## Eruvin Daf 25a

###### Eruvin 25a:1
[Eruvin 25a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:1)

מַאן דְּשָׁרֵי — דְּהָא לֵיכָּא דָּיוֹרִין. וּמַאן דְּאָסַר — זִימְנִין דְּהָוֵי בַּהּ דָּיוֹרִין וְאָתֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The** Sage **who permits** doing so holds that it is permitted since in the yard itself **there are no residents,** and a place without residents cannot prohibit carrying in another, adjacent domain. **And the** Sage **who prohibits** doing so holds that it is prohibited because **sometimes there are residents in it** who can prohibit carrying in the other domain, **and** people **might** unwittingly **come to carry** from the yard to the town in their usual manner, even though it is prohibited.


###### Eruvin 25a:2
[Eruvin 25a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:2)

קַרְפֵּף יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַּף לְדִירָה וּבָא לְמַעֲטוֹ, מִיעֲטוֹ בָּאִילָנוֹת — לָא הָוֵי מִיעוּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **a *karpef*** that measures **more than two *beit se’a*** and **that had not been fenced in** from the outset **for** the purpose of **residence, and one came to reduce it**s size, if **he reduced it by** planting **trees** in a section of the space, **it is not a** valid **reduction,** because trees are commonly found in a *karpef* designed for dwelling; therefore, they are not considered something out of the ordinary that would reduce its size.


###### Eruvin 25a:3
[Eruvin 25a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:3)

בָּנָה בּוֹ עַמּוּד גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרָחָב אַרְבָּעָה — הָוֵי מִיעוּט. פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה — לָא הָוֵי מִיעוּט. מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְעַד אַרְבָּעָה — רַבָּה אָמַר: הָוֵי מִיעוּט, וְרָבָא אָמַר: לָא הָוֵי מִיעוּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **if he built up a column ten** handbreadths **high and four** handbreadths **wide, it is an** effective **reduction,** i.e., if the *karpef* is thereby reduced to the area of two *beit se’a*, one is permitted to carry within it. However, if the column is **less than three** handbreadths wide, **it is not an** effective **reduction.** And if it is **between three to four** handbreadths wide, there is a dispute between *amora’im*. **Rabba said: It constitutes an** effective **reduction, and Rava said: It does not constitute an** effective **reduction.**


###### Eruvin 25a:4
[Eruvin 25a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:4)

רַבָּה אָמַר: הָוֵי מִיעוּט, דְּהָא נָפֵיק לֵיהּ מִתּוֹרַת לָבוּד. רָבָא אָמַר: לָא הָוֵי מִיעוּט, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא הָוֵי מְקוֹם אַרְבָּעָה — לָא חֲשִׁיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the two opinions. **Rabba said** that **it constitutes an** effective **reduction because** it is large enough **to be excluded from the principle of *lavud*,** namely, that solid surfaces with gaps between them less than three handbreadths are considered joined. Since the column stands independently, it reduces the size of the *karpef*. **Rava said** that **it does not constitute a** valid **reduction because as it is not a place** of at least **four** handbreadths, **it is not significant.** An area of less than four handbreadths is not considered independent.


###### Eruvin 25a:5
[Eruvin 25a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:5)

הִרְחִיק מִן הַכּוֹתֶל אַרְבָּעָה וְעָשָׂה מְחִיצָה — הוֹעִיל. פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה — לֹא הוֹעִיל. מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה וְעַד אַרְבָּעָה — רַבָּה אָמַר: הוֹעִיל, רָבָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was further stated: **If one distanced** himself **four** handbreadths **from the wall** of the *karpef* **and erected an** additional **partition** for the sake of dwelling, **it is effective** in permitting one to carry in the fenced-off inner area. But if the distance is **less than three** handbreadths, **it is not effective,** as the new wall is considered attached to the first by means of the principle of *lavud*, and it is like one partition built on top of another. And if the distance is **between three to four** handbreadths, that is the topic of the dispute among the *amora’im*, in which **Rabba said: It is effective,** and **Rava said: It is not effective.**


###### Eruvin 25a:6
[Eruvin 25a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:6)

רַבָּה אָמַר: הוֹעִיל, דְּהָא נָפֵיק לֵיהּ מִתּוֹרַת לָבוּד. רָבָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא הָוֵי מְקוֹם אַרְבָּעָה, לָא חֲשִׁיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the two opinions. **Rabba said: It is effective, as it** is far enough away **to be removed from the principle of *lavud*. Rava** disagreed and **said: It is not effective, because as it is not a place of** at least **four** handbreadths, **it is not significant.**


###### Eruvin 25a:7
[Eruvin 25a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:7)

רַב שִׁימִי מַתְנֵי לְקוּלָּא: טָח בּוֹ טִיט וְיָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ — הָוֵי מִיעוּט. אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ — רַבָּה אָמַר: הָוֵי מִיעוּט, רָבָא אָמַר: לָא הָוֵי מִיעוּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Simi would teach a** more **lenient** version of the dispute between Rabba and Rava. **If one plastered** the walls of a *karpef* larger than two *beit se’a* **with plaster, and** the plaster **can stand on its own,** all agree that **it is an** effective **reduction,** as it is considered as if he has made a new partition. But if the plaster **cannot stand on its own,** and it only stays in place because it is attached to the existing wall, there is an amoraic dispute in which **Rabba said: It is an** effective **reduction,** and **Rava said: It is not an** effective **reduction.**


###### Eruvin 25a:8
[Eruvin 25a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:8)

רַבָּה אָמַר: הָוֵי מִיעוּט, הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא קָאֵי. רָבָא אָמַר: לָא הָוֵי מִיעוּט, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא יָכוֹל לְמֵיקַם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, לֹא כְּלוּם הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the two opinions. **Rabba says: It is an** effective **reduction,** because for **now, in any case, it stands. Rava says: It is not an** effective **reduction, because as it cannot stand on its own, it is nothing,** i.e., it is insignificant.


###### Eruvin 25a:9
[Eruvin 25a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:9)

הִרְחִיק מִן הַתֵּל אַרְבָּעָה וְעָשָׂה מְחִיצָה — הוֹעִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If one distanced** himself **four** handbreadths **from a mound** ten handbreadths high that stands in a *karpef* larger than two *beit se’a*, **and** he **erected a partition** for the sake of dwelling, **it is effective** to permit one to carry.


###### Eruvin 25a:10
[Eruvin 25a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:10)

פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ עַל שְׂפַת הַתֵּל, רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא, חַד אָמַר: הוֹעִיל, וְחַד אָמַר: לֹא הוֹעִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if he erected the partition **less than three** handbreadths from the mound **or on the edge of the mound** itself, so that it is like a partition built on top of another partition, this is a dispute between **Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. One** of them **said: It is effective,** and **the other one said: It is not effective.**


###### Eruvin 25a:11
[Eruvin 25a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:11)

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר הוֹעִיל, דְּאִתְּמַר: הָעוֹשֶׂה מְחִיצָה עַל גַּבֵּי מְחִיצָה, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּשַׁבָּת הוֹעִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara seeks to clarify which of the Sages held which opinion. **Conclude that** it was **Rav Ḥisda** who **said it is effective, for it was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed about the following: If **one erected a partition on top of an** existing **partition, Rav Ḥisda said:** With regard to the *halakhot* of **Shabbat,** e.g., if the first partition was not erected for the purpose of residence, the second partition **is effective.**


###### Eruvin 25a:12
[Eruvin 25a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:12)

בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, **with regard to the property of a convert, he does not acquire** it. The property of a convert who dies without heirs is regarded as ownerless unless he had transferred it to someone as a gift during his lifetime. Whoever first implements a valid mode of acquisition upon such property acquires it. For example, one may acquire property by performing an act of taking possession, such as construction of a partition around it. But if one erects a partition around the property of a deceased convert on top of an existing partition, he does not acquire the property in this manner.


###### Eruvin 25a:13
[Eruvin 25a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:13)

וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אַף בְּשַׁבָּת נָמֵי לֹא הוֹעִיל. תִּסְתַּיֵּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Sheshet said: Even with regard to Shabbat it is not effective.** The Gemara comments: Indeed, **conclude** that it is Rav Ḥisda who maintains that one partition built on top of another is effective for Shabbat.


