Parallel
עירובין 24
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.
—
Amemar ruled: This [applies only to such water] as is fit for use but not [to such as are] unfit for use. R. Ashi ruled: Even where it is fit for use the ruling applies only where the layer of water does not extend over more than two beth se'ah but if it does extend to more than two beth se'ah [the movement of objects within it] is forbidden. But this is not correct, since [water] is in the same category as a heap of fruit. There was at Pum Nahara a certain open area whose one side opened into [an alley in] the town and the other side opened into a path between vineyards that terminated at the river bank. How, said Abaye, are we to proceed? Should we put up for it a [reed] fence on the river bank, one partition upon another partition, surely, cannot [in such a case, usefully] be put up. And should the shape of a doorway be constructed for it at the entrance to the path between the vineyards, the camels coming [that way] would throw it down. [The only procedure,] therefore, said Abaye, [is this:] Let a side-post be put up at the entrance to the path of the vineyards so that [this construction], since it is effective in respect of the path of the vineyards, is also effective in respect of the open area. Said Raba to him: Would not people infer that a side-post is effective in the case of any path among vineyards. Rather, said Raba, a side-post should be put up at the entrance to the alley, and since the side-post is effective in respect of the alley it is also effective in respect of the open area. Hence it is permitted to move objects within the alley itself. It is also permitted to move objects within the open area itself. [But as regards] the moving of objects from the alley into the open space or from the open space into the alley, R. Aha and Rabina are at variance. One forbids this and the other permits it.
—