אֲפִילּוּ פָּתוּחַ לַקַּרְפֵּף.

Even if it opens into an enclosure, this is considered its main entrance, rather than the one that opens into the alleyway.

רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: גּוֹי בֵּית סָאתַיִם – אוֹסֵר, יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם – אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר.

It is Rabba and Rav Yosef who both say: The halakha in such a case depends on the identity of the owner of the courtyard. With regard to a courtyard owned by a gentile, if the enclosure behind his courtyard is the size of two beit se’a or less, he renders it prohibited for the Jewish residents of the alleyway to carry. An enclosure of this size is not large enough for all the gentile’s needs, and therefore his main entrance is the one that opens into the alleyway. However, if the enclosure is greater than the size of two beit se’a , he does not render it prohibited for the residents of the alleyway to carry, as such an enclosure is sufficient for all his needs.

וְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּית סָאתַיִם – אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר,

On the other hand, with regard to a courtyard owned by a Jew, if the enclosure is the size of two beit se’a or less, he does not render it prohibited for the other residents of the alleyway to carry, even if he did not join in an eiruv with them. Because he has the option of carrying in such an enclosure on Shabbat, he would not carry in the alleyway, as it is more convenient for him to carry in a place that belongs exclusively to him.

יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם – אוֹסֵר.

However, if the enclosure is greater than the size of two beit se’a , in which case it is prohibited to carry there, the Jew would carry only by way of the alleyway. Therefore, he renders it prohibited for his fellow residents of the alleyway to carry unless he establishes an eiruv with them.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא בַּר חַקְלַאי מֵרַב הוּנָא: פָּתוּחַ לְקַרְפֵּף, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ, בֵּית סָאתַיִם – אוֹסֵר, יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם – אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר.

With regard to this issue, Rava bar Ḥaklai raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If the gentile’s courtyard opens into an alleyway, and it also has an entrance that opens into an enclosure, what is the halakha ? He said to him: They have already said that if the enclosure is the size of two beit se’a or less, the gentile renders it prohibited for the Jewish residents of the alleyway to carry; however, if it is more than two beit se’a , he does not render it prohibited for them to carry.

אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קַרְפֵּף יוֹתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַּף לַדִּירָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוֹר וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוֹרַיִים – הַזּוֹרֵק לְתוֹכוֹ חַיָּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? מְחִיצָּה הִיא, אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּחוּסֶרֶת דִּיּוֹרִין.

Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to an enclosure greater than the size of two beit se’a that was not originally surrounded by a fence for the purpose of residence, even if it is as large as a field that produces a crop of one kor , and even two kor , one who inadvertently throws an object into it from the public domain is liable to bring a sin-offering, like one who throws into a private domain. What is the reason for this? It is because the partition of an enclosure is a valid partition. Consequently, the enclosure is considered a private domain by Torah law, except that it is lacking residents, and therefore the Sages did not permit one to carry inside it as in a proper private domain.

מְתִיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא: סֶלַע שֶׁבַּיָּם, גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרוֹחַב אַרְבָּעָה – אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין לֹא מִן תּוֹכוֹ לַיָּם, וְלֹא מִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכוֹ. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן – מְטַלְטְלִין. עַד כַּמָּה – עַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised an objection from the following baraita : With regard to a rock protruding from the sea that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may not carry from it to the sea or from the sea to it on Shabbat. The rock has the status of a private domain, while the sea is a karmelit , and it is prohibited to carry from a private domain into a karmelit or vice versa on Shabbat. If the rock is smaller than this, either in height or width, so that it is no longer considered a private domain, one may carry to or from it. How large may the rock be? It may be up to the size of two beit se’a .

אַהַיָּיא? אִילֵימָא אַסֵּיפָא – בֵּית סָאתַיִם, טְפֵי לָא?! וְהָא מִכַּרְמְלִית לְכַרְמְלִית קָא מְטַלְטֵל!

