Eruvin 87a (פז.) — the Talmud in English

If he carved into it

a wide opening in its middle,

four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths, leaving ten handbreadths around the opening on every side,

he may fill

from the sea.

This is because we say: “Bend,” meaning that we regard the ten handbreadths that remain as though they were bent downward, like a suspended partition over the water. We also say: “Draw down the partition,” as we regard the suspended partitions as though they descend and seal off the area down to the water. [See diagrams]

The water opposite the opening thereby becomes a private domain, and he may draw water from the sea and bring it into his house.

But if the balcony was less than twenty-four handbreadths by twenty-four handbreadths, this is insufficient, since the opening must be four handbreadths by four handbreadths; otherwise, it would be a partition made from an area less than four by four handbreadths, which is not considered a partition. It is likewise necessary that ten handbreadths remain around the opening on every side, corresponding to the measure of a partition.

We see, then, that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya was lenient with regard to a substantial body of water, and did not require a recognizable partition made for the sake of the water. For although the opening was made for the sake of the water, the partition was not made for the sake of the water [Gaon Yaakov; see also the Ritva].

Abaye said to him: Perhaps it is not so

as you have said, that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya expressed the same opinion.

Rather, one should say:

Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion there only

[in the Mishna]

because

he said:

“Draw down the partition”

with regard to existing suspended partitions.

But “bend and draw down” he did not permit. [See the expanded explanation in Gaon Yaakov.]

And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya stated his opinion there only

to permit the residents of Tiberias to draw water from the Sea of Tiberias by means of this allowance [as will be stated below, he permitted it specifically for them],

because

the case concerns

the Sea of Tiberias,

which is not a full-fledged karmelit [a domain that lacks partitions], since

it has banks

[high edges], which are like partitions surrounding it,

and towns and enclosures surround it

on all sides, so it is a domain with partitions.

Nevertheless, it has the status of a karmelit by rabbinic law, since it is an “area larger than two se’a that was not enclosed for residential purposes,” which the Sages rendered like a karmelit [but by Torah law it is a complete private domain], as stated above, on page 23a.

Since this is the case, they were lenient with regard to it and relied on such a minor corrective measure.

But with regard to other bodies of water,

which are full-fledged karmeliyot,

Rabbi Ḥananya was not lenient

and perhaps he would not be so lenient even in the case of the Mishna.

Abaye said: And according to Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya,

who holds that in the case of a balcony we say “bend and draw down”:

If the wall of the upper story [to which the balcony is attached] stood at the edge of the water, and

the

balcony was

adjacent to the wall, at a

distance of

less than three handbreadths

from the beginning of the balcony to the wall, it is not necessary for the balcony to be four cubits by four cubits.

Rather,

its length must be

of the balcony [along the upper story]

four cubits, and its width eleven

handbreadths

and a little more. [See diagram 1] The calculation is as follows: Since the upper story itself stands at the edge of the sea, the wall of the upper story is considered one partition of the balcony, and the balcony need only be large enough to bend three partitions. We regard the width of the balcony—eleven handbreadths and a little more—as though the ten handbreadths farthest from the upper story had been bent downward, giving us a second partition parallel to the partition formed by the wall of the upper story.

After the bending, what remains is a balcony one handbreadth and a little more wide, and four cubits long, which is twenty-four handbreadths.

“Bend” the ten handbreadths on each side downward!

Thus, on each side you have a partition ten handbreadths high and one handbreadth and a little more wide, with the distance from the wall to the beginning of the partition less than three handbreadths.

And when you apply the principle of lavud, and regard the width of the partition as extending to the wall, you have two additional partitions ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide.

What remains of the balcony after the “bending” is four handbreadths long and one handbreadth and a little more wide.

Now one makes an opening across the entire remaining width of the balcony and along its entire remaining length, and there is an empty space four by four [including the gap between the balcony and the upper story].

It follows that there is an empty space four by four surrounded by partitions. [See diagram 2]

He lowers a bucket from the window of the upper story and fills it.

If it was upright,

meaning that parallel to the wall of the upper story—which stands at the edge of the sea—he erected, at an exact distance of four handbreadths, a partition standing upright like the wall of the upper story,

then

its height must be

that of the partition,

ten handbreadths.

There are thus two partitions—the partition of the upper story and the upright partition—each ten handbreadths high, with an opening four handbreadths wide between them.

We must complete two additional partitions connecting the two partitions,

and

therefore there must be in

the width

of the upright partition

six handbreadths and two little more. [See diagram 1]

The calculation is as follows: Just as we say “bend” downward, here too we say: “Bend” that upright partition on both sides toward the wall of the upper story!

Once it has been bent by one handbreadth and a little more on each side, the distance between the bend and the wall of the upper story is three handbreadths less a little.

And when you apply lavud, you have on each side of the opening a partition ten handbreadths high [the height of the upright partition] and four handbreadths wide.

