Eruvin

Amemar ruled: This1 [applies only to such water] as is fit for use2 but not [to such as are] unfit for use. R. Ashi ruled: Even3 where it is fit for use the ruling applies only where the layer of water4 does not extend5 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,6 since [water] is in the same category as a heap of fruit.7 There was at Pum Nahara8 a certain open area9 whose one side opened into [an alley in] the town and the other side opened into a path between vineyards10 that terminated at the river bank. How, said Abaye, are we to proceed?11 Should we put up for it12 a [reed] fence on the river bank,13 one partition upon another partition,14 surely, cannot [in such a case, usefully] be put up.15 And should the shape of a doorway be constructed for it at the entrance to the path between the vineyards,16 the camels coming [that way]17 would throw it down. [The only procedure,] therefore,18 said Abaye, [is this:] Let a side-post be put up at the entrance to the path of the vineyards19 so that [this construction], since20 it is effective in respect of the path of the vineyards,21 is also effective in respect of the open area.22 Said Raba to him:23 Would not people24 infer that a side-post is effective in the case of any25 path among vineyards.26 Rather, said Raba, a side-post should be put up at the entrance to the alley,27 and since28 the side-post is effective in respect of the alley29 it is also effective in respect of the open area. Hence it is permitted to move objects within the alley itself.29 It is also permitted to move objects within the open area itself.30 [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. On the question whether the greater, or lesser part of the layer of water was ten handbreadths in depth v. Tosaf. s.v. irnt tk a.l. extent, does not deprive the enclosure in which it is kept of its status as a dwelling, and from a pit of fruit, however large or deep, it is freely permitted to take out the fruit on the Sabbath. a karmelith in which such movement is forbidden and which affects also the permissibility of movement in the alley and the vineyard path that adjoined it. requirements supra where an enclosure was not originally put up for dwelling purposes. serve as a part of the enclosure and, being of the prescribed size, effect the desired permissibility. purposes cannot be rendered valid by merely raising its height. It must first be broken down to the prescribed size and then rebuilt. obviously effect it here where the path runs only into a karmelith, and, consequently, might also serve as a sort of fence for the open area; and, as it is built for dwelling purposes, might equally effect the validity of the enclosure around the area. passing camels. of objects within it is, therefore, permitted. regarded as a fence put up for dwelling purposes in connection with the open area. If the side-post, however, had not been the cause of the permissibility of movement in the path, the rule of miggo could not apply; and, as the entrance to the path was not wider than ten cubits, the virtual fence, being smaller than the required size, could not effect the permissibility of movement in the area either. of fact be permitted by one side-post at one end. abutting on the public domain (cf. supra 7a).