Eruvin 49

מאן דשרי דהא ליכא דיורין ומאן דאסר זימנין דהוי בה דיורין ואתי לטלטולי

One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he who'.');">¹</span> permits it because [in the open area] there are no tenants;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To claim a share in it. Hence it may be regarded as the domain of the tenants of the alley. The occupants of the path need not be considered in this respect since the path and the open space stand in the same relationship respectively as a small courtyard and a large one that open into one another where the movement of objects is permitted in the latter though forbidden in the former.');">²</span>

קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה ובא למעטו מיעטו באילנות לא הוי מיעוט

and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he who'.');">¹</span> forbids this, because sometimes [it may happen] that there would be tenants in it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the movement of objects from the one into the other would consequently be forbidden.');">³</span>

בנה בו עמוד גבוה עשרה ורחב ד' הוי מיעוט פחות מג' לא הוי מיעוט מג' ועד ד' רבה אמר הוי מיעוט ורבא אמר לא הוי מיעוט

and they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenants of the path as well as those of the open area being unaware of the difference of status.');">⁴</span> would still be moving objects [from the one into the other].

רבה אמר הוי מיעוט דהא נפיק ליה מתורת לבוד רבא אמר לא הוי מיעוט כיון דלא הוי מקום ד' לא חשיב

If a karpaf was larger than two beth se'ah and was not enclosed for dwelling purposes, and it is desired to reduce the size thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and he came to reduce it'. ,ubkhtc');">⁵</span> then if it was effected by means of trees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since trees usually grow in a karpaf the new plantation does not produce any change in the character of the spot (cf. Rashi s.v. and Bah a.l.) .');">⁶</span>

הרחיק מן הכותל ד' ועשה מחיצה הועיל פחות מג' לא הועיל מג' ועד ד' רבה אמר הועיל רבא אמר אינו מועיל

the reduction is invalid. If a column, ten handbreadths in height and four handbreadths in width, was built up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Anywhere in the area.');">⁷</span>

רבה אמר הועיל דהא נפיק ליה מתורת לבוד רבא אמר אינו מועיל כיון דלא הוי מקום ד' לא חשיב

it is a valid reduction. If [the colum was] less than three [handbreadths wide] it constitutes no valid reduction.

רב שימי מתני לקולא טח בו טיט ויכול לעמוד בפני עצמו הוי מיעוט אינו יכול לעמוד בפני עצמו רבה אמר הוי מיעוט רבא אמר לא הוי מיעוט

[If it is] between three and four [handbreadths wide] it is, said Rabbah, a valid reduction; but Raba maintained: It is no valid reduction. Rabbah said that it was a valid reduction, since [such a size] is excluded from the law of labud.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. only to a space that is smaller than three handbreadths is the law applied. One of three is considered important and cannot, therefore, be disregarded.');">⁸</span>

רבה אמר הוה מיעוט השתא מיהא קאי רבא אמר לא הוי מיעוט כיון דלא יכול למיקם בפני עצמו לא כלום הוא

Raba maintained that it was not a valid reduction, because so long as it does not cover a space of four [handbreadths in width] it is of no importance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is deemed to be non-existent.');">⁹</span> If at a distance of four handbreadths from the wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a karpaf');">¹⁰</span>

הרחיק מן התל ד' ועשה מחיצה הועיל

a partition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For dwelling purposes.');">¹¹</span> was put up the act is legally effective,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the partition is regarded as valid and the karpaf is deemed to have been enclosed for dwelling purposes, provided a house door was made to open into it before the partition was put up.');">¹²</span>

פחות מג' או על שפת התל רב חסדא ורב המנונא חד אמר הועיל וחד אמר לא הועיל

[but if the distance was] less than three [handbreadths<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it may be regarded as joined to the fence of the karpaf and forming with it one thick fence.');">¹³</span> the partition] is ineffective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a new and independent partition of the prescribed size must be put up after a house door was opened into the karpaf (cf. supra p. 171, n. 13) .');">¹⁴</span>

תסתיים דרב חסדא אמר הועיל דאתמר העושה מחיצה על גבי מחיצה אמר רב חסדא בשבת הועיל

[If the distance was] between three, and four [handbreadths, the partition is], said Rabbah, effective, but Raba maintained: It is ineffective. Rabbah said that it was effective since [such a distance] is excluded from the law of labud.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 171, n. 9.');">¹⁵</span>

בנכסי הגר לא קנה

Raba maintained that it was ineffective because so long as it does not extend over four handbreadths it is of no importance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is deemed to be nonexistent.');">¹⁶</span> R'Shimi taught [that the discussion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between Rabbah and Raba.');">¹⁷</span>

ורב ששת אמר אף בשבת נמי לא הועיל תסתיים

related] to [the more] lenient [procedure].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the width of the column or the distance of the partition from the wall was less than three handbreadths. Where, however, it was between three and four handbreadths, he maintains, both Rabbah and Raba agree that, as the rule of labud does not apply, the pillar constitutes a proper reduction and the partition is deemed valid and put up for dwelling purposes.');">¹⁸</span> If the fence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on it', the fence across the karpaf under discussion.');">¹⁹</span>

אמר רב חסדא ומודה לי רב ששת שאם עשה מחיצה על התל שהועיל

was smeared with plaster and [the layer is so thick that it] can stand by itself it constitutes reduction; where it cannot stand by itself it [nevertheless], said Rabbah, constitutes a reduction, but Raba maintained: It does not constitute a reduction. Rabbah said that it constituted a reduction because now at any rate it stands.

מאי טעמא הואיל ובאויר מחיצות העליונות הוא דר

Raba maintained that it constituted no reduction because in view of the fact that it cannot, stand by itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. without the support of the fence to which it is attached.');">²⁰</span> it possesses no validity whatsoever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is nothing'.');">²¹</span>

בעי רבה בר בר חנה נבלעו מחיצות התחתונות והעליונות קיימות מהו

If at a distance of four handbreadths from a mound<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was situated in a karpaf and that was more than two beth se'ah removed from the fence around it.');">²²</span> a partition was put up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For dwelling purposes; and the distance between the new partition and the original fence exceeds two beth se'ah.');">²³</span>

למאי אי לנכסי הגר היינו דירמיה ביראה דאמר ירמיה ביראה אמר רב יהודה האי מאן דשדא ליפתא אפילא דארעא דגר ואתא ישראל אחרינא רפק בה פורתא בתרא קני קמא לא קני

it is effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is regarded as a valid wall and, since it was put up for dwelling purposes, effects the permissibility of the entire karpaf.');">²⁴</span> [If, however, it was put up at a distance of] less than three [handbreadths] [from it] or [was actually put up] on the edge of the mound [there is a difference of opinion between] R'Hisda and R'Hamnuna.

מ"ט בעידנא דשדא לא קא שבח כי קא שבחא ממילא קא משבחא

One holds that this is effective and the other maintains that it is ineffective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mound has the status of a partition; and it is the view of the former that one partition on the top of another is valid while the other maintains that it is invalid.');">²⁵</span> You may conclude that it was R'Hisda who held that [the partition] is effective; for it was stated: If one partition was put up upon another, it is, R'H ruled, effective as regards [the laws of] the Sabbath but no possession of the property of a proselyte<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who died, leaving no Jewish heirs, and whose estate may accordingly be seized by any member of the public.');">²⁶</span>

ואלא לענין שבת הוי מחיצה הנעשה בשבת

[may thereby] be acquired;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should one person put up a fence on the top of another in the deceased proselyte's estate and a second person subsequently performs another act of valid kinyan (v. Glos.) the latter would, and the former would not gain the possession of the estate.');">²⁷</span> and R'Shesheth ruled it is ineffective even in [respect of the laws of] the Sabbath.

ותניא כל מחיצה הנעשה בשבת בין בשוגג בין במזיד שמה מחיצה

This is conclusive. R'Hisda stated: R'Shesheth, however, agrees with me that if a man put up a fence on the mound<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the mound was bigger than two beth se'ah.');">²⁸</span>

לאו איתמר עלה אמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא לזרוק אבל לטלטל אסור

it is effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As far as the mound itself is concerned. It is permitted to move objects on the mound though in the karpaf in which it is situated this is forbidden.');">²⁹</span> What is the reason? - Because the man dwells in the space between the upper fences.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lower fences around the karpaf may, therefore, be completely disregarded.');">³⁰</span>

כי איתמר דרב נחמן אמזיד איתמר

Rabbah B'Bar Hana enquired:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the view that one partition on the top of another is invalid.');">³¹</span> What if the lower fences were sunk in the ground<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'were swallowed'.');">³²</span>

ההיא איתתא דעבדה מחיצה על גבי מחיצה בנכסי הגר אתא ההוא גברא רפק בה פורתא אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אוקמה בידיה אתת איהי וקא צווחא קמיה אמר לה מאי איעביד לך דלא מחזקת כדמחזקי אינשי

and the upper ones remained standing? In what [respect does this matter]?

קרפף בית שלש וקירה בו בית סאה רבא אמר אויר קירויו מייתרו ורבי זירא אמר אין אויר קירויו מייתרו

If [it be suggested] in respect [of acquiring possession]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By putting up a fence on the top of another, the latter subsequently sinking in the ground and the former remaining.');">³³</span> of the estate of a proselyte,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra n. 2.');">³⁴</span>

לימא רבא ורבי זירא בפלוגתא דרב ושמואל קא מיפלגי דאיתמר אכסדרה בבקעה רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולה ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין אלא בד' אמות

[is not the principle here involved, it may be retorted,] exactly the same [as that underlying a ruling] of Jeremiah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reading in the parallel passage in B.B. 53b and Git. 34a is 'R. Jeremiah'.');">³⁵</span> Bira'ah who ruled in the name of Rab Judah: If a man threw vegetable seeds into a crevice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he himself had not dug. Digging would have constituted kinyan and no further act would have been necessary.');">³⁶</span>

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>