Eruvin 88a — the Talmud in English

And therefore Rabbi Hananiah ben Akavya permitted them, because

ordinary ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the people of Tiberias—

who were craftsmen—when they rose early,

like

those who rise early in order

that he not neglect the wages of his work, and the dew in the garden does not render the produce fit.

3.

And they dry themselves with a towel—

what is it?

For it was taught: A person dries himself with a towel,

after he has washed his body,

and places it in a window

adjacent to the wall of the bathhouse [Rashi, Shabbat 147b], and we are not concerned lest he wring it out.

But he may not bring it in his hand to his house, lest he forget and wring it out.

And he may not give it to the bath attendants

[balanim]—

because they are suspected concerning that matter

[wringing].

Rabbi Shimon says: He may even bring it in his hand into his house,

and we are not concerned lest he forget and wring it out.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: They taught this only

in our Mishna—that a suspended partition permits [drawing water] at a balcony extending over the water—

but

for the purpose of

drawing

water from the sea to the balcony, for the water-space between the partitions thereby becomes a private domain.

But to pour

water from the balcony through the hole into the water beneath it is

forbidden,

because the river carries the wastewater beyond the area opposite the balcony’s partition, and it is found that it goes by his force from a private domain into a karmelit [Ritva].

Rav Shizbi objected to him: And what difference is there between this and a drainage pit

[a cavity] explained in the Mishna below, that in a courtyard measuring less than four cubits, one may not pour water into it on Shabbat, since it flows out into the public domain adjacent to it, unless it contains a drainage pit holding two seahs of water—the measure of all a person’s wastewater in one day—which is fit to prevent the water from flowing into the public domain. And it was taught concerning it below in a beraita: Even if the drainage pit became full on the eve of Shabbat, it is permitted to pour.

We see, then, that we permit pouring even though the water flows into the public domain!

And we answer:

these

wastewaters that he pours into the courtyard—most of the time

are absorbed

[they are absorbed in their place], for it is with this intention that he places them there. And if they flow into the public domain, they flow out against his will, and he has no intention of this.

And since it is an act whose result is unintended, even when it is a “pesik reisha” [that they will certainly flow out], it is permitted, for they did not prohibit “his force” [when he does not pour directly into the public domain, but they emerge there only by his force] in an act whose result is unintended.

But

these

waters of the balcony

are not absorbed

ever beneath the balcony, and it is impossible for them to remain there at all.

There are those who say:

thus

Rabba bar Rav Huna said:

Do not say: It is only for drawing

water to the balcony

that it is permitted,

but

to pour

water from the balcony is

forbidden; rather, pouring too is permitted!

He said,

objecting to this,

Rav Shizbi: It is obvious!

For

this is the very same as a drainage pit

that became full on the eve of Shabbat, into which it is permitted to pour?!

And this is how we answer:

It might have been said

that it is specifically there that we permit, since

these

waters of the courtyard

are absorbed.

But

these

waters of the balcony, behold, they

are not absorbed,

so we should not permit it.

It teaches us

that, on the contrary, here is preferable to there: whereas there we nevertheless require a drainage pit, since it is pleasing to him that the water should flow into the courtyard so that his courtyard should not become dirty, here he does not care at all that it should flow outside, and therefore it is permitted to pour, and we do not even require a drainage pit.

We learned in the Mishna:

(And likewise,

two balconies

one above the other: They made [a partition] for the upper one but did not make [one] for the lower one; both are forbidden until they establish an eruv:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They taught this only when

the

adjacent

balcony was adjacent to its fellow along the wall, within four handbreadths [as explained in the Mishna].

But when they are separated

from one another by four handbreadths or more—

the upper one is permitted,

and the lower one does not prohibit it, as he proceeds to explain the reason [Rav’s words above in the Gemara, page 85a, are mentioned; see there].

And we explain:

And Rav—

who requires here that it be adjacent—proceeds

according to his reasoning

[above, page 85].

