Parallel
עירובין 24:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
lose its own status to the major part and [the entire area would thus] become a karpaf that is bigger than two beth se'ah [the movement of objects in which] is forbidden? — The fact, however, is that if the statement has at all been made it must have been in the following terms: But [it follows that] if its lesser part [only was sown, the movement of objects within it] is permitted. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua, this applies only [where the sown area was] less than two beth se'ah but [if it was] two beth se'ah [the movement of objects within the entire area] is forbidden. In agreement with whose view? — In agreement with that of the Rabbis. R. Jeremiah of Difti, however, taught it on the side of leniency: But [it follows that] if its lesser part [only was sown the movement of objects within it] is permitted. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua: This applies only [where the sown area was no more than] two beth se'ah but if it was more than two beth se'ah [the movement of objects within it] is forbidden. In agreement with whose view? — In agreement with that of R. Simeon. ‘But if the greater part of it was planted [with trees] it is regarded as a courtyard and [the movement of objects within it] is permitted’. Said Rab Judah in the name of Abimi: This [is the case only] where they are arranged in colonnade formation; but R. Nahman said: Even if they were not arranged as a colonnade. Mar Judah once happened to visit R. Huna b. Judah's when he observed certain [trees] that were not arranged as a colonnade and people were moving objects between them. ‘Does not the Master’, he asked: ‘uphold the view of Abimi?’ — ‘I’, the other replied: ‘hold the same view as R. Nahman’. R. Nahman laid down in the name of Samuel: If a karpaf that was bigger than two beth se'ah was not originally enclosed for dwelling purposes, how is one to proceed? A breach wider than ten [cubits] is made in the surrounding fence, and this is fenced up so as to reduce it to ten cubits and [then the movement of objects] is permitted. The question was raised: What is the ruling where one cubit [width of fence] was broken down and the same cubit [of breach] was fenced up and [then the next] cubit [width of fence] was broken down and was equally fenced up [and so on] until [the breaking down and the re-fencing] of more than ten [cubits width of the fence] was completed? — [This case], came the reply, is exactly [the same in principle as the one about] which we learned: All [levitically defiled wooden] utensils of householders [become clean if they contain holes] of the size of pomegranates; and when Hezekiah asked: ‘What is the ruling where one made a hole of the size of an olive and stopped it up and then made another hole of the size of an olive and stopped it up [and so on] until one completed [a hole] of the size of a pomegranate?’ R. Johanan replied: Master, you have taught us [the case of] a sandal, for we learned: ‘A sandal one of the straps of which was torn off and repaired retains its midras defilement. If the second strap was torn off and repaired [the sandal] becomes free from the midras defilement but is unclean [on account of its] contact with midras’. And you asked in connection with this, ‘Why is it [that the absence of the] first [strap does not affect the status of the sandal? Obviously] because the second strap was then available [but then the absence of the] second strap also [should not affect the status of the sandal] since the first was then available?’ And then you explained this to us [that ‘in the latter case] the object had assumed a new appearance; well, in this case also [it may be explained that] the object had assumed a new appearance; [and Hezekiah] made concerning him the following remark: ‘This [scholar] is no [ordinary] man’ [or as] some say: ‘Such [a scholar] is [the true type of] man’. R. Kahana ruled: In an open area that [is situated] at the back of houses objects may be moved within a distance of four cubits only. In connection with this R. Nahman ruled: If a [house] door was opened out into it, the movement of objects is permitted throughout the entire area, [since] the door causes it to be a permitted domain. This, however, applies only where the door was made first and [the area] was enclosed subsequently, but not where it was first enclosed and the door was made afterwards. ‘Where the door was made first and [the area] was enclosed subsequently’, [is it not] obvious [that the movement of objects in the area is permitted]? — [This ruling was] required only in the case where it contained a threshing floor. As it might have been assumed that [the door] was made in order to give access to the threshing floor, we were therefore informed [that no such assumption is made]. Where a karpaf [whose area] exceeded two beth se'ah was originally enclosed for dwelling purposes but was subsequently filled with water, the Rabbis intended to rule [that water is subject to the same law] as seed and [that movement of objects in the enclosure] is, therefore, forbidden, but R. Abba the brother of Rab son of R. Mesharsheya said: Thus we rule in the name of Raba: Water [is subject to the same law] as plants, and [the movement of objects within the enclosure] is consequently permitted.
—