Eruvin

AND A SIMILAR LAW APPlies TO A WINEPRESS.1 Raba, however, explained: The reference2 is to3 tithe; and so explained R. Shesheth: AND A SIMILAR LAW APPLIES TO A WINEPRESS refers to3 tithe. For we learned: It is permitted4 to drink wine out of a winepress irrespective of whether it was mixed with hot water or cold water, and to be exempt from the tithe;5 so R. Meir. R. Eliezer b. Zadok declared it6 to be liable to tithe,7 while the Sages ruled: In the case of hot wine8 one is liable to the tithe9 but in that of cold wine10 one is exempt since whatever remains11 is poured back.12 MISHNAH. A MAN13 MAY INTERCEPT14 WATER FROM A GUTTER15 AT A LEVEL BELOW TEN HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND,16 BUT FROM A WATER-SPOUT17 HE MAY DRINK IN ANY MANNER.18 GEMARA. He may only19 INTERCEPT the water20 but may not press his lips to the gutter.21 What is the reason? — R. Nahman replied: We are here dealing with a gutter that was withn22 three handbreadths from the roof, since any structure23 that is within three handbreadths from the roof is regarded as being the same domain as the roof. So24 it was also taught: A man standing in a private domain25 may raise his hand above ten handbreadths26 towards a gutter that was within less than three handbreadths from a roof27 and intercept20 the water,28 provided he does not press this lips to it]. Elsewhere it was taught: A man standing in a private domain25 may not raise his hand above ten handbreadths26 towards a gutter ‘that was within less than three handbreadths from a roof and press it to it, but he may intercept [the water]20 and then drink. FROM A WATER-SPOUT HE MAY DRINK IN ANY MANNER. One taught: If the spout had an area of four handbreadths by four this29 is forbidden30 because this would be like taking from one domain31 into another.32 MISHNAH. IF A CISTERN IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN HAD AN EMBANKMENT TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, IT IS PERMITTED TO DRAW WATER FROM IT ON THE SABBATH THROUGH A WINDOW ABOVE IT. IF A RUBBISH-HEAP IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN WAS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, IT IS PERMITTED TO POUR WATER ON IT ON THE SABBATH FROM A WINDOW ABOVE IT. GEMARA. What33 are we dealing with here? If it be Suggested: With one that was near,34 what need was there,35 [it might be objected,] for36 an embankment that was ten handbreadths high?37 — R. Huna replied: We are here dealing with a cistern that was removed four handbreadths from the wall. Hence it is only38 where there was an embankment ten handbreadths high that the ruling39 applies.40 but where there was no embankment ten handbreadths high one would be moving an object41 from one private domain into another by way of a public domain.42 R. Johanan, however, replied: It39 may even be assumed to refer to a cistern that was near,34 but43 it is this that we were informed: That the depth of a cistern and the height of its embankment44 may be combined45 to the prescribed depth of ten handbreadths. IF A RUBBISH-HEAP IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN etc. There is no need then to provide against the possibility that the rubbish’ heap might be removed;46 but did not Rabin son of R. Adda state in the name of R. Isaac: It once occurred that one side of an alley terminated in the sea47 and the other terminated in a rubbish heap.48 and when the facts were submitted to Rabbi he neither permitted nor forbade the movement of objects49 in that alley; he did not declare it to be permitted since the possibility had to be considered that the rubbish-heap might be removed50 or the sea might throw up alluvium,51 and he did not declare it to be forbidden because52 partitions53 in fact existed?54 — This is no difficulty, since the latter refers to one55 that belonged to an individual56 whereas the former57 refers to one that belonged to the public.58 MISHNAH. WHERE A TREE OVERSHADOWS THE GROUND59 IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS UNDER IT IF THE TOPS OF ITS BRANCHES ARE NOT HIGHER THAN THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE GROUND.60 IF ITS ROOTS ARE THREE HANDBREADTHS HIGH ABOVE THE GROUND61 ONE MAY NOT SIT ON THEM.62 GEMARA. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua ruled: No objects may be moved63 under it64 where the area was greater than two beth se'ah.65 What is the reason? cannot refer to one that had the status of a private domain since the law relating to the latter had already been dealt with. not subject to tithe. with such water his intention must have been to drink all of it and it consequently assumes the character of a regular drink which is subject to tithe. our Mishnah teaches is that, according to R. Meir whose view the last clause represents, a man must not stand on the ground and drink front the winepress without first setting aside the required tithe unless, as in the case of the domains spoken of, he puts HIS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF HIS BODY into the winepress. the level below ten is due to the ruling that follows, which cannot apply to a higher level. from the ground, in consequence of which it is regarded is a part of the public domain. of a gutter which, being (as stated supra) within three handbreadths from the roof, is deemed to he part of the roof and to constitute like the roof itself a private domain from which it is forbidden to take the water into the public domain, even though it was lower than ten handbreadths from the ground. directly from such a gutter is deemed to be drinking from the roof itself. cistern, ten handbreadths deep, is itself a private domain and, being within four handbreadths from the wall, no material part of the public domain intervened between it and the wall. still a private domain. houses and courtyards opening out from it. Han.). the alley, why was no similar provision made in the case deal with in our Mishnah? and they are, therefore, deemed to be actually touching the ground; and, since at their other ends at which they are joined to the tree they are raised ten handbreadths from the ground, they constitute a partition ten handbreadths high all round that tree. shelter for watchmen.