Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 2, 2020 | י״ג באלול תש״פ

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Eruvin 24

Pictures Eruvin 24

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Loebenberg family in honor of the yahrzeit of our father and grandfather, Ralph Loebenberg, Raphael ben Mordechai, z”l, who was able to be mesayem Masechet Eruvin two cycles ago, and also in honor of one of his granddaughters, Danya Gewurz, who is continuing on with her daf yomi learning with this third masechet as part of this cycle. Saba would be so proud.

What is the status of an enclosure that was enclosed for living purposes but one planted in it – does that change its status? On what does it depend? Rav Huna son of Rabbi Yehoshua limits the case but there are 3 versions of what exactly he said – what he was limiting and what were the limits he set. If one enclosed the space not for living purposes and then decides to live there, what does one need to do to make the space permitted for carrying? One needs to breach the wall more than ten cubits and rebuild. What if one breached a small amount at a time and fixed it up so that at every given point, there was not a breach of more than ten – does that work? If a space was walled in for purposes of living and then became filled with water – does that cancel its status “for living purposes” – on what does it depend? How did they fix the rechava, large open space in Pum Nahara that was open on one side to an alley that opened to the public domain and the other side was a path between vineyards that led to the river? What did that allow them to do?

 

בטיל ליה לגבי רובה והוה ליה קרפף יותר מבית סאתים ואסור

is nullified relative to the greater part, and it is as though the karpef were entirely sown. And therefore, it is regarded as a karpef greater than two beit se’a, in which it is prohibited to carry.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר הא מיעוטא שרי אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא אמרן אלא דלא הוי בית סאתים אבל בית סאתים אסור

Rather, if this was stated, this is what was stated by Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: If the greater part of the karpef was sown, it is prohibited to carry within it. It follows that if only a minor part of the karpef was sown, it is permitted to carry within it. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We said that it is permitted to carry only if the sown section is not as large as two beit se’a, however, if it is at least two beit se’a, it is prohibited to carry anywhere in the karpef, even though most of it is not sown.

כמאן כרבנן

The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion was this stated? It is according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and say that a karpef and a courtyard are regarded as separate domains, so that it is prohibited to carry from one to the other.

ורב ירמיה מדיפתי מתני לקולא הא מיעוטא שרי אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא אמרן אלא בית סאתים אבל יותר מבית סאתים אסור כמאן כרבי שמעון:

And Rav Yirmeya from Difti would teach this matter as a leniency, as follows: It was stated that if the greater part of the karpef was sown, it is prohibited to carry within it. From here it follows that if only a minor part was sown, it is permitted to carry within it. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua said: We only said that it is permitted to carry if the sown section is not more than two beit se’a, but if it is more than two beit se’a, it is prohibited to carry. According to whose opinion was this stated? It was according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

נטע רובו הרי הוא כחצר ומותר: אמר רב יהודה אמר אבימי והוא שעשויין אצטבלאות ורב נחמן אמר אף על פי שאין עשויין אצטבלאות

It was stated earlier that if the greater part of the karpef was planted with trees, it is considered like a courtyard, and it is permitted to carry. Rav Yehuda said that Avimi said: This is only if the trees were planted in rows [itztablaot], the customary manner of planting ornamental trees in a courtyard. But if they were arranged differently it is considered an orchard, which is not made for dwelling, and where it is prohibited to carry. But Rav Naḥman said: This applies even if they were not planted in rows, as people commonly plant trees in any arrangement in the courtyards of their houses.

מר יהודה אקלע לבי רב הונא בר יהודה חזנהו להנהו דלא עבידי אצטבלאות וקא מטלטלי בגוייהו אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דאבימי אמר ליה אנא כרב נחמן סבירא לי

Mar Yehuda happened to come to the house of Rav Huna bar Yehuda, where he saw certain trees that were not planted in rows, and people were nevertheless carrying among them. Mar Yehuda said to Rav Huna: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with this opinion of Avimi? Rav Huna said to him: I hold like the opinion of Rav Naḥman, that it is permitted to carry even if the trees are not planted in rows.

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה כיצד הוא עושה פורץ בו פירצה יותר מעשר וגודרו ומעמידו על עשר ומותר

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: With regard to a karpef that is greater than two beit se’a, and which was not enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence, what should one do if he wishes to carry within it? He should make a breach in the fence larger than ten cubits, which nullifies the partition, and then fence it off and reduce the opening to only ten cubits, which thereby creates an entrance. He is then permitted to carry in the karpef, because it is now regarded as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence.

