7242 —ניתוח הלכתי של שפיכת מים מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים בשבת

B"H, Thursday, Vayakhel-Pekudei, 5720.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

To the holy honor of our master, our teacher and rabbi, the great and holy Rebbe, may he live and be well.

In Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Shabbat, siman 357:1, it says: A courtyard less than four by four amot adjacent to a public domain—one may not pour water into it on Shabbat during the summer. Since it lacks four amot, two se'ah of water (the amount a person typically uses daily) cannot be absorbed in it; thus it is as if one pours directly into the public domain. Even though this pouring from the courtyard to the public domain is not a Torah prohibition (see siman 159:6 and Magen Avraham siman 328:53 and Sanhedrin 67b; see also Ritva in Beit Yosef), one is not pouring directly into the public domain but at some distance so that their exit to the public domain is automatic—not by his direct force but only caused by him.

The simple intent of our Rebbe is to resolve what is stated in Eruvin 87b: If one pours water in a private domain and it flows into the public domain, it is only rabbinically prohibited. This seems puzzling since the water moves by his direct force—like throwing from private to public domain—so why isn't it biblically forbidden? Our Rebbe explains that there is no biblical prohibition when pouring in a private domain if done at a distance from the public domain so that the water does not exit by his direct force. However, if poured close to the public domain so that it immediately exits, it resembles rolling an object from private to public. But regarding his citation of Sanhedrin 67b—there is nothing relevant there; I believe this is a printing error and should read Avodah Zarah 77b where it discusses Ashkil Achbarei Beyadkah D'maya (removing mice with water), distinguishing between first and second force. Rashi explains there is a difference between near and far—see there.

Also regarding our Rebbe's citation about needing distance from Ritva—I could not find this. From Rabbeinu Yonatan quoted in Beit Yosef siman 357, it appears clearly that even at some distance from the public domain it's insufficient; rather, the water must rest briefly before exiting outside. His view matches that of Rama in Sanhedrin Avodah Zarah regarding distinguishing between first and second force; he writes that second force means there was a pause—as we say regarding "the house and attic" (Kelim 117) where water stopped then fell—these are his arrows. He rejects those who distinguish based on proximity or distance. According to him, all leniencies here apply only when there was a pause before exiting to the public domain.

But from our Rebbe's words it seems he holds that proximity versus distance is key—that distance makes it second force and thus biblically permitted—as seen in Chullin 107b regarding Arisa D'dalai: unless you bring your hand close to the spout it's not considered your force; thus distance makes it second force. I later found this proof in Sefer Siach HaSadeh.

Bowing before his holy splendor.

1) Apparently should read: their exit.
2) In Shulchan Aruch Admor Hazaken Orach Chaim beginning of siman 357 (in brackets for plural) he writes a law not found in Mechaber's Shulchan Aruch nor in Eruvin there—that pouring water into a courtyard can be biblically prohibited. In fact, this law contradicts Mechaber's plain language throughout sections A-E (and also Talmud's plain language). Admor Hazaken adds clarifications for each section about practical differences due to his innovation regarding this section. Thus it's clear he would cite sources for his innovation about biblical prohibition—not just those showing rabbinic prohibition (for which he cites Rashi Eruvin 81a s.v. shofchin as referenced by tzt"z Mishnayot [35a] as noted on margin). This too challenges Admor Hazaken's innovation—as hinted by tzt"z's style: "One could say differently based on Rashi... however Admor N"A..."

3) Preface: (1) In this citation Admor Hazaken specifically adds "and analyze well." (2) Especially in Hilchot Shabbat where many rabbinic decrees exist—it seems rare that with only minimal change from biblically forbidden form something would become fully permitted as per Admor Hazaken's innovation here. In Sanhedrin (67b): laws of sorcery are like those of Shabbat—some incur stoning etc., some are exempt but forbidden etc., some are fully permitted. What does this teach? There are many prohibitions like these—as with Avodah Zarah: reading their books for learning purposes is even required in Sanhedrin! Thus we must say its novelty is that exactly identical actions can sometimes incur stoning or be fully permitted; citing sorcery where they create an actual calf—permitted! This resolves both earlier points.
Thus it's clear why Admor Hazaken needed all these sources: siman 159:7 (not as printed as :6)—regarding pouring water as here being considered one's own action; Magen Avraham etc.—that even on Shabbat one can have an av melachah even if seemingly inactive at time of prohibition; Sanhedrin—to resolve second point above.

4) If we say should read Sanhedrin Avodah Zarah 77b—I don't think he refers to Ashkil Achbarei etc.:
A) Otherwise he'd cite Rashi there as usual.
B) There Rashi specifies sloped ground unlike our case.
In my opinion—if version reads Avodah Zarah 77b it's referring to "here we're dealing with flowing," showing that splashing with force sanctifies—and somewhat resolves what was written above—analyze well.

5) Ritva cited by Beit Yosef: "And when thrown there (into courtyard), same applies for pouring from private property into karmelit or public property if less than three [handbreadths]—they are divided into two categories indicating different prohibitions; if less than three—it counts as transferring directly from private property to public property."

6) This is citation for siman 159:7—and citing Shulchan Aruch instead of Talmud excludes first explanation given in Tosafot s.v. d'lo there.
Printed at start of Chekrei Halachot vol III and Likkutei Sichos vol XVI p.527.
The main text is a letter by Rabbi Yisrael Yitzchak Pikarski shlita with marginal notes by our holy Rebbe shlita.
The main text is a letter by Rabbi Shraga Feivish Vagel with marginal responses by our holy Rebbe shlita.
Rambam said: It isn't impossible for an ant or wasp or other species of birds/insects to be generated spontaneously within food.

Summary

This letter explores complex halachic distinctions regarding pouring liquids on Shabbat between domains, emphasizing how proximity affects whether an act constitutes direct or indirect force according to various authorities. Careful analysis of sources reveals nuanced differences impacting practical halacha.