Eruvin 24bעירובין כ״ד ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Eruvin 24b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
24bכ״ד ב

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.