And the same applies in a winepress. This winepress cannot be a private domain, as the first clause of the mishna already dealt with a private domain. The winepress must therefore be a karmelit, which proves that it is prohibited to drink from a karmelit while standing in a public domain.
ורבא אמר לענין מעשר וכן אמר רב ששת וכן בגת לענין מעשר
And Rava said: This proof is not conclusive, as the words: The same applies in a winepress, do not refer to Shabbat but to the matter of the halakhot of tithes, as explained below. And similarly, Rav Sheshet said that the statement that the same applies in a winepress refers to the matter of tithes.
דתנן שותין על הגת בין בחמין ובין בצונן ופטור דברי רבי מאיר רבי אליעזר בר צדוק מחייב
The Gemara clarifies this statement. As we learned in a mishna: One may drink grape juice directly on the winepress ab initio without tithing, whether the juice was diluted with hot water, even though he will then be unable to return the leftover wine to the press, as it would ruin all the wine in the press, or whether the juice was diluted with cold water, in which case he could return the leftover wine without ruining the rest, and he is exempt. Drinking that way is considered incidental drinking, and anything that is not a fixed meal is exempt from tithing. That is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok deems one obligated to tithe in both cases.
וחכמים אומרים על החמין חייב ועל הצונן פטור מפני שמחזיר את המותר:
And the Rabbis say: There is a distinction between these two cases. When the juice is diluted with hot water, since one cannot return what is left of the juice to the press, he is obligated to tithe it, as this drinking is like fixed drinking for which one is obligated to tithe. However, when the juice is diluted with cold water, he is exempt from tithing it, because he can return the leftover juice to the press. Therefore, it is considered incidental drinking, which is exempt from tithing. The teaching of the mishna: The same applies to a winepress, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it teaches that that the leniency to drink without separating tithes applies only if the drinker’s head and most of his body are in the winepress.
מתני׳ קולט אדם מן המזחילה למטה מעשרה טפחים ומן הצינור מכל מקום שותה:
MISHNA: A person standing in a public domain on Shabbat may catch water in a vessel from a gutter running along the side of a roof, if it is less than ten handbreadths off the ground, which is part of the public domain. And from a pipe that protrudes from the roof, one may drink in any manner, i.e., not only by catching the water in a vessel, but even by pressing his mouth directly against the spout.
גמ׳ קולט אין אבל מצרף לא מאי טעמא אמר רב נחמן הכא במזחילה פחות משלשה סמוך לגג עסקינן דכל פחות משלשה סמוך לגג כגג דמי
GEMARA: A careful reading of the mishna indicates that to catch, yes, one may catch the water from a distance, but to press his hand or mouth to the gutter, no, that is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this distinction? Rav Naḥman said: Here, we are dealing with a gutter within three handbreadths of the roof, and the halakha is in accordance with the principle that anything within three handbreadths of a roof is considered like the roof itself, based on the principle of lavud, according to which two solid surfaces are considered joined if there is a gap of less than three handbreadths between them. Since the roof of the house is a private domain, one would be carrying from a private domain to a public domain, which is prohibited.
תניא נמי הכי עומד אדם ברשות היחיד ומגביה ידו למעלה מעשרה טפחים לפחות משלשה סמוך לגג וקולט ובלבד שלא יצרף
That ruling, that there is a distinction between catching water falling from a gutter and pressing one’s hand or mouth to it, was also taught in a baraita: A person may stand in a private domain and raise his hand above ten handbreadths, until it is within three handbreadths of the roof, and catch any water falling from his neighbor’s roof in a vessel, provided that he does not press his hand or mouth to the roof.
תניא אידך לא יעמוד אדם ברשות היחיד ויגביה ידו למעלה מעשרה טפחים לפחות משלשה סמוך לגג ויצרף אבל קולט הוא ושותה:
It was likewise taught in another baraita: A person may not stand in a private domain and raise his hand above ten handbreadths, to within three handbreadths of the roof, and press his hand to the gutter, but he may catch water falling from the gutter and drink.
מן הצינור מכל מקום שותה: תנא אם יש בצינור ארבעה על ארבעה אסור מפני שהוא כמוציא מרשות לרשות:
It was stated in the mishna: But from a pipe one may drink in any manner, as it protrudes more than three handbreadths from the roof. A Sage taught in the Tosefta: If the pipe itself is four by four handbreadths wide, it is prohibited to stand in the public domain and press one’s hand or mouth to the water, because he is like one who carries from one domain to another domain, as the pipe is considered a domain in its own right.
מתני׳ בור ברשות הרבים וחולייתו גבוה עשרה טפחים חלון שעל גביו ממלאין הימנו בשבת
MISHNA: With regard to a cistern in a public domain, with an embankment ten handbreadths high, i.e., the embankment constitutes a private domain by itself, if there is a window above the cistern, i.e., the window of an adjacent house is situated above the cistern, one may draw water from the cistern on Shabbat through the window, as it is permitted to carry from one private domain to another.
