## Eruvin Daf 25b

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

אִי דַּעֲבִידָא כִּי אַכְסַדְרָה הָכִי נָמֵי. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּעַבְדַהּ כִּי אוּרְזִילָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **If** the roof in the covered section of the *karpef* **were made like an enclosed veranda** whose roof is level, **indeed,** both Rava and Rabbi Zeira would agree that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and closes up the area. **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case where the roof **is made like a hammock,** i.e., slanted, and therefore one cannot say that the edge of the roof descends to the ground and encloses the area.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: וּמוֹדֵינָא בְּקַרְפֵּף שֶׁנִּפְרַץ בִּמְלוֹאוֹ לֶחָצֵר שֶׁאָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? הוֹאִיל וַאֲוִיר חָצֵר מְיַיתְּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said: I agree** with Rava **with regard to a *karpef* that is fully breached into a courtyard,** meaning the entire wall between them is breached, **that** it is **prohibited** to carry in it. **What is the reason** for this? **Because the** additional **space of the courtyard** joins to the *karpef* and **renders it in excess** of two *beit se’a*. Consequently, it is prohibited to carry in it.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וְכִי אֲוִיר הַמּוּתָּר לוֹ אוֹסְרוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef strongly objects to this** explanation: **Does a space** in **which it is permitted to** carry, the courtyard, **render** the *karpef*, **prohibited?** Given that it had been permitted beforehand to carry from the courtyard to the *karpef*, why say that now that the partition between them is breached, the additional space, which was itself permitted, should render it prohibited to carry in the *karpef*?


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי, הָא אִיכָּא אֲוִיר מְקוֹם מְחִיצוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: In accordance with whose** opinion do you say this? Apparently, it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who holds that one is permitted to carry from a courtyard to a *karpef*. But **even according to Rabbi Shimon, there is the space where the walls** that are now breached had once stood. This space had not been fit for carrying from the outset, even according to Rabbi Shimon; therefore, if the *karpef* had been at first exactly the area of two *beit se’a*, it would be prohibited to carry in the entire *karpef* due to the additional space of the fallen walls.


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

דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: קַרְפֵּף שֶׁנִּפְרַץ בִּמְלוֹאוֹ לְחָצֵר — חָצֵר מוּתֶּרֶת וְקַרְפֵּף אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as Rav Ḥisda said** with regard to **a *karpef* that is fully breached into a courtyard:** In **the courtyard** one is **permitted** to carry **and** in **the *karpef*** he is **prohibited** to carry.


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

חָצֵר מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאִית לֵיהּ גִּיפּוּפֵי? וְהָא זִמְנִין דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אִיפְּכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: As for the **courtyard, what is the reason** that this is permitted? Is it **because it has the remnants** of the original walls on either side of the breach, which allow the breach to be treated like an entrance? **But at times you find** just **the opposite;** if the courtyard was narrower than the *karpef* and the partition between them was fully breached, it is the *karpef* that retains the remnants of the original walls on either side of the breach, while the courtyard is breached in its entirety.


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

אֶלָּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן: זֶה — אֲוִיר מְחִיצוֹת מְיַיתְּרוֹ, וְזֶה — אֵין אֲוִיר מְחִיצוֹת מְיַיתְּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **because we say** that with regard to **this** one, the *karpef*, which was not enclosed for the purpose of residence and where one is permitted to carry only if it is no more than two *beit se’a*, **the space of the** fallen **walls renders it in excess** of two *beit se’a*. However, with regard to **that** one, the courtyard, which was enclosed for the purpose of residence and where there is no size limit above which it is prohibited to carry, **the space of the** fallen **walls does not render it in excess of** any limit.


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

הָהוּא בּוּסְתָּנָא דַּהֲוָה סְמִיךְ לְגוּדָּא דְּאַפַּדְנָא. נְפַל אֲשִׁיתָא בָּרַיְיתָא דְּאַפַּדְנָא. סָבַר רַב בִּיבִי לְמֵימַר לִיסְמוֹךְ אַגּוּדָּא גַוּוֹיָאתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a related incident: **A certain orchard [*bustana*] was adjacent to the wall of a mansion [*apadna*].** The orchard was larger than two *beit se’a* and was enclosed for the purpose of residence by a wall, part of which was the wall of the mansion. One day **the outer wall of the mansion,** which also served as a wall for the orchard, **collapsed. Rav Beivai thought to say** that **we can rely upon** one of **the** mansion’s **inner walls** to serve as a partition for the orchard and thereby permit one to carry there in the future as well.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פַּפִּי: מִשּׁוּם דְּאַתּוּ מִמּוּלָאֵי אָמְרִיתוּ מִילֵּי מוּלְיָיאתָא. הָנָךְ מְחִיצוֹת, לְגַוַּאי — עֲבִידָן, לְבָרַאי — לָא עֲבִידָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappi said to him: Because you come from truncated [*mula’ei*] people,** as Rav Beivai’s family traced their lineage to the house of Eli, all of whose descendants were destined to be short-lived (see i Samuel 2:31), **you speak truncated [*mulayata*] matters,** as the inner wall cannot be relied upon at all. That is because **these walls were made for the inside** of the mansion, and **they were not made for the outside;** that is, they were not designed from the outset to serve as partitions for the orchard.


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

הָהִיא אַבְּווֹרַנְקָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא בְּבוּסְתָּנֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא: לֶיעְבֵּיד מָר תַּקַּנְתָּא, דְּלִמְחַר נֵאכוּל נַהֲמָא הָתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **The Exilarch had a** banqueting **pavilion [*abvarneka*] in his orchard** that was larger than two *beit se’a* and that had not been enclosed from the outset for the purpose of residence. The Exilarch **said to Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana: Let the Master make** some **arrangement so that tomorrow,** on Shabbat, **we may eat bread there,** i.e., so that we may be permitted to carry food and utensils from the house to the pavilion via the orchard.


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

אֲזַל עֲבַד קָנֶה קָנֶה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, אֲזַל רָבָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana **went and erected** a fence of **reeds,** each reed separated from the next by **less than three** handbreadths. That is to say, he erected two such partitions between the house and the pavilion with a passageway between them, through which the Exilarch and his men could carry whatever they needed, as the partitions were constructed in the proper manner for the purpose of residence. **Rava,** however, **went**