MISHNAH: How does one participate for domains? One puts down¹ an amphora and says, this is for all people of my town who intend to go to a house of mourning or to a wedding feast². Anybody who accepted when it still was daytime is permitted³ even though it was given for potentially everybody., after dark it is prohibited since one may not make an eruv after dark.

footnotes: ¹ At the place where he wants to extend the Sabbath domain. ² Or any public meritorious act. ³ It still needs a deliberate act by anybody who wants to use this eruv

HALAKHAH: “How does one participate for domains,” etc. One does not state “one transfers rights.³⁰” Why does one not state “one transfers rights”? Samuel said, there³¹ of domains no transfer of rights is necessary (Babli 80a). Probably in his eyes such a transfer would be impossible. For participation in an alley the persons to whom the rights are transferred form a well defined group: all dwellers in the alley. But for eruvin of domains the Mishnah requires a conscious act of joining the eruv; it cannot be known beforehand who is going to join and who won’t. we stated that “one transfers rights,” one has to transfer rights; but here, where we did not state “one transfers rights”, one does not have to transfer rights. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad maius. If there, where eruvin of courtyards are a rabbinic institution you are saying that one has to transfer rights, not so much more eruvin of domains which are words of the Torah³²? Rav follows Rebbi Joḥanan³³, (and)³⁴ Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to treat all domains equally³⁴.

footnotes: ³⁰ In Mishnah 7:6, about participation in an alley. ³¹ Mishnah 7:6. He holds that for eruvin ³² He holds that a transfer of rights “to whom it may concern” is required. This is not mentioned in the Mishnah since it is a logical consequence of Mishnah 7:6. ³³ In the Yerushalmi since is indicated only here; in the Babli 80a it is stated that Rav and Samuel disagree about the matter. ³⁴ The scribe wrote ומר “and said” which was corrected (probably wrongly) by the corrector into אמר “he said”. ³⁴ The scribe wrote ומר “and said” which was corrected (probably wrongly) by the corrector into אמר “he said”.

MISHNAH: What is its measure? Food for two meals for everybody, food for weekday but not the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says for Sabbath but not for weekday. Both of them intended to be lenient⁴. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, a loaf for a dupondius if four seah are a tetradrachma⁵ is half an obolus or one twelfth of a denarius (drachma). Therefore a dupondius is 1/48 of a tetradrachma (cf. Qiddušin 1:1, Note 100.) A qab is ⅙ of a se’ah (cf. Berkhot 3:4 Note 164) or 1/24 of 4 se’ah. The Halakhah states that the baker takes ⅓ from above (which is ½ from below) for his overhead and profit. Therefore R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa requires a loaf made from ²/3 of ½ (or ⅓) qab of flour.. Rebbi Simeon says, two thirds of a loaf if three are made from a qab⁶, 1/9 less than required by R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa.; half of this for the leprous house,⁷. 14:46 that anybody who enters a locked-down leprous house becomes impure immediately; v. 14:47 states that if somebody eats in the house even his garments become impure. This is interpreted rabbinically to mean that garments become impure if the wearer stays in the house the time needed for eating half a loaf of bread (Mishnah Nega`im 13:9). and half of this half bring impurity to a body⁸..

footnotes: ⁴ In R. Meïr’s practice, people eat more on the Sabbath because they have more time to eat and it is a festive occasion; in R. Jehudah’s practice people eat more on weekdays since they need the energy for work whereas on the Sabbath there is no exertion and, therefore, less hunger. ⁵ A dupondius ⁶ 2/9 of a qab ⁷ It is stated in Lev ⁸ If anybody eats the volume of a quarter loaf of impure food, he may not eat sanctified food unless he purify himself in a miqweh

HALAKHAH: Paragraph³⁶. Rebbi Meïr says, on a weekday, when he has nothing to eat, he eats little bread. On the Sabbath, when he has something to eat, he eats a lot of bread³⁷. Rebbi Jehudah says, on a weekday, when he has nothing to eat, he eats a lot of bread. On the Sabbath, when he has something to eat, he eats little bread³⁸.

footnotes: ³⁶ Discussion of Mishnah 2. ³⁷ R. Meïr states the rules for very poor people who have only a little bread for weekday meals and save all their money for a Sabbath meal. ³⁸ R. Jehudah states his rule similarly for people who have no additions to the bread on weekdays and therefore eat only bread, but on the Sabbath they have meat and vegetables and therefore eat little bread.

