Eruvin 89b (פט:) — the Talmud in English

they have no more than their roof” mean?

wide]

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

The distinction between a broad roof and a narrow one is that no one walks on those extra partitions of the broad roof, in the place where we view them as though they rise upward. By contrast, people walking from one roof to the other do walk on the partitions that we view as rising between the narrow roof and the broad roof.

And therefore Shmuel said:

The statement was taught

that it is prohibited to carry on the narrow roof

only

when

there are residents on

this

and residents on

that

roof

and they pass constantly from one to the other,

for it becomes

a partition

of

the

small roof, a partition that is trodden upon,

and therefore it is not considered a partition.

But if there are no residents on either of them—

both are permitted.

This is because we view even the partitions of the houses between the two houses as though they rise upward and separate the two roofs.

Thus, you have said in the name of Shmuel that we apply the principle of gud asik mechitzata, “raise the partition,” even to partitions that are not discernible. For it must be that the case is referring to a roof adjacent to another roof, where the partitions of the houses are not discernible. For if the roofs were not adjacent, but rather were sufficiently distant that the partitions were discernible, how could people walk from one roof to the other?

Rav Yosef said to them:

Rav Yosef

I

did not tell you what you said.

Rather,

this is what I told you [

this is what I told you] in the name of Shmuel:

The statement was taught

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

only when there is an actual partition

itself

on

this

roof

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

and a partition on this

the narrow roof on three of its sides, while the entire fourth side of the narrow roof, opposite the broad roof, is open.

For the large roof is permitted

it is rendered permitted

by

means of the

side-walls,

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

But

if the

small roof,

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

entirely breached

into a place where it is prohibited for it to be, it is therefore prohibited.

But

if

there is no partition on either this one or that one—

both are prohibited.

The reason is that the small roof is prohibited, since it is entirely impossible to apply “gud asik” 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 broad house are discernible on both of its sides, so that one could apply gud asik to them—is nevertheless prohibited for carrying, since it has no discernible entrance, as it is not customary to make an entrance in this manner.

Therefore, it is not an entrance but a breach, and it is prohibited.

And Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef:

But “residents”

is what you told us,

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

Rav Yosef said to him:

If I said “residents” to you,

if I indeed mentioned “residents” in Shmuel’s statement, then it must be that this is not because of the distinction between a broad roof and a narrow one, whereby carrying is permitted on the broad roof and prohibited on the narrow one.

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

And

this is what I told you: The statement was taught—

that the residents of the broad roof are permitted to carry on their roof but prohibited to carry on the narrow roof, because each roof is its own domain and they did not establish an eruv—

only when there is a partition suitable for habitation [

existing and permanently fixed—Ritba]

on this [the broad roof], and

a

partition suitable for habitation on this [the narrow roof].

[the narrow roof].

For the

large

roof is permitted

for the residents of the large roof to carry on it

by means of side-walls, and

if the

small roof is entirely breached,

the residents of the large roof are therefore also prohibited to carry on the small roof, because they did not establish an eruv with them.

But

if

there is a partition suitable for habitation on

the perimeter of the

large

roof, and

a partition not suitable for habitation on

the

small roof—

even

on the

small roof the residents of the large roof are permitted

to carry!

What is the reason?

Since

the residents of the small roof

did not make a partition

suitable for habitation, as the residents of the large roof did,

they withdrew,

it is as though the residents of the small roof removed

themselves from here,

from the small roof, and relinquished their domain to the residents of the large roof, since they demonstrated that they do not reside there.

And this law is

like that which Rav Naḥman said

according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who prohibit carrying from one roof to another:

If

one

of them

made a permanent ladder to his roof,

while the others did not—

that one is permitted

to carry

on all the roofs!

Since the others did not make a ladder for ascending to the roof, they demonstrated that they do not reside there and relinquished their domain to the one who did so.

Abaye said:

If

he built an upper room atop

the entire roof of

his house, and

made a deka, a low partition, in front of it,

four

handbreadths high [see Rabbenu Ḥananel and the Ritba, and the glosses on the Ritba]—

he is permitted on all the roofs,

since he demonstrated that he regards their roofs as his own. 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 deka [that is, the construction of the entire upper room together with the deka in front of it—Gaon Yaakov] causes

[that is, the entire construction of the upper room together with the low barrier in front of it—Ge'on Ya'akov] causes

carrying on the roofs to be prohibited,

to the extent that even Rabbi Meir, who maintains that all the roofs constitute a single domain and that it is permitted to carry from one to another, prohibits it here.

What are the circumstances?

For example,

he made

the entrance to his upper room

facing

in the direction of

the courtyard of his house [

toward the side of his garden], whereas on the side facing the roofs his upper room was sealed, without an entrance.

And in this case, it is as though

he said,

the one who built the upper room: