Eruvin 175

אנשי טבריא כמי שלא יבטל ממלאכתו דמי

the men of Tiberias<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were mainly workers.');">¹</span> are in the same category as the man whose object was that he might not be disturbed from his usual work. And what was the point in his permitting them to 'dry themselves with a towel'? - That, as it was taught.

ומסתפגין באלונטית מאי היא דתניא מסתפג אדם באלונטית ומניחה בחלון ולא ימסרנה לאוליירין מפני שחשודין על אותו דבר ר"ש אומר אף מביאה בידו לתוך ביתו

A man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who bathed in cold water.');">²</span> may dry himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath or on a festival day.');">³</span> with a towel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the act was not forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of his wringing it out which is forbidden.');">⁴</span>

אמר רבה בר רב הונא לא שנו אלא למלאות אבל לשפוך אסור

and put it on a window, but he may not hand it to the bathing attendants<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of Olyar, olearius, Gr. **, the keeper of clothes in a bath house.');">⁵</span> because they are suspected of doing that work.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wringing clothes. Lit., 'of that thing'.');">⁶</span> R'Simeon ruled: He may also carry it in his hand to his home.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the act was not forbidden as a preventive measure against the possibility of his wringing it out which is forbidden.');">⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רב שיזבי וכי מה בין זה לעוקה

Rabbah son of R'Huna stated: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Rabbis recognized the validity of a suspended partition on a balcony.');">⁷</span> was learnt only in respect of drawing water, but pouring it down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the hole.');">⁸</span> is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the water is carried down the stream beyond the partitions.');">⁹</span>

הני תיימי והני לא תיימי

R'Shezbi demurred: Wherein does this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The pouring down of water from a balcony into a stretch of water below.');">¹⁰</span> essentially differ from that of a trough?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a courtyard that was smaller than four cubits (Mishnah infra) though, when the trough is full, the water runs over into the public domain.');">¹¹</span> - In the latter case the waters are absorbed [in the ground]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the tenants intend the water to remain in the private domain it is permitted to pour into the trough which, like the courtyard, is a private domain even though some of the water may ultimately flow over.');">¹²</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רבה בר רב הונא לא תימא למלאות הוא דשרי לשפוך אסור אלא לשפוך נמי שרי אמר רב שיזבי פשיטא היינו עוקה מהו דתימא הני תיימי והני לא תיימי קמ"ל:

while in the former they are not absorbed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that any drop of water poured into it would inevitably flow beyond the partitions.');">¹³</span> Others say that Rabbah son of R'Huna explained: Do not say: It is only permitted to draw water but that it is forbidden to pour water down; since in fact it is also permitted to pour it down. Is not this, R'Shezbi asked, obvious, seeing that it is essentially identical with the case of the trough?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 1.');">¹⁴</span>

וכן שתי גזוזטראות זו וכו': אמר רב הונא אמר רב לא שנו אלא בסמוכה אבל במופלגת עליונה מותרת

- It might have been assumed that they are unlike,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that in consequence it should be forbidden to pour water down the hole of the balcony into the stretch of water below.');">¹⁵</span> for whereas in the latter case the waters are absorbed [in the ground],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2.');">¹⁶</span> they are not absorbed in the former case,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that any drop of water poured into it would inevitably flow beyond the partitions.');">¹³</span>

ורב לטעמיה דאמר רב אין אדם אוסר על חבירו דרך אויר

hence we were informed [that the same law is applicable to both cases]. SO ALSO WHEN TWO BALCONIES WERE SITUATED IN POSITIONS ONE HIGHER THAN etc. R'Huna citing Rab explained: This was learnt only [in the case where the lower balcony] was near [to the upper one],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the horizontal distance between them was less than four handbreadths.');">¹⁷</span> but if it was removed from it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Four handbreadths or more.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רבה א"ר חייא ורב יוסף אמר רבי אושעיא יש גזל בשבת וחורבה מחזיר לבעלים

[the use of] the upper one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By those on it.');">¹⁹</span> is permitted, since Rab follows his principle, having laid down that no man imposes restrictions upon another through the air.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 85a; and, since the tenants of the lower balcony are unable to reach the hole in the upper one except through the intervening air space by thrusting their bucket into it, they cannot impose restrictions on the tenants of the upper one.');">²⁰</span> Rabbah stated in the name of R'Hiyya, and R'Joseph stated in the name of R'Oshaia: A robbery is valid in respect of a Sabbath domain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is now assumed to mean that a person is permitted to seize for the Sabbath another person's ruin which, being near his house and neglected by its owner, he uses on weekdays, and that this seizure is valid so that even on the Sabbath he may move objects from his house into it and vice versa as if it had been his own property.');">²¹</span>

הא גופא קשיא אמרת יש גזל בשבת אלמא קניא וחורבה מחזיר לבעלים אלמא לא קניא

and a ruin reverts to its owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the restrictions of the Sabbath cause the ruin, though during the week it is deserted by its owner and used by a neighbour, to revert to the full possession of the former so that the latter may move no objects from, or into it.');">²²</span> But is not this self contradictory? You said: 'A robbery is valid in respect of the Sabbath domain', from which it is clear that possession is acquired;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the person who uses it during the week (cf. prev. two nn.) .');">²³</span>

הכי קאמר יש דין גזל בשבת כיצד דחורבה מחזיר לבעלים

and then you say: 'and a ruin reverts to its owner , from which it is evident that no possession is acquired?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the person who uses it during the week (cf. prev. two nn.) .');">²³</span> - It is this that was meant: The law [of the return] of a robbery is valid in respect of a Sabbath domain,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 12.');">²⁴</span> since<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how? Because'. [The text is not clear: R. Hananel reads: The law of robbery (whereby the robber acquires possession of the robbed object) applies on Sabbath. How is this? If the robber took the robbery into his own domain; but if he left it in the ruin of the robbed person, the ruin reverts it to its owner.]');">²⁵</span>

אמר רבה ומותבינן אשמעתין וכן שתי גזוזטראות זו למעלה מזו וכו' ואי אמרת יש דין גזל בשבת אמאי אסורות

a ruin reverts to its owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 12.');">²⁴</span> Said Rabbah: We raised an objection against this ruling of ours:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one just discussed.');">²⁶</span> SO ALSO WHEN TWO BALCONIES WERE SITUATED IN POSITIONS ONE HIGHER THAN THE OTHER etc. Now, if it is maintained that 'the law [of the return] of a robbery is valid in respect of a Sabbath domain' why should restrictions be imposed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Upon the tenants of the upper balcony, seeing that on the Sabbath, as in the case of the ruin just mentioned, it reverts to them alone despite its use by the tenants of the lower balcony during weekdays.');">²⁷</span>

אמר רב ששת הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שעשו מחיצה בשותפות

- R'Shesheth replied: We are here dealing with a case, for instance, where they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenants of both balconies.');">²⁸</span> made the partition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the upper balcony.');">²⁹</span> jointly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the tenants of the lower balcony, unlike the man who uses a ruin upon which he has no claim whatever, are well entitled to the use of the upper one.');">³⁰</span>

אי הכי כי עשו לתחתונה נמי

But if so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the tenants of the lower balcony have a share in the upper one, and that this is the reason why they impose restrictions upon the tenants of the latter.');">³¹</span> the same law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they impose restrictions.');">³²</span> should also apply where a partition was made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By its tenants.');">³³</span>

כיון דעשו לתחתונה גלוי גלי דעתה דאנא בהדך לא ניחא לי:

on the lower balcony?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in either case the share they have in the upper one should cause them to impose the same restrictions.');">³⁴</span> Since they made a partition for the lower one they have thereby intimated to the tenants of the upper one that they had no desire to be associated with them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that I am not pleased (to be associated) with you'.');">³⁵</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF [THE AREA OF] A COURTYARD WAS LESS THAN FOUR CUBITS NO WATER MAY BE POURED OUT INTO IT ON THE SABBATH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given in the Gemara infra.');">³⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חצר שהיא פחותה מארבע אמות אין שופכין בתוכה מים בשבת אא"כ עשו לה עוקה מחזקת סאתים מן הנקב ולמטה

UNLESS IT WAS PROVIDED WITH A TROUGH HOLDING TWO SE'AH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given in the Gemara infra.');">³⁶</span> FROM ITS EDGE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the hole'.');">³⁷</span> DOWNWARDS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Interior of the trough.');">³⁸</span>

