Parallel
עירובין 89:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
IS A SEPARATE DOMAIN. This ruling, according to Samuel, is quite satisfactory, but does it not, according to Rab, present a difficulty? — The school of Rab explained in the name of Rab: That one must not move an object along two cubits on one roof and along another two cubits on an adjacent roof. But, surely, R. Eleazar related, ‘when we were in Babylon we used to teach as follows: The School of Rab in the name of Rab ruled: Objects on a roof may be moved only within four cubits, whereas those of the school of Samuel learned, Householders have only the use of their roofs’. Now what could be the meaning of the expression ,’have only the use of their roofs’? Is it not that they are permitted to move objects about throughout its area? — Has this then more force than our Mishnah? As we have explained this to mean, ‘that one must not move an object along two cubits on one roof and along another two cubits on an adjacent roof’, so we might also explain this: Two cubits on one roof and two cubits on the other. R. Joseph observed: I have not heard of this ruling. Said Abaye to him, ‘You yourself told it to us, and it was in connection with the following that you told it to us: If a big roof was adjacent to a smaller one, the use of the bigger one is permitted, and the use of the smaller one is forbidden. And it was in connection with this that you told us: Rab Judah in the name of Samuel stated: They learned this only in the case where there were dwellers on the one as well as on the other so that the imaginary partition of the smaller roof is one that is trodden upon, but if there were no dwellers on the one as well as on the other the use of both roofs is permitted’. ‘I’, the other replied: ‘told you this: They learned this only were there was a partition on the one as well as on the other, since the use of the bigger roof is rendered permissible by the railings, while [the use of the smaller one is forbidden since] it has a breach extending along its entire length, but if there was no partition either on the one or on the other, the use of both is forbidden’. ‘But did you not speak to us of dwellers?’ — ‘If I spoke to you of dwellers I must have said this: They learned this only where there was a partition that was suitable for a dwelling-place both on the one as well as on the other, since the use of the bigger roof is rendered permissible by the railings while [the smaller one is forbidden, since] it has a breach along its full side, but if there was a partition suitable for a dwelling-place on the bigger roof and none that was fit for a dwelling-place on the smaller one, even the use of the smaller one is permitted to the people of the bigger. What is the reason? As they made no partition they have entirely withdrawn themselves from it, [the principle here being the same] as that enunciated by R. Nahman: If a person fixed a permanent ladder to his roof, he is permitted to use all the roofs’. Abaye ruled: If a man built an upper storey on his house, and constructed in front of it a small door of four handbreadths he is thereby permitted to use all the roofs Raba observed: The small door is sometimes a cause of restrictions How is this to be imagined? When he made it to open towards his house garden, since it might well be presumed
—