Eruvin 24B

אמר אמימר: והוא דחזיין לתשמישתא, אבל לא חזיין לתשמישתא ⁠— לא.

Ameimar said: This ruling applies only if the water is fit for its regular use, i.e., for drinking, because in that case it provides for the needs of residence. However, if the water is not fit for use, then it is not considered like planted trees. Therefore, the karpef is no longer considered enclosed for the purpose of residence, and it is prohibited to carry in the karpef.

אמר רב אשי: ודחזיין לתשמישתא נמי לא אמרן אלא שאין בעומקו יותר מבית סאתים, אבל אם יש בעומקו יותר מבית סאתים ⁠— אסור.

Rav Ashi said: And even where the water is fit for use, this ruling applies only if the water is not 10 handbreadths deep over an area greater than two beit se’a; but if the water is 10 handbreadths deep over an area greater than two beit se’a, it is prohibited to carry in it, as in such a case the karpef is no longer considered enclosed for the sake of residence.

ולאו מילתא היא, מידי דהוה אכריא דפירי.

The Talmud comments: And it is not so, just as it is in the case of a pile of fruit, as even if the pile of fruit is very large, the karpef does not lose its status as having been enclosed for the purpose of residence.

ההיא רחבה דהואי בפום נהרא, דחד גיסא הוה פתיח למתא, וחד גיסא הוה פתיח לשביל של כרמים, ושביל של כרמים הוה סליק לגודא דנהרא.

The Talmud relates: There was a certain yard in the town of Pum Nahara that was larger than two beit se’a and that had not been enclosed for the purpose of residence. One of its sides opened to an alleyway in the town, and the other opened to a walled path between the vineyards, and that vineyard path led to the bank of a river 10 handbreadths high, which is considered a partition.