גמ׳ אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהודה בן בבא ואמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא הותרו פסי ביראות אלא לבאר מים חיים בלבד
GEMARA: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. And Rav Yosef also said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Upright boards surrounding a well were permitted only in the case of a well containing potable, running spring water.
וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הלכה כרבי יהודה בן בבא הוה אמינא דרבים ואפילו מכונסין
The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to cite both of these statements, even though their content appears to be the same. As had he taught us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava that upright boards may only be set arranged for a well, I would have said that with regard to water belonging to the public, upright boards are permitted not only in the case of spring water, but even in the case of water collected in a cistern.
והאי דקתני באר הרבים לאפוקי מדרבי עקיבא קא משמע לן דלא הותרו פסי ביראות אלא לבאר מים חיים
And that which was taught: One may only arrange boards for a public well, that was to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Akiva that upright boards may be arranged even for a private well, but not to allow us to infer that boards may not be arranged for a public cistern filled with collected water. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that boards surrounding a well were permitted only in the case of a well of spring water.
ואי אשמעינן באר מים חיים הוה אמינא לא שנא דרבים ולא שנא דיחיד קא משמע לן הלכה כרבי יהודה בן בבא:
And in the opposite direction, had he taught us that upright boards may only be arranged for a well containing potable, running spring water, I would have said that there is no difference whether it is a public well and there is no difference whether it is a private well. Shmuel therefore teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who says that upright boards may be arranged only for a public well, but not for one that belongs to an individual.
מתני׳ ועוד אמר רבי יהודה בן בבא הגינה והקרפף שהן שבעים אמה ושיריים על שבעים אמה ושיריים המוקפות גדר גבוה עשרה טפחים מטלטלין בתוכה ובלבד שיהא בה שומירה או בית דירה או שתהא סמוכה לעיר
MISHNA: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava said: With regard to a garden or a karpef, an enclosed courtyard used for storage, that is not more than seventy cubits and a remainder, a little more, as will be explained below, by seventy cubits and a remainder, and is surrounded by a wall ten handbreadths high, one may carry inside it, as it constitutes a proper private domain. This is provided that it contains a watchman’s booth or a dwelling place, or it is near the town in which its owner lives, so that he uses it and it is treated like a dwelling.
רבי יהודה אומר אפילו אין בה אלא בור ושיח ומערה מטלטלין בתוכה רבי עקיבא אומר אפילו אין בה אחת מכל אלו מטלטלין בתוכה ובלבד שיהא בה שבעים אמה ושיריים על שבעים אמה ושיריים
Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not necessary, for even if it contains only a water cistern, an elongated water ditch, or a cave, i.e., a covered pit containing water, one may carry inside it, as the water bestows upon it the status of a dwelling. Rabbi Akiva says: Even if it has none of these one may carry inside it, provided that it measures not more than seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.
רבי אליעזר אומר אם היתה ארכה יתר על רחבה אפילו אמה אחת אין מטלטלין בתוכה רבי יוסי אומר אפילו ארכה פי שנים ברחבה מטלטלין בתוכה
Rabbi Eliezer says: If its length is greater than its breadth, even by one cubit, one may not carry inside it, even though its total area does not exceed an area of two beit se’a, because in an area that was enclosed not for the purpose of residence, carrying is only permitted if the area is perfectly square. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if its length is double its breadth, one may carry inside it, and there is no need to be particular about a square shape.
אמר רבי אלעאי שמעתי מרבי אלעזר ואפילו היא כבית כור
Rabbi Elai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer that one is permitted to carry in a garden or karpef, even if the garden is an area of a beit kor, i.e., thirty times larger than the area of a beit se’a.
וכן שמעתי ממנו אנשי חצר ששכח אחד מהן ולא עירב ביתו אסור מלהכניס ולהוציא לו אבל להם מותר
Incidentally, he adds: And I also heard from him another halakha: If one of the residents of a courtyard forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other residents when they established an eiruv, and on Shabbat he ceded ownership of his part in the courtyard to the other residents, then it is prohibited for him, the one who forgot to establish an eiruv, to bring in objects or take them out from his house to the courtyard; however, it is permitted to them, the other residents, to bring objects from their houses to that person’s house via the courtyard, and vice versa. We do not say that the failure of one resident to join in the eiruv nullifies the validity of the eiruv for the entire courtyard.
וכן שמעתי ממנו שיוצאין בערקבלין בפסח וחזרתי על כל תלמידיו ובקשתי לי חבר ולא מצאתי:
And I also heard from him another halakha, that one may fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs on Passover with arkablin, a certain bitter herb. With regard to all three rulings, I circulated among all of Rabbi Eliezer’s disciples, seeking a colleague who had also heard these matters from him, but I could not find one.
גמ׳ מאי תנא דקתני ועוד
GEMARA: The Gemara first analyzes the wording of this mishna: What was taught previously, that the tanna teaches in this mishna: And furthermore Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava said, which implies a continuation of the previous mishna?
אילימא משום דתנא ליה חדא לחומרא וקתני אחריתי משום הכי קתני ועוד והא רבי יהודה דתנא ליה חדא לחומרא וקתני אחריתי ולא קתני ועוד
If you say that because he first taught one stringency concerning the upright boards surrounding a well, and then he teaches another stringency about an enclosure, and for that reason the tanna of the mishna teaches: And furthermore, then there is a difficulty. Didn’t Rabbi Yehuda also teach one stringency and then teach another stringency, and yet the tanna of the mishna does not teach: And furthermore Rabbi Yehuda said?
התם אפסקוה רבנן הכא לא אפסקוה רבנן
The Gemara answers that the cases are different: There, the Rabbis interrupted Rabbi Yehuda’s statements in order to disagree with him, and hence it is not possible to say: And furthermore Rabbi Yehuda said. Here, however, the Rabbis did not interrupt him, as the two statements of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava immediately follow one another.
וכל היכא דאפסקוה רבנן לא קתני ועוד והא רבי אליעזר דסוכה דאפסקוה רבנן וקתני ועוד
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Does this mean that wherever the disputing Rabbis interrupt their colleague, the tanna teaches: And furthermore? But with regard to Rabbi Eliezer in a mishna in tractate Sukka (27a), where the Rabbis interrupted his statements, nonetheless the tanna teaches: And furthermore.
התם במילתיה הוא דאפסקוה הכא במילתא אחריתי אפסקוה:
The Gemara answers: It is not the same; there, they interrupted Rabbi Eliezer with a ruling with regard to his own topic; here, however, they interrupted Rabbi Yehuda with a ruling with regard to an altogether different matter. Consequently, his first statement had already been forgotten, and it is not the Mishna’s style to join together statements where the sequential link between them has already been severed.
רבי עקיבא אומר אפילו אין בה אחד מכל אלו מטלטלין בתוכה:
We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Akiva said: Even if the courtyard has none of these elements that indicate dwelling stipulated by the other Rabbis, one may carry inside it, provided that it measures no more than seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.