Eruvin 87b — the Talmud in English

But

here

it is speaking of

rabbinic domains.

That is: the karmelit [the water channel] is not another domain with regard to transferring from it to the private domain, אלא by rabbinic decree. And they did not decree where the prohibition is performed by way of a makom patur.

And we raise an objection against it:

But Rabbi Yohanan

, who prohibited transferring between Torah domains by way of a makom patur [as we said],

in rabbinic domains

from the domain of this one to the domain of that one

also said

that it is prohibited to transfer from this one to that one by way of a makom patur.

And let us challenge: What is different about a karmelit and a private domain, that you say it is permitted to transfer between them?!

And where did it say this?

As we learned [above, page 76b]:

A wall

that

stood

between two courtyards

belonging to two people,

ten handbreadths high and four

handbreadths wide, [and the same הדין applies when it is less than four handbreadths wide; it stated it because of the latter clause]

two eruvs are made, and one eruv is not made

to carry from one to the other, for there is a partition without an opening between them.

If there were

on top of the wall

produce:

these

that is in one courtyard

go up

to it

from here and eat, and these

that is in the second courtyard

go up from here and eat

[provided that they do not lower it below, for this is transferring from a domain shared by both of them to the courtyard of an individual, and from there to his house].

If the wall was breached

between them

up to ten cubits

, so that it has the status of an “opening,”

two eruvs are made

if they wish.

And if they wish, one eruv is made, because it is like an opening.

But if the wall was breached

more than this

[more than ten cubits], they prohibit one another, and

one eruv is made, and two eruvs are not made.

And we discussed it

in the Gemara above, page 76:

If it does not have

in the wall a width of

four

handbreadths,

what

is the law of the wall?

And we say there in response:

Rav said: The air of two domains governs it, and one may not move anything in it

even as

much as a thread’s breadth.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

The wall is a makom patur, and is nullified to this side and to that side.

And therefore:

these raise from here

produce

and eat

, and

these raise from here

produce

and eat

, and they are not concerned about transferring from one domain to another. [And see what was added above—in its place—concerning this].

And we say there in response:

And Rabbi Yohanan proceeded

—who said “these raise,” implying: but they may not transfer between them—

according to his own position

:

for when Rav Dimi came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A place that does not have four by four

is permitted for the people of the public domain and for the people of the private domain to place burdens upon, provided that they do not transfer between them!

We see, then, that according to Rabbi Yohanan it is prohibited to transfer even in rabbinic domains, as Rabbi Yohanan was precise in his wording: “these raise,” and as we said.

And let us challenge: How do we permit transferring in rabbinic domains, such as a karmelit?!

And we answer:

That

statement of Rabbi Yohanan—“these raise from here and eat”—

Zeiri

is the one who

said it

in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.

But Rav Dimi, who said above in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, “There is no karmelit less than four,” and on the basis of this statement we were compelled to explain the beraita concerning “lowering a bucket” as referring to “its banks, and transferring,” from which it is proven that we permit transferring in rabbinic domains—he holds that Rabbi Yohanan prohibited transferring only in Torah domains, but not in rabbinic domains.

And now we ask:

And according to Zeiri

, who holds that according to Rabbi Yohanan it is prohibited to transfer even in rabbinic domains, as he said in his name: these “raise,” but do not “transfer”—

This is difficult

: How does he explain the beraita concerning “lowering a bucket,” with which we are dealing?

For he cannot explain it as referring to “its banks, and transferring,” since transferring is prohibited! And we answer:

Zeiri

establishes it

—the beraita concerning “lowering a bucket,” in which we distinguished between three handbreadths and three, and between less than four and four—

in the water channel itself

, as we intended to say above.

But this was difficult for us [as it appears in the Gemara above], for according to this explanation it is difficult: Rav Dimi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, “There is no karmelit less than four,” and “Let him say that he stated his teaching as a dispute between tannaim,” [for according to this explanation, according to the Sages there is a karmelit even at a width of three].

And Zeiri can say to you: That is indeed so,

and Rav Dimi’s statement is a dispute between tannaim!

