Parallel
עירובין 68:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
why then should it not be said: As "sprinkling" on the Sabbath which is a Rabbinical prohibition does not supersede the Sabbath so should not an instruction to a gentile to do work on the Sabbath which is also Rabbinically forbidden supersede the Sabbath?’ — ‘Do you’, the first retorted: ‘draw no distinction between a Rabbinical prohibition that involves a manual cat and one that involves no such act?’ ‘How is it, Rabbah son of R. Hanan) asked Abaye, ‘that in an alley in which two great men like you reside there should be neither ‘erub nor shittuf?’ — ‘What’, the other replied. ‘can we do? For the Master [to collect the tenants’ contribution]. would not be becoming, l am busy with my studies, and the other tenants do not care. And were I to transfer to them the possession of a share of the bread in my basket the shittuf, Since If they had asked me for the bread l could not give it to them, would be invalid; for it was taught: If one of the residents of an alley asked for some of the wine or the oil and they refused to give it to them the shittuf is thereby rendered null and void’. ‘Why then’, the first asked: ‘should not the Master transfer to them the possession of a quarter of a log of vinegar a cask?’ — ‘It was taught: [Commodities kept] in store may not be used for shittuf’. ‘But was It not taught that they may be used for shittuf?’ — This, R. Oshaia replied, is no contradiction, since one view is that of Beth Shammai and the other is that of Beth Hillel. For we learned: If a corpse lay in a house that had many doors all the doorways are unclean. If one of them was opened, that doorway is unclean while all the others are clean. If it was intended to take out the corpse through one of them, or through a window that measured four handbreadths by four, this protects all the doors. Beth Shammai ruled: This applies only where the intention was formed before the person in question was dead, but Beth Hillel ruled: Even if it was formed after he was dead. There was once a certain child whose warm water was spilled out. Said Raba: ‘Let us ask his mother [and] if she requires any, a gentile might warm some for him indirectly through his mother’. ‘His mother’, R. Mesharsheya told Raba, ‘is already eating dates’. ‘It is quite possible’, the other replied, ‘that it was merely a stupor that had seized her’. There was once a child whose warm water was spilled out. ‘Remove my things’, ordered Raba, ‘from the men's quarters to the women's quarters and I will go and sit there so that I may renounce in favour of the tenants of the child's courtyard the right I have in this one’. ‘But’, said Rabina to Raba, ‘did not Samuel lay down: No renunciation of one's right in a courtyard is permitted where two courtyards are involved?’ — ‘I’, the other replied, ‘hold the same view as R. Johanan who laid down: It is permitted to renounce one's right in a courtyard even where two courtyards are involved’. ‘But’, the first asked: ‘if the Master does not hold the same view as Samuel
—