It stands adjacent to an opening four handbreadths long [the width of the partition remaining after the “bending”] by four handbreadths [the distance between the wall and the parallel upright partition]. [See diagram 2]

He lowers a bucket from the window of the upper story and fills it.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

If one of the walls of the upper story extended into the water from east to west for four handbreadths, and a second wall of the upper story ran from north to south at the edge of the water, for a length of four handbreadths, and

the

balcony was

standing

and submerged

in

that

corner

of the water, and the two walls of the upper story were themselves the walls of the balcony,

it follows that only two partitions need be completed for the balcony. Therefore,

the height must be

of the upright partition—which he erects parallel to the wall of the upper story running from north to south, at an exact distance of four handbreadths from that wall—

ten handbreadths, and its width two handbreadths and two little more. [See diagram 3]

The calculation is as follows: Place the partition from north to south, with its edge three handbreadths less a little distant from the wall running from east to west!

There will then be one handbreadth and a little more of it, together with the gap between it and the wall running from east to west. When you apply lavud, these complete a third partition ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide.

One handbreadth and a little more of the upright partition remains, enabling you to “bend” it toward the wall running from north to south [a bend parallel to the wall running from east to west]. This gives you a fourth partition when you “add” to that bend, by means of lavud, the three handbreadths less a little that separate the bend from the wall running from north to south.

The underside of the balcony is completely hollow; thus you have an opening four by four, surrounded by four partitions ten handbreadths high. [See diagram 4] He lowers a bucket from a window in one of the walls of the upper story and fills it.

[He may likewise place that upright partition parallel to the wall running from east to west, at a distance of three handbreadths less a little from the wall running from north to south.]

Now we raise an objection: Since you said that when the balcony is adjacent to the wall of the upper story, the wall itself is considered one partition, and it is also possible to include the space between the wall and the balcony, since we say “lavud,” the following difficulty arises:

But with regard to that which was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya says: A balcony that is four cubits by four cubits—one carves an opening four by four

handbreadths

in it and fills—

where do you find

a case in which this measure is necessary—that is, enough to bend four partitions ten handbreadths high and to carve an opening four by four—when less than this should suffice, according to what we have said?!

And we answer: Four cubits are required only where

it is made

the balcony

like a mortar

[a mortar], meaning that the balcony is not adjacent to the wall, but stands independently on four posts in the water. [See diagram]

Therefore, it must be large enough to carve an opening four by four and to bend four partitions ten handbreadths high. Together, these amount to twenty-four handbreadths by twenty-four handbreadths, namely, four cubits by four cubits.

And after the partitions have, as it were, been bent, this balcony assumes the form of a mortar.

Mishna:

A water channel [a channel for the passage of water] that is ten handbreadths deep and four handbreadths wide is classified as a karmelit, like the seas and rivers.

If the water channel passes through one’s courtyard—entering from one side of the courtyard and exiting on the other side through openings beneath the walls—it is prohibited to draw water from it into the courtyard, as this constitutes drawing from a karmelit into a private domain.

But if there is a pool of water in one’s courtyard that does not extend beyond the boundaries of the courtyard, it requires no corrective measure, even if it is very wide and deep, since everything within the partitions is part of the private domain [Mishna Berura].

With regard to a water channel that passes through a courtyard, one may not draw water from it on Shabbat

[as explained],

unless one makes a partition ten

handbreadths high

within the water channel

at the entrance

of the water channel into the courtyard

and at the exit

from it. [See diagram]

Rabbi Yehuda

Rabbi Yehuda

according to his position in the preceding Mishna, concerning a pit between two courtyards, says: The wall of the courtyard

that

is suspended

over it,

the water channel,

is considered a partition!

Just as Rabbi Yehuda relies above on a suspended partition, even though it was not made for the sake of the pit.

Rabbi Yehuda said,

to prove his position:

There was an incident involving a water channel

of the city

of

Abel

in which

they would draw water from it on Shabbat on the authority of the Elders!

—since it had only the partitions of the courtyard suspended over it.

The Sages said to him: There is no proof from that, for they drew water from it

because it did not have the measure

of a karmelit: a depth of ten handbreadths and a width of four handbreadths.

Gemara:

Gemara:

The Sages taught in a beraita: If they made a partition for it

for the water channel

at the entrance

to the courtyard, but did not make one for it at the exit

from the courtyard,

or

they made one for it at the exit

from the courtyard

but did not make one for it at the entrance,

since it remains connected to the water outside the courtyard, even the water within the courtyard becomes a karmelit.

Therefore,

one may not draw water from it on Shabbat unless they made a partition ten handbreadths high at the exit and at the entrance,

because, by means of the partitions, it appears as though the channel begins in this courtyard, and therefore one may draw water from it on Shabbat.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The wall above it is considered a partition.

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving a water channel that came from Abel to Sepphoris—

and it had only the partitions of the courtyard suspended over it—

and they would draw water from it on Shabbat on the authority of the Elders.

They said to him: Is that proof?!

They drew water from it

because it was not ten handbreadths deep,

or because its

width was not four

handbreadths.

