Eruvin 88b — the Talmud in English

But when the courtyard is

less than four

by four cubits, being small and unsuitable for honorable use [Ritva], no person wants to sprinkle water over it; rather, a person wants

to pour them out

outside, and with this intention he pours them into the courtyard, so that they should go out into the public domain. And when the water goes out, his thought is fulfilled; therefore the Sages decreed that perhaps he would come to permit throwing an object into the public domain [Gaon Yaakov in his understanding of Rashi].

And therefore:

if he made a drainage pit—

which holds two seah of his wastewater—

it is permitted.

If not,

he made a drainage pit,

it is forbidden.

Rabbi Zeira said:

Since the measure of a person’s wastewater in one day is two seah, in a courtyard four cubits

by four cubits [the

water is absorbed] in a measure such as this, and they do not become mud and mire; and if they go outside, his thought has not been fulfilled.

Less than four cubits does not absorb

water in such a measure.

And in order that mud and mire should not rise, he wants them to go outside, and his thought is fulfilled when they go out; therefore it is forbidden. For we decree lest he throw an object initially from a private domain into the public domain.

What is the difference between them

between Rabba and Rabbi Zeira?

Abaye said: A courtyard

long and narrow

longer than four cubits and narrower than a width of four cubits], whose area does not exceed sixteen square cubits [like the area of a courtyard four by four cubits],

is the difference between them:

According to Rabba, who holds that we require a courtyard that is significant and suitable for sprinkling, here, since its width is not four cubits, one does not use it for honorable use and does not want sprinkling; and if he did not make a drainage pit, it is forbidden.

But according to Rabbi Zeira, who holds that we require a courtyard suitable for two seah of water to be absorbed in it, even a long and narrow one suffices, since its area is like that of a courtyard four by four cubits.

And we challenge:

we learned

in our Mishna:

a courtyard and a portico combine to make four cubits

to make them like a courtyard that has four cubits], which is exempt from the drainage pit.

And it entered our mind to say that “the portico is on one side, and completes the courtyard to a measure of two cubits by eight cubits or the like” [Ritva; and see Rashi].

And since this is so, it is difficult:

Granted, according to Rabbi Zeira,

who says that even a long and narrow courtyard is exempt from the drainage pit whenever it has an area of four cubits by four cubits,

it is understandable.

But according to Rabba,

who requires four by four cubits in a square,

it is difficult!

Rabbi Zeira interpreted

[explained]

Rabbi Zeira

the Mishna

according to Rabba,

his disputant, that it deals

with a portico extending across the entire courtyard,

and the portico completes the square of four cubits by four cubits [Ritva].

Come and hear

from a beraita to support Rabba:

a courtyard that does not have “four cubits by four cubits” does not

have water poured into it on Shabbat,

which means that a square is required.

And

granted, according to Rabba, it is understandable.

But according to Rabbi Zeira, it is difficult!

Rabbi Zeira could say to you: Whose opinion is this

this beraita?

It is the Rabbis’.

And

the first clause of our Mishna is

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov—

the one in the latter clause—

it is.

That is to say: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Rabbis dispute in the latter clause of the Mishna whether it is permitted to pour water into a covered channel in the public domain: according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov it is permitted, and according to the Rabbis it is forbidden.

And the basis of their dispute is this: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds according to the reasoning of Rabbi Zeira, that we permit pouring in a large courtyard where the water is suitable to be absorbed without going outside. Therefore it is permitted to pour into a channel in which there is a measure such that the water will be absorbed.

But the Rabbis do not hold this reasoning. And that which we permit in a courtyard that has four cubits by four cubits is specifically because it is suitable for sprinkling, according to the reasoning of Rabba; but this applies only in a courtyard. When he pours into a channel, he reveals that he does not want sprinkling, and therefore it is forbidden. And we explain:

And what difficulty compelled Rabbi Zeira

to say that the Mishna holds that even in a courtyard that does not have four cubits in a square it is permitted to pour without a drainage pit, and thereby to force the matter and

to establish the

first clause of the

Mishna as Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

Let us say that the Mishna holds that four cubits in a square are required, and it works well according to the Rabbis?

He

said—and

Rava explained it—:

the wording of the

Mishna was difficult for him

for Rabbi Zeira, and forced him!

For

why specifically does it teach: A courtyard that is “less than” four cubits,

which implies that its measure is “lacking” from the measure of four cubits by four cubits,

let it teach: A courtyard “that does not have” four cubits

(by four cubits

the Vilna Gaon deleted this; see Rashi), which implies that it does not have a square of four by four cubits, and a long and narrow courtyard is ineffective?!

Rather, is it not so? Learn from this,

that even a long and narrow courtyard is effective. And the Mishna is

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s.

And we conclude:

learn from this!

And we challenge Rabbi Zeira, who establishes the first clause of the Mishna as Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

But since the latter clause

of the Mishna—concerning a channel—

is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s, it implies that the

first clause is

not Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s

?!

And we answer:

The entire

Mishna

is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s!

And it is lacking a clause, and this is what it teaches:

A courtyard that is “less than” four cubits does not have water poured into it on Shabbat.

This

if it has the measure of

four cubits

by four cubits, even though they are not in a square,

water is poured

into it on Shabbat, since the water is absorbed in it!

For Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Into a covered channel four cubits in the public domain, water is poured on Shabbat!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Into a covered channel

four cubits in the public domain, water is poured on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: Even onto a roof or into a courtyard of one hundred cubits, he may not pour at the mouth of the channel; but he pours onto the roof, and the water descends into the channel:

And we explain:

The Mishna—

in which the Rabbis permit pouring onto the roof, and it spills from the roof into the channel carved into the roof, and from there into the public domain—

is not like Hanania!

For it was taught: Hanania says:

A courtyard—he is permitted to pour into it, even though it falls from it into a channel, and from there into the public domain.

But on a roof,

even

if the length of the

roof was one hundred cubits, he may not pour, because the roof

—which is smooth—

is made to absorb,

like a courtyard,

but to stream,

and the water falls with force into the public domain, and they will say that he pours near the public domain so that it should go outside.

And they will come to say: What difference is there between a pipe and pouring directly into the public domain?

The tan[n]ay taught: When are these words applicable—

that it is forbidden to pour into a small courtyard whenever it has no drainage pit—

in the summer,

when a person does not want to soil his field with mud and mire, and he wants the water to flow beyond his courtyard into the public domain.

But in the winter, he pours

in the courtyard,

and repeats

pouring,

and he does not refrain!

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Rava said:

In the winter, when his field is soiled with mud and mire,

a person wants

he does not care

that the water be absorbed in its place,

and not go out into the public domain. And since his thought was not fulfilled by the water’s going out into the public domain—for he did not intend it— it is permitted.

He

wonderingly

said to him, Abaye: But

even

wastewater

that is poured into a channel,

which a person wants to be absorbed

in its place, since he does not care there about mud and mire,

and

nevertheless

it teaches

in the Mishna, according to the Rabbis, that

he may not pour

into a channel.

We see, then, that even so it is forbidden?!

He said to him

Rava:

There,

that is to say, in a courtyard in the winter—

what concern is there for us?

If because of damage to his courtyard,

because of this he wants it to go out—

this

in the winter,

it is already damaged,

and he does not care.

And if because of the decree lest they say, “So-and-so’s pipe is streaming water

on Shabbat,” as in the case where the Rabbis prohibited it in a channel—

ordinary pipes

in the winter

are streaming,

and therefore it is permitted. But in a channel, this decree properly applies, and therefore it is forbidden.

Rav Naḥman said:

That which we say in the beraita, that in the winter he pours and repeats, does not mean that he does not require a drainage pit. Rather, this is what we say:

In the winter: a drainage pit that holds two seah, they give it two seah,

a drainage pit that does not

hold

anything but

one seah, they give it

to pour there

one seah.

In the summer: a drainage pit that holds two seah, they give it two seah,

holding

one seah, they do not give it anything at all!

That is to say: There is no difference between the summer and the winter; rather, in the summer, if the drainage pit holds one seah, we do not say that he should pour one seah, repeat, and pour one seah, but it is entirely forbidden to pour. In the winter, we are lenient to pour one seah, repeat, and pour one seah.

And this is what they said in the beraita: He pours according to the measure of the drainage pit, and repeats.

And we wonder:

In the summer also,

where the drainage pit

holds one seah—

should we give it

[let us give it]

one seah?!

And we answer:

A decree, lest he come to give it two seah,

the measure of all his wastewater.

And we challenge:

If so, in the winter also, let us decree?!

And we answer:

There

[in the winter], truly we should not have prohibited pouring there even two seah, for

what concern is there for us?

If

because he wants it to go outside

because of the damage

to his courtyard, and they will come to permit even pouring directly into the public domain—

this is already damaged

because of the rains.

And

if because of the decree lest they say, “So-and-so’s pipe is streaming water

on Shabbat,” behold, in the winter

ordinary pipes are streaming.

And since this is so, although nevertheless we prohibit pouring two seah, we do not decree not to pour into a drainage pit that holds one seah, lest he pour two seah.

Abaye said: Therefore—

since you yourself admit that there is nothing to be concerned about—it is truly permitted to pour in the winter

even a kor and even two kor,

even without any drainage pit at all.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise, two balconies, one opposite the other,

some of whose residents made a drainage pit and some of whose residents did not make a drainage pit: those who made a drainage pit are permitted; those who did not make a drainage pit are forbidden:

Rava said:

Do not say that the Mishna deals with a shared courtyard that was not joined by an eruv for the residents of the two balconies, and that the reason for the prohibition is lest those who did not make a drainage pit carry the water from their houses into the courtyard [as we explain in the conclusion of the Gemara, and there it will be explained further].

Rather, the Mishna deals

even when they made an eruv

for the courtyard, and even so they are forbidden.

He

wondered about it,

Abaye:

If they made an eruv—

what is the reason

that it should be forbidden?!

If you say, because the water is abundant

[that the water of the residents of the two balconies is more than the two seah held by the drainage pit, and therefore it is forbidden],

that cannot be said.

For

it was taught

that we are not particular in such a case:

For it was taught:

It is the same for me

that it is permitted to pour if they made a

drainage pit, and it is the same for me

if they placed in the courtyard

a gistera

[half of an earthenware vessel] that holds two seah, or a

pool

[a wide ditch],

or a trough

[a small boat].

And

even though they became filled—

one of all those mentioned—

with water before Shabbat—

they may pour water into them on Shabbat.

Since according to Torah law there is no prohibition except when he pours directly into the public domain; the Sages merely enacted a drainage pit as a reminder of Shabbat, so that he would not forget and throw them directly into the public domain.

Rather, if it was stated thus, it was stated thus: