MISHNAH: All rooftops of a town form one domain on condition that no roof be ten [hand-breadths] higher or ten lower, the words of Rebbi Meïr [All vessels which were on any rooftop at nightfall Friday evening may be transported from one roof to any other without an eruv and even if the inhabitants of the different houses made eruvin for themselves. But if the level of roofs differs by at least 10 hand-breadths, each level constitutes a domain by itself and one may not carry from one to the other without an appropriate eruv.] , but the Sages say that each roof is a domain by itself. Rebbi Simeon says, not only rooftops but also courtyards and corrals [Cf. Chapter 2, Note 6.] are single domains for vessels which started the Sabbath in them but not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house [Without an eruv one may carry any vessel of the courtyard from one place to any other in the yard; only moving vessels from a house to the yard or vice versa is forbidden.] .
HALAKHAH: “All rooftops of a town form one domain,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel disagree [Since rooftops are not built as dwellings, their status is comparable to that of corrals, subject to the same restrictions; Chapter 5, Note 167; Babli 89a.] . Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor. They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis disagree? If they made an eruv [If the houses belonged to different owners and they made an eruv for the whole walled town, in the majority opinion the eruv does not extend to the rooftops which are not intended as dwellings.] . But if they did not have to make an eruv, he explains it if all [houses] were the property of one person [Since in a corral one may carry only if it is not more than 2 bet se’ah, the same applies to rooftops. The rabbis may hold that roofs of different houses are different domains even if all belong to one and the same person.] . Our Mishnah if all of them were climbing up either on a Tyrian or an Egyptian ladder [An Egyptian ladder is small and movable; a Tyrian is large and fixed.] . But if all were climbing up using an Egyptian ladder except for one using a Tyrian, the Tyrian becomes a door [Using a Tyrian ladder really is using a staircase; using an Egyptian is inconvenient exercising. Since the owner of the Tyrian ladder has easy access, he is the legitimate user of all rooftops, to the exclusion of the others who may walk there but not carry (Chapter 8, Note 46).] and the remaining ones are as if climbing up and climbing down.
May one carry in all of it [This question is asked for the rabbis who oppose R. Meïr. Since each rooftop is a separate domain it is a question whether it has the status of a backyard of a single house where one may carry without restriction. A backyard, or a multiple dwelling courtyard, is bounded by walls but the borders between flat roofs of contiguous houses may not be easily seen. Does one say that the walls between houses may ideally be extended over the roofs?] ? Samuel said, he carries in all of it. Rav said, he only carries within four cubits [The Babli, 90a, interchanges the names.] . Our Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” One understands that of the large one four cubits are permitted. But of the small one is forbidden four cubits? Is anything forbidden in four cubits? Do not Rav and Samuel say that one allows him four cubits in front of his door [Not only may one carry distances less than 4 cubits in the public domain, one even may carry in a multi-family courtyard without eruv within 4 cubits of one’s door. There is absolutely no situation where one is not permitted to carry up to a distance of 4 cubits.] ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in Samuel’s name: If there was a door open to the roof [In the opinion of S. Liebermann, if the house was built on a slope and the roof opened on a courtyard, the large roof forms one domain with the courtyard since on both sides where it is joined to the small one there is railing which counts as a wall, whereas the smaller roof is forbidden without an eruv since no wall indicates that it is separated from the large roof.] , even then the large one is permitted since it is not completely open, and the small one is forbidden because it is completely open.
“ [Tosephta 7:14.] Rebbi Meïr says, do you not agree with me that vessels which started the Sabbath in a courtyard may be moved in the courtyard [This is stated as commonly accepted rule in Tosephta 5:19,23.] ? What is the difference between a roof and a courtyard? They told him, no. If you say about a courtyard, which has no dwellers under it, what can you say about a roof, which has dwellers under it? He asked them, what if the courtyard was higher than the roof [The house was built into a hillside and the courtyard is the extrension of the roof.] ? They told him, no. If you say about a courtyard where nobody knows his place, what can you say about a roof where everybody knows his place? He asked them, what if the courtyard was split by pebbles [With the Tosephta read פסיפס Greek ψήφος, ὁ.] ? Up to this point there was an answer [Cf. Mishnah Makhširin 8. One would have expected the name of a Tanna stating the objections of R. Meïr’s students.] .” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, from here on they were answering him in person; they told him, no. If you say about a courtyard whose dividers rise about it, what can you say about a roof whose dividers do not rise about it? He was telling them, in fact I am equating depth and height.
It was stated [Tosephta 5:24; Babli 91a.] : “Rebbi Jehudah said, in times of persecution [The Hadrianic persecutions when study of Torah was forbidden.] we were taking the scroll [A Torah scroll.] and climbing from courtyard to roof, from a roof to another roof, and sitting down and reading. They told him, times of persecution are no proof [Since the restrictions are rabbinic, not biblical, they may be overridden by biblical obligations; this does not diminish their validity.] .” “ [Tosephta 5:24; Babli 91a, Šabbat 147b, Menaḥot 72a.] Rebbi said, when we were studying with Rebbi Simeon (in a valley) [in Tekoa] [The text in parentheses is the scribe’s; the text in brackets is the corrector’s following the consensus of the Babli texts. It is difficult to locate R. Simeon in Judea.] , we were taking oil and a bath towel [Latin linteum, -i, n..] and going from a courtyard to a roof, and from the roof to a corral, and from one corral to another corral, until we came to the corral adjacent to the spring, and descending and immersing ourselves in it.”
You may say that there are four disagreements. “All rooftops of a town form one domain. [R. Meïr’s opinion in the Mishnah.] ” Rebbi Jehudah says, courtyard and rooftops form one domain. “Rebbi Simeon says, courtyards, rooftops, and corrals are single domains for vessels which started the Sabbath in them but not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house” [The fourth opinion is that of the rabbis for whom each rooftop is a separate domain.] .
Rebbi Joḥanan said, if they did not make an eruv. But if they made an eruv the courtyard becomes like the houses [R. Jehudah and R. Simeon cannot refer to the cases where each courtyard made an eruv for itself since they permit carrying from one to the other by way of the roofs. Since with an eruv one may bring vessels from the houses into the courtyard, they also would allow bringing vessels from one house to another in another courtyard via the roof. Cf. Babli 91a.] . Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is the same whether they made an eruv or they did not make an eruv [Since vessels from the house are explicitly excluded by R. Simeon, the situation considered by R. Joḥanan cannot occur.] . Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeˋira: “not for vessels which started the Sabbath in the house.” If they did not make an eruv, is this necessary? It is forbidden to remove from the roof, not so much to the roof [Since the vessels cannot be removed from house to courtyard, for RR. Jehudah and Simeon certainly they cannot be brought to any roof.] ? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: When each one made an eruv by itself; even then not for the vessels which started the Sabbath in the house [Even with an eruv and it is possible to bring vessels into the courtyard and onto the roof, they cannot be moved to any other roof nor to another courtyard. R. Zeˋira is not contradicted by the Mishnah.] .
Paragraph. [A slightly garbled restatement of the first paragraph in this Chapter. The spelling תרויהו is Babylonian Aramaic in place of Yerushalmi תריהון.] The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: It follows that Samuel and Rav both disagree with the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, as we have stated: “All rooftops of a town form one domain.” Samuel said, up to two bet se’ah. Rav said, one carries there even a kor, even two kor.
MISHNAH: If a large roof is adjacent to a small one [This follows the Sages in Mishnah 1. The situation is supposed to be the same as described in the second part of the Mishnah for courtyards: the larger extends beyond the smaller roof on both sides; if a person fromf the smaller house uses his roof to go to the larger roof, the smaller roof plays the role of entrance gate to the larger one. Therefore the dweller in the smaller house may use his own roof only if he made an eruv with the larger house.] , the large one is permitted but the small forbidden. If a large courtyard is open to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden since it acts as a door to the large one.
HALAKHAH: “If a large roof is adjacent to a small one [This follows the Sages in Mishnah 1. The situation is supposed to be the same as described in the second part of the Mishnah for courtyards: the larger extends beyond the smaller roof on both sides; if a person fromf the smaller house uses his roof to go to the larger roof, the smaller roof plays the role of entrance gate to the larger one. Therefore the dweller in the smaller house may use his own roof only if he made an eruv with the larger house.] , the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Our Mishnah [refers to] one roof only, but on another roof it is forbidden [Following the Sages in Mishnah 1, even if the two roofs belong to the same owner, it only is permitted to carry from the large onto the small but not from the small onto the large (Chapter 2, Notes 48,91).] . If it is not level, but if it is level it is permitted [The Mishnah may even be read as following R. Meïr, in case there is a step from the large roof down to the small.] . Our Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If a large courtyard is open to a small one, the large one is permitted but the small forbidden.” Should one not be able to move there up to the place of the partitions [Why is a person living in the smaller house not permitted to use his roof if he keeps his distance from the large roof?] ? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥiyya: What Samuel said, on this Sabbath itself [It is not quite clear which of Samuel’s statements the discussion refers to. It seems that one reads in the Mishnah the expression נפרצה as “was torn down” not as a prior state but that it was torn down on the Sabbath and Samuel holds (Chapter 6, Notes 158ff.) that what was permitted at the start of the Sabbath remains so for the entire Sabbath.] , what the Mishnah deals with the next Sabbath. Where do we hold? If they made one eruv together, they should be permitted both on this and on the next Sabbath. If they did not make any eruv, they should be forbidden both on this and on the next Sabbath. The case happened as it happened [Chapter 8, Note 89.] . Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: When each of them made separate eruvin, nevertheless the large one is permitted since it is breached along its entire length and the small one is forbidden since it was not breached along its entire length [It seems clear that one has to switch the places of “breached” and “not breached.”] .
MISHNAH: If a courtyard is open to the public domain [There is no entrance gate and anyone entering is not trespassing. For the opponents of R. Eliezer, the status of the yard is no different from shoulders of a public road (Šabbat 1, Note 73); transporting from the yard to either the public road or a private house is only rabbinically forbidden.] , anybody who brings from it into a private domain or from a private domain into it is liable, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say from it into the public domain and from the public domain into it one is not liable since it is like karmelit.
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 3.] . Rebbi Zeriqa, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi Eleazar said this only for the place of partitions if the main parts had been removed on both sides [In this opinion, R. Eleazar holds that a courtyard used as a passageway remains karmelit except for the two entrances where at the place of the missing walls a strip 4 hand-breadths wide each is added to the public domain.] , and only four [handbreadths]. Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Illa both are saying, it is forbidden not at the place of partitions, but at the place of partitions even the rabbis agree [In their opinion R. Eleazar declares the entire courtyard as public domain. The opinion attributed to R. Eleazar in Note 47 is attributed here to the rabbis who in addition permit the dwellers around the courtyard to make an eruv.] . Rebbi Zeriqan said, many times I explained [the Mishnah] with Rebbi Jacob bar Abun and never heard this from him [A similar expression of R. Zeriqan is in Šabbat 3, after Note 57.] . They said to him, does it not happen that one person hears something which another does not hear? Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: if the main partitions had been removed on both sides, and only if it is level [The courtyard open on both sides becomes public domain only if it is level with the roads on both sides.] .
MISHNAH: If a courtyard became open on both sides [Before the Sabbath it was a private domain. On the Sabbath it became open and now can be used as a shortcut by the public.] , or a house became open on both sides [Before the Sabbath it was a private domain. On the Sabbath it became open and now can be used as a shortcut by the public.] , or an alley whose beam or lathes were removed, they are permitted the same Sabbath but forbidden in the future, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, if they are permitted the same Sabbath they are permitted in the future, and if they are forbidden in the future they are forbidden this Sabbath [Therefore it is forbidden immediately on the first Sabbath.] .
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 4.] . Why do I need “on both sides” [Before the Sabbath it was a private domain. On the Sabbath it became open and now can be used as a shortcut by the public.] ? Even on one side! Does this not follow Rav, as Rav said, a courtyard becomes permitted by two planks [Rav’s statement is recorded only in the Babli, 12a: Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rav Jeremiah bar Abba who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer about planks of a courtyard (cf. Mishnah 1:2).] ? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: It is a disagreement. He who says there by one plank [Rabbis opposing Rebbi, Babli 12a.] , here also by one plank; he who says there by two planks, here also by two planks. If it became breached in the middle it is permitted [If walls are standing at both sides of the breach, the breach is a door. Even if the breach is wider than 10 cubits, if the standing walls are at least 4 hand-breadths wide they act as planks.] ; Samuel said it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if that of Samuel is not what he learned, it is difficult [If Samuel’s statement is an old Babylonian tradition, it has to be accepted as rabbinic decree. If it is presented as a new ruling, it seems to be illogical.] . If one entire side was breached? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is [the case of] the porch; if it were a porch, would it not be permitted [Since a porch has no walls, the rules of the courtyard cannot be more restrictive than those of a porch. This is R. Zeˋira’s objection to Samuel’s statement.] ?
Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer [This refers to Mishnah 3 where in all other references the name of the Tanna is Eleazar.] said this only for a courtyard and an alley; but is a house like a bridge [A house, even if it is a public building open to all and a passage through it may serve as a shortcut, is never treated as public domain.] ?
Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan say, it is forbidden both on this Sabbath and the coming Sabbath [In Mishnah 4, practice is decided following R. Yose; since it is forbidden in the future it must be forbidden now.] .
[A shortened version of a text in Ḥagigah 3:4 (79c 1.22).] Rebbi Joḥanan said, costos, and hollowed squash, and alley, and convert, and vulgar, are restrictive.
Costos as we have stated [Mishnah Uqeṣin 3:5. תנן is Babylonian Aramaic. Costos,-i, f., Greek κόστος, an Oriental aromatic plant.] , “costos, and cardamon, and important spices [Money dedicated as Second Tithe which may be spent only on pure food or drink in Jerusalem.] may be bought with tithe money [The Mishnah is stated as an argument, not as a statement, to permit in practice to accept each argument even though this results in two mutually contradictory restrictions.] but do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, if they may be bought with tithe money they become impure by impurity of foodstuff, and if they do not become impure by impurity of foodstuff they may not be bought with tithe money.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive [Mishnah Parah 5:3. “Sanctify” means to put some of the ashes of the Red Cow into the water to use it to purify from the impurity of the dead. This water has to be taken from flowing water (Num. 19:17). Since the squash, used as a pot, will absorb of this water, immediately after it has been immersed in flowing water it might be used in the ceremony, but later the water retained in its walls will invalidate new water drawn by the hollowed squash. In the Mishnah, R. Joshua argues that if at the start the squash was acceptable it always should be acceptable, if later it is not acceptable neither should it be at the start (since the point in time when it becomes unacceptable is not well defined.)] : they become impure by impurity of foodstuff and may not be bought with tithe money.
Hollowed squash as we have stated [This is here, Mishnah 4, proof that the Ḥagigah text is original.] : “A hollowed squash which one immersed is water suitable for sanctification, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, one may not sanctify either at the beginning or at the end.
Alley, as we have stated there [As wine prepared by a Non-Jew, cf. Avodah zarah, Chapters 2–5.] , “or an alley whose beam was removed, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, it is forbidden both on this Sabbath and the coming Sabbath [In Mishnah 4, practice is decided following R. Yose; since it is forbidden in the future it must be forbidden now.] .
Proselyte, as it was stated: If a proselyte converted while he had wines, and said, it is clear to me that no libations were made from it, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others [A fellow is a person observing all rules of purity in the absence of a Temple, cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay, pp. 349–350.] , by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others. Vulgar, as it was stated: If a vulgar person who was inducted as a fellow [Discussion of Mishnah 5.] has food made in purity and he said, it is clear to me that it was prepared in purity, if he made it by himself it is pure for him but impure for others, by others it is impure both for him and for others. Rebbi Aqiba said, if they are pure for him they should be pure for others; if impure for others they should be impure for him. Rebbi Joḥanan said, restrictive, impure for him and for others.
MISHNAH: If somebody builds an upper floor connecting two houses [The houses are on two different sides of the public road; the construction creates a bridge between the sides. Since the outer walls of this bridge are at least 10 hand-breadths high, in R. Jehudah’s opinion they constitute acceptable partitions which turn the space between them into a private domain. In the opinion of the anonymous majority, no part of a public road may be made private.] , and similarly open bridges [A bridge open to the public as part of a public road. It is assumed that the railings at the sides of the bridge are 10 hand-breadths high and can act as partitions between the space under the bridge and the outside.] , one carries under them, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it [Since the formulation is “prohibited” but not “he is liable”, the argument of R. Jehudah is accepted in principle but rejected rabbinically.] . In addition, Rebbi Jehudah said that one may make an eruv for open alleys but the Sages forbid it [If an alley is not a dead end it is a thoroughfare even if it cannot be used for vehicular traffic.] .
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 5.] . Rav Huna said, no public domain [For the rules of the Sabbath, not in other respects. Babli Šabbat 98a.] is roofed. Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana said, did you not learn from the desert, and was the desert not roofed [As the Babli loc. cit. explains, all rules of the Sabbath are derived from the Tabernacle in the desert, and the space under the carts used by the Levites to transport the disassembled Tabernacle was roofed public domain.] ? Our Mishnah does not say so, but “and similarly open bridges, one carries under them the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” It only says “but the Sages forbid it;” therefore there is no liability of a purification offering [Since “forbidden”, in contrast to “liable”, in talmudic terminology means “rabbinically, not biblically, forbidden.”] .
Does it need a partition [Following R. Jehudah, is the space under a bridge automatically private domain? The roadway represents a roof; does one say that the borders of the roadway define imaginary walls (as stated in Chapter 1, Notes 40,42), or does the definition of private domain imply the existence of actual walls (which seems to be implied by Šabbat 16, Note 84)?] ? Rebbi Abba said, it needs a partition. Rebbi Yose said, it does not need a partition. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, does Rebbi Abba not say it correctly? As we have stated [Mishnah 8:7.] , “Rebbi Jehudah says, a partition should not be more than the wall between them.” He said to them, there [In the case of the Mishnah here, where the roadway is a roof.] , where there is a roof, it does not need a partition. But here, where there is no roof, it needs a partition, as Rav Jehudah said, if it is open to an agricultural area [He notes that R. Jehudah considers the area under the bridge as automatic private domain only if that domain is bordered by karmelit; if it were bordered by public domain in the biblical sense, even R. Jehudah would require actual partitions (standing or hanging.)] , but if it is open to the public domain it is forbidden if there are no partitions, but if there is a partition it is permitted.