Eruvin

but in one that is less than four cubits1 he merely pours it out. Hence it is Only if he made a trough2 that he is permitted to pour out the water but not otherwise.3 R. Zera replied: In an area of four cubits the water4 may be absorbed;5 but n one that is less than four cubits they cannot be absorbed.6 What is the practical difference between them?7 — Abaye replied: The practical difference between them is a courtyard that was long and narrow.8 We learned: THE COURTYARD AND THE EXEDRA9 MAY BE COMBINED TO MAKE UP THE PRESCRIBED FOUR CUBITS. According to R. Zera this is quite acceptable;10 but, according to Rabbah,11 does not a difficulty arise?12 — R. Zera, on the lines of Rabbah's11 view, explained: This refers to an exeˆra that ran along all the courtyard.Æ3 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;14 but, according to R. Zera, does not a difficulty arise?15 — R. Zera can answer you: This ruling represents the view of16 the Rabbis,17 whereas our Mishnah18 is that of R. Eliezerób. Jacob.19 What, however, was it that urged R. Zera to attribute our Mishnah20 to R. Eliezer b. Jacob?21 — Raba repl™ed: Our Mishnah presânted to him a difficulty: What was the object of stating, IF THE AREA OF A COURTYARD WAS less22 THAN FOUR CUBI²S23 seeing that it could have been stated:24 ‘If the area of a courtyard was less than four cubits2õ by four cubits’?26 Consequently,27 he concluded28 it must represent the view of29 R. Eliezer b. Jacob.30 This is xonclusive. But since a succeeding clause31 rep2esents the view of R. Eliezer y. Jacob32 how could the first cÊause33 also represent his view?34 — All the Mishnah represents the view of3ó5 R. Eliezer b. Jacob, but some words are wanting in it, the correct reading being as follCws:3Þ6 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 Mishnah37 cannot represent the opinion of Hananya,38 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: This39 applies only to the hot season, but during the rainy season a person may pour his water again and again without any limit.40 What is the reason? — Raba replied: A person is quite satisfied41 that the water should be absorbed on the spot.42 Said Abaye to him: Is there not the case of43 waste water with the absorption of which on the spot a person is quite satisfied41 and yet it was ruled: NO WATER MAY BE POURED?44 — What, the other replied, is it that provision should bÍ made against in that case?45 If it be suggested: Against the man's objection to the spoiling of his courtyard,46 surely, [it may be retorted,] it is in any case spoilt;47 and if against the possibility of the assumption that So-and-so's gutter was spouting water, 48 all gutters, as a rule, spout water.49 R. Nahman ruled: In the rainy season, if a trough50 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,51 surely, [it could be retorted,] it is in any case spoilt;52 if against the assumption that So-and-so's gutter spouts water53 all gutters, as a rule, spout water.54 Hence,55 said Abaye, even a kor,56 even two kor are permitted.57 SO ALSO IN THE CASE OF TWO UPPER STOREYS OPPOSITE EACH OTHER. Raba ruled: Even though they prepared a joint ‘erub. What, asked Abaye,57 is the reason? If it be suggested: On account of the large quantity of the water,58 was it not taught, [it may be objected,] ‘The same law applies to a trough,55 a damaged vessel,59 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?60 Rather, if the statement was at all made it must have been made in the following terms:61 Raba ruled: pour it out would be fulfilled. Were this to be permitted people might form the erroneous conclusion that it is also permitted to throw anything directly from a private into a public domain. area of 8 X 2 = 4 X 4, and the water would be absorbed in the courtyard itself before any of it reached the public domain. According to Rabbah, however, this is forbidden, since a narrow courtyard is an unsuitable place for spraying. increased by it. permitted to pour water in it? to that of the courtyard and thus extending the area of the latter to four cubits by four. CUBITS IN AREA, thus rejecting the principle of capacity for absorption and upholding only that of suitability for spraying. permitted it where it was four cubits or bigger irrespective of the relative lengths of its sides. difficulty? whether the courtyard was long and narrow, two of its sides being shorter, and two longer than four cubits. in length (though the total area was four cubits by four) no water may be poured out into it. actual area that matters or, in other words, that the determining factor is not suitability for spraying but capacity for absorption. form of gutters into which rain water flowed and water was poured. Mishnah). water also. absorbing all the water before it reached the public domain. to dispatch it without delay into the public domain for the reason given. public domain. waste water. In the case of a drain in the dry season, however, people observing the flow front a private into a public domain and knowing full well that it was the result of human action, might well come to the conclusion that the carrying of objects from the one domain into the other is also permitted. Hence the preventive measure. the trough by the tenants of both upper storeys?