Eruvin — Daf 90a

לנטורי תרביצא הוא דעבידא

בעי רמי בר חמא שתי אמות בגג ושתי אמות בעמוד מהו אמר רבה מאי קא מיבעיא ליה כרמלית ורה"י קא מיבעיא ליה

ורמי בר חמא אגב חורפיה לא עיין בה אלא הכי קמיבעיא ליה ב' אמות בגג וב' אמות באכסדרה מהו

מי אמרינן כיון דלא האי חזי לדירה ולא האי חזי לדירה חדא רשותא היא או דילמא כיון דמגג לגג אסיר מגג לאכסדרה נמי אסיר

בעי רב ביבי בר אביי ב' אמות בגג וב' אמות בחורבה מהו

אמר רב כהנא לאו היינו דרמי בר חמא אמר רב ביבי בר אביי וכי מאחר אתאי ונצאי אכסדרה לא חזיא לדירה וחורבה חזיא לדירה

וכי מאחר דחזיא לדירה מאי קמיבעיא ליה אם תימצי לומר קאמר אם תימצי לומר אכסדרה לא חזיא לדירה חורבה חזיא לדירה או דילמא השתא מיהא לית בה דיורין תיקו

גגין השוין לר"מ וגג יחידי לרבנן רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולו ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין בו אלא בד'

רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולו קשיא דרב אדרב התם לא מינכרא מחיצתא הכא מינכרא מחיצתא

ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין בו אלא בד' אמות קשיא דשמואל אדשמואל התם לא הוי יותר מבית סאתים הכא הוי יותר מבית סאתים והני מחיצות למטה עבידן למעלה לא עבידן והוה כקרפף יתר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה וכל קרפף יותר מבית סאתים שלא הוקף לדירה אין מטלטלין בו אלא בד'

איתמר ספינה רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולה ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין בה אלא בד' רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולה

that it was made for the purpose of facilitating the watch over his house garden. 1 Rami b. Hama2 enquired: Is it permitted to move an object3 two cubits along a roof and two cubits along a column?4 — ‘What an enquiry’, Rabbah5 exclaimed: ‘is this? He is asking about a karmelith6 and a private domain!’7 And Rami b. Hama?8 — In9 his ingenuity he was not careful in putting the question. He, however, meant to put the question thus: Is it permitted to move an object10 two cubits along a roof11 and two cubits along an exedra?12 Do we say: Since neither the one nor the other13 is fit for a dwelling-place, both14 are regarded15 as a single domain;16 or is it possible that as he movement of objects from one roof 11 to another11 is forbidden17 so is also that between a roof11 and an exedra12 forbidden.18 R. Bebai b. Abaye enquired: Is it permissible to move an object two cubits on a roof and two cubits in a ruin?19 — Is not this enquiry, R. Kahana asked, identical with that of Rami b. Hama?20 — Would I’, R. Bebai b. Aba e retorted: ‘have come with the enquiry of another man merely to cre te difficulties? 21 An exedra is unfit as a dwelling whereas a ruin is fit’.22 But if it23 is fit as a dwelling why Uid he24 raise the question?25 — His enquiry was in the nature of an alternative question:26 If, [he said in effect,] you will find [some reason] for answering27 that an exedra is unfit as a dwelling,28 [will you agree that] a ruin is fit29 for a dwelling,30 or is it possible [that the latter is subject to thL same law as the former, since] nëw at any rate it has no tenants? — This must remain undecided.31 Regarding a number of roofs on the same level, according to R. Meir,32 or a single )oof,33 according to the Rabbis,34 Rab ruled: It is permissible to move objects through their ¯r[as,35 and Samuel ruled: Objects maÜ be moved only within four cubits.36 As ‘Rab ruled: It is permissi·le to move objeots throughout their areas,37 does not a contradiction arise between two rulings38 of Rab?39 There the walls are undistinguishable40 but, here, the wallsP1 are distinguishable.42 But since ‘Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only within four cubitb’,43 does not a contradiction arise between two rulings of Samuel?44 — There45 the area was not bigger than two beth se'ah46 but here it47 is bigger than two beth se'ah, and, since those walls48 were made for dwelling purposes only below49 but not on the roof’ area above,50 the latter is like a karpaf bigger than two beth se'ah, that was not surrounded by walls for dwelling purposes, and in any karpaf bigger than two beth se'ah that was not surrounded by walls for dwelling purposes, no objects may be moved exc.pt within four cubits. It was stated: As regards a ship, Rab ruled: It is permissible51 to move objects about throughout its area, and Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only wthin four cubits. ‘Rab“ruled: It is permissible to move objects about throughout its area’ 89a ad fin.). roof. anÉ a private domain is definitely forbidden. beth se'ah, that had no partitions around it, that was in a sloping position and that had in consequence the status of a karmelith, regarded by the Sages as different domains, the exedra has no tenants either within it or on its roof. exposed to a public domain. regarded as a suitable dwelling-place nor that it was subject to the same law and status as all exedra, and his enquiry depended on one of the two possible alternative answers to Rami's enquiry. roofs, cannot obviously apply to an isolated roof. Meir. partitions around the roofs. be moved only within four cubits’, from which it is obvious that he does not recognize the principle of the upward extension of walls. of upward extensions cannot be applied and the roofs, according to the Rabbis, impose restrictions upon each other.