Eruvin 25a — the Talmud in English

And we explain it:

the one who permits it

permits it even though we should otherwise have prohibited it because of the ordinance concerning joining courtyards:

since there are no dwellings

in the open area, there is no one who could prohibit carrying from one part to the other, or in the opposite direction.

And the one who prohibits it says: Sometimes there are [dwellings]

[на площади]

in it [the open area].

This is a decree because sometimes there are dwellings in the open area,

and one may come to carry there.

An enclosed area larger than an area of two se'a that was not enclosed for residential use,

where carrying is prohibited,

and one came to reduce its size:

a.

If he reduced it with trees,

so that the part he did not plant is no larger than an area of two se'a,

it is not considered a reduction,

because it is normal for enclosed areas to contain trees, and using an enclosed area for trees is considered normal use [Ritva].

Therefore, the designation “enclosed area” has not been removed from the planted section. It is consequently one enclosure larger than an area of two se'a that was not enclosed for residential use.

b.

If he built a pillar there ten

handbreadths

high and four

handbreadths wide, leaving an unoccupied area no larger than an area of two se'a,

it is considered a reduction.

Since a pillar is not normal use of an enclosed area, and it is substantial—for it is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide—it stands independently and is not absorbed into the enclosed area. It follows that the area which makes the enclosure prohibited has been removed.

c. If he built a pillar there ten handbreadths high and

less than three

handbreadths wide,

it is not considered a reduction,

because it is not a substantial place, and it is treated as though it did not exist.

d. If he built a pillar there ten handbreadths high and

three

handbreadths

up to four

handbreadths wide [but not including four handbreadths].

Rabba said: It is considered a reduction.

Rava said: It is not considered a reduction.

And the Gemara proceeds to explain their reasons.

Rabba said: It is considered a reduction,

because a measurement of three handbreadths is substantial,

for

with this measurement

it emerges

everywhere

from the rule of lavud—the legal principle that a gap of less than three handbreadths is treated as closed.

Rava said: It is not considered a reduction,

because

since it is not a place of four handbreadths, it is not substantial,

and it is nullified.

An enclosed area larger than an area of two se'a that was not enclosed for residential use, where one opened a house onto it or made it suitable for residential use, and now wishes to make a new enclosure for residential use without making a breach wider than ten cubits:

a.

If he distanced the wall

that already existed

four

handbreadths

and made a partition

inside the enclosed area for residential use,

it is effective.

b. If he distanced the new partition from the existing wall

less than three

handbreadths,

it is not effective,

because this is like a partition placed upon a partition—which we said above is ineffective—since there are not three handbreadths between them.

c. If he distanced the partition

from three to four

handbreadths,

Rabba said: It is effective. Rava said: It is not effective,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Rabba said: It is effective, for it emerges—

in general, a measurement of three

from the rule of lavud.

Rava said: It is not effective, since

between one and the other there is not

a place of four handbreadths, it is not substantial

enough to consider it an independent partition enclosed for residential use.

Rav Shimi taught [he taught] these two disputes between Rabba and Rava, concerning the pillar and concerning the partition,

[то есть передавал] эти два разногласия Рабы и Равы — относительно столба и относительно перегородки —

in the lenient manner.

That is, everyone is lenient concerning a width of three, since the rule of lavud applies both to a pillar three handbreadths wide and to a partition three handbreadths away. They disagree only concerning a width or distance of less than three.

Rabba is also lenient in this case and holds that it is considered a reduction, and that the new partition is effective in making the enclosed area one enclosed for residential use.

The Gemara now explains the law concerning an enclosed area larger than an area of two se'a where one seeks to reduce its size and

plastered it [the walls]

from the inside with

clay,

until he reduced it to an area of two se'a:

a. If the clay

can

itself

stand independently,

having been made so thick that even if the original wall were removed, the new clay would remain standing,

it is considered a reduction.

b. If it

cannot stand independently:

Rabba said: It is considered a reduction.

Rava said: It is not considered a reduction.

And the Gemara proceeds to explain their reasons.

Rabba said: It is considered a reduction,

because

now—

through the support of the existing wall—

at least, it stands,

the clay.

Rava said: It is not considered a reduction, since it cannot stand independently; it is nothing.

The Gemara now explains the law concerning an enclosed area much larger than an area of two se'a, part of which contains a mound. The partitions of the enclosed area were not made for residential use; afterward, the area was made suitable for residence, and one seeks to enclose it anew:

a.

