Eruvin 179

לנטורי תרביצא הוא דעבידא

that it was made for the purpose of facilitating the watch over his house garden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that he withdrew himself entirely from the use of the roofs.');">¹</span> Rami B'Hama<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who held Rab's view that on a roof, according to the Sages, objects 'may be moved only within four cubits' (v. supra 89a ad fin.) .');">²</span> enquired: Is it permitted to move an object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (law) is it'.');">³</span> two cubits along a roof and two cubits along a column?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide that was standing in the public domain in close proximity to the roof.');">⁴</span> - 'What an enquiry', Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. 'Raba'.');">⁵</span>

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

exclaimed: 'is this? He is asking about a karmelith<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The roof.');">⁶</span> and a private domain!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The column; Sc. it is obvious that the answer is in the negative since the movement of objects between a karmelith and a private domain is definitely forbidden.');">⁷</span> And Rami B'Hama?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why did he raise a question the answer to which is so obvious?');">⁸</span> - In<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at the side of'.');">⁹</span>

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

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (law) is it'.');">¹⁰</span> two cubits along a roof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a dwelling-house.');">¹¹</span> and two cubits along an exedra?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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,');">¹²</span> Do we say: Since neither the one nor the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. neither the roof of the dwelling-house nor that of the exedra.');">¹³</span>

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

is fit for a dwelling-place, both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though belonging to different owners.');">¹⁴</span> are regarded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁵</span> as a single domain;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to the Sages.');">¹⁶</span> or is it possible that as the movement of objects from one roof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a dwelling-house.');">¹¹</span> to another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a dwelling-house.');">¹¹</span>

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

is forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, presumably, they belong to different tenants.');">¹⁷</span> so is also that between a roof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a dwelling-house.');">¹¹</span> and an exedra<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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,');">¹²</span> forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the same reason (cf. prev. n.) .');">¹⁸</span> R'Bebai B'Abaye enquired: Is it permissible to move an object two cubits on a roof and two cubits in a ruin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁹</span>

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

- Is not this enquiry, R'Kahana asked, identical with that of Rami B'Hama?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, instead of a ruin that was a karmelith (cf. prev. n.) , spoke of an exedra which was also a karmelith.');">²⁰</span> - Would I', R'Bebai B'Abaye retorted: 'have come with the enquiry of another man merely to create difficulties?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'did I come from another and quarrelled'.');">²¹</span> An exedra is unfit as a dwelling whereas a ruin is fit'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The position of the two, therefore, is not identical, and the one enquiry has no bearing on the other.');">²²</span> But if it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ruin.');">²³</span> is fit as a dwelling why did he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Bebai.');">²⁴</span>

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

raise the question?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It should have been obvious to him that the answer was, as in the case of roofs of dwelling-houses, in the negative.');">²⁵</span> - His enquiry was in the nature of an alternative question:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁶</span> If, [he said in effect,] you will find [some reason] for answering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rami's question.');">²⁷</span> that an exedra is unfit as a dwelling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that the movement of objects between its roof and the roof of a dwelling-house is, therefore, permitted.');">²⁸</span> [will you agree that] a ruin is fit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With some slight adjustments.');">²⁹</span>

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

for a dwelling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And consequently it is forbidden to move objects between it and the roof of a dwelling-house.');">³⁰</span> or is it possible [that the latter is subject to the same law as the former, since] now at any rate has no tenants? - This must remain undecided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teku, lit., 'let it stand'.');">³¹</span> Regarding a number of roofs on the same level, according to R'Meir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled that ALL THE ROOFS OF A TOWN CONSTITUTE A SINGle DOMAIN.');">³²</span> or a single roof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one detached from the other roofs.');">³³</span> according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³⁴</span>

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

Rab ruled: It is permissible to move objects through their areas,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in all of it'.');">³⁵</span> and Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only within four cubits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the same roof according to the Rabbis or on two roofs (a portion of the four cubits on each) according to R. Meir.');">³⁶</span> As 'Rab ruled: It is permissible to move objects throughout their areas,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³⁷</span> does not a contradiction arise between two rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a difficulty of that of rab on that'.');">³⁸</span> of Rab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³⁹</span>

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'

There the walls are undistinguishable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴⁰</span> but, here, the walls<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of (a) the detached house, according to the Rabbis, and (b) those of the outermost houses according to R. Meir.');">⁴¹</span> are distinguishable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They can well be seen from (a) the roof or (b) the roofs. The principle of upward extension is, therefore, applicable.');">⁴²</span> But since 'Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only within four cubits',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it follows that he does not hold the principle of upward extension.');">⁴³</span> does not a contradiction arise between two rulings of Samuel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Supra n. 9 mut. mut.');">⁴⁴</span>

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

- There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where Samuel was dealing with the view of the Rabbis who regard each roof as a separate domain.');">⁴⁵</span> the area was not bigger than two beth se'ah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the walls of each individual roof, which is smaller than two beth se'ah, are deemed to be extended upwards.');">⁴⁶</span> but here it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The area of all the roofs according to R. Meir and that of the single roof according to the Rabbis.');">⁴⁷</span> is bigger than two beth se'ah, and, since those walls<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the houses.');">⁴⁸</span> were made for dwelling purposes only below<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within the houses themselves.');">⁴⁹</span> but not on the roof' area above,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'above they are not made'.');">⁵⁰</span> 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 except within four cubits. It was stated: As regards a ship, Rab ruled: It is permissible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where it was bigger than two beth se'ah.');">⁵¹</span> to move objects about throughout its area, and Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only within four cubits.' Rab ruled: It is permissible to move objects about throughout its area'