breach of more than ten amot was made in it, even if it happened on the Shabbat: if a person carries in from it into the private domain or - a person carries - from the private domain into it, he is lable - to a hatat sacrifice, if done unintentionally, or the death penalty, if done intentionally; so Rabbi Eliezer - who holds that this courtyard has the legal status of a public domain.
But the Sages say: If a person carries out - From it into the public domain, or - if a person carries in - from the public domain to within it - he is exempt - but it is prohibited, - because it is as a karmelit - and not as a public domain. According to the Sages, a person who carries out from a private domain into it or vice versa, is also exempt though it is prohibited (Rashi).

Some commentators finds it difficult to explain why the Sages state "from it into the public domain," and not as Rabbi Eliezer, "from it into the private domain." According, however, to the conclusion of the Gemara, that even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that within the courtyard, its legal status is that of a karmelit; they disagree only about the place of the breach: Rabbi Eliezer holds that the sides of a public road have the legal status of the public domain; the Sages hold that the sides of the public domain are like the public domain. Rabbi Eliezer's wording, "from it" - mitokhah - literally "from within it," does not mean, "from within the courtyard," but rather, "from within the place of the breach"; since the Sages used this expression, Rabbi Eliezer used the same (see Eruv., 94a; see also Tosefot Yom Tov).

ERUVIN: CHAPTER 9 : MISHNA 3

A courtyard that is breached into the public domain from its two sides, and similarly a house that is breached from its two sides, and similarly a mavoy whose beams or side-posts have been removed - are permitted on that Shabbat and prohibited for the future; so Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says: If they are permitted for that Shabbat, they are permitted for the future; and if they are prohibited for the future, they are prohibited for the Shabbat.

Kahati

A courtyard that is breached into the public domain - on the Shabbat, from its two sides - The Gemara explains: from the place in which its two sides meet, i.e., the wall is breached in the corner, and nothing remained if the wall there; even if the breach is less than ten amot, it does not have the legal standing of a doorway because a doorway is not made in a corner, and similarly a house that is breached from its two sides - in a corner (as in the case of the courtyard, above). The Gemara explains that this refers to a case in which there is no ceiling at the place of the breach, and therefore we do not say, "the edge of the ceiling is deemed to descend and close the gap", and similarly a mavoy whose beams or side-posts have been removed - on the Shabbat; according to another version, "its beam or its side-post," for one beam or one side-post suffices to permit carrying in the mavoy; in all these cases, they - are permitted on that Shabbat - since they were permitted for the entire Shabbat, and prohibited for the future - Shabbatot; so Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says: If they are permitted for that Shabbat, they are permitted for the future; and if - i.e., just as, they are prohibited for the future - Shabbatot, they are prohibited for the Shabbat - This is the law. Rambam and Bartenura explain that the principle "since they were permitted for part of the Shabbat, they are permitted for the entire Shabbat" applies only to the eruv, i.e., if something new happened on the Shabbat which would normally invalidate the eruv, we say that the eruv is not cancelled, for since it was permitted for a part of the Shabbat, it is permitted for the entire Shabbat. Regarding partitions, however, e.g., the courtyard was breached on the Shabbat into a public domain or into a karmelit, we do not say "since it was permitted for a part of the Shabbat, it is permitted for the entire Shabbat."

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives