Real Property and Prevention

(ח) כִּ֤י תִבְנֶה֙ בַּ֣יִת חָדָ֔שׁ וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ מַעֲקֶ֖ה לְגַגֶּ֑ךָ וְלֹֽא־תָשִׂ֤ים דָּמִים֙ בְּבֵיתֶ֔ךָ כִּֽי־יִפֹּ֥ל הַנֹּפֵ֖ל מִמֶּֽנּוּ׃ (ס)

Deuteronomy 22:8

(8) When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you do not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone should fall from it.

ויקרא י״ט:ט״ז

(טז) לֹא־תֵלֵ֤ךְ רָכִיל֙ בְּעַמֶּ֔יךָ לֹ֥א תַעֲמֹ֖ד עַל־דַּ֣ם רֵעֶ֑ךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֽה׃

Leviticus 19:16

(16) Do not deal basely with your countrymen. Do not profit by the blood of your fellow: I am the LORD.

חולין קל״ו א:י״א-י״ג

מעקה אע"ג דכתב רחמנא (דברים כב, ח) לגגך דידך אין דשותפות לא כתב רחמנא (דברים כב, ח) כי יפול הנופל ממנו אלא גגך למאי אתא למעוטי בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות אמר רב ביבי בר אביי ליתנהו להני כללי דתניא בהמת השותפין חייבת בבכורה ור' אלעאי פוטרה

Chullin 136a:11-13

Similarly, with regard to the obligation of establishing a parapet around a roof, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of a roof are obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof [legaggekha],” using the singular pronoun, “and you shall not bring blood upon your house, if any man falls from there” (Deuteronomy 22:8). One might have inferred from the singular form that with regard to your roof, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership one is not obligated. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “If any man falls from there,” indicating that wherever the danger of falling from the roof exists, there is an obligation to erect a parapet. The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term “your roof [gaggekha],” using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude synagogues and houses of study. § Rava maintains that although Rabbi Ilai holds that if a sheep is owned in partnership its owners are exempt from giving the first sheared wool to a priest, he concedes that partners are obligated with regard to all the other issues discussed above, including the mitzva of the firstborn animal and the gifts of the priesthood. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: These principles stated by Rava are not accepted, as it is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by partners is obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, i.e., its offspring is subject to firstborn status. And Rabbi Ilai exempts the animal from having its offspring subject to firstborn status.

סוכה ג׳ ב:ב׳

לימא רבי היא ולא רבנן אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא לענין סוכה דדירת עראי היא אבל לגבי בית דדירת קבע הוא אפי' רבנן מודו דאי אית ביה ד' אמות על ד' אמות דיירי ביה אינשי ואי לא לא דיירי ביה אינשי:

Sukkah 3b:2

In answer to the question with regard to the identity of the tanna of the baraita, the Gemara says: Let us say that the tanna of the baraita is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not the Rabbis, as it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who holds that a sukka with an area of less than four by four cubits is unfit. The Gemara rejects this contention: Even if you say that the tanna of the baraita is the Rabbis, the Rabbis say that a structure with an area smaller than four by four cubits is fit only there, with regard to a sukka, which is a temporary residence, because in a temporary residence one is willing to confine himself to a small area. However, with regard to halakhot relating to a house, which is a permanent residence, even the Rabbis concede that if it has an area of four cubits by four cubits, people reside in it, as it is a functional house, and if not, people do not reside in it, and its legal status is not that of a house at all.

בבא קמא נ״א א:ה׳-י׳

איתיביה (דברים כב, ח) כי יפול הנופל ממנו ממנו ולא בתוכו כיצד היתה רה"ר גבוה ממנו עשרה טפחים ונפל מתוכה לתוכו פטור עמוקה ממנו עשרה טפחים ונפל מתוכו לתוכה חייב ואי ס"ד יש חבטה בפחות מי' למה לי עשרה א"ל שאני בית דכל פחות מעשרה לאו בית הוא אי הכי השתא נמי דהוי מאבראי עשרה דל מיניה תקרה ומעזיבה מגואי לא הוי עשרה א"ל כגון דחק מגואי אי הכי כי לא הוי נמי מאבראי עשרה משכחת לה דהוי מגואי עשרה כגון דחק בה טפי אלא היינו טעמא דר"נ סבר מכריסא דתורא לארעא כמה הוי ארבעה אריתא דדלאי כמה הוי שיתא הא עשרה אישתכח דכי קא מחבט מעשרה הוא דקא מחבט

Bava Kamma 51a:5-10

Rava again raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman: The Torah requires constructing a parapet on the roof of one’s house to prevent anyone from falling to his death, as the verse states (Deuteronomy 22:8): “You shall not bring blood upon your house, if any man falls from it.” The term “from it” teaches that liability exists only for falling from the roof of the house, but not onto the roof of a house. How is this so? If an area in the public domain was ten handbreadths higher than a private house and the owner did not construct a fence between his house and the public domain, and someone fell from inside the public domain onto the house, the owner of the house is exempt. By contrast, if the public domain was ten handbreadths lower than the house, and the owner did not construct a fence on his roof, and someone fell from the roof of the house into the public domain, he is liable. And if it enters your mind that there is a sufficiently strong impact to cause death even at a height of less than ten handbreadths, why do I need the roof to be ten handbreadths high for there to be a requirement to construct a parapet? Rav Naḥman said to him: The halakha of the parapet for the roof of a house is different, since any structure less than ten handbreadths is not classified as a house, and only a house requires a parapet. Rava objects: If that is so, i.e., if the requirement to build a parapet is limited to a house that is ten handbreadths high, then also now, where the house is ten handbreadths higher than the public domain when measured from the outside, remove the height of the ceiling and the plaster, which is an additional layer on top of the ceiling. When measured from the inside in this manner, its height is not ten. According to you, then, it is not classified as a house. Rav Naḥman said to him: It is a case where he hollowed out an extra space inside in the floor of the house so that its height would be ten handbreadths. Rava challenges him: If so, in a situation where the house is not ten handbreadths from the outside as well, you can find a scenario where it is ten handbreadths from the inside, such as where he hollowed out extra space in the floor, thereby transforming it into a house with the required height. Why, then, would a person be exempt in this case? The Gemara answers: Rather, the previous explanation must be entirely rejected, and this is the reasoning of Rav Naḥman when he ruled that one must suspect that the ox’s organs were crushed upon falling into the water channel. He maintains the following argument: How far is the distance from the stomach of the ox to the ground? It is four handbreadths. How deep is the water channel? It is six handbreadths. This totals ten handbreadths. Therefore, it transpires that when the ox hits the ground, it is from a height of ten handbreadths that it hits the ground, since it landed on its stomach and not on its feet.

תענית י״א א:ו׳

תניא אידך בזמן שהצבור שרוי בצער אל יאמר אדם אלך לביתי ואוכל ואשתה ושלום עליך נפשי ואם עושה כן עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו כב, יג) והנה ששון ושמחה הרוג בקר ושחוט צאן אכול בשר ושתות יין אכול ושתו כי מחר נמות מה כתיב בתריה (ישעיהו כב, יד) ונגלה באזני ה' צבאות אם יכופר העון הזה לכם עד תמותון

Taanit 11a:6

A similar idea is taught in another baraita: When the community is immersed in suffering, a person may not say: I will go to my home and I will eat and drink, and peace be upon you, my soul. And if he does so, the verse says about him: “And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine; let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die” (Isaiah 22:13). And the prophecy continues with what is written afterward, in the following verse: “And the Lord of hosts revealed Himself in my ears: Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you until you die” (Isaiah 22:14).

משנה בבא בתרא ב׳:ז׳-י׳

(ז) מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הָאִילָן מִן הָעִיר עֶשְׂרִים וְחָמֵשׁ אַמָּה, וּבְחָרוּב וּבְשִׁקְמָה חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, כָּל אִילַן סְרָק, חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה. אִם הָעִיר קָדְמָה, קוֹצֵץ וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן דָּמִים. וְאִם הָאִילָן קָדַם, קוֹצֵץ וְנוֹתֵן דָּמִים. סָפֵק זֶה קָדַם, סָפֵק זֶה קָדַם, קוֹצֵץ וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן דָּמִים:

(ח) מַרְחִיקִין גֹּרֶן קָבוּעַ מִן הָעִיר חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה. לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם גֹּרֶן קָבוּעַ בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֶשׁ לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ, וּמַרְחִיק מִנְּטִיעוֹתָיו שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וּמִנִּירוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַזִּיק:

(ט) מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הַנְּבֵלוֹת וְאֶת הַקְּבָרוֹת וְאֶת הַבֻּרְסְקִי מִן הָעִיר חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה. אֵין עוֹשִׂין בֻּרְסְקִי אֶלָּא לְמִזְרַח הָעִיר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לְכָל רוּחַ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה, חוּץ מִמַּעֲרָבָהּ, וּמַרְחִיק חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה:

(י) מַרְחִיקִין אֶת הַמִּשְׁרָה מִן הַיָּרָק, וְאֶת הַכְּרֵשִׁין מִן הַבְּצָלִים, וְאֶת הַחַרְדָּל מִן הַדְּבוֹרִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר בַּחַרְדָּל:

Mishnah Bava Batra 2:7-10

(7) A tree may not be grown within a distance of twenty five cubits from the town, or fifty cubits if it is a carob tree or a sycamore tree. Abba Shaul says: “Any tree that bears no fruit may not be grown within a distance of fifty cubits.” If the town was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given; if the tree was there first it shall be cut down and compensation given. If it is in doubt which was there first, the tree shall be cut down and no compensation given.

(8) A permanent threshing floor may not be made within fifty cubits of the town. One may not make a permanent threshing floor within his own domain unless his ground extends fifty cubits in every direction. And he must distance it from his fellow's plants and ploughed land so that it will not cause damage.

(9) Animal carcasses, graves and tanneries must be distanced fifty cubits from a town. A tannery may be set up only to the east of a town. Rabbi Akiva says: “It may be set up on any side save the west, and it must be distanced fifty cubits [from the town].

(10) A pool for soaking flax must be distanced from vegetables, and leeks from onions, and mustard plant from bees. Rabbi Yose permits mustard plant.

בבא מציעא ק״ח א:ד׳-ט׳

אמר רב יהודה הכל לאיגלי גפא ואפילו מיתמי אבל רבנן לא מ"ט רבנן לא צריכי נטירותא לכריא דפתיא ואפילו מרבנן ולא אמרן אלא דלא נפקא באוכלוזא אבל לאוכלוזא לא דרבנן לאו בני מיפק באוכלוזא נינהו אמר רב יהודה לכריא דנהרא תתאי מסייעי עילאי עילאי לא מסייעי תתאי וחילופא במיא דמיטרא תניא נמי הכי חמש גנות המסתפקות מים ממעין אחד ונתקלקל המעיין כולם מתקנות עם העליונה נמצאת התחתונה מתקנת עם כולן ומתקנת לעצמה וכן חמש חצרות שהיו מקלחות מים לביב אחד ונתקלקל הביב כולן מתקנות עם התחתונה נמצאת העליונה מתקנת עם כולן ומתקנת לעצמה אמר שמואל האי מאן דאחזיק ברקתא דנהרא חציפא הוי סלוקי לא מסלקינן ליה והאידנא דקא כתבי פרסאי קני לך עד מלי צוארי סוסיא מיא סלוקי נמי מסלקינן ליה... אמר רב יהודה אמר רב האי מאן דאחזיק ביני אחי וביני שותפי חציפא הוי סלוקי לא מסלקינן ליה ורב נחמן אמר נמי מסלקינן ואי משום דינא דבר מצרא לא מסלקינן ליה

Bava Metzia 108a:4-9

Rav Yehuda says: All participate in the payment for the construction of the city wall, and this sum is collected even from orphans, but not from the Torah scholars. What is the reason for this? The Torah scholars do not require protection, as the merit of their Torah study protects them from harm. By contrast, money is collected for the digging of a river or a well for drinking water, even from the Torah scholars. The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only if the town inhabitants do not go out in a crowd to perform the work themselves but pay workers to act on their behalf. But if they go out in a crowd, Torah scholars do not have to join them, as Torah scholars are not among those who go out in a crowd to perform work in public view. Rav Yehuda says: With regard to the digging of a river, i.e., the periodic deepening of a riverbed to prevent it from blocking up, the lower ones, i.e., those who live by the bottom of the river, must assist the upper ones in digging it and fixing it, as those located at the bottom of the river stand to gain from any work performed down to their houses. But the upper ones do not need to assist the lower ones, as the reverse is not the case. And the opposite is true with regard to the digging of a ditch to remove rainwater. In that case, those who live higher up are interested in the operation and therefore must help the lower ones, but the latter need not aid the higher ones in doing so in the upper area. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If there were five gardens that draw their water requirements from one spring and the spring became damaged, all must help fix it with the owner of the upper garden, near whose garden the damage occurred. As a result of this ruling, the owner of the lower garden fixes it with all of them in the above case, and fixes it for himself if the damage occurred in the lower area. And similarly, if there were five courtyards that would run off water into a single sewer and the sewer became damaged, all must help fix it with the owner of the lower courtyard, near whose courtyard the damage occurred. The result is that the owner of the upper courtyard fixes the sewer with all of them and fixes it for himself if the damage affected his courtyard alone. This is in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s ruling. Shmuel says: One who takes possession of an open space left along a riverbank for the purpose of loading and unloading in order to plow and plant there during the time that it is temporarily unused is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as this piece of land is considered ownerless. And nowadays, when the Persians write to one who acquires land alongside a river: Acquire for yourself the field up to the portion of the river itself where the water reaches a horse’s neck, we even go as far as to remove him from the plot of land, as it belongs to the owner of the field. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One who takes possession of land that is located between the land of brothers or between the land of partners and causes them trouble is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as they have no real claim against him. And Rav Naḥman said: We even go as far as to remove him, as one should not do anything that harms another. And if the complaint against him is due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as they owned fields bordering on this one, we do not remove him.

משנה בבא קמא ג׳:י״א

(יא) שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר שׁוֹר אַחֵר, וְהֻזַּק, זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא בְסֶלַע לָקָה, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹדְפִים אַחַר אֶחָד, זֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר שׁוֹרְךָ הִזִּיק, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שֶׁל אִישׁ אֶחָד, שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין. הָיָה אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן הִזִּיק. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד הִזִּיק, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָם הִזִּיק, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. הָיוּ הַנִּזּוֹקִין שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, וְהַמַּזִּיקִים שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, גָּדוֹל הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְקָטָן אֶת הַקָּטָן, וּמַזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא קָטָן אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְגָדוֹל אֶת הַקָּטָן. אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד מוּעָד, הַנִּזָּק אוֹמֵר, מוּעָד הִזִּיק אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְתָם אֶת הַקָּטָן, וְהַמַּזִּיק אוֹמֵר לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא תָם אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וּמוּעָד אֶת הַקָּטָן, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה:

Mishnah Bava Kamma 3:11

(11) If an ox was pursuing another ox and [the latter ox] was injured: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury, and this one claims “No, it was injured by a rock.” on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof. If two oxen were pursuing a third ox: this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, and this one claims “Your ox caused the injury”, they are both exempt. However, if they were both owned by one man, they are both obligated. If one was big and was small: the [owner] of injured [ox] says that “The large one caused the injury”, and the [owner] of the injuring [ox] says, “The small one caused the injury”, [or] if one was a harmless ox and one was an attested danger (muad) the [owner] of the injured ox says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger caused the injury, and the owner of the injuring ox says, “The [ox which is] harmless caused the injury”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof. If two oxen were injured, one big and one small, and two oxen caused the injury, one big and one small: [the owner] of the injured oxen says, “The big ox injured the big ox and small ox injured the small ox,” and the [owner] of the injuring oxen says, “The small ox injured the big ox and the big ox injured the small ox”; [or] if one was harmless and one was an attested danger: the [owner] of the injured oxen says, “The [ox which is an] attested danger injured the big ox, and the harmless [ox] injured the small ox”, the owner of injuring oxen says, “No rather the harmless [ox] injured the large ox and the [ox which is an] attested danger injured the small ox”, on the one who wishes to exact compensation lies the burden of proof.

שבת ק״כ א:ו׳-י׳

ועיגול של דבילה כו׳: חשבון מאי עבידתיה מהפקירא קזכו אמר רב חסדא מדת חסידות שנו כאן אמר רבא חסידי אגרא דשבתא שקלי אלא אמר רבא הכא בירא שמים עסקינן ולא ניחא ליה דליתהני מאחרים ובחנם נמי לא ניחא ליה דליטרח והכי קאמר ואם היו פיקחין דידעי דכהאי גוונא לאו שכר שבת הוא עושין עמו חשבון לאחר השבת: ולהיכן מצילין כו׳: מאי שנא הכא דקתני לכם ומאי שנא הכא דקתני עמי אמרי גבי מזונות קתני לכם משום דלא קא חזו אלא מזון שלש סעודות אבל גבי לבושים קתני עמי משום דקחזי ליה לכולי יומא: תנו רבנן לובש מוציא ופושט וחוזר ולובש ומוציא ופושט ואפילו כל היום כולו דברי רבי מאיר רבי יוסי אומר שמנה עשר כלים ואלו הם שמנה עשר כלים מקטורן אונקלי ופונדא קלבוס של פשתן וחלוק ואפיליות ומעפורת ושני ספרקין ושני מנעלים ושני אנפילאות ושני פרגד וחגור שבמתניו וכובע שבראשו וסודר שבצוארו: מתני׳ רבי שמעון בן ננס אומר פורסין עור של גדי על גבי שידה תיבה ומגדל שאחז בהן את האור מפני שהוא מחרך ועושין מחיצה בכל הכלים בין מלאין בין ריקנים בשביל שלא תעבור הדליקה רבי יוסי אוסר בכלי חרס חדשים מלאין מים לפי שאין יכולין לקבל את האור והן מתבקעין ומכבין את הדליקה: גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב טלית שאחז בה האור מצד אחד נותנין עליה מים מצד אחר ואם כבתה כבתה מיתיבי טלית שאחז בה האור מצד אחד פושטה ומתכסה בה ואם כבתה כבתה וכן ספר תורה שאחז בו האור פושטו וקורא בו ואם כבה כבה

Shabbat 120a:6-10

And we learned in the mishna that one is permitted to rescue a round cake of dried figs from a fire, and one may even say to others: Come and rescue for yourselves. And if the people who rescue with him are clever, they make a calculation with him after Shabbat. The Gemara is surprised at this: What is the mention of a calculation doing here? Aren’t they acquiring food from ownerless property? What calculation is necessary here? Whatever they rescue is theirs, and they do not need to return it to the original owner. Rav Ḥisda said: They taught an attribute of piety here. These are pious people. They want to return the objects to their owner even though they are not legally obligated to do so, and they were permitted to receive payment for their efforts. Rava said: And do pious people take payment for work they do on Shabbat? Rather, Rava said: Here, we are dealing with one who is Heaven-fearing but not completely pious. And it is uncomfortable for him to benefit from the property of others, and it is also uncomfortable for him to exert himself for free. And this is what the mishna is saying: And if they are clever and know that in a situation of this kind it is not technically payment for Shabbat labor, and it is permitted because they are only receiving a small portion of the value of the objects that they rescued, they may make a calculation with him after Shabbat. We learned in the mishna that one may say to others: Come and rescue for yourselves. We also learned: And to where may one rescue the food? According to the first tanna, one may rescue to a courtyard in which an eiruv was established. According to ben Beteira, one may rescue even to a courtyard in which an eiruv was not established. The Gemara asks: What is different here, with regard to rescuing food, that it is taught that one may say to others: Come and rescue for yourselves, and what is different here, with regard to rescuing clothing, that it is taught that one may say to others: Come and rescue with me? The Gemara answers: With regard to food, it taught: For yourselves, because only food for three meals is suited for him, and only others can benefit from the rest. However, with regard to the garments, it is taught: With me, because it is suited for him to continue rescuing garments all day, since he is permitted to wear other clothes. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one wants to rescue objects from a fire and there are many garments there, he may wear them, and take them out to a safe place, and remove them there, and return to the fire, and wear other clothes, and take them out and remove them. And he may even do so all day long; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: One may wear only eighteen garments, and these are the eighteen garments: A cloak [miktoren], a cape [unkali], a broad garment worn on one’s shoulders, and a large hollow belt worn over the clothes, a wide linen garment [kalbus], and a robe worn against the skin, a robe wrapped above, and a kerchief on one’s head, and two straps, i.e., belts, and two shoes, and two socks [anpilaot], and two tall boots [pargod], and a belt around one’s loins over the robe, and a hat on one’s head, and a scarf around one’s neck. MISHNA: Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas says: One may spread out a moist goat’s hide over a box, a chest, or a closet that caught fire, because the fire singes and does not burn it. The fire does not burn the wet goat’s hide but merely singes it, and by doing so the wooden vessels are preserved. And one may establish a barrier against the fire with all vessels, both full and empty, so that the fire will not pass. Rabbi Yosei prohibits using new earthenware vessels full of water, because they cannot withstand the heat of the fire and they will burst and extinguish the fire, and it is prohibited to cause the fire to be extinguished on Shabbat even indirectly. GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If a garment caught fire on one side, one may place water on its other side, and if as a result the fire is extinguished, it is extinguished. The Gemara raises an objection based on the following Tosefta: If a garment caught fire on one side, one may stretch it out and cover himself with it, and if the fire is extinguished, it is extinguished. And so too, if a Torah scroll caught fire, one may open it and read it, and if the fire is extinguished, it is extinguished. Apparently, it is prohibited to actually pour water, but one may perform a permitted act that will incidentally extinguish.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria. Learn More.OKאנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.קראו עוד בנושאלחצו כאן לאישור