Commentary for Eruvin 180:4

אלא שכפאה לזופתה

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁷</span> - It was inverted rather for the purpose of being coated with pitch.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁸</span> R'Ashi reported<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'taught'.');">⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 180:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.