Eruvin — Daf 91a

קרפיפות רשות לעצמן לדברי חכמים גגין וחצירות רשות אחת קרפיפות רשות אחת הן לדברי רבי שמעון כולן רשות אחת הן

תניא כוותיה דרב תניא כוותיה דרב יהודה תניא כוותיה דרב כל גגות העיר רשות אחת הן ואסור להעלות ולהוריד מן הגגין לחצר ומן החצר לגגין וכלים ששבתו בחצר מותר לטלטלן בחצר בגגין מותר לטלטלן בגגין ובלבד שלא יהא גג גבוה י' או נמוך י' דברי ר"מ וחכ"א כל אחד ואחד רשות לעצמו ואין מטלטלין בו אלא בד'

תניא כוותיה דרב יהודה אמר רבי כשהיינו לומדים תורה אצל ר"ש בתקוע היינו מעלין שמן ואלונטית מגג לגג ומגג לחצר ומחצר לחצר ומחצר לקרפף ומקרפף לקרפף אחר עד שהיינו מגיעין אצל המעיין שהיינו רוחצין בו

אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בשעת הסכנה והיינו מעלין ס"ת מחצר לגג ומגג לחצר ומחצר לקרפף לקרות בו

אמרו לו אין שעת הסכנה ראיה:

ר"ש אומר אחד גגין וכו':

אמר רב הלכה כר"ש והוא שלא עירבו אבל עירבו לא דגזרינן דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דבתים לחצר

ושמואל אמר בין עירבו בין שלא עירבו וכן אמר ר' יוחנן מי לחשך בין עירבו ובין שלא עירבו

מתקיף לה רב חסדא לשמואל ולרבי יוחנן יאמרו שני כלים בחצר אחת זה מותר וזה אסור

ר"ש לטעמיה דלא גזר דתנן א"ר שמעון למה הדבר דומה לשלש חצירות הפתוחות זו לזו ופתוחות לרה"ר ועירבו שתי החיצונות עם האמצעית היא מותרת עמהן והן מותרות עמה וב' החיצונות אסורין זו עם זו

ולא גזר דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דהא חצר להא חצר ה"נ לא גזרינן דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דבתים לחצר

מתיב רב ששת ר"ש אומר אחד גגות אחד חצירות ואחד קרפיפות רשות אחת הן לכלים ששבתו בתוכן ולא לכלים ששבתו בתוך הבית אי אמרת בשלמא דעירבו היינו דמשכחת לה מאני דבתים בחצר

אלא אי אמרת בשלא עירבו היכי משכחת לה מאני דבתים בחצר הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה בכומתא וסודרא

and karpafs as a separate domain;1 that, according to the view of the Sages,2 roofs and courtyards form a single domain3 and karpaf4 form a domain of their own;5 and that according to the view of R. Simeon6 all these together7 constitute a single domain. It was taught in agreement with Rab8 and it was also taught in agreement with Rab Judah.9 ‘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;10 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.11 ‘It was taught in agreement with Rab Judah’:12 Rabbi related, When we were studying the Torah at R. Simeon's at Tekoa13 we used to carry14 oil15 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 karpaf16 until we arrived at the well wherein we bathed. R. Judah related: It once happened that during a time of danger17 we carried14 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.18 They,19 however, said to him: A time of danger can supply no proof.20 R. SIMEON RULED: ROOFS etc. Rab ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon. This, however, applies only where no ‘erub21 had been prepared,22 but not where one23 had been prepared, since [in the latter case] a preventive measure must be enacted24 against the possibility of carrying out objects from the houses [in one courtyard] into a [neighbouring] courtyard.25 Samuel, however, ruled: [The same law26 applies] whether an ‘erub had been prepared or not. So also said R. Johanan: ‘Who whispered this27 to you? [There is in fact no difference] whether an ‘erub had been prepared or not’.28 R. Hisda demurred: According to the view of Samuel and R. Johanan,29 it might well be objected, ‘Two objects in the same courtyard, and one may be moved30 while the other may not!’31 — 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’32 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 ruling33 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,34 but if you maintain that the ruling; applies only to cases where no ‘erub had been prepared, how35 is it possible for objects from a house to be found in a courtyard?36 — He raised the objection and he also supplied the solution: [The objects] referred to might be skull-caps or turbans.37 from a private roof (since it is only infrequently used) into such a courtyard. Between private roofs this is forbidden, since in the view of’ the Rabbis, the domains on the roofs are as divided as the domains of the houses below, adjoining roofs of the same level impose, therefore, restrictions upon each other, and that no object may be moved on either of them beyond four cubits. a public domain. houses into their courtyards there is no need to provide against the possibility of the carrying of an object from one of the houses into a neighbouring courtyard. courtyard. interpretation (cf. R. Tam. in Tosaf. loc. cit.). that were at the time mentioned in a house in that courtyard may not be moved to an adjoining courtyard, even after they had been brought into their own courtyard by means of an ‘erub. no preventive measure enacted against such a possibility? necessary. as articles of dress.