The Gemara attempts to clarify the meaning of this baraita : To which part of the baraita is the clause: Up to the size of two beit se’a , referring? If you say it is referring to the latter clause, can it be that with regard to a rock that is less than ten handbreadths high, the halakha is that carrying is permitted if the rock is up to the size of two beit se’a , but no more than that? Wouldn’t he be carrying from one karmelit to another, which is certainly permitted?

אֶלָּא לָאו אַרֵישָׁא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: סֶלַע שֶׁבַּיָּם, גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וְרוֹחַב אַרְבָּעָה – אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין לֹא מִתּוֹכוֹ לַיָּם וְלֹא מִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכוֹ. וְעַד כַּמָּה – עַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם. הָא יָתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם – מְטַלְטְלִין. אַלְמָא כַּרְמְלִית הִיא. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן!

Rather, is it not referring to the first clause of the baraita , and this is what it is saying: With regard to a rock protruding from the sea that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may not carry from it to the sea or from the sea to it, as it has the status of a private domain. And how large may it be for this prohibition to apply? Up to the size of two beit se’a . But if the rock is greater than the size of two beit se’a , one may carry. Apparently, it is a karmelit in all respects, and not just as a stringency. This appears to be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

אֲמַר רָבָא: מַאן דְּלָא יָדַע תֵּרוֹצֵי מַתְנָיָיתָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא מוֹתִיב לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן?! לְעוֹלָם אַרֵישָׁא, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: הָא בְּתוֹכוֹ – מְטַלְטְלִין. וְעַד כַּמָּה – עַד בֵּית סָאתַיִם.

Rava said: Only one who does not know how to explain mishnayot raises such refutations against Rabbi Yoḥanan, one of the greatest Sages of his generation. Rather, the baraita is to be understood as follows: Actually, the final words of the baraita refer to the first clause, and this is what it is saying: With regard to a rock protruding from the sea that is ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, one may not carry from it to the sea or from the sea to it, but within it, on the rock itself, one may carry, as it is considered a private domain. And how large may the rock be and remain permitted? Up to two beit se’a .

רַב אַשִׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם אַרֵישָׁא, הֵן אָמְרוּ וְהֵן אָמְרוּ.

Rav Ashi said that the baraita may be explained differently, yet still in a manner that does not refute the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Actually, the final words of the baraita refer to the first clause, as stated by Rav Huna bar Ḥanina. However, one may not infer from them a principle with regard to enclosures, as they said that the halakha is stringent in one case, and they said that the halakha should be lenient in a different case, i.e., the same Sages who were stringent in one case were lenient in the another.

הֵן אָמְרוּ: קַרְפֵּף יָתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַּף לַדִּירָה אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבָּע אַמּוֹת, וְהֵן אָמְרוּ: אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לַכַּרְמְלִית.

How so? They said that in the case of an enclosure greater than the size of two beit se’a that was not originally enclosed with a fence for the purpose of residence, one may carry only a distance of four cubits, as it has the status of a karmelit in this regard. And they also said that one may not carry from a private domain to a karmelit . Both of these halakhot are decrees of the Sages.

בֵּית סָאתַיִם דְּשָׁרֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵי בְּכוּלֵּיהּ – אָסְרִי רַבָּנַן לְטַלְטוֹלֵי, לֹא מִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכוֹ וְלֹא מִתּוֹכוֹ לַיָּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד גְּמוּרָה הִיא.

Therefore, the Sages developed the following principles: With regard to a rock that is no larger than two beit se’a , so that it is permitted to carry on all of it, the Sages prohibited carrying from the sea to it and from it to the sea. What is the reason for this? It is that the rock is a full-fledged private domain, and they did not permit one to carry from a private domain to a karmelit or vice versa.

יָתֵר מִבֵּית סָאתַיִם דְּאָסוּר לְטַלְטוֹלֵי בְּכוּלֵּיהּ – שָׁרוּ רַבָּנַן לְטַלְטוֹלֵי מִתּוֹכוֹ לַיָּם וּמִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּלְמָא אָמְרִי רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד גְּמוּרָה הִיא וְאָתֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵי בְּכוּלֵּיהּ.