For Rav said: A person does not prohibit [a domain] for his fellow,

when the manner in which the person uses that place is

by way

of throwing

air

across four handbreadths.

Rabba said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya. And Rav Yosef

said

in the name of Rabbi Oshaya:

There is theft on Shabbat, and a ruin returns to its owners,

and he proceeds to explain it.

And it entered our minds that this is what he is saying:

a. “There is theft on Shabbat”—one who has a ruin adjacent to his house, and the owners of the ruin do not use it very much, while the homeowner is accustomed to use the ruin on weekdays, then “since the owners do not use it very much, he [the homeowner] acquires it through his theft, like other thieves, and it becomes his domain” [the wording of Rashi].

And therefore he prohibits the owner of the ruin from using the ruin on Shabbat, until they establish an eruv.

And the homeowner is also forbidden to use it on Shabbat, for the owner of the ruin prohibits him.

b. “And a ruin returns to its owners”—this means to say that, on the contrary, the homeowner does not prohibit the owner of the ruin, since “against his will, the prohibition of Shabbat [perhaps it should say: the prohibition of ‘returning,’ namely, the prohibition of theft] returns it to its owners, and he must return it, and it is not acquired by him, and he is forbidden [by the law of theft—Gaon Yaakov] to use it” [the wording of Rashi].

And therefore he does not prohibit his fellow, the owner of the ruin, and the owner of the ruin does not need to establish an eruv with the homeowner in order to use it [according to Gaon Yaakov].

And therefore we ask:

this itself is difficult

from within itself:

On the one hand,

you said: There is theft on Shabbat.

It follows that he acquires it

the homeowner, and prohibits [its use] until they establish an eruv.

Whereas, on the other hand, you said:

And a ruin returns to the owners.

It follows that he does not acquire it,

the homeowner, and does not prohibit [its use]?!

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: There is a “law of restoring

the

theft” on Shabbat.

How so?

For a ruin returns

the stolen property

to the owners.

And it teaches that he does not prohibit [use of] the ruin.

Rabba said: And we raise an objection against this teaching

which says that when one uses stolen property he does not prohibit [its use], from our Mishna:

For we learned:

(And likewise,

two balconies, one above the other,

if they made a hole and a partition for the upper one but did not make [them] for the lower one—both are forbidden until they establish an eruv!

And if you say, “There is a law of theft on Shabbat”—

why are they forbidden?

That is to say: Why does the lower one prohibit the upper one, when the lower one uses it unlawfully on weekdays, for it belongs to the people of the upper one?

Rather, we see that nevertheless it prohibits [the upper one], since it is accustomed to use it; and this contradicts this teaching?!

He said,

explaining,

Rav Sheshet: Here, with what are we dealing? For example, they made

the people of the lower and the people of the upper [balcony] that

partition

which is on the upper one

in partnership,

and the lower one uses the upper one lawfully.

And we ask:

If so,

since there is no theft on Shabbat and he does not prohibit [its use], and here we are dealing with a partition made in partnership, why did we learn, “They made [one] for the upper one but did not make [one] for the lower one; both are forbidden,” implying that if they made [one] also for the lower one, the lower one does not prohibit [the upper one]?!

For this works well if we are dealing with a case in which they did not make it in partnership and there is theft on Shabbat: the distinction is that when they did not make [one] for the lower one, it is forbidden, since there is theft on Shabbat. But where they made [one] for the lower one, they no longer wish to steal from the upper one, and they have withdrawn.

But according to you, who said that it is because of the partnership that they have in the upper one that they prohibit [its use],

when they made [one] for the lower one as well,

why do they not prohibit [use of] the upper one [explained according to the Ritva]?!

And we answer:

Since they made [one] for the lower one—

the lower one revealed

its

intention, that I,

the lower one,

with you

[of the upper one]

do not want,

and the lower one removed itself from the upper one. “For this partition is made only for the permission of Shabbat” [Rashi].

