Parallel
עירובין 77:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
R. Johanan, however, ruled: The tenants on either side may carry up their food and eat it there. We learned, THE TENANTS ON EITHER SIDE MAY CLIMB UP AND EAT THERE. Does not this imply that they may only CLIMB UP but not ‘carry up’? — It is this that was meant: If the top consists of an area of four handbreadths by four they MAY CLIMB UP but may not carry up, and if it consists of less than four by four they may also carry up. R. Johanan follows a principle of his. For when R. Dimi came he stated in the name of R. Johanan: On a place whose area is less than four handbreadths by four it is permissible both for the people of the public domain and for those of the private domain to rearrange their burdens, provided they do not exchange them. Does not Rab, however, uphold the tradition of R. Dimi? — If it were a case of Pentateuchal domains the law would have been so indeed, but here we are dealing with Rabbinical domains, and the Sages have applied to their enactments higher restrictions than to those of the Torah. Rabbah son of R. Huna citing R. Nahman ruled: A wall between two courtyards, one of whose sides was ten handbreadths high and the other one of which was on a level with the ground, is assigned to that courtyard with the floor of which it is level, because the use of it is convenient to the latter but inconvenient to the former, and any place the use of which is convenient to one and inconvenient to another, is to be assigned to the one to whom its use is convenient. R. Shezbi laid down in the name of R. Nahman: A trench between two courtyards, whose one side was ten handbreadths deep and whose other side was on a level with the floor, is assigned to that courtyard with whose floor it is on a level, because its use is convenient to the latter but inconvenient to the former etc. And [the enunciation of] both cases was required. For if we had been informed only of the law of the wall it might have been assumed to apply to it alone, because people make use of a raised structure, but not to a trench, since people do not make use of a depression in the ground. And if we had been informed of the law of the trench only it might have been assumed to apply to it alone, because its use involves no anxiety but not to a wall the use of which involves anxiety. Hence the enunciation of both was necessary. If the height of the wall was reduced, it is permitted to use all the wall if the reduction extended to four handbreadths; otherwise, one may use only that part that was parallel to the reduction. What, however, is your view? If it is that the reduction is effective, one should be permitted to have the use of all the wall, and if it is not effective, even the use of the part that was parallel to the reduction should not be permitted! — Rabina replied: This is a case, for instance, where a section of its top has been pulled down. R. Yehiel ruled: If a bowl is inverted a valid reduction is thereby effected. But why? Is not the bowl an object that may be moved away on the Sabbath and that as such causes no reduction? — This is was required only in a case where the bowl was attached to the ground. But what matters it even if it was attached to the ground, seeing that it was taught: An unripe fruit that had been put into straw or a cake that had been put among coals may be taken out on the Sabbath if a part of it remained uncovered? — Here we are dealing with a case, for instance, where the bowl had rims. But what matters it even if it had rims, seeing that we learned: If a man buried turnips or radishes under a vine, leaving56
—