Parallel
עירובין 22:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
If it be suggested: Because the Ladder of Tyre surrounds it on one side and the declivity of Geder on the other side, Babylon too [it could be retorted] is surrounded by the Euphrates on one side and the Tigris on the other side; the whole world, in fact, is surrounded by the ocean. Perhaps you mean the ascents and descents [of Palestine]. ‘Genius’, the other replied: ‘I saw your chief between the pillars when R. Johanan discoursed on this traditional ruling’. So it was also stated: When Rabin came he stated in the name of R. Johanan (others say: R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Johanan): No guilt is incurred for [the carrying of objects in] a public domain [in the case of] the ascents and descents of the Land of Israel, because they are not [as accessible] as [the domain on which] the standards in the wilderness [marched]. Rehaba enquired of Raba: In the case of a mound that rises to a height of ten handbreadths on a base of four cubits, across which many people make their way, does one incur the guilt of [carrying in] a public domain or is no guilt incurred? This question does not arise according to the view of the Rabbis, for if there, where the use [of the road] is quite easy, the Rabbis ruled that the public do not impair the validity of the enclosure, how much more is that the case here where the use [of the road] is not easy. The question arises only according to R. Judah. Does he [maintain his view only] there because the use [of the road] is easy, but here, where its use is not easy, the public [he maintains] do not impair the validity of the [legal] partition, or is there perhaps no difference? — The other replied: Guilt is incurred. ‘Even’ [the first asked,] ‘if people ascend by means of a rope?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied. [‘Is this the ruling’, the first asked,] ‘even in respect of the ascents of Beth Maron?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied. He raised an objection against him: A courtyard into which many people enter from one side and go out from the other [is regarded as] a public domain in respect of levitical defilement and as a private domain in respect of the Sabbath. Now whose [view is here expressed]? If it be suggested: [That of the] Rabbis; it might be objected: If there, where the use [of the road] is easy, the Rabbis ruled that the public cannot come and impair the validity of the partition, how much more is that the case here where its use is not easy. Consequently it [must be, must it not, the view of] R. Judah? — No; it may in fact [represent the view of] the Rabbis, but the statement was required [on account of the ruling], ‘And a public domain in respect of levitical defilement’. Come and hear: Alleys that open out in cisterns, ditches or caves [have the status of] a private domain in respect of Sabbath and that of a Public one in respect of levitical defilement. Now can you imagine [a reading] ‘in cisterns’? [The reading must] consequently be, ‘towards cisterns’ [and about such alleys it was ruled that they have the status of] ‘a private domain in respect of Sabbath and that of a public one in respect of levitical defilement’. Now, whose [view is here expressed]? If it be suggested: That of the Rabbis; it could be objected: If there, where the use [of the road] is easy, they ruled that the public cannot come and annul its validity, how much more should this be the case here where its use is not easy. Consequently [it must be, must it not, the view of] R. Judah? — No; it may in fact [be the view of] the Rabbis, but the statement was required [on account of the ruling,] ‘And a public domain in respect of levitical defilement’. Come and hear: The paths of Beth Gilgul and such as are similar to them [have the status of] a private domain in respect of the Sabbath and that of a public domain in respect of levitical defilement. And what [paths may be described as] the ‘paths of Beth Gilgul’? At the school of R. Jannai it was laid down: Any [path along] which a slave carrying a se'ah of wheat is unable to run before an officer. Now, whose view [is this]? If it be suggested [that it is that of] the Rabbis, it might be objected: If there, where the use [of the road] is easy, the Rabbis ruled that the public cannot come and impair the validity of the partition, how much more would that be the case here where the use [of the paths] is not easy. Consequently [it must be, must it not, the view of] R. Judah? — The other replied: You speak of the paths of Beth Gilgul [which have a status of their own, for] Joshua, being a friend of Israel, undertook the task of providing for them roads and highways, and those that were easy of access he assigned for public use and those that were not easily accessible he assigned for private use. MISHNAH. STRIPS [OF WOOD] MAY BE PROVIDED FOR A PUBLIC CISTERN, A PUBLIC WELL AS WELL AS A PRIVATE WELL, BUT FOR A PRIVATE CISTERN A PARTITION TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH MUST BE PROVIDED; SO R. AKIBA. R. JUDAH B. BABA RULED: STRIPS [OF WOOD] MAY BE SET UP ROUND A PUBLIC WELL ONLY WHILE FOR THE OTHERS A [ROPE] BELT TEN HANDBREADTHS IN HEIGHT MUST BE PROVIDED.
—