Eruvin 87b (פז:) — 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 carrying from it into a private domain, except by rabbinic decree. And they did not enact a decree where the prohibition is performed by way of a makom patur.

And we raise an objection to this:

But Rabbi Yohanan

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

in rabbinic domains

from one person's domain to another person's domain

also said

that it is prohibited to carry from one to the other by way of a makom patur.

And one should ask: What is different about a karmelit and a private domain, such that you said that exchanging between them is permitted?!

And where did he say this?

For we learned [above, on page 76b]:

a wall that

was

standing

between two courtyards

belonging to two people,

ten handbreadths high and four

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

two eruvin may be made, but one eruv may not be made

to permit carrying from one courtyard to the other, since there is a partition between them without an entrance.

If there were

on top of the wall

produce—

these

from one courtyard

go up

to it

from here and eat, and these

from the second courtyard

go up from here and eat [provided that they do not lower the produce below, since that would constitute carrying from a domain shared by both of them into an individual's courtyard, and from there into his house].

[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

between them

was breached up to ten cubits,

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

two eruvin may be made

if they wish.

And if they wish, one eruv may be made, because it is like an entrance.

But if the wall was breached

more than this —more than ten cubits—they prohibit one another, and

[more than ten cubits], they prohibit carrying from one courtyard to the other, and

one eruv may be made, but two eruvin may not be made.

And we discussed it

in the Gemara above, on page 76:

If it does not have

in the wall a width of

four

handbreadths—

what

is the law of the wall?

And there we said:

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

even the size of

a hairsbreadth.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

the wall is a makom patur, and is subordinate to both sides.

Therefore:

these bring up from here

produce

and eat,

and

these bring up from here

produce

and eat, and they need not be concerned about carrying from one domain to another. [And see what was added above, in its place, regarding this.]

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

And there we said:

And Rabbi Yohanan has departed—

who said “they bring up,” implying that they may not exchange—

from his position:

for

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

it is permitted for members of the public domain and members of the private domain to place objects upon it, provided that they do not exchange them!

We see, then, that according to Rabbi Yohanan it is prohibited to exchange even between rabbinic domains, as Rabbi Yohanan was precise in his wording, saying “they bring up,” and not that they exchange, as we said.

And one should ask: How can we permit exchanging between rabbinic domains, such as a karmelit?!

And we answer:

That

statement of Rabbi Yohanan—“These bring up from here and eat”—

Ze'iri

was 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 [handbreadths],” and because of this statement we had to explain the beraita concerning “lowering a bucket” as referring to “its banks, and exchanging,” from which it is proven that exchanging between rabbinic domains is permitted—held that Rabbi Yohanan prohibited exchanging only between Torah domains, but not between rabbinic domains.

Now we ask:

And according to Ze'iri,

who held that according to Rabbi Yohanan it is prohibited to exchange even between rabbinic domains, as he said in his name: They “bring up,” but do not “exchange”—

this

beraita concerning “lowering a bucket,” which we are discussing—how does he explain it?

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

Ze'iri

establishes

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

as referring to the water channel itself,

as we sought to say above.

But we found this difficult [as stated in the Gemara above], for according to this explanation the following difficulty arises: Rav Dimi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, “There is no karmelit less than four,” and “let us say that he stated his teaching in accordance with the dispute between the tannaim,” [for according to this explanation, according to the Rabbis there is a karmelit even when it is three [handbreadths] wide].

And Ze'iri can answer you: That is indeed so,

and Rav Dimi's statement is subject to a dispute between tannaim!

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

According to the Rabbis, there is a karmelit that is less than four [handbreadths] [but in Ze'iri's view, the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—Gaon Yaakov].

And we challenge Ze'iri, who explains that the beraita is referring to the water channel itself, and since the channel itself does not have the dimensions of a karmelit—three handbreadths according to the Rabbis, 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, are not a karmelit even when the hole is four handbreadths wide, but “are considered like the public domain.” If one threw an object four cubits in the public domain and it came to rest in that hole, he is liable, since the object is considered to have come to rest in the public domain. Now this is difficult according to Ze'iri:

Let

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

be considered “the holes of a karmelit,”

since outside the city it does have the dimensions of a karmelit; therefore, the channel should be prohibited because it derives from a karmelit. Why, then, is it permitted to lower a bucket into it when it does not have the requisite dimensions?!

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

such law of

“holes”

for a karmelit!

Rav Ashi

answers and

says: Even if you say that there are holes of a karmelit, that applies when they are adjacent

to a karmelit, such as a hole adjacent to a karpef larger than two se'ah that was not enclosed for residential purposes. In that case we say that the hole has the status of a karmelit, like the karpef, and is not a makom patur.

But

here

the discussion is

of a channel that is distant,

for the water channel is four handbreadths away [Ritva] from the place that has the requisite dimensions; in such a case it is not included in the holes of a karmelit.

Ravina said and offered another explanation of the essential meaning of the beraita concerning “lowering a bucket”:

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

Rather, the beraita is discussing a case

such as one in which

he made for it

a partition

with openings [for the passage in and out of the water]

[for the entry and exit of the water]

at the mouth

of the water channel.

That is: he did not make a complete partition inside the water channel, but made a partition extending across its entire width. There is a gap between the two parts of the partition, on the right and left of the entrance to the channel, and likewise at its exit; the water enters and leaves through those gaps.