It was taught in another beraita: A water channel

entering “an alleyway or a courtyard” [the wording of Rashi; see below in the name of Gaon Yaakov]

that passes between the windows,

meaning that it passes between two rows of houses, whose windows open toward the channel so that water may be drawn from it, and no partitions were made for it to permit this:

If it is less than three

handbreadths,

one lowers a bucket and fills it [the matter will be explained below]. [See diagram]

If it is three

handbreadths,

one may not lower a bucket and fill it.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If it is less than four

handbreadths,

one lowers a bucket and fills it.

If it is four

handbreadths,

one may not lower a bucket and fill it.

We now explain the measures of three and four stated in the beraita:

With what are we dealing?

If you say

that the measures of three and four refer to

the water channel itself,

meaning that the first tanna holds that if the channel is less than three handbreadths wide, it is not a karmelit, and therefore it is permitted to draw water from it even if no partitions were made for it; only when it is three handbreadths wide does it become a karmelit, and it is prohibited. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that its measure is four handbreadths—

that is impossible!

For this would raise the following difficulty:

But with regard to that which Rav Dimi said when he came from Eretz Yisrael in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A karmelit cannot be less than

a width of

four—

shall we say that he stated his teaching in accordance with the dispute between the tannaim?!

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that this measure of three and four does not refer to the width of the channel, which was wide enough to have the status of a karmelit. Rather, it refers to the width of

its banks

[the walls of the water channel], which were three handbreadths higher than the ground of the courtyard.

And

the subject of the beraita is

transferring [that is, lowering the bucket into the channel in two stages, from the window to the bank and from the bank to the channel].

This is the explanation of the beraita: If the bank was “less than three” handbreadths wide, “he lowers a bucket” onto the bank, lowers it again from the bank into the channel, and “fills” it from the channel. He then raises it from the channel to the bank and from the bank to the window.

But if the bank was “three” handbreadths wide, “one may not lower a bucket and fill it,” even in two stages.

According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, transferring is permitted until the banks are four handbreadths wide; once they are four handbreadths wide, transferring is prohibited.

The explanation of their dispute is as follows: A raised area three handbreadths high that stands between a private domain and a public domain, if it is four handbreadths wide and is not ten handbreadths high [so that it is not a private domain in its own right], is a karmelit.

If it is not four handbreadths wide, it is not an independent domain [a karmelit], but is subordinate to the two domains beside it. It is therefore permitted to remove an object from it both to the public domain and to the private domain, and it is considered a “place exempt from liability” [as explained shortly, and above on pages 9a and 77a].

The Sages hold that this applies only when that place stands between a private domain and a public domain, both of which are significant domains by Torah law. Therefore, the intervening place is subordinate to both and loses its status as an independent domain.

But if it stands between a private domain and a karmelit, which is only a domain by rabbinic law, the karmelit is not sufficiently significant for the intervening place to become subordinate to it as well.

Therefore, it is subordinate only to the significant private domain beside it, and it has the status of a private domain.

Only when that place is less than three handbreadths wide is it a place exempt from liability.

Therefore, the banks of the channel that stand between the private domain [the courtyard] and the karmelit [the channel], if they are less than three handbreadths wide, are a place exempt from liability. When one removes an object from the window to the bank, it is equivalent to removing it from a private domain to a place exempt from liability, which is permitted.

And when he lowers it again from the bank into the channel, it is equivalent to removing it from a place exempt from liability to a karmelit, which is permitted.

But when they are three handbreadths wide, they have the status of a private domain, and it is prohibited to lower an object from the bank into the channel and fill it.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that there is no distinction between a place adjacent to a domain recognized by Torah law and one adjacent to a domain recognized only by rabbinic law. Rather, any place that is not four by four handbreadths is a place exempt from liability with regard to transferring from it to a karmelit, since the prohibition involved is only rabbinic.

For

We raise an objection to this: Even though it is a place exempt from liability, it is nevertheless prohibited.

For

when Rav Dimi came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A place that does not contain four by four—

which is a place exempt from liability, as we have said—

is permitted for those in a private domain and those in a public domain to place burdens upon it [to place their loads on it and remove them from it],

provided that they do not transfer objects between domains!

It was not permitted to transfer an object from one domain to another, even if one places it in the middle, in a place exempt from liability. The difficulty now arises: How could you permit transferring here from a private domain to a karmelit through a place exempt from liability?! And we answer:

There,

in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement,

the domains are recognized by Torah law, since the intervening place stands between a private domain and a public domain. Consequently, when one transfers through a place exempt from liability, “a Torah prohibition is performed through a place exempt from liability” [Rashi], and it is therefore prohibited.

[to place their burdens upon it and to take them from it],

provided that they do not transfer between domains!

For it was not permitted to transfer from one domain to another, even if he places it in the middle, in a place exempt. Now this is difficult: How can you permit here transferring from a private domain to a karmelit by way of a place exempt?!

And we answer:

There,

in Rabbi Yohanan’s statement,

the domains are domains by Torah law,

for the place stands between a private domain and a public domain. It follows that when he transfers by way of a place exempt, “a Torah prohibition is performed by way of a place exempt” [Rashi]; therefore it is prohibited.