עירובין 90 — Soncino English Talmud

¹that it was made for the purpose of facilitating the watch over his house garden. Rami b. Hama enquired: Is it permitted to move an object two cubits along a roof and two cubits along a column? — ‘What an enquiry’, Rabbah exclaimed: ‘is this? He is asking about a karmelith and a private domain!’ And Rami b. Hama? — In his ingenuity he was not careful in putting the question. He, however, meant to put the question thus: Is it permitted to move an object two cubits along a roof and two cubits along an exedra? Do we say: Since neither the one nor the other is fit for a dwelling-place, both are regarded as a single domain; or is it possible that as he movement of objects from one roof to another is forbidden so is also that between a roof and an exedra forbidden. R. Bebai b. Abaye enquired: Is it permissible to move an object two cubits on a roof and two cubits in a ruin? — Is not this enquiry, R. Kahana asked, identical with that of Rami b. Hama? — Would I’, R. Bebai b. Aba e retorted: ‘have come with the enquiry of another man merely to cre te difficulties? An exedra is unfit as a dwelling whereas a ruin is fit’. But if it is fit as a dwelling why Uid he raise the question? — His enquiry was in the nature of an alternative question: If, [he said in effect,] you will find [some reason] for answering that an exedra is unfit as a dwelling, [will you agree that] a ruin is fit for a dwelling, 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. Regarding a number of roofs on the same level, according to R. Meir, or a single )oof, according to the Rabbis, Rab ruled: It is permissible to move objects through their ¯r[as, and Samuel ruled: Objects maÜ be moved only within four cubits. As ‘Rab ruled: It is permissi·le to move objeots throughout their areas, does not a contradiction arise between two rulings of Rab? There the walls are undistinguishable but, here, the wallsP are distinguishable. But since ‘Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only within four cubitb’, does not a contradiction arise between two rulings of Samuel? — There the area was not bigger than two beth se'ah but here it is bigger than two beth se'ah, and, since those walls were made for dwelling purposes only below but not on the roof’ area above, 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 permissible 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’^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ

^ᵃnote:And that he withdrew himself entirely from the use of the roofs.
^ᵇnote:Who held Rab's view that on a roof, according to the Sages,jobjects ‘may be moved only within four cubits’ (v. supra 89a ad fin.).
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘what (law) is i ’.
^ᵈnote:Ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide that was standing in the public domain in close proximity to the roof.
^ᵉnote:MS.M. ‘Raba’.
^ᶠnote:The roof.
^ᵍnote:The column; Sc. it is obvious that the answer is in the negative since the movement of objects between a karmelith anÉ a private domain is definitely forbidden.
^ʰnote:Why did he raise a question the answer to which is so obvious?
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘at the side of’.
^ʲnote:Lit., ‘what (law) is it’.
^ᵏnote:Of a dwelling-house.
^ˡnote:Sc. the roof of an exedra, that did not belong to the owner of the adjoining roof and house, that was bigger than two 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,
^ᵐnote:Sc. neither the roof of the dwelling-house nor that of the exedra.
^ⁿnote:Though belonging to different owners.
^ᵒnote:Since, unlike the roofs of two dwelling-houses which, on account of the different tenants beneath them, are regarded by the Sages as different domains, the exedra has no tenants either within it or on its roof.
^ᵖnote:Even according to the Sages.
^ᵠnote:Because, presumably, they belong to different tenants.
^ʳnote:For the same reason (cf. prev. n.).
^ˢnote:That belonged to a different owner, and that had the status of a karmelith because one of its sides was completely exposed to a public domain.
^ᵗnote:Who, instead of a ruin that was a karmelith (cf. prev. n.), spoke of an exedra which was also a karmelith.
^ᵘnote:Lit., ‘did I come from another and quarrelled’.
^ᵛnote:The position of the two, therefore, is not identical, and the one enquiry has no bearing on the other.
^ʷnote:A ruin.
^ˣnote:R. Bebai.
^ʸnote:It should have been obvious to him that the answer was, as in the case of roofs of dwelling-houses, in the negative.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘He said: If you will find (some reason) for saying’, sc. R. Bebai was neither certain that a ruin is to be 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.
^ᵃᵃnote:Rami's question.
^ᵃᵇnote:And that the movement of objects between its roof and the roof of a dwelling-house is, therefore, permitted.
^ᵃᶜnote:With some slight adjustments.
^ᵃᵈnote:And consequently it is forbidden to move objects between it and the roof of a dwelling-house.
^ᵃᵉnote:Teku, lit., ‘let it stand’.
^ᵃᶠnote:Who ruled that ALL THE ROOFS OF A TOWN CONSTITUTE A SINGle DOMAIN.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., one detached from the other roofs.
^ᵃʰnote:The SAGES, whose rule that each roof IS A SEPARATE DOMAIN that imposes restrictions on the adjoining roofs, cannot obviously apply to an isolated roof.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘in all of it’.
^ᵃʲnote:On the same roof according to the Rabbis or on two roofs (a portion of the four cubits on each) according to R. Meir.
^ᵃᵏnote:From which it follows that he adopts the principle of the upward extension of the walls under the roofs to form partitions around the roofs.
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘a difficulty of that of rab on that’.
^ᵃᵐnote:The one just cited and the ruling. Supra 89a, that on roofs of the same level, according to the Rabbis, objects ‘may be moved only within four cubits’, from which it is obvious that he does not recognize the principle of the upward extension of walls.
^ᵃⁿnote:One standing on any of the roofs cannot see them since they are covered by the roofs. Hence it is that the principle of upward extensions cannot be applied and the roofs, according to the Rabbis, impose restrictions upon each other.
^ᵃᵒnote:Of (a) the detached house, according to the Rabbis, and (b) those of the outermost houses according to R. Meir.
^ᵃᵖnote:They can well be seen from (a) the roof or (b) the roofs. The principle of upward extension is, therefore, applicable.
^ᵃᵠnote:From which it follows that he does not hold the principle of upward extension.
^ᵃʳnote:Cf. Supra n. 9 mut. mut.
^ᵃˢnote:Where Samuel was dealing with the view of the Rabbis who regard each roof as a separate domain.
^ᵃᵗnote:Since the walls of each individual roof, which is smaller than two beth se'ah, are deemed to be extended upwards.
^ᵃᵘnote:The area of all the roofs according to R. Meir and that of the single roof according to the Rabbis.
^ᵃᵛnote:Of the houses.
^ᵃʷnote:Within the houses themselves.
^ᵃˣnote:Lit., ‘above they are not made’.
^ᵃʸnote:Even where it was bigger than two beth se'ah.

²because 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^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ

^ᵃᶻnote:Lit., ‘there is’.
^ᵇᵃnote:That were put up for dwelling purposes.
^ᵇᵇnote:Lit., ‘to cause to flee’.
^ᵇᶜnote:Not for dwelling purposes.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lit., ‘on its mouth’,
^ᵇᵉnote:If it was higher than ten handbreadths.
^ᵇᶠnote:Concerning which Rab ruled that even according to the Rabbis it is permissible to move objects throughout its area though it was bigger than two beth Se'ah. The sides of a ship that was inverted for the purpose of dwelling under it should be subject to the same laws as those of the walls of a dwelling-house.
^ᵇᵍnote:As its sides no longer serve the purpose of walls of a dwelling place the ship's roof (or back) assumes the same character as that of the top of a mere column; and when these sides are imagined to be extended upwards they surround an area that is bigger than two beth se'ah whose walls were not put up for dwelling purposes and whose status, therefore, must be that of a karmelith where movement of objects beyond four cubits is forbidden.
^ᵇʰnote:Lit., ‘taught’.
^ᵇⁱnote:The discussion between Rab and Samuel. V., however, Rashi.
^ᵇʲnote:MS.M. ‘Jacob’.
^ᵇᵏnote:Supra 25a q.v. notes.
^ᵇˡnote:Viz., that it is permissible freely to move objects from roof to roof provided all the roofs were on the same level.
^ᵇᵐnote:Since a roof (cf. prev. n.) is not subject to the restrictions of karmelith.
^ᵇⁿnote:Obviously it should. Why then did R. Meir rule (infra 90b, fiad n) that gardens, courtyards and karpafs are separate domains from any of which it is forbidden to move objects into the other?
^ᵇᵒnote:Against similar action in the case of a mound in a public domain.
^ᵇᵖnote:Supra 89a q.v. notes.
^ᵇᵠnote:That a detached roof that was bigger than two beth se'ah is subject to the restrictions of a karmelith.
^ᵇʳnote:Within four cubits.
^ᵇˢnote:Apparently it should. Why then did the Sages rule (infra 91a, ab init.) that, while roofs and courtyards form one domain, karpafs form a separate domain from which it is forbidden to move objects either into a courtyard or on to a roof.
^ᵇᵗnote:Var. lec. ‘Rabbah’ (marg. gl.).
^ᵇᵘnote:As well as that of the house under it to less than two beth se'ah, when it would assume the status of a private domain from which into a karpaf the movement of objects is forbidden.
^ᵇᵛnote:Even within four cubits.
^ᵇʷnote:Each of which was bigger than two beth se'ah.
^ᵇˣnote:And thus assume the status of a private domain.
^ᵇʸnote:In the area of a karpaf.
^ᵇᶻnote:One could not fail to observe a reduction in all enclosed space.
^ᶜᵃnote:In a roof which is all unenclosed space since it had no walls around it.
^ᶜᵇnote:It is very difficult to recognize a small difference in an open area.
^ᶜᶜnote:Lit., ‘when you will find to say’.