Parallel
עירובין 9:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
R. Ashi replied: [This may refer to a case] for instance where [one side of the alley] was lined with side-posts [placed at distances of] less than four handbreadths [from one another] along four cubits [of its length]. According to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who ruled [that in respect of such distances the law of] labud is applied [the space bordered by the side-posts] is deemed to be [a proper] alley which requires an additional side-post to render it permissible, and according to the Rabbis who ruled [that the law of] labud is not applied, no other side-post is required to render it permissible. But even according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel [why] should [not this alley be permitted] as [one having a side-post that may be] seen from without though it appears even within? — Is not this explanation required only in respect of a statement of R. Johanan? But, surely, when Rabin came he reported in the name of R. Johanan [that a post that may be] seen from without but appears even from within cannot be regarded as a valid side-post. It was stated: [A post that] is seen from within but appears even from without is regarded as a valid side-post; but if it is seen from without and appears even from within [there is a difference of opinion between] R. Hiyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi. One maintains that it is regarded as a valid side-post and the other maintains that it is not regarded as a valid side-post. You may conclude that it was R. Hiyya who maintained that ‘it is regarded as a valid side-post’; for R. Hiyya taught: A wall of which one side recedes more than the other, whether [the recess can be] seen from without and appears even from within or whether it can be seen from within and appears even from without, may be regarded as [being provided with] a side-post. This is conclusive. Did not R. Johanan, however, hear this? But [what you might contend is] that he did hear it and is not of the same opinion; [is it not then possible that] R. Hiyya also is not of the same opinion? — What [a comparison is] this! It might well [be contended that] R. Johanