Eruvin 90b — the Talmud in English

for there is

a ship

with partitions,

and partitions enclosed for the sake of residence are considered partitions.

And Shmuel said: One may carry in it only within four

cubits,

like a karkef that was not enclosed for the sake of residence, for although the ship has partitions,

these partitions

are

made to repel water

from within the ship,

they are made,

and not for residence.

He said

he asked

Rav Hiyya bar Yosef of Shmuel:

Is

the halakha according to you

with regard to a ship,

or is the halakha according to Rav?

He said to him,

Shmuel:

The halakha is according to Rav,

and it is permitted to carry throughout the entire ship.

Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav Hiyya bar Yosef: And Rav concedes—

who permits carrying in a ship—

that if he overturned it

the ship

on its face,

and even if it is higher than ten handbreadths,

one may not carry in it [

on the bottom of the ship, from the outside]

except within four cubits,

like a karkef larger than two se'a that was not enclosed for the sake of residence; and it is not effective to say gud asik with regard to the ship’s partitions, which were made for residence, to permit carrying—according to Rav.

And we interpret it:

“He overturned

the ship”—

for what purpose,

for what purpose of use?

If you say

in order

to reside beneath it,

and now the ship’s partitions serve for residence? If so, even on its bottom, from the outside, it should be permitted to carry?

What is different from

that which Rav held above with regard to

a single roof

larger than two se'a, in which it is permitted to carry throughout, even though it is not a place of residence, since the partitions concerning which we say gud asik were made for residence.

And here too, let us say: Since the walls of the ship below are made for residence, the upper part also is considered enclosed for the sake of residence?!

Rather,

here it is speaking

of when he overturned

the ship in order to

tar it

with pitch. For now the status of residence is annulled from the walls of the ship, since during the entire time of its being overturned they stand neither for residence above nor for residence below, and it is merely like a solid pillar.

And since this is so, when you say gud asik with regard to the walls of the ship, it is an enclosure larger than two se'a that was not enclosed for the sake of residence.

Rav Ashi taught it—

this matter that we brought above, that Rav Hiyya bar Yosef asked Shmuel whether the halakha was like him or like Rav—

as

the dispute of Rav and Shmuel concerning

a ship,

as we said.

But

Rav Aha, son of Rava, taught it—

Rav Hiyya bar Yosef’s question—

as

their dispute concerning

a portico.

For it was stated: A portico—

which is open on its four sides, and whose roof stands on beams resting on four stakes at the corners of the portico—

which stands in an open field

that is a karmelit:

Rav said: It is permitted to carry throughout it,

for

we say: The edge of the ceiling [

the thickness of the beams upon which the roof rests] from all four sides

descends and closes,

and it has partitions.

And Shmuel said: One may carry in it only within four cubits; we do not say that the edge of the ceiling descends and closes,

and it has no partitions, and it is a karmelit.

And this matter applies in an open field; but an ordinary portico adjacent to a house—even according to Shmuel, we say that the edge of the ceiling descends and closes—as below, on page 94b.

And concerning this dispute Rav Hiyya bar Yosef asked—according to Rav Aha, son of Rava—whether the halakha was according to Rav or according to Shmuel. And Shmuel said to him that the halakha is according to Rav, and it is permitted to carry throughout it.

We read below [at the end of the column]:

Rav Yehuda said: When you reach the conclusion [when you examine the matter carefully], according to the words of Rabbi Meir [in our Mishna]: Roofs are an independent domain [and it is permitted to carry from one roof to another], courtyards are an independent domain [to carry from one courtyard to another, even when they belong to two owners], and karkefot are an independent domain [but from a roof to a courtyard or to a karkef, it is forbidden].

According to the words of the Sages, roofs and courtyards are one domain [and it is permitted to carry even from a roof to a courtyard]; karkefot are one domain [and it is permitted to carry from one karkef to another, but not from a roof or from a courtyard to a karkef].

And now we raise an objection: This is understandable from a roof to a karkef, whose uses are not equal; it is understandable that we prohibit it.

But from a roof to a courtyard, whose uses are equal, it might now have occurred to you that the reason is that the roofs are larger than two se'a [Ritva, and likewise Rashi’s view, as the Keren Orah wrote]. And it is forbidden to carry from the roof, which is a karmelit, to the courtyard, which is a private domain.

And it is difficult:

And Rav, according to Rabbi Meir—

who said above that it is permitted to carry on roofs that are equal, for he considers it an enclosure larger than two se'a that was enclosed for the sake of residence—

let him carry from a roof to a courtyard!

For this is carrying from one private domain to another private domain?!

