חוֹקֵק בָּהּ אַרְבַּע עַל אַרְבַּע וּמְמַלֵּא. one may carve in it a hole of four by four handbreadths and draw water through it. Even if there are no actual partitions around the hole, the section surrounding the hole is considered as though it were bent downward and formed partitions ten handbreadths high on all sides. Consequently, it is permitted to draw water through the hole.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְדִילְמָא לָא הִיא, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר: ״גּוּד אַחֵית מְחִיצְתָּא״, אֲבָל ״כּוֹף וְגוּד״ — לָא. Abaye said to him: But perhaps that is not so, as we can distinguish between the opinions. It is possible that Rabbi Yehuda stated his opinion only there, with regard to the wall of the courtyard and the cistern, as he said that we rely on the halakhic principle of extend and lower the partition. The partition above the cistern is considered as though it descended to the bottom. But the principle of bend the partition and extend it downward, as suggested by Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya, no, he does not accept this principle.
וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא הָתָם, אֶלָּא בְּיַמָּהּ שֶׁל טְבֶרְיָא, הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לָהּ אוֹגָנִים, וַעֲיָירוֹת וְקַרְפֵּיפוֹת מַקִּיפוֹת אוֹתָהּ, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר מֵימוֹת — לֹא. And we can likewise say that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya stated his opinion only there, in the case of the balcony, with regard to the Sea of Tiberias, i.e., the Sea of Galilee, since it has clearly defined banks around it, and towns and enclosures surround it on all sides. The Sea of Galilee is surrounded by clear boundaries on all sides and is therefore somewhat similar to a private domain in appearance. Consequently, even a minor adjustment is sufficient. However, with regard to other waters, no, Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya did not permit this practice.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וּלְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא, הָיְתָה סְמוּכָה לַכּוֹתֶל בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא אוֹרְכָּהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וְרוֹחְבָּהּ אַחַד עָשָׂר וּמַשֶּׁהוּ. Abaye said: And according to the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya, if the balcony was less than three handbreadths away from the wall, it is permitted to draw water from it in the following circumstances: Its length must be four cubits, and its width must be eleven handbreadths and any amount. By carving out a hole of slightly more than one handbreadth by four handbreadths on the side near the wall, alongside the other three handbreadths, one creates a hole of four handbreadths by four handbreadths. This hole is surrounded by partitions ten handbreadths high on each side. How so? The wall itself is one partition. The four-cubit length is viewed as bent down on both sides of the hole, forming two partitions of ten handbreadths; the remaining ten handbreadths of the width is seen as though it were bent down, which creates a partition on the fourth side of the balcony.
הָיְתָה זְקוּפָה — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא גּוֹבְהָהּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְרוֹחְבָּהּ שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים וּשְׁנֵי מַשֶּׁהוּיִין. If the balcony was upright, i.e., it had upright partitions on all sides (Rabbeinu Ḥananel), the height of these partitions must be ten handbreadths, and the width of the balcony must be six handbreadths and two minimal amounts. This leaves slightly more than a handbreadth on each side of the hole of four handbreadths, on which he can stand.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא גּוֹבְהָהּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, וְרוֹחְבָּהּ שְׁנֵי טְפָחִים וּשְׁנֵי מַשֶּׁהוּיִין. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: If it was positioned in a corner between two walls (Rabbeinu Ḥananel), the height of the partition must be ten handbreadths, and the requisite width of the balcony must be two handbreadths and two minimal amounts. As he is able to stand, he is provided with actual partitions.
וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַבְיָא אוֹמֵר: גְּזוּזְטְרָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — חוֹקֵק בָּהּ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה וּמְמַלֵּא, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya said: If a balcony that has an area of four cubits by four cubits is suspended above water, one carves in it a hole of four by four handbreadths and then draws water through it, under what circumstances can a balcony with these dimensions be found?
דַּעֲבִידָא כִּי אֲסִיתָא. The Gemara answers: It is necessary in the case of a balcony that is built in the shape of a mortar, where the balcony is positioned over the water on its own pillars and far removed from any wall. In that case, all of the partitions must be constructed from its floor space. And the balcony must be four cubits by four cubits in size.
