Commento su 'Eruvin 8:13

כיצד. לכל מי שילך לבית האבל וכו' – that these are matters [pertaining to] a Mitzvah, and we hold that one does not make a joining of borders/עירובי תחומין other than for a Mitzvah.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with how one can set up a collective Shabbat border limit eruv, meaning an eruv that will allow many people to extend their Shabbat border limit by 2000 cubits to one direction.

וכל מי שקבל עליו – to rely upon this Eruv, it is permitted.

How does one effect participation in connection with Shabbat limits? One sets down a jar and says, “Behold this is for all the inhabitants of my town, for anyone who may desire to go to a house of mourning or to a house of feasting”. Any one who accepted [the eruv] while it was still day is permitted [to enjoy its benefits] but if one did it after dusk he is forbidden, since they do not set up an eruv after dusk. The language of this mishnah is parallel to that of 7:6 above, which discussed alley partnerships. Again, a person takes a jar of food and brings it to wherever he wants to establish his “Shabbat resting place”. It is from this place that his 2000 cubit radius will be counted. He announces that this eruv will count for anyone who wishes to make use of it. However, unlike alley partnership eruvin, Shabbat border eruvin require the person to accept the eruv actively. This is because by accepting the extension on one side of town, he loses on the other side of town. The person must accept the eruv before Shabbat begins, since this is the determinative moment for the establishment of eruvin. He cannot accept the eruv after Shabbat has already begun. Note that the mishnah mentions two common reasons why one would set up a border eruv to pay a shivah call or to visit a house of feasting, a place where a wedding was being celebrated (a wedding which took place before Shabbat). The reason why the mishnah mentioned these examples is that the mishnah holds that one can set up a border eruv only in order to attend to a mitzvah.

ומשחשיכה אסור – and these words [apply] when they didn’t inform him while it was still daylight [on Friday before Shabbat], but if he informed him while it was still daylight [on Friday], even if he hadn’t accepted upon himself to rely upon this Eruv for certain, other than once it became dark, it is permitted.

מזון שתי סעודות לכל אחד – because he acquires his Sabbath camp/place to be the center of Sabbath movements there, he needs to leave there some food that he needs for Shabbat.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the minimum measure of food which is need for a Shabbat border eruv.

אלו ואלו מתכוונים להקל – Rabbi Meir holds that on Shabbat a person eats more because it is the basis of his cooking (which is why he preferred as his standard the food that he consumes on a weekday). But Rabbi Yehuda holds that since on Shabbat he eats three meals, he doesn’t eat a great deal at each meal, but the two meals of a weekday is more than two meals of the Sabbath [day].

What is the minimum measure [for Shabbat border eruvin]?
Food for two meals for each person, for weekdays and not for Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: for Shabbat and not for weekdays. And both intended to give a leniency. According to Rabbi Meir, the eruv must consist of enough food for two weekday meals. Rabbi Judah says the food should be enough for Shabbat meals and not weekday meals. Seemingly we would think that a person eats more on Shabbat than during the week, so Rabbi Judah would be stricter than Rabbi Meir. However, the mishnah says that both intended to be lenient. In order to understand this, we need to explain that the eruv’s minimum measurement was set according to the amount of bread eaten at a typical meal. According to Rabbi Meir, on Shabbat one eats a lot of different types of food and a lot of bread to accompany the food. Therefore, on Shabbat one eats more, and the minimum amount of food for the eruv is set according to the bread eaten during the week, a lesser amount. According to Rabbi Judah, since on Shabbat there are many side dishes a person eats less bread than he would during the week when there are less side dishes. Therefore, Rabbi Judah sets the minimum amount of bread for the eruv according to what one eats on Shabbat.

ככר בפונדיון – a loaf that is purchased for a Pundiyon (equal to 16 perutot/pennies or 2 Issar) – when they sell four S’ah of wheat to a Sela, and four S’ah are twenty-four Kabin, and the Sela is twenty-four M’ah, it is found that it is a Kab for each M’ah and the M’ah is two Pundiyon, behold that a loaf that is sold in the marketplace for a Pundiyon which is one-half of a Kab, and the storekeeper buys half for the cost of the baking and the milling, it is found that the loaf that is purchased from the storekeeper for a Pundiyon is one-quarter of a Kab which is six eggs, for the Kab is twenty-four eggs in volume, and they are the measurement of two meals of the Eruv according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Berokah. And the Halakha is according to him.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pondium when the price of wheat is four se’ah for a sela. Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka gives a minimum amount of bread that must be used for the eruv. This amount of bread is what is sufficient for two meals. It is the size of a loaf that can be bought for one pundion (a coin) when 4 se’ah (24 kav, a measure of volume) of wheat are sold for a sela (a coin worth 48 pundion). If we do the math, we can see that a kav of wheat is bought for two pundionim, meaning that one pundion will buy half a kav of wheat, which according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka is sufficient for two meals.

רבי שמעון – [he] reduces the requisite measure and states that it is enough to make an Eruv with two-thirds of a loaf of the size of three loaves to the Kab. And a complete loaf [of bread] of eight eggs is one-third of a Kab. But two-thirds of it which are five eggs and more (i.e., one-third) is for two meals.

Rabbi Shimon says: two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made from a kav [of wheat]. Half of this loaf is the size prescribed for a leprous house, and half of its half is the size that disqualifies one’s body [from eating terumah]. According to Rabbi Shimon, two meals are equivalent to two-thirds of a loaf when three loaves are made from a kav of wheat. A loaf is therefore 1/3 of a kav and 2/3 of a loaf is two meals. This is a smaller amount than that set by Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroka. Rabbi Shimon now mentions two other halakhot which are connected to the size of a loaf of bread he mentioned above. Half of this loaf, meaning 1/6 of a kav is related to the laws of an infected (leprous house). One who stays in the house long enough to eat a loaf of bread of this size is impure. Half of this, meaning 1/12 of a kav is relevant to disqualifying someone from eating terumah. This means that a person who eats 1/12 of a kav of impure food cannot eat terumah until he immerses in a mikveh.

חציה לבית המנוגע – this [section] is an anonymous Mishnah, and this is what he said: Half of a full loaf [of bread] that they estimated/measured whether according to the one (Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka) or the other (Rabbi Shimon), is the measurement for a delay/pause in a leprous house, for a person who enters into a house where there is within it the plague of leprosy, even though becomes immediately ritually defiled, he does not require the washing of his clothes until he waits in order to eat, and this half-loaf [of bread] is in order that he can eat. But for Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka who stated that a full loaf which is a quarter of a Kab – being the volume of six eggs, it is found that half of that is three eggs, and it this is a piece/certain quantity of bread [or half a loaf] (see Tractate Negaim, Chapter 13, Mishnah 9), that is in the entire Talmud. But for Rabbi Shimon who stated that a full loaf [of bread] is one-third of a Kab, which is eight eggs, that half is four eggs, and this is a piece of bread/half a loaf in all of the Talmud according to Rabbi Shimon. But even though that Rabbi Shimon holds that in a full loaf [of bread] are three meals, for the two-thirds that Rabbi Shimon mentions – is for two meals, these words concern an Eruv that they intended for it, to be lenient, and there is no need for two complete meals. But in all the rest of the places, Rabbi Shimon thinks that a meal is not less than one-half of a loaf of one-third of a Kab, and we require that he wait/delay [the time it takes] in order that he can eat this half-loaf which is four eggs.

חצי חציה לפסול את הגויה – that the person who consumes impure foods equivalent to one-half of a piece of bread, his body is defiled according to the Rabbis from eating heave-offering/Terumah (if he is a Kohen). And half of a piece of bread is an egg-and-a-half [in volume] according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and two eggs [in volume] according to Rabbi Shimon.

מרפסת (porch/gallery) – a high place in the courtyard of the house and many openings of upper chambers are open to it and everyone descends on one ladder to the courtyard and from it into the public domain, but even though they are not forbidden, for since the gallery/porch is ten [handbreadths] high, as long as the people/members of the gallery will make an Eruv for themselves on the gallery/porch that there will be foot-traffic that is permissible in its place, and doesn’t prohibit (other than in its own place – see Tractate Eruvin, Chapter 6, Mishnayot 9-10).

