Eruvin 89b — the Talmud in English

And we challenge Rav from our Mishna:

We learned: And the Sages say: each and every one

of the roofs

is a domain unto itself,

and one may not carry from roof to roof.

And it entered our minds to understand that this means: specifically, from roof to roof one may not carry; but throughout the roof itself, it is permitted to carry.

And let us challenge:

Granted, according to Shmuel—

who permits carrying throughout the roof—

it is satisfactory,

the words of the Mishna.

But according to Rav—

who prohibits it—

it is difficult,

our Mishna?!

They said

in answer,

in the school of Rav,

in Rav’s beit-midrash,

in the name of Rav:

It is always prohibited to carry even throughout the roof. And the reason the Mishna stated in its wording that one may not carry from roof to roof, because each and every one is a domain in its own right, is that the tanna says this:

One should not carry two cubits on this roof and two cubits on that roof.

And although he did not carry four cubits in a karmelit, nevertheless it is prohibited, since it is carrying from roof to roof.

And if so, do not infer from it anything except that carrying four cubits within the same domain is proper, but more than four cubits is not.

And further, we wonder about Rav:

but Rabbi Elazar said: When we were

in Babylonia,

we used to say

as follows:

The Torah scholars who studied

in the school of Rav,

in Rav’s beit-midrash,

said in the name of Rav: one may not carry within it

[on a roof entirely breached to its fellow]

except within four cubits.

And

if

those

same Torah scholars

of the school of Shmuel,

in Shmuel’s beit-midrash,

taught,

a beraita in which it says:

They have no

for the members of the household

except

carrying from the house to

their roof.

That is, and not from roof to roof.

However, it also implies that it is not according to Rav. For

what

does “

they have no more than their roof” mean?

Is it not

the intention

that they are permitted to carry throughout it,

the roof? For this is what it implies: they should not carry to another roof; but on their own roof they may carry, even though it is entirely breached to the second roof, in which carrying is prohibited for it. And this is difficult for Rav?!

And we answer:

Is this beraita stronger

to raise a difficulty from it than

our Mishna,

from which there is no difficulty, and

as we established it,

that the intention is to say

that one should not carry two cubits on this roof and two cubits on that roof?

Here too,

this is what it says: They have no more than their roof. And they should not carry

two cubits on this roof and two cubits on that roof.

And do not infer from it anything except that four cubits on one roof is proper; but do not infer from it that more than this is permitted.

Rav Yosef said,

after he became ill and forgot his learning—

I have not heard this teaching

of Shmuel, who said that we say “draw up and raise” even with regard to partitions that are not recognizable!

Abaye said to him: You

yourself

said it to us,

this statement of Shmuel.

And concerning this

[and concerning this]

you said it to us: concerning that which we learned below [92a—Rashash]:

Regarding what we learned below [92a — Rashash]:

a large roof

[wide]

adjacent to a

roof

small

[narrow]—

the large one is permitted

for carrying throughout it,

and the small one is prohibited.

And according to Rav’s method, the reason is that a domain becomes prohibited only when it is “entirely breached” into the second domain, in which carrying is prohibited. But a domain that is not entirely breached, but has partitions [stub walls] on both sides of the opening [and is open through an opening no wider than ten cubits], has these stub walls make the breach into an “opening.” And since it is not “breached” but “open,” it does not become prohibited.

And now, since according to Rav we say “draw up and raise” with recognizable partitions, it follows that the walls of the wider house—in the place where they extend beyond the narrower house—are recognizable to those standing on the roof. Therefore we say “draw up and raise the partition” concerning them, and the matter is considered as though on the roof itself there are stub walls on both its sides, at the place where the walls of the wider house extend beyond the walls of the narrower house, and its “breach,” at its junction with the narrow roof, becomes an “opening.” Therefore it is permitted for carrying.

But the narrow roof, since it has no recognizable partitions at all, it follows that its breach to the wide roof adjacent to it is a “breach,” and it becomes prohibited according to the law of a domain entirely breached into another domain in which carrying is prohibited for it.

And you said to us

—you, Rav Yosef—

concerning it:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

The distinction between a wide roof and a narrow one is that no person treads upon those additional partitions of the wide roof, in the place where we regard them as though they rise upward. Whereas upon the partitions that we regard as rising upward between the narrow roof and the wide roof, passersby tread when going from one roof to the other.

And therefore Shmuel said:

They taught

that it is forbidden to carry on the narrow roof,

only

when

there are residents on

this

and residents on

this

roof

and they pass constantly from one to the other,

for it becomes

a partition

of

the

small roof—a partition upon which people tread,

and therefore it is not considered a partition.