It was stated: Their words³⁹ are close one to another. Come and see: One makes a loaf [the volume of] twelve eggs⁴⁰ as that of 24 eggs; this makes the volume of a standard egg about 89cm³. The text of the Mishnah implies that a loaf of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa is half a qab and that of R. Simeon one third of a qab. These measures are far apart. Since a qab is 16 quartarii, this makes the quartarius, the standard volume (reviˋit) of a ritual cup, equal to the volume of 1½ eggs. This is not found in the Babli but is accepted by the Medieval authorities (Alfasi Pesaḥim §763). In the Babli (83a) a modius is estimated as volume of 217 eggs. Based on the data collected by F. Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie², Berlin 1882, the modius in question is either the Egyptian provincial of 11.8 1 or the Syrian large modius of 17.5 l. The Yerushalmi quartarius is the Roman measure (Mishnah Kelim 17:11) of 133.2 cm³, whereas 1½ Babli eggs, which according to Rav Nissim (ad 82b) define the Gaonic quartarius, are either 82 or 121 cm3., the other makes a loaf of eight, and you are saying so? Rav Huna said, deduct a third for expenses41.. ⁴² 8:6, Notes 77–78. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun gave to the bakers according to the statement of Rav Huna, but only for these measures⁴³.

footnotes: ³⁹ Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa and R. Simeon. Babli 82b. ⁴⁰ The Yerushalmi defines the volume of a qab ⁴² Peah ⁴³ For larger quantities, the price to be paid to miller and baker may be less and can be freely negotiated without being unfair to the baker.

MISHNAH: If people of a courtyard and those on a balcony forgot and did not make an eruv⁹ among themselves but not with the other dwellers in the same courtyard, they may carry on the common balcony but not in the courtyard., anything higher than ten hand-breadths belongs to the balcony, less than this to the courtyard. The enclosure of a cistern or a rock¹⁰ 11:2, Note 8. ten hand-breadths high belong to the balcony, less than this to the courtyard. When has this been said? If it is close. But if it is far away even if it is ten hand-breadths high it belongs to the courtyard. What is close? Any which is not four hand-breadths distant.

footnotes: ⁹ In a two-story, multi-party building where the stairs are on the outside and a balcony is built along the entire length of the house by which one has access to the different apartments on the upper floor. If the dwellers on the upper floor made an eruv ¹⁰ Cf. Mishnah Šabbat

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁴⁴. Is it not of the lower ones⁴⁵? Rebbi Yudan said, this implies that if Ruben’s ruin stands in Simeon’s domain and the latter uses it, it is as if it were his⁴⁶.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Discussion of Mishnah 4. ⁴⁵ Why should the top of a rock standing in the courtyard belong to the balcony’s domain while being in the courtyard which is the ground floor’s domain? ⁴⁶ For the laws of the Sabbath, not property rights are essential but right of undisturbed use and easy accessibility. It is presumed that Ruben does not live in the courtyard and does not use the space on the Sabbath.

The following is obvious. If both of them are by a door⁴⁷ there is space easily accessible by doors from each side., both of them are forbidden the house (in which are) [between]⁴⁸ two courtyards. For one of them by throwing and for one by lowering⁴⁹. Samuel says, lowering is permitted since it is ordinary but throwing is forbidden since it is not ordinary. Rav said, it did not do anything⁵⁰. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “anything higher than ten hand-breadths belongs to the balcony, less than this to the courtyard.” The Mishnah refers to the case that neither one uses by throwing nor by lowering; within three hand-breadths of the upper one which is more than ten hand-breadths from the lower one⁵¹. Where do Rav and Samuel disagree? If it is equal⁵².

footnotes: ⁴⁷ The entire paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 83b. Between two courtyards where the inhabitants did not make a common eruv ⁴⁸ The text reads בּוֹ “in it”; one should read בֵּין “in between”. ⁴⁹ There are no doors, only solid walls. One side has access only by throwing things over the wall; the other side has easy access to the top of its wall and may lower things into the intermediate space without exertion. ⁵⁰ Both sides are equally forbidden. ⁵¹ In the case of the Mishnah there is ease of use for the dwellers on the balcony but difficulty for the occupants of the courtyard. But if the top of the hill is more than 3 hand-breadths from the balcony the entire hill belongs to the courtyard even if access is easier from the top than from the bottom. ⁵² In the dispute between Samuel and Rav there is only difficult access; Rav follows the reasoning given in Note 46, Samuel considers difficult access as easy if it is of the kind frequently used on weekdays.

If there was a ruin there, Rebbi Joḥanan says, one gives the ruin to its owner⁵³. That is in case he uses the ruin through his door. If he uses the ruin through a window? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even in this case one gives the ruin to its owner⁵³.

footnotes: ⁵³ Even if the owner’s access is more difficult than that of the other side. ⁵³ Even if the owner’s access is more difficult than that of the other side.

Rebbi Eleazar (ben Rebbi Simeon)⁵⁴ ad 84b, col. 528). The tradent is R. Eleazar ben Pedat, one generation younger than Rav Hoshaia and three than R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. Babli 85a in the name of Rav. in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: If there were three; each one uses a ruin through his door and the middle [space] is forbidden⁵⁵ by itself, the ruins belong to the corresponding courtyards.. When is this? If the middle [space] belonged to both of them. But if the middle [space] belonged to a person from the market, one uses one [property] and the other one uses one [property] and a second one⁵⁶.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ The text in parenthesis has to be deleted with the quote by Rashba (Eruvin ⁵⁵ Parallel to the situation described in Note 52 there are two ruins, one adjacent to each courtyard, and an empty space in between. Since each courtyard made an eruv ⁵⁶ If the middle space belongs to an absent landowner who does not use it, the space is allocated to the person who actually uses it during the week; cf. Note 46.

⁵⁷ 11, Notes 59–63. Rebbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and the hollow combine together to four, but only if what is standing is more than the hollow⁶¹. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, only if what is standing on each side is more? Rebbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rebbi Zeˋira that what is standing on one side only does not combine; it is obvious for him that one side must be more. He only questions even the second standing part.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ This paragraph is from Šabbat ⁶¹ There is no hill but a cistern built above ground. If the cistern is covered it belongs to the courtyard since the dwellers on the balcony have to descend to the ground to remove the cover. But if there is a hole through which a pail can be lowered to draw water it belongs to the balcony if the other conditions are satisfied.

⁵⁸ Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the Mishnah is from three to four [hand-breadths]. Less than three even more than ten [cubits] is permitted, four even less than ten [cubits] is prohibited. Where do we hold? From three to four⁵⁹.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ The same text is in Chapter 1, Note 224. ⁵⁹ If the hill is within three hand-breadths of the balcony, it belongs to the balcony even if it is by ten hand-breadths higher than the balcony. If it is farther than 4 hand-breadths, it belongs to the courtyard irrespective of height since it can not be accessed directly from the balcony. The conditions of the Mishnah only apply if the distance from the balcony is between 3 and 4 hand-breadths.

If there is no cover; but if there is a cover it belongs to those on the ground floor. Rebbi []⁶⁰ said, is there is no hole there. But if there is a hole one uses it through the hole⁶¹.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ The name of an Amora is missing. ⁶¹ There is no hill but a cistern built above ground. If the cistern is covered it belongs to the courtyard since the dwellers on the balcony have to descend to the ground to remove the cover. But if there is a hole through which a pail can be lowered to draw water it belongs to the balcony if the other conditions are satisfied.

MISHNAH: If one deposits his eruv in a porter’s lodge¹¹, a porch¹², or a balcony, it is no eruv and any person who might dwell there does not forbid him. In a storage room for straw, in a cowshed, in a storage room for wood, or a general storage area, it is an eruv and any person who might dwell there does forbid him¹³ of courtyards. People occupying these premises are required to contribute to the eruv which otherwise would be incomplete and invalid.. Rebbi Jehusah says, if the householder retains rights of use he does not forbid him¹⁴; the renter is not obligated to contribute..

footnotes: ¹¹ A small room for the guard at the entrance to the courtyard. This and the following are not places built as dwellings. ¹² Greek ἐξέδρα, a covered walkway without walls. ¹³ Since these buildings are enclosed structures they may occasionally be rented out as apartments; therefore they are acceptable places for depositing an eruv ¹⁴ If the owner reserved for himself the right to occasionally use the building which he rented out as a dwelling, it remains his space and is included in his contribution to the eruv

HALAKHAH: New paragraph⁶². Rebbi⁶³ Jehudah in the name of Rav: This you only say referring to a porter’s lodge of a single family dwelling. But for the porter’s lodge of the many it is an eruv and he who dwells there forbids for you⁶⁴..

footnotes: ⁶² Discussion of Mishnah 4. ⁶³ Read: “Rav”. ⁶⁴ The moment that the porter’s lodge has to be occupied at all times it is to be assumed that the porter lives there; this turns the porter’s lodge into an apartment which has to participate in the eruv

The House of Rebbi Yannai are saying, even a peg to hang his shoes on⁶⁵ if the landlord has the right to enter at all times. It is enough that a peg be reserved for the landlord’s shoes.. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥinena said, even a metal plate⁶⁶ 85b read עֲשָׁשִׁית., even a table. Rav said, but only what may be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba said, it happened that a person had a chicken coop inside another person’s house, where he could enter without asking for permission. The case came before Rav who said, since he is obligated to give them water it is as if it could be moved on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob in the name of Samuel: The students of Rebbi Joḥanan ascended to Akhbara and relied on the statement of Rebbi Yannai. Ḥizqiah does not say so but: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Assi, and Rebbi Ammi⁶⁷ ascended to Akhbara and heard from the House of Rebbi Yannai that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ This paragraph discusses the statement of Rebbi Jehudah that the dweller in a rented apartment can be disregarded in matters of eruv ⁶⁶ With R. Ḥananel ad ⁶⁷ Babylonian spelling for the Babylonians R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, R. Yasa, and R. Immi, students of R. Joḥanan.

MISHNAH: If somebody leaves his house to stay in an other town for the Sabbath, whether he be Gentile of Jewish, he forbids¹⁵; the Gentile unless permission was bought from him., the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, a Gentile forbids but a Jew does not forbid since it is not Jewish to come on the Sabbath. Rebbi Simeon says, even if he left his house and went to keep the Sabbath at his daughter’s in the same town he does not forbid since already he does not think of it any more.

footnotes: ¹⁵ The Jew unless he contributes to the eruv

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁶⁸. This is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says, a locked house forbids⁶⁹. Could he not come by an eruv, or transgress and come⁷⁰? Mar Uqban in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi (Simeon) [Meïr]⁷¹ in general follows the most lenient opinion (Chapter 7, Note 110). S. Liebermann conjectures that the first sentence of the next paragraph still belongs to this Mishnah: “Mar Uqban in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon; the words of the rabbis disagree” (i. e., practice follows R. Meïr.).

footnotes: ⁶⁸ Discussion of Mishnaiot 5–6. ⁶⁹ Any house in the courtyard must contribute (or at least receive its share by a transfer of ownership) even if it is temporarily unoccupied. ⁷⁰ This contradicts R. Yose’s statement, that a Jew will not come to his house if he started the Sabbath at another place. ⁷¹ The scribe wrote “Simeon” (as stated in the Babli, 86a); the corrector changed it to “Meïr”. The correction makes sense; if practice followed R. Simeon it would not have to be mentioned since it already was stated that practice about eruvin

MISHNAH: From a cistern between two courtyards one may not draw water on the Sabbath¹⁶. unless one made for it a partition ten hand-breadths high, either below or inside its rim¹⁷. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, the House of Shammai say below but the House of Hillel say above¹⁸. Rebbi Jehudah says, a partition should not be more than the wall in between them¹⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Unless the two courtyards made a common eruv ¹⁷ Either in the water or at least inside the rim of the cistern even if it does not touch the water. ¹⁸ It even may be high above the rim of the cistern as long as its projection would split the water into two parts. ¹⁹ The walls are enough of a separation to let each party draw water on its side without additional partition.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁷². The words of the rabbis disagree⁷¹ in general follows the most lenient opinion (Chapter 7, Note 110). S. Liebermann conjectures that the first sentence of the next paragraph still belongs to this Mishnah: “Mar Uqban in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon; the words of the rabbis disagree” (i. e., practice follows R. Meïr.), as Rebbi Jacob⁷³ 86b, col. 533) reads: R. Jacob bar Idi. Instead of “to lower a pail” he reads: “the full size of a pail.” said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Only if the partition is lowered into the water to lower a pail⁷⁴. Do not two different domains use the same domain? They supposed to say that no pail moves more than four hand-breadths. Rebbi Tevelai in the name of Rav: The rules of a ruin do not apply to water⁷⁶. If there was a ceiling, one considers it as if it went down and locked⁷⁷. If there was a cross-beam⁷⁸, one considers it as if it went down and locked.

footnotes: ⁷² Discussion of Mishnah 7. ⁷¹ The scribe wrote “Simeon” (as stated in the Babli, 86a); the corrector changed it to “Meïr”. The correction makes sense; if practice followed R. Simeon it would not have to be mentioned since it already was stated that practice about eruvin ⁷³ Rashba (ad ⁷⁴ Since water is always moving, it is impossible to know which molecules will be where at a given time. The answer is that this is irrelevant; at the time the pail is lowered it will draw water only from the side of the cistern allocated to its part. Babli 86b. ⁷⁶ The restrictions imposed in the earlier Mishnaiot in this Chapter do not apply to water. Babli 86b. ⁷⁷ If part of the roof of the houses of one courtyard extends above the cistern it defines the domain allotted to this courtyard. ⁷⁸ Greek, cf. Chapter 1, Note 41.

The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted. There⁷⁹ 5:4. If a woman borrows baking ingredients on a holiday from another with a different eruv teḥumin, the resulting cake may be moved only in the domain common to both women. R. Jehudah instructs to disregard this rule concerning water. Why here does he require the existence of a wall? No answer is given. In the quote by R. Ḥananel (ad 87a), this paragraph is missing and the statement of R. Huna refers directly to that of R. Tevelai. he said, “Rebbi Jehudah does not apply this to water since it has no consistency.”

footnotes: ⁷⁹ Mishnah Beṣah

Rebbi Huna said, but the partition must extend into the hollow of the cistern⁸⁰.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ Even the House of Hillel require that a hanging partition has to extend into the hollow of the cistern.