איבעיא להו פרץ אמה וגדר אמה [ופרץ אמה וגדרה] עד שהשלימו ליותר מעשר מהו

The Gemara raises a dilemma: If he did not make the breach at once, but rather he breached one cubit and fenced off that same cubit, and then breached another cubit and fenced it off, until he completed the breaching and fencing off of more than ten cubits, what is the law?

אמר ליה לאו היינו דתנן כל כלי בעלי בתים שיעורן כרמונים

He said to him: Is this not as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden utensils belonging to ordinary homeowners become ritually pure through breaking the utensil, if they have holes the size of pomegranates.

ובעי חזקיה ניקב כמוציא זית וסתמו וחזר וניקב כמוציא זית וסתמו עד שהשלימו למוציא רמון מהו

And Ḥizkiya raised a dilemma: If a utensil was perforated with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and then it was perforated again with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it again, and this went on until the holes together completed a space large enough for a pomegranate to emerge, what is the halakha? In other words, is the ruling that because the sum of all the holes is the size of a pomegranate the utensil is pure, or is the ruling that it remains ritually impure because each hole was filled before the next hole was formed?

ואמר ליה רבי יוחנן רבי שניתה לנו סנדל שנפסקה אחת מאזניו ותיקנה טמא מדרס

Rabbi Yoḥanan his student said to him: Master, you taught us that with regard to a sandal that became ritually impure by impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears, i.e., straps, broke and he repaired it, it remains ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading [midras] and can still render people and utensils ritually impure. If one of a sandal’s straps is torn, it can still be used as a sandal, and therefore it does not lose its status as a utensil.

נפסקה שניה ותיקנה טהור בה מן המדרס אבל טמא מגע מדרס

If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure as would a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading. However, the sandal itself is ritually impure due to contact with an object that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading, i.e., the sandal before its second strap ripped. Therefore, it can transmit ritual impurity to food and liquids.

ואמרת עלה מאי שנא ראשונה דהא קיימא שניה שניה נמי הא קיימא ראשונה

And you said about this halakha: What is different in a case where the first ear breaks, that the sandal remains impure? It is because the second one is intact. However, when the second ear breaks, the first ear is intact; so how does the sandal lose its utensil status?

ואמרת לן עלה פנים חדשות באו לכאן הכא נמי פנים חדשות באו לכאן

And then you said to us with regard to this that the reason it is no longer a utensil is because a new entity has arrived here. The legal status of the sandal with the two repaired ears is not that of the original sandal; it is a new sandal. Here, too, with regard to a utensil that was perforated several times, where the sum of all the holes adds up to the size of a pomegranate, let us say that a new entity has arrived here, as the entire area of the hole is completely new, and the utensil is no longer the same utensil that had been ritually impure.

קרי עליה לית דין בר אינש איכא דאמרי כגון דין בר נש

Ḥizkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yoḥanan’s comment that he exclaimed about him: This is not a human being; rather, he is an angel, as he is capable of resolving a problem that I struggle with, from something that I myself taught. Some say that he said: This is an ideal human being. This parallel analysis teaches that if one breached one cubit and fenced it off, breached another cubit and fenced it off, and continued this way until he breached and fenced off more than ten cubits, then this is effective, and he need not breach more than ten meters at once.

אמר רב כהנא רחבה שאחורי הבתים אין מטלטלין בו אלא בארבע אמות

Rav Kahana said: A fenced-in yard located behind a group of houses, which is used to store objects not in regular use and which measures more than two beit se’a, is not treated as a full-fledged private domain. Therefore, inside it, one may carry objects a distance of only four cubits.

ואמר רב נחמן אם פתח לו פתח מותר לטלטל בכולו פתח מתירו ולא אמרן אלא שפתח ולבסוף הוקף אבל הוקף ולבסוף פתח לא

Rav Naḥman said: If one opened an entrance to it from the house, it is permitted to carry throughout the entire area, because the entrance permits it, allowing it to be considered as part of the house. And we stated this allowance only where he opened the entrance and afterward fenced in the area; but if he first fenced it in and only afterward opened the entrance, he may not carry throughout the yard.

פתח ולבסוף הוקף פשיטא לא צריכא דאית ביה בי דרי מהו דתימא אדעתא דבי דרי עבדיה קא משמע לן

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If he first opened the entrance and afterward fenced in the area, it is obvious that it is permitted to carry throughout the yard, because it is clear that the area was enclosed for the entrance, i.e., in order to use it from the house. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary only in the case where there is a threshing floor in the yard. This is because you might have said that he made the entrance with the threshing floor in mind, and not so that he would be able to use the entire yard. He therefore comes and teaches us that the entrance renders it permitted to carry in the yard in all cases.

קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שהוקף לדירה ונתמלא מים סבור רבנן למימר כזרעים דמו ואסיר

The Gemara considers a new case: With regard to a karpef measuring more than two beit se’a, which had been enclosed for the purpose of residence but became filled with water, by floods or any other cause, the Rabbis thought to say that the water is considered like seeds. This means that the karpef is regarded as if it were sown with seeds, so that it is prohibited to carry. It is no longer considered as having been enclosed for the purpose of dwelling, since it is not normal to live in a place filled with water.

אמר להו רב אבא אבוה דרב בריה דרב משרשיא הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבא מים כנטעים דמו ושרי

Rav Abba, father of Rav, son of Rav Mesharshiya, said: We say in the name of Rava as follows: Water is considered like planted trees, so that one is permitted to carry. A courtyard filled with water is still suitable for dwelling, since the water benefits the residents of the courtyard.

אמר אמימר והוא דחזיין לתשמישתא אבל לא חזיין לתשמישתא לא

Ameimar said: This ruling applies only if the water is fit for its regular use, i.e., for drinking, because in that case it provides for the needs of residence. However, if the water is not fit for use, then it is not considered like planted trees. Therefore, the karpef is no longer considered enclosed for the purpose of residence, and it is prohibited to carry in the karpef.

אמר רב אשי ודחזיין לתשמישתא נמי לא אמרן אלא שאין בעומקו יותר מבית סאתים אבל אם יש בעומקו יותר מבית סאתים אסור

Rav Ashi said: And even where the water is fit for use, this ruling applies only if the water is not ten handbreadths deep over an area greater than two beit se’a; but if the water is ten handbreadths deep over an area greater than two beit se’a, it is prohibited to carry in it, as in such a case the karpef is no longer considered enclosed for the sake of dwelling.

ולאו מילתא היא מידי דהוה אכריא דפירי

The Gemara comments: And it is not so, just as it is in the case of a pile of fruit, as even if the pile of fruit is very large, the karpef does not lose its status as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence.

ההיא רחבה דהואי בפום נהרא דחד גיסא הוה פתיח למתא וחד גיסא הוה פתיח לשביל של כרמים ושביל של כרמים הוה סליק לגודא דנהרא

The Gemara relates: There was a certain yard in the town of Pum Nahara that was larger than two beit se’a and that had not been enclosed for the purpose of residence. One of its sides opened to an alleyway in the town, and the other opened to a walled path between the vineyards, and that vineyard path led to the bank of a river ten handbreadths high, which is considered a partition.

אמר אביי היכי נעביד לעביד ליה מחיצה אגודא דנהרא אין עושין מחיצה על גבי מחיצה

Abaye said: What shall we do to permit carrying in the yard, which is a karmelit, without having to make a breach in one of its walls wider than ten cubits and then fence it up again? Shall we construct a partition for it on the river bank, so that the vineyard path is surrounded by partitions on all sides? This is not a viable solution, as one cannot construct an effective partition on top of another partition that already exists, and the river bank is considered a partition relative to the river.

ולעביד ליה צורת הפתח אפומא דשביל של כרמים אתו גמלי שדיין ליה

Shall we arrange a doorframe at the mouth of the vineyard path? That is also not an effective solution in this case, for the camels that walk down this path in order to drink water from the river will come and knock it over.

אלא אמר אביי ליעביד לחי אפיתחא דשביל של כרמים דמגו דמהניא לשביל של כרמים מהני נמי לרחבה

Rather, Abaye said: We should arrange a side post at the opening of the vineyard path to the yard, since as it is effective for the vineyard path, to allow one to carry on the path, as it is no longer breached into a karmelit, it is also effective for the yard, and the side post will be considered an additional partition that renders it permitted to carry in the yard.

אמר ליה רבא יאמרו לחי מועיל לשביל של כרמים דעלמא

Rava said to him: If so, people will say that a side post is effective in permitting one to carry in a vineyard path generally, and this will cause the public to err, as vineyard paths are usually open at both ends and do not lead to a river or the like.

אלא אמר רבא עבדינן ליה לחי לפיתחא דמתא דמגו דמהני ליה לחי למתא מהני נמי לרחבה

Rather, Rava said: They should arrange a side post at the opening of the yard to the town, as since the side post is effective and is considered a partition for the town, it is also effective for the yard, to permit one to carry within it.

הלכך טלטולי במתא גופה שרי טלטולי ברחבה גופה שרי ממתא לרחבה ומרחבה למתא פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי

Therefore, in summary, it is permitted to carry within the town itself and to carry within the yard itself. However, with regard to carrying from the town to the yard or from the yard to the town, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree: One prohibits doing so and the other permits it.

Masechet Eruvin is sponsored by Adina and Eric Hagege in honor of our parents, Rabbi Dov and Elayne Greenstone and Roger and Ketty Hagege who raised children, grandchildren and great grandchildren committed to Torah learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

one week at a time with tamara spitz

Eruvin 24-30 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

Print
https://youtu.be/IcISBexmEP0?showinfo=0

Eruvin 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Eruvin 24

בטיל ליה לגבי רובה והוה ליה קרפף יותר מבית סאתים ואסור

is nullified relative to the greater part, and it is as though the karpef were entirely sown. And therefore, it is regarded as a karpef greater than two beit se’a, in which it is prohibited to carry.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר הא מיעוטא שרי אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא אמרן אלא דלא הוי בית סאתים אבל בית סאתים אסור

Rather, if this was stated, this is what was stated by Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: If the greater part of the karpef was sown, it is prohibited to carry within it. It follows that if only a minor part of the karpef was sown, it is permitted to carry within it. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We said that it is permitted to carry only if the sown section is not as large as two beit se’a, however, if it is at least two beit se’a, it is prohibited to carry anywhere in the karpef, even though most of it is not sown.

כמאן כרבנן

The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion was this stated? It is according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and say that a karpef and a courtyard are regarded as separate domains, so that it is prohibited to carry from one to the other.

ורב ירמיה מדיפתי מתני לקולא הא מיעוטא שרי אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא אמרן אלא בית סאתים אבל יותר מבית סאתים אסור כמאן כרבי שמעון:

And Rav Yirmeya from Difti would teach this matter as a leniency, as follows: It was stated that if the greater part of the karpef was sown, it is prohibited to carry within it. From here it follows that if only a minor part was sown, it is permitted to carry within it. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua said: We only said that it is permitted to carry if the sown section is not more than two beit se’a, but if it is more than two beit se’a, it is prohibited to carry. According to whose opinion was this stated? It was according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

נטע רובו הרי הוא כחצר ומותר: אמר רב יהודה אמר אבימי והוא שעשויין אצטבלאות ורב נחמן אמר אף על פי שאין עשויין אצטבלאות

It was stated earlier that if the greater part of the karpef was planted with trees, it is considered like a courtyard, and it is permitted to carry. Rav Yehuda said that Avimi said: This is only if the trees were planted in rows [itztablaot], the customary manner of planting ornamental trees in a courtyard. But if they were arranged differently it is considered an orchard, which is not made for dwelling, and where it is prohibited to carry. But Rav Naḥman said: This applies even if they were not planted in rows, as people commonly plant trees in any arrangement in the courtyards of their houses.

מר יהודה אקלע לבי רב הונא בר יהודה חזנהו להנהו דלא עבידי אצטבלאות וקא מטלטלי בגוייהו אמר ליה לא סבר לה מר להא דאבימי אמר ליה אנא כרב נחמן סבירא לי

Mar Yehuda happened to come to the house of Rav Huna bar Yehuda, where he saw certain trees that were not planted in rows, and people were nevertheless carrying among them. Mar Yehuda said to Rav Huna: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with this opinion of Avimi? Rav Huna said to him: I hold like the opinion of Rav Naḥman, that it is permitted to carry even if the trees are not planted in rows.

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה כיצד הוא עושה פורץ בו פירצה יותר מעשר וגודרו ומעמידו על עשר ומותר

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: With regard to a karpef that is greater than two beit se’a, and which was not enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence, what should one do if he wishes to carry within it? He should make a breach in the fence larger than ten cubits, which nullifies the partition, and then fence it off and reduce the opening to only ten cubits, which thereby creates an entrance. He is then permitted to carry in the karpef, because it is now regarded as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence.

איבעיא להו פרץ אמה וגדר אמה [ופרץ אמה וגדרה] עד שהשלימו ליותר מעשר מהו

The Gemara raises a dilemma: If he did not make the breach at once, but rather he breached one cubit and fenced off that same cubit, and then breached another cubit and fenced it off, until he completed the breaching and fencing off of more than ten cubits, what is the law?

