Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 5, 2020 | 讬状讞 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents,聽 Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Eruvin 88

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rabbi Amy Bardack in memory of the 11 lives lost in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting two years ago today. And our learning this week will be in memory of Eli Hoffman z”l who passed away yesterday.聽
Why did Rabbi Chanania ben Akavia permit those three things in Tiberias? Can one use the suspended walls coming out of the ledge only to draw water, but not to dump waste water? Or can it be used for both? If one steals a space from someone, does the original owner need to be part of the eruv or not? How does this make sense in light of the case in the mishna of the one who had a lower ledge and didn’t make a suspended wall and uses (seemingly without permission) the wall of the upper ledge and thereby forbids the owner from using it unless they make a eruv together? The mishna and gemara discuss ways in which people can or cannot remove water from their house through the courtyard or the roof. What are the necessary requirements/what are the issues involved?

 

讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讻诪讬 砖诇讗 讬讘讟诇 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 讚诪讬

the inhabitants of Tiberias are considered like one who does so in order not to neglect his usual work. Most of them are ordinary laborers. It can be assumed that if they rose early to bring home straw or stalks in which to store their produce, they did so only to save work time.

讜诪住转驻讙讬谉 讘讗诇讜谞讟讬转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪住转驻讙 讗讚诐 讘讗诇讜谞讟讬转 讜诪谞讬讞讛 讘讞诇讜谉 讜诇讗 讬诪住专谞讛 诇讗讜诇讬讬专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 讗讜转讜 讚讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讘讬讗讛 讘讬讚讜 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜

The Gemara turns to the third activity that Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya permitted for the inhabitants of Tiberias: And they may dry themselves with a towel. What is this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: A person who washed himself in cold water on Shabbat or a Festival may dry himself with a towel and place it on a window, as there is no concern that he perform the prohibited labor of wringing out the towel. And he may not give the towel to the bathhouse attendants [olayerin] because they are suspected with regard to that matter, as they might wring out the towel before giving it to other bathers. Furthermore, one may not bring the towel home because if he does so, he might forget and wring it out. Rabbi Shimon said: He may even bring the towel in his hand to his house, as there is no concern lest he wring it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇诪诇讗讜转 讗讘诇 诇砖驻讜讱 讗住讜专

Rabba bar Rav Huna: They taught the leniency of partitions surrounding a hole in a balcony only with regard to drawing water through the hole; but to pour waste water down the hole, it is prohibited.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇注讜拽讛

Rav Sheizvi raised an objection against this halakha: And what is the difference between this case of a hole in the balcony and that of a pit [uka] used in a courtyard for waste water? The Sages rule in the next mishna below that one who digs a pit with a capacity of two se鈥檃 in a small courtyard that is less than four cubits may pour waste water into the courtyard on Shabbat, even if the pit was full before Shabbat. He need not be concerned that this will cause water to flow out of the courtyard into the public domain on Shabbat.

讛谞讬 转讬讬诪讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 转讬讬诪讬

The Gemara answers: These waters, which are poured out into the courtyard, are likely to be absorbed into the ground, and it is therefore uncertain that the water will indeed leave the courtyard. But these, the water poured through the hole into the body of water under the balcony, will not be absorbed. Therefore, one knows with certainty that the water will flow out beyond the permitted boundary.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇诪诇讗讜转 讛讜讗 讚砖专讬 诇砖驻讜讱 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 诇砖驻讜讱 谞诪讬 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讬谞讜 注讜拽讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转讬讬诪讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 转讬讬诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

Some say that Rabba bar Rav Huna actually said: You should not say that it is only drawing water through the hole in the balcony that is permitted, while pouring waste water through it is prohibited; rather, pouring waste water through the hole is also permitted. Rav Sheizvi said: This is obvious, as this is exactly the same as the halakha of the pit discussed in the next mishna. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is necessary to specify both halakhot, lest you say there is a difference between the cases, as these, the water poured in the courtyard, are likely to be absorbed into the ground, whereas these, the water poured through the hole in the balcony, will not be absorbed. Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore teaches us that we do not distinguish between the two cases.

讜讻谉 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘住诪讜讻讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讜驻诇讙转 注诇讬讜谞讛 诪讜转专转

We learned in the mishna: And likewise, if there are two balconies, one above the other, and a partition is erected for the upper balcony but is not erected for the lower one, it is prohibited for residents of both balconies to draw water through the upper one, unless they establish a joint eiruv between them. Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught that one balcony renders it prohibited for residents of the other only where the one balcony is near the other, i.e., horizontally within four handbreadths. But if each balcony is separated by four handbreadths from the other, so that the residents of each balcony can use the other only by means of the air, the residents of the upper balcony are permitted to draw water, while the residents of the lower one are prohibited from doing so.

讜专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚专讱 讗讜讬专

And Rav follows his regular line of argument here, as Rav said: One person does not impose restrictions upon another person by way of the air. Since the lower balcony is far from the higher one, it does not prohibit it, although it can make use of it by means of the vacant airspace between them, albeit with difficulty.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讬砖 讙讝诇 讘砖讘转 讜讞讜专讘讛 诪讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐

Rabba said that Rabbi 岣yya said, and Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The halakha of stealing applies to Shabbat domains, and a ruin must be returned to its owner.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讬砖 讙讝诇 讘砖讘转 讗诇诪讗 拽谞讬讗 讜讞讜专讘讛 诪讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

The Gemara registers surprise: This ruling itself is difficult, i.e., it is self-contradictory. You first said that the halakha of stealing applies to Shabbat domains, which at this point is understood by the Gemara as referring to the following case: A person鈥檚 house adjoins the ruin of another, and he observes that the ruin has been left deserted by its owner. If this person uses the ruin during the week, on Shabbat he may treat it as though it were his own, by carrying objects from his own house into the ruin and vice versa. From here we can infer that a stolen place is acquired for the purpose of Shabbat domains, although it does not belong to the person for other purposes. However, you subsequently said that a ruin must be returned to its owner, and from here we can infer that a ruin is not acquired for the purpose of Shabbat domains by the person who used it during the week, and therefore he may not carry objects from his own house into the ruin.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖 讚讬谉 讙讝诇 讘砖讘转 讻讬爪讚 讚讞讜专讘讛 诪讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: We should not understand this statement as suggested above, but rather this is what Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Oshaya are saying: The halakha of returning stolen property applies to Shabbat domains. How so? This means that a ruin must be returned to its owner. In other words, one who uses a ruin during the week does not acquire it even for the purpose of Shabbat domains.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讜诪讜转讘讬谞谉 讗砖诪注转讬谉 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 讜讻讜壮 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讬砖 讚讬谉 讙讝诇 讘砖讘转 讗诪讗讬 讗住讜专讜转

Rabba said: And we ourselves raised an objection against our own teaching, as we learned in the mishna. And likewise, if there are two balconies, one above the other, they prohibit one another. But if you say that the halakha against stealing applies on Shabbat, which means one may not use the domain of another, and he acquires no rights to it if he does so, why are the two balconies prohibited from using it. The lower one has no right to make use of the upper one.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注砖讜 诪讞讬爪讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转

Rav Sheshet said: We are dealing here with a situation where, for example, the residents of the upper balcony and the residents of the lower balcony jointly erected a partition for the upper balcony. Consequently, the residents of the lower balcony share the right to use it with the residents of the upper one.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 注砖讜 诇转讞转讜谞讛 谞诪讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, in a case where they erected a separate partition for the lower balcony, the residents of the upper balcony should likewise be prohibited to use it. As the residents of the lower one are partners in the upper one, they should prohibit its residents from using it.

讻讬讜谉 讚注砖讜 诇转讞转讜谞讛 讙诇讜讬 讙诇讬 讚注转讛 讚讗谞讗 讘讛讚讱 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬:

The Gemara answers: Since they erected a separate partition for the lower balcony, they each thereby revealed their intention to the residents of the upper balcony that: It is not my wish to be partners with you. Consequently, they no longer prohibit the residents of the upper balcony from using it.

诪转谞讬壮 讞爪专 砖讛讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜驻讻讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注砖讜 诇讛 注讜拽讛 诪讞讝拽转 住讗转讬诐 诪谉 讛谞拽讘 讜诇诪讟讛

MISHNA: With regard to a courtyard that is less than four cubits by four cubits in area, one may not pour waste water into it on Shabbat, unless a pit was fashioned to receive the water, and the pit holds two se鈥檃 in volume from its edge below.

讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗诇讗 砖诪讘讞讜抓 爪专讬讱 诇拽诪讜专 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽诪讜专

This halakha applies whether the pit was fashioned outside the courtyard or whether it was dug inside the courtyard itself. The only difference is as follows: If the pit was dug outside in the adjoining public domain, it is necessary to arch over it, so that the water will not flow into the public domain. If it was dug inside the courtyard, it is not necessary to arch over it.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讬讘 砖讛讜讗 拽诪讜专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖讜驻讻讬诐 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讙 讗讜 讞爪专 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬砖驻讜讱 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讬讘 讗讘诇 砖讜驻讱 讛讜讗 诇讙讙 讜讛诪讬诐 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇讘讬讘

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: In the case of a drainage ditch whose first four cubits are arched over in the public domain, one may pour waste water into it on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: Even if a roof or a courtyard is a hundred cubits in area, one may not pour water directly onto the mouth of the drainage ditch. However, he may pour it upon the roof, from which the water spills into the drain of its own accord.

