Yerushalmi Eruvin 10:6 ירושלמי עירובין י׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: A person may not stand in a private domain and drink¹⁴Using a cup. If he would bring the cup to drink in the public domain it would be a biblical Sabbath violation; therefore drinking with his body in the public domain is a rabbinic violation. in the public domain, in the public domain and drink in a private domain, unless he put his head and most of his body there where he drinks; the same holds for a wine press. A person may collect¹⁵Using a cup. Since the water is filled in the public domain, the entire transaction is in the public domain (on condition that the place of filling not be within 3 hand-breadths of the roof.) from a leader lower than ten hand-breadths, and drink¹⁶Without a vessel, even within 3 hand-breadths of the roof.) anywhere from a gutter.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph⁸⁸Discussion of Mishnah 5.. One understands “in a private domain and drink¹⁴Using a cup. If he would bring the cup to drink in the public domain it would be a biblical Sabbath violation; therefore drinking with his body in the public domain is a rabbinic violation. in the public domain.⁸⁹Then his body is an extension of the private domain and drinking is transporting the water from public to private domain (or at least looks like transporting and is rabbinically forbidden.)” “In the public domain and drink in a private domain,” is his mouth not higher than ten hand-breadths⁹⁰His mouth is in exempt space and transporting from private to exempt space is not even rabbinically prohibited.? There is a difference since it is running off downwards. It was stated⁹¹Babli 20b, bottom. Cf. Chapter 2, Notes 60ff.: A camel whose head and most of its body is inside one force-feeds inside, outside one force-feeds outside. One understands “inside one force-feeds inside.” But “outside one force-feeds outside,” is its mouth not higher than ten hand-breadths⁹²Since the camel’s belly probably also is more than 10 hand-breadths from the ground, the answer given for humans cannot apply. The second part of the baraita cannot be correct.?

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun has contradictory traditions. Did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina that any three [hand-breadths] near a partition are like the partition? Explain it if it is outside of three hand-breadths but it is not four wide⁹³This refers to the second part of the Mishnah, drinking from gutters and leaders after a rainstorm. Why does the Mishnah state that from gutters one may drink while standing in the public domain. Even if the gutters are outside the roof, within three hand-breadths they still are considered part of the roof and are private domain. But if they are outside of three hand-breadths in exempt domain they are accessible as long as they do not form a domain by themselves, containing a square of edge length 4 hand-breadths. Cf. Šabbat 1, Note 107..

If one inserted a stick, surrounded it by a partition, and threw into it from the public domain. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar says, a case in dispute⁹⁴In contrast to a similar baraita quoted in the Babli Šabbat 7 a, it is assumed that the top of the stick does not qualify as a domain, it does not contain a square of 4-by-4 hand-breadths, but the partition encloses such an area. The dispute is centered on Rebbi’s assertion that any domain is considered filled to the top (Šabbat Chapter 1, Note 138; also cf. Note 117). Therefore, for him the top of the stick defines a domain since it is extended to cover the entire area within the partition at the level of the stick’s top. For Rebbi and his followers the thrower is liable; for his opponents the thrower is only rabbinically forbidden as throwing from a private domain to karmelit.. Rebbi Yudan objected: But did we not state⁹⁵Mishnah Giṭtin 8:3. Cf. Giṭtin 8:3, Notes 48–58. A bill of divorce becomes effective only if it is delivered into the hands (i. e., the ownership) of the wife (Deut. 24:1). This rule is undisputed; why should the Sabbath rule be in dispute?: “If she was standing on the top of her roof and he threw it to her, as soon as it reached the roof’s airspace she is divorced.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks about a roof with a parapet, after it descended into the airspace of the parapet⁹⁶The moment the divorce document clears the parapet and would have come to rest if the airspace enclosed by the parapet would be solid matter. But the rules of divorce and of the Sabbath cannot be compared; Giṭtin 8:3, Note 96.. If there is no parapet, only if it descended into three [hand-breadths] close to the roof since any three [hand-breadths] close to the roof are like the roof.

Rebbi Ḥiyya said, “the same holds for a wine press,” refers to tithes⁹⁷The remark about a wine-press in Mishnah 5 refers to Mishnah Maˋserot 4:4 where it is stated that one may drink from freshly pressed untithed grape juice if one may return the unused part into the vat. This is now qualified that on the Sabbath one has to be mostly inside the building of the winepress. Babli 99b, Šabbat 11b..

⁹⁸S. Liebermann writes: This paragraph is one of the most incomprehensible in the entire Yerushalmi and I was not able to understand it. Rebbi Jehudah⁹⁹The Amora usually referred to as R. Yudan. says, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, one considers the wall as if hollowed out¹⁰⁰Reading גָמוּם for גמיס, cf. Šabbat Chapter 11 Note 77. The problem is the statement in the Mishnah that collecting water from the leader coming down from the roof is permitted only within 10 hand-breadths from the ground. It should be permitted at any height since above 10 hand-breadths it is exempt space. Therefore the Mishnah must be R. Meïr’s who might consider the lower end of the leader as an imaginary 4--by-4 hole in the wall which counts as an ideal private domain.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is everybody’s opinion if it is inclined ten hand-breadths for three [cubits]¹⁰¹The roof is not flat but inclined at an angle of arcsin(10/18) ~ 18.5°. Then the water does not come to rest on the roof, it still is rainwater, and the rules of Šabbat Chapter 1 Note 106 do apply. In that case he is able to collect the water anywhere. This fits the statement of the Mishnah for the gutters but not for the leaders.. Rebbi Yose asked, if it is inclined ten hand-breadths for three [cubits], is it not a roof¹⁰¹The roof is not flat but inclined at an angle of arcsin(10/18) ~ 18.5°. Then the water does not come to rest on the roof, it still is rainwater, and the rules of Šabbat Chapter 1 Note 106 do apply. In that case he is able to collect the water anywhere. This fits the statement of the Mishnah for the gutters but not for the leaders.? Where are we? There¹⁰³In the case of the divorce document quoted in the preceding paragraph, it must become the wife’s property. The kinematics of the process are irrelevant. Nevertheless, the document thrown into the wife’s property becomes hers only if it cannot escape from that property, i. e., if either it comes to rest on the property or it moves in a space bounded on all sides by fences higher than the future path of the document., where it does not have to come to rest, you say only after it came to rest; here where it is necessary that it come to rest¹⁰⁴Since the action of transporting on the Sabbath is complete only if the object transported comes to rest., not so much more? Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, in any case it did not come to rest! He told him, since it is not four¹⁰⁵On the slanted roof the raindrops come to rest only in the gutters which do not count as domains. Therefore following the argument of R. Joḥanan in Šabbat Chapter 1 Note 106; the Mishnah must follow R. Meïr; it cannot be everybody’s opinion. The paragraph is incomprehensible since the argument is presen- ted as supporting the opposite conclusion. wide it is as if it did not come to rest.