Eruvin 24a — the Talmud in English

There was that minority

that was enclosed for residence

is nullified in relation to the majority

that was not enclosed for residence;

and it became

this

karpef,

an enclosure

greater than two seah

that was not enclosed for residence,

and it is forbidden?!

Rather, if it was stated—

this statement of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua—

this is how it was stated

[and Rav Huna follows the view of the Rabbis of Rabbi Shimon]:

From what we say, “if the majority was sown, it is forbidden,” it may be inferred:

the minority

[if a minority of the karpef was sown]

is permitted!

And concerning this

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said:

We said

that when a minority was sown it is permitted

only when it is not— -

the minority that was sown—

two seah,

which is an area that is not significant enough to be separated from the rest of the enclosure, nor significant enough to give it the name “karpef” on its own. Therefore, it does not prohibit “the courtyard” that was breached into it.

But

if the minority that was sown was

exactly two seah,

it is significant enough to give it a name on its own, and it is called: a karpef that was not enclosed for residence; therefore

it is forbidden

to carry throughout the entire enclosure, since the part enclosed for residence is a “courtyard,” while the part not enclosed for residence is a “karpef,” and when a courtyard and a karpef are breached into one another, it is forbidden to carry in both of them.

And all the more so it is forbidden if it was greater than two seah, for it is considered breached into a karmelit.

In accordance with whom? In accordance with the Rabbis,

who hold that a courtyard and a karpef are two kinds of domains, and it is forbidden to carry from one to the other; consequently, when they are “breached” into one another, each one becomes a domain that was entirely breached into a place forbidden to it, and it is entirely forbidden to carry in them.

And Rav Yirmeya of Difti taught—

this statement of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua—not that he came to be stringent concerning exactly two seah and prohibit it, but

as a leniency

he said [and Rav Huna follows the view of Rabbi Shimon], and this is what he said:

the minority is permitted:

And concerning this

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said:

We said only

that the minority that was sown was

exactly two seah

[and all the more so if it was less than two seah], for then it is permitted to carry throughout all of it. Even though they are two domains [since part of it is a courtyard and part of it is a karpef], nevertheless it is permitted, for a courtyard and a karpef are one domain.

But

if the minority that was sown was

greater than two seah,

for that minority is an enclosure greater than two seah that was not enclosed for residence, whose status is that of a karmelit,

it is forbidden

to carry throughout the entire enclosure, since the other part was breached into a karmelit, and it is forbidden to carry in it.

And

in accordance with whom

do we permit it when the sown part is not greater than two seah?

In accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that a courtyard and a karpef are one domain.

We learned above:

if the majority was planted

of the karpef,

it is like a courtyard, and it is permitted:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Avimi:

This statement, that planting does not cancel the status of an enclosure for residence,

applies when they are arranged in beds,

for the trees were planted in rows, and it is pleasant to sit there, so it still remains a place of residence.

And Rav Naḥman said: Even though they are not arranged in beds.

Mar Yehuda happened to come to the house of Rav Huna bar Yehuda, and he saw

[he saw]

those

karpefs greater than two seah—which had first been enclosed for residence and afterward trees had been planted in them—

that were not arranged in beds, and

even so

they were carrying within them.

He said to him,

Mar Yehuda said to Rav Huna bar Yehuda: But

does the Master not accept this ruling of Avimi

as a question—for he said that if they are not planted in beds, the residence status is nullified from the karpefs, and it becomes a karpef greater than two seah that was not enclosed for residence?!

He said to him,

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Mar Yehuda:

I

hold in accordance with Rav Naḥman

above,

I hold,

for he said: Even though they are not arranged in beds.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: A karpef greater than two seah that was not enclosed for residence,

and afterward a residence was opened into it—for we hold that it is forbidden to carry in it [unless a residence was first opened into it, before the enclosure, and afterward it was enclosed]—

what does he do,

to rectify it, so that it will be considered like “opened first and enclosed afterward”? A.

1.

He breaches in it

in the karpef—in the partitions enclosing the karpef—

a breach greater than ten

cubits, for at this width the breach no longer has the status of an “entrance,” but is considered a breach that nullifies the partitions. B.

2.

And he fences it

the karpef again,

and sets it up,

and narrows its breach until it stands

at ten

cubits only, for from now the karpef has an “entrance” and not a breach.

And

then

it is permitted

to carry there, since this is like one who enclosed the karpef after opening a residence into it.

It was raised before them:

If he

breached

the enclosure with a breach of

one cubit

only, so that the partitions were not yet nullified,

and he fenced

that

cubit,

and

again

breached one cubit

additional, adjacent to the first cubit,

and fenced it,

until they completed

by means of several breaches

to a

breach

greater than ten.

Rather, there was never a single breach in the partition greater than ten cubits at once. Likewise, when he fenced it, he did not close a breach greater than ten cubits

what is the law?

Do we say: Since he did not breach more than ten cubits at one time, the original enclosure, which was not made for any residence, was never nullified?

Or perhaps, since if he had not fenced the breaches, they would have joined together to become greater than ten, and the original enclosure would have been nullified,

it follows that by fencing each breach separately he accomplished that there would not be a breach greater than ten, and the matter is considered a new enclosure made for residence?

