Parallel
עירובין 20:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
that there are two kinds of trees? [Well then] in this case also [one might submit that there are] two kinds of wall. Abaye enquired of Rabbah: If a courtyard opened out on one side into [an area] between the strips of wood [around a well], is it [permitted] to move objects from its interior into that between the strips and from between the strips to its interior? The other replied: This is permitted. ‘What if two [courtyards opened out in a similar manner]?’ — ‘It is forbidden’, the other replied. Said R. Huna: [In the case of] two [courtyards the movement of objects is] forbidden even [where the tenants] have prepared an ‘erub, this being a preventive measure against the possible assumption that an ‘erub is effective in the case of a space enclosed by strips of wood. Raba said: If [the tenants] prepared an ‘erub [the movement of objects is] permitted. Said Abaye to Raba: ‘[A ruling] was taught which provides support to your view: If a courtyard opens out on one side into [an area] between the strips of wood [around a well] it is permitted to move objects from its interior into that between the strips and from between the strips to the interior, but if two [courtyards opened out in this manner the movement of objects is] forbidden. This, however, applies only where [the tenants] prepared no ‘erub but where they did prepare an ‘erub’ they are allowed [to move their objects]’. Must it be said that this presents an objection against R. Huna? — R. Huna can answer you: There [it is a case] where [a breach] also combined them. Abaye enquired of Raba: What [is the ruling where] the water dried up on the Sabbath? The other replied: [The enclosure] was recognized [as a valid] partition only on account of the water, [and since] no water is here available, there is here no [validity] in the partition either. Rabin enquired: What [is the ruling where] the water dried up on the Sabbath and on [the same] Sabbath [other water] appeared? — Abaye replied: Where they were dried up on the Sabbath you have no need to ask, for I have already asked [this question] from the Master and he made it plain to me that it was forbidden. [As regards water that] appeared [on the Sabbath] you have also no need to enquire, for [the enclosure] would thus be a partition made on the Sabbath, concerning which it was taught: Any partition that was put up on the Sabbath is valid whether [this was done] unwittingly, intentionally, under compulsion or willingly. But has it not been stated in connection with this ruling that R. Nahman said: This applied only to throwing but not to moving? R. Nahman's statement was made only in respect of [a partition that was put up] intentionally. R. Eleazar said: One who throws [any object] into [the area] between strips [of wood] around wells is liable. [Is not this] obvious, for if [the strips had] not [Pentateuchally constituted a valid] partition how could it have been permitted to draw water? — [The ruling] was necessary only [for this purpose:] That [a man] who put up, in a public domain, [an enclosure] similar to that of strips of wood around wells, and threw an object into it, is liable. But is not this also obvious, [for if such an imperfect enclosure] would not [have been regarded as a valid] partition elsewhere, how could one be permitted to move any objects [within such an imperfect enclosure] in the case of a cistern? — [The ruling] was rather necessary [for this purpose:] Although many people cross the enclosure [it is regarded as a private domain]. What [principle,] however, does he thereby teach us? That even [the passage of] many people does not destroy [the validity of] a partition? But [this, it may be contended, was already] once said [by] R. Eleazar. For have we not learnt: R. Judah ruled: If a public road cuts through then, it should be diverted to [one of the] sides, and the Sages ruled: This was not necessary; and both R. Johanan and R. Eleazar remarked: Here they informed you of the unassailable validity of partitions? — If [the principle had to be derived] from there it might have been presumed that only ‘Here [etc.]’; but that he himself is not of the same opinion; hence we were told [that not only] ‘Here [etc.],’ but he himself also is of the same opinion. Then why did he not state this ruling and there would have been no need for the other? — The one was derived from the other. IT IS PERMITTED TO BRING [THE STRIPS] CLOSE TO THE WELL etc. Elsewhere we learned: A man must not stand in a public domain and drink in a private domain, or in a private one and drink in a public one, unless he puts his head and the greater part of his body into the domain in which he drinks,
—