אַנְשֵׁי טְבֶרְיָא כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא יִבְטַל מִמְּלַאכְתּוֹ דָּמֵי. the inhabitants of Tiberias are considered like one who does so in order not to neglect his usual work. Most of them are ordinary laborers. It can be assumed that if they rose early to bring home straw or stalks in which to store their produce, they did so only to save work time.
וּמִסְתַּפְּגִין בַּאֲלוּנְטִית מַאי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: מִסְתַּפֵּג אָדָם בַּאֲלוּנְטִית, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בַּחַלּוֹן. וְלֹא יִמְסְרֶנָּה לָאוֹלְיָירִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדִין עַל אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף מְבִיאָהּ בְּיָדוֹ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. The Gemara turns to the third activity that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya permitted for the inhabitants of Tiberias: And they may dry themselves with a towel. What is this halakha? As it was taught in a baraita: A person who washed himself in cold water on Shabbat or a Festival may dry himself with a towel and place it on a window, as there is no concern that he perform the prohibited labor of wringing out the towel. And he may not give the towel to the bathhouse attendants [olayerin] because they are suspected with regard to that matter, as they might wring out the towel before giving it to other bathers. Furthermore, one may not bring the towel home because if he does so, he might forget and wring it out. Rabbi Shimon said: He may even bring the towel in his hand to his house, as there is no concern lest he wring it.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְמַלּאוֹת, אֲבָל לִשְׁפּוֹךְ — אָסוּר. Rabba bar Rav Huna: They taught the leniency of partitions surrounding a hole in a balcony only with regard to drawing water through the hole; but to pour waste water down the hole, it is prohibited.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: וְכִי מָה בֵּין זֶה לְעוּקָה? Rav Sheizvi raised an objection against this halakha: And what is the difference between this case of a hole in the balcony and that of a pit [uka] used in a courtyard for waste water? The Sages rule in the next mishna below that one who digs a pit with a capacity of two se’a in a small courtyard that is less than four cubits may pour waste water into the courtyard on Shabbat, even if the pit was full before Shabbat. He need not be concerned that this will cause water to flow out of the courtyard into the public domain on Shabbat.
הָנֵי תָּיְימִי, וְהָנֵי לָא תָּיְימִי. The Gemara answers: These waters, which are poured out into the courtyard, are likely to be absorbed into the ground, and it is therefore uncertain that the water will indeed leave the courtyard. But these, the water poured through the hole into the body of water under the balcony, will not be absorbed. Therefore, one knows with certainty that the water will flow out beyond the permitted boundary.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לָא תֵּימָא לְמַלּאוֹת הוּא דִּשְׁרֵי, לִשְׁפּוֹךְ אָסוּר, אֶלָּא לִשְׁפּוֹךְ נָמֵי שְׁרֵי. אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: פְּשִׁיטָא — הַיְינוּ עוּקָה! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי תָּיְימִי וְהָנֵי לָא תָּיְימִי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. Some say that Rabba bar Rav Huna actually said: You should not say that it is only drawing water through the hole in the balcony that is permitted, while pouring waste water through it is prohibited; rather, pouring waste water through the hole is also permitted. Rav Sheizvi said: This is obvious, as this is exactly the same as the halakha of the pit discussed in the next mishna. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is necessary to specify both halakhot, lest you say there is a difference between the cases, as these, the water poured in the courtyard, are likely to be absorbed into the ground, whereas these, the water poured through the hole in the balcony, will not be absorbed. Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore teaches us that we do not distinguish between the two cases.
וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי גְזוּזְטְרָאוֹת זוֹ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּסְמוּכָה, אֲבָל בְּמוּפְלֶגֶת — עֶלְיוֹנָה מוּתֶּרֶת. We learned in the mishna: And likewise, if there are two balconies, one above the other, and a partition is erected for the upper balcony but is not erected for the lower one, it is prohibited for residents of both balconies to draw water through the upper one, unless they establish a joint eiruv between them. Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught that one balcony renders it prohibited for residents of the other only where the one balcony is near the other, i.e., horizontally within four handbreadths. But if each balcony is separated by four handbreadths from the other, so that the residents of each balcony can use the other only by means of the air, the residents of the upper balcony are permitted to draw water, while the residents of the lower one are prohibited from doing so.
וְרַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דַּאֲמַר רַב: אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר עַל חֲבֵירוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אֲוִיר. And Rav follows his regular line of argument here, as Rav said: One person does not impose restrictions upon another person by way of the air. Since the lower balcony is far from the higher one, it does not prohibit it, although it can make use of it by means of the vacant airspace between them, albeit with difficulty.
אָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא, וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: יֵשׁ גָּזֵל בְּשַׁבָּת. וְחוּרְבָּה מַחֲזִיר לַבְּעָלִים. Rabba said that Rabbi Ḥiyya said, and Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The halakha of stealing applies to Shabbat domains, and a ruin must be returned to its owner.
הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ ״יֵשׁ גָּזֵל בְּשַׁבָּת״ — אַלְמָא קָנְיָא, ״וְחוּרְבָּה מַחֲזִיר לִבְעָלִים״ — אַלְמָא לָא קָנְיָא! The Gemara registers surprise: This ruling itself is difficult, i.e., it is self-contradictory. You first said that the halakha of stealing applies to Shabbat domains, which at this point is understood by the Gemara as referring to the following case: A person’s house adjoins the ruin of another, and he observes that the ruin has been left deserted by its owner. If this person uses the ruin during the week, on Shabbat he may treat it as though it were his own, by carrying objects from his own house into the ruin and vice versa. From here we can infer that a stolen place is acquired for the purpose of Shabbat domains, although it does not belong to the person for other purposes. However, you subsequently said that a ruin must be returned to its owner, and from here we can infer that a ruin is not acquired for the purpose of Shabbat domains by the person who used it during the week, and therefore he may not carry objects from his own house into the ruin.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: יֵשׁ דִּין גָּזֵל בְּשַׁבָּת, כֵּיצַד — דְּחוּרְבָּה מַחֲזִיר לַבְּעָלִים. The Gemara answers: We should not understand this statement as suggested above, but rather this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Oshaya are saying: The halakha of returning stolen property applies to Shabbat domains. How so? This means that a ruin must be returned to its owner. In other words, one who uses a ruin during the week does not acquire it even for the purpose of Shabbat domains.