MISHNAH: From a water canal²⁰ and not part of the courtyard. which crosses a courtyard one does not draw on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high at its entrance and exit. Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that from the water canal of Abel one was drawing water²¹ on the instruction of Elders on the Sabbath. They told him, because it did not have the measure²².

footnotes: ²⁰ Ten hand-breadths deep and four wide. In general this is a separate karmelit ²¹ Without separate partitions for every courtyard the canal is crossing. ²² Not 10 hand-breadths deep and 4 wide.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁸¹. The Mishnah if it is deep ten [hand-breadths] and wide four [hand-breadths]²⁰ and not part of the courtyard. and open on both sides. If it is open on one side one puts a beam or a lathe on that side⁸². If it is open on both sides one puts a beam or a lathe on one side and makes the shape of a door at the other. Do not two different domains use the same domain⁸³ domain in itself it would be impossible to make a common eruv for both sides of the street. This in itself should prevent anybody from drawing water on the Sabbath.? Explain it if there were houses on one side⁸⁴.

footnotes: ⁸¹ Discussion of Mishnah 8. ²⁰ Ten hand-breadths deep and four wide. In general this is a separate karmelit ⁸² As S. Liebermann points out, this cannot describe the situation of the Mishnah that a water canal runs through a private domain since beam and lathe are appropriate only for alleys. Therefore one has to assume that the canal at Abel was running in the alleys and the problem is to let the dwellers in an alley draw water on the Sabbath. ⁸³ If the canal is wide and deep enough to constitute a karmelit ⁸⁴ The objection is well taken. One has to assume that there were houses only on one side; the other side was bounded either by a solid wall or by uninhabited areas.

The following is obvious: If it is ten deep but not four wide one may move and fill⁸⁵ (Mishnah 7:3).. If it was four wide⁸⁶ but not ten deep it is obvious that one may move. May one fill? Rebbi Ḥinena said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, it is forbidden. Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Mana: “They told him, because it did not have the measure.” It was neither ten deep nor four wide⁸⁷. But if it had been ten deep but not four wide⁸⁸ have been ten deep but four wide. it would have been forbidden. Even if it is four wide but not ten deep it is permitted. The case happened as it happened⁸⁹.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ From a canal running through an alley. Any ditch which is not 4 hand-breadths wide at the surface does not interfere with eruvin ⁸⁶ This is implied by Mishnah 7:3. ⁸⁷ Babli 87a. ⁸⁸ It is obvious that one has to read: if it would not ⁸⁹ No logical derivations are possible for rules derived from actual happenings since there the conditions are not subject to adjustment.

MISHNAH: From a balcony above the sea one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high either above or below²³. Similarly, two balconies one on top of the other²⁴, if they made for the upper one but not for the lower one both are forbidden until they make an eruv.

footnotes: ²³ The house is on a lakeshore, the balcony is built over the lake, and there is a hole in the balcony through which a pail may be lowered to draw water. While obviously water is always moving and it cannot be asserted that water drops found under the balcony on the Sabbath were there at sundown, since the restriction is purely rabbinic it is enough that under the balcony one make a symbolic wall whose extension would enclose the water. ²⁴ Over the same water, with the holes in the balconies one directly on top of the other.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁹⁰. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water to lower a pail⁷⁴. Do not two different domains use the same domain⁹¹, how can the upper floor draw water through the domain of the lower balcony?? Rav Huna said, only if the partition be within three hand-breadths of the balcony⁹².

footnotes: ⁹⁰ Discussion of Mishnah 9. ⁷⁴ Since water is always moving, it is impossible to know which molecules will be where at a given time. The answer is that this is irrelevant; at the time the pail is lowered it will draw water only from the side of the cistern allocated to its part. Babli 86b. ⁹¹ This refers to the second case of the Mishnah, that two balconies are built over the sea, one on top of the other (S. Liebermann). Since the Mishnah states that they did not make a common eruv ⁹² The upper balcony can draw water only if it is wider than the lower one and the pail is lowered outside the lower balcony, more than 3 hand-breadths removed from it. Then the water is drawn in a domain unique to the upper balcony.