בין מבחוץ בין מבפנים אלא שמבחוץ צריך לקמור מבפנים אין צריך לקמור

IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The trough.');">³⁹</span> WAS WITHOUT OR WITHIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The courtyard.');">⁴⁰</span> EXCEPT THAT IF IT WAS WITHOUT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the public domain near the courtyard.');">⁴¹</span>

ר"א בן יעקב אומר ביב שהוא קמור ארבע אמות ברה"ר שופכים לתוכו מים בשבת וחכ"א אפילו גג או חצר מאה אמה לא ישפוך על פי הביב אבל שופך הוא לגג והמים יורדין לביב

IT IS NECESSARY TO COVER IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With boards, so as to impart to it the status of a free domain.');">⁴²</span> AND IF IT WAS WITHIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The courtyard.');">⁴⁰</span> IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO COVER IT.

החצר והאכסדרה מצטרפין לארבע אמות וכן שתי דיוטאות זו כנגד זו מקצתן עשו עוקה ומקצתן לא עשו עוקה את שעשו עוקה מותרין את שלא עשו עוקה אסורין:

R'ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: IF FOUR CUBITS OF A DRAIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which carries water from a courtyard into the public domain.');">⁴³</span> WERE COVERED OVER IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With boards, so as to impart to it the status of a free domain.');">⁴²</span> IT IS PERMITTED TO POUR WATER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the courtyard.');">⁴⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט אמר רבה מפני שאדם עשוי להסתפק סאתים מים בכל יום בארבע אמות אדם רוצה לזלפן

INTO IT ON THE SABBATH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because all the water that is likely to be poured into it during the Sabbath would, as a rule, be absorbed before it reached the public domain. If some of the water should, for any reason whatever, run into the public domain no transgression would be committed since the tenants' intention was that it shall be absorbed before it reached the public domain and no transgression is involved where one's intention was not fulfilled. Particularly is this the case here where Pentateuchally it is permitted ab initio to pour water into a private domain though one's intention was that it should ultimately find its way into the public domain.');">⁴⁵</span> BUT THE SAGES RULED: EVEN WHERE A ROOF OR A COURTYARD WAS A HUNDRED CUBITS IN AREA,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A stretch sufficient to absorb all the water that can possibly be poured out in one day.');">⁴⁶</span> NO WATER MAY BE POURED DIRECTLY OVER THE MOUTH OF THE DRAIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given in the Gemara infra.');">³⁶</span> BUT IT MAY BE POURED UPON THE ROOF FROM WHICH THE WATER FLOWS INTO THE DRAIN. THE COURTYARD AND THE EXEDRA MAY BE COMBINED TO MAKE UP THE PRESCRIBED FOUR CUBITS. SO ALSO IN THE CASE OF TWO UPPER STOREYS OPPOSITE EACH OTHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between which there was a courtyard whose area was less than four cubits.');">⁴⁷</span> THE TENANTS OF ONE OF WHICH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'some of them'.');">⁴⁸</span> MADE A TROUGH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the courtyard.');">⁴⁹</span> AND THOSE OF THE OTHER DID NOT, THOSE WHO MADE THE TROUGH ARE PERMITTED TO POUR DOWN THEIR WATER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the courtyard below.');">⁵⁰</span> WHEREAS THOSE WHO DID NOT MAKE ANY TROUGH ARE FORBIDDEN. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That IF THE AREA OF A COURTYARD WAS LESS THAN FOUR CUBITS NO WATER MAY BE POURED OUT INTO IT and, inferentially, that if the area was four cubits or bigger water may be poured out into it.');">⁵¹</span> - Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. Alfasi and Asheri read 'Raba'; Bomb. ed. 'Rab'.');">⁵²</span> replied: Because a man is in the habit of using up two se'ah of water daily, and in an area of four cubits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the summer, the season to which this Mishnah refers (cf. infra) , when courtyards are dusty.');">⁵³</span> he is inclined to spray it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As his intention is not to have the water running into the public domain but to spray on the floor of' the courtyard it is permitted to pour it out in that courtyard though sometimes it might eventually find its way into the public domain.');">⁵⁴</span>