אָמַר רַבָּה, וּמוֹתְבִינַן אַשְּׁמַעְתִּין: וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי גְזוּזְטְרָאוֹת זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ וְכוּ׳. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ יֵשׁ דִּין גָּזֵל בְּשַׁבָּת, אַמַּאי אֲסוּרוֹת? Rabba said: And we ourselves raised an objection against our own teaching, as we learned in the mishna. And likewise, if there are two balconies, one above the other, they prohibit one another. But if you say that the halakha against stealing applies on Shabbat, which means one may not use the domain of another, and he acquires no rights to it if he does so, why are the two balconies prohibited from using it. The lower one has no right to make use of the upper one.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָשׂוּ מְחִיצָה בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת. Rav Sheshet said: We are dealing here with a situation where, for example, the residents of the upper balcony and the residents of the lower balcony jointly erected a partition for the upper balcony. Consequently, the residents of the lower balcony share the right to use it with the residents of the upper one.
אִי הָכִי, כִּי עָשׂוּ לַתַּחְתּוֹנָה נָמֵי! The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, in a case where they erected a separate partition for the lower balcony, the residents of the upper balcony should likewise be prohibited to use it. As the residents of the lower one are partners in the upper one, they should prohibit its residents from using it.
כֵּיוָן דְּעָשׂוּ לַתַּחְתּוֹנָה — גַּלּוֹיֵי גַּלִּי דַּעְתַּהּ דַּאֲנָא בַּהֲדָךְ לָא נִיחָא לִי. The Gemara answers: Since they erected a separate partition for the lower balcony, they each thereby revealed their intention to the residents of the upper balcony that: It is not my wish to be partners with you. Consequently, they no longer prohibit the residents of the upper balcony from using it.
מַתְנִי׳ חָצֵר שֶׁהִיא פְּחוּתָה מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — אֵין שׁוֹפְכִין בְּתוֹכָהּ מַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עָשׂוּ לָהּ עוּקָה מַחְזֶקֶת סָאתַיִם מִן הַנֶּקֶב וּלְמַטָּה. MISHNA: With regard to a courtyard that is less than four cubits by four cubits in area, one may not pour waste water into it on Shabbat, unless a pit was fashioned to receive the water, and the pit holds two se’a in volume from its edge below.
בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים. אֶלָּא שֶׁמִּבַּחוּץ — צָרִיךְ לִקְמוֹר, מִבִּפְנִים — אֵין צָרִיךְ לִקְמוֹר. This halakha applies whether the pit was fashioned outside the courtyard or whether it was dug inside the courtyard itself. The only difference is as follows: If the pit was dug outside in the adjoining public domain, it is necessary to arch over it, so that the water will not flow into the public domain. If it was dug inside the courtyard, it is not necessary to arch over it.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: בִּיב שֶׁהוּא קָמוּר אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — שׁוֹפְכִים לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם בַּשַּׁבָּת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ גַּג אוֹ חָצֵר מֵאָה אַמָּה — לֹא יִשְׁפּוֹךְ עַל פִּי הַבִּיב, אֲבָל שׁוֹפֵךְ הוּא לַגַּג, וְהַמַּיִם יוֹרְדִין לַבִּיב. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of a drainage ditch whose first four cubits are arched over in the public domain, one may pour waste water into it on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: Even if a roof or a courtyard is a hundred cubits in area, one may not pour water directly onto the mouth of the drainage ditch. However, he may pour it upon the roof, from which the water spills into the drain of its own accord.
הֶחָצֵר וְהָאַכְסַדְרָה מִצְטָרְפִין לְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְכֵן שְׁתֵּי דְיוֹטָאוֹת זוֹ כְּנֶגֶד זוֹ, מִקְצָתָן עָשׂוּ עוּקָה וּמִקְצָתָן לֹא עָשׂוּ עוּקָה, אֶת שֶׁעָשׂוּ עוּקָה — מוּתָּרִין, אֶת שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ עוּקָה — אֲסוּרִין. A courtyard and a portico, a roofed but unwalled structure in front of a house, combine for the four cubits by virtue of which it is permitted to pour water even into a courtyard that lacks a pit. And likewise, with regard to two upper stories [deyotaot], one opposite the other in the same small courtyard, if the residents of one of them fashioned a pit in the courtyard, and the residents of the other did not fashion a pit, those who fashioned a pit are permitted to pour their waste water into the courtyard, whereas those who did not fashion a pit are prohibited to do so.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבָּה: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָדָם עָשׂוּי לְהִסְתַּפֵּק סָאתַיִם מַיִם בְּכׇל יוֹם, בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — אָדָם רוֹצֶה לְזַלְּפָן, GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a courtyard four by four cubits in area does not require a pit? Rabba said: Because a person ordinarily uses two se’a of water a day, and with regard to a courtyard of at least four cubits by four cubits, a person wants to sprinkle the water on the ground to prevent any dust from rising. Consequently, even if in practice the water does flow out of the courtyard, this effect is not necessarily his intention.