Parallel
עירובין 87:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
while here we are dealing with Rabbinical domains. But did not R. Johanan maintain his view even in the case of Rabbinical domains? For we learned: — If between two courtyards there was a wall ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths thick, two ‘erubs may be prepared but not one. If there was fruit on the top of it, the tenants on either side may climb up and eat there. If a breach to the extent of ten cubits was made in the wall, the tenants may prepare two ‘erubs or, if they prefer, only one, because it is like a doorway. If the breach was bigger, only one ‘erub and not two may be prepared’. And when the question was raised, What is the ruling where it was not four handbreadths wide?’ Rab replied: ‘The air of two domains prevails upon it and no object on it may be moved even as far as a hair's breadth’; whereas R. Johanan replied: ‘The tenants on either side may carry up their food and eat it there’, R. Johanan thus following his own view; since R. Dimi, when he came, stated in the name of R. Johanan: On a place whose area is less than four handbreadths by four both the people in the public domain and those in the private domain may re-arrange their loads provided they do not exchange their! — That was reported by Ze'iri. But does not this present an objection against Ze'iri? — Ze'iri explains it to refer to the water-channel itself, while the ruling of R. Dimi is one in dispute between Tannas. But why should it not be regarded as the cavities of a karmelith? — Both Abaye b. Abin and R. Hanina b. Abin replied: The law of cavities does not apply to a karmelith. R. Ashi replied: It may even be conceded that the law of cavities does apply to a karmelith, but this is the case only where the cavity is near whereas here it is far removed Rabina replied: We are dealing in with a case, for instance, where outlets were made at its ends, the Rabbis following their view, while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel follows his view. MISHNAH. FROM A BALCONY THAT WAS SITUATED ABOVE A STRETCH OF WATER NO WATER MAY BE DRAWN ON THE SABBATH UNLESS IT WAS FURNISHED WITH A PARTITION TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH EITHER ABOVE OR BELOW. SO ALSO WHERE TWO BALCONIES WERE SITUATED IN POSITIONS ONE HIGHER THAN THE OTHER, AND A PARTITION WAS MADE FOR THE UPPER ONE BUT NOT FOR THE LOWER ONE, RESTRICTIONS ARE IMPOSED ON THE USE OF BOTH UNTIL THEY HAVE PREPARED A JOINT ‘ERUB. GEMARA. Is our Mishnah in disagreement with the view of Hananya b. Akabya, since it was taught: Hananya b. Akabya ruled: In a balcony whose area is four cubits by four a hole of four handbreadths by four is cut and water may be drawn through it? — R. Johanan citing R. Jose b. Zimra replied: R. Hananya b. Akabya permitted it only in the case of the sea of Tiberias since it is surrounded by embankments, towns and karpafs, but not in that of any other waters. Our Rabbis taught: R. Hananya b. Akabya permitted the men of Tiberias three things: To draw water from a balcony on the Sabbath, to store fruit in pea-stalks and to dry themselves with a towel. ‘To draw water from a balcony on the Sabbath’ as has just been stated; what, however, was the point of the permission ‘to store fruit in pea-stalks’? — That, as it was taught. If a man got up early in the morning to fetch some refuse, the Scriptural expression, ‘if water be put upon the seed’ applies to it, if he did so because the dew was upon it, but if he did so in order that he might not be disturbed from his usual work, the expression. If water be put upon the seeds does not apply to it; and as a rule,
—