讛讞爪专 讜讛讗讻住讚专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讚讬讜讟讗讜转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 诪拽爪转谉 注砖讜 注讜拽讛 讜诪拽爪转谉 诇讗 注砖讜 注讜拽讛 讗转 砖注砖讜 注讜拽讛 诪讜转专讬谉 讗转 砖诇讗 注砖讜 注讜拽讛 讗住讜专讬谉:

A courtyard and a portico, a roofed but unwalled structure in front of a house, combine for the four cubits by virtue of which it is permitted to pour water even into a courtyard that lacks a pit. And likewise, with regard to two upper stories [deyotaot], one opposite the other in the same small courtyard, if the residents of one of them fashioned a pit in the courtyard, and the residents of the other did not fashion a pit, those who fashioned a pit are permitted to pour their waste water into the courtyard, whereas those who did not fashion a pit are prohibited to do so.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 诇讛住转驻拽 住讗转讬诐 诪讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 诇讝诇驻谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a courtyard four by four cubits in area does not require a pit? Rabba said: Because a person ordinarily uses two se鈥檃 of water a day, and with regard to a courtyard of at least four cubits by four cubits, a person wants to sprinkle the water on the ground to prevent any dust from rising. Consequently, even if in practice the water does flow out of the courtyard, this effect is not necessarily his intention.

驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 砖讜驻讻谉 讗讬 讚注讘讬讚 注讜拽讛 砖专讬 讗讬 诇讗 讗住讜专

But if the courtyard is less than four cubits by four cubits in area, one simply pours the water out, as the place is not fit for sprinkling. Therefore, if one fashioned a pit, it is permitted to pour out water; but if not, it is prohibited to do so, as one certainly intends for the water to flow outside.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 转讬讬诪讬 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讗 转讬讬诪讬

Rabbi Zeira offered a different reason and said: In a courtyard of four cubits by four cubits, the water is likely to be absorbed into the ground. If it is less than four cubits in size, the water will not be absorbed but will flow out.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗专讬讱 讜拽讟讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? Abaye said: There is a difference between them with regard to a long and narrow courtyard. As the area of this courtyard is also sixteen square cubits, it likewise absorbs the water. Rabbi Zeira would therefore rule that it does not require a pit. However, as this courtyard is not in need of sprinkling, it requires a pit according to Rabba.

转谞谉 讞爪专 讜讗讻住讚专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗

We learned in the mishna: A courtyard and a portico combine for the requisite four cubits, permitted the pouring of water into a courtyard that lacks a pit. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, this works out well, as the total area is large enough to absorb the water. However, according to Rabba it is difficult, for when the courtyard is joined with the portico it is no longer in the shape of a square, and it is therefore unfit for sprinkling.

转专讙诪讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讛 讘讗讻住讚专讛 诪讛诇讻转 注诇 驻谞讬 讻诇 讛讞爪专 讻讜诇讛

Rabbi Zeira explained the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, by saying that it is referring to a portico that extends along the entire courtyard, so that it adds to its width alone. Consequently, the courtyard and the portico together form a square of four by four cubits, an area that is fit for sprinkling.

转讗 砖诪注 讞爪专 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita that can decide this dispute. With regard to a courtyard that is not four cubits by four cubits in area, one may not pour water into it on Shabbat. The Gemara assumes that the baraita, which teaches that one may pour water only into a courtyard that it is four by four cubits, is precise in its wording. Granted, according to Rabba, this works out well, as he maintains that it is prohibited to pour water into a long and narrow courtyard. However, according to Rabbi Zeira, who maintains that the critical factor is the area of the courtyard, this is difficult.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira can say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis at the end of the mishna, who maintain that the area of the courtyard is of no importance, whereas our unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, according to whom the area is the decisive factor.

讜诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗讜拽诪讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 讞爪专 砖讛讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诇讬转谞讬 讞爪专 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara asks: And what forced Rabbi Zeira to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? Rava said: The mishna was difficult for him. Why did the tanna specifically teach his ruling with respect to a courtyard that is less than four cubits, from which it can be inferred that if it has an area of four by four cubits it is permitted to pour water, even if it is not square in shape? Let the mishna teach: A courtyard that is not four cubits by four cubits, i.e., one that is not square shaped, even if it includes an area of sixteen square cubits.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, shouldn鈥檛 one conclude from this argument that the unattributed section of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude from this that it is so.

讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this conclusion: But from the fact that a latter clause of the mishna explicitly cites the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, it can be inferred that the first clause does not represent the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞爪专 砖讛讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讛讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讜驻讻讬谉 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讬讘 讛拽诪讜专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转:

The Gemara rejects this argument: In fact, the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, and as for its problematic style, the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: With regard to a courtyard that is less than four cubits in area, one may not pour waste water into it on Shabbat. Consequently, if it is four cubits in area, one may pour water into it, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If the first four cubits of a drainage ditch were arched over in the public domain, one may pour waste water into it on Shabbat.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讬讘 讛拽诪讜专:

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If the first four cubits of a drainage ditch were arched over in the public domain, it is permitted to pour waste water into it on Shabbat. However, the Rabbis say: One may pour water only upon the roof, from which it will spill into the drain of its own accord.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讞谞谞讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讙 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬砖驻讜讱 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讙讙 注砖讜讬 诇讘诇讜注 讗诇讗 诇拽诇讞

The Gemara comments: The mishna was not taught in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya. For it was taught in a baraita that 岣nanya says: Even with regard to a roof one hundred cubits in area, one may not pour water onto it, because a roof is not apt to absorb the water. Rather, it causes it to run off. Consequently, pouring water onto this roof is equivalent to pouring it directly outside.

转谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 砖讜驻讱 讜砖讜谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪谞注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖讬讘诇注讜 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诪谉

A tanna taught: In what case is this statement, that a pit is required, said? In the summer, but in the rainy season, one may pour and repeat, and he need not hold back. What is the reason? Rava said: A person is equally willing for the water to be absorbed on the spot, i.e., as there is abundant water in the courtyard during the rainy season, it will remain muddy in any case, and he therefore does not care whether the added waste water remains in the courtyard or if it flows out.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛专讬 砖讜驻讻讬谉 讚讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖讬讘诇注讜 讜拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬砖驻讜讱

Abaye said to him: With regard to waste water poured into a drainage ditch, that a person wants it to be absorbed in the ditch itself, rather than flow out, and yet the mishna teaches that one may not pour water into the ditch.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 拽诇拽讜诇 讞爪讬专讜 讛讗 诪讬拽诇拽诇讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 爪谞讜专讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 诪拽诇讞 诪讬诐 住转诐 爪谞讜专讜转 诪拽诇讞讬诐 讛诐

Rava said to him: There, during the rainy season, there is no reason to prohibit the practice, for with regard to what need we be concerned? If you say he wants the water to flow out into the public domain because he is concerned about spoiling and sullying his courtyard, it is already spoiled by the rainwater. And if you say it should be prohibited due to a decree lest people say that so-and-so鈥檚 gutter is flowing with water on Shabbat, which might lead them to think he is watering his garden or violating some other prohibition, and they might act likewise even in the summer, this is not a relevant concern. As gutters ordinarily flow with water in the rainy season, people do not entertain this suspicion.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 注讜拽讛 诪讞讝讬拽 住讗转讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 住讗转讬诐 诪讞讝讬拽 住讗讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 住讗讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 诪讞讝讬拽 住讗转讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 住讗转讬诐 住讗讛 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讻诇 注讬拽专

Rav Na岣an said: In the rainy season, with regard to a pit that holds two se鈥檃, we grant him permission to pour two se鈥檃 of water into it. If it holds only one se鈥檃, we grant him one se鈥檃. However, in the summer, if the pit has a capacity of two se鈥檃, we grant him two se鈥檃; if it holds only one se鈥檃, we do not grant him permission to pour any water at all.

讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 谞诪讬 诪讞讝讬拽 住讗讛 谞讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 住讗讛 讙讝专讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讬转谉 诇讬讛 住讗转讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讬讙讝讜专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: In the hot season as well, if the pit holds one se鈥檃, let us grant him one se鈥檃, for if he pours only this amount of water, it will not flow out into the public domain. The Gemara answers: This is prohibited due to a decree lest he come to put two se鈥檃 into it. The Gemara asks: If so, in the rainy season let us also apply the same preventive measure.

讛转诐 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 拽讬诇拽讜诇 讛讗 诪讬拽诇拽诇讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 爪谞讜专讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 诪拽诇讞 诪讬诐 住转诐 爪谞讜专讜转 诪拽诇讞讬谉 讛谉

The Gemara answers: There, in the rainy season, there is no reason to prohibit the practice, for if one pours more water into a pit than it can take, about what need we be concerned? If you say he wants the waste water to flow out into the public domain because he is concerned about spoiling his courtyard, it is already spoiled by the rainwater. If you say it should be prohibited due to a decree lest people say that so-and-so鈥檚 gutter is flowing with water on Shabbat, gutters ordinarily gush with water in the rainy season, as stated above.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬诇讻讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专讬讬诐:

Abaye said: Therefore, in accordance with this reasoning, one can pour even a kor and even two kor of waste water into a small pit. As all gutters flow with water in the rainy season, there is no cause for any concern.

讜讻谉 砖转讬 讚讬讜讟讗讜转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜: 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讬专讘讜

We learned in the mishna: And likewise, with regard to two upper stories, one opposite the other in the same courtyard, the residents of the one who dug a pit in the courtyard may pour water into it, while the residents of the other one who did not dig a pit in the courtyard are prohibited from doing so. Rava said: This halakha applies even if the residents of the two upper stories established an eiruv together.

讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 谞驻讬砖讗 讚诪讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞转 诇讬 注讜拽讛 讜讗讞转 诇讬 讙讬住讟专讗 讘专讬讻讛 讜注专讬讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转诪诇讗讜 诪讬诐 诪注专讘 砖讘转 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转

Abaye said to him: What is the reason for this ruling? If you say it is due to the increase in the amount of water, as two upper stories pour out more water than one, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The same halakha applies to a pit, and the same applies to a cracked earthenware vessel used as a receptacle for water, or a small pond, or a basin: Even though they were already filled with water on Shabbat eve, one may pour water into them on Shabbat. It is evident from here that as long as the pit is the requisite size, there is no concern about the amount of water that will flow out from it.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗

Rather, if it was stated it was stated as follows. Rava said:

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

This month's shiurim are sponsored by Tamara Katz in honor of the yahrzeits of her grandparents,聽 Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 87-93 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a ledge over water and how one can draw water from it. We will...

Eruvin 88

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 88

讗谞砖讬 讟讘专讬讗 讻诪讬 砖诇讗 讬讘讟诇 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 讚诪讬

the inhabitants of Tiberias are considered like one who does so in order not to neglect his usual work. Most of them are ordinary laborers. It can be assumed that if they rose early to bring home straw or stalks in which to store their produce, they did so only to save work time.

讜诪住转驻讙讬谉 讘讗诇讜谞讟讬转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪住转驻讙 讗讚诐 讘讗诇讜谞讟讬转 讜诪谞讬讞讛 讘讞诇讜谉 讜诇讗 讬诪住专谞讛 诇讗讜诇讬讬专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讞砖讜讚讬谉 注诇 讗讜转讜 讚讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪讘讬讗讛 讘讬讚讜 诇转讜讱 讘讬转讜

The Gemara turns to the third activity that Rabbi 岣nanya ben Akavya permitted for the inhabitants of Tiberias: And they may dry themselves with a towel. What is this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: A person who washed himself in cold water on Shabbat or a Festival may dry himself with a towel and place it on a window, as there is no concern that he perform the prohibited labor of wringing out the towel. And he may not give the towel to the bathhouse attendants [olayerin] because they are suspected with regard to that matter, as they might wring out the towel before giving it to other bathers. Furthermore, one may not bring the towel home because if he does so, he might forget and wring it out. Rabbi Shimon said: He may even bring the towel in his hand to his house, as there is no concern lest he wring it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇诪诇讗讜转 讗讘诇 诇砖驻讜讱 讗住讜专

Rabba bar Rav Huna: They taught the leniency of partitions surrounding a hole in a balcony only with regard to drawing water through the hole; but to pour waste water down the hole, it is prohibited.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讜讻讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇注讜拽讛

Rav Sheizvi raised an objection against this halakha: And what is the difference between this case of a hole in the balcony and that of a pit [uka] used in a courtyard for waste water? The Sages rule in the next mishna below that one who digs a pit with a capacity of two se鈥檃 in a small courtyard that is less than four cubits may pour waste water into the courtyard on Shabbat, even if the pit was full before Shabbat. He need not be concerned that this will cause water to flow out of the courtyard into the public domain on Shabbat.

讛谞讬 转讬讬诪讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 转讬讬诪讬

The Gemara answers: These waters, which are poured out into the courtyard, are likely to be absorbed into the ground, and it is therefore uncertain that the water will indeed leave the courtyard. But these, the water poured through the hole into the body of water under the balcony, will not be absorbed. Therefore, one knows with certainty that the water will flow out beyond the permitted boundary.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诇诪诇讗讜转 讛讜讗 讚砖专讬 诇砖驻讜讱 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 诇砖驻讜讱 谞诪讬 砖专讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讛讬讬谞讜 注讜拽讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转讬讬诪讬 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 转讬讬诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:

Some say that Rabba bar Rav Huna actually said: You should not say that it is only drawing water through the hole in the balcony that is permitted, while pouring waste water through it is prohibited; rather, pouring waste water through the hole is also permitted. Rav Sheizvi said: This is obvious, as this is exactly the same as the halakha of the pit discussed in the next mishna. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is necessary to specify both halakhot, lest you say there is a difference between the cases, as these, the water poured in the courtyard, are likely to be absorbed into the ground, whereas these, the water poured through the hole in the balcony, will not be absorbed. Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore teaches us that we do not distinguish between the two cases.

讜讻谉 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘住诪讜讻讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讜驻诇讙转 注诇讬讜谞讛 诪讜转专转

We learned in the mishna: And likewise, if there are two balconies, one above the other, and a partition is erected for the upper balcony but is not erected for the lower one, it is prohibited for residents of both balconies to draw water through the upper one, unless they establish a joint eiruv between them. Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught that one balcony renders it prohibited for residents of the other only where the one balcony is near the other, i.e., horizontally within four handbreadths. But if each balcony is separated by four handbreadths from the other, so that the residents of each balcony can use the other only by means of the air, the residents of the upper balcony are permitted to draw water, while the residents of the lower one are prohibited from doing so.

讜专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讗讜住专 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚专讱 讗讜讬专

And Rav follows his regular line of argument here, as Rav said: One person does not impose restrictions upon another person by way of the air. Since the lower balcony is far from the higher one, it does not prohibit it, although it can make use of it by means of the vacant airspace between them, albeit with difficulty.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讬砖 讙讝诇 讘砖讘转 讜讞讜专讘讛 诪讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐

Rabba said that Rabbi 岣yya said, and Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The halakha of stealing applies to Shabbat domains, and a ruin must be returned to its owner.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讬砖 讙讝诇 讘砖讘转 讗诇诪讗 拽谞讬讗 讜讞讜专讘讛 诪讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

