Parallel
עירובין 90:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
because it has walls; ‘and Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only within four cubits’, since the walls were put up for the purpose of keeping out the water. ‘Is the law’, R. Hiyya b. Joseph asked Samuel, ‘in agreement with your view or is it in agreement with that of Rab?’ — ‘The law, the other replied: ‘is in agreement with that of Rab’. ‘Rab’, explained R. Giddal in the name of R. Hiyya b. Joseph, ‘agrees nevertheless that if it was turned upside down objects on it may be moved only within four cubits. For what purpose, however, was it inverted? If it be suggested: For the purpose of dwelling under it, why, it could be objected, should its law be different from that of a single roof? — It was inverted rather for the purpose of being coated with pitch. R. Ashi reported this with reference to a ship; but R. Aha son of Raba reported it with reference to an exedra. For it was stated: If an exedra 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. 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. But according to Rab's interpretation of R. Meir's view, should it not be permitted to move objects from a roof into a courtyard? This is forbidden as a measure of which R. Isaac b. Abdimi has spoken. And according to Samuel's interpretation of the view of the Rabbis, should it not be permissible to move objects from a roof to a karpaf? — Raba b. Ulla replied: The prohibition is due to a preventive measure against the possibility of a reduction in the area of the roof. But if so, it should also be forbidden to move an object from karpaf to karpaf since the area of one of them might happen to be reduced and people would still be moving objects from one to the other? — If a reduction were to occur there it would be noticeable but if a reduction should take place here it might not be noticed at all. Rab Judah stated: A careful study would show that according to the view of R. Meir roofs are regarded as a Separate domain, courtyards as a separate domain
—