(a)Rabah bar Rav Huna restricts the use of a suspended Mechitzah over a stream to drawing water from it, as opposed to pouring water into it. Why should this be any different than an Ukah (a large Ukah that can hold two Sa'ah of water) in a small Chatzer, quoted in the next Mishnah, into which pouring water is permitted, despite the fact that the water then flows out into the Reshus ha'Rabim?
(b)What does the second Lashon of Rabah bar Rav Huna hold?
(a)Pouring water into a Chatzer which has an Ukah is permitted, only because the water seeps into the ground and becomes absorbed - whereas in our case (pouring water into the river via a suspended Mechitzah), the water is poured directly into the river, which carries it outside the area underneath the walls of the ledge. That is why Rabah bar Rav Huna forbids it.
(b)In the second Lashon of Rabah bar Rav Huna - he draws no distinction between drawing water via the Mechitzah and pouring it out; both are permitted.
(a)Rav establishes our Mishnah (which forbids the owners of both ledges to use the hole in the upper-ledge to draw water, if only the upper owner made a Mechitzah, but not the lower one) when they are within four Tefachim of each other, but not if they are further away than that. Why the difference?
(b)Will it make any difference if the one is more than ten Tefachim higher than the other? How do we know that that is not what Rav is referring to when it makes a distinction between 'Semuchah' and 'Mufleges'?
(a)Once the two ledges are more than four Tefachim apart, the lower one is restricted to using it via the air - and Rav holds that usage of the air alone does not prohibit the second owner from using his Reshus.
(b)It makes no difference how high the one ledge is from the other. When Rav makes a distinction between 'Semuchah' and 'Mufleges', he cannot be referring to the height - firstly because the word 'Mufleges' by definition means horizontally distant and not vertically; and secondly, because Rav said earlier 'Echad b'Shilshul v'Echad bi'Zerikah, Sheneihem Asurim'.
(a)'Yesh Gezel be'Shabbos, ve'Churvah Machzir l'Ba'alav'. Why does this statement appear contradictory?
(b)How does the Gemara explain it?
(c)But if the Din Gezeilah (i.e. the obligation to return it) applies on Shabbos, then how do we account for the Din in our Mishnah, which forbids the owner of the upper ledge to use his ledge, because the owner of the lower ledge uses it (proving that the person who uses his friend's Reshus does acquire certain rights, and forbids the owner to use it)?
(d)In that case, who permits the owner to use his ledge, even if the owner of the lower ledge then makes Mechitzos?
(a)'Yesh Gezel be'Shabbos' means that someone who 'steals' (i.e. uses someone else's Reshus - such as a ruin, which the owner hardly uses anyway), acquires it with regard to Hilchos Shabbos, and that he is permitted to use it, and not the owner; whereas 'v'Churvah Machzir l'Ba'alav' - means that the same ruin reverts to the owner, and is not the property of the 'thief' (two statements which are contradictory).
(b)The Gemara answers that the Reisha means, not that there is 'Gezel', - - - but that there is a Din Gezel (i.e. an obligation to return it).
(c)Our Mishnah, which forbids the owner of the upper ledge to use his ledge, because the owner of the lower ledge uses it - speaks when the lower owner was a partner in the construction of the Mechitzah, which permits the use of the upper ledge.
(d)When the owner of the lower ledge makes Mechitzos - he demonstrates that he withdraws from the joint ownership of the upper one which he helped to build, thereby allowing the owner of the upper ledge to use his ledge undisturbed.
(a)We quoted (in 1a) above, our Mishnah which permits pouring water into a small Chatzer by digging an Ukah which contains two Sa'ah of water. The Tana permits this even if the Ukah is outside the Chatzer. What is the difference between a Ukah which is inside the Chatzer and one which is outside, and why is that?
(b)Why should the Ukah need to hold specifically two Sa'ah of water?
(c)Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov permits pouring water into a 'Biv' of four Amos in the Reshus ha'Rabim. What is a Biv, and why specifically one of four Amos?