It was stated: ⁹³ Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia says, if a balcony protrudes over the sea, one opens the floor covering, lowers down, and fills. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Only if the hole is four hand-breadths long, and only if it is four hand-breadths wide, and if the walls are ten hand-breadths high⁹⁴. There⁹⁵ they are saying, even if the partitions are not ten hand-breadths high it is made like a funnel⁹⁶. Rebbi Idi said before Rebbi Ḥiyya: One is permitted to fill but forbidden to pour out⁹⁷. He said to him, when we will ordain Sages, we shall ordain you with them⁹⁸. Rebbi Mana said, he shouted⁹⁹ 8:6 (Note 230), R. Mana uses מְגָחֵךְ “made fun of”. This may be the intended word here also. at him. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, did he not say to him that one is permitted to fill, since he fills inside his partition, but forbidden to pour out, for he pours outside of his partition¹⁰⁰, such as the sea. As noted in the sequel, the sea intended is a lake.?

footnotes: ⁹³ A different version is in Babli, 97b. One should not explain the Yerushalmi on the basis of the different Babli version. ⁹⁴ If the enclosure of the balcony is 10 hand-breadths high it may serve as the required partition for the House of Hillel; then a hole up to 4-by-4 hand-breadths large can be made in the floor of the balcony to draw water. ⁹⁵ In Babylonia. ⁹⁶ The walls of the balcony together with the floor form an oversized funnel which is made to connect with the water below. This is enough of a distinction not to require walls ten cubits high. (The Babli 16a/b which requires the balcony to be a hammock is difficult to understand.) ⁹⁷ With a different interpretation, as Babylonian rule, in Babli 88a. ⁹⁸ This must be meant ironically since R. Idi already was ordained. The question is, is it ironic since the statement is obvious or is it a criticism because the statement is false? ⁹⁹ Arabic مجهر “shouting”. In a parallel expression Yebamot ¹⁰⁰ It certainly is rabbinically forbidden to pour water from a private domain directly into a karmelit

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia said it only for Lake Genezareth since mountains surround it¹⁰¹. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, if one threw from a circular road¹⁰² 9:2 (Note 81) פווסרוס ,פופסדס, Terumot 8:10 ,אפיפסרוס אפיפסרון (but this may be another word), Šeqalim 7:2 פיוסרוס. S. Liebermann identifies the word as πρόσοδος, ἡ, “access road”. This assumes that Roman roads in the East where built in the style of the great straight roads in Italy which passed by the walled cities, which had to be accessed by smaller roads branching off from the main road. But these access roads are not less frequented nor more difficult to use than the main road. E. Guggenheimer (Berakhot loc. cit.) reads περίοδος, ἡ, “way around, circuit, circular path”. into public domain or from public domain into it¹⁰³? He said to him, in your opinion a public domain does not exist. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no public domain unless it be open from one end of the world to the other. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted¹⁰⁴ since he said, there is no public domain in this world, only in the future as it is written¹⁰⁵. 40:4., every valley will be lifted. A Mishnah¹⁰⁶ 6:6. disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “What is a private domain? The paths of Bet-Gilgul¹⁰⁷. Private domain regarding the Sabbat¹⁰⁸. but public domain for impurity¹⁰⁹.”

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ A similar statement in the Babli 87b, but there the reason given is that the shore of the lake is everywhere private domain with no public access to the water except harbors which also are private installations for the rules of the Sabbath. The statement here, that a valley surrounded by mountains is never public domain, is not found elsewhere. ¹⁰² This word appears in many forms is the Yerushalmi: Berakhot ¹⁰³ The question of R. Eleazar is whether a circuitous road, of difficult use but public property and open for use by the public, nevertheless should be considered private property for the rules of the Sabbath. ¹⁰⁴ His first statement seems to imply that somewhere in the world there exists public domain. ¹⁰⁵ Is ¹⁰⁶ Taharot ¹⁰⁷ In the definition of the Babli (22b), any road on which the carrier of a load cannot run; according to Rashi because of an incline, according to Maimonides because of obstacles in the road. ¹⁰⁸ Not really private domain but karmelit ¹⁰⁹ A public domain for the rules of impurity, where cases of doubt may be disregarded, is any place accessible to the public, even if it is private property.

¹¹⁰ 1:9. Since the reference to the rules of Sukkah is formulated there differently from here, the texts in their second parts are different versions, rather than straight copies. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose said it only for Tabernacles¹¹¹ 1:10. The essence of a tabernacle is a temporary thatched roof, but it also needs at least three walls. According to the majority opinion the walls must start no more than 3 hand-breadths from the ground; R. Yose admits walls 10 hand-breadths wide hanging from the top., but in the matter of the Sabbath even Rebbi Yose agrees. The word of Rebbi Ḥanina implies that it is even for the Sabbath, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, a ruler came to Sepphoris and they suspended quilts¹¹²; Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose permitted carrying under them following his father’s argument. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina comes like Rebbi Ḥanania and both disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan’s argument, as Rebbi Joḥanan¹¹³ said, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Ḥanania bar Aqabia all three said the same. Rebbi Jehudah of the open bridges¹¹⁴, Rebbi Yose that of tabernacles, Rebbi Ḥanania ben Aqabia as it was stated¹¹⁵ 3, Notes 101–103; Babli 87b.: Rebbi Ḥanania permitted three things, he permitted a balcony, and seaweed¹¹⁶, and bringing bathtowels¹¹⁷ 22:5, Note 21..