But according to Shmuel it is understandable, for he makes a roof like a karkef larger than two se'a that was not enclosed for the sake of residence.

And we answer: The reason that it is forbidden to carry from a roof to a courtyard according to Rabbi Meir is not that they are larger than two se'a and were not enclosed for the sake of residence.

Rather, even when they are not larger than two se'a, it is forbidden, because of

a decree—

since the roof is separated from the courtyard by a height of ten handbreadths, lest they come to permit even a mound ten handbreadths high in the public domain.

And

because of Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi,

who explained this above, at the beginning of our chapter, that this is the reason Rabbi Meir forbids carrying from roof to roof when one roof is lower or higher than the other by ten handbreadths [as we explained in the Mishna].

We raise another objection: We said in that statement below that according to the Rabbis roofs and courtyards are one domain, and karkefot are one domain. And one may not carry from a roof or from a courtyard to a karkef, since they are two types of domains. However, this prohibition applies only when both domains are private domains, but when both domains are karmelitot this prohibition does not apply [Gaon Yaakov].

And included in that which we say that it is forbidden to carry from a roof to a karkef is also when the roof is larger than two se'a and the karkef is larger than two se'a [and the karkef is a karmelit, since it is not enclosed for the sake of residence].

And now it is difficult: This is understandable according to Rav, for the roofs are always private domains, since we say gud asik with regard to the partitions of the house that were enclosed for the sake of residence; it is well understandable that it is forbidden to carry from them to a karkef larger than two se'a, since he is carrying out from a private domain to a karmelit.

But

Shmuel, according to the Rabbis,

who holds that the roof is called not enclosed for the sake of residence [since the partitions are not made for residence above].

If so, this is understandable when all the roofs together are larger than two se'a: it is well understandable that it is forbidden to carry from them to a karkef.

For according to Shmuel himself, we say gud asik between one roof and another, and even though the partitions are not discernible, and each roof is a domain in its own right, which is not larger than two se'a.

But this at least is difficult: When the roof is a single one, and it itself is larger than two se'a, for according to Shmuel it too is a karmelit, since gud asik does not make it an enclosure for the sake of residence—

let him carry from a roof to a karkef!?

He said,

he answers,

Rava bar Ulla:

For this reason we do not permit carrying from a roof larger than two se'a to a karkef: because we decree

a decree lest the roof be reduced

below the measure of two se'a. And then, so that part of the residence beneath the roof should not be without roofing, they will reduce the residence itself to the size of the missing ceiling.

And it will result that when we now say gud asik with regard to the roof, the partitions will rise and enclose a measure that is not larger than two se'a, so that it is a complete private domain. And they will continue to carry from the roof to the karkef as at first, as when there were two se'a in the roof, and it will be found that they are carrying out from a private domain to a karmelit.

And we question this:

If so,

since you are concerned about this—

from a karkef

larger than two se'a

to a karkef

larger than two se'a also should it be forbidden to carry, because we should be concerned

lest one be reduced

of them.

That is to say: Lest they reduce the size of one of them, and it will no longer be larger than two se'a, and

they come to carry

from one to the other, as they had been accustomed at first?!

And we reject this:

There, with regard to a karkef whose partitions are discernible—

if its partitions are reduced

if it is reduced

from its measure,

the matter is discernible [

the matter is discernible], that now it is not larger than two se'a, and they will not continue to carry from it to a place that contains more than two se'a:

But

here, with regard to the roof, whose partitions are not discernible, but are partitions produced by gud asik, so that a person does not accurately estimate the area between them,

в отношении крыши, у которой нет видимых перегородок, а есть лишь перегородки, возникающие посредством простирания вверх, так что человек не может точно оценить площадь внутри них,

if it is reduced—

the matter is not discernible.

And he thinks that even after it was reduced it is still larger than two se'a, and he will come to carry to a karkef that contains two se'a.

And now the Gemara brings the essence of Rav Yehuda’s statement!

Rav Yehuda said: When you reach the conclusion [

when you arrive at the final understanding of Rabbi Meir, the Sages, and Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna, this is the conclusion of their words]:

a.

According to the words of Rabbi Meir

in the Mishna:

Roofs—

are an independent domain!

That is to say: It is one domain even though it belongs to two owners, as it says in the Mishna that one carries from roof to roof. And the reason for this is that a domain is not divided into separate domains on account of a change of ownership, except for houses, because in them is the principal residence, but not roofs.

And since this is so, even

courtyards are an independent domain,

and one carries from one person’s courtyard to another person’s courtyard all the utensils that spent Shabbat in the courtyard [but utensils that spent Shabbat in the house—not]. For what difference is there between roofs and courtyards?