Parallel
עירובין 44:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But does not a contradiction still remain between the two rulings regarding a human being? There is really no contradiction between the two rulings regarding a human being, since the former refers to a man used as a wall with his knowledge while the latter refers to a man so used without his knowledge. Was not, however, the arrangement for Nehemiah son of R. Hanilai, made with [the men's] knowledge? No, without their knowledge. R. Hisda at any rate must have known? R. Hisda was not one of the number. Certain gardeners once brought water through human walls and Samuel had them flogged. He said: If the Rabbis permitted human walls where the men composing them were unaware of the purpose they served would they also permit such walls where the men were aware of the purpose? A number of skin bottles were once lying in the manor of Mahuza and, while Raba was coming from his discourse, [his attendant] carried them in. On a subsequent Sabbath he desired to carry them in again, but he forbade it to them because in the second case the human walls must be regarded as having been put up with the men's knowledge, which is forbidden. For Levi straw was brought in; for Ze'iri cattle fodder, and for R. Shimi b. Hiyya water. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS PERMITTED TO DO SO WENT OUT BEYOND THE SABBATH LIMIT AND WAS THEN TOLD THAT THE ACT HAD ALREADY BEEN PERFORMED, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE WITHIN TWO THOUSAND CUBITS IN ANY DIRECTION. IF HE WAS WITHIN THE SABBATH LIMIT HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT. ALL WHO GO OUT TO SAVE LIFE MAY RETURN TO THEIR ORIGINAL PLACES. GEMARA. What [need was there for the ruling], IF HE WAS WITHIN THE SABBATH LIMIT HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT? — Rabbah replied: It is this that was meant: IF HE WAS WITHIN his SABBATH LIMIT HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT of his house. Is not this Obvious? — It might have been presumed that as he tore [himself away from his original abode] he has thereby detached [himself completely from it], hence we were informed [that IF HE WAS WITHIN his SABBATH LIMIT HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT OF HIS HOUSE]. R. Shimi b. Hiyya replied: It is this that was meant: If the Sabbath limits which the Rabbis have allowed him overlapped with his original Sabbath limit HE IS REGARDED AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE OUT of his original Sabbath limit. On what principle do they differ? — The one Master is of the opinion that the overlapping of Sabbath limits is of significance while the other Master maintains that it is of no consequence. Said Abaye to Rabbah: Are you not of the opinion that the overlapping of Sabbath limits is of significance? What if a man spent the Sabbath in a cavern the length of the floor of whose interior was four thousand cubits and that of its roof was less than four thousand cubits? Would he not be able to move all along its roof and two thousand cubits beyond it? — The other replied: Do you make no distinction between a case where the man began to spend the Sabbath within the walls of his abode, while it was yet day and one where he did not begin to spend the Sabbath between the walls while it was yet day? — [You say] that where a man did not begin to spend the Sabbath [within the walls of an abode common to both limits overlapping of the limits is of] no consequence,
—