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ A parallel text is Sukkah ¹¹¹ Mishnah Sukkah ¹¹² Sheets sewn together from rectangular pieces of cloth. ¹¹³ Obviously one has to read: R. Yose ben Ḥanina. ¹¹⁴ Mishnah 9:5, where R. Jehudah defines the space under a bridge as private domain if the underpinning of the bridge structure extends 10 hand-breadths below the roadway. ¹¹⁵ Šabbat ¹¹⁶ Reading עצה with the text in all parallel sources. ¹¹⁷ Šabbat

¹¹⁸ Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose¹¹⁹: This¹²⁰ may not draw water. you are saying if they are using the hole. But if they are using the outside it is permitted¹²¹. It was stated thus: If three balconies are one above the other¹²². it is forbidden to pass from the upper one to the lower one passing by the middle one, but one may pass from the courtyard to the roof without worry¹²³ one may not lower anything from the top to the bottom through the airspace belonging to third parties. But outside the house from roof to courtyard there is no problem even if the house has more than one floor and no eruv was made inside.. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac says, this¹²⁴ you mean from the inside but from the outside it is forbidden¹²⁵. If one refers the statement of R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac to R. Abbahu’s statement, one would have to read “permitted”. Since R. Ḥananel’s testimony makes emendation impossible, the statement has to refer even to a single balcony.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, both inside and outside are forbidden¹²⁶ and outside in all cases,. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Zeˋira¹²⁷: “One lowers a pot with meat from a ledge which is ten [hand-breadths] high and four wide¹²⁸. Since the ledge is outside the house, it contradicts both R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac and R. Zeˋira.. If a window of four hand-breadths was in between¹²⁹ it is forbidden since one does not pass from one domain to another through a [third] domain.” What does Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac do with this? He explains it (if captive) [if equal]¹³¹.

footnotes: ¹¹⁸ There exists a complete text of this difficult passage in the commentary of R. Ḥananel of Kairawan to the Babli, 88a. While this text obviously was written from memory and is influenced by Babylonian spelling, and the reproduction of the text in the Wilna Babli may give rise to some questions, it is a testimony predating the Leiden ms. by more than 250 years and shows that the emendations proposed by the standard commentaries have to be rejected summarily. ¹¹⁹ The version of R. Ḥananel, “R. Abba and R. Yose”, Amoraim of the last generation, is preferable to the Leiden text which quotes the third generation Amora R. Abbahu in the name of the fourth generation Tanna R. Yose (ben Ḥalafta), unless one wants to read “R. Yasa” in place of “R. Yose.” ¹²⁰ The statement of the Mishnah that if two balconies one above the other and both above the sea without eruv ¹²¹ He seems to disagree with Rav Huna (Note 92) that for the laws of the Sabbath the balcony extends 3 hand-breadths beyond its actual width but allows the upper balcony to draw water through an appropriate hole if it extends in any way further than the lower balcony. ¹²² Without common eruv ¹²³ In a multi-story house with a high atrium and several occupants without an eruv ¹²⁴ The statement of the Mishnah (Note 120). ¹²⁵ Even with an eruv ¹²⁶ In the case of two balconies, inside use is forbidden without an eruv ¹²⁷ Tosephta 8:4. ¹²⁸ This defines a domain by itself but since it is not inhabitable it does not require an eruv ¹²⁹ A window 4-by-4 wide and 4 deep is a domain by itself; the dish cannot be lowered through such a window. ¹³¹ Discussion of Mishnah 10.

MISHNAH: If a courtyard be less that four [by four] cubits one may not pour water in it on the Sabbath unless one make for it a sump containing two seah below the hole²⁵ (about 25 l) of the run-off. If later there is an overflow from this sink it is not directly the result of pouring out water and therefore one may pour out water in unlimited amounts., whether inside or outside; only that outside one has to cover but inside one does not have to cover²⁶. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one may pour water on the Sabbath into a sewer which is covered for four cubits in the public domain, but the Sages are saying, even from a roof or a courtyard 100 cubits [wide] one may not pour into the sewer²⁷ but one may pour onto the roof and it flows down into the sewer. Courtyard and porch combine for four cubits²⁸. Two rows of apartments²⁹., one opposite the other, one side made a sump, the other did not make a sump. Those who made a sump are permitted, those who did not make a sump are forbidden.

footnotes: ²⁵ Since the space is so small one has to assume that water poured into the courtyard will run off into the public domain. Then pouring the water may look as if one were pouring from a private into the public domain, which would look like a Sabbath violation. Therefore one requires that there be a sink absorbing 2 se’ah ²⁶ This makes the sink an extension of the courtyard; it no longer is counted as public domain. ²⁷ Since it looks like pouring into the public domain. ²⁸ If the sum of the areas is at least 16 square cubits nothing has to be excavated. ²⁹ Greek δίαιτα, ἡ. The two rows of houses share a common courtyard but no eruv

HALAKHAH: Paragraph¹³¹. They estimated (the place of)¹³² what a person uses is two se’ah and four cubits absorb two se’ah¹³³ of water and an unpaved area of 16 square cubits can absorb 2 se’ah per day. Babli 88a/b.. If the sump sprung a hole¹³⁴, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to plug; there are Tannaïm who state that one has to plug. If the sump was full, there are Tannaïm who state that one has to empty, there are Tannaïm who state that one does not have to. Rebbi Mana said, it is one Tanna. He who says that one has to plug forbids to pour out¹³⁵, he who says that one does not have to plug permits to pour out. Rehhi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to Rebbi Mana: So said your father Rebbi Jonah, thinking about it¹³⁶: If it is sloping¹³⁷ inside, even more than ten is permitted¹³⁸; outside even less than ten is permitted. What we are dealing with if it is level.

footnotes: ¹³¹ Discussion of Mishnah 10. ¹³² Probably the word מקרם should be deleted. ¹³³ A person on one day uses no more than 2 se’ah ¹³⁴ And then any additional water which is poured into the yard will immediately cause water to flow into the public domain. ¹³⁵ He reads לשפוך as “to pour into the yard”. If it is necessary to plug the hole so that no water may flow from it into the public domain, it will be forbidden to pour anything into the yard for the rest of the day. ¹³⁶ Reading בָּהּ for בר “outside”. ¹³⁷ Greek καταφερής, -ές. ¹³⁸ Obviously this has to read “forbidden”. If the yard is on an incline, any water spilled there will immediately flow into the public domain. But if the outside is sloping into the courtyard, the water will remain in the yard.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Courtyard and porch combine for four cubits²⁸.” He explains it if they are level. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The terrace, the roof, and the courtyard combine for four cubits. Still it is if they are level. You should know that it is so since it was stated: The house, the upper floor, the courtyard, and the porch do not combine. Is that not because they are not level¹³⁹) is that R. Joḥanan holds that domains can be added only if they are on equal heights; the questioner assumed that the porch was higher than the courtyard. In the baraita quoted as opposing R. Simeon ben Laqish it is clear that courtyard and rooftop cannot be of equal height. It is conjectured that he holds that the list of the Mishnah, yard and porch, is exhaustive; this would exclude terrace and rooftop. The answer is that he accepts yard and everything on the same level, porch and everything on the same level. In this interpretation the baraita does not allow one to add the surface areas of courtyard and rooftop.?

footnotes: ²⁸ If the sum of the areas is at least 16 square cubits nothing has to be excavated. ¹³⁹ Since the disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish is not indicated, it is difficult to assess the meaning of the discussion. An educated guess (by Qorban haEdah

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob both said the same. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, on the Sabbath one may pour water into a sewer which is covered for four cubits in the public domain, but the Sages are saying, even from a roof or a courtyard 100 cubits [wide] one may not pour into the sewer.” Rebbi Meïr as it was stated: In large cities one may pour water into flows even though they are perforated, the words of Rebbi Meïr¹⁴⁰. ¹⁴¹ 9:2 (Notes 34–40, Eruvin problem Note 39). Rav’s opinion is accepted in the Babli (Šabbat 64b, 164b, Beṣah 9a, ˋAvodah zarah 12a) but consistently rejected in the Yerushalmi. And it was stated thus, if it was a drainpipe it is permitted; in the rainy season it is permitted¹⁴²; streaming spouts are forbidden and Bar Qappara stated, if it occurred at a hidden place it is permitted. This disagrees with Rav and he cannot explain it, since Rav said that everything forbidden because of a bad impression is forbidden even in the most private room.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ If a river is diverted into many small currents which run in streets and through courtyards (as can be seen, e. g., in Freiburg i. B., Germany), one may pour water into them on the Sabbath since it will not be noticed. ¹⁴¹ The main discussion about prohibitions added because people may get a bad impression, which also includes the text here, is in Kilaim ¹⁴² Babli 88b. The Babli holds that during the rainy season there never was any rabbinic prohibition because everything is being wet anyhow.