אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: וְהוּא דְּחַזְיִין לְתַשְׁמִישְׁתָּא, אֲבָל לָא חַזְיִין לְתַשְׁמִישְׁתָּא — לָא.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וּדְחַזְיִין לְתַשְׁמִישְׁתָּא נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין בְּעוֹמְקוֹ יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם, אֲבָל אִם יֵשׁ בְּעוֹמְקוֹ יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם — אָסוּר.
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.
וְלָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַכַּרְיָא דְפֵירֵי.
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.
הָהִיא רְחָבָה דַּהֲוַאי בְּפוּם נַהֲרָא, דְּחַד גִּיסָא הֲוָה פְּתִיחַ לְמָתָא, וְחַד גִּיסָא הֲוָה פְּתִיחַ לִשְׁבִיל שֶׁל כְּרָמִים, וּשְׁבִיל שֶׁל כְּרָמִים הֲוָה סָלֵיק לְגוּדָּא דְנַהֲרָא.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? לַעֲבֵיד לֵיהּ מְחִיצָה אַגּוּדָּא דְנַהֲרָא — אֵין עוֹשִׂין מְחִיצָה עַל גַּבֵּי מְחִיצָה.
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.
וְלַעֲבֵיד לֵיהּ צוּרַת הַפֶּתַח אַפּוּמָּא דִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁל כְּרָמִים — אָתוּ גַּמְלֵי שָׁדְיָין לֵיהּ.
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֶיעְבֵּיד לֶחִי אַפִּיתְחָא דִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁל כְּרָמִים, דְּמִגּוֹ דְּמַהְנְיָא לִשְׁבִיל שֶׁל כְּרָמִים, מְהַנֵּי נָמֵי לִרְחָבָה.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: יֹאמְרוּ לֶחִי מוֹעִיל לִשְׁבִיל שֶׁל כְּרָמִים דְּעָלְמָא.
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: עָבְדִינַן לֵיהּ לֶחִי לְפִיתְחָא דְמָתָא, דְּמִגּוֹ דְּמַהְנֵי לֵיהּ לֶחִי לְמָתָא, מַהְנֵי נָמֵי לִרְחָבָה.
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.
הִלְכָּךְ: טַלְטוֹלֵי בְּמָתָא גּוּפַהּ — שְׁרֵי. טַלְטוֹלֵי בִּרְחָבָה גּוּפַהּ — שְׁרֵי. מִמָּתָא לִרְחָבָה וּמֵרְחָבָה לְמָתָא, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא: חַד אָסַר וְחַד שָׁרֵי.
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.