Eruvin 67b (סז:) — the Talmud in English

Even if it is open to a karpef!

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: A gentile

who has an entrance or a window opening onto a karpef that is no larger than

two se'a

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

prohibits

through his entrance to the mavוי. Since the airspace of such a small karpef is not substantial.

But if his window opens onto a karpef that is

larger than two se'a

, since its airspace is substantial, it is like an opening to a valley, and he withdraws from his entrance to the mavוי on account of this entrance, and

does not prohibit.

And with regard to a Jew

who had an entrance to the mavוי but did not establish an eruv with the residents of the mavוי, and who also had an entrance or a window to a karpef, his status—with regard to withdrawing from his entrance to the mavוי so that he should not prohibit the other residents of the mavוי—is the opposite of that of a gentile.

If it opened onto a karpef up to

two se'a

where he is permitted to carry, he withdraws from his entrance to the mavוי, and

does not prohibit

the other residents of the mavוי.

And although we do not say this with regard to a gentile, with regard to a Jew it is different: Since on Shabbat there is no excessive carrying of burdens, this is sufficient, and the airspace of the karpef is also more substantial than that of the mavוי; therefore, he withdraws from his entrance.

But if it opened onto a karpef—which is not enclosed for residential purposes—that is

larger than two se'a

, whose status is that of a karmelit by rabbinic decree, since he cannot use that entrance opening onto the karpef, he has no interest in it, and he

prohibits

the residents of the mavוי.

Rava bar Ḥaklai asked Rav Huna:

A gentile who had an entrance

opening onto a karpef

, in addition to his entrance to the mavוי—

what

is the halakha: does he prohibit?

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

two se'a, he prohibits;

larger than two se'a, he does not prohibit!

Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A karpef larger than two se'a that was not enclosed for residential purposes

—where it is prohibited to carry within it more than four cubits, because the Sages rendered it like a karmelit—and [as was taught above, on folio 23b]—

even

a

kor, and even

a

korayim—

one who throws into it

from the public domain

is liable.

What is the reason?

It is a partition,

and it is therefore a private domain by Torah law, not a karmelit.

Rather, it lacks

the partition’s

residential character.

And it is confused with the public domain.

Therefore, the Sages rendered a karpef larger than two se'a that was not enclosed for residential purposes like a karmelit stringently, prohibiting carrying within it.

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

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised an objection: A rock in the sea, ten handbreadths high

handbreadths

and four handbreadths wide

handbreadths—for it has the status of a private domain—

one may not carry:

Neither from within it

the rock

to the sea

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

Nor from the sea into it,

as this constitutes carrying in from a karmelit to a private domain.

If the rock’s height was

less than this

, so that it is not a private domain but a karmelit, one may

carry.

Up to what extent

may the rock be wide?

Up to two se'a

, but no more than this. And the Gemara proceeds to explain it.

And we explain it:

To what

does this statement, “Up to what extent,” refer?

If you say it refers to the latter clause,

which teaches: If it is less than this, one may carry, and concerning this we say:

two se'a

is permitted for carrying,

but no more.

This cannot be said.

For

from a karmelit [a rock less than ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, which has the status of 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 first clause,

which it follows?

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

four

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

And up to what extent

may the rock be wide, such that it is prohibited to carry out from it and carry in to it?

Up to two se'a,

for it still has the status of a private domain.

But if it is larger than two se'a,

so that it becomes a karmelit,

one may carry!

Apparently,

since it was not made for residential purposes and is larger than two se'a, it leaves the category of private domain, and

a karmelit

complete

it is.

A refutation of Rabbi Yoḥanan!

Rava said: One who does not know how to resolve baraitot [one who does not know how to interpret baraitot]

raises a conclusive refutation against Rabbi Yoḥanan!

raises a refutation against Rabbi Yoḥanan!

For in truth there is no difficulty at all.

Actually, it refers to the first clause

—it refers to a rock ten handbreadths high.

