Eruvin

One1 permits it because [in the open area] there are no tenants;2 and the other1 forbids this, because sometimes [it may happen] that there would be tenants in it3 and they4 would still be moving objects [from the one into the other]. If a karpaf was larger than two beth se'ah and was not enclosed for dwelling purposes, and it is desired to reduce the size thereof,5 then if it was effected by means of trees6 the reduction is invalid. If a column, ten handbreadths in height and four handbreadths in width, was built up7 it is a valid reduction. If [the column was] less than three [handbreadths wide] it constitutes no valid reduction. [If it is] between three and four [handbreadths wide] it is, said Rabbah, a valid reduction; but Raba maintained: It is no valid reduction. Rabbah said that it was a valid reduction, since [such a size] is excluded from the law of labud.8 Raba maintained that it was not a valid reduction, because so long as it does not cover a space of four [handbreadths in width] it is of no importance.9 If at a distance of four handbreadths from the wall10 a partition11 was put up the act is legally effective,12 [but if the distance was] less than three [handbreadths13 the partition] is ineffective.14 [If the distance was] between three, and four [handbreadths, the partition is], said Rabbah, effective, but Raba maintained: It is ineffective. Rabbah said that it was effective since [such a distance] is excluded from the law of labud.15 Raba maintained that it was ineffective because so long as it does not extend over four handbreadths it is of no importance.16 R. Shimi taught [that the discussion17 related] to [the more] lenient [procedure].18 If the fence19 was smeared with plaster and [the layer is so thick that it] can stand by itself it constitutes a reduction; where it cannot stand by itself it [nevertheless], said Rabbah, constitutes a reduction, but Raba maintained: It does not constitute a reduction. Rabbah said that it constituted a reduction because now at any rate it stands. Raba maintained that it constituted no reduction because in view of the fact that it cannot, stand by itself20 it possesses no validity whatsoever.21 If at a distance of four handbreadths from a mound22 a partition was put up23 it is effective.24 [If, however, it was put up at a distance of] less than three [handbreadths] [from it] or [was actually put up] on the edge of the mound [there is a difference of opinion between] R. Hisda and R. Hamnuna. One holds that this is effective and the other maintains that it is ineffective.25 You may conclude that it was R. Hisda who held that [the partition] is effective; for it was stated: If one partition was put up upon another, it is, R. Hisda ruled, effective as regards [the laws of] the Sabbath but no possession of the property of a proselyte26 [may thereby] be acquired;27 and R. Shesheth ruled it is ineffective even in [respect of the laws of] the Sabbath. This is conclusive. R. Hisda stated: R. Shesheth, however, agrees with me that if a man put up a fence on the mound28 it is effective.29 What is the reason? — Because the man dwells in the space between the upper fences.30 Rabbah b. Bar Hana enquired:31 What if the lower fences were sunk in the ground32 and the upper ones remained standing? In what [respect does this matter]? If [it be suggested] in respect [of acquiring possession]33 of the estate of a proselyte,34 [is not the principle here involved, it may be retorted,] exactly the same [as that underlying a ruling] of Jeremiah35 Bira'ah who ruled in the name of Rab Judah: If a man threw vegetable seeds into a crevice36 of a proselyte's34 land and then another Israelite came and hoed a little,37 the latter does, and the former does not acquire possession, because38 at the time the former threw [the vegetable seed] he did not improve [the ground] and any eventual improvement39 came automatically?40 If, on the other hand,41 [it be suggested that the question arises] in respect of [the laws of] the Sabbath,42 [such a partition, surely, it could be retorted, is] one that was put up on the Sabbath43 concerning which it was taught: Any partition that is put up on the Sabbath, whether unwittingly or presumptuously, is regarded as a valid44 partition?45 — Has it not, however, been stated in connection with this ruling that R. Nahman ruled: This was taught only in respect of throwing,46 but the moving [of objects within it] is forbidden?47 — When R. Nahman's statement was made it was in respect of one who acted presumptiously.48 A certain woman once put up a fence on the top of another fence in the estate of a proselyte,49 when a man came and hoed [the ground] a little. [The latter then] appeared before R. Nahman who confirmed it in his possession. The woman thereupon came to him and cried. ‘What can I do for you’, he said to her, ‘Seeing that you did not take possession in the proper way?’50 If a karpaf [was of the size of] three beth se'ah and one beth se'ah was provided with a roof, its covered space, ruled Rabbah,51 causes it still to be deemed bigger [than two beth se'ah],52 but R. Zera ruled: Its covered space does not cause it to be deemed bigger.53 Must it be assumed that Rabbah51 and R. Zera differ on the same principle as that on which Rab and Samuel differed? For was it not stated: If an exedra54 was situated in a valley, it is, Rab ruled, permitted to move objects within all its interior; but Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved within four cubits only. Rab ruled that it was permitted to move objects in all its interior, because we apply [the principle:] The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up.55 But Samuel ruled that objects may be moved within four cubits only, because we do not apply [the principle:] The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up? 56 need not be considered in this respect since the path and the open space stand in the same relationship respectively as a small courtyard and a large one that open into one another where the movement of objects is permitted in the latter though forbidden in the former. Rashi s.v. ,ubkhtc and Bah a.l.). important and cannot, therefore, be disregarded. provided a house door was made to open into it before the partition was put up. karpaf (cf. supra p. 171, n. 13). Where, however, it was between three and four handbreadths, he maintains, both Rabbah and Raba agree that, as the rule of labud does not apply, the pillar constitutes a proper reduction and the partition is deemed valid and put up for dwelling purposes. karpaf. while the other maintains that it is invalid. subsequently performs another act of valid kinyan (v. Glos.) the latter would, and the former would not gain the possession of the estate. it is situated this is forbidden. necessary. Similarly in the case of the fence: Since the upper one came into the proper position through the accidental sinking of the lower one and not through any direct act of the person it cannot obviously be deemed the direct result of his act and cannot consequently be regarded as a valid kinyan. after the lower ones have sunk. permitting the movement of objects within the area that it encloses? according to R. Nahman. permitted size. supra n. 3)?