But if there are no residents on this and on that—

both are permitted.

For we regard even the partitions of the houses between the two houses as though they rise upward and separate between the two roofs.

It follows that you said in the name of Shmuel that we apply gud asik to even partitions that are not discernible. For, necessarily, the case is one of a roof adjacent to its fellow, in which the partitions of the houses are not discernible. For if the roofs were not adjacent, but were distant to such an extent that the partitions were discernible, how would they tread from one roof to the other?

Rav Yosef said to them:

Rav Yosef:

I

did not say to you as you said.

Rather,

this is what I said to you—

[this is what I said to you] in the name of Shmuel:

They taught

that there is a distinction between the wide roof and the narrow one

only when there is an actual partition

itself

on

this

roof,

the wide one, on all its sides, except for the place where it is attached to the narrow roof,

and a partition on this

narrow roof on its three sides, while the narrow roof is entirely open on its fourth side, opposite the wide roof.

For the large one is permitted

it is permitted

by means of the

side

posts,

which are actual partitions on the roof, with an opening between them. And therefore it is permitted.

And

if the

small

roof, which has no partitions at all on its fourth side, is

entirely breached

into a place that is forbidden to it, and therefore it is forbidden.

But

if

there is no partition either on this or on that—

both are forbidden.

And the reason is: the small one is forbidden, since it is entirely impossible to say gud asik with regard to partitions that are not discernible [and Shmuel too agrees with this, according to Rav Yosef].

And even the large roof—although the partitions of the wide house are discernible on its two sides, and one could say gud asik with regard to them—is nevertheless forbidden for carrying, since it has no discernible entrance, for it is not the way to make an entrance in this manner.

And therefore it is not an entrance but a breach, and it is forbidden.

And Abaye challenged Rav Yosef:

But “residents”

you said to us,

and necessarily it is because of the treading of the residents that the partition of the small roof is nullified, and not as you said, that the matter depends upon the partitions on the roof.

Rav Yosef said to him:

If I said “residents” to you,

if indeed I mentioned “residents” in Shmuel’s statement, then necessarily it is not because of the distinction between wide and narrow, whereby on the wide one it is permitted to carry and on the narrow one it is forbidden.

Rather, Shmuel made his ruling dependent upon residents with regard to the carrying of the people of the wide roof on the small roof.

And

this is what I said to you: They taught—

that the people of the wide roof are permitted to carry on their roof, but are forbidden to carry on the narrow roof, because each of the roofs is a domain unto itself, and they did not establish an eruv—

only when there is a partition fit for dwelling

[existing and fixed—Ritba]

on this

[the wide roof], and

a partition fit for dwelling on this

[the narrow roof].

For

the

large roof is permitted

for the people of the large roof to carry on it

by means of side-posts, and

if the

small one is entirely breached,

and therefore even the people of the large roof are forbidden to carry on the small roof, because they did not establish an eruv with them.

But

if

there is a partition fit for dwelling on

the perimeter of the

large roof, and

a partition that

is not fit for dwelling on

the

small

even

roof—

it is permitted for the people of the large roof on the small

to carry on it!

What is the reason?

Since

the people of the small roof

did not make a partition

fit for dwelling, as the people of the large roof made—

they withdrew,

it is as though the people of the small roof removed

themselves from here,

from the small roof, and relinquished their domain to the people of the large roof, for they revealed their intention that they do not dwell there.

And this law is

like that which Rav Naḥman said

according to the Sages, who forbid carrying from one roof to another:

If

one made

the one

a fixed ladder to his roof,

and the others did not make one—

the one is permitted

to carry

on all the roofs!

Since the others did not make a ladder for ascending to the roof, they revealed their intention that they do not dwell there, and relinquished their domain to the one who made one.

Abaye said:

If

he built an upper room atop

every roof of

his house, and made a low barrier before it,

a low partition, four

handbreadths

[see Rav Hai and the Ritba, and the glosses on the Ritba]—

he is permitted on all the roofs,

for he revealed his intention that he maintains possession of their roofs. And they, who did not do so, relinquished the use of the roofs to him, and all the roofs became as though they were his domain.

Rava said: Sometimes the low barrier

[that is, the construction of the entire upper room together with the low barrier before it—Gaon Yaakov] causes

a prohibition

of carrying on the roofs. So that even Rabbi Meir, who holds that all the roofs are one domain and it is permitted to carry from one to the other, here forbids it.

What are the circumstances?

For example,

he made

the entrance to his upper room

opposite

in the direction of

the garden of his house

[to the side of his house’s garden], whereas toward the roofs his upper room was closed, without an entrance.

And thereby it is as though

he said

the one who makes the upper room: