עירובין 88

88:1

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

—

88:2

but in one that is less than four cubits he merely pours it out. Hence it is Only if he made a trough that he is permitted to pour out the water but not otherwise. R. Zera replied: In an area of four cubits the water may be absorbed; but n one that is less than four cubits they cannot be absorbed. What is the practical difference between them? — Abaye replied: The practical difference between them is a courtyard that was long and narrow. We learned: THE COURTYARD AND THE EXEDRA MAY BE COMBINED TO MAKE UP THE PRESCRIBED FOUR CUBITS. According to R. Zera this is quite acceptable; but, according to Rabbah, does not a difficulty arise? — R. Zera, on the lines of Rabbah's view, explained: This refers to an exeˆra that ran along all the courtyard.Æ Come and hear: If the area of a courtyard was less than four cubits by four cubits no water may be poured out into it on the Sabbath. Now accordi¡g to Rabbah this ruling is quite satisfactory; but, according to R. Zera, does not a difficulty arise? — R. Zera can answer you: This ruling represents the view of the Rabbis, whereas our Mishnah is that of R. Eliezerób. Jacob. What, however, was it that urged R. Zera to attribute our Mishnah to R. Eliezer b. Jacob? — Raba repl™ed: Our Mishnah presânted to him a difficulty: What was the object of stating, IF THE AREA OF A COURTYARD WAS less THAN FOUR CUBI²S seeing that it could have been stated: ‘If the area of a courtyard was less than four cubits2õ by four cubits’? Consequently, he concluded it must represent the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. This is xonclusive. But since a succeeding clause rep2esents the view of R. Eliezer y. Jacob how could the first cÊause also represent his view? — All the Mishnah represents the view of3ó R. Eliezer b. Jacob, but some words are wanting in it, the correct reading being as follCws:3Þ IF [THE AREA OF] A COURTYARD WAS LESS THAN OUR CUBITS NO WATER MAY BE POURED OUT INTO IT ON THE SABBATH‘ but if the area _as four cubits water may be poured into it because 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. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: IF FOUR CUBITS OF A DRAIN WERE COVERED OVER. Our Mishnah cannot represent the opinion of Hananya, for it was taught: Hananya ruled: Even if [the area of] a roof was a hundred cubits no water may be poured upon it since a roof is not made to absorb water but to cause it to run down. One taught: This applies only to the hot season, but during the rainy season a person may pour his water again and again without any limit. What is the reason? — Raba replied: A person is quite satisfied that the water should be absorbed on the spot. Said Abaye to him: Is there not the case of waste water with the absorption of which on the spot a person is quite satisfied and yet it was ruled: NO WATER MAY BE POURED? — What, the other replied, is it that provision should bÍ made against in that case? If it be suggested: Against the man's objection to the spoiling of his courtyard, surely, [it may be retorted,] it is in any case spoilt; and if against the possibility of the assumption that So-and-so's gutter was spouting water, all gutters, as a rule, spout water. R. Nahman ruled: In the rainy season, if a trough is capable of holding two se'ah it is permitted to pour two se'ah of water into it, and it if call hold one se'ah only one se'ah of water is permitted; in the hot season, however, if the trough can hold !wo sQ'ah one is allowed two se'ah but if it can hold one se'ah one is not allowed to pour into it any water at all. Why should it not be allowed in the hot season also to pour into it a se'ah if it can hold a se'ah? — A preventive measure has been enacted a ainst the possibility of one's pouring two se'ah into it. If so, why should not a preventive measure be enacted for the rainy season also?What is it that provision should be made against in that case? If it be suggested: Against the man's objection to the spoiling of his courtyard, surely, [it could be retorted,] it is in any case spoilt; if against the assumption that So-and-so's gutter spouts water all gutters, as a rule, spout water. Hence, said Abaye, even a kor, even two kor are permitted. SO ALSO IN THE CASE OF TWO UPPER STOREYS OPPOSITE EACH OTHER. Raba ruled: Even though they prepared a joint ‘erub. What, asked Abaye, is the reason? If it be suggested: On account of the large quantity of the water, was it not taught, [it may be objected,] ‘The same law applies to a trough, a damaged vessel, a pond or a tub, viz. that, though they were filled with water on the Sabbath eve, waste water may be poured into them on the Sabbath? Rather, if the statement was at all made it must have been made in the following terms: Raba ruled:

—