Eruvin 88b (פח:) — the Talmud in English

But when the courtyard is

less than four

cubits by four cubits, being small and unsuitable for honorable use [Ritba], a person does not want to sprinkle the water there; rather, a person wants

to pour it

outside. With this intention, he pours it into the courtyard so that it will flow into the public domain, and when the water flows out, his intention 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 pit

that can hold two se’ah of his wastewater,

it is permitted.

If he did not

make a pit,

it is prohibited.

Rabbi Zeira said:

Since the measure of a person’s wastewater in one day is two se’ah, in a courtyard that is

four cubits wide, the water is absorbed

[before it spreads] to the extent of this quantity, and it does not become mud and mire. If it flows outside, his intention has not been fulfilled.

In a courtyard less than four cubits wide, the water is not absorbed

to such an extent.

And in order that it not become mud and mire, he wants it to flow outside, and his intention is fulfilled when it flows out; therefore, it is prohibited. We decree lest he throw an object initially from the private domain into the public domain.

What is the practical difference

between Rabba and Rabbi Zeira?

Abaye said: A courtyard that is

long and narrow

[longer than four cubits and narrower than four cubits in width], whose area is no more than sixteen square cubits [the area of a courtyard four cubits 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 it is not four cubits wide, it is not used for honorable purposes and he does not want to sprinkle the water there; and if he did not make a pit, it is prohibited.

But according to Rabbi Zeira, who holds that we require a courtyard suitable for absorbing two se’ah of water, even a long and narrow one suffices, since its area is that of a courtyard four cubits by four cubits.

And we raise an objection:

we learned

in our Mishna:

A courtyard and a portico combine to make four cubits

[making them equivalent to a courtyard that contains four cubits], which is exempt from requiring a pit.

And it entered our minds that “the portico is on one side, completing the courtyard to a measurement of two cubits by eight cubits or the like” [Ritba; see Rashi].

And since that is so, this is difficult:

Granted, according to Rabbi Zeira

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

it is understandable.

But according to Rabba

, who requires four cubits by four cubits in a square,

it is difficult!

Rabbi Zeira interpreted [A003?]

the Mishna

Rabbi Zeira

the Mishna

in accordance with Rabba

, his disputant, as referring

to a portico extending across the entire courtyard

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

Come and hear

a beraita in support of Rabba:

A courtyard that does not contain “four cubits by four cubits” does not

have water poured into it on Shabbat

, which indicates that a square is required.

And

granted, according to Rabba, it is understandable.

But according to Rabbi Zeira, it is difficult!

Rabbi Zeira could have said to you: Whose opinion is this

beraita?

It is the opinion of the Rabbis.

And

the first clause of our Mishna is the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

, whereas the latter clause

is his.

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 drainage channel in the public domain. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov it is permitted, whereas according to the Rabbis it is prohibited.

The basis of their dispute is as follows: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds in accordance with Rabbi Zeira’s reasoning, that it is permitted to pour water in a large courtyard when the water is capable of being absorbed without flowing outside. Therefore, it is permitted to pour water into a drainage channel whose dimensions are sufficient for the water to be absorbed.

But the Rabbis do not hold this reasoning. The reason that they permit pouring water into a courtyard that is four cubits by four cubits is specifically that it is suitable for sprinkling, in accordance with Rabba’s reasoning. This applies only in a courtyard; but when he pours the water into a drainage channel, he demonstrates that he does not want to sprinkle it there, and therefore it is prohibited. And we explain:

What compelled Rabbi Zeira

to say that the Mishna holds that even in a courtyard that is not four cubits square it is permitted to pour water without a pit, and thus to force the interpretation

and establish the

first clause of the

Mishna as the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

Let us say that the Mishna holds that four cubits in a square are required, and it is thereby properly explained in accordance with the Rabbis?

He

said—and explained it—

Rava

: The wording of the

Mishna was difficult for Rabbi Zeira

, and compelled him to take this strained position!

For

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

, which implies that its measure is “short” of the measure of four cubits by four cubits?

Let it teach: A courtyard that “does not contain four cubits”

(by four cubits

—the Vilna Gaon deleted this; see Rashi), which would imply that it does not contain a square of four by four cubits, and that a long and narrow courtyard is insufficient?!

Rather, is it not evident

that even a long and narrow courtyard is sufficient? And the Mishna

is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

And we conclude:

Learn from it!

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

But since the latter clause

of the Mishna—concerning a drainage channel—

is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

, this implies that

the first clause is not the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

?!

And we answer:

The entire

Mishna

is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov!

But the Mishna is deficient, and this is what it teaches:

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

If

it contains the measure of

four cubits

by four cubits, even if they are not arranged in a square,

water may be poured

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

As Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: With regard to a covered drainage channel four cubits in the public domain, water may be poured into it on Shabbat!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: With regard to a covered drainage channel

four cubits in the public domain, one may pour water into it on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: Even if a roof or courtyard is one hundred cubits [long], one may not pour water onto the mouth of the drainage channel; however, he may pour it onto the roof, and the water descends into the drainage channel:

And we explain:

The Mishna

—which permits the Rabbis to pour water onto the roof, from which it spills into a drainage channel cut into the roof and from there into the public domain—

is not in accordance with Hanania!

As it was taught: Hanania says

: It is permitted to pour water into a courtyard, even though it falls from there into a drainage channel and from there into the public domain.

But with regard to a roof,

even

if the roof’s length was

one hundred cubits, one may not pour water onto it, because the roof

—which is smooth—

is made to cause water to flow

like a courtyard,

but to channel it

, and it falls forcefully into the public domain. People will say that he pours it near the public domain so that it will flow outside.

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

A tanna taught: In what circumstance does this statement apply

—that it is prohibited to pour water into a small courtyard when it has no pit—

during the summer

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

But during the rainy season, one may pour

into the courtyard,

and pour again

—he may continue pouring—

and he need not refrain!

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Rava said

: During the rainy season, when his field is soiled with mud and mire,

a person wants

—he does not mind—

for the water to be absorbed where it is

, and not to flow into the public domain. Since his intention was not fulfilled by the water flowing into the public domain—for he did not intend this—it is permitted.

He said

—expressing his astonishment—

Abaye said to him: But

even the

wastewater

poured into a drainage channel,

which a person wants to be absorbed

where it is, since he does not mind mud and mire there,

and

nevertheless

it is taught

in the Mishna, according to the Rabbis, that

he may not pour

into a drainage channel.

We see, then, that it is prohibited even in such a case?!

He said to him

Rava:

There

—that is, in a courtyard during the rainy season—

what concern is there?

If it is because of damage to his courtyard

, on account of which he wants the water to flow outside,

in this case

, during the rainy season,

it is already being damaged

, and he does not mind.

And if it is because of the decree lest people say, “So-and-so’s channel is pouring out water

on Shabbat”—as in the case where the Rabbis prohibit pouring into a drainage channel—

ordinary channels

during the rainy season

are pouring out water

, and therefore it is permitted. But with regard to a drainage channel, this decree is indeed applicable, and therefore it is prohibited.

Rav Naḥman said:

The statement in the beraita that during the rainy season one may pour water and pour again does not mean that a pit is unnecessary. Rather, this is what it means:

During the rainy season: If a pit holds two se’ah, one may give it two se’ah

; if a pit does not

hold

more than

one se’ah, one may give it

to pour there

one se’ah.

During the summer: If a pit holds two se’ah, one may give it two se’ah,

but if it holds

one se’ah, one may not give it anything at all!

That is to say: There is no difference between the summer and the rainy season except that during the summer, if the pit holds one se’ah, we do not say that he may pour one se’ah, pour again, and pour another se’ah; rather, it is entirely prohibited to pour. During the rainy season, we are lenient and permit him to pour one se’ah, pour again, and pour another se’ah.

This is what they said in the beraita: He may pour according to the measure of the pit, and pour again.

And we object:

During the summer as well,

when the pit

holds one se’ah—

let him give it

[let one give it]

one se’ah?!

And we answer:

It is a decree, lest he come to give it two se’ah,

the measure of all his wastewater.

And we object:

If so, during the rainy season as well, let us decree?!

And we answer:

There

[during the rainy season], in truth we should not have prohibited pouring even two se’ah there, for

what concern is there?

If

it is because he wants the water to flow outside

because of damage to

his courtyard, and they might come to permit pouring it directly into the public domain,

in this case, it is already being damaged

because of the rain.

And

if it is because of the decree lest people say, “So-and-so’s channel is pouring out water

on Shabbat,” then during the rainy season

ordinary channels are pouring out water. Therefore, although we nevertheless prohibit pouring two se’ah, we do not decree that one may not pour into a pit that holds one se’ah, lest he pour two se’ah.

. Therefore, although we nevertheless prohibit pouring two seahs, we do not decree that one may not pour into a pit that holds one seah, lest he pour two seahs.

Abaye said: Therefore

—since you yourself admit that there is no concern—during the rainy season it is truly permitted to pour

even a kor or even two kor

, even without a pit at all.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise, two balconies facing one another

: Some of their residents made a pit and some did not make a pit; those who made a pit are permitted, while those who did not make a pit are prohibited:

Rava said

: Do not say that the Mishna is discussing a case where the residents of the two balconies did not establish an eruv for the courtyard shared by them, and that the reason for the prohibition is that perhaps those who did not make a pit will carry the water from their homes into the courtyard [as is explained in the conclusion of the Gemara, where this will be clarified further].

Rather, the Mishna is discussing a case where they

even established an eruv

for the courtyard, and nevertheless they are prohibited.

He said

—expressing his astonishment—

Abaye

: If they established an eruv,

what is the reason

for prohibiting it?!

If you say it is because there is an abundance of water

[there is more water for the residents of the two balconies than the two se’ah that the pit can hold, and therefore it is prohibited],

that cannot be said.

For

it was taught

that we are not particular in such a case:

As it was taught:

It is the same for me

—it is permitted to pour water if they made a

pit, and it is the same for me

if they placed in the courtyard

a gistera

[half of a pottery vessel] that holds two se’ah, or a

pool

[a broad ditch],

or a trough

—a small boat [a small vessel].

And

even if they became filled

—one of all those mentioned—

with water before Shabbat

, they may pour water into them on Shabbat.

Since by Torah law there is no prohibition except when one pours directly into the public domain; the Sages instituted the pit only as a reminder of Shabbat, so that he would not forget and throw the water directly into the public domain.

Rather, if it was stated in this manner, it was stated as follows: