Eruvin

— If [the roof1 over the beth se'ah] were made like an exedra2 [the ruling would] indeed have been the same,3 but here we are dealing with one that was made in the shape of a hammock.4 R. Zera stated: I admit, however, that where a karpaf5 has a gap across its entire width6 towards a courtyard [the movement of objects within it] is forbidden. What is the reason? Because the space of the courtyard increases its extent.7 R. Joseph demurred: Does a space8 [from] which9 it is permitted [to move objects] into it cause its prohibition? — Said Abaye to him: In accordance with whose view [do you demur]? Apparently in accordance with that of R. Simeon;10 but according to R. Simeon also there is in fact the space of the position of the walls.11 For R. Hisda ruled: If a gap across the full width of a karpaf was opened towards a courtyard [movement of objects] is permitted in the latter and forbidden in the former. Now why [is this permitted in] the courtyard? [Is it on account of the fact] that it has ridges?12 Does it not, however, sometimes happen13 that the reverse is the case?14 Consequently15 [it must be admitted that] the reason is16 that as regards the karpaf17 the space of the walls increases its extent18 while in that of the courtyard17 the space of the walls does not increase it.19 A certain orchard adjoined the wall of a mansion.20 When the outer wall of the mansion21 collapsed it was R. Bibi's intention to rule that one might rely22 upon the inner walls,23 but R. Papi said to him, ‘Because you are yourselves frail beings you speak frail words.24 Those walls were made for the interior [of the mansion]; they were not made for [the orchard] outside’.25 The exilarch had a kind of banqueting hall in his orchard.26 ‘Will the Master’, he said to R. Huna b. Hinena, ‘make some provision whereby we might be enabled to dine there tomorrow’.27 The latter accordingly proceeded [to construct a passage28 by putting up a reed-fence]29 fixing each reed [within a distance of] less than three [handbreadths from the other].30 Raba, however, went there walls (v. Rashi). Aliter: Being open on four sides it cannot be given the status of a walled structure (v. Tosaf. s.v. tfv a.l.). karpaf. form, according to the Rabbis, a kind of doorway. followed why this distinction between karpaf and courtyard? cannot apply to a courtyard which was originally enclosed for dwelling purposes. The question of the ridges does not arise since in the absence of ridges also R. Simeon permits the movement of objects from the courtyard to the karpaf. And should it happen that the ridges were on the side of the karpaf the courtyard would still be permitted in agreement with R. Simeon (cf. supra n. 9) while the karpaf also would be permitted since the space previously occupied by the fallen walls cannot be regarded as an increase of its area on account of the ridges. Thus, at any rate, it follows that even according to R. Simeon the space previously occupied by the fallen walls is regarded as an addition to a karpaf. was opened to it, so that it was enclosed for dwelling purposes. Abaye was a descendant of the house of Eli (cf. R.H. 18a) who were condemned to die young (v. I Sam. II, 32). Cf. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 582, n. 6. dwelling purposes. was subject to the restriction of a place that was first enclosed for no dwelling purpose and that was only subsequently inhabited. It was, therefore, (v. previous note) forbidden to move any objects, including the foodstuffs and utensils required for the meal, from the house to the banqueting hall trough the orchard. Hence the exilarch's request. passage consequently assumed the status of a domain in which it was permitted to move objects on the Sabbath.