The Gemara registers surprise: This ruling itself is difficult, i.e., it is self-contradictory. You first said that the halakha of stealing applies to Shabbat domains, which at this point is understood by the Gemara as referring to the following case: A person鈥檚 house adjoins the ruin of another, and he observes that the ruin has been left deserted by its owner. If this person uses the ruin during the week, on Shabbat he may treat it as though it were his own, by carrying objects from his own house into the ruin and vice versa. From here we can infer that a stolen place is acquired for the purpose of Shabbat domains, although it does not belong to the person for other purposes. However, you subsequently said that a ruin must be returned to its owner, and from here we can infer that a ruin is not acquired for the purpose of Shabbat domains by the person who used it during the week, and therefore he may not carry objects from his own house into the ruin.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖 讚讬谉 讙讝诇 讘砖讘转 讻讬爪讚 讚讞讜专讘讛 诪讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: We should not understand this statement as suggested above, but rather this is what Rabbi 岣yya and Rabbi Oshaya are saying: The halakha of returning stolen property applies to Shabbat domains. How so? This means that a ruin must be returned to its owner. In other words, one who uses a ruin during the week does not acquire it even for the purpose of Shabbat domains.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讜诪讜转讘讬谞谉 讗砖诪注转讬谉 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 讜讻讜壮 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讬砖 讚讬谉 讙讝诇 讘砖讘转 讗诪讗讬 讗住讜专讜转

Rabba said: And we ourselves raised an objection against our own teaching, as we learned in the mishna. And likewise, if there are two balconies, one above the other, they prohibit one another. But if you say that the halakha against stealing applies on Shabbat, which means one may not use the domain of another, and he acquires no rights to it if he does so, why are the two balconies prohibited from using it. The lower one has no right to make use of the upper one.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注砖讜 诪讞讬爪讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转

Rav Sheshet said: We are dealing here with a situation where, for example, the residents of the upper balcony and the residents of the lower balcony jointly erected a partition for the upper balcony. Consequently, the residents of the lower balcony share the right to use it with the residents of the upper one.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 注砖讜 诇转讞转讜谞讛 谞诪讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, in a case where they erected a separate partition for the lower balcony, the residents of the upper balcony should likewise be prohibited to use it. As the residents of the lower one are partners in the upper one, they should prohibit its residents from using it.

讻讬讜谉 讚注砖讜 诇转讞转讜谞讛 讙诇讜讬 讙诇讬 讚注转讛 讚讗谞讗 讘讛讚讱 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬:

The Gemara answers: Since they erected a separate partition for the lower balcony, they each thereby revealed their intention to the residents of the upper balcony that: It is not my wish to be partners with you. Consequently, they no longer prohibit the residents of the upper balcony from using it.

诪转谞讬壮 讞爪专 砖讛讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜驻讻讬谉 讘转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 注砖讜 诇讛 注讜拽讛 诪讞讝拽转 住讗转讬诐 诪谉 讛谞拽讘 讜诇诪讟讛

MISHNA: With regard to a courtyard that is less than four cubits by four cubits in area, one may not pour waste water into it on Shabbat, unless a pit was fashioned to receive the water, and the pit holds two se鈥檃 in volume from its edge below.

讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗诇讗 砖诪讘讞讜抓 爪专讬讱 诇拽诪讜专 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽诪讜专

This halakha applies whether the pit was fashioned outside the courtyard or whether it was dug inside the courtyard itself. The only difference is as follows: If the pit was dug outside in the adjoining public domain, it is necessary to arch over it, so that the water will not flow into the public domain. If it was dug inside the courtyard, it is not necessary to arch over it.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讬讘 砖讛讜讗 拽诪讜专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖讜驻讻讬诐 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讙 讗讜 讞爪专 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬砖驻讜讱 注诇 驻讬 讛讘讬讘 讗讘诇 砖讜驻讱 讛讜讗 诇讙讙 讜讛诪讬诐 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇讘讬讘

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: In the case of a drainage ditch whose first four cubits are arched over in the public domain, one may pour waste water into it on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: Even if a roof or a courtyard is a hundred cubits in area, one may not pour water directly onto the mouth of the drainage ditch. However, he may pour it upon the roof, from which the water spills into the drain of its own accord.

讛讞爪专 讜讛讗讻住讚专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜讻谉 砖转讬 讚讬讜讟讗讜转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜 诪拽爪转谉 注砖讜 注讜拽讛 讜诪拽爪转谉 诇讗 注砖讜 注讜拽讛 讗转 砖注砖讜 注讜拽讛 诪讜转专讬谉 讗转 砖诇讗 注砖讜 注讜拽讛 讗住讜专讬谉:

A courtyard and a portico, a roofed but unwalled structure in front of a house, combine for the four cubits by virtue of which it is permitted to pour water even into a courtyard that lacks a pit. And likewise, with regard to two upper stories [deyotaot], one opposite the other in the same small courtyard, if the residents of one of them fashioned a pit in the courtyard, and the residents of the other did not fashion a pit, those who fashioned a pit are permitted to pour their waste water into the courtyard, whereas those who did not fashion a pit are prohibited to do so.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 诇讛住转驻拽 住讗转讬诐 诪讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 诇讝诇驻谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a courtyard four by four cubits in area does not require a pit? Rabba said: Because a person ordinarily uses two se鈥檃 of water a day, and with regard to a courtyard of at least four cubits by four cubits, a person wants to sprinkle the water on the ground to prevent any dust from rising. Consequently, even if in practice the water does flow out of the courtyard, this effect is not necessarily his intention.

驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 砖讜驻讻谉 讗讬 讚注讘讬讚 注讜拽讛 砖专讬 讗讬 诇讗 讗住讜专

But if the courtyard is less than four cubits by four cubits in area, one simply pours the water out, as the place is not fit for sprinkling. Therefore, if one fashioned a pit, it is permitted to pour out water; but if not, it is prohibited to do so, as one certainly intends for the water to flow outside.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 转讬讬诪讬 驻讞讜转 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 诇讗 转讬讬诪讬

Rabbi Zeira offered a different reason and said: In a courtyard of four cubits by four cubits, the water is likely to be absorbed into the ground. If it is less than four cubits in size, the water will not be absorbed but will flow out.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗专讬讱 讜拽讟讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? Abaye said: There is a difference between them with regard to a long and narrow courtyard. As the area of this courtyard is also sixteen square cubits, it likewise absorbs the water. Rabbi Zeira would therefore rule that it does not require a pit. However, as this courtyard is not in need of sprinkling, it requires a pit according to Rabba.

转谞谉 讞爪专 讜讗讻住讚专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 拽砖讬讗

We learned in the mishna: A courtyard and a portico combine for the requisite four cubits, permitted the pouring of water into a courtyard that lacks a pit. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, this works out well, as the total area is large enough to absorb the water. However, according to Rabba it is difficult, for when the courtyard is joined with the portico it is no longer in the shape of a square, and it is therefore unfit for sprinkling.

转专讙诪讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讛 讘讗讻住讚专讛 诪讛诇讻转 注诇 驻谞讬 讻诇 讛讞爪专 讻讜诇讛

Rabbi Zeira explained the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, by saying that it is referring to a portico that extends along the entire courtyard, so that it adds to its width alone. Consequently, the courtyard and the portico together form a square of four by four cubits, an area that is fit for sprinkling.

转讗 砖诪注 讞爪专 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita that can decide this dispute. With regard to a courtyard that is not four cubits by four cubits in area, one may not pour water into it on Shabbat. The Gemara assumes that the baraita, which teaches that one may pour water only into a courtyard that it is four by four cubits, is precise in its wording. Granted, according to Rabba, this works out well, as he maintains that it is prohibited to pour water into a long and narrow courtyard. However, according to Rabbi Zeira, who maintains that the critical factor is the area of the courtyard, this is difficult.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira can say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis at the end of the mishna, who maintain that the area of the courtyard is of no importance, whereas our unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, according to whom the area is the decisive factor.

讜诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗讜拽诪讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 讞爪专 砖讛讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诇讬转谞讬 讞爪专 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

The Gemara asks: And what forced Rabbi Zeira to establish the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? Rava said: The mishna was difficult for him. Why did the tanna specifically teach his ruling with respect to a courtyard that is less than four cubits, from which it can be inferred that if it has an area of four by four cubits it is permitted to pour water, even if it is not square in shape? Let the mishna teach: A courtyard that is not four cubits by four cubits, i.e., one that is not square shaped, even if it includes an area of sixteen square cubits.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, shouldn鈥檛 one conclude from this argument that the unattributed section of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude from this that it is so.

讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this conclusion: But from the fact that a latter clause of the mishna explicitly cites the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, it can be inferred that the first clause does not represent the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞爪专 砖讛讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讬谉 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讛讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讜驻讻讬谉 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讬讘 讛拽诪讜专 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转:

The Gemara rejects this argument: In fact, the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, and as for its problematic style, the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: With regard to a courtyard that is less than four cubits in area, one may not pour waste water into it on Shabbat. Consequently, if it is four cubits in area, one may pour water into it, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If the first four cubits of a drainage ditch were arched over in the public domain, one may pour waste water into it on Shabbat.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讬讘 讛拽诪讜专:

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If the first four cubits of a drainage ditch were arched over in the public domain, it is permitted to pour waste water into it on Shabbat. However, the Rabbis say: One may pour water only upon the roof, from which it will spill into the drain of its own accord.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讞谞谞讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谞讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讙 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 诇讗 讬砖驻讜讱 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讙讙 注砖讜讬 诇讘诇讜注 讗诇讗 诇拽诇讞

The Gemara comments: The mishna was not taught in accordance with the opinion of 岣nanya. For it was taught in a baraita that 岣nanya says: Even with regard to a roof one hundred cubits in area, one may not pour water onto it, because a roof is not apt to absorb the water. Rather, it causes it to run off. Consequently, pouring water onto this roof is equivalent to pouring it directly outside.

转谞讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讗讘诇 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 砖讜驻讱 讜砖讜谞讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞诪谞注 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖讬讘诇注讜 诪讬诐 讘诪拽讜诪谉

A tanna taught: In what case is this statement, that a pit is required, said? In the summer, but in the rainy season, one may pour and repeat, and he need not hold back. What is the reason? Rava said: A person is equally willing for the water to be absorbed on the spot, i.e., as there is abundant water in the courtyard during the rainy season, it will remain muddy in any case, and he therefore does not care whether the added waste water remains in the courtyard or if it flows out.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛专讬 砖讜驻讻讬谉 讚讗讚诐 专讜爪讛 砖讬讘诇注讜 讜拽转谞讬 诇讗 讬砖驻讜讱

Abaye said to him: With regard to waste water poured into a drainage ditch, that a person wants it to be absorbed in the ditch itself, rather than flow out, and yet the mishna teaches that one may not pour water into the ditch.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 拽诇拽讜诇 讞爪讬专讜 讛讗 诪讬拽诇拽诇讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 爪谞讜专讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 诪拽诇讞 诪讬诐 住转诐 爪谞讜专讜转 诪拽诇讞讬诐 讛诐

Rava said to him: There, during the rainy season, there is no reason to prohibit the practice, for with regard to what need we be concerned? If you say he wants the water to flow out into the public domain because he is concerned about spoiling and sullying his courtyard, it is already spoiled by the rainwater. And if you say it should be prohibited due to a decree lest people say that so-and-so鈥檚 gutter is flowing with water on Shabbat, which might lead them to think he is watering his garden or violating some other prohibition, and they might act likewise even in the summer, this is not a relevant concern. As gutters ordinarily flow with water in the rainy season, people do not entertain this suspicion.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 注讜拽讛 诪讞讝讬拽 住讗转讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 住讗转讬诐 诪讞讝讬拽 住讗讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 住讗讛 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 诪讞讝讬拽 住讗转讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 住讗转讬诐 住讗讛 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 讻诇 注讬拽专

Rav Na岣an said: In the rainy season, with regard to a pit that holds two se鈥檃, we grant him permission to pour two se鈥檃 of water into it. If it holds only one se鈥檃, we grant him one se鈥檃. However, in the summer, if the pit has a capacity of two se鈥檃, we grant him two se鈥檃; if it holds only one se鈥檃, we do not grant him permission to pour any water at all.

讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 谞诪讬 诪讞讝讬拽 住讗讛 谞讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 住讗讛 讙讝专讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讬转谉 诇讬讛 住讗转讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讬讙讝讜专

The Gemara raises a difficulty: In the hot season as well, if the pit holds one se鈥檃, let us grant him one se鈥檃, for if he pours only this amount of water, it will not flow out into the public domain. The Gemara answers: This is prohibited due to a decree lest he come to put two se鈥檃 into it. The Gemara asks: If so, in the rainy season let us also apply the same preventive measure.

讛转诐 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 拽讬诇拽讜诇 讛讗 诪讬拽诇拽诇讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 爪谞讜专讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 诪拽诇讞 诪讬诐 住转诐 爪谞讜专讜转 诪拽诇讞讬谉 讛谉

The Gemara answers: There, in the rainy season, there is no reason to prohibit the practice, for if one pours more water into a pit than it can take, about what need we be concerned? If you say he wants the waste water to flow out into the public domain because he is concerned about spoiling his courtyard, it is already spoiled by the rainwater. If you say it should be prohibited due to a decree lest people say that so-and-so鈥檚 gutter is flowing with water on Shabbat, gutters ordinarily gush with water in the rainy season, as stated above.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬诇讻讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜专讬讬诐:

Abaye said: Therefore, in accordance with this reasoning, one can pour even a kor and even two kor of waste water into a small pit. As all gutters flow with water in the rainy season, there is no cause for any concern.

讜讻谉 砖转讬 讚讬讜讟讗讜转 讝讜 讻谞讙讚 讝讜: 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讬专讘讜

We learned in the mishna: And likewise, with regard to two upper stories, one opposite the other in the same courtyard, the residents of the one who dug a pit in the courtyard may pour water into it, while the residents of the other one who did not dig a pit in the courtyard are prohibited from doing so. Rava said: This halakha applies even if the residents of the two upper stories established an eiruv together.

讗诪专 (诇讬讛) 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 谞驻讬砖讗 讚诪讬讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讞转 诇讬 注讜拽讛 讜讗讞转 诇讬 讙讬住讟专讗 讘专讬讻讛 讜注专讬讘讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞转诪诇讗讜 诪讬诐 诪注专讘 砖讘转 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇转讜讻谉 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转

Abaye said to him: What is the reason for this ruling? If you say it is due to the increase in the amount of water, as two upper stories pour out more water than one, wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The same halakha applies to a pit, and the same applies to a cracked earthenware vessel used as a receptacle for water, or a small pond, or a basin: Even though they were already filled with water on Shabbat eve, one may pour water into them on Shabbat. It is evident from here that as long as the pit is the requisite size, there is no concern about the amount of water that will flow out from it.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗

Rather, if it was stated it was stated as follows. Rava said:

Scroll To Top