אשפה ברשות הרבים גבוה עשרה טפחים חלון שעל גביו שופכין לתוכה מים בשבת:
Similarly, with regard to a garbage dump in a public domain that is ten handbreadths high, which means it has the status of a private domain, if there is a window above the pile of refuse that abuts the garbage dump, one may throw water from the window onto the dump on Shabbat, as it is permitted to carry from one private domain to another.
גמ׳ במאי עסקינן אילימא בסמוכה למה לי חוליא עשרה
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing here? If you say we are dealing with a cistern that is adjacent to the wall of the house, i.e. the cistern and wall are separated by less than four handbreadths, why do I need the cistern’s embankment to be ten handbreadths high? Presumably the cistern is ten handbreadths deep, which makes it a private domain, and as it is too close to the house for the public domain to pass between them, one should be permitted to draw water from the cistern through the window, regardless of the height of the embankment.
אמר רב הונא הכא במאי עסקינן במופלגת מן הכותל ארבעה
Rav Huna said: With what we are dealing here? With a case where the cistern or garbage dump is four handbreadths removed from the wall of the house, i.e., a public domain separates the house from the cistern or heap. It is prohibited to carry from one private domain to another by way of a public domain. However, if the cistern’s embankment is ten handbreadths high, the one drawing the water transfers it by way of an area that is more than ten handbreadths above the public domain, which is an exempt domain.
וטעמא דאיכא חוליא עשרה הא ליכא חוליא עשרה קא מטלטל מרשות היחיד לרשות היחיד דרך רשות הרבים
And the reason that drawing the water is permitted is that there is an embankment of ten handbreadths; but if there is no embankment of ten handbreadths, it is prohibited, as this would involve moving objects from one private domain to another by way of the public domain.
ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא בסמוכה הא קא משמע לן דבור וחולייתו מצטרפין לעשרה:
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The above explanation is unnecessary. Even if you say that we are dealing with a cistern that is adjacent to the wall of the house, the mishna comes to teach us that a cistern and its embankment combine to complete the ten handbreadths required for a private domain, and it is not necessary that the embankment itself reach a height of ten handbreadths.
אשפה ברשות הרבים וכו׳: ולא חיישינן שמא תנטל אשפה
The mishna states: With regard to a garbage dump in a public domain that is ten handbreadths high, if there is a window above the heap, one may throw water from the window onto the heap on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Aren’t we concerned that the entire garbage dump or part of it might be removed, turning the area into a public domain, and people will continue to throw water onto it on Shabbat?
והא רבין בר רב אדא אמר רבי יצחק מעשה במבוי אחד שצידו אחד כלה לים וצידו אחד כלה לאשפה ובא מעשה לפני רבי ולא אמר בו לא איסור ולא היתר
But didn’t Ravin bar Rav Adda say that Rav Yitzḥak said: An incident occurred involving a certain alleyway, one of whose sides terminated in the sea, which closed it off on one side, and the other side of which terminated in a garbage dump. And the incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi for his ruling as to whether the alleyway has the status of an alleyway closed on both sides, and he did not say anything about it, either prohibition or permission.
היתר לא אמר בו דחיישינן שמא תנטל אשפה ויעלה הים שירטון
The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not say about it that carrying in the alleyway is permitted, as we are concerned lest the garbage dump be removed from its present spot, leaving one side of the alleyway open, and we are likewise concerned that perhaps the sea will throw up sediment and recede. These sedimentary deposits will intervene between the end of the alleyway and the sea, thereby depriving the alleyway of one its partitions.
איסור לא אמר בו דהא קיימין מחיצות
Similarly, he did not say about it that carrying in the alleyway was prohibited, as its partitions, the sea and the garbage dump, indeed exist, and it was certainly permitted at that time to carry in the alleyway. Apparently, there is indeed a concern that a garbage dump might be removed; why, then, does the same concern not apply to the case in the mishna?
לא קשיא הא דיחיד הא דרבים:
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. In this case, with regard to the alleyway between the garbage dump and the sea, we are concerned, as we are dealing with a private garbage dump, whose owner might change his mind and remove it; whereas in that case, i.e., the case in the mishna, it is referring to a public heap, which will certainly remain fixed in place.
מתני׳ אילן שהיה מיסך על הארץ אם אין נופו גבוה מן הארץ שלשה טפחים מטלטלים תחתיו
MISHNA: With regard to a tree that was hanging over the ground, i.e., its branches hung down on all sides like a tent so that it threw a shadow on the ground, if the tips of its branches are no higher than three handbreadths from the ground, one may carry under it. This applies even if the tree is planted in a public domain, as the branches form partitions which turn the enclosed area into a private domain.
שרשיו גבוהים מן הארץ שלשה טפחים לא ישב עליהן:
If its roots were three handbreadths higher than the ground, one may not sit on them, as it is prohibited to use a tree on Shabbat. Any part of a tree that is three handbreadths above the ground has the status of a tree with regard to this prohibition.
גמ׳ אמר רבי הונא בריה דרב יהושע אין מטלטלין בו יתר מבית סאתים מאי טעמא
GEMARA: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: One may not move objects in the area under the tree if it is more than two beit se’a. What is the reason for this prohibition?