However, if it is larger than the size of two beit se’a , so that it is prohibited to carry on all of it by rabbinic decree, the Sages permitted carrying from the sea to it and from it to the sea. What is the reason for this? It is because the Sages were concerned that perhaps people would say that it is a proper private domain, and they would come to carry on all of it. Were the Sages to prohibit carrying from the rock to the sea, people would think that it is a full-fledged private domain, and they would carry on it. Since all these decrees are rabbinic in nature, the Sages permitted carrying from a private domain to a karmelit in this case in order to prevent people from violating a different rabbinic decree, which prohibits carrying in an enclosure that is greater than the size of two beit se’a . However, no general conclusion may be inferred from this that an enclosure larger than two beit se’a is not a private domain by Torah law.

וּמַאי שְׁנָא? תּוֹכוֹ – שָׁכִיחַ, מִתּוֹכוֹ לַיָּם וּמִן הַיָּם לְתוֹכוֹ – לֹא שָׁכִיחַ.

The Gemara asks: And what is the difference between the decrees that caused the Sages to choose to uphold the one decree and not the other? The Gemara answers: The difference is that carrying within the rock is common, whereas carrying from it to the sea and from the sea to it is not common. The Sages permitted carrying in the less likely scenario in order to reinforce the decree against carrying within the rock, the more common situation.

הַהוּא יָנוֹקָא דְּאִשְׁתַּפִּיךְ חַמִימֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבָּה: נַיְיתוּ לֵיהּ חֲמִימֵי מִגּוֹ בֵּיתַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: וְהָא לָא עָרְבִינַן!

The Gemara now relates that there was once a certain baby whose warm water, which had been prepared for his Shabbat circumcision, spilled. Rabba said to them: Let them bring warm water for him from my house. Abaye said to him: But we did not establish an eiruv in the courtyard, so it is prohibited to carry the water.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נִסְמוֹךְ אַשִּׁיתּוּף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא לָא שָׁתְפִינַן! נֵימְרוּ לֵיהּ לְגוֹי לֵיתֵי לֵיהּ.

Rabba said to him: Let us rely on the merging of alleyways, which may serve in place of a joining of courtyards in pressing circumstances such as these. Abaye said to him: But we did not establish a merging of alleyways either. Rabba replied: If so, let them instruct a gentile to bring the warm water for him, even though it is generally prohibited to instruct a gentile to perform labor for a Jew that involves a desecration of Shabbat.

אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: בְּעַי לְאוֹתְבֵיהּ לְמָר וְלָא שְׁבַקַן רַב יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמַר רַב [יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב] כָּהֲנָא: כִּי הָוֵינַן בֵּי רַב יְהוּדָה, הֲוָה אָמַר לָן: בִּדְאוֹרַיְיתָא – מוֹתְבִינַן תְּיוּבְתָּא וַהֲדַר עָבְדִינַן מַעֲשֶׂה, בִּדְרַבָּנַן – עָבְדִינַן מַעֲשֶׂה וַהֲדַר מוֹתְבִינַן תְּיוּבְתָּא.

Abaye said: I wanted to raise an objection against the Master, Rabba, but Rav Yosef would not let me do so, as Rav Yosef said that Rav Kahana said: When we were in Rav Yehuda’s house, he would say to us when we were presented with a halakhic difficulty: With regard to a Torah law, we first raise objections and then we perform an act, i.e., if someone has an objection to a proposed action, we must first clarify the matter and only then may we proceed. However, with regard to rabbinic laws, we first perform an act and then we raise objections.

לְבָתַר הָכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית לְאוֹתְבֵיהּ לְמָר? אֲמַר [לֵיהּ: דְּתַנְיָא,] הַזָּאָה שְׁבוּת וַאֲמִירָה לְגוֹי שְׁבוּת,

Afterward, when they had brought the water, Rav Yosef said to Abaye: What objection did you wish to raise against the Master, Rabba? He said to him: As it was taught in a baraita : Sprinkling the water of purification on an impure person on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law; rather, it is only a rabbinic decree to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest. And telling a gentile to perform a Shabbat labor on behalf of a Jew is likewise only a rabbinic decree.