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

and this is what it is saying:

Here, within it

the rock,

one may carry.

And up to what extent

may the rock be wide, such that it is permitted to carry within it and transfer an object there more than four cubits?

Up to

the width of

two se'a.

But if it is larger than two se'a, which the Sages rendered like a karmelit stringently, it is prohibited!

Rav Ashi said: Actually, it refers to the first clause

of the baraita, and it refers to the fundamental law of the baraita. It is permitted to carry from the rock, when it is larger than two se'a, to a karmelit.

In any event, this presents no difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that one who throws into it is liable.

For it is certainly a private domain by Torah law, and therefore one who throws from the public domain into it is liable. However, with regard to carrying out from it to a karmelit, since the entire prohibition against carrying out from a private domain to a karmelit is rabbinic—

they enacted both.

They

the Sages

enacted: In a karpef larger than two se'a that was not enclosed for residential purposes, one may carry only within four cubits.

And they

also

enacted: 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 both stand here—as will be explained below—and they nullified one on account of the other.

Therefore, they said:

With regard to two se'a, throughout which it is permitted to carry

even by rabbinic decree,

the Sages prohibited carrying neither from the sea into it nor from it to the sea.

What is the reason?

It is a complete private domain.

But

with regard to more than two se'a, throughout which it is prohibited to carry

by rabbinic decree,

the Sages permitted carrying from it to the sea and from the sea into it.

What is the reason?

Because if they prohibited carrying out from it to a karmelit, a harmful consequence would result:

perhaps people would say

people:

It is a complete private domain,

even by rabbinic law, and they would come to carry throughout it.

Therefore, here they nullified the enactment prohibiting carrying out from a private domain to a karmelit, in order to uphold the Sages’ enactment prohibiting carrying within a karpef larger than two se'a.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is different,

that is to say: Why did they uphold their words with regard to the prohibition against carrying within the rock, but did not uphold their words with regard to carrying out from a private domain to a karmelit in the case of the rock, and say the opposite [Ritva]?

And we explain: Carrying within

it

the rock

is common,

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

But that a rock should be larger than two se'a, and that people should also carry

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

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

is not common.

And in a matter that is not common, the Sages did not issue a decree.

There was a certain infant

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

whose hot water had spilled,

the hot water that had been heated for him on Friday to bathe him before the circumcision [Rabbenu Yehonatan], and the water spilled on Shabbat.

Rabba said to them,

as he had a house in that courtyard:

Let us bring him hot water from my house

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

Abaye said to him,

to Rabba:

But we did not establish an eruv,

an eruv of courtyards; how can we bring it from one house to another?!

He said to him,

Rabba:

Let us rely on the shituf

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

He said to him,

Abaye:

But we did not join in a shituf?!

Rabba said:

Let us tell the gentile to bring it

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

Abaye said: I wanted

[I intended]

to raise an objection to the Master

[to Rabba],

but Rav Yosef did not let me

[Rav Yosef did not allow me to raise a difficulty against Rabba].

For Rav

Yosef, Rav

Kahana said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Yehuda, he would say to us: With regard to a

prohibition

by Torah law

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

we raise a refutation

against the Sage,

and afterward we perform the deed.

But

with regard to rabbinic law,

such as an eruv of courtyards, we allow the Sage to act in accordance with his ruling and

we perform the deed, and afterward we raise a refutation,

in order to determine whether he ruled correctly.

After this—

after they acted on the basis of Rabba’s ruling and told the gentile to bring hot water for the infant—

he said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

What did you intend by raising an objection to the Master

[what did you want to ask Rabba against his ruling]?

He said,

Abaye expressed his amazement to Rav Yosef [according to the version of the Rashash]:

Sprinkling

on one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, using the water of the red heifer, is prohibited on Shabbat only on account of

shevut

by rabbinic decree,

and instructing a gentile

to perform an act on Shabbat is also prohibited on account of

shevut!