Introduction This mishnah goes back to discussing courtyard eruvin.

ששכחו ולא עירבו – these (i.e., the people of the courtyard) with those (i.e., the people of the gallery/porch). But, each [group] made their own Eruv (i.e., one for the people of the courtyard and another for the people of the gallery) for themselves.

If the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants of its gallery forgot and did not participate [together] in the eruv, anything that is higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the [residents of the] gallery, and anything lower belongs to the [residents of the] courtyard. The “gallery” is like a porch off the second floor of a building. It is open to the building and it has steps that lead down to the courtyard. The tenants of the lower floor and those of the upper floor forgot to jointly set up the eruv so that the people from the upper floor could carry in the courtyard. Rather each set of residents set up their own eruv. The mishnah rules that anything that is in the courtyard that is above ten handbreadths is considered to be in the domain of the people who live on the upper floor, and they may use it and anything on it, and carry while in those areas. Those of the lower floor may use only that which is lower than ten handbreadths. In other words, we divide the domain at ten handbreadths high anything above belongs to the upper eruv and anything below belongs to the lower eruv. The reason is that above ten handbreadths is easier for those on the upper floor to use, while things below are easier for those on the lower floor to use.

כל שגבוה י' – if there is a mound/hill or a pillar that is ten [handbreadths] high near the gallery and the gallery is not ten [handbreadths] higher than the pillar, for the usage of the of the pillar is satisfactory to those in the gallery, the domain of the gallery reigns over it and they use it and not those who are in the courtyard.

The rim around a cistern, or a rock, if they are ten handbreadths high they belong to the gallery but if lower than they belong to the courtyard. They used to build a rim of earth around a cistern to serve as the cistern’s railing so people wouldn’t fall in. If this rim, or any rock in the courtyard is higher than ten handbreadths high, then it belongs to the residents of the gallery. If it is lower than that, then only the residents of the courtyard may use it. The mishnah mentions these because they are normal examples of things found in a courtyard that may be more than ten handbreadths high.

פחות מכאן לחצר – it is stated even to the courtyard, that two domains have power there – the gallery and the courtyard, but if they did not make an Eruv one with the other, both are forbidden to use it.

To what does this apply? To one that is adjacent to the gallery, but one that is distanced from it, even if ten handbreadths high, belongs to the courtyard. And what is regarded as adjacent? One that is not further than four handbreadths. The previous rule only applies to things that are adjacent to the gallery. If they are within four handbreadths, then the people who live on the upper floor can reach over and use these areas. However, if they are farther away, then even something above ten handbreadths can be used only by the residents of the courtyard.

חולית הבור (the entrenchment around the well – increasing its capacity – see Tractate Eruvin 78a) – the rim of the cistern of above, if it is ten [handbreadths] taller from the courtyard, the domain of the gallery reigns over it. But this is so if the cistern will be filled until its upper rim from things that are forbidden to carry them in the Sabbath, so that now, it is impossible that it will lessen from its height, which is similar to a rock that is not missing, for behold, it is equivalent to the bottom of the gallery. But if the cistern is not full or even if is full from things that it is possible to take from them on Shabbat and to lessen it, since by lessening it, it makes it forbidden, but if he doesn’t lessen it, it is also forbidden, for if they didn’t make an Eruv of the gallery and the courtyard with each other, both are forbidden to it.

אפי' גבוהה עשרה טפחים לחצר – even to the courtyard, like to the gallery, and both are forbidden to use if they did not make an Eruv with each other.

הנותן עירובו – the joining of courtyards.

Introduction This mishnah discusses the status of certain structures within a courtyard. As we shall learn, only places that are considered to be “dwelling places” are considered in dealing with various laws of eruvin.

בבית השער – a place adjacent to the gate of the courtyard and they customarily place there a guard so that people from the public domain should not enter into the courtyard.

