עירובין 89

89:1

This was learnt only in the case where no joint ‘erub was prepared, but if a joint ‘erub was prepared they are permitted. But why are they not permitted where they did not prepare a joint ‘erub? — R. Ashi replied: As a preventive measure against the possibility of their carrying out water in utensils from their houses to the trough. MISHNAH. ALL THE ROOFS OF A TOWN CONSTITUTE A SINGLE DOMAIN, PROVIDED NO ROOF IS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGHER OR LOWER THAN THE NEIGHBOURING ROOF; SO R. MEIR. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: EACH ONE IS A SEPARATE DOMAIN. R. SIMEON RULED: ROOFS, COURTYARDS AND KARPAFS ARE EQUALLY REGARDED AS ONE DOMAIN IN RESPECT OF CARRYING FROM ONE INTO THE OTHER OBJECTS THAT WERE KEPT WITHIN THEM WHEN THE SABBATH BEGAN, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OBJECTS THAT WERE IN THE HOUSE WHEN THE SABBATH BEGAN. GEMARA. Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanina b. Abin sat at their studies while Abaye was sitting beside them, and in the course of the session they remarked: One can well justify the view of the Rabbis since they may hold the view that as the tenants are divided below so are they divided above; but as to R. Meir, what could his view be? If he holds that the tenants are divided above as they are divided below, why should the roofs CONSTITUTE A SINGLE DOMAIN? And if he holds that they are not divided above because all places above ten handbreadths are regarded as a single domain, why should not this also apply to a roof that was TEN HAND BREADTHS HIGHER OR LOWER? ‘You have not heard’, Abaye said to them, ‘the following statement made by R. Isaac b. Abdimi: R. Meir always maintained that wherever you find two domains of the same character [one within the other] as, for instance, a column ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide in a private domain, it is forbidden to re-arrange loads on the former, as a preventive measure against a similar act in the case of a mound in a public domain. Here, too, it may be explained, a preventive measure was enacted against a similar act in the case of a mound in a public domain’. They understood him to imply that the same restriction applies also to a mortar or a tank, but Abaye said to them, ‘Thus said the Master: R. Meir spoke only of a column and an enclosure of millstones, since their owner assigns for them a permanent Position, But is there not the case of a wall between two courtyards, which is a permanent fixture, and yet Rab Judah stated: ‘A careful study would show that, according to the view of It. Meir, roofs are regarded as a separate domain, courtyards as a separate domain, and karpafs as a separate domain’ which implies, does it not, that it is permissible to move objects across a wall? — R. Huna b. Judah citing R. Shesheth replied: No, the implication is that it is permitted to carry objects in and to carry them out by way of the doors. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: EACH ONE IS A SEPARATE DOMAIN. It was stated: Rab ruled: Objects in it may be moved only within four cubits, and Samuel ruled: It is permitted to move objects throughout its area. Where the partitions are distinguish able there is no divergence of opinion; the dispute is limited to the case of partitions that are indistinguishable. Rab maintains that, ‘Objects in it may be moved only within four cubits’ because [in such circumstances] he does not uphold the principle of the upward extension of the walls; while Samuel ruled: ‘It is permitted to move objects throughout its area’, because [even in such circumstances] he upholds the principle of the upward extension of the walls. We learned: THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: EACH ONE [

—

89:2

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

—