מַתְנִי׳ אַמַּת הַמַּיִם שֶׁהִיא עוֹבֶרֶת בֶּחָצֵר — אֵין מְמַלְּאִין הֵימֶנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לָהּ מְחִיצָה גְּבוֹהָ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים בִּכְנִיסָה וּבִיצִיאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹתֶל שֶׁעַל גַּבָּהּ תִּידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם מְחִיצָה. MISHNA: With regard to a water channel that passes through a courtyard, the residents may not draw water from it on Shabbat, unless they erected for it a partition ten handbreadths high at the entrance and at the exit of the courtyard. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is no need for a special partition, as the wall that runs on top of it, i.e., the courtyard wall, is considered as a partition.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַמָּה שֶׁל אָבֵל, שֶׁהָיוּ מְמַלְּאִין מִמֶּנָּה עַל פִּי זְקֵנִים בְּשַׁבָּת! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בָּהּ כַּשִּׁיעוּר. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving a water channel that passed through the courtyards of the town of Avel, from which the residents would draw water from it on Shabbat by the authority of the Elders, relying on the courtyard wall suspended above it. They said to him: It is due to the fact that channel was not of the size that requires a partition, i.e., it was less than ten handbreadths deep or less than ten handbreadths wide, it was permitted to draw water from it even without a partition.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עָשׂוּ לָהּ בִּכְנִיסָה וְלֹא עָשׂוּ לָהּ בִּיצִיאָה, עָשׂוּ לָהּ בִּיצִיאָה וְלֹא עָשׂוּ לָהּ בִּכְנִיסָה — אֵין מְמַלְּאִין הֵימֶנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לָהּ מְחִיצָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים בִּיצִיאָה וּבִכְנִיסָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כּוֹתֶל שֶׁעַל גַּבָּהּ תִּידּוֹן מִשּׁוּם מְחִיצָה. GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If they erected a partition for the water channel at the entrance but they did not erect one for it at the exit, or if they erected a partition for it at the exit but they did not erect one for it at the entrance, one may not draw water from it on Shabbat, unless they erected for it a partition ten handbreadths high both at the exit and at the entrance. Rabbi Yehuda says: The wall that runs on top of it, i.e., the courtyard wall, is considered as a partition. Therefore, there is no need for a special partition.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַמַּת הַמַּיִם שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּאָה מֵאָבֵל לְצִפּוֹרִי, וְהָיוּ מְמַלְּאִין הֵימֶנָּה בְּשַׁבָּת עַל פִּי הַזְּקֵנִים. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving the water channel that went from Avel to Tzippori, and the residents would draw water from it on Shabbat by the authority of the Elders, without any additional partition.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָיה?! מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה עֲמוּקָּה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים וְרוֹחְבָּהּ אַרְבָּעָה. They said to him: Are you trying to bring a proof from there? That was either due to the fact that the channel was not ten handbreadths deep or because it was not four handbreadths wide. It lacked the requisite measure to be considered a domain in its own right. Everyone agrees that it is permitted to draw water from it even without an additional partition.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אַמַּת הַמַּיִם הָעוֹבֶרֶת בֵּין הַחַלּוֹנוֹת, פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה — מְשַׁלְשֵׁל דְּלִי וּמְמַלֵּא. שְׁלֹשָׁה — אֵין מְשַׁלְשֵׁל דְּלִי וּמְמַלֵּא. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבָּעָה — מְשַׁלְשֵׁל דְּלִי וּמְמַלֵּא, אַרְבָּעָה — אֵין מְשַׁלְשֵׁל דְּלִי וּמְמַלֵּא. 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.
בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא: בְּאַמַּת הַמַּיִם גּוּפַהּ, וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין כַּרְמְלִית פְּחוּתָה מֵאַרְבָּעָה — With regard to these measures of three and four handbreadths, the Gemara asks: With what are we dealing here? If you say this halakha is referring to the water channel itself, that it was three or four handbreadths wide, this presents a difficulty, for when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A karmelit cannot be less than four handbreadths wide. The karmelit is an intermediate domain established by the Sages, whose status is between a public and a private domain. Any open area that is not a public thoroughfare, e.g., a field, sea, river, alleyway, or a lane, is classified as a karmelit. It is prohibited to carry an article four cubits within a karmelit, or to transfer an object from a private domain or a public domain to a karmelit, or vice versa. One who draws water through a window from a water channel into a house has carried from a karmelit to a private domain. Consequently, if the tanna’im of the baraita dispute the width of the channel, they are in effect disagreeing about the minimal size of a karmelit.
לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? The Gemara resumes its question: Let us say, then, that the teaching that Rav Dimi cited, that a karmelit cannot be less than four handbreadths wide, was actually the subject of a dispute of tanna’im and not a unanimous halakha.
אֶלָּא בַּאֲגַפֶּיהָ, וּלְהַחְלִיף. The Gemara rejects the previous explanation. 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. 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.
וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַרְבָּעָה עַל אַרְבָּעָה — מוּתָּר לִבְנֵי רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְלִבְנֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְכַתֵּף עָלָיו, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַחְלִיפוּ. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A place that does not have an area of four by four handbreadths is an exempt domain. Consequently, if this place is situated between a public domain and a private domain, it is permitted for both the people of the private domain and for the people of the public domain to adjust the burdens on their shoulders on it, provided that they do not exchange objects between them via the exempt domain. How, then, can the bucket be transferred from the window to the channel, and vice versa, by means of the banks?
הָתָם רְשׁוּיוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, The Gemara answers: There, Rav Dimi is referring to domains by Torah law, i.e., this halakha involves the transfer of objects from a private domain to a public domain via an exempt domain. The Sages forbade this activity, so that people would not transfer objects directly from the private domain to the public domain.