If one put his eruv in a gate-house, a portico or a gallery it is not a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it does not prohibit [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. The gate-house is a hut in the courtyard in which the guard sits. The “portico” is an open but covered area in front of the house. Pillars hold the roof up. The gallery was explained in yesterday’s mishnah. Since these are not dwelling places, one cannot put the eruv (the meal) in them. The eruv must be put in a place that is considered to be a place of dwelling. Furthermore, since these are not normal dwelling places if a person does dwell there and does not participate in the eruv, he doesn’t prohibit the other people of the courtyard from using the eruv, as would a resident in a normal dwelling place who did not participate in the eruv.

והדר שם – [the person who lives there] in the gate house that is in the courtyard, does not prohibit upon an owner in the courtyard and he doesn’t have to place bread [there], for it is not a living space.

[If one put his eruv] in a straw-shed, a cattle-shed, a wood-shed or storehouse it is a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it prohibits [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. Rabbi Judah says: if the householder has there any ownership the resident does not prohibit. In contrast, the straw-shed, cattle-shed, wood-shed and storehouse are considered to be dwelling places and therefore an eruv which is put there is valid. Since these are considered living places, if someone who dwells there does not participate in the eruv, he renders the eruv ineffective and prohibits the other residents of the courtyard from carrying there. Rabbi Judah refines the previous halakhah and says that if the householder owns rights to one of the sheds, the fact that the person who dwells there doesn’t participate in the eruv does not render it invalid. Even if the homeowner only has the right to use the shed, without actually owning the shed at all, the shed-dweller’s ownership is not considered complete. Only if the person who dwells in the shed fully owns it and the homeowner has no rights to it, then the shed-dweller renders the eruv ineffective if he doesn’t participate.

והדר שם אוסר עליו (a person who lives [in a shed for straw, cattle, wood or storage] who does not share in the Eruv -does prohibit him [from carrying in the courtyard]) – if the houseowner lent out his straw shed to dwell there, he prohibits him [from carrying] – since it is open to the courtyard.

אם יש שם תפיסת יד של בעל הבית (right of storage) – that the house owner has a place in the dwelling in this (i.e., right of storage in, for example, the shed for straw), that he places there his utensils to hide them, it doesn’t forbid him [from carrying objects in the courtyard] , and especially when there aren’t other dwellers there, but if there are other dwellers there, it forbids him; you can also deduce it as it is taught [in the Mishnah] that it does not prohibit him [if he lives in the gatehouse, portico or gallery] – upon him it does not prohibit, but not upon other dwellers it does prohibit, and even though the owner of the house made an Eruv with them. But if these utensils that the owner of the house places there are things that are taken on Shabbat, this is not the right of storage and it prohibits him (i.e., the tenant), but if he wishes, he can take them and cast them outside. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

הרי זה אוסר – that a dwelling without owners is called a dwelling.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a resident of a courtyard who does not spend Shabbat in his own home. The question is, if he doesn’t participate in the eruv, does he render it ineffective for the other residents?

אינו אוסר – because it is not called a dwelling.

One who leaves his house and goes to spend Shabbat in another town, whether he was a Gentile or an Israelite, he prohibits [the other residents from using the eruv], the words of Rabbi Meir. According to Rabbi Meir, although the person is not present, the very fact that he owns a home in the courtyard and that home does not participate in the eruv, means that the entire eruv is ineffective.

ר' יוסי – [Rabbi Yossi] holds that it is not called a dwelling, however, a heathen prohibits, lest he return/come home on the Sabbath. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Judah says: he does not prohibit. Rabbi Judah diametrically opposes Rabbi Meir. He holds that when a person is not present in his home, his lack of participation does not prohibit others from using the eruv. When he is not there he is not considered one of the owner’s of the courtyard and therefore he need not participate.

אצל בתו – especially his daughter, for a person acts [in such a way] that he lives with his father-in-law, but one’s son, a person does not dismiss from mind his [own] house (i.e., to go back home) to dwell with his son, for perhaps his daughter-in-law will quarrel with him and he will leave. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yose says: a Gentile prohibits but an Israelite does not prohibit because it is not usual for an Israelite to return on Shabbat. Rabbi Yose agrees with Rabbi Judah that if he doesn’t dwell in the courtyard he doesn’t count as one of the courtyard’s residents, at least as long as he’s not there. However, since a Gentile may return on Shabbat, he does render the eruv ineffective. In contrast, a Jew will not be likely to return on Shabbat and hence does not render the eruv ineffective.

Rabbi Shimon says: even if he left his house and went to spend Shabbat with his daughter in the same town he does not prohibit, since he turned his attention away. Rabbi Yose implied that if the Jew was likely to return on Shabbat, his lack of participation might indeed render the eruv ineffective. Rabbi Shimon goes a step further. Even if the Jew is spending Shabbat in a nearby courtyard within the same town, and therefore might return, the fact that he is not actually there means that he doesn’t render the eruv ineffective. Since he turned his attention away from his own courtyard and decided to spend Shabbat elsewhere, we don’t treat his courtyard as if he is actually there.

בור שבין שתי חצרות – half of it (i.e., the cistern) in this one (i.e., courtyard) and half of it in that onel we don’t fill from it [on Shabbat], for this one (i.e., courtyard) fills from the domain of his neighbor and prohibits it if the courtyards did not make an Eruv between each other.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a cistern situated between two courtyards, when the two courtyards have set up separate eruvin. In other words, the wall that separates the courtyard goes over the well, leaving half the cistern on one side and half on the other. The mishnah teaches how they can set up the cistern so that people from both courtyards can draw water from it on Shabbat.

בין מלמעלה – that there were ten handbreadths of the partition above from the water and one handbreadth sunk in the water.

A cistern between two courtyards they do not fill up from it on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high, whether above, below or from its rim. Without a partition, it is forbidden for residents of either courtyard to draw from the cistern, since it belongs partly to other people, since half of the cistern is in other people’s domains. The only way that both sides can use the cistern is if they make a special partition, more than just the wall that separates the two courtyards. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, it doesn’t matter whether or not the partition is above or below the water, it is effective. In the Talmud, Rav Judah explains that “below the water” means that most of the partition is below the water, whereas “above the water” means that most of the partition is above the water, but there is at least some partition, at least one handbreadth, in the water.

בין למטה – that there were nine handbreadths sunk within the water and one handbreadth that appeared above it.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: Bet Shammai say: below, And Bet Hillel say: above. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, this question was debated by Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai. Bet Shammai holds that the partition must be below the water, a more stringent position. The partition must actually divide the water between the two courtyards so that the residents of different courtyards are not really sharing any of the water. In contrast, Bet Hillel is lenient and allows the partition to be above or below the water. The anonymous opinion in section one was according to Bet Hillel.

בין מתוך אוגנו (whether within its rim) – even though its partition does not touch the water, the general principle is a leniency that the Sages were lenient with the water that they said, “imagine that its partition continued downward” (see Tractate Eruvin 87a), as long as it would be within the rim of the cistern that it would appear like an interruption.

Rabbi Judah said: the partition could not be more effective than the wall between the two courtyards. According to Rabbi Judah, the wall that separates the two courtyards is sufficient in and of itself to allow the residents of both courtyards to draw from the cistern. The wall which is above the cistern is fictionally drawn down through the cistern and is considered as if it divides the cistern in half, even if in reality it does not.

מן הכותל שביניהם – that interrupts between the courtyards and interrupts oer the face of the cistern and even on it the mouth that does not enter into the rim. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

אמת המים – even in the private domain, it is a Karmelit (i.e., an intermediate domain between a private domain and a public domain, established by the Sages. The Sages extended the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain or carerying within the public domain to include certain areas which resemble a public domain. Any open area larger than four square handbreadths that is not a public thoroughfare is in the category of a Karmelit, i.e., fields, seas, rivers, alleyways and lanes. On Shabbat it is prohibited to caerry four cubits within a karmelit or to transfer from a private or public domain to a karmelit and vice versa).

Introduction This mishnah deals with drawing water from a water-channel that goes through a courtyard.

עשו לה מחיצה – with the rim over the face of its width which is recognized that it was made for the water.

A water channel that passes through a courtyard they do not draw water from there on Shabbat unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high at its entrance and exit. The water channel is at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep, and therefore it is a separate domain, one that is called a “karmelit”. Since the courtyard is a private domain, it is forbidden to draw water from the “karmelit” on Shabbat. In order to allow drawing water from it, they need to make a special partition above or below it, as we learned concerning the cistern in yesterday’s mishnah. In this case, they must make the partition both at the channel’s entrance and the channel’s exit.

מעשה באמה של אבל – the name of a city, that would pass within the courtyards and they would fill from it in the courtyards for the partitions of the wall of the courtyard that were suspended upon it were beneficial. Bug Rabbi Yehuda, according to his reasoning who argued also regarding a cistern, but the Halakha is not according to him.

Rabbi Judah says: the wall above it may be regarded as a partition. As he did in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Judah holds that the courtyard wall, which goes over the channel, is sufficient to allow drawing from it on Shabbat.

שלא היה בה שיעור – A Karmelit, that was not ten [handbreadths] deep or was not four [handbreadths] wide, where the waters are not made into a domain into themselves to be considered a Karmelit unless it is ten [handbreadths] deep and four [handbreadths] wide. If they made it at the entrance but not at the exit, it does not benefit at all, for it connected to the water that is outside of the courtyard in its departure, and it all becomes a Karmelit; [but, if they made it – (i.e., the partition) at the exit but not at the entrance it also does not benefit, for it is connected to the water that is above outside of this courtyard. But if they made it at its entrance and at its exit, it benefits, that it appears] as if they begin in this courtyard.

Rabbi Judah said: it happened with the water-channel of Avel that they would draw water was from it on Shabbat on the authority of the elders. They said to him: because it was not of the prescribed size. Rabbi Judah relates a story that took place in Avel (a town in the Lower Galilee) where people drew from the channel on Shabbat, and the elders who were in the courtyard allowed it to happen. The Sages respond that the reason that the elders allowed people to draw from this channel was that it was not four handbreadths wide and ten deep. In such a case it is not its own domain, but rather it takes on the status of the domain in which it is situation. Therefore, everyone agrees that the residents of the courtyard can draw from it. Thee elders of Avel did not permit the drawing of the water because of the wall, as Rabbi Judah believed.

גזוזטרא (balcony)- it is similar to board/plank or a place of its source that juts out from the private domain and protrudes over the water.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with drawing water on Shabbat.

אא"כ עשו מחיצה – all around he balcony or around the perforation four [handbreadths] by four [handbreadths] that is hollowed out in its idle, for we state “imagine that the partition continued downward (see again Talmud Eruvin 87a).

A balcony that was situated above the water, they do not draw water from there on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high either above or below [the water]. The mishnah is dealing with a balcony which is situated over a stream that runs below it. There is a hole in the floor of the balcony from which they normally draw water. The mishnah says that they cannot draw water because the stream is a “karmelit” (a domain which is neither public nor private) and the balcony is a private domain. However, if they made a partition which surrounds the balcony and the stream they may draw water from the stream because we consider the water to be within the private domain of the balcony. The partition needs to be ten handbreadths high to be a valid partition, but it may be either above or below the water. Others explain that the partition is either hanging below the floor of the balcony or is on the balcony itself, around the hole in the floor.

בין מלמעלה – above from the the perforation of the balcony.

So also two balconies, one on top of the other. In this case there are two balconies, one above the other, and below the lower one is the stream, from which they draw water through a hole in the floor. If they wish to draw water on Shabbat, they must make a partition for both the upper and lower balconies.

בין מלמטה – attached to the balcony from below it But Maimonides explained that from below on he water corresponding to the perforation of the balcony, as we stated, “imagine that the partition continued upward [prolonged to reach the ceiling” (Talmud Eruvin 89a and Sukkah 4b), as if the partition reached to the perforation that is in the balcony that we fill [water] from it.

If they made [a partition] for the upper one but not for the lower one, they are both prohibited until they make an eruv. If they made a partition for the upper balcony but not for the lower balcony, neither may draw water. This is because the people from the upper balcony draw their water through the lower balcony, which does not have a partition. The same would be true if they set up a partition for the lower balcony, but not for the upper balcony. Since the people of the upper balcony have usage rights to the hole in the floor of the lower balcony, their lack of a partition prohibits those of the lower balcony from drawing as well. However, all of these prohibitions refer only to a case where they didn’t set up a joint eruv. If they set up a joint eruv, then it is all one domain and they may all draw water.

זו למעלה מזו – and the perforation that we fill fro at the top is directed opposite the lower perforation.

עשו לעליונה – that the members of he lower area made a partnership with those who lived in the upper area to make a partition in the upper area, but not in the lower area.

שתיהן אסורות עד שיערבו – for since those who dwelled below are partners in this partition of the upper level, it forbids them. But if they made [a partition] for the lower section, but not make one for the upper area, even though for the upper area there was no partnership in the partition of the lower area, both of them are prohibited. The upper area is prohibited for they have no partition, and the lower araa, even that there is a path to the upper area through it, for it too fills waer from there, it forbids it until they make an Eruv with it. But these words, that the two balconies are removed from each other when it is ten handbreadths high or more between one and the other, but if both of them are within ten [handbreadths] even if both of them made a partition, they will alwas forbid one on the other until they make an Eruv.

אין שופכין לתוכה מים בשבת – that in the four cubits, the water that a person is used to using on each day is absorbed there in their place, and doesn’t go out into the public thoroughfare, but less than four cubits, the waters are not absorbed in their place and go out to the public thoroughfare.

Introduction Whereas the previous mishnayot dealt with drawing water from cisterns or streams, today’s mishnah deals with pouring out water inside a courtyard. The problem is that this may be considered taking something from the private domain and moving it to the public domain. Our mishnah deals with when this is considered a problem and when it is not.

עוקה – hole.

A courtyard which is less than four cubits: they may not pour out water in it on Shabbat unless they made a trough holding two se’ah from its drainage point downwards, regardless of whether [the trough] was outside or inside, except that if it was outside it is necessary to cover it and if it inside it is not necessary to cover it. In a courtyard which is larger than four square cubits, the sages allowed one to pour out water because they assumed that the water would be absorbed in the ground and would not make it out to the public domain. Even if the water should escape to the public domain, since the person didn’t intend to pour water from a private to a public domain, he has not transgressed any commandments. However, the sages prohibited pouring water out onto the ground in a courtyard smaller than four square cubits lest the water goes from the public to the private domain. He is allowed to pour water out onto the ground in a small courtyard if he makes a drainage trough to catch the water before it goes out to the public domain. The trough must be able to hold at least two se’ah of liquid (about 24 liters), which the sages estimated to be the average amount of water that a person would use in day. The drainage point was at the top of the trough, to allow overflowing liquid a way out. The mishnah teaches that the trough can either be in or outside the courtyard’s walls. Even though if it is outside the courtyard, it is in the public domain, it is still not considered part of the public domain. However, if he makes it outside, he must cover lest he make the trough four by four handbreadths wide and three handbreadths deep in which case it is a karmelit. It would be prohibited to pour water from a private domain (inside the courtyard) to a karmelit. If he covers it, it is no longer considered a karmelit. If he makes the trough inside the courtyard, like the courtyard, the trough is also a private domain and there is therefore no need to cover it.

מחזקת סאתים – because a person usually consumes two Seah of water a day (from the supply in the cistern – see Talmud Eruvin 88a).

מן הנקב ולמטה – so that the hollow of the hole supports two Seah prior to the water reaching the perforation that is on its rim that causes an uninterrupted flow into the public thoroughfare.

בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ – whether he made the hole in the courtyard or whether it was made in the public thoroughfare.

צריך לקמור – to make upon it a kind of arch covering from above in order that it is separated from the public thoroughfare.

ביב (pipe, canal) – a trench that is made in order that the water will cause an uninterrupted flow [when they pour] it in the courtyard to the public thoroughfare, and It is arched/covered over through four cubits to the public thoroughfare, for in four cubits there is a limit to absorb in them the two Seah of water that a person consumes on each day.

Introduction Our mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah, which dealt with the problem of pouring out waste water on Shabbat. Today’s mishnah deals with a person who is in a courtyard and wants to pour his waste water into a sewage drain which leads out to the public domain.

שופכין לתוכו – that the water terminates and does not go to the public thoroughfare (see Tractate Eruvin 88a-b).

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: a sewage drain which is covered over four cubits in the public domain, it is permitted to pour water into it on Shabbat. The person is in his courtyard and wants to pour water out into the sewage drain. If the drain is four cubits long in the public domain but is covered, then he may pour out the water, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. This is because an area four cubits long and four cubits wide is sufficient to absorb the average amount of water a person uses during the day. The covered drain has the same status as the courtyard itself, and therefore, it is as if the water remains in the courtyard. Even though the water will afterwards leave the covered part and go into the non-covered part of the drain, he is still allowed to do so because he initially put the water into the covered part.

לא ישפוך על פי הביב – for it is poured by a living person, it flows in an uninterrupted flow explicitly to the public thoroughfare, and a person who sees it states that they poured them near his exit to the public thoroughfare. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

But the Sages say: even where a roof or a courtyard was a hundred cubits in area, he may not pour water over the mouth of the drain, but he may pour upon the roof, and the water will flow into the drain. The Sages are more strict than Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and say that he should never pour water into a sewage drain, even if 100 cubits of it are covered by a roof or if he is 100 cubits from the exit to the public domain. The Talmud explains that this is prohibited lest people think that he is pouring directly into the public domain, and think that just as it is permitted to pour water from the private domain into the public domain, so too it is permitted to carry things from one domain to the other. However, the sages do allow one to pour water on a roof or on the ground in the courtyard, even though the water will then flow to the sewage drain, since this is more indirect.

מצטרפין לד' אמות – if there is in the courtyard with the covered place in front of the house that is four cubits by four cubits, they combine, and it is permitted to pour water into it and there is no need for a cavity/pit.

The courtyard and the portico combined to make up the four cubits. This section refers back to yesterday’s mishnah which taught that if the courtyard was smaller than four square cubits, it is forbidden to pour water out onto the ground unless there is a drainage trough. The mishnah now states that the portico (an area with columns supporting a roof) counts towards the size of the courtyard, so that if the two together add up to four cubits, one may pour out water there.

דיוטות upper compartments – opposite each other with a common yard between them.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with pouring out water. The situation is one in which two buildings are opposite from each other in a courtyard that is less than four cubits.

מקצתן – the members of the upper stories one opposite the other made a cavity in the courtyard and the members of the other did not do so.

So too in the case of two two-storied buildings this one opposite that one: if some of the tenants made a trough and others did not, those who made the trough are permitted to pour down their water, but those who did not make any trough are forbidden. The basic message of this mishnah is that every row of buildings needs its own drainage trough, whether or not people are living in all of the buildings. If there is only one trough, then only the side that made the trough can pour water out. The difficulty with this mishnah is determining whether or not they set up an eruv. If they set up an eruv together, then both sides should be permitted, and if they didn’t, then neither side should be. The Talmud explains that the mishnah relates to a case where they did not set up an eruv. Pouring out water into the drain is permitted even without an eruv, but the sages said that only the side that set up the eruv is allowed to do so lest the people from the other side take out their waste-water containers and carry them to the other side’s drainage ditches. Without an eruv carrying out these vessels would be prohibited. However, if the two sides set up an eruv, it matters not how many drainage ditches there are and all may pour there water out into even one ditch.

ואת שלא עשו עוקה אסורין – all the time that they didn’t make an Eruv. For if they permitted them to those through the cavity of the others, they would come to exclude the utensils/objects with those who pour from the houses and to lower them to the courtyard explicitly until the rim of the cavity with their feet. But they carry in the courtyard that they didn’t make an Eruv for.