Eruvin 180

דהא איכא מחיצתא ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין בה אלא בארבע אמות מחיצות להבריח מים עשויות

because it has<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is'.');">¹</span> walls;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That were put up for dwelling purposes.');">²</span> 'and Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved only within four cubits', since the walls were put up for the purpose of keeping out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to cause to flee'.');">³</span>

אמר ליה רב חייא בר יוסף לשמואל הילכתא כוותך או הילכתא כרב אמר ליה הילכתא כרב

the water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not for dwelling purposes.');">⁴</span> '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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on its mouth',');">⁵</span>

אמר רב גידל אמר רב חייא בר יוסף ומודה רב שאם כפאה על פיה שאין מטלטלין בה אלא בארבע אמות כפאה למאי אילימא לדור תחתיה מאי שנא מגג יחידי

objects on it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it was higher than ten handbreadths.');">⁶</span> may be moved only within four cubits. For what purpose, however, was it inverted?

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>

רב אשי מתני לה אספינה ורב אחא בריה דרבא מתני לה אאכסדרא דאיתמר אכסדרה בבקעה רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולה ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין בה אלא בארבע

this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The discussion between Rab and Samuel. V., however, Rashi.');">¹⁰</span> with reference to a ship; but R'Aha son of Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. 'Jacob'.');">¹¹</span> reported it with reference to an exedra.

רב אמר מותר לטלטל בכולה אמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם ושמואל אמר אין מטלטלין בה אלא בארבע לא אמרינן פי תקרה יורד וסותם

For it was stated: If an exedra was situated in a valley, it i 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 25a q.v. notes.');">¹²</span>

ורב אליבא דר"מ ליטלטלי מגג לחצר גזירה משום דרב יצחק בר אבדימי

But according to Rab's interpretation of R'Meir's view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that it is permissible freely to move objects from roof to roof provided all the roofs were on the same level.');">¹³</span> should it not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a roof (cf. prev. n.) is not subject to the restrictions of karmelith.');">¹⁴</span> be permitted to move objects from a roof into a courtyard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">¹⁵</span>

ושמואל אליבא דרבנן ניטלטל מגג לקרפף אמר רבא בר עולא גזירה שמא יפחת הגג

This is forbidden as a measure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against similar action in the case of a mound in a public domain.');">¹⁶</span> of which R'Isaac B'Abdimi has spoken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 89a q.v. notes.');">¹⁷</span> And according to Samuel's interpretation of the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a detached roof that was bigger than two beth se'ah is subject to the restrictions of a karmelith.');">¹⁸</span>

א"ה מקרפף לקרפף נמי לא יטלטל דילמא מיפחית ואתי לטלטולי התם אי מיפחית מינכרא ליה מילתא הכא אי מיפחית לא מינכרא מילתא

should it not be permissible to move objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within four cubits.');">¹⁹</span> from a roof to a karpaf?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁰</span> - Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Rabbah' (marg. gl.) .');">²¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה כשתמצא לומר לדברי רבי מאיר גגין רשות לעצמן חצירות רשות לעצמן

B'Ulla replied: The prohibition is due to a preventive measure against the possibility of a reduction in the area of the roof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²²</span> But if so, it should also be forbidden to move an object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even within four cubits.');">²³</span> from karpaf to karpaf<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each of which was bigger than two beth se'ah.');">²⁴</span> since the area of one of them might happen to be reduced<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus assume the status of a private domain.');">²⁵</span> and people would still be moving objects from one to the other? - If a reduction were to occur there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the area of a karpaf.');">²⁶</span> it would be noticeable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One could not fail to observe a reduction in all enclosed space.');">²⁷</span> but if a reduction should take place here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a roof which is all unenclosed space since it had no walls around it.');">²⁸</span> it might not be noticed at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is very difficult to recognize a small difference in an open area.');">²⁹</span> Rab Judah stated: A careful study would show that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when you will find to say'.');">³⁰</span> according to the view of R'Meir roofs are regarded as a Separate domain, courtyards as a separate domain