עירובין 91

91:1

and karpafs as a separate domain; that, according to the view of the Sages, roofs and courtyards form a single domain and karpaf form a domain of their own; and that according to the view of R. Simeon all these together constitute a single domain. It was taught in agreement with Rab and it was also taught in agreement with Rab Judah. ‘It was taught in agreement with Rab’: All the roofs of a town constitute a single domain, and it is forbidden to carry objects up or down from the courtyards on to the roofs or from the roofs into the courtyards respectively; but objects that were in a courtyard when the Sabbath began may be moved about within the courtyard, and if they were at that time on the roofs they may be so moved on the roofs, provided no roof was tell handbreadths higher or lower than all adjoining roof; so R. Meir. The Sages, however, ruled: Each one is a separate domain and no object may be moved in it except within four cubits. ‘It was taught in agreement with Rab Judah’: Rabbi related, When we were studying the Torah at R. Simeon's at Tekoa we used to carry oil and a towel from roof to roof, from the roof to a courtyard, from the courtyard to another courtyard, from that courtyard to a karpaf and from that karpaf into another karpaf until we arrived at the well wherein we bathed. R. Judah related: It once happened that during a time of danger we carried a scroll of the Law from a courtyard into a roof, from the roof into a courtyard, and from the courtyard into a karpaf in order to read in it. They, however, said to him: A time of danger can supply no proof. R. SIMEON RULED: ROOFS etc. Rab ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon. This, however, applies only where no ‘erub had been prepared, but not where one had been prepared, since [in the latter case] a preventive measure must be enacted against the possibility of carrying out objects from the houses [in one courtyard] into a [neighbouring] courtyard. Samuel, however, ruled: [The same law applies] whether an ‘erub had been prepared or not. So also said R. Johanan: ‘Who whispered this to you? [There is in fact no difference] whether an ‘erub had been prepared or not’. R. Hisda demurred: According to the view of Samuel and R. Johanan, it might well be objected, ‘Two objects in the same courtyard, and one may be moved while the other may not!’ — R. Simeon follows his own principle that in such cases no preventive measure need be enacted. For we learned: ‘R. Simeon remarked: To what may this case be compared? To three courtyards that open one into the other and also into a public domain where, if the two outer ones made an ‘erub with the middle one, It is permitted to have access to them and they are permitted access to it, but the two outer ones are forbidden access to one another’ and no preventive measure against the possibility of carrying objects from the one courtyard into the other had been enacted; so also here no preventive measure has been enacted against the possibility of carrying objects from the houses of one courtyard into the next courtyard. R. Shesheth raised an objection: 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 WITH THEM WHEN THE SABBATH BEGAN, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF OBJECTS THAT WERE IN THE HOUSE WHEN THE SABBATH BEGAN. Now if you grant that the ruling applies also to cases where an erub had been prepared it is quite easy to see how objects from a house call be found in a courtyard, but if you maintain that the ruling; applies only to cases where no ‘erub had been prepared, how is it possible for objects from a house to be found in a courtyard? — He raised the objection and he also supplied the solution: [The objects] referred to might be skull-caps or turbans.37

—

91:2

Come and hear: if the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants on its gallery forgot to join together In an erub, any level that is higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the gallery, and any lower level belongs also to the courtyard. This applies only where both the former as well as the latter were occupied by many tenants and each group prepared an ‘erub for itself, or where they belonged to individuals who need not prepare an ‘erub; but if they were occupied by many tenants who forgot to prepare an erub, roof, courtyard, exedra and gallery constitute together a single domain. The reason then is that no ‘erub had been prepared, but if an ‘erub had been prepared this would not have been permitted, would it? — This represents the view of the Rabbis. A deduction from the form of the expression also supports this view, since karpaf and alley were not mentioned. This is conclusive. Come and hear: If five courtyards were open one into the other and also into an alley and all their tenants forgot to prepare an erub, it is forbidden to carry in or to carry out from a courtyard into the alley or from the alley into a courtyard; objects, however, that were in a courtyard when the Sabbath began may be moved about within the courtyard, but in the alley this is forbidden; but R. Simeon permits this for he used to say: Whenever they belong to many people who forgot to prepare an erub, a roof a courtyard, all exedra, a gallery, a karpaf and an alley are jointly regarded as a single domain. The reason then is that no ‘erub had been prepared but if they had prepared One this would not have been the case, would it? — The meaning of ‘no erub had been prepared’ is that the tenants of the courtyards did not prepare an ‘erub jointly, but the courtyard with its houses were joined by an ‘erub. But was it not stated: ‘No ‘erub had been prepared’? — The meaning of an ‘erub had been prepared’ is that there was no shittuf. And if you prefer I might say: R. Simeon was speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their view. ‘According to my view’, he said, in effect, ‘there is no difference between a case where an erub had been prepared and one where it had not been prepared; but according to your view, would you not agree with me that at least where no ‘erub had been prepared all should be regarded as a single domain?’ And the Rabbis replied: No, they must be regarded as two domains. The Master said: ‘But in an alley this is forbidden’. May it be suggested that this provides support to a ruling R. Zera cited in the name of Rab, for R. Zera citing Rab ruled: In an alley wherein no shittuf had been arranged no objects may be moved about except within four cubits? — Read: ‘But into an alley it is forbidden’. But this is identical, is it not, with the first clause? — The superfluous Mishnah was required: As it might have been presumed that the Rabbis differed from R. Simeon only where an erub had been prepared but that where no ‘erub had been prepared they agreed with him, we were informed [that they differ in both cases]. Said Rabina to R. Ashi:

—