אמר ליה לאו היינו דתנן כל כלי בעלי בתים שיעורן כרמונים

He said to him: Is this not as we learned in a mishna: All ritually impure wooden utensils belonging to ordinary homeowners become ritually pure through breaking the utensil, if they have holes the size of pomegranates.

ובעי חזקיה ניקב כמוציא זית וסתמו וחזר וניקב כמוציא זית וסתמו עד שהשלימו למוציא רמון מהו

And Ḥizkiya raised a dilemma: If a utensil was perforated with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and then it was perforated again with a hole large enough for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it again, and this went on until the holes together completed a space large enough for a pomegranate to emerge, what is the halakha? In other words, is the ruling that because the sum of all the holes is the size of a pomegranate the utensil is pure, or is the ruling that it remains ritually impure because each hole was filled before the next hole was formed?

ואמר ליה רבי יוחנן רבי שניתה לנו סנדל שנפסקה אחת מאזניו ותיקנה טמא מדרס

Rabbi Yoḥanan his student said to him: Master, you taught us that with regard to a sandal that became ritually impure by impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, and one of its ears, i.e., straps, broke and he repaired it, it remains ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading [midras] and can still render people and utensils ritually impure. If one of a sandal’s straps is torn, it can still be used as a sandal, and therefore it does not lose its status as a utensil.

נפסקה שניה ותיקנה טהור בה מן המדרס אבל טמא מגע מדרס

If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure as would a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading. However, the sandal itself is ritually impure due to contact with an object that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by treading, i.e., the sandal before its second strap ripped. Therefore, it can transmit ritual impurity to food and liquids.

ואמרת עלה מאי שנא ראשונה דהא קיימא שניה שניה נמי הא קיימא ראשונה

And you said about this halakha: What is different in a case where the first ear breaks, that the sandal remains impure? It is because the second one is intact. However, when the second ear breaks, the first ear is intact; so how does the sandal lose its utensil status?

ואמרת לן עלה פנים חדשות באו לכאן הכא נמי פנים חדשות באו לכאן

And then you said to us with regard to this that the reason it is no longer a utensil is because a new entity has arrived here. The legal status of the sandal with the two repaired ears is not that of the original sandal; it is a new sandal. Here, too, with regard to a utensil that was perforated several times, where the sum of all the holes adds up to the size of a pomegranate, let us say that a new entity has arrived here, as the entire area of the hole is completely new, and the utensil is no longer the same utensil that had been ritually impure.

קרי עליה לית דין בר אינש איכא דאמרי כגון דין בר נש

Ḥizkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yoḥanan’s comment that he exclaimed about him: This is not a human being; rather, he is an angel, as he is capable of resolving a problem that I struggle with, from something that I myself taught. Some say that he said: This is an ideal human being. This parallel analysis teaches that if one breached one cubit and fenced it off, breached another cubit and fenced it off, and continued this way until he breached and fenced off more than ten cubits, then this is effective, and he need not breach more than ten meters at once.

אמר רב כהנא רחבה שאחורי הבתים אין מטלטלין בו אלא בארבע אמות

Rav Kahana said: A fenced-in yard located behind a group of houses, which is used to store objects not in regular use and which measures more than two beit se’a, is not treated as a full-fledged private domain. Therefore, inside it, one may carry objects a distance of only four cubits.

ואמר רב נחמן אם פתח לו פתח מותר לטלטל בכולו פתח מתירו ולא אמרן אלא שפתח ולבסוף הוקף אבל הוקף ולבסוף פתח לא

Rav Naḥman said: If one opened an entrance to it from the house, it is permitted to carry throughout the entire area, because the entrance permits it, allowing it to be considered as part of the house. And we stated this allowance only where he opened the entrance and afterward fenced in the area; but if he first fenced it in and only afterward opened the entrance, he may not carry throughout the yard.

פתח ולבסוף הוקף פשיטא לא צריכא דאית ביה בי דרי מהו דתימא אדעתא דבי דרי עבדיה קא משמע לן

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If he first opened the entrance and afterward fenced in the area, it is obvious that it is permitted to carry throughout the yard, because it is clear that the area was enclosed for the entrance, i.e., in order to use it from the house. The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary only in the case where there is a threshing floor in the yard. This is because you might have said that he made the entrance with the threshing floor in mind, and not so that he would be able to use the entire yard. He therefore comes and teaches us that the entrance renders it permitted to carry in the yard in all cases.

קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שהוקף לדירה ונתמלא מים סבור רבנן למימר כזרעים דמו ואסיר

The Gemara considers a new case: With regard to a karpef measuring more than two beit se’a, which had been enclosed for the purpose of residence but became filled with water, by floods or any other cause, the Rabbis thought to say that the water is considered like seeds. This means that the karpef is regarded as if it were sown with seeds, so that it is prohibited to carry. It is no longer considered as having been enclosed for the purpose of dwelling, since it is not normal to live in a place filled with water.

אמר להו רב אבא אבוה דרב בריה דרב משרשיא הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבא מים כנטעים דמו ושרי

Rav Abba, father of Rav, son of Rav Mesharshiya, said: We say in the name of Rava as follows: Water is considered like planted trees, so that one is permitted to carry. A courtyard filled with water is still suitable for dwelling, since the water benefits the residents of the courtyard.

אמר אמימר והוא דחזיין לתשמישתא אבל לא חזיין לתשמישתא לא

Ameimar said: This ruling applies only if the water is fit for its regular use, i.e., for drinking, because in that case it provides for the needs of residence. However, if the water is not fit for use, then it is not considered like planted trees. Therefore, the karpef is no longer considered enclosed for the purpose of residence, and it is prohibited to carry in the karpef.

אמר רב אשי ודחזיין לתשמישתא נמי לא אמרן אלא שאין בעומקו יותר מבית סאתים אבל אם יש בעומקו יותר מבית סאתים אסור

Rav Ashi said: And even where the water is fit for use, this ruling applies only if the water is not ten handbreadths deep over an area greater than two beit se’a; but if the water is ten handbreadths deep over an area greater than two beit se’a, it is prohibited to carry in it, as in such a case the karpef is no longer considered enclosed for the sake of dwelling.

ולאו מילתא היא מידי דהוה אכריא דפירי

The Gemara comments: And it is not so, just as it is in the case of a pile of fruit, as even if the pile of fruit is very large, the karpef does not lose its status as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence.

ההיא רחבה דהואי בפום נהרא דחד גיסא הוה פתיח למתא וחד גיסא הוה פתיח לשביל של כרמים ושביל של כרמים הוה סליק לגודא דנהרא

The Gemara relates: There was a certain yard in the town of Pum Nahara that was larger than two beit se’a and that had not been enclosed for the purpose of residence. One of its sides opened to an alleyway in the town, and the other opened to a walled path between the vineyards, and that vineyard path led to the bank of a river ten handbreadths high, which is considered a partition.

אמר אביי היכי נעביד לעביד ליה מחיצה אגודא דנהרא אין עושין מחיצה על גבי מחיצה

Abaye said: What shall we do to permit carrying in the yard, which is a karmelit, without having to make a breach in one of its walls wider than ten cubits and then fence it up again? Shall we construct a partition for it on the river bank, so that the vineyard path is surrounded by partitions on all sides? This is not a viable solution, as one cannot construct an effective partition on top of another partition that already exists, and the river bank is considered a partition relative to the river.

ולעביד ליה צורת הפתח אפומא דשביל של כרמים אתו גמלי שדיין ליה

Shall we arrange a doorframe at the mouth of the vineyard path? That is also not an effective solution in this case, for the camels that walk down this path in order to drink water from the river will come and knock it over.

אלא אמר אביי ליעביד לחי אפיתחא דשביל של כרמים דמגו דמהניא לשביל של כרמים מהני נמי לרחבה

Rather, Abaye said: We should arrange a side post at the opening of the vineyard path to the yard, since as it is effective for the vineyard path, to allow one to carry on the path, as it is no longer breached into a karmelit, it is also effective for the yard, and the side post will be considered an additional partition that renders it permitted to carry in the yard.

אמר ליה רבא יאמרו לחי מועיל לשביל של כרמים דעלמא

Rava said to him: If so, people will say that a side post is effective in permitting one to carry in a vineyard path generally, and this will cause the public to err, as vineyard paths are usually open at both ends and do not lead to a river or the like.

אלא אמר רבא עבדינן ליה לחי לפיתחא דמתא דמגו דמהני ליה לחי למתא מהני נמי לרחבה

Rather, Rava said: They should arrange a side post at the opening of the yard to the town, as since the side post is effective and is considered a partition for the town, it is also effective for the yard, to permit one to carry within it.

הלכך טלטולי במתא גופה שרי טלטולי ברחבה גופה שרי ממתא לרחבה ומרחבה למתא פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי

Therefore, in summary, it is permitted to carry within the town itself and to carry within the yard itself. However, with regard to carrying from the town to the yard or from the yard to the town, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree: One prohibits doing so and the other permits it.

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top