Parallel
עירובין 88:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
the men of Tiberias are in the same category as the man whose object was that he might not be disturbed from his usual work. And what was the point in his permitting them to ‘dry themselves with a towel’? — That, as it was taught. A man may dry himself with a towel and put it on a window, but he may not hand it to the bathing attendants because they are suspected of doing that work. R. Simeon ruled: He may also carry it in his hand to his home. Rabbah son of R. Huna stated: This was learnt only in respect of drawing water, but pouring it down is forbidden. R. Shezbi demurred: Wherein does this case essentially differ from that of a trough? — In the latter case the waters are absorbed [in the ground] while in the former they are not absorbed. Others say that Rabbah son of R. Huna explained: Do not say: It is only permitted to draw water but that it is forbidden to pour water down; since in fact it is also permitted to pour it down. Is not this, R. Shezbi asked, obvious, seeing that it is essentially identical with the case of the trough? — It might have been assumed that they are unlike, for whereas in the latter case the waters are absorbed [in the ground], they are not absorbed in the former case, hence we were informed [that the same law is applicable to both cases]. SO ALSO WHEN TWO BALCONIES WERE SITUATED IN POSITIONS ONE HIGHER THAN etc. R. Huna citing Rab explained: This was learnt only [in the case where the lower balcony] was near [to the upper one], but if it was removed from it, [the use of] the upper one is permitted, since Rab follows his principle, having laid down that no man imposes restrictions upon another through the air. Rabbah stated in the name of R. Hiyya, and R. Joseph stated in the name of R. Oshaia: A robbery is valid in respect of a Sabbath domain and a ruin reverts to its owner. But is not this self contradictory? You said: ‘A robbery is valid in respect of the Sabbath domain’, from which it is clear that possession is acquired; and then you say: ‘and a ruin reverts to its owner , from which it is evident that no possession is acquired? — It is this that was meant: The law [of the return] of a robbery is valid in respect of a Sabbath domain, since a ruin reverts to its owner. Said Rabbah: We raised an objection against this ruling of ours: SO ALSO WHEN TWO BALCONIES WERE SITUATED IN POSITIONS ONE HIGHER THAN THE OTHER etc. Now, if it is maintained that ‘the law [of the return] of a robbery is valid in respect of a Sabbath domain’ why should restrictions be imposed? — R. Shesheth replied: We are here dealing with a case, for instance, where they made the partition jointly. But if so the same law should also apply where a partition was made on the lower balcony? Since they made a partition for the lower one they have thereby intimated to the tenants of the upper one that they had no desire to be associated with them. MISHNAH. IF [THE AREA OF] A COURTYARD WAS LESS THAN FOUR CUBITS NO WATER MAY BE POURED OUT INTO IT ON THE SABBATH UNLESS IT WAS PROVIDED WITH A TROUGH HOLDING TWO SE'AH FROM ITS EDGE DOWNWARDS, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT WAS WITHOUT OR WITHIN, EXCEPT THAT IF IT WAS WITHOUT IT IS NECESSARY TO COVER IT AND IF IT WAS WITHIN IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO COVER IT. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: IF FOUR CUBITS OF A DRAIN WERE COVERED OVER IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IT IS PERMITTED TO POUR WATER INTO IT ON THE SABBATH, BUT THE SAGES RULED: EVEN WHERE A ROOF OR A COURTYARD WAS A HUNDRED CUBITS IN AREA, NO WATER MAY BE POURED DIRECTLY OVER THE MOUTH OF THE DRAIN, BUT IT MAY BE POURED UPON THE ROOF FROM WHICH THE WATER FLOWS INTO THE DRAIN. THE COURTYARD AND THE EXEDRA MAY BE COMBINED TO MAKE UP THE PRESCRIBED FOUR CUBITS. SO ALSO IN THE CASE OF TWO UPPER STOREYS OPPOSITE EACH OTHER THE TENANTS OF ONE OF WHICH MADE A TROUGH AND THOSE OF THE OTHER DID NOT, THOSE WHO MADE THE TROUGH ARE PERMITTED TO POUR DOWN THEIR WATER, WHEREAS THOSE WHO DID NOT MAKE ANY TROUGH ARE FORBIDDEN. GEMARA. What is the reason? — Rabbah replied: Because a man is in the habit of using up two se'ah of water daily, and in an area of four cubits he is inclined to spray it54
—