Eruvin — Daf 88a

אנשי טבריא כמי שלא יבטל ממלאכתו דמי

ומסתפגין באלונטית מאי היא דתניא מסתפג אדם באלונטית ומניחה בחלון ולא ימסרנה לאוליירין מפני שחשודין על אותו דבר ר"ש אומר אף מביאה בידו לתוך ביתו

אמר רבה בר רב הונא לא שנו אלא למלאות אבל לשפוך אסור

מתקיף לה רב שיזבי וכי מה בין זה לעוקה

הני תיימי והני לא תיימי

איכא דאמרי אמר רבה בר רב הונא לא תימא למלאות הוא דשרי לשפוך אסור אלא לשפוך נמי שרי אמר רב שיזבי פשיטא היינו עוקה מהו דתימא הני תיימי והני לא תיימי קמ"ל:

וכן שתי גזוזטראות זו וכו': אמר רב הונא אמר רב לא שנו אלא בסמוכה אבל במופלגת עליונה מותרת

ורב לטעמיה דאמר רב אין אדם אוסר על חבירו דרך אויר

אמר רבה א"ר חייא ורב יוסף אמר רבי אושעיא יש גזל בשבת וחורבה מחזיר לבעלים

הא גופא קשיא אמרת יש גזל בשבת אלמא קניא וחורבה מחזיר לבעלים אלמא לא קניא

הכי קאמר יש דין גזל בשבת כיצד דחורבה מחזיר לבעלים

אמר רבה ומותבינן אשמעתין וכן שתי גזוזטראות זו למעלה מזו וכו' ואי אמרת יש דין גזל בשבת אמאי אסורות

אמר רב ששת הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שעשו מחיצה בשותפות

אי הכי כי עשו לתחתונה נמי

כיון דעשו לתחתונה גלוי גלי דעתה דאנא בהדך לא ניחא לי:

מתני׳ חצר שהיא פחותה מארבע אמות אין שופכין בתוכה מים בשבת אא"כ עשו לה עוקה מחזקת סאתים מן הנקב ולמטה

בין מבחוץ בין מבפנים אלא שמבחוץ צריך לקמור מבפנים אין צריך לקמור

ר"א בן יעקב אומר ביב שהוא קמור ארבע אמות ברה"ר שופכים לתוכו מים בשבת וחכ"א אפילו גג או חצר מאה אמה לא ישפוך על פי הביב אבל שופך הוא לגג והמים יורדין לביב

החצר והאכסדרה מצטרפין לארבע אמות וכן שתי דיוטאות זו כנגד זו מקצתן עשו עוקה ומקצתן לא עשו עוקה את שעשו עוקה מותרין את שלא עשו עוקה אסורין:

גמ׳ מ"ט אמר רבה מפני שאדם עשוי להסתפק סאתים מים בכל יום בארבע אמות אדם רוצה לזלפן

the men of Tiberias1 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 man2 may dry himself3 with a towel4 and put it on a window, but he may not hand it to the bathing attendants5 because they are suspected of doing that work.6 R. Simeon ruled: He may also carry it in his hand to his home.4 Rabbah son of R. Huna stated: This7 was learnt only in respect of drawing water, but pouring it down8 is forbidden.9 R. Shezbi demurred: Wherein does this case10 essentially differ from that of a trough?11 — In the latter case the waters are absorbed [in the ground]12 while in the former they are not absorbed.13 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?14 — It might have been assumed that they are unlike,15 for whereas in the latter case the waters are absorbed [in the ground],16 they are not absorbed in the former case,13 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],17 but if it was removed from it,18 [the use of] the upper one19 is permitted, since Rab follows his principle, having laid down that no man imposes restrictions upon another through the air.20 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 domain21 and a ruin reverts to its owner.22 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;23 and then you say: ‘and a ruin reverts to its owner , from which it is evident that no possession is acquired?23 — It is this that was meant: The law [of the return] of a robbery is valid in respect of a Sabbath domain,24 since25 a ruin reverts to its owner.24 Said Rabbah: We raised an objection against this ruling of ours:26 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?27 — R. Shesheth replied: We are here dealing with a case, for instance, where they28 made the partition29 jointly.30 But if so31 the same law32 should also apply where a partition was made33 on the lower balcony?34 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.35 MISHNAH. IF [THE AREA OF] A COURTYARD WAS LESS THAN FOUR CUBITS NO WATER MAY BE POURED OUT INTO IT ON THE SABBATH36 UNLESS IT WAS PROVIDED WITH A TROUGH HOLDING TWO SE'AH36 FROM ITS EDGE37 DOWNWARDS,38 IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT39 WAS WITHOUT OR WITHIN,40 EXCEPT THAT IF IT WAS WITHOUT41 IT IS NECESSARY TO COVER IT42 AND IF IT WAS WITHIN40 IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO COVER IT. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB RULED: IF FOUR CUBITS OF A DRAIN43 WERE COVERED OVER IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN42 IT IS PERMITTED TO POUR WATER44 INTO IT ON THE SABBATH,45 BUT THE SAGES RULED: EVEN WHERE A ROOF OR A COURTYARD WAS A HUNDRED CUBITS IN AREA,46 NO WATER MAY BE POURED DIRECTLY OVER THE MOUTH OF THE DRAIN,36 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 OTHER47 THE TENANTS OF ONE OF WHICH48 MADE A TROUGH49 AND THOSE OF THE OTHER DID NOT, THOSE WHO MADE THE TROUGH ARE PERMITTED TO POUR DOWN THEIR WATER,50 WHEREAS THOSE WHO DID NOT MAKE ANY TROUGH ARE FORBIDDEN. GEMARA. What is the reason?51 — Rabbah52 replied: Because a man is in the habit of using up two se'ah of water daily, and in an area of four cubits53 he is inclined to spray it54 into the public domain. courtyard, is a private domain even though some of the water may ultimately flow over. below. the intervening air space by thrusting their bucket into it, they cannot impose restrictions on the tenants of the upper one. near his house and neglected by its owner, he uses on weekdays, and that this seizure is valid so that even on the Sabbath he may move objects from his house into it and vice versa as if it had been his own property. neighbour, to revert to the full possession of the former so that the latter may move no objects from, or into it. possession of the robbed object) applies on Sabbath. How is this? If the robber took the robbery into his own domain; but if he left it in the ruin of the robbed person, the ruin reverts it to its owner.] reverts to them alone despite its use by the tenants of the lower balcony during weekdays. well entitled to the use of the upper one. restrictions upon the tenants of the latter. reached the public domain. If some of the water should, for any reason whatever, run into the public domain no transgression would be committed since the tenants’ intention was that it shall be absorbed before it reached the public domain and no transgression is involved where one's intention was not fulfilled. Particularly is this the case here where Pentateuchally it is permitted ab initio to pour water into a private domain though one's intention was that it should ultimately find its way into the public domain. OUT INTO IT and, inferentially, that if the area was four cubits or bigger water may be poured out into it. is permitted to pour it out in that courtyard though sometimes it might eventually find its way into the public domain.