## Eruvin Daf 24a

###### Eruvin 24a:1
[Eruvin 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:1)

בְּטִיל לֵיהּ לְגַבַּי רוּבָּה, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ קַרְפֵּף יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם — וְאָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is nullified** relative **to the greater part,** and it is as though the *karpef* were entirely sown. **And** therefore, **it is** regarded as **a *karpef* greater than two *beit se’a*,** in which it is **prohibited** to carry.


###### Eruvin 24a:2
[Eruvin 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:2)

אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: הָא מִיעוּטָא — שָׁרֵי. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא הָוֵי בֵּית סָאתַיִם, אֲבָל בֵּית סָאתַיִם — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if this was stated, this is what was stated** by Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: If the greater part of the *karpef* was sown, it is prohibited to carry within it. It follows that if only a **minor** part of the *karpef* was sown, it is **permitted** to carry within it. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: We said** that it is permitted to carry **only** if the sown section **is not** as large as **two *beit se’a*, however,** if it is at least **two *beit se’a*,** it **is prohibited** to carry anywhere in the *karpef*, even though most of it is not sown.


###### Eruvin 24a:3
[Eruvin 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:3)

כְּמַאן? כְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to whose** opinion was this stated? It is **according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and say that a *karpef* and a courtyard are regarded as separate domains, so that it is prohibited to carry from one to the other.


###### Eruvin 24a:4
[Eruvin 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:4)

וְרַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי מַתְנֵי לְקוּלָּא: הָא מִיעוּטָא — שְׁרֵי, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בֵּית סָאתַיִם, אֲבָל יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם — אָסוּר. כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yirmeya from Difti would teach** this matter **as a leniency,** as follows: It was stated that if the greater part of the *karpef* was sown, it is prohibited to carry within it. From here it follows that if only a **minor** part was sown, it **is permitted** to carry within it. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua said: We only said** that it is permitted to carry if the sown section is not more than **two *beit se’a*, but** if it is **more than two *beit se’a*,** it **is prohibited** to carry. **According to whose** opinion was this stated? It was **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Eruvin 24a:5
[Eruvin 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:5)

נָטַע רוּבּוֹ — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּחָצֵר, וּמוּתָּר. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר אֲבִימִי: וְהוּא שֶׁעֲשׂוּיִין אִצְטַבְּלָאוֹת. וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֲשׂוּיִין אִצְטַבְּלָאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was stated earlier that if **the greater part of** the *karpef* **was planted** with trees, **it is** considered **like a courtyard, and** it is **permitted** to carry. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Avimi said: This is** only if the trees **were planted in rows [*itztablaot*],** the customary manner of planting ornamental trees in a courtyard. But if they were arranged differently it is considered an orchard, which is not made for dwelling, and where it is prohibited to carry. **But Rav Naḥman said:** This applies **even if they were not planted in rows,** as people commonly plant trees in any arrangement in the courtyards of their houses.


###### Eruvin 24a:6
[Eruvin 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:6)

מָר יְהוּדָה אִקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה. חֲזַנְהוּ לְהָנְהוּ דְּלָא עֲבִידִי אִצְטַבְּלָאוֹת, וְקָא מְטַלְטְלִי בְּגַוַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר לְהָא דַּאֲבִימִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא כְּרַב נַחְמָן סְבִירָא לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Yehuda happened** to come **to the house of Rav Huna bar Yehuda,** where **he saw certain** trees **that were not planted in rows, and** people **were** nevertheless **carrying among them.** Mar Yehuda **said to** Rav Huna: **Doesn’t the Master hold** in accordance **with this** opinion **of Avimi?** Rav Huna **said to him: I hold like** the opinion of **Rav Naḥman,** that it is permitted to carry even if the trees are not planted in rows.


###### Eruvin 24a:7
[Eruvin 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:7)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קַרְפֵּף יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַּף לְדִירָה, כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? פּוֹרֵץ בּוֹ פִּירְצָה יוֹתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר, וְגוֹדְרוֹ וּמַעֲמִידוֹ עַל עֶשֶׂר, וּמוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said** that **Shmuel said:** With regard to **a *karpef* that is greater than two *beit se’a*,** and **which was not enclosed** from the outset **for** the purpose of **residence, what should one do** if he wishes to carry within it? **He should make a breach** in the fence **larger than ten** cubits, which nullifies the partition, **and** then **fence it off and reduce** the opening **to** only **ten** cubits, which thereby creates an entrance. He **is** then **permitted** to carry in the *karpef*, because it is now regarded as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence.


###### Eruvin 24a:8
[Eruvin 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:8)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פָּרַץ אַמָּה וְגָדַר אַמָּה [וּפָרַץ אַמָּה וּגְדָרָהּ], עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִימוֹ לְיוֹתֵר מֵעֶשֶׂר, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises a dilemma:** If he did not make the breach at once, but rather **he breached one cubit and fenced off** that same **cubit, and** then **breached** another **cubit and fenced it off, until he completed** the breaching and fencing off of **more than ten** cubits, **what is** the law?


###### Eruvin 24a:9
[Eruvin 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לָאו הַיְינוּ דִּתְנַן: כׇּל כְּלֵי בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים, שִׁיעוּרָן כְּרִמּוֹנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He said to him: Is this not as we learned** in a mishna: **All** ritually impure wooden **utensils belonging to** ordinary **homeowners** become ritually pure through breaking the utensil, if they have holes **the size of pomegranates.**


###### Eruvin 24a:10
[Eruvin 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:10)

וּבָעֵי חִזְקִיָּה: נִיקַּב כְּמוֹצִיא זַיִת וּסְתָמוֹ, וְחָזַר וְנִיקַּב כְּמוֹצִיא זַיִת וּסְתָמוֹ, עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִימוֹ לְמוֹצִיא רִמּוֹן מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Ḥizkiya raised a dilemma:** If a utensil **was perforated** with a hole large enough **for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it, and then it was perforated again** with a hole large enough **for an olive to emerge, and he sealed it** again, and this went on **until** the holes together **completed** a space large enough for **a pomegranate to emerge, what** is the *halakha*? In other words, is the ruling that because the sum of all the holes is the size of a pomegranate the utensil is pure, or is the ruling that it remains ritually impure because each hole was filled before the next hole was formed?


###### Eruvin 24a:11
[Eruvin 24a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:11)

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי, שָׁנִיתָה לָנוּ: סַנְדָּל שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה אַחַת מֵאׇזְנָיו וְתִיקְּנָהּ — טָמֵא מִדְרָס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan** his student **said to him: Master, you taught us** that with regard to a **sandal that** became ritually impure by impurity imparted by the treading of a *zav*, and **one of its ears,** i.e., straps, **broke and he repaired it,** it remains **ritually impure** with impurity imparted by **treading [***midras***]** and can still render people and utensils ritually impure. If one of a sandal’s straps is torn, it can still be used as a sandal, and therefore it does not lose its status as a utensil.


###### Eruvin 24a:12
[Eruvin 24a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:12)

נִפְסְקָה שְׁנִיָּה וְתִיקְּנָהּ — טָהוֹר בָּהּ מִן הַמִּדְרָס, אֲבָל טָמֵא מַגַּע מִדְרָס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If the** second **ear** broke and he repaired it, it is **ritually pure** in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure as would a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity **by means of** impurity imparted by **treading. However,** the sandal itself is **ritually impure** due to **contact** with an object that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by **treading,** i.e., the sandal before its second strap ripped. Therefore, it can transmit ritual impurity to food and liquids.


###### Eruvin 24a:13
[Eruvin 24a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:13)

וַאֲמַרְתְּ עֲלַהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא רִאשׁוֹנָה — דְּהָא קָיְימָא שְׁנִיָּה? שְׁנִיָּה נָמֵי — הָא קָיְימָא רִאשׁוֹנָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And you said about this** *halakha*: **What is different** in a case where **the first** ear breaks, that the sandal remains impure? It is **because** the **second** one is **intact.** However, when the **second** ear breaks, the **first** ear is **intact;** so how does the sandal lose its utensil status?


###### Eruvin 24a:14
[Eruvin 24a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:14)

וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ: פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת בָּאוּ לְכָאן. הָכָא נָמֵי, פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת בָּאוּ לְכָאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** then **you said to us** with regard to **this** that the reason it is no longer a utensil is because **a new entity has arrived here.** The legal status of the sandal with the two repaired ears is not that of the original sandal; it is a new sandal. **Here, too,** with regard to a utensil that was perforated several times, where the sum of all the holes adds up to the size of a pomegranate, let us say that **a new entity has arrived here,** as the entire area of the hole is completely new, and the utensil is no longer the same utensil that had been ritually impure.


###### Eruvin 24a:15
[Eruvin 24a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:15)

קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: לֵית דֵּין בַּר אִינָשׁ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: כְּגוֹן דֵּין בַּר נַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ḥizkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yoḥanan’s comment that **he exclaimed about him: This is not a human being;** rather, he is an angel, as he is capable of resolving a problem that I struggle with, from something that I myself taught. **Some say** that he said: **This is an** ideal **human being.** This parallel analysis teaches that if one breached one cubit and fenced it off, breached another cubit and fenced it off, and continued this way until he breached and fenced off more than ten cubits, then this is effective, and he need not breach more than ten meters at once.


###### Eruvin 24a:16
[Eruvin 24a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:16)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: רְחָבָה שֶׁאֲחוֹרֵי הַבָּתִּים — אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana said: A** fenced-in **yard** located **behind** a group of **houses,** which is used to store objects not in regular use and which measures more than two *beit se’a*, is not treated as a full-fledged private domain. Therefore, **inside it, one may carry** objects a distance of **only four cubits.**


###### Eruvin 24a:17
[Eruvin 24a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:17)

וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִם פָּתַח לוֹ פֶּתַח — מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלּוֹ, פֶּתַח מַתִּירוֹ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁפָּתַח וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּקַּף, אֲבָל הוּקַּף וּלְבַסּוֹף פָּתַח — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: If one opened an entrance to it** from the house, **it is permitted to carry throughout the entire** area, because **the entrance permits it,** allowing it to be considered as part of the house. **And we stated** this allowance **only where he opened** the entrance **and afterward fenced in** the area; **but if he** first **fenced it in and** only **afterward opened** the entrance, he may **not** carry throughout the yard.


###### Eruvin 24a:18
[Eruvin 24a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:18)

פָּתַח וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּקַּף פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִית בֵּיהּ בֵּי דָרֵי. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אַדַּעְתָּא דְּבֵי דָרֵי עַבְדֵיהּ. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If he first **opened** the entrance **and afterward fenced in** the area, it is **obvious** that it is permitted to carry throughout the yard, because it is clear that the area was enclosed for the entrance, i.e., in order to use it from the house. The Gemara answers: This ruling **is necessary only** in the case **where there is a threshing floor** in the yard. This is because **you might have said** that **he made** the entrance **with the threshing floor in mind,** and not so that he would be able to use the entire yard. **He** therefore comes and **teaches us** that the entrance renders it permitted to carry in the yard in all cases.


###### Eruvin 24a:19
[Eruvin 24a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:19)

קַרְפֵּף יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם שֶׁהוּקַּף לְדִירָה וְנִתְמַלֵּא מַיִם, סְבוּר רַבָּנַן לְמֵימַר כִּזְרָעִים דָּמוּ — וַאֲסִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara considers a new case: With regard to **a *karpef*** measuring **more than two *beit se’a*, which had been enclosed for** the purpose of **residence but became filled with water,** by floods or any other cause, **the Rabbis thought to say** that the water **is** considered **like seeds.** This means that the *karpef* is regarded as if it were sown with seeds, so that it **is prohibited** to carry. It is no longer considered as having been enclosed for the purpose of dwelling, since it is not normal to live in a place filled with water.


###### Eruvin 24a:20
[Eruvin 24a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/24a:20)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב אַבָּא אֲבוּהּ דְּרַב בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: מַיִם כִּנְטָעִים דָּמוּ, וּשְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Abba, father of Rav, son of Rav Mesharshiya, said: We say in the name of Rava as follows: Water is** considered **like planted** trees, so that one **is permitted** to carry. A courtyard filled with water is still suitable for dwelling, since the water benefits the residents of the courtyard.