For the Sages and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagreed about it in the beraita concerning “lowering a bucket.”

And according to the Sages there is a karmelit less than four [but according to him, the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—Gaon Yaakov].

And we challenge Zeiri, who explains that the beraita is speaking about the water channel itself, and since it itself does not have the measure of a karmelit—three handbreadths according to the Sages, and four handbreadths according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—it is not a karmelit:

The “holes of the public domain,” such as a wall adjacent to the public domain, with a hole facing the public domain within ten handbreadths of its height—even if it is four handbreadths wide, it is not a karmelit, but “they are like the public domain.” And if one threw four cubits in the public domain and it came to rest in that hole, he is liable, for he considers it placing something to rest in the public domain. And now this is difficult for Zeiri:

Let

the water channel that does not have the measure of a karmelit

be “the holes of a karmelit”

, since outside the city it has the measure of a karmelit; and let the channel be prohibited because it comes from a karmelit. And why is it permitted to lower a bucket into it when it does not have the measure?!

Abaye bar Avin and Rav Hanina bar Avin both say: There is no

law of

“holes”

for a karmelit!

Rav Ashi

responds and

said: Even if you say that there are holes for a karmelit, this applies when it is adjacent

to a karmelit—for example, a hole adjacent to a karpef larger than two se'a that was not enclosed for dwelling. In that case we say that it has the status of a karmelit, like the karpef, and it is not a makom patur.

But

here

it is speaking

of one that is distant

, for the water channel is distant [four handbreadths—Ritba] from the place where it has the measure, and in such a case it is not included among the holes of a karmelit.

Ravina said

and explained another explanation concerning the principal matter of the beraita of “lowering a bucket”:

The measure of three and four in the beraita does not refer to the water channel itself [as Zeiri says], nor to its banks [as we said according to Rav Dimi].

Rather, the beraita is speaking

of a case where he made for it

a partition

protruding

[a passage for the entry and exit of the water]

over its mouth

of the water channel.

That is: he did not make a complete partition inside the water channel, but made it divided along its entire height. There is a gap between the two parts of the partition, to the right and to the left of the entrance to the channel, and likewise at its exit, and through there the water enters and leaves.

And the beraita comes to say: According to the Sages, up to a breach of three handbreadths, there is no issue, since we apply lavud. More than three handbreadths is a breach, and it is prohibited to draw from it.

And the Sages proceeded according to their own position

, for they hold generally that we apply lavud up to three handbreadths.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

—who says in the beraita that until a breach of four handbreadths it is permitted to lower a bucket and draw—

according to his own position

, for he holds generally that we apply lavud up to four handbreadths.

Mishna:

A gezuztra [two projections extending from the upper story, upon which boards are fixed, from one to the other. It is ten high and quite wide, and it is a private domain. Rashi above, page 84b],

[two projecting beams extending from an upper floor, upon which boards are fixed from one beam to the other. It is ten handbreadths high and sufficiently wide to have the status of a private domain—Rashi, above, page 84b]

which is above the water

, beneath it being the waters of the sea, and the sea itself being a karmelit—

one may not fill

water

from it

[through it]

on Shabbat

, since he is bringing the water from the sea, which is a karmelit, into the gezuztra, which is a private domain.

Unless

they made in the gezuztra a hole four by four handbreadths wide, through which they lower a bucket and fill it with water.

And

they made for it

around the gezuztra, or around the hole, as will be explained below,

a partition ten handbreadths high.

For then the partition around the gezuztra [or around the hole] is considered as descending below by means of the law of gud asik mechitzta.

And such a partition is effective

whether

they made it

above

, on the surface of the gezuztra [provided that it is around the hole, so that it is recognizable that this partition was made for the sake of the water, for it is a “suspended partition,” and they permitted relying upon it only when it is recognizable that it was made for the sake of the water, as was explained in the Mishnayot above, concerning a pit between two courtyards and concerning the water channel].

And

whether

they made it as a suspended partition

below

the surface of the gezuztra [whether it is around the hole, or whether it is around the gezuztra, since in either case the partition made for the sake of the water is recognizable].

Since we say: “Lower the partition,” and the water opposite and between the partitions becomes a private domain.

And likewise [Rashi above, page 84b, does not have this version; Ritba]

[Rashi above, page 84b, does not have this version; see the Ritva]

two gezuztraot, one above the other

, whether they were one opposite the other, or whether one was set back from the other up to four handbreadths in a straight line across the width of the wall [even if the diagonal was more than four handbreadths], and

they made a partition for the upper one

as required,

but did not make one for the lower one

, and the people of the lower one throw their bucket on weekdays through the upper one—

both are prohibited

from filling, even through the upper one [and all the more so the lower one is prohibited through its hole, since it has no partition, and it turns out that he is filling from a karmelit into a private domain],

until they make an eruv

—the people of the two gezuztraot with one another, since the people of the lower one prohibit the upper one.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that it is impossible to fill water from the sea below the gezuztra until one makes a partition ten handbreadths high for it.

And the Gemara says:

The Mishna

was stated without qualification, implying that one must make a partition across all seas, even in the Sea of Tiberias [Tosafot; and see Gaon Yaakov]—

not in accordance with Hanania ben Akavya

, who permits it there without actually making partitions [as above on the page]!

For it was taught in a beraita: Hanania ben Akavya says: A gezuztra

over the sea

that has

in its floor

four cubits by four cubits

, which are twenty-four handbreadths by twenty-four handbreadths, and whose middle contains an open space four by four, while its floor also has ten handbreadths, the measure of a partition, on every side—

one cuts into it

in its middle a hole of

four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths.

And then, concerning the remaining surface of the gezuztra, we say: “Bend!”

For we view the floor of the gezuztra as though it were bent downward and formed a suspended partition around the hole.

And we additionally say “lower the partition” concerning that imaginary bent partition, as though it descended to the water.

And

then he

fills

water from the sea, without the need to make an actual partition around it.

And consequently, the Mishna, which requires actual suspended partitions, is not in accordance with him.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: Rabbi Hanania ben Akavya permitted only in the Sea of Tiberias

alone,

since it has banks

[a high rim]

and towns and karpefot surround it.

That is, the Sea of Tiberias is not a complete karmelit, since it has partitions surrounding it. Rather, it merely has “the law of a karmelit” by rabbinic decree, since it constitutes an enclosed place larger than two se'a that was not enclosed for dwelling. Therefore, this minor device suffices for it: to say, imaginatively, “bend,” and afterward to say concerning it “lower the partition” [as was explained above on the page].

But concerning the other waters

, which are complete karmeleiyot,

not

did Rabbi Hanania ben Akavya permit.

The Sages taught: Rabbi Hanania ben Akavya permitted three things to the people of Tiberias:

1. That they should

fill water from a gezuztra

over the Sea of Tiberias

on Shabbat.

2.

And

that they should

cover

their produce

with straw

[the waste of legumes], even though dew has fallen upon it, and they need not be concerned that the produce has been prepared to receive impurity by the dew upon the “straw” [according to the law of food upon which water has come, which from now on is prepared to receive impurity], as the Gemara explains and proceeds.

3.

And

that they should

dry themselves with a towel

[a towel] on Shabbat when they leave the bathhouse, and need not be concerned lest they wring it out, as it explains and proceeds.

And we explain it:

1.

“They fill water from a gezuztra on Shabbat”—

this is what we said.

this is the matter we said.

2.

“And they cover with straw”—

what is it?

That is: Why did he permit this to them?

For it was taught:

Water does not prepare food to receive impurity unless the owners knew that water had come upon it and it was agreeable to them. Therefore:

One who

rose early

before it became day

to bring waste

in order to cover the produce with it—

If

he rose early

because there was dew upon it

before daybreak, for he wants and is pleased with the dew upon it,

he is

included in

“When water is placed”

upon seed, and anything from their carcasses falls upon it, it is impure for you.”

But if

he rose early not because of the dew, but

because it would otherwise interfere with his work

in which he works during the day,

he is not

included in

“When water is placed.”