גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא הוּתְּרוּ פַּסֵּי בֵירָאוֹת אֶלָּא לִבְאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים בִּלְבַד. 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.
וּצְרִיכָא: דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: דְּרַבִּים — וַאֲפִילּוּ מְכוּנָּסִין, 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.
וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי בְּאֵר הָרַבִּים — לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלֹא הוּתְּרוּ פַּסֵּי בֵירָאוֹת אֶלָּא לִבְאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים. 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.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לָא שְׁנָא דְּרַבִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא דְּיָחִיד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא. 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.
מַתְנִי׳ וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בָּבָא: הַגִּינָּה וְהַקַּרְפֵּף שֶׁהֵן שִׁבְעִים אַמָּה וְשִׁירַיִים עַל שִׁבְעִים אַמָּה וְשִׁירַיִים הַמּוּקָּפוֹת גָּדֵר גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים — מְטַלְטְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהּ שׁוֹמֵירָה אוֹ בֵּית דִּירָה, אוֹ שֶׁתְּהֵא סְמוּכָה לָעִיר. 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.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא בּוֹר וְשִׁיחַ וּמְעָרָה מְטַלְטְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֵין בָּהּ אַחַת מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ מְטַלְטְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהּ שִׁבְעִים אַמָּה וְשִׁירַיִים עַל שִׁבְעִים אַמָּה וְשִׁירַיִים. 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.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה אׇרְכָּהּ יָתֵר עַל רׇחְבָּהּ אֲפִילּוּ אַמָּה אַחַת — אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אׇרְכָּהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּרׇחְבָּהּ — מְטַלְטְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ. 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וַאֲפִילּוּ הִיא כְּבֵית כּוֹר. 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.
וְכֵן שָׁמַעְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ: אַנְשֵׁי חָצֵר שֶׁשָּׁכַח אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְלֹא עֵירַב — בֵּיתוֹ אָסוּר מִלְּהַכְנִיס וּלְהוֹצִיא לוֹ, אֲבָל לָהֶם מוּתָּר. 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.
וְכֵן שָׁמַעְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ: שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין בְּעַרְקַבָּלִין בַּפֶּסַח. וְחָזַרְתִּי עַל כׇּל תַּלְמִידָיו וּבִקַּשְׁתִּי לִי חָבֵר, וְלֹא מָצָאתִי. 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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי תַּנָּא דְּקָתָנֵי ״וְעוֹד״. 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?
אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּתְנָא לֵיהּ חֲדָא לְחוּמְרָא וְקָתָנֵי אַחֲרִיתִי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָתָנֵי ״וְעוֹד״ — וְהָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּתְנָא לֵיהּ חֲדָא לְחוּמְרָא וְקָתָנֵי אַחֲרִיתִי, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״וְעוֹד״! 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?
הָתָם אַפְסְקוּהּ רַבָּנַן, הָכָא לָא אַפְסְקוּהּ רַבָּנַן. 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.
וְכׇל הֵיכָא דְּאַפְסְקוּהּ רַבָּנַן לָא קָתָנֵי ״וְעוֹד״? וְהָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּסוּכָּה, דְּאַפְסְקוּהּ רַבָּנַן, וְקָתָנֵי ״וְעוֹד״? 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.
הָתָם, בְּמִילְּתֵיהּ הוּא דְּאַפְסְקוּהּ. הָכָא, בְּמִילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי אַפְסְקוּהּ. 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.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֵין בָּהּ אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ מְטַלְטְלִין בְּתוֹכָהּ. 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.