If he distanced

the new partition

from the mound [which itself serves as a partition for the enclosed area]

[который сам является перегородкой карпефа]

four

handbreadths,

and made a partition

for residential use [and more than an area of two se'a still remained within the new enclosure],

it is effective,

as we said above: when he distanced the new partition four handbreadths, it was effective.

b. If he distanced the partition from the mound

less than three

handbreadths,

or

added a partition

on the edge of the mound,

they disagree about this,

Rav Hisda and Rav Hamnuna:

One said: It is effective,

because although it is a partition placed upon a partition, he holds that it is effective [and he likewise disagrees with everything we said above].

And

one said: It is not effective,

because it is a partition placed upon a partition, and it is not effective.

And we say:

It can be established that Rav Hisda said: It is effective!

For it was stated: One who makes a partition upon a partition:

Rav Hisda said: With regard to Shabbat—

as in the case under discussion—

it is effective.

But

in

acquiring

the property of a convert—a convert who died without heirs, so that his property becomes ownerless [in the Land of Israel, such a case cannot ordinarily be found, since every Jew is his relative]—when a person seeks to acquire his land through an act of possession by making a partition [as we have an established principle: locking, fencing, or breaching constitutes possession], and he made a partition upon an existing partition,

у которого нет наследников, который умер, и его имущество стало бесхозным [а в отношении еврея невозможно найти случай, когда у него нет наследников, поскольку все евреи являются его родственниками], когда человек приходит приобрести его землю посредством установления владения путём создания перегородки [таково правило: если он запер, огородил или проломил, это считается установлением владения] и сделал перегородку поверх уже существующей —

he did not acquire it.

If another person then came to acquire it through an act of possession, the second person acquired it.

And Rav Sheshet said: Even with regard to Shabbat, it is not effective.

We see that Rav Hisda holds that a partition upon a partition is effective in making a new enclosure for residential use.

And we conclude:

It can be established!

Rav Hisda said: And Rav Sheshet agrees with me that if

one came to permit carrying on the mound itself, when it is larger than an area of two se'a and its partitions—that is, the sides of the mound—were not made for residential use, and he came to make a new enclosure for residential use by

making a partition on the mound, it is effective,

to permit carrying on top of the mound.

What is the reason?

Since

the one who lives on the mound

lives within the airspace of the upper partitions,

the new ones,

he lives there,

and not within the airspace of the existing lower partitions. Although the sides of the mound properly serve to make the area on top of the mound a private domain, nevertheless he does not live within their airspace.

Rabba bar bar Hana raised a question: If, in an enclosed area not made for residential use, one made upper partitions upon lower partitions for residential use, and we said that this is ineffective because it is a partition upon a partition, and afterward

если в карпефе, не огороженном для проживания, он сделал верхние перегородки поверх нижних перегородок для проживания, о которых мы сказали, что они не помогают, поскольку это перегородка поверх перегородки, а затем

the lower partitions were absorbed

into the ground, while

the lower partitions

remained in the ground and

the upper ones,

the new ones,

remain, what is the law?

Do we say that since, when he enclosed the area for residential use, they were ineffective, they remain ineffective even after the lower partitions were absorbed, because now the partitions came into existence on their own?

Or perhaps, since he initially made them for residential use, and now the enclosed area has only these partitions, they are effective [Keren Ora]?

For what [with regard to what] did Rabba bar bar Hana raise this question?

[то есть относительно чего] Рава бар бар Хана задал этот вопрос?

If it is with regard to the property of a convert,

it is certainly not effective!

For

that is

the statement

of

Rabbi

Yirmeya of Beira. For

Rabbi

Yirmeya of Beira said in the name of Rav Yehuda: One who

wishes to acquire the property of a convert through an act of possession, and

threw a turnip into a furrow in the convert’s land [he planted a turnip in a depression that he found in the ground, without digging it], and

[посадил репу в углубление, найденное в земле, не вырыв его],

another Jew came and dug in it slightly [he dug in it a little, which constitutes a complete act of possession]:

[немного вскопал землю вокруг неё, что является полноценным установлением владения]:

The latter acquires it,

for he demonstrated possession of it.

The first one—

who did not dig in it, but merely planted a turnip in it—

does not acquire it!

What is the reason?

At the time he threw [when the first person placed the turnip in the ground],

[то есть когда первый поместил репу в землю],

it did not yet improve [the land had not improved],

and there was still no act of possession.

When it improved [later, when the turnip caused the land to improve],

[а впоследствии, когда земля улучшилась благодаря росту репы],

it improved on its own,

and he was not the one who improved the land, such that this would constitute an act of possession.

