Eruvin

Even if it opened to a karpaf.1 Both Rabbah and R. Joseph ruled: A gentile2 causes restrictions3 [if his karpaf was no bigger than] two beth se'ah,4 but if it was bigger5 he causes no restrictions;6 an Israelite,7 however, causes no restrictions8 [if his karpaf was no bigger than] two beth se'ah,9 but if it was bigger10 he11 does cause restrictions.6 Raba b. Haklai12 asked R. Huna: What is the ruling13 where [the door of a gentile's courtyard]14 opened into a karpaf15 The other replied: Behold it has been said: ‘Causes restrictions if [his karpaf was no bigger than] two beth se'ah, but if it was bigger he causes no restrictions’. 16 Ulla laid down in the name of R. Johanan: If a man threw an object17 into a karpaf that was bigger than two beth se'ah and that was not enclosed for dwelling purposes he incurs guilt18 even if it was of the size of a kor or even as big as two kors. What is the reason?19 — It is a proper enclosure20 which only lacks tenants.21 R. Huna b. Hinena22 raised all objection: If a rock in the sea23 was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide it is forbidden to move objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it;24 but if it was lower25 this is permitted.26 To what extent?27 To two beth se'ah.28 Now what do these29 refer to? If it be suggested: To the final clause,30 the objection would arise: Seeing that one would only be moving front a karmelith to a karmelith,31 why only two beth se'ah, and no more? Consequently it must refer32 to the first clause, and what was implied was this: ‘If a rock in the sea was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide it is forbidden to move objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it’, and ‘To what extent?33 To two beth se'ah’, from which it follows that if it was bigger than two beth se'ah the movement of objects is permitted.34 It is thus obvious that a rock of such dimensions has35 the status of a karmelith. Does not this36 then present an objection against R. Johanan?37 — Raba retorted: only he who does not know how to explain Baraithas raises such an objection against R. Johanan. [The limitation]38 as a matter of fact refers to the first clause,39 and it is this that was meant: Within it,40 however,41 it is permitted to move objects; and ‘To what extent?42 To two beth se'ah’.43 R. Ashi replied: [The limitation44 applies] indeed to the first clause,45 for the Rabbis have laid down the one ruling46 and they themselves have also laid down the other ruling:47 They have laid down the ruling that in a karpaf that was bigger than two beth se'ah and that was not enclosed for dwelling purposes the movement of objects is permitted Only within four cubits,48 and they themselves have also laid down the ruling that no objects may be moved from a private domain into a karmelith.49 [In the case, therefore, of a rock that was no bigger than] two beth se'ah, throughout the area of which the movement of objects is permitted, the Rabbis have forbidden the movement of objects from the sea into it as well as from it into the sea.50 What is the reason?51 Because it52 is a private domain In all respects.53 [If, however, It was] bigger than two beth se'ah, throughout the area of which the movement of objects is forbidden,54 the Rabbis permitted the movement of objects from it into the sea and from the sea into it.55 What is the reason?56 Because, otherwise,57 people might assume it to be a private domain in all respects and, in consequence, would also move objects throughout its area.58 But wherein does the one differ from the other?59 — It is usual to move objects within the area of the rock itself60 but it is unusual to move objects from it into the sea or from the sea into it.61 There was once a child whose warm water62 was spilled.63 ‘Let some warm water’, said Rabbah ‘be brought for him from my house’.64 ‘But’, observed Abaye, ‘We have prepared no ‘erub’.65 ‘Let us then rely’, the other replied. ‘on the shittuf’.66 ‘But’, Abaye told him, ‘we had no shittuf either’.66 ‘Then’, the other said: ‘let a gentile be instructed to bring it for him’ — ‘l wished’, Abaye later remarked: ‘to point out an objection against the Master67 but R. Joseph prevented me, because he told me in the name of R. Kahana, "When we were at Rab Judah's he used to tell us that in a Pentateuchal matter68 any objection69 must be raised before the Master's ruling is acted upon.70 but in a Rabbinical matter71 we must first72 act on the ruling of the Master and then point out the objection".’73 After that he74 said to him,75 ‘What objection was it that you wished to raise against the Master?’ ‘It was taught’, the other replied, ‘that "sprinkling"76 on the Sabbath is only Rabbinically forbidden.77 Now, instructing a gentile to do work78 on the Sabbath79 is also Rabbinically forbidden, door opening into a karpaf. right to the use of the alley. Sabbath requirements and is also more convenient for his use than the comparatively smaller space of the alley, he is presumed to have dispensed with his right to the use of the alley which may, therefore, be provided by its other residents with a valid ‘erub even if he does not participate in it. on the Sabbath. and vice versa. beyond the distance of four cubits is forbidden, why should it here be regarded as a private domain? objects from a public domain into it. a karmelith and into a karmelith from which it is forbidden to move objects on the Sabbath. rock has the status of a karmelith like the sea which surrounds it. private domain and that a person who threw an object from a public domain into it incurs guilt. and did not forbid the movement of objects on the surface of the rock from one part of it to another. in respect of the movement of objects within it, and assumes that of a karmelith. Had it not been subjected to these restrictions people might erroneously have treated a public domain also with the same laxity. On account of its height, however, it retains, in relation to the sea, the status of a private domain the movement of objects from which into the sea and vice versa remains forbidden. Since both rulings are merely Rabbinical and not Pentateuchal the Rabbis could well abrogate one in favour of the other wherever the general requirements of the Sabbath laws demanded such a course; as will be explained anon. domain and applying its relaxation to the latter also. It is nevertheless forbidden to move airy objects from it into a public domain or vice versa since, as R. Johanan stated, it is Pentateuchally regarded as a private domain proper. infringement. forbidden even within four cubits. such an area the restrictions of a karmelith, it was considered preferable to abrogate in this case the law forbidding the movement of objects between a karmelith and a private domain. the one forbidding the movement of objects beyond four cubits in a private domain that was bigger than two beth se'ah? karmelith on land, the movement of objects between which is not infrequent, has such a preventive measure been deemed necessary. kept warm for the purpose. house to house through the courtyard area. that of ‘erub in a courtyard in relation to its houses (cf. infra 73a). objection.