He said to him

[it is not known who the speaker is—Yaavetz]:

Is this not what we learned: Every wooden vessel

of

householders

[which is not intended for sale],

their measure

—for purifying them from their impurity if they become perforated, and the name “vessel” is nullified from them—

is like pomegranates,

which have been perforated until the pomegranates inside them fall through it.

But if they were perforated less than this, householders are accustomed to put them away to use them for pomegranates, and therefore the name “vessel” is not nullified from them.

And Hezekiah asked: If it became perforated

the vessel with a small hole

the size through which an olive can emerge, and he sealed it, and it again became perforated

next to the place he sealed

the size through which an olive can emerge, and he sealed it,

and it again became perforated

until they completed it to the size through which a pomegranate can emerge, what is the law?

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Hezekiah

to Hezekiah:

Rabbi, you taught us

the Mishna concerning a

sandal!

For we learned

[in the version of the Bach]:

A sandal

that became impure with the impurity of the treading of a zav, which imparts impurity to a person and vessels—if one of its straps was severed, it is still impure with the impurity of treading until both its straps are severed, for then it is no longer fit for treading.

If one of its straps was severed and he repaired it, it is impure with the impurity of treading,

for even if he had not repaired it, it would be impure with the impurity of treading, as we said.

If the

strap

second

was severed—after he repaired the first one—

and he repaired it, it is pure

from the impurity of treading

since, in total, both its straps were severed after the time it became impure.

But it is impure

the sandal with the impurity of

contact with impurity of treading [as a vessel that touched something that became impure through the treading of a zav], for concerning this impurity it is still a “vessel,” since it is fit for another use, and it became impure with this impurity at the moment when the strap separated from it, and the impurity did not become nullified from it.

like a vessel that touched something that became impure through the midras of a man with a flux], because with regard to this impurity it is still a “vessel,” since it is fit for another use; and it contracted this impurity at the moment when the strap separated from it, and the impurity was not nullified.

And you said

[you, Hezekiah]

concerning it

to explain:

What is different

that when the

first

alone was severed, it is impure, because

we

say:

here there remains

still a

second

strap that was not severed?

When the

second

strap was severed—after he repaired the first one—

also

let us say:

here there remains

a

first

repaired strap, and the sandal lacks only one strap?!

And you said concerning it: New faces have come here,

meaning: These new straps are not from the sandal upon which the zav trod, and they purified it from the first impurity, for this is not the first sandal. Since this is so, Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved for Hezekiah that

here too,

concerning a vessel that became perforated and again became perforated, one may say:

new faces

of the vessel

have come here,

and this is not the same vessel that became impure.

And

he applied to him

Hezekiah applied to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

This one is not a human being

[this one—Rabbi Yoḥanan—is not a human being] but an angel! And

there are those who say:

This is what he applied to him:

One such as this is a human being

this is a great man!

In any event, the question that they asked concerning one who breached the enclosure, sealed it, and then breached it again and sealed it, was also resolved: Here too, new faces of the enclosure have come here, and it becomes a new enclosure that was enclosed after a residence was opened into it, and it is permitted to carry in it!

Rav Kahana said: An open area behind the houses

[an empty area behind the house, where household activities are not performed as in a courtyard—Mishna Berura], into which the house does not open, is considered an enclosure that was not enclosed for residence; and if the enclosure was greater than two seah,

one may carry in it only within four cubits.

And Rav Naḥman said: If he opened into it

[into the open area]

an entrance

from the house adjacent to the open area,

it is permitted to carry

throughout all of it, for the

entrance

from the house

permits it

and makes it like one enclosed for residence.

and gives it the status of an enclosure made for residential use.

And we said this

that the entrance permits it

only when he opened

the entrance from the house

and afterward enclosed

the open area;

but if he enclosed

the open area

and afterward opened it, no.

As we said above, in such a case it is not called enclosed for residence.

And we raise an objection:

“Opened first and enclosed afterward”—it is obvious,

so what does Rav Naḥman teach us?!

And we answer:

It is necessary where there was in it

in the open area, meaning: before the open area was enclosed, there was in that place

a threshing floor

[a threshing floor].

It might have entered your mind to say

that even “opened first and enclosed afterward” is ineffective, for the entrance was not made with the intention of enclosing an open area there, but

with the intention of a threshing floor

[so that he could go out from his house to the threshing floor]

he made it

for the entrance;

it teaches us

that ordinarily it opens into the open area.

A karpef greater than two seah that was enclosed for residence and became filled with water

collected in a pit in the open area [Tosafot], ten handbreadths deep,

the Rabbis initially thought

at first

to say:

that water in a karpef

is like

the planting of

seeds,

for we said above that they nullify in their place the status of an enclosure for residence—

and

therefore

it is forbidden

to carry throughout all of it if water filled the majority of the karpef, as we said above concerning “if its majority was sown” [Keren Ora, and according to the second explanation of Tosafot].

Rav Abba said to them

(his father)

(his brother)

(of Rav)

(of Rava)

son of Rav Mesharsheya: This is what we say in the name of Rava: Water

is not like seeds, but

like plantings

of trees

they are like—

for they do not nullify an enclosure for residence, as we said above—

and

therefore

it is permitted

to carry in it.