The beraita therefore teaches: According to the Rabbis, a breach of up to three handbreadths is of no consequence, since we apply the principle of lavud. More than three handbreadths constitutes a breach, and it is prohibited to draw water from it.

And the Rabbis follow their own position,

as they generally maintain 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 water—

follows his own position,

as he generally maintains that we apply lavud up to four handbreadths.

Mishna:

A gezuztra [two projecting beams extending from an upper story, upon which boards are fixed from one beam to the other; it is ten handbreadths high and very wide, and 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 which the sea water is found, and the sea itself is a karmelit—

one may not draw

water

from it [through it]

[through it]

on Shabbat,

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

Unless

they made in the gezuztra a hole measuring four by four handbreadths, through which a bucket can be lowered and filled with water.

And

they made for it

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

a partition ten handbreadths high.

In that case, the partition around the gezuztra [or around the hole] is considered as though it descends to below, by means of the principle of ged achit mechitzata. And such a partition is effective

Such a partition is effective

whether

they made it

above,

on the surface of the gezuztra [provided that it surrounds the hole, so that it is evident that this partition was made for the sake of the water, since it is a “suspended partition”; reliance on it was permitted only when it is evident that it was made for the sake of the water, as explained in the earlier mishnayot, concerning a pit between two courtyards and a water channel]. And

And

whether

they made it as a suspended partition

below

the surface of the gezuztra [whether it surrounds the hole or surrounds the gezuztra, since in either case it is evident that the partition was made for the sake of the water].

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

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

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

two gezuztraot, one above the other,

whether they were directly opposite one another, or whether one was offset from the other by up to four handbreadths in a straight line across the width of the wall [even if the diagonal distance was greater than four handbreadths], and

they made a partition for the upper one

as required,

but did not make one for the lower one,

and on weekdays the members of the lower gezuztra throw their bucket through the upper one—

both are prohibited

from drawing water, even through the upper one [and certainly the lower one is prohibited from drawing water through its own hole, since it has no partition, and this would mean drawing water from a karmelit into a private domain],

until they make an eruv

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that it is not possible to draw water from the sea below the gezuztra until one makes a partition ten handbreadths high for it.

And the Gemara says:

The Mishna,

which is stated anonymously, implies that one must make a partition over all seas, even the Sea of Tiberias [Tosafot; see Gaon Yaakov]—

not in accordance with Hanania ben Akavya,

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

For it was taught: 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 central area contains an opening measuring four by four, while its floor also contains ten handbreadths on every side, the measure of a partition—

one cuts out in it

in its center a hole measuring

four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths.

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

We regard the floor of the gezuztra as though it were bent downward, forming a suspended partition around the hole.

We further say “Extend the partition downward” with regard to that imaginary bent partition, as though it descended all the way to the water.

And

then he

draws

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

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 this only in the Sea of Tiberias

alone,

since it has banks [a raised shore],

[raised edges]

and towns and enclosures surround it.

That is, the Sea of Galilee is not a complete karmelit, since it has partitions surrounding it. Rather, it has only the rabbinic “status of a karmelit,” since it is an area enclosed by more than two se'ah that was not enclosed for residential purposes. Therefore, this minor legal device suffices for it: one imaginatively says “Bend,” and afterward applies “Extend the partition downward” [as explained above, on the previous side].

But with regard to other bodies of water,

which are complete karmeliyot,

he did not

permit Rabbi Hanania ben Akavya.

The Sages taught: Rabbi Hanania ben Akavya permitted three matters to the inhabitants of Tiberias:

A. That they should

draw water from a gezuztra

over the Sea of Galilee

on Shabbat.

B.

And

that they should

bury

their produce

in refuse [the waste of legumes], even though dew had fallen upon it, and they need not be concerned that the produce was rendered fit to contract impurity by the dew on the “refuse” [as is the law with food upon which water has come, which is thereby rendered fit to contract impurity], as the Gemara will explain.

[the refuse of legumes], even though dew had fallen upon it, and they need not be concerned that the produce was made fit to contract ritual impurity through the dew on the bean refuse [as is the law regarding food upon which water has fallen, which from then on is fit to contract ritual impurity], as the Gemara will explain.

C.

And

that they should

dry themselves with a alונטit [towel] on Shabbat when they leave the bathhouse, and need not be concerned lest they wring it out, as the Gemara will explain.

[a towel] on Shabbat when they leave the bathhouse, and they need not be concerned that they might wring it out, as the Gemara will explain.

And we explain it:

A.

“They draw water from a gezuztra on Shabbat”—

this is what we said.

this is the matter we said.

B.

“And they bury [produce] in refuse”—

what does this mean?

That is: Why did he permit this for them?

For it was taught:

Water renders food fit to contract impurity only if the owners knew that water had come upon it and were pleased with this. Therefore:

One who

rose early

before it became day

to bring refuse

in which to bury the produce—

if

he rose early

because there was dew upon it

before daybreak, since he wanted and was pleased with the dew upon it,

he is

subject to the verse

“when water is put”

“upon seed, and if any of their carcasses fall upon it, it is impure for you.”

But if

he rose early not because of the dew, but

because he did not want to be idle from his work

which he performs during the day,

he is not

subject to the verse

“when water is put.”