Mishna:

A courtyard that is less than four cubits

by four cubits [Rashi in the Gemara], adjacent to the public domain,

one may not pour water into it on Shabbat,

for we decree lest he pour all his wastewater there.

For it is customary to pour it into the courtyard adjacent to his house, and since it is abundant, he does not want it to remain in his courtyard, since it becomes mud and mire, and he is troubled by this, for everyone is accustomed to be particular about his courtyard being clean, and he is pleased that the water should flow onward from his courtyard.

If it flows outside, his intention has been fulfilled [Mishna Berura], and in such a case we decree on account of throwing an object from a private domain into the public domain [according to Rashi in the Gemara, and Gaon Yaakov’s understanding of Rashi].

Unless they made a drainage pit for it

[a cavity]

holding two seahs

of water [and every cavity that is half a cubit by half a cubit, with a height of three-fifths of a cubit, holds two seahs—Rema].

And then, when he pours into the courtyard, he is not particular that they should flow outside, since it is possible for them to descend and rest in the cavity and his courtyard will not become soiled.

And therefore, even if they flow outside, it is not like taking [an object] from a private domain into the public domain [Mishna Berura].

But if the courtyard was larger than this measure, it is permitted without a drainage pit. And the drainage pit must hold two seahs

from the hole downward.

That is to say: Its empty space should hold two seahs, apart from the space occupied by the covering of the drainage pit.

And this drainage pit may be made

either outside

the courtyard—in the public domain—and adjacent to it, with the mouth of the drainage pit inside the courtyard [Biur Halakha, see there],

or inside,

in the courtyard itself.

Except that

if he made it

outside

in the public domain,

he must vault over

[cover; and see an example of this in the Ritva] its mouth with boards, whereby the drainage pit becomes a “place exempt,” since that place is removed from public use.

But if he made the drainage pit

inside

the courtyard,

he need not vault over it,

for it stands in a private domain.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: A covered sewer

[a channel made to carry the wastewater in the courtyard into the public domain]

that is vaulted over

[covered] for a length of

four

cubits

[by four cubits, according to Rashi in the Gemara]

in the public domain—

one pours into it

the sewer’s

water on Shabbat.

Since with this measure the Sages estimated that all the wastewater which one is accustomed to pour in one day is absorbed in that sewer, which is a place exempt, and does not flow outside into the public domain itself.

And the Sages say: Even a roof or courtyard

long

one hundred cubits

and with a sewer along their entire length [Ritva],

one may not pour at the mouth of the sewer

even at its beginning, which is one hundred cubits distant from the public domain, and the Gemara explains the reason.

But he may pour onto the roof

or into the courtyard,

and the water descends

by itself

into the sewer.

The courtyard and the portico

[the corridor before the house] adjacent to it

join for the

measure of

four cubits,

to permit pouring even without a drainage pit, and the Gemara explains it.

Two upper chambers

[upper stories] standing

opposite one another—

with a courtyard less than four cubits between them, where they pour their wastewater—and

some of them

[the inhabitants of one of the upper chambers]

made a drainage pit

in the courtyard adjacent to their upper chamber,

and some of them did not make a drainage pit:

Those who made a drainage pit—

are permitted

to pour in the courtyard.

Those who did not make a drainage pit—

are forbidden,

and the Gemara explains it.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A courtyard that is less than four cubits—one may not pour water into it on Shabbat:

And it implies: If the courtyard was four by four cubits, one may pour water into it on Shabbat.

And we inquire about it:

What is the reason?

Rabba said: Because a person is liable to use

for his needs

two seahs of water every day,

and a person is liable to pour this quantity into the courtyard after he has used it for his needs.

And therefore:

With four cubits

of courtyard width, it is not the person’s intention that the water flow outside his courtyard; rather, on the contrary,

a person wants to sprinkle it

[to wet the earth of the courtyard with water] so that dust will not rise [for the Mishna is dealing with the hot season, as is stated below]. And since this is so, even if he pours it and the water flows outside the courtyard into the public domain, his intention is not fulfilled, and it is permitted.