###### Eruvin 25a:14
[Eruvin 25a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:14)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וּמוֹדֶה לִי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת שֶׁאִם עָשָׂה מְחִיצָה עַל הַתֵּל — שֶׁהוֹעִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said: Rav Sheshet agrees with me that if one erected a partition on the mound,** rather than merely adjacent to it, **that it is effective** to permit one to carry on the mound itself, even though, according to him, it is prohibited to carry in the rest of the *karpef*.


###### Eruvin 25a:15
[Eruvin 25a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:15)

מַאי טַעְמָא, הוֹאִיל וּבַאֲוִיר מְחִיצוֹת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת הוּא דָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for this? **Since he dwells in the space** between **the upper partitions,** he utilizes these new partitions and they serve a function. Although in relation to one positioned below the mound these are partitions built on top of the pre-existing partitions of the mound, and therefore they do not allow him to carry in the *karpef*, they are nonetheless effective in allowing him to carry on the mound itself.


###### Eruvin 25a:16
[Eruvin 25a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:16)

בָּעֵי רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: נִבְלְעוּ מְחִיצוֹת הַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת, וְהָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת קַיָּימוֹת, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar bar Ḥana raised a dilemma: If the lower partitions were swallowed up,** e.g., if they sank in boggy ground, and **the upper** partitions that he had erected still **stand, what is** the law?


###### Eruvin 25a:17
[Eruvin 25a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:17)

לְמַאי? אִי לְנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, הַיְינוּ דְּיִרְמְיָה בִּירָאָה. דְּאָמַר יִרְמְיָה בִּירָאָה אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דִּשְׁדָא לִיפְתָּא אַפִּילָא דְּאַרְעָא דְגֵר, וַאֲתָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרִינָא רְפַק בָּהּ פּוּרְתָּא — בָּתְרָא קָנֵי, קַמָּא לָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** issue was this dilemma raised? **If** it was raised **with regard to** acquiring **the property of a convert, this** is precisely the same as the ruling cited by **Yirmeya Bira’a, as Yirmeya Bira’a said** that **Rav Yehuda said:** If **one sowed turnip** seeds **in cracks** which he found **in land** that had belonged to **a convert, and another Jew came** and **plowed** the ground **a little, the latter one,** the one who plowed, **acquires** the property, and **the first one does not acquire** it.


###### Eruvin 25a:18
[Eruvin 25a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:18)

מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּעִידָּנָא דִּשְׁדָא — לָא קָא שָׁבַח. כִּי קָא שָׁבְחָא — מִמֵּילָא קָא מְשַׁבְּחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** that the first one who sowed the seeds does not acquire the property? **At the time that he sowed,** the land **was not improved** by his sowing. **When it did improve,** with the growth of the turnips, **it improved on its own.** That is to say, the act of sowing alone is not a sufficiently noticeable action that changes and improves the property at the time. Although the sowing later proves to have been beneficial, this is seen as an improvement of the land that comes on its own. Therefore, an action that will only provide benefit in the future cannot serve as an act of acquisition.


###### Eruvin 25a:19
[Eruvin 25a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:19)

וְאֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת, הָוֵי מְחִיצָה הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** you must say that the dilemma was raised **with respect to Shabbat,** in which case it is **a partition that was made on Shabbat;** beforehand it was not a valid partition, and the upper ones acquired the status of a partition only after the lower partitions sank into the ground.


###### Eruvin 25a:20
[Eruvin 25a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:20)

וְתַנְיָא: כׇּל מְחִיצָה הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד — שְׁמָהּ מְחִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it was** already **taught** in a *baraita*: **Any partition made on Shabbat, whether unwittingly or intentionally, is called a** valid **partition.** Consequently, the upper partitions should be regarded as valid partitions that allow one to carry in the *karpef*.