(d)Why are we not concerned that the water might not sink into the ground fast enough, and will subsequently spill over the sides into the street?
(a)The pit which is outside the Chatzer needs to be covered - to ensure that when he pours the water into the small remaining gap adjoining the Chatzer, he is pouring into a Makom Petur (and not the Reshus ha'Rabim); this is not necessary by a pit which is inside the Chatzer, which is anyway a Reshus ha'Yachid.
(b)The pit needs to hold specifically two Sa'ah of water - because that is the estimated amount of water that an average family uses on Shabbos.
(c)A 'Biv' is a drain or a ditch; a ditch of four Amos square is the estimated Shi'ur that will absorb two Sa'ah of water, and prevent it from flowing further.
(d)We are not concerned that the water might not sink into the ground fast enough, and will subsequently spill over the sides into the street - because, even if it does, he will not be Chayav, since his intention was for the water to sink into the ground, and not that it should flow any further.
(a)The Rabanan disagree with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov with regard to a Biv. What do they say, and what is their reason?
(b)Does a Chatzer of less than four Amos require an Ukah, if together with the porch, it totals four Amos?
(c)If one of two raised stoeps with steps leading down into a common Chatzer that is less than four square Amos, made an Ukah, and the other did not, may it be used, and if so, who may use it?
(a)The Rabbanan say that, even if there is a one hundred-Amah long ditch in a courtyard or on a roof leading directly to the street - it is forbidden to pour directly into it. One may only pour into the courtyard or on to the roof, from where the water will flow automatically into the ditch.
(b)A Chatzer of less than four Amos which, together with the porch, totals four Amos - does not require an Ukah.
(c)If one of two raised porches with steps leading down into a common Chatzer that is less than four square Amos, made an Ukah, and the other did not - then the residents of the porch who made the Eruv, are permitted to use the Chatzer, by pouring water or waste onto the Porch and allowing it to flow or drip into the Ukah; the other set of residents are not.
(a)Rabah explains that a Chatzer of four Amos does not require an Ukah, because, unlike a smaller Chatzer, where one's intention is to pour the water out (and we decree that he might pour it directly into the street), one's intention in pouring the water in the Chatzer, is to settle the dust (so there is no reason to issue a decree). How does Rebbi Zeira explain the distinction between a small Ukah and a large one?
(b)What is the difference between the two answers?
(c)How will Rabah explain our Mishnah, which exempts a combined Chatzer and porch of four square Amos from an Ukah?
(a)Rebbi Zeira explains that a Chatzer of four Amos does not require an Ukah - because the water gets absorbed in the ground anyway.
(b)The difference between Rabah and Rebbi Zeira's answers - is by a long but narrow ditch, which has the equivalent area to one of four by four Amos square (and will therefore absorb the water that is poured into it) but the owner will not bother to settle its dust, because it is not a usable tract of land.
(c)Rabah explains our Mishnah, which exempts a combined Chatzer and porch of four square Amos from an Ukah - when they combine to make a square of four by four.
(a)How does Rebbi Zeira explain the Beraisa, which explicitly requires a square of four by four Amos to exempt from an Ukah? Who then, is the author of our Mishnah?
(b)Rebbi Zeira is forced to learn like this, because our Mishnah says 'Chatzer she'Hi Pechusah me'Arba al Arba'. What does he infer from there? What should the Mishnah have said otherwise?
(c)But the author of the Seifa is Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov; does that not imply that the author of the Reisha is not?
(a)The author of the Beraisa, which explicitly requires a square of four by four Amos to exempt from an Ukah - is the Rabbanan, who do not permit pouring the water merely on the basis of the fact that the water will become absorbed; whereas the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, who does.
(b)Rebbi Zeira infers from 'Chatzer she'Hi Pechusah m'Arba al Arba' -that if it has the Shi'ur of four Amos by four Amos, then irrespective of the shape, it will not require an Ukah (like Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov). Otherwise, it should have said 'Chatzer she'Ein Bah Arba al Arba'.
(c)The Gemara concludes that the author of the entire Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, and that there are words missing. This is how the Mishnah ought to read: 'Chazter she'Hi Pechusah mi'Arba Amos, Ein Shofchin l'Tochah Mayim be'Shabbos; Ha Arba Amos, Shofchin, she'Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov Omer, Biv ha'Kamur' ...
(a)Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov permits pouring directly even into the ditch in the courtyard; the Chachamim forbid pouring directly even into the gutter on the roof that leads out into the street etc. Chananya disagrees with our Mishnah. What does Chananya say, and what is his reason?
(a)Chananya permits pouring into the ditch in the courtyard, but not into the gutter on the roof. This is because, whereas the ground in the courtyard is made to absorb the water that is poured into it, the gutter on the roof is not.
(a)Why does the Beraisa permit pouring water into the small Ukah during the rain season, even when there is no Ukah?
(b)Then why do the Chachamim forbid pouring sewage into the drain on the roof, where he also wants it to become absorbed there?
(c)What is the difference, according to Rav Nachman, by an Ukah that only holds a Sa'ah, between the rain-season and the dry season, and why the stringency in the dry season?
(d)What leniency does Abaye then add?
(a)The Beraisa permits pouring water into the small pit during the rain season, even when there is no Ukah - because neither of the two reasons which cause the prohibition, apply: neither do we suspect that the owner will pour the water in the street, in order to keep his courtyard clean (since they are full of rain-water anyway); nor do we need to worry that others will suspect him of pouring water into the street (due to the fact that, on account of the rains, there is constantly water pouring out of his courtyard anyway, so people will attribute the water that is pouring out of his yard to them).
(b)The Chachamim forbid pouring sewage into the drain on the roof, where he also wants them to be absorbed - because even though the first of the above reasons does not apply there, the second one does.
(c)In the rain-season, says Rav Nachman, one is permitted to pour a Sa'ah into an Ukah that holds a Sa'ah; whereas in the dry season, he is not permitted to pour anything at all, because, if we permit him to pour one Sa'ah, he may come to pour in two.
(d)Abaye adds - that, seeing as in the rain season, there is nothing to worry about (as we explained in a), one may even pour a Kur (and even two), into an Ukah that only holds a Sa'ah.
(a)According to the initial version of Rava's statement, he maintains that, when our Mishnah forbids the residents of the one raised Porch to use the Ukah of the other (despite the fact that they are sharing the same Chatzer), it is speaking even when they made an Eruv. Why does the Gemara reject the suggestion that this is because the two courtyards will now be pouring four Sa'ah into the Ukah, instead of two?
(b)What is 1. a Gistera, 2. a Bereichah, and 3. an Arivah, and what is their significance in this context?
(c)What Rava really said was that if they made an Eruv, then both porches are permitted to use the Ukah that was made by only one of them. If they did not, why may the residents of the second Porch not use the Ukah?
(a)The Gemara rejects the suggestion that Rava establishes our Mishnah (which forbids the residents of the one raised Porch to use the Ukah of the other [despite the fact that they are sharing the same Chatzer]) even when they made an Eruv, because the two courtyards will now be pouring four Sa'ah into the pit, instead of two - because of the Beraisa, which permits pouring into the Ukah even if it was full on Erev Shabbos. So we see, that there is no limit on how much one may pour into an Ukah which can contain two Sa'ah.
(b)A Gistera is a broken earthenware vessel; a Breichah is a pool of water, similar to a fish-pond and an Arivah, a small boat - all of which are used in our Sugya as an Ukah.
(c)If the residents of the second Porch did not make an Eruv, they are forbidden to use the Ukah - because we are afraid that they may bring sewage in vessels that they brought from the house to pour into the Ukah, and which they are forbidden to carry in the Chatzer.
HADRAN ALACH, 'KEITZAD MISHTATFIN'