Eruvin 25b — the Talmud in English

And we reject this: Actually, even Rabbah concedes that

if it was made

the roofing

like an exedra

whose roof is straight and not sloping,

so too here

we say: the edge of the roof descends and seals; and Rabbah, who did not say regarding a roofed karpef “the edge of the roof descends and seals” on all its sides,

Here, with what are we dealing? It was made

the roofing

like an urzila

[like the roof of a gallery], where the roof is sloping all the way to its end and has no edge [thickness at the height of the roofing], and “the edge of the roof descends and seals” does not apply.

Rabbi Zeira said:

Even though, regarding the roofing of the karpef, I hold that its airspace does not increase it, that statement applies there, where it is possible to say: the edge of the roof descends and seals.

And

nevertheless

I concede in the case of a karpef of two seah, exactly

[in exact measure]

that was breached in its entirety into a courtyard

[enclosed for residence],

that it is forbidden.

What is the reason?

Since the airspace of the courtyard increases it

for the karpef and makes it larger than two seah, as he explains below.

And we were astonished at this:

Rav Yosef challenged it:

And why should the karpef be forbidden? After all, before it was breached, it was permitted to carry from the karpef to the courtyard; and if so, the karpef was not breached into a place forbidden to it, but into a place permitted to it,

and does the airspace of a place permitted to it render it forbidden?!

And if it is because now the karpef has grown, since the airspace of the courtyard was added to it, as you say: the airspace of its courtyard increases it—after all, the courtyard is enclosed for residence, and how can it increase the karpef?!

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

In accordance with whom

did you say that the karpef was breached into a place permitted to it?

In accordance with Rabbi Shimon

[above, page 23b, and below, page 89a]?! For he holds that a karpef and a courtyard are one domain; whereas according to the Rabbis, a karpef and a courtyard are two types of domains, and it had been forbidden to carry from the karpef to the courtyard. And now that they have been breached into one another, it is a domain that was breached into a place forbidden to it [similar to that which we say above, page 23b]:

According to Rabbi Shimon as well

it is forbidden to carry here, for

there is the airspace of the place of the

the

partitions

that were breached, and they increase the karpef, so it is an enclosure larger than two seah that was not enclosed for residence; and the words of Rabbi Zeira are fully satisfactory.

And it is like this

which Rav Hisda said: A karpef that was breached in its entirety into a courtyard—the courtyard is permitted and the karpef is forbidden,

and necessarily, his reason is that we say that the airspace of the place of the partitions increases the karpef.

For if you do not say so, but rather the reason that the karpef is forbidden is because it was breached in its entirety into a courtyard forbidden to it—for Rav Hisda holds like the Rabbis, that a karpef and a courtyard are two types of domains—

And

the courtyard, what is the reason

it is permitted?

Because he is speaking of a case in which the karpef was narrower than the courtyard, and it follows that although the karpef was breached in its entirety, the courtyard was not breached in its entirety, because

it has projecting side walls

[walls on both sides of the breach] extending beyond the karpef; therefore it is permitted [and he is speaking of a case in which the breach is no wider than ten cubits, the measure of an “entrance”].

It cannot be said so.

For how could Rav Hisda have stated without qualification: the courtyard is permitted and the karpef is forbidden?

But sometimes you find the opposite,

where the karpef is wider than the courtyard. And in such a case, on the contrary, the karpef is permitted and the courtyard is forbidden?!

Rather,

necessarily, this is the meaning of Rav Hisda’s statement: The karpef was exactly two seah in area and was breached in its entirety into a courtyard that was wider than it and was not breached into the karpef [since it had projecting side walls].

And Rav Hisda did not hold like the Rabbis, that the karpef should become forbidden because it is a domain breached in its entirety into a place forbidden to it [for if he held like the Rabbis, one would also find the opposite, as we said].

And the reason for the law that the karpef is forbidden and the courtyard is permitted is

because we say: This

[the karpef]

the airspace of the partitions increases it, and this

[the courtyard enclosed for residence]

the airspace of the partitions does not increase it.

That is to say: the addition of the space of the partitions does not render it forbidden, since it is enclosed for residence; therefore it is permitted.

That orchard

[an orchard planted with trees, and not a place of residence] that was larger than two seah, except

that it was adjacent to the wall of the mansion

[to the partition of the reception hall—Ritba], which was one of the orchard’s partitions; and because of that wall, which had an entrance open toward the orchard, the orchard had been enclosed. Since this was so, the orchard is considered enclosed for residence, 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], while the mansion’s inner partitions still remained; and it followed that the orchard was 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 came

[that you came]

from the mutilated ones

[from the house of Eli the priest, concerning whom it was decreed that they would die after a short number of years, “cut short”]

that you say mutilated words

[you say broken-off words that have no basis]?!

It is not possible to rely on those inner partitions, for

those partitions were made inward

[the partitions were made toward the inside of the mansion]

and outward

[toward the outer orchard]

they were not made,

and it is an enclosure larger than two seah that was not enclosed for residence. [ ]The account of “Avarneka” is explained according to Rashi’s second interpretation.

The account of the “Avarnka” is explained according to Rashi's second interpretation.

That Avarneka

[a kind of domed pavilion]

which the exilarch had in his orchard

[in his orchard, in the manner of kings], and the orchard was not enclosed for residence.

The exilarch said

to

Rav Huna bar Hinena: Let the master make a remedy

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

tomorrow we will eat bread there

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

Rav Huna bar Hinena went,

and

made

something resembling a path from the entrance of the orchard to the pavilion, with partitions on its two sides made

reed by reed, less than three

handbreadths from one another, so that it was a partition by the principle of lavud.