###### Eruvin 25a:21
[Eruvin 25a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:21)

לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִזְרוֹק, אֲבָל לְטַלְטֵל — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Wasn’t it stated about this** law that **Rav Naḥman said: They taught** that such a partition is called a partition **only** as a stringency, in that it is prohibited **to throw** from an area enclosed by such a partition into the public domain and vice versa; **but to carry** within it as a full-fledged private domain **is prohibited.** This implies that these are not proper partitions.


###### Eruvin 25a:22
[Eruvin 25a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:22)

כִּי אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב נַחְמָן — אַמֵּזִיד אִיתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this objection: **When** that statement of **Rav Naḥman was stated, it was stated** with regard to a case where one erected the partition **intentionally.** Since one intentionally violated Shabbat when he erected the partition, the Sages imposed a penalty that he is prohibited to carry within the enclosed area. But if the partition was made unwittingly or came about by itself, no such penalty was imposed, and one is permitted to carry.


###### Eruvin 25a:23
[Eruvin 25a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:23)

הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּעֲבַדָה מְחִיצָה עַל גַּבֵּי מְחִיצָה בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר. אֲתָא הָהוּא גַּבְרָא, רְפַק בָּהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אוֹקְמַהּ בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתַא[י] אִיהִי וְקָא צָוְוחָא קַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: מַאי אֶיעְבֵּיד לָךְ, דְּלָא מַחְזְקַתְּ כִּדְמַחְזְקִי אִינָשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a related incident: **A certain woman erected a partition on top of** another **partition in the property of a** deceased **convert. A certain man** then **came** and **plowed** the ground **a little.** The man **came before Rav Naḥman, who established the** property **in his possession.** The woman then **came and cried out before** Rav Naḥman. **He said to her: What can I do for you, as** you **did not take possession** of the property **in the manner that people take possession.**


###### Eruvin 25a:24
[Eruvin 25a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:24)

קַרְפֵּף בֵּית שָׁלֹשׁ וְקֵירָה בּוֹ בֵּית סְאָה. רָבָא אָמַר: אֲוִיר קֵירוּיוֹ מְיַיתְּרוֹ. וְרַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: אֵין אֲוִיר קֵירוּיוֹ מְיַיתְּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **a *karpef*** the size of **three** *beit se’a*, **and one roofed** one ***beit se’a*** of **it,** the *amora’im* disputed whether or not the area of *karpef* is two *beit se’a*, in which case it is permitted to carry there, or three *beit se’a*, in which case it would be prohibited. **Rava said: Its roofed space renders it in excess** of two *beit se’a*, meaning that the roofed area is not considered separate from the rest, and so it is prohibited to carry in the *karpef*. **And Rabbi Zeira said: Its roofed space does not render it in excess** of two *beit se’a*, and it is permitted to carry there.


###### Eruvin 25a:25
[Eruvin 25a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:25)

לֵימָא רָבָא וְרַבִּי זֵירָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. דְּאִיתְּמַר: אַכְסַדְרָה בְּבִקְעָה, רַב אָמַר: מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלָּהּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Let us say** that **Rava and Rabbi Zeira dispute the** same point that was the subject of **dispute between Rav and Shmuel.** These *amora’im* disagreed about the following, **as it was stated:** With regard to **an enclosed veranda [*akhsadra*],** which is a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, **in a field** that has the status of a *karmelit*, **Rav said: One is permitted to carry in the entire** enclosed veranda, as it is considered a private domain. **And Shmuel said: One may carry only** a distance of **four cubits.**


###### Eruvin 25a:26
[Eruvin 25a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/25a:26)

רַב אָמַר: מוּתָּר לְטַלְטֵל בְּכוּלָּהּ — אָמְרִינַן פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — לָא אָמְרִינַן פִּי תִקְרָה יוֹרֵד וְסוֹתֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the two opinions: **Rav said: One is permitted to carry in the entire** enclosed veranda, since **we say** that **the edge of the roof descends** to the ground **and closes up** the enclosed veranda on all sides; consequently, it is considered a separate private domain. **And Shmuel said: One may carry only** a distance of **four cubits,** as **we do not say** that **the edge of the roof descends and closes up** the enclosed veranda.