Eruvin 25b (כה:) — the Talmud in English

But we reject this: In fact, even Rabba agrees that

if the roofing was made

like

a portico

with a flat, straight roof and not a sloping one,

so too

we say: the edge of the roof descends and closes off the area. And Rabba did not say, with regard to a roofed karpef, “the edge of the roof descends and closes off the area” on all its sides.

What are we dealing with here? It was made

with the roofing

like a sloping roof [like the roof of a gallery], whose roof slopes all the way to its end and has no edge [a vertical thickness at the height of the roofing]; therefore, “the edge of the roof descends and closes off” does not apply.

Rabbi Zeira said:

Although, with regard to the roofing of the karpef, I maintain that its airspace does not cause it to exceed the permitted area,

that applies there, where it can be said: The edge of the roof descends and closes off the area.

And

in any event,

I concede with regard to a karpef of exactly two beit se'ah

[precisely]

that was breached along its entire width into a courtyard

[that is enclosed for residential purposes],

that it is prohibited.

What is the reason?

Since the airspace of the courtyard causes it to exceed

the permitted area of the karpef and makes it larger than two beit se'ah, as will be explained below.

And we wonder about this:

Rav Yosef challenged it:

Why should the karpef be prohibited? Before it was breached, it was permitted to carry from the karpef into the courtyard; if so, the karpef was not breached into a place that is prohibited to it, but into a place that is permitted to it.

And does airspace that is permitted to it render it prohibited?!

And if the reason is that the karpef has now increased in size because the airspace of the courtyard was added to it, as you said: The airspace of its courtyard causes it to exceed the limit—after all, the courtyard is enclosed for residential purposes; how can it cause the karpef to exceed its limit?!

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

In accordance with whom

are you saying that the karpef was breached into a place permitted to it?

In accordance with Rabbi Shimon [above, on 23a, and below, on 89a]?! For he maintains that a karpef and a courtyard constitute a single domain, whereas according to the Rabbis, a karpef and a courtyard are two different types of domains, and it had been prohibited to carry from a karpef into a courtyard. Now that they have been breached into one another, it is a domain that was breached into a place prohibited to it [as we said above, on 23a]:

Even according to Rabbi Shimon

it is prohibited to carry here, since

there is the airspace of the place of the

partitions

that were breached, and their area has been added to the karpef. It is therefore an enclosure larger than two beit se'ah that was not enclosed for residential purposes, and Rabbi Zeira’s statement is entirely justified.

And it is like

what Rav Ḥisda said: A karpef that was breached along its entire width into a courtyard—the courtyard is permitted and the karpef is prohibited;

and inevitably, his reason is that we say that the airspace of the place of the partitions causes the karpef to exceed its limit.

For if you do not say so, but rather the reason that the karpef is prohibited is that it was breached along its entire width into a courtyard that is prohibited to it—meaning that Rav Ḥisda holds in accordance with the Rabbis, that a karpef and a courtyard are two different types of domains—

and

for what reason

is the courtyard

permitted?

Because the case concerns a karpef that is narrower than the courtyard, and consequently, although the karpef was breached along its entire width, the courtyard was not breached along its entire width, because

it has projecting wall sections

[walls on both sides of the breach] that extend beyond the karpef. Therefore, it is permitted [and the case is one in which the breach is no wider than ten cubits, the measure of an “entrance”].

This cannot be said.

For how could Rav Ḥisda have stated without qualification: The courtyard is permitted and the karpef is prohibited?

There are times when you find the opposite,

namely, when the karpef is wider than the courtyard. In such a case, on the contrary, the karpef is permitted and the courtyard is prohibited?!

Rather,

inevitably, this is the meaning of Rav Ḥisda’s statement: The karpef was exactly two beit se'ah in area and was breached along its entire width into a courtyard that was wider than it and was not breached into the karpef [since it had projecting wall sections].

And Rav Ḥisda did not hold in accordance with the Rabbis, that the karpef would be prohibited because it is a domain breached along its entire width into a place prohibited to it [for if he held in accordance with the Rabbis, the opposite case would also be possible, as we said].

The reason for the law—that the karpef is prohibited and the courtyard is permitted—is

because we say: This one

[the karpef]

is caused by the airspace of the partitions to exceed its limit, whereas this one

[the courtyard, which is enclosed for residential purposes]

is not caused by the airspace of the partitions to exceed its limit.

That is, the addition of the area enclosed by the partitions does not render it prohibited, since it is enclosed for residential purposes; therefore, it is permitted.

That orchard

[an orchard planted with trees, and not a place of residence] was larger than two beit se'ah, but

it was adjacent to the wall of the mansion

[the wall of the reception hall—Ritba], which constituted one of the orchard’s partitions. Since that wall had an entrance opening toward the orchard, the orchard was enclosed by means of it; consequently, the orchard is considered enclosed for residential purposes, and it is permitted to carry within it.

The outer wall of the mansion fell

[that wall which had been the mansion’s outer partition], but the mansion’s inner partitions still remained, so that the orchard was now enclosed by those inner partitions.

Rav Bibi thought to say: Let him rely

[rely]

on the inner wall

[on those inner partitions] and permit carrying in the orchard.

Rav Pappi said to him:

And is it

because you come

[because you come]

from the descendants of Eli

[from the priestly house of Eli, concerning whom it was decreed that they would die young and be cut off]

that you speak truncated words

[that you utter fragmentary statements with no foundation]?!

There is no basis for relying on those inner partitions, since

these partitions were made inward

[the partitions were constructed inside the mansion]

and not outward

[for the outer orchard];

they were not made

, and the result is an enclosure larger than two beit se'ah that was not enclosed for residential purposes.

The account of the avurnaka is explained in accordance with Rashi’s second interpretation.

That avurnaka

[a kind of pavilion]

that the Exilarch had in his orchard

[in his orchard, as was customary among kings], and the orchard was not enclosed for residential purposes.

He said to him,

the Exilarch

to Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana: Let the Master establish a remedy

so that we can carry from the entrance of the orchard to the pavilion inside, since

tomorrow we will eat bread there

[for he intended to eat bread in the pavilion on Shabbat].

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana went

and

made

something resembling a path from the entrance of the orchard to the pavilion, with partitions on either side made of

reed after reed, with less than three

handbreadths between one and the next, so that it constituted a partition by virtue of the principle of lavud.

handbreadths between each one and the next. This constituted a partition by means of the principle of lavud.