Here too, since at the time he made the partitions he had not improved anything—for it was a partition upon a partition—and afterward, when they were absorbed, they were absorbed on their own, there is no act of possession.

Rather,

Rabba bar bar Hana—necessarily—

was asking with regard to Shabbat,

and this was his question. If they were absorbed on a weekday, there would be no question at all; certainly the upper partitions would be effective! Necessarily, when he raised his question, it was a case in which they were absorbed on Shabbat itself. But this too is no question, for

А если нижние перегородки были поглощены в будний день, вопрос задавать не о чем: верхние перегородки, несомненно, помогают! И поневоле, когда он задаёт вопрос, речь идёт о случае, когда они были поглощены в сам Шабат; но и это не является вопросом, поскольку

it is a partition made [that was made]

[созданная]

on Shabbat.

And it was taught in a beraita: Any partition made on Shabbat, whether inadvertently or deliberately, is considered a partition!

And we raise an objection:

Was it not stated concerning this matter that Rav Naḥman said: They taught this only

with regard to

throwing

from the public domain into the private domain? Only in that case do we say that a partition made on Shabbat is considered a partition, so that the one who threw the object is liable.

But

to rely on a partition made on Shabbat in order to permit

carrying is prohibited!

If so, why did you say here that a partition made on Shabbat is effective with regard to carrying?

And we answer:

When Rav Naḥman’s statement was made, it was

a partition made in violation of Shabbat,

deliberately, that

именно это

was meant!

There was a certain woman [one woman] who

[одна женщина],

made a partition upon a partition

in order to acquire

the property of a convert. A certain man came

after her [another man came] and acquired possession of it by

digging in it slightly [he worked the soil a little].

[немного вспахав землю].

The man came

before Rav Naḥman, who

placed

the property of the convert

in his possession,

that man’s.

She came and cried out before him [the first woman came and protested about this before Rav Naḥman].

[пришла первая женщина и стала возражать против этого перед Равом Нахманом].

He said to her,

Rav Naḥman:

What can I do for you [what could I possibly do for you]?!

[и что же я могу тебе помочь]?!

For you did not demonstrate possession in the manner people demonstrate possession [since you did not take possession in the way people do], and you did not acquire the property, while the second person took possession properly and acquired it!

[поскольку ты не установила владение обычным для людей способом], поэтому ты не приобрела имущество, а второй, установивший владение по закону, приобрёл его»!

An enclosed area

whose size is

three

se'a, which was not enclosed for residential use,

and he roofed one se'a of it [he made a roof over one se'a], leaving an unroofed area of only two se'a, while the roofed area was less than two se'a:

[покрыли крышей одну сэа], так что оставшаяся непокрытая часть имеет площадь ровно двух сэа, а покрытая часть меньше двух сэа:

(Rava)

Rabba

said: He has not repaired anything, because

пространство под его крышей

the airspace beneath its roof

makes it too large!

That is, the airspace and the enclosure beneath the roof combine to make it larger than an area of two se'a.

And Rabbi Zeira said: The airspace beneath its roof does not make it too large.

That is, the airspace and the enclosure beneath the roof do not combine to make it larger than an area of two se'a, because we say that the edge of the roof—between the two-se'a area and the one-se'a area—descends and closes off the space, separating them.

Shall we say that (Rava)

—

Rabba

and Rabbi Zeira

disagree about the fundamental law that the edge of a roof descends and closes off the space on all sides,

and that they disagree in the same way as Rav and Shmuel?

For it was stated: An exedra [a place open on all four sides and covered by a flat, not sloping, roof] located

[открытое с четырёх сторон пространство с ровной, а не наклонной крышей], находящаяся

in an open plain,

which has the legal status of a karmelit:

Rav said: It is permitted to carry throughout it [throughout the entire exedra].

[по всей экседре].

And Shmuel said: One may not carry

in it

except within four cubits.

And the Gemara proceeds to explain their reasons.

Rav said: It is permitted to carry throughout it.

For

we say: The edge of the roof

of the exedra, on all four sides,

descends and closes off the space,

and it is therefore enclosed by four partitions.

And Shmuel said: One may not carry

in it

except within four cubits.

For

we do not say: The edge of the roof

on all four sides

descends and closes off the space. It is therefore like the open plain itself, and carrying there is prohibited.

И она подобна самому полю, в котором запрещено переносить предметы.

If so, shall we say that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira disagree in a manner similar to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel?