Eruvin

lose its own status to the major part and [the entire area1 would thus] become a karpaf that is bigger than two beth se'ah2 [the movement of objects in which] is forbidden?3 — The fact, however, is that if the statement has at all been made it must have been in the following terms: But4 [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'ah5 but [if it was] two beth se'ah [the movement of objects within the entire area] is forbidden.6 In agreement with whose view?7 — In agreement with that of the Rabbis.8 R. Jeremiah of Difti, however, taught it9 on the side of leniency:10 But11 [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'ah12 [the movement of objects within it] is forbidden. In agreement with whose view?13 — In agreement with that of R. Simeon.14 ‘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;15 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 colonnade16 and people were moving objects between them. ‘Does not the Master’, he asked: ‘uphold the view of Abimi?’17 — ‘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,18 how is one to proceed?19 A breach wider than ten [cubits] is made in the surrounding fence,20 and this is fenced up so as to reduce it to21 ten cubits22 and [then the movement of objects]23 is permitted.24 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?25 — [This case], came the reply,26 is27 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;28 and when Hezekiah asked: ‘What is the ruling where one made a hole of the size of29 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 of29 a pomegranate?’30 R. Johanan replied: Master, you have taught us [the case of] a sandal, for we learned:31 ‘A sandal32 one of the straps of which was torn off and repaired retains its midras33 defilement.34 If the second strap was torn off and repaired [the sandal] becomes free from the midras33 defilement35 but36 is unclean37 [on account of its] contact with midras’.38 And you asked in connection with this, ‘Why is it39 [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 first40 was then available?’ And then you explained this to us [that ‘in the latter case] the object had assumed a new appearance;41 well, in this case42 also [it may be explained that] the object had assumed a new appearance; [and Hezekiah] made concerning him43 the following remark: ‘This [scholar] is no [ordinary] man’44 [or as] some say: ‘Such [a scholar] is [the true type of] man’. R. Kahana ruled: In an open area45 that [is situated] at the back of houses46 objects may be moved47 within a distance of four cubits only.48 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.49 This,50 however, applies only51 where the door was made first52 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 it53 contained a threshing floor.54 As it might have been assumed that [the door] was made in order to give access55 to the threshing floor,56 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 seed57 and [that movement of objects in the enclosure] is, therefore, forbidden, but R. Abba58 the brother59 of Rab60 son of R. Mesharsheya said: Thus we rule in the name of Raba: Water [is subject to the same law] as plants,61 and [the movement of objects within the enclosure] is consequently permitted. provided it is not bigger than two beth se'ah, is a permitted domain only where it is not abutting on any other domain; but here, since it opens out into a kind of courtyard, one side of which is fully exposed to it, the two domains are a mutual cause of prohibition, and no object may be carried from the one into the other. cause of prohibition (cf. infra 8). opened out at all into a broken yard. trees. having been enclosed for dwelling purposes. after the house had been built or must the prescribed breach of more than ten cubits be made in the fence before any part of it is re-built? not susceptible to levitical defilement. utensil contain such a hole at one and the same time before it can be regarded as a broken object that is unsusceptible to levitical defilement? XII, 2; XV, 2, 25. The object thus defiled communicates defilement to human beings and vessels. moment the strap was severed, the damaged sandal was in contact with the undamaged one. the former defilement ceased, and as no new midras or ‘treading’ occurred after the new ones were attached, the repaired sandal remains free from the midras defilement. up.