Parallel
עירובין 23:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
GEMARA. R. Joseph stated in the name of Rab Judah who had it from Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah b. Baba. R. Joseph further stated in the name of R. Judah who had it from Samuel: Strips [of wood] around wells were permitted only in the case of a well of living water. And [both these statements were] required. For if we had only been told, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Judah b. Baba’ it might have been assumed that [in the case] of public [water he allows strips of wood] even [where the water is] collected, and that the reason why he mentioned A PUBLIC WELL was to express disagreement with the view of R. Akiba, hence we were told that ‘strips of wood around wells were permitted only in the case of a well of living water’. And if only ‘a well of living water’ had been mentioned [it might have been assumed that] there is no difference between a public and a private one, hence we were told ‘the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah b. Baba’. MISHNAH. R. JUDAH B. BABA FURTHER RULED: IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS IN A GARDEN OR A KARPAF WHOSE [AREA DOES NOT EXCEED] SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION BY SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION AND WHICH ARE SURROUNDED BY A WALL TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, PROVIDED THERE IS IN IT A WATCHMAN'S HUT OR A DWELLING PLACE OR IT IS NEAR TO A TOWN. R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN IF IT CONTAINED ONLY A CISTERN, A DITCH OR A CAVE IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT. R. AKIBA RULED: EVEN IF IT CONTAINED NONE OF THESE IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT, PROVIDED ITS AREA [DOES NOT EXCEED] SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION BY SEVENTY CUBITS AND A FRACTION. R. ELIEZER RULED: IF ITS LENGTH EXCEEDED ITS BREADTH EVEN BY A SINGLE CUBIT IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO MOVE ANY OBJECTS WITHIN IT. R. JOSE RULED: EVEN IF ITS LENGTH IS TWICE ITS BREADTH IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE EFFECTS WITHIN IT. R. ILA'I STATED: I HEARD FROM R. ELIEZER, EVEN IF IT IS AS LARGE AS A BETH KOR. I LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT IF ONE OF THE TENANTS OF A COURTYARD FORGOT TO JOIN IN THE ‘ERUB, HIS HOUSE IS FORBIDDEN TO HIM FOR THE TAKING IN OR THE TAKING OUT OF ANY OBJECT BUT IS PERMITTED TO THEM. I HAVE LIKEWISE HEARD FROM HIM THAT PEOPLE MAY FULFIL THEIR DUTY AT PASSOVER BY EATING HART'S-TONGUE. WHEN, HOWEVER, I WENT ROUND AMONG ALL HIS DISCIPLES SEEKING A FELLOW STUDENT I FOUND NONE. GEMARA. What did he already teach that, in consequence, he used the expression of FURTHER? If it be suggested: Because he taught one restrictive ruling and then he taught the other he therefore used the expression of FURTHER, surely [it could be retorted] did not R. Judah teach one restrictive ruling and then he taught another one and yet he did not use the expression ‘further’? — There the Rabbis interrupted him but here the Rabbis did not interrupt him. [Is it then suggested] that wherever the Rabbis interrupted one's statements the expression of ‘further’ not used? Surely, [it may be objected] was not R. Eliezer, in the case of a law about sukkah, interrupted by the Rabbis and the expression ‘further’ was nevertheless used? There they interrupted him with [a ruling on] his own subject but here they made the interruption with another subject. R. AKIBA RULED: EVEN IF IT CONTAINED NONE OF THESE IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT.
—