To better understand today’s daf TB Eruvin 87, I would like to refresh your memory about the four different Shabbat domains. The first is the private domain (רשות היחיד) and the second is the public domain (רשות הרבים). Both these domains are Torah in origin (דאורייתא). The third domain is a carmelit (כרמלית), a semi-open area like a body of water, and fourth domain is a makom patur (מקום פטור) or an exempt area. The latter two domains are rabbinic in origin (דרבנן). One is forbidden to transfer an object in either direction from a private or public domain. The rabbis ordained that the carmelit has the status of a public domain. One is permitted to transfer an object from a private domain or a public domain to a makom patur and vice a versa. The rabbis forbade the transfer of an object from a private domain to a makom patur and then to a public domain using the makom patur as a “middleman.” This kind of transfer is called Khaflafa (חלפה)). The rabbis were afraid that the people will get so used to transferring using this makom patur that eventually they would cut out this “middleman” and transfer directly from a private domain to a public domain which is a violation of a Torah prohibition.
This brings us to a case in today’s daf. “It was taught in another baraita: With regard to a water channel that passes between the windows of two houses, if it is less than three handbreadths, one may lower a bucket from the window and draw water from it; however, if it is three handbreadths, one may not lower a bucket and draw water from it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If it is less than four handbreadths, one may lower a bucket and draw water from it; but if it is at least four handbreadths, one may not lower a bucket and draw water.” (Sefaria.org translation) What does it refer to?
At first the Gemara suggests it refers to the embankment between the house and the water channel. “Rather, the measure of three or four handbreadths is referring not to the channel itself but to the banks of the channel, and it is stated with regard to an act of exchange (חלפה). The dispute here does not concern the measure of a karmelit, but the measure of an exempt domain. It is permitted to transfer the empty bucket from the window, which is a private domain, by way of the channel’s banks, which are exempt domains, to the water channel, which is a karmelit, and back again with the full bucket.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rav Dimi coming from Israel to Babylonia brought a tradition from Rabbi Yoḥanan that one is only forbidden to transfer an object from a private domain to a makom patur and then to a public domain because these are Torah ordained domains. Since both the karmelit and the makom patur are rabbinic in origin, Rabbi Yoḥanan permits this kind of exchange.
Ze’eiri understands it to refer to the water channel itself and not the embankment. “The Gemara answers: Ze’eiri explains that the measures mentioned in the baraita are referring to the water channel itself. That is to say, the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Sages does not concern the width of the banks of the channel but the width of the channel itself, as they dispute the basic parameters of a karmelit. And Ze’eiri maintains that the teaching of Rav Dimi, that a karmelit can be no less than four handbreadths wide, is in fact the subject of a dispute between tanna’im.” (Sefaria.org translation)
The Gemara provides us with a third understanding what it refers to. To understand this explanation, let me refresh your memory of the halakhic concept lavud (לבוד). A gap up to three tefakhim can be considered nonexistent. For example, if a series of polls with a gap of less than three tefakhim between them constitute a kosher wall of the sukkah because these gaps are considered nonexistent.
“Ravina said a different explanation of the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis: The measures of three and four handbreadths refer neither to the width of the water trench nor to the width of its banks. Rather, we are dealing with a case where one fashioned outlets for the water channel at its ends, i.e., one formed gaps in the partitions to allow the water to flow. And the Rabbis follow their regular line of argument, that the principle of lavud applies only to a gap less than three handbreadths wide. An opening less than three handbreadths is therefore considered completely closed, while one of four is not viewed as closed. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel follows his regular line of argument, that the principle of lavud applies even to a gap of four handbreadths.” (Sefaria.org translation)
No comments:
Post a Comment