Ein%20mishpat for Eruvin 49:26

רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולה אמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין אלא בארבע אמות לא אמרי' פי תקרה יורד וסותם

of a proselyte's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra n. 2.');">³⁴</span> land and then another Israelite came and hoed a little,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being a form of kinyan.');">³⁷</span> the latter does, and the former does not acquire possession, because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is the reason?'');">³⁸</span> at the time the former threw [the vegetable seed] he did not improve [the ground] and any eventual improvement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the seeds produced a crop.');">³⁹</span> came automatically?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not the direct action of the man; while kinyan (v. Glos.) can be effected by a direct act only (v. B.B. 42a) . Similarly in the case of the fence: Since the upper one came into the proper position through the accidental sinking of the lower one and not through any direct act of the person it cannot obviously be deemed the direct result of his act and cannot consequently be regarded as a valid kinyan.');">⁴⁰</span> If, on the other hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and but'.');">⁴¹</span> [it be suggested that the question arises] in respect of [the laws of the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether a karpaf may be turned into a permitted domain by the upper fences (that were built for dwelling purposes) after the lower ones have sunk.');">⁴²</span> [such a partition, surely, it could be retorted, is] one that was put up on the Sabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the lower ones sank. Before this happened the upper fence was legally non-existent.');">⁴³</span> concerning which it was taught: Any partition that is put up on the Sabbath, whether unwittingly or presumptuously, is regarded as a valid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its name (is) '.');">⁴⁴</span> partition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 101b, supra 20a.');">⁴⁵</span> - Has it not, however, been stated in connection with this ruling that R'Nahman ruled: This was taught only in respect of throwing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it is forbidden to throw an object from a public domain into such an enclosure.');">⁴⁶</span> but the moving [of objects within it] is forbidden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could this ruling be adduced as proof that the fence under discussion is deemed valid in respect of permitting the movement of objects within the area that it encloses?');">⁴⁷</span> - When R'Nahman's statement was made it was in respect of one who acted presumptiously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fence under discussion, however, came into position through an accident. Hence it is valid in all respects even according to R. Nahman.');">⁴⁸</span> A certain woman once put up a fence on the top of another fence in the estate of a proselyte,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the object of acquiring possession (cf. supra p. 173, n. 2) .');">⁴⁹</span> when a man came and hoed [the ground] a little. [The latter then] appeared before R'Nahman who confirmed it in his possession. The woman thereupon came to him and cried.' What can I do for you', he said to her, 'Seeing that you did not take possession in the proper way? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as men take possession'.');">⁵⁰</span> If a karpaf [was of the size of] three beth se'ah and one beth se'ah was provided with a roof, its covered space, ruled Rabbah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marg. note. Cur. edd., 'Raba'.');">⁵¹</span> causes it still to be deemed bigger [than two beth se'ah],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the covered area is still regarded as a part of the open karpaf.');">⁵²</span> but R'Zera ruled: Its covered space does not cause it to be deemed bigger.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The edge of the roof is said to descend and close up the covered area and thus reduce the open karpaf to the permitted size.');">⁵³</span> Must it be assumed that Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marg. note. Cur. edd., 'Raba'.');">⁵¹</span> and R'Zera differ on the same principle as that on which Rab and Samuel differed? For was it not stated: If an exedra<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. It is provided with a roof but is open at its sides.');">⁵⁴</span> was situated in a valley, it is, Rab ruled, permitted to move objects within all its interior; but Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved within four cubits only. Rab ruled that it was permitted to move objects in all its interior, because we apply [the principle:] The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the exedra is virtually provided with walls.');">⁵⁵</span> But Samuel ruled that objects may be moved within four cubits only, because we do not apply [the principle:] The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 90a, 94b, Suk. 18b. Is Rabbah then of the same opinion as Samuel and R. Zera of the same opinion as Rab (cf. supra n. 3) ?');">⁵⁶</span>

Explore ein%20mishpat for Eruvin 49:26. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.