Eruvin 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

He said:

Amemar

said:

That which we said—that water is considered a dwelling—

applies only when it is fit for use

the water is fit for use, meaning that one drinks from it, for there is no greater indication of a dwelling than this].

But if it is not fit for use, it is not considered a dwelling.

And

Rav Ashi

said:

Even when it is fit for use

even when it is fit for use],

we said

that it is considered a dwelling

only when the

width

of its depth

of the water

is not greater than a beit se'a'im. But if the

width

of the depth

of the water basin itself

is greater than a beit se'a'im, it is prohibited!

The reason is that it is not customary to make a water-filled pool larger than a beit se'a'im, and it is considered like a field of crops [Tosafot, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda].]

We reject this:

but this is not so;

even if the width of the water basin were a beit kor, its place would still be considered a dwelling,

just as is the case with a pile of produce [ [כרי של פירות],

a pile of produce; for even if it is ten high and a beit kor wide, the status of a dwelling is not nullified with regard to the place of the pile].

There was a certain open area

that was larger than a beit se'a'im and had not been enclosed for dwelling,

which was in

a place called:

The alleyway from the town was open along its entire width to this open area, while the open area itself was not open along its entire width, but only through an entrance up to ten cubits wide [Ritba]. It was prohibited to carry in the alleyway, since it was open to the open area, which was a karmelit because it was not enclosed for dwelling, [in addition to the fact that the other side of the alleyway was open to the public domain].

And the other side

of the open area

was open to a path through vineyards [ [והיה השביל פרוץ במילואו לרחבה, והרחבה פתוחה לשביל בפתח עד עשר]the path was open along its entire width to the open area, while the open area was open to the path through an entrance up to ten cubits wide],

the path was entirely open to the courtyard, while the courtyard was open to the path by an opening up to ten cubits wide],

and the

end of the

path through the vineyards terminated [ [היה כלה]it ended]

it terminated]

at the riverbank [ [לשפת הנהר]at the riverbank],

which was ten handbreadths higher than the ground of the path [Tosafot, according to Rashi's approach]. Thus, the path was enclosed on three sides and open on its fourth side to the open area, which was a karmelit that prohibited carrying in it, in accordance with the law governing any domain open on its fourth side to a karmelit, which is prohibited. [The city's camels would pass through that alleyway, open area, and path to the river to drink].]

Abaye said: What should we do

if we wish to permit carrying in all of them by beginning to use the open area as a place of dwelling, with the result that carrying in all of them would consequently be permitted, [after permitting the alleyway on its side open to the public domain with a side post or a crossbeam]]?

For the very fact that they would now begin to use it would not help! Since, when they enclosed the open area, they did not do so for the sake of dwelling, it would be a case of “enclosed first and subsequently opened,” which is ineffective. [And it was difficult for them to breach the stone wall of the open area and enclose it anew].]

And if they begin using it and afterward

make for it

a new enclosure by means of a

partition

that would add height

to the riverbank [ [על שפת הנהר]on the riverbank],

and that partition at the end of the path would be considered the partition of the open area, since, opposite the open area, it is at the end of the path, and the open area and the path would be considered one place? That too would not help! For

one does not make a partition on top of a partition,

since there is already the partition of the riverbank there, and raising an existing partition is ineffective for considering it a new enclosure, unless they first breached the original enclosure with a breach wider than ten cubits and enclosed it anew, as we said above.

And

if we were to enclose the open area anew by

making a tzurat ha-petah [ [ולא מחיצה, שלא להפריע מהלך הגמלים]and not a partition, so as not to obstruct the camels' passage]

rather than a partition, so as not to obstruct the passage of the camels]

at the entrance of the path through the vineyards [ [באותו מקום שמסתיימת הרחבה ומתחיל השביל]at the place where the open area ends and the path begins],

and this tzurat ha-petah would be considered a new enclosure for dwelling?

That is not satisfactory! For

the camels come,

which pass through that place toward the river, and

they would knock it down [ [ומפילין לצורת הפתח]and topple the tzurat ha-petah],

since the entrance was narrow, and now the poles of the tzurat ha-petah would constrict the camels' passage even further.

Rather, Abaye said:

instead of making a tzurat ha-petah in that place,

let him make

only a

side post

of any minimal thickness

at the entrance [ [היינו כמו "אפומא", דלעיל - לשיטת רש"י]that is, like “at the mouth,” above, according to Rashi's approach]

that is, like “at the entrance” mentioned above, according to Rashi]

of the path through the vineyards,

and it permits the path [as the case involves residents in the path, and therefore it can be permitted with a side post like an alleyway, and does not require passin like a courtyard—Rashi and Ritba]. And now we say:

since

this side post

is effective for the path through the vineyards

to permit it,

it is likewise effective for the open area,

as we said above with regard to a tzurat ha-petah.

Rava said to him:

If we do this,

those who see it will say

those who do not know that the path has, at its end, the partition of the riverbank, since it is not discernible; and, since most paths do not terminate in a partition, they will not pay attention to it [Ritba]. If so, in their eyes it will be like an alleyway open at both ends [since on one side there is the open area, which is a karmelit, and on the other side there is the river, which is a karmelit], requiring correction with a tzurat ha-petah on one side and a side post on the other [as we said above, on folio 7].

: A side post

alone

is effective for an ordinary path through vineyards

that is open at both ends without a partition at its end.

Rather, Rava said: We shall make for it

for the alleyway, at its entrance on the side of the public domain, a tzurat ha-petah, and additionally

a side post at the entrance to the town [ [לפתח המבוי הפתוח לרחבה]at the entrance of the alleyway that is open to the open area],

to permit carrying in it, in accordance with the law of an alleyway that is open on one side to the public domain and on the other side to a karmelit, which is permitted with a tzurat ha-petah on one side and a side post and crossbeam on the other [as we said above, on folio 7]. And now we say:

since the side post is effective for the town,

to permit it,

it is likewise effective for the open area,

to make it like an area enclosed for dwelling. And consequently, the path too is permitted, since it is not open to a karmelit.

Therefore—

after he makes the correction as we said—

carrying in the town itself [ [במבוי עצמו]in the alleyway itself]

in the alley itself]

is permitted,

since it has been corrected with a tzurat ha-petah on one side and a side post on the other. And likewise,

carrying in the open area itself is permitted,

since it has been made enclosed for dwelling by means of the side post.

But with regard to carrying out

from the town to the open area and

carrying in

from the open area to the town, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree: one prohibits it and the other permits it,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain their reasons.