Eruvin 67b — the Talmud in English

Even if it is open to a karep?!

Rabbah and Rav Yosef both say: A gentile

who has an entrance or a window to a karep that is no more than

a beit seah,

does not withdraw from his entrance to the mavoy on account of this entrance, and

prohibits

through his entrance to the mavoy. Since the airspace of such a small karep is not extensive.

But if he has a window open to a karep that is

more than a beit seah,

because its airspace is extensive, it is like one open to an open field, and he withdraws from his entrance to the mavoy on account of this entrance, and

does not prohibit.

And a Jew

who had an entrance to the mavoy, but did not establish an eruv with the inhabitants of the mavoy, and also had an entrance or a window to a karep, his law—in regard to withdrawing from his entrance to the mavoy so that he should not prohibit the other inhabitants of the mavoy—is the opposite of that of a gentile.

If it was open to a karep up to

a beit seah

to which he is permitted to carry, he withdraws from his entrance to the mavoy, and

does not prohibit

the other inhabitants of the mavoy.

And even though regarding a gentile we do not say this, regarding a Jew it is different, since on Shabbat there is no excessive carrying of burdens, and this is sufficient, and also the airspace of the karep is more extensive than that of the mavoy; he withdraws himself.

But if it was open to a karep—which is not enclosed for habitation—that is

more than a beit seah,

which has the status of a karmelit by rabbinic law, since he cannot use that entrance open to the karep, he has no preference for it, and

prohibits

the inhabitants of the mavoy.

Rava bar Haklai asked Rav Huna:

A gentile who had an entrance

open to a karep,

besides his entrance to the mavoy—

what

is the law: does he prohibit?

He said to him: They have already said [above]: Up to

a beit seah,

he prohibits; more than a beit seah, he does not prohibit!

Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A karep more than a beit seah that was not enclosed for habitation—

which is forbidden to carry in more than four cubits because the Sages made it like a karmelit—[as we learned in the Mishna above, folio 23b]—and

even

a

kr

a

korayim—

one who throws into it

from the public domain

is liable.

What is the reason?

It is an enclosure,

and it is a private domain according to Torah law, and not a karmelit.

Rather, it lacks

the enclosure’s

dwellings.

And it is confused with the public domain.

Therefore the Sages made a karep more than a beit seah that was not enclosed for habitation like a karmelit stringently, to forbid carrying in it.

But leniently, and with regard to throwing, it is a private domain.

Rav Huna bar Hinana raised an objection: A rock in the sea, ten

handbreadths

high and four

handbreadths wide—which is a private domain—

one may not carry:

Neither from within it

of the rock

to the sea

which is a karmelit, for this is carrying out from a private domain to a karmelit.

Nor from the sea into it,

for this is bringing in from a karmelit to a private domain.

If the height of the rock was

less than this,

so that it is not a private domain but a karmelit—

one may carry.

Up to what extent

shall the rock be wide?

Up to a beit seah

but more than this, no. And the Gemara explains it as it proceeds.

And we explain it:

To what

does that which we say, “Up to what extent,” refer?

If you say it refers to the end,

where it teaches: If it is less than this, one may carry, and regarding this we say:

a beit seah

is permitted for carrying,

more than this, no.

This cannot be said.

For

from a karmelit [a rock less than ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, which is a karmelit]

to a karmelit one is carrying,

to a karmelit one may carry,

even when the rock is very wide.

Rather, does it not refer to the beginning,

it refers,

and this is what it says: A rock in the sea, ten handbreadths high and

four

wide—one may carry neither from it to the sea nor from the sea into it.

And up to what extent

shall the rock be wide, so that it is forbidden to take out from it and bring into it?

Up to a beit seah,

for it is still a private domain.

If it is more than a beit seah,

so that it becomes a karmelit—

one may carry!

Apparently,

since it is not made for habitation and is wider than a beit seah, it leaves the law of a private domain, and

a karmelit

complete

it.

An objection to Rabbi Yohanan!

Rava said: Whoever does not know how to resolve beraitot [one who does not know how to explain beraitot],

raises a conclusive refutation against Rabbi Yoḥanan!

raises an objection against Rabbi Yohanan!

For in truth there is no difficulty at all.

Actually, it refers to the beginning—

it refers to a rock ten handbreadths high.

However, it does not refer to the fundamental law of the beraita, that it is forbidden to carry from the rock to the sea; rather, it refers to the inference of the beraita,

and this is what it says:

Here, within it

of the rock,

one may carry.

And up to what extent

shall the rock be wide, so that it is permitted to carry and transfer in it more than four cubits?

Up to

the width of

a beit seah.

If it is more than a beit seah, which the Sages made like a karmelit stringently, it is forbidden!

Rav Ashi said: Actually, it refers to the beginning

of the beraita, and it refers to the fundamental law of the beraita. And it is permitted to take from the rock, when it is wider than a beit seah, to a karmelit.

In any event, this is not difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who says that one who throws into it is liable.

Because certainly it is a private domain according to Torah law, and therefore one who throws from the public domain into it is liable. Rather, with regard to taking out from it to a karmelit, since the entire prohibition of taking out from a private domain to a karmelit is rabbinic—

they enacted both of them.

They [the Rabbis]

the Sages

said: In a karep more than a beit seah that was not enclosed for habitation, one may carry only within four cubits.

And they

also

said: One may not carry from a private domain to a karmelit,

so that one should not come to carry from a private domain to the public domain. And the Sages saw that the two enactments could not stand here—and as will be explained below—and they nullified one on account of the other.

Therefore they said:

A beit seah, which is permitted to carry throughout its entirety,

even rabbinically—

the Rabbis forbade carrying neither from the sea into it nor from within it to the sea.

What is the reason?

It is a complete private domain.

But

more than a beit seah, for which it is forbidden to carry throughout its entirety,

rabbinically—

the Rabbis permitted carrying from within it to the sea and from the sea into it.

What is the reason?

For if they forbade taking out from it to a karmelit, a harmful result would emerge from it,

perhaps people will say

:

It is a complete private domain,

even rabbinically, and they will come to carry throughout its entirety.

Therefore here they nullified the enactment forbidding taking out from a private domain to a karmelit, in order to uphold the Sages’ enactment not to carry in a karep more than a beit seah.

And we raise a difficulty:

And in what way is it different,

that is to say: Why did they uphold their words regarding the prohibition of carrying within it, but did not uphold their words regarding taking out from a private domain to a karmelit, and say the opposite [Ritva]?

And we explain: Carrying in

it

of the rock

is common,

and if you permit him to carry, people will see him and carry even in the public domain [for since it was not enclosed for habitation, it is confused with the public domain].

But that a rock should be wider than a beit seah, and that they should also carry

from within it to the sea and from the sea into it,

which people are afraid to use in this manner [Ritva],

is not common.

And regarding a matter that is not common, the Rabbis did not decree.

That infant

on the eighth day of his life, before the circumcision,

whose hot water had been spilled,

which they had heated for him on the eve of Shabbat in order to bathe him before the circumcision [Rabbeinu Yonatan], and the water was spilled on Shabbat.

Rabbah said to them,

who had a house in that courtyard:

Let us bring him hot water from my house [

let us bring hot water to the infant from my house].

Abaye said to him,

to Rabbah:

But we did not establish an eruv

of courtyards; how shall we bring it from house to house?!

He said to him,

Rabbah:

Let us rely on the joining

of the alleys that they made for the mavoy, as we learned in the Mishna below, folio 73a: If they joined together in the mavoy, it is permitted here [in the mavoy], and it is permitted here [in the courtyard].

He said to him,

Abaye:

But we did not join together?!

Rabbah said:

Let us tell the gentile to bring it [

let us tell the gentile to bring it to the infant].

Abaye said: I wanted [

I wanted]

to raise an objection to the Master [

to Rabbah],

but Rav Yosef did not let me [

Rav Yosef did not let me raise a difficulty against Rabbah].

For Rav [

Yosef said in the name of Rav]

Kahana: When we were at the academy of Rav Yehuda, he would say to us: In a

prohibition

of Torah law

for which a Sage rules leniently, and among the students there is one who knows how to answer,

we raise an objection

to the Sage,

and afterward we perform the action.

But

in a rabbinic matter,

such as an eruv of courtyards, we let the Sage act according to his ruling and

we perform the action, and afterward we raise an objection,

to learn whether he ruled correctly.

After this—

when they acted according to Rabbah and told the gentile to bring hot water to the infant—

he said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye—

What did you want to raise as an objection to the Master [

what did you want to challenge Rabbah about his ruling]?

He said,

Abaye said in surprise to Rav Yosef [according to the version of the Rashash]:

Sprinkling

on one impure through contact with a corpse, from the water of the red heifer, is forbidden on Shabbat only because of

a shevut,

rabbinically,

and telling a gentile

to perform an action on Shabbat is likewise forbidden because of

a shevut!