עירובין 87

87:1

one cuts a hole of four handbreadths by four and may draw water through it. Said Abaye to him: Is it not possible that your observation is incorrect? R. Judah may have maintained his view there only because he holds the principle that a partition is deemed to extend downwards but not here where it must be deemed to be both bent and extended; and R. Hananya b. Akabya may have maintained his view there only, in the case of the sea of Tiberias, because it has embankments, towns and karpafs around it but not in that of other waters. Abaye observed: According to the view of R. Hananya b. Akabya if the balcony was within three handbreadths from the wall it is necessary for its length to be four cubits and for its width to be eleven cubits and a fraction. If it was upright it is necessary that its height shall be ten handbreadths and its width six handbreadths and two fractions. R. Huna son of R. Joshua observed: If it was situated in a corner it is necessary for its height to be ten handbreadths and for its width to be two handbreadths and two fractions. With reference, however, to what was taught: R. Hananya b. Akabya ruled: ‘In a balcony that has an area of four cubits by four he cuts a hole of four handbreadths by four and may draw water through it’, in what circumstances could this be possible? — Where it is constructed in the shape of a mortar. MISHNAH. FROM A WATER CHANNEL THAT PASSES THROUGH A COURTYARD NO WATER MAY BE DRAWN ON THE SABBATH UNLESS IT WAS FURNISHED WITH A PARTITION TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH AT ITS ENTRANCE AND EXIT. R. JUDAH RULED: THE WALL ABOVE IT MAY BE REGARDED AS A PARTITION. R. JUDAH OBSERVED: IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED WITH THE WATER-CHANNEL OF ABEL THAT WATER WAS DRAWN FROM IT ON THE SABBATH ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE ELDERS. THEY REPLIED: BECAUSE IT WAS NOT OF THE PRESCRIBED SIZE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: if it was furnished with a partition at its entrance but not at its exit, or if one was furnished at its exit and none at its entrance, no water may be drawn from it on the Sabbath unless it was furnished with a partition ten handbreadths high both at its entrance and at its exit — R. Judah ruled: The wall above it may be regarded as a partition. R. Judah observed: It actually happened with the water-channel which flowed from Abel to Sepphoris that water was drawn from it on the Sabbath on the authority of the Elders. They replied: Is this proof? [The water was used] because the channel was either less than tell handbreadths deep or less than four handbreadths wide. Elsewhere It was taught: If a water-channel passed between windows, it is permissible to lower a bucket to draw water from it if it was less than three handbreadths wide, but if it was three handbreadths wide no bucket may be lowered to draw water from it. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: If it was less than four handbreadths wide a bucket may be lowered into it and water may be drawn from it, but if it was four handbreadths wide no bucket may be lowered to draw water from it. Now what are we dealing with? If it be suggested: With the water-channel itself, consider the following which R. Dimi when he came, cited in the name of R. Johanan: No domain can be regarded as a karmelith if it is less than four handbreadths. Did he then make his statement in agreement only with one of the Tannaitic opinions? — No, we are rather dealing with its embankments in respect of exchange. But did not R. Dimi when he came state in the name of R. Johanan: On a place whose area is less than four handbreadths by four both the people in the public domain and those in the private domain may rearrange their loads, provided they do not exchange them? — There it is a case of Pentateuchal domains54

—

87:2

while here we are dealing with Rabbinical domains. But did not R. Johanan maintain his view even in the case of Rabbinical domains? For we learned: — If between two courtyards there was a wall ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths thick, two ‘erubs may be prepared but not one. If there was fruit on the top of it, the tenants on either side may climb up and eat there. If a breach to the extent of ten cubits was made in the wall, the tenants may prepare two ‘erubs or, if they prefer, only one, because it is like a doorway. If the breach was bigger, only one ‘erub and not two may be prepared’. And when the question was raised, What is the ruling where it was not four handbreadths wide?’ Rab replied: ‘The air of two domains prevails upon it and no object on it may be moved even as far as a hair's breadth’; whereas R. Johanan replied: ‘The tenants on either side may carry up their food and eat it there’, R. Johanan thus following his own view; since R. Dimi, when he came, stated in the name of R. Johanan: On a place whose area is less than four handbreadths by four both the people in the public domain and those in the private domain may re-arrange their loads provided they do not exchange their! — That was reported by Ze'iri. But does not this present an objection against Ze'iri? — Ze'iri explains it to refer to the water-channel itself, while the ruling of R. Dimi is one in dispute between Tannas. But why should it not be regarded as the cavities of a karmelith? — Both Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanina b. Abin replied: The law of cavities does not apply to a karmelith. R. Ashi replied: It may even be conceded that the law of cavities does apply to a karmelith, but this is the case only where the cavity is near whereas here it is far removed Rabina replied: We are dealing in with a case, for instance, where outlets were made at its ends, the Rabbis following their view, while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel follows his view. MISHNAH. FROM A BALCONY THAT WAS SITUATED ABOVE A STRETCH OF WATER NO WATER MAY BE DRAWN ON THE SABBATH UNLESS IT WAS FURNISHED WITH A PARTITION TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH EITHER ABOVE OR BELOW. SO ALSO WHERE TWO BALCONIES WERE SITUATED IN POSITIONS ONE HIGHER THAN THE OTHER, AND A PARTITION WAS MADE FOR THE UPPER ONE BUT NOT FOR THE LOWER ONE, RESTRICTIONS ARE IMPOSED ON THE USE OF BOTH UNTIL THEY HAVE PREPARED A JOINT ‘ERUB. GEMARA. Is our Mishnah in disagreement with the view of Hananya b. Akabya, since it was taught: Hananya b. Akabya ruled: In a balcony whose area is four cubits by four a hole of four handbreadths by four is cut and water may be drawn through it? — R. Johanan citing R. Jose b. Zimra replied: R. Hananya b. Akabya permitted it only in the case of the sea of Tiberias since it is surrounded by embankments, towns and karpafs, but not in that of any other waters. Our Rabbis taught: R. Hananya b. Akabya permitted the men of Tiberias three things: To draw water from a balcony on the Sabbath, to store fruit in pea-stalks and to dry themselves with a towel. ‘To draw water from a balcony on the Sabbath’ as has just been stated; what, however, was the point of the permission ‘to store fruit in pea-stalks’? — That, as it was taught. If a man got up early in the morning to fetch some refuse, the Scriptural expression, ‘if water be put upon the seed’ applies to it, if he did so because the dew was upon it, but if he did so in order that he might not be disturbed from his usual work, the expression. If water be put upon the seeds does not apply to it; and as a rule,

—