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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 16, 2020 | 讻状讟 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 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 99

I would like to dedicate this week’s learning in memory of my grandmother Sonja Waschitz, Sara bat Yitzchak and Yenta Rachel z’l who passed away on Shabbat. Thank you, to the amazing Hadran Zoom and some local Hadran communities who got together to make a donation to Hadran in her name, and also specifically to Gitta Neufeld and Mark and Debbie Ziering who sponsored dapim in her name. My grandmother was a special woman who was incredibly resilient and rebuilt her life a number of times, beginning with her first move at age 14 leaving her parents behind in Vienna in 1939 and heading to America on her own, never to see her parents again.

And today’s daf is dedicated by Rebecca Schwarzmer for a refuah shelayma for her aunt, Debbie Ginsburg, Devorah bat Rachel v鈥橬etanel haKohen.

The mishna and gemara discuss various examples of being in one domain and moving something in a different domain. Is this permitted or not? On what does it depend?

讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉:

The Gemara explains: Rav 岣nnana maintains that from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna, was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it can be inferred that the first clause was likewise taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But in fact that is not so: The latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, while the first clause is in accordance with that of the Rabbis.

讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讞讜抓: 讛讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜讛注讘讬专讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘

We learned in the mishna: One may move objects in a public domain when he is standing in a private domain, provided that he does not carry them beyond four cubits in the public domain. The Gemara infers: This teaching indicates that if he carried them beyond four cubits, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: Let us say that this ruling supports the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: With regard to one who carries an object in a public domain from the beginning of four cubits to the end of those four cubits, even if he carried it above his head, i.e., he lifted the object above his head so that it passed through an exempt place, he is nonetheless liable for carrying four cubits in a public domain. Here, too, although he is standing in an elevated private domain and carries the object at that elevated height, he is still liable.

诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专

The Gemara rejects this contention: Is the mishna teaching that if he carried the object beyond four cubits he is liable to bring a sin-offering? Perhaps the mishna means: If he carried the object beyond four cubits, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, but it is nevertheless prohibited by rabbinic decree to do so.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讛讜爪讬讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪注讘讬专 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜讛注讘讬专讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讜爪讬讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转:

Some say a different version of the previous discussion: The Gemara鈥檚 initial inference was actually that if he carried the object beyond four cubits he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to do so. The Gemara asks: If so, let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rava鈥檚 opinion, as Rava said: With regard to one who carries an object in a public domain from the beginning of four cubits to the end of those four cubits, even if he carried it above his head, he is liable. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Is the mishna teaching that if he took it beyond four cubits he is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so? Perhaps the tanna means that if he carried it beyond four cubits, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛砖转讬谉 讜专拽 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

The mishna states: A person may not stand in a private domain and urinate or spit into the public domain. Rav Yosef said: One who urinated or spat in this manner is liable to bring a sin-offering.

讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 注拽讬专讛 讜讛谞讞讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But for an act of carrying to be considered a prohibited Shabbat labor that entails liability, we require that the lifting and placing of the object be performed from atop an area four by four handbreadths, the minimal size of significance with regard to the halakhot of carrying on Shabbat. And that is not the case here, as one鈥檚 mouth, which produces the spittle, is not four by four handbreadths in size.

诪讞砖讘转讜 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讝专拽 讜谞讞 讘驻讬 讛讻诇讘 讗讜 讘驻讬 讛讻讘砖谉 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛谞讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: One鈥檚 intent renders it an area of significance, i.e., as one certainly considers his mouth a significant area, it is regarded as four by four handbreadths in size. As, if you do not say so, that the size of an area is not the sole criterion, but that a person鈥檚 thoughts can also establish a place as significant, there is a difficulty with that which Rava said: If a person threw an object and it landed in the mouth of a dog or in the mouth of a furnace, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But don鈥檛 we require that the object be placed on an area of four by four handbreadths? And that is not the case here.

讗诇讗 诪讞砖讘转讜 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讞砖讘讛 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讛 诪拽讜诐

Rather, the person鈥檚 intent to throw the object into the dog鈥檚 mouth renders it an area of significance. Here too, his intent renders his own mouth a significant area.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜驻讬 讗诪讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讘转专 注拽讬专讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讜 讘转专 讬爪讬讗讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 转讬拽讜:

Rava raised a dilemma: If one is standing in a private domain, and the opening of his male member is in the public domain, and he urinates, what is the halakha? How should this case be regarded? Do we follow the domain where the urine is uprooted from the body, i.e., the bladder, which is in the private domain? Or do we follow the point of the urine鈥檚 actual emission from the body, and since the urine leaves his body through the opening of his member in the public domain, no prohibition has been violated? Since this dilemma was not resolved, the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

讜讻谉 诇讗 讬专讜拽 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮: 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛驻讬讱 讘讛

The mishna states: And likewise, one may not spit from one domain to another. Rabbi Yehuda says: Once a person鈥檚 spittle is gathered in his mouth, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain until he removes it. The Gemara asks: Does this teaching mean that it is prohibited to do so even if he has not turned the spittle over in his mouth, i.e., after he has dredged up the saliva but before he has rolled it around in his mouth in preparation to spit it out?

讜讛转谞谉 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诪住讜讗讘讜转 讜讛讻谞讬住 讬讚讜 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 诇讬讟讜诇 爪专讜专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讟讛专

Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna the halakha of one who was eating a dried fig of teruma with unwashed hands? By Torah law, only food that has come into contact with a liquid is susceptible to ritual impurity, and no liquid had ever fallen on this fig. The significance of the fact that his hands are unwashed is that by rabbinic law, unwashed hands have second degree ritual impurity status and therefore invalidate teruma. If this person inserted his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, Rabbi Meir deems the dried fig impure, as it had been rendered liable to contract impurity by the spittle in the person鈥檚 mouth, and it subsequently became impure when it was touched by his unwashed hand. And Rabbi Yosei deems the fig ritually pure, as he maintains that spittle which is still in one鈥檚 mouth is not considered liquid that renders food liable to contract impurity; the spittle does so only after it has left the mouth.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讬驻讱 讘讛 讟诪讗 诇讗 讛讬驻讱 讘讛 讟讛讜专

Rabbi Yehuda says that there is a distinction between the cases: If he turned the spittle over in his mouth, it is like spittle that has been detached from its place, and therefore its legal status is that of a liquid, which means the fig is impure. However, if he had not yet turned the spittle over in his mouth, the fig is pure. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, spittle that has not yet been turned over in one鈥檚 mouth is not considered detached.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed, as the opinion attributed to Rabbi Yehuda is actually that of a different tanna, while Rabbi Yehuda himself maintains that the fig is ritually impure in either case.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讞诇讬祝 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻讬讞讜

Reish Lakish said: Actually, do not reverse the opinions, and the apparent contradiction can be reconciled in accordance with the original version of the text: With what we are dealing here in the mishna? We are dealing with his phlegm that is expelled through coughing.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讬讞讜 讜谞转诇砖 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讜拽 讜谞转诇砖 诇讗 讻讬讞讜 讜谞转诇砖 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讬讞讜 砖谞转诇砖 讜讻谉 专讜拽讜 砖谞转诇砖 诇讗 讬讛诇讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注讚 砖讬专讜拽 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗:

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this resolution. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one鈥檚 phlegm was detached, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain with it in his mouth? What, is it not the case that this halakha refers to spittle that was detached? The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this ruling applies only to one鈥檚 phlegm that was detached. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one鈥檚 phlegm was detached, and likewise, if his spittle was detached, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain before he spits it out, even if he has not yet turned it over. Rather, it is clear as we originally answered, that the opinions in the mishna with regard to spittle and ritual impurity must be reversed.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讬讞 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 诪砖谞讗讬 讗讛讘讜 诪讜转 讗诇 转拽专讬 诇诪砖谞讗讬 讗诇讗 诇诪砖谞讬讗讬

Having mentioned phlegm, the Gemara cites a related teaching: Reish Lakish said: One who expelled phlegm in front of his master has acted in a disrespectful manner and is liable for the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, as it is stated: 鈥淎ll they who hate Me love death鈥 (Proverbs 8:36). Do not read it as: 鈥淭hey who hate [mesanai] Me鈥; rather, read it as: 鈥淭hose who make themselves hateful [masniai] to Me,鈥 i.e., those who make themselves hateful by such a discharge.

讜讛讗 诪讬谞住 讗谞讬住 讻讬讞 讜专拽 拽讗诪专讬谞谉:

The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: But doesn鈥檛 he do so involuntarily, as no one coughs and emits phlegm by choice; why should this be considered a transgression? The Gemara answers: We are speaking here of someone who had phlegm in his mouth and spat it out, i.e., one who had the opportunity to leave his master鈥檚 presence and spit outside.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讬砖转讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讬砖转讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讻谞讬住 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讜讻谉 讘讙转:

MISHNA: A person may stand in a private domain and extend his head and drink in a public domain, and he may stand in a public domain and drink in a private domain, only if he brings his head and most of his body into the domain in which he drinks. And the same applies in a winepress, as will be explained in the Gemara.

讙诪壮 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

GEMARA: The Gemara registers surprise at the mishna: It would seem that the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that a person located in one domain is permitted to move objects in another domain, whereas the latter clause, i.e., this mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that it is prohibited for a person in one domain to move objects in a different domain.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讞驻讬爪讬谉 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讜 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Rav Yosef said: This mishna is referring to objects that one needs, and the ruling is accepted by all. In this case, even the Rabbis concede that it is prohibited to move objects in another domain, lest one absent-mindedly draw the objects to him and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻专诪诇讬转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one of the domains is a karmelit, what is the halakha? Abaye said: This case is equal to that case, i.e., in this situation a karmelit is governed by the same halakha that applies to a domain defined by Torah law. Just as the Sages prohibited one in the private domain from drinking from the public domain and vice versa, so too, they prohibited one in a karmelit from drinking in the same manner. Rava said: How can you say so? The prohibition against carrying to or from a karmelit is itself a rabbinic decree. And will we then proceed to issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 诪讚拽转谞讬

Abaye said in explanation of his opinion: From where do I say that halakha? From the fact that it is taught in the mishna:

讜讻谉 讘讙转

And the same applies in a winepress. This winepress cannot be a private domain, as the first clause of the mishna already dealt with a private domain. The winepress must therefore be a karmelit, which proves that it is prohibited to drink from a karmelit while standing in a public domain.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜讻谉 讘讙转 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专

And Rava said: This proof is not conclusive, as the words: The same applies in a winepress, do not refer to Shabbat but to the matter of the halakhot of tithes, as explained below. And similarly, Rav Sheshet said that the statement that the same applies in a winepress refers to the matter of tithes.

讚转谞谉 砖讜转讬谉 注诇 讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讜驻讟讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 诪讞讬讬讘

The Gemara clarifies this statement. As we learned in a mishna: One may drink grape juice directly on the winepress ab initio without tithing, whether the juice was diluted with hot water, even though he will then be unable to return the leftover wine to the press, as it would ruin all the wine in the press, or whether the juice was diluted with cold water, in which case he could return the leftover wine without ruining the rest, and he is exempt. Drinking that way is considered incidental drinking, and anything that is not a fixed meal is exempt from tithing. That is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok deems one obligated to tithe in both cases.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 讛讞诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讜注诇 讛爪讜谞谉 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛诪讜转专:

And the Rabbis say: There is a distinction between these two cases. When the juice is diluted with hot water, since one cannot return what is left of the juice to the press, he is obligated to tithe it, as this drinking is like fixed drinking for which one is obligated to tithe. However, when the juice is diluted with cold water, he is exempt from tithing it, because he can return the leftover juice to the press. Therefore, it is considered incidental drinking, which is exempt from tithing. The teaching of the mishna: The same applies to a winepress, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it teaches that that the leniency to drink without separating tithes applies only if the drinker鈥檚 head and most of his body are in the winepress.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜诇讟 讗讚诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讞讬诇讛 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜诪谉 讛爪讬谞讜专 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讜转讛:

MISHNA: A person standing in a public domain on Shabbat may catch water in a vessel from a gutter running along the side of a roof, if it is less than ten handbreadths off the ground, which is part of the public domain. And from a pipe that protrudes from the roof, one may drink in any manner, i.e., not only by catching the water in a vessel, but even by pressing his mouth directly against the spout.

讙诪壮 拽讜诇讟 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诪爪专祝 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讝讞讬诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 讻讙讙 讚诪讬

GEMARA: A careful reading of the mishna indicates that to catch, yes, one may catch the water from a distance, but to press his hand or mouth to the gutter, no, that is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this distinction? Rav Na岣an said: Here, we are dealing with a gutter within three handbreadths of the roof, and the halakha is in accordance with the principle that anything within three handbreadths of a roof is considered like the roof itself, based on the principle of lavud, according to which two solid surfaces are considered joined if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between them. Since the roof of the house is a private domain, one would be carrying from a private domain to a public domain, which is prohibited.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 注讜诪讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诪讙讘讬讛 讬讚讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 讜拽讜诇讟 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬爪专祝

That ruling, that there is a distinction between catching water falling from a gutter and pressing one鈥檚 hand or mouth to it, was also taught in a baraita: A person may stand in a private domain and raise his hand above ten handbreadths, until it is within three handbreadths of the roof, and catch any water falling from his neighbor鈥檚 roof in a vessel, provided that he does not press his hand or mouth to the roof.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讬讙讘讬讛 讬讚讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 讜讬爪专祝 讗讘诇 拽讜诇讟 讛讜讗 讜砖讜转讛:

It was likewise taught in another baraita: A person may not stand in a private domain and raise his hand above ten handbreadths, to within three handbreadths of the roof, and press his hand to the gutter, but he may catch water falling from the gutter and drink.

诪谉 讛爪讬谞讜专 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讜转讛: 转谞讗 讗诐 讬砖 讘爪讬谞讜专 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讜爪讬讗 诪专砖讜转 诇专砖讜转:

It was stated in the mishna: But from a pipe one may drink in any manner, as it protrudes more than three handbreadths from the roof. A Sage taught in the Tosefta: If the pipe itself is four by four handbreadths wide, it is prohibited to stand in the public domain and press one鈥檚 hand or mouth to the water, because he is like one who carries from one domain to another domain, as the pipe is considered a domain in its own right.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讞讜诇讬讬转讜 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讞诇讜谉 砖注诇 讙讘讬讜 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讘砖讘转

MISHNA: With regard to a cistern in a public domain, with an embankment ten handbreadths high, i.e., the embankment constitutes a private domain by itself, if there is a window above the cistern, i.e., the window of an adjacent house is situated above the cistern, one may draw water from the cistern on Shabbat through the window, as it is permitted to carry from one private domain to another.

讗砖驻讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讞诇讜谉 砖注诇 讙讘讬讜 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转:

Similarly, with regard to a garbage dump in a public domain that is ten handbreadths high, which means it has the status of a private domain, if there is a window above the pile of refuse that abuts the garbage dump, one may throw water from the window onto the dump on Shabbat, as it is permitted to carry from one private domain to another.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘住诪讜讻讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讜诇讬讗 注砖专讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing here? If you say we are dealing with a cistern that is adjacent to the wall of the house, i.e. the cistern and wall are separated by less than four handbreadths, why do I need the cistern鈥檚 embankment to be ten handbreadths high? Presumably the cistern is ten handbreadths deep, which makes it a private domain, and as it is too close to the house for the public domain to pass between them, one should be permitted to draw water from the cistern through the window, regardless of the height of the embankment.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讜驻诇讙转 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗专讘注讛

Rav Huna said: With what we are dealing here? With a case where the cistern or garbage dump is four handbreadths removed from the wall of the house, i.e., a public domain separates the house from the cistern or heap. It is prohibited to carry from one private domain to another by way of a public domain. However, if the cistern鈥檚 embankment is ten handbreadths high, the one drawing the water transfers it by way of an area that is more than ten handbreadths above the public domain, which is an exempt domain.

讜讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讜诇讬讗 注砖专讛 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讞讜诇讬讗 注砖专讛 拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

And the reason that drawing the water is permitted is that there is an embankment of ten handbreadths; but if there is no embankment of ten handbreadths, it is prohibited, as this would involve moving objects from one private domain to another by way of the public domain.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘住诪讜讻讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讜专 讜讞讜诇讬讬转讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注砖专讛:

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The above explanation is unnecessary. Even if you say that we are dealing with a cistern that is adjacent to the wall of the house, the mishna comes to teach us that a cistern and its embankment combine to complete the ten handbreadths required for a private domain, and it is not necessary that the embankment itself reach a height of ten handbreadths.

讗砖驻讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转谞讟诇 讗砖驻讛

The mishna states: With regard to a garbage dump in a public domain that is ten handbreadths high, if there is a window above the heap, one may throw water from the window onto the heap on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 we concerned that the entire garbage dump or part of it might be removed, turning the area into a public domain, and people will continue to throw water onto it on Shabbat?

讜讛讗 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘诪讘讜讬 讗讞讚 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻诇讛 诇讬诐 讜爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻诇讛 诇讗砖驻讛 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讜 诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讜诇讗 讛讬转专

But didn鈥檛 Ravin bar Rav Adda say that Rav Yitz岣k said: An incident occurred involving a certain alleyway, one of whose sides terminated in the sea, which closed it off on one side, and the other side of which terminated in a garbage dump. And the incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi for his ruling as to whether the alleyway has the status of an alleyway closed on both sides, and he did not say anything about it, either prohibition or permission.

讛讬转专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘讜 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转谞讟诇 讗砖驻讛 讜讬注诇讛 讛讬诐 砖讬专讟讜谉

The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not say about it that carrying in the alleyway is permitted, as we are concerned lest the garbage dump be removed from its present spot, leaving one side of the alleyway open, and we are likewise concerned that perhaps the sea will throw up sediment and recede. These sedimentary deposits will intervene between the end of the alleyway and the sea, thereby depriving the alleyway of one its partitions.

讗讬住讜专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘讜 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讬谉 诪讞讬爪讜转

Similarly, he did not say about it that carrying in the alleyway was prohibited, as its partitions, the sea and the garbage dump, indeed exist, and it was certainly permitted at that time to carry in the alleyway. Apparently, there is indeed a concern that a garbage dump might be removed; why, then, does the same concern not apply to the case in the mishna?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讞讬讚 讛讗 讚专讘讬诐:

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. In this case, with regard to the alleyway between the garbage dump and the sea, we are concerned, as we are dealing with a private garbage dump, whose owner might change his mind and remove it; whereas in that case, i.e., the case in the mishna, it is referring to a public heap, which will certainly remain fixed in place.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬诇谉 砖讛讬讛 诪讬住讱 注诇 讛讗专抓 讗诐 讗讬谉 谞讜驻讜 讙讘讜讛 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬诐 转讞转讬讜

MISHNA: With regard to a tree that was hanging over the ground, i.e., its branches hung down on all sides like a tent so that it threw a shadow on the ground, if the tips of its branches are no higher than three handbreadths from the ground, one may carry under it. This applies even if the tree is planted in a public domain, as the branches form partitions which turn the enclosed area into a private domain.

砖专砖讬讜 讙讘讜讛讬诐 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讘 注诇讬讛谉:

If its roots were three handbreadths higher than the ground, one may not sit on them, as it is prohibited to use a tree on Shabbat. Any part of a tree that is three handbreadths above the ground has the status of a tree with regard to this prohibition.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讬转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

GEMARA: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: One may not move objects in the area under the tree if it is more than two beit se鈥檃. What is the reason for this prohibition?

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 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 94-100 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what happens if walls between courtyards fall down, or if the walls of a house...
alon shvut women

Mind Your Actions

Today's daf tackles issues of bodily functions that happen in one domain but move into another domain. There was an...

Eruvin 99

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 99

讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉:

The Gemara explains: Rav 岣nnana maintains that from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna, was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it can be inferred that the first clause was likewise taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But in fact that is not so: The latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, while the first clause is in accordance with that of the Rabbis.

讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 讞讜抓: 讛讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪注讘讬专 讞驻抓 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜讛注讘讬专讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘

We learned in the mishna: One may move objects in a public domain when he is standing in a private domain, provided that he does not carry them beyond four cubits in the public domain. The Gemara infers: This teaching indicates that if he carried them beyond four cubits, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: Let us say that this ruling supports the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: With regard to one who carries an object in a public domain from the beginning of four cubits to the end of those four cubits, even if he carried it above his head, i.e., he lifted the object above his head so that it passed through an exempt place, he is nonetheless liable for carrying four cubits in a public domain. Here, too, although he is standing in an elevated private domain and carries the object at that elevated height, he is still liable.

诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专

The Gemara rejects this contention: Is the mishna teaching that if he carried the object beyond four cubits he is liable to bring a sin-offering? Perhaps the mishna means: If he carried the object beyond four cubits, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, but it is nevertheless prohibited by rabbinic decree to do so.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讗 讛讜爪讬讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诪注讘讬专 诪转讞讬诇转 讗专讘注 诇住讜祝 讗专讘注 讜讛注讘讬专讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讜爪讬讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讚讬诇诪讗 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转:

Some say a different version of the previous discussion: The Gemara鈥檚 initial inference was actually that if he carried the object beyond four cubits he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, but it is prohibited by rabbinic decree to do so. The Gemara asks: If so, let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rava鈥檚 opinion, as Rava said: With regard to one who carries an object in a public domain from the beginning of four cubits to the end of those four cubits, even if he carried it above his head, he is liable. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Is the mishna teaching that if he took it beyond four cubits he is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so? Perhaps the tanna means that if he carried it beyond four cubits, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛砖转讬谉 讜专拽 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转

The mishna states: A person may not stand in a private domain and urinate or spit into the public domain. Rav Yosef said: One who urinated or spat in this manner is liable to bring a sin-offering.

讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 注拽讬专讛 讜讛谞讞讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But for an act of carrying to be considered a prohibited Shabbat labor that entails liability, we require that the lifting and placing of the object be performed from atop an area four by four handbreadths, the minimal size of significance with regard to the halakhot of carrying on Shabbat. And that is not the case here, as one鈥檚 mouth, which produces the spittle, is not four by four handbreadths in size.

诪讞砖讘转讜 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讝专拽 讜谞讞 讘驻讬 讛讻诇讘 讗讜 讘驻讬 讛讻讘砖谉 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛谞讞讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讗专讘注讛 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: One鈥檚 intent renders it an area of significance, i.e., as one certainly considers his mouth a significant area, it is regarded as four by four handbreadths in size. As, if you do not say so, that the size of an area is not the sole criterion, but that a person鈥檚 thoughts can also establish a place as significant, there is a difficulty with that which Rava said: If a person threw an object and it landed in the mouth of a dog or in the mouth of a furnace, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But don鈥檛 we require that the object be placed on an area of four by four handbreadths? And that is not the case here.

讗诇讗 诪讞砖讘转讜 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讬讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讞砖讘讛 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讛 诪拽讜诐

Rather, the person鈥檚 intent to throw the object into the dog鈥檚 mouth renders it an area of significance. Here too, his intent renders his own mouth a significant area.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜驻讬 讗诪讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讘转专 注拽讬专讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗讜 讘转专 讬爪讬讗讛 讗讝诇讬谞谉 转讬拽讜:

Rava raised a dilemma: If one is standing in a private domain, and the opening of his male member is in the public domain, and he urinates, what is the halakha? How should this case be regarded? Do we follow the domain where the urine is uprooted from the body, i.e., the bladder, which is in the private domain? Or do we follow the point of the urine鈥檚 actual emission from the body, and since the urine leaves his body through the opening of his member in the public domain, no prohibition has been violated? Since this dilemma was not resolved, the Gemara concludes: Let it stand unresolved.

讜讻谉 诇讗 讬专讜拽 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮: 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛驻讬讱 讘讛

The mishna states: And likewise, one may not spit from one domain to another. Rabbi Yehuda says: Once a person鈥檚 spittle is gathered in his mouth, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain until he removes it. The Gemara asks: Does this teaching mean that it is prohibited to do so even if he has not turned the spittle over in his mouth, i.e., after he has dredged up the saliva but before he has rolled it around in his mouth in preparation to spit it out?

讜讛转谞谉 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诪住讜讗讘讜转 讜讛讻谞讬住 讬讚讜 诇转讜讱 驻讬讜 诇讬讟讜诇 爪专讜专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讟诪讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讟讛专

Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna the halakha of one who was eating a dried fig of teruma with unwashed hands? By Torah law, only food that has come into contact with a liquid is susceptible to ritual impurity, and no liquid had ever fallen on this fig. The significance of the fact that his hands are unwashed is that by rabbinic law, unwashed hands have second degree ritual impurity status and therefore invalidate teruma. If this person inserted his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, Rabbi Meir deems the dried fig impure, as it had been rendered liable to contract impurity by the spittle in the person鈥檚 mouth, and it subsequently became impure when it was touched by his unwashed hand. And Rabbi Yosei deems the fig ritually pure, as he maintains that spittle which is still in one鈥檚 mouth is not considered liquid that renders food liable to contract impurity; the spittle does so only after it has left the mouth.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讬驻讱 讘讛 讟诪讗 诇讗 讛讬驻讱 讘讛 讟讛讜专

Rabbi Yehuda says that there is a distinction between the cases: If he turned the spittle over in his mouth, it is like spittle that has been detached from its place, and therefore its legal status is that of a liquid, which means the fig is impure. However, if he had not yet turned the spittle over in his mouth, the fig is pure. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, spittle that has not yet been turned over in one鈥檚 mouth is not considered detached.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed, as the opinion attributed to Rabbi Yehuda is actually that of a different tanna, while Rabbi Yehuda himself maintains that the fig is ritually impure in either case.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讞诇讬祝 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻讬讞讜

Reish Lakish said: Actually, do not reverse the opinions, and the apparent contradiction can be reconciled in accordance with the original version of the text: With what we are dealing here in the mishna? We are dealing with his phlegm that is expelled through coughing.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讬讞讜 讜谞转诇砖 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 专讜拽 讜谞转诇砖 诇讗 讻讬讞讜 讜谞转诇砖 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讬讞讜 砖谞转诇砖 讜讻谉 专讜拽讜 砖谞转诇砖 诇讗 讬讛诇讱 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注讚 砖讬专讜拽 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗:

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this resolution. Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one鈥檚 phlegm was detached, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain with it in his mouth? What, is it not the case that this halakha refers to spittle that was detached? The Gemara rejects this contention: No, this ruling applies only to one鈥檚 phlegm that was detached. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one鈥檚 phlegm was detached, and likewise, if his spittle was detached, he may not walk four cubits in the public domain before he spits it out, even if he has not yet turned it over. Rather, it is clear as we originally answered, that the opinions in the mishna with regard to spittle and ritual impurity must be reversed.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讬讞 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 诪砖谞讗讬 讗讛讘讜 诪讜转 讗诇 转拽专讬 诇诪砖谞讗讬 讗诇讗 诇诪砖谞讬讗讬

Having mentioned phlegm, the Gemara cites a related teaching: Reish Lakish said: One who expelled phlegm in front of his master has acted in a disrespectful manner and is liable for the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, as it is stated: 鈥淎ll they who hate Me love death鈥 (Proverbs 8:36). Do not read it as: 鈥淭hey who hate [mesanai] Me鈥; rather, read it as: 鈥淭hose who make themselves hateful [masniai] to Me,鈥 i.e., those who make themselves hateful by such a discharge.

讜讛讗 诪讬谞住 讗谞讬住 讻讬讞 讜专拽 拽讗诪专讬谞谉:

The Gemara expresses surprise at this ruling: But doesn鈥檛 he do so involuntarily, as no one coughs and emits phlegm by choice; why should this be considered a transgression? The Gemara answers: We are speaking here of someone who had phlegm in his mouth and spat it out, i.e., one who had the opportunity to leave his master鈥檚 presence and spit outside.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讬砖转讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讬砖转讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讻谞讬住 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 诇诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讜讻谉 讘讙转:

MISHNA: A person may stand in a private domain and extend his head and drink in a public domain, and he may stand in a public domain and drink in a private domain, only if he brings his head and most of his body into the domain in which he drinks. And the same applies in a winepress, as will be explained in the Gemara.

讙诪壮 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

GEMARA: The Gemara registers surprise at the mishna: It would seem that the first clause, i.e., the previous mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that a person located in one domain is permitted to move objects in another domain, whereas the latter clause, i.e., this mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that it is prohibited for a person in one domain to move objects in a different domain.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讞驻讬爪讬谉 砖爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讜 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Rav Yosef said: This mishna is referring to objects that one needs, and the ruling is accepted by all. In this case, even the Rabbis concede that it is prohibited to move objects in another domain, lest one absent-mindedly draw the objects to him and thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻专诪诇讬转 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one of the domains is a karmelit, what is the halakha? Abaye said: This case is equal to that case, i.e., in this situation a karmelit is governed by the same halakha that applies to a domain defined by Torah law. Just as the Sages prohibited one in the private domain from drinking from the public domain and vice versa, so too, they prohibited one in a karmelit from drinking in the same manner. Rava said: How can you say so? The prohibition against carrying to or from a karmelit is itself a rabbinic decree. And will we then proceed to issue a decree to prevent violation of another decree?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 诪讚拽转谞讬

Abaye said in explanation of his opinion: From where do I say that halakha? From the fact that it is taught in the mishna:

讜讻谉 讘讙转

And the same applies in a winepress. This winepress cannot be a private domain, as the first clause of the mishna already dealt with a private domain. The winepress must therefore be a karmelit, which proves that it is prohibited to drink from a karmelit while standing in a public domain.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜讻谉 讘讙转 诇注谞讬谉 诪注砖专

And Rava said: This proof is not conclusive, as the words: The same applies in a winepress, do not refer to Shabbat but to the matter of the halakhot of tithes, as explained below. And similarly, Rav Sheshet said that the statement that the same applies in a winepress refers to the matter of tithes.

讚转谞谉 砖讜转讬谉 注诇 讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讜驻讟讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 诪讞讬讬讘

The Gemara clarifies this statement. As we learned in a mishna: One may drink grape juice directly on the winepress ab initio without tithing, whether the juice was diluted with hot water, even though he will then be unable to return the leftover wine to the press, as it would ruin all the wine in the press, or whether the juice was diluted with cold water, in which case he could return the leftover wine without ruining the rest, and he is exempt. Drinking that way is considered incidental drinking, and anything that is not a fixed meal is exempt from tithing. That is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok deems one obligated to tithe in both cases.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 讛讞诪讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讜注诇 讛爪讜谞谉 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛诪讜转专:

And the Rabbis say: There is a distinction between these two cases. When the juice is diluted with hot water, since one cannot return what is left of the juice to the press, he is obligated to tithe it, as this drinking is like fixed drinking for which one is obligated to tithe. However, when the juice is diluted with cold water, he is exempt from tithing it, because he can return the leftover juice to the press. Therefore, it is considered incidental drinking, which is exempt from tithing. The teaching of the mishna: The same applies to a winepress, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it teaches that that the leniency to drink without separating tithes applies only if the drinker鈥檚 head and most of his body are in the winepress.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜诇讟 讗讚诐 诪谉 讛诪讝讞讬诇讛 诇诪讟讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜诪谉 讛爪讬谞讜专 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讜转讛:

MISHNA: A person standing in a public domain on Shabbat may catch water in a vessel from a gutter running along the side of a roof, if it is less than ten handbreadths off the ground, which is part of the public domain. And from a pipe that protrudes from the roof, one may drink in any manner, i.e., not only by catching the water in a vessel, but even by pressing his mouth directly against the spout.

讙诪壮 拽讜诇讟 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诪爪专祝 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讝讞讬诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 讻讙讙 讚诪讬

GEMARA: A careful reading of the mishna indicates that to catch, yes, one may catch the water from a distance, but to press his hand or mouth to the gutter, no, that is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this distinction? Rav Na岣an said: Here, we are dealing with a gutter within three handbreadths of the roof, and the halakha is in accordance with the principle that anything within three handbreadths of a roof is considered like the roof itself, based on the principle of lavud, according to which two solid surfaces are considered joined if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between them. Since the roof of the house is a private domain, one would be carrying from a private domain to a public domain, which is prohibited.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 注讜诪讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诪讙讘讬讛 讬讚讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 讜拽讜诇讟 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬爪专祝

That ruling, that there is a distinction between catching water falling from a gutter and pressing one鈥檚 hand or mouth to it, was also taught in a baraita: A person may stand in a private domain and raise his hand above ten handbreadths, until it is within three handbreadths of the roof, and catch any water falling from his neighbor鈥檚 roof in a vessel, provided that he does not press his hand or mouth to the roof.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讬注诪讜讚 讗讚诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讬讙讘讬讛 讬讚讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 住诪讜讱 诇讙讙 讜讬爪专祝 讗讘诇 拽讜诇讟 讛讜讗 讜砖讜转讛:

It was likewise taught in another baraita: A person may not stand in a private domain and raise his hand above ten handbreadths, to within three handbreadths of the roof, and press his hand to the gutter, but he may catch water falling from the gutter and drink.

诪谉 讛爪讬谞讜专 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讜转讛: 转谞讗 讗诐 讬砖 讘爪讬谞讜专 讗专讘注讛 注诇 讗专讘注讛 讗住讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讜爪讬讗 诪专砖讜转 诇专砖讜转:

It was stated in the mishna: But from a pipe one may drink in any manner, as it protrudes more than three handbreadths from the roof. A Sage taught in the Tosefta: If the pipe itself is four by four handbreadths wide, it is prohibited to stand in the public domain and press one鈥檚 hand or mouth to the water, because he is like one who carries from one domain to another domain, as the pipe is considered a domain in its own right.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讞讜诇讬讬转讜 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讞诇讜谉 砖注诇 讙讘讬讜 诪诪诇讗讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讘砖讘转

MISHNA: With regard to a cistern in a public domain, with an embankment ten handbreadths high, i.e., the embankment constitutes a private domain by itself, if there is a window above the cistern, i.e., the window of an adjacent house is situated above the cistern, one may draw water from the cistern on Shabbat through the window, as it is permitted to carry from one private domain to another.

讗砖驻讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讞诇讜谉 砖注诇 讙讘讬讜 砖讜驻讻讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 诪讬诐 讘砖讘转:

Similarly, with regard to a garbage dump in a public domain that is ten handbreadths high, which means it has the status of a private domain, if there is a window above the pile of refuse that abuts the garbage dump, one may throw water from the window onto the dump on Shabbat, as it is permitted to carry from one private domain to another.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘住诪讜讻讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讜诇讬讗 注砖专讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing here? If you say we are dealing with a cistern that is adjacent to the wall of the house, i.e. the cistern and wall are separated by less than four handbreadths, why do I need the cistern鈥檚 embankment to be ten handbreadths high? Presumably the cistern is ten handbreadths deep, which makes it a private domain, and as it is too close to the house for the public domain to pass between them, one should be permitted to draw water from the cistern through the window, regardless of the height of the embankment.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讜驻诇讙转 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗专讘注讛

Rav Huna said: With what we are dealing here? With a case where the cistern or garbage dump is four handbreadths removed from the wall of the house, i.e., a public domain separates the house from the cistern or heap. It is prohibited to carry from one private domain to another by way of a public domain. However, if the cistern鈥檚 embankment is ten handbreadths high, the one drawing the water transfers it by way of an area that is more than ten handbreadths above the public domain, which is an exempt domain.

讜讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讜诇讬讗 注砖专讛 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 讞讜诇讬讗 注砖专讛 拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

And the reason that drawing the water is permitted is that there is an embankment of ten handbreadths; but if there is no embankment of ten handbreadths, it is prohibited, as this would involve moving objects from one private domain to another by way of the public domain.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘住诪讜讻讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讜专 讜讞讜诇讬讬转讜 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注砖专讛:

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The above explanation is unnecessary. Even if you say that we are dealing with a cistern that is adjacent to the wall of the house, the mishna comes to teach us that a cistern and its embankment combine to complete the ten handbreadths required for a private domain, and it is not necessary that the embankment itself reach a height of ten handbreadths.

讗砖驻讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转谞讟诇 讗砖驻讛

The mishna states: With regard to a garbage dump in a public domain that is ten handbreadths high, if there is a window above the heap, one may throw water from the window onto the heap on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 we concerned that the entire garbage dump or part of it might be removed, turning the area into a public domain, and people will continue to throw water onto it on Shabbat?

讜讛讗 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘诪讘讜讬 讗讞讚 砖爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻诇讛 诇讬诐 讜爪讬讚讜 讗讞讚 讻诇讛 诇讗砖驻讛 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘讜 诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讜诇讗 讛讬转专

But didn鈥檛 Ravin bar Rav Adda say that Rav Yitz岣k said: An incident occurred involving a certain alleyway, one of whose sides terminated in the sea, which closed it off on one side, and the other side of which terminated in a garbage dump. And the incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi for his ruling as to whether the alleyway has the status of an alleyway closed on both sides, and he did not say anything about it, either prohibition or permission.

讛讬转专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘讜 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转谞讟诇 讗砖驻讛 讜讬注诇讛 讛讬诐 砖讬专讟讜谉

The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not say about it that carrying in the alleyway is permitted, as we are concerned lest the garbage dump be removed from its present spot, leaving one side of the alleyway open, and we are likewise concerned that perhaps the sea will throw up sediment and recede. These sedimentary deposits will intervene between the end of the alleyway and the sea, thereby depriving the alleyway of one its partitions.

讗讬住讜专 诇讗 讗诪专 讘讜 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讬谉 诪讞讬爪讜转

Similarly, he did not say about it that carrying in the alleyway was prohibited, as its partitions, the sea and the garbage dump, indeed exist, and it was certainly permitted at that time to carry in the alleyway. Apparently, there is indeed a concern that a garbage dump might be removed; why, then, does the same concern not apply to the case in the mishna?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讞讬讚 讛讗 讚专讘讬诐:

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. In this case, with regard to the alleyway between the garbage dump and the sea, we are concerned, as we are dealing with a private garbage dump, whose owner might change his mind and remove it; whereas in that case, i.e., the case in the mishna, it is referring to a public heap, which will certainly remain fixed in place.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬诇谉 砖讛讬讛 诪讬住讱 注诇 讛讗专抓 讗诐 讗讬谉 谞讜驻讜 讙讘讜讛 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬诐 转讞转讬讜

MISHNA: With regard to a tree that was hanging over the ground, i.e., its branches hung down on all sides like a tent so that it threw a shadow on the ground, if the tips of its branches are no higher than three handbreadths from the ground, one may carry under it. This applies even if the tree is planted in a public domain, as the branches form partitions which turn the enclosed area into a private domain.

砖专砖讬讜 讙讘讜讛讬诐 诪谉 讛讗专抓 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诇讗 讬砖讘 注诇讬讛谉:

If its roots were three handbreadths higher than the ground, one may not sit on them, as it is prohibited to use a tree on Shabbat. Any part of a tree that is three handbreadths above the ground has the status of a tree with regard to this prohibition.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘讜 讬转专 诪讘讬转 住讗转讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

GEMARA: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: One may not move objects in the area under the tree if it is more than two beit se鈥檃. What is the reason for this prohibition?

Scroll To Top