Eruvin 24aעירובין כ״ד א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 24a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
24aכ״ד א

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.