Eruvin 24b — the Talmud in English

He said:

Ameimar explained it:

Ameimar:

that which we said, that water is considered a dwelling,

provided that it is fit for use [ [A0007]that the water is fit for use, that one drinks from it, for you have no dwelling greater than this].

because the water is fit for use, as people drink from it; there is no greater indication of a dwelling than this].

But if it is not fit for use, no.

And

Rav Ashi

explained it:

and even when it is fit for use

[even if it is fit for use]

we said

that it is considered a dwelling

only when its

width

depth

of water

is not more than two beit seah, but if its

width

depth

of the water reservoir itself

is more than two beit seah, it is forbidden!

And the reason is: there is no practice of making a pool full of water larger than two beit seah, and they are considered like seedbeds [Tosafot, according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda].

And we reject this:

but it is not a matter,

rather, even if the width of the water reservoir were a beit kor, its place would also be considered like a dwelling-place,

just as is the case with a heap of produce

[a heap of produce], for even if it is ten high and a beit kor wide, the status of a dwelling-place is not annulled from the place of the heap.

That broad area

which was larger than two beit seah and had not been enclosed for dwelling

was in

a place called:

Pum Nahara, for on one side it was open toward the town

[for on one of its sides it was open toward an alley in the town that ended at this broad area]; and the alley was breached in its full width toward the broad area, while the broad area was not breached in its full width, but only by an opening of up to ten [Ritva]; and carrying in the alley was forbidden, since it was open toward the broad area, which was a karmelit, because it had not been enclosed for dwelling, [in addition to the fact that the alley was breached on its other side toward the public domain].

And one side

of the broad area

was open toward a path of vineyards

[and the path was breached in its full width toward the broad area, while the broad area was open toward the path by an opening of up to ten],

and

the end of the

path of vineyards rose

[ended]

at the riverbank

[at the riverbank], which was ten high from the ground of the path [Tosafot, according to Rashi’s method]; and it followed that the path was enclosed on three of its sides and breached on its fourth side toward the broad area, which was a karmelit that prohibited carrying in it, as is the law of every domain breached on its fourth side toward a karmelit that is forbidden; [and through that alley, broad area, and path, the town’s camels would pass to the river to drink].

Abaye said: What shall we do

if they wish to permit carrying in all of them, by beginning to use the broad area as a dwelling-place, so that carrying in all of them would thereby become permitted, [after they permit the alley on its side open toward the public domain by a side-post or a cross-beam]?

For merely beginning now to use it would not help! Since, at the time they enclosed the broad area, they made it not for dwelling, and it would be an enclosure made first and an opening made afterward, which is ineffective, [and it was difficult for them to breach an opening in the stone wall of the broad area and enclose it anew].

And if they begin to use it, and afterward

let him make for it

a new enclosure by means of a

partition

that would add height

to the riverbank

[to the riverbank], and that partition at the end of the path would be considered the partition of the broad area, since opposite the broad area it was at the end of the path, and the broad area and the path would be considered one place? This too would not help! For

one does not make a partition upon a partition,

since there is already the partition of the riverbank there, and it is not effective to raise an existing partition in order to consider it a new enclosure, unless they first breached the original enclosure by an opening greater than ten and enclosed it anew, as we said above.

And

if we come to enclose the broad area anew by

let him make for it a doorway-shaped opening

[and not a partition, so as not to obstruct the passage of the camels]

at the entrance of the path of vineyards

[at the place where the broad area ends and the path begins], and this doorway-shaped opening would be considered a new enclosure for dwelling?

That is not satisfactory! For

the camels will come

that pass at that place toward the river, and

they will knock it down

[and knock down the doorway-shaped opening], since the opening was narrow, and now the poles of the doorway-shaped opening constrict the camels even more.

Rather, Abaye said:

let him not make a doorway-shaped opening at that place, but

let him make

only a

side-post

of any thickness

at the entrance

[that is, like “at the mouth,” above—according to Rashi’s method]

of the path of vineyards,

and it permits the path [for this is speaking of a case in which there were dwellings in the path, and therefore it is permitted by a side-post like an alley, and does not require “boards” as does a courtyard—Rashi and Ritva]; and now we say:

since it is effective

this side-post

for the path of vineyards

to permit it,

it is likewise effective for the broad area,

as we said above concerning a doorway-shaped opening.

Rava said to him:

If we do this,

those who see it will say

who do not know that, at its end, the path has the partition of the riverbank, since it is not noticeable, and also, since most paths do not end at a partition, they will not pay attention to it [Ritva]; and if so, in their eyes it is an alley open at both ends [for on one side it is the broad area, which is a karmelit, and on its other side the river, which is a karmelit], requiring the repair of a doorway-shaped opening on one side and a side-post on the other [as we said above, page 7]: a

side-post

alone

is effective for ordinary paths of vineyards

that are open at both ends without a partition at their end.

Rather, Rava said: We shall make for it

for the alley, at its opening on the side of the public domain, a doorway-shaped opening, and in addition

a side-post for the entrance toward the town

[for the opening of the alley that is open toward the broad area], to permit carrying in it, as is the law of an alley breached on one side toward the public domain and on the other side toward a karmelit, which is permitted by a doorway-shaped opening on this side and a side-post and cross-beam on that side [as we said above, page 7]. And now we say:

since the side-post is effective for the town

to permit it,

it is likewise effective for the broad area,

to make it like one enclosed for dwelling. And now the path too is automatically permitted, since it is not open toward a karmelit.

Therefore—

after he makes the repair as we said—

carrying in the town itself

[in the alley itself]

is permitted,

since it has been repaired by a doorway-shaped opening on one side and a side-post on the other. And likewise

carrying in the broad area itself is permitted,

since it has become enclosed for dwelling by means of the side-post.

But to take out

from the town to the broad area and

to bring in

from the broad area to the town, Rav Aha and Ravina disagree about it: one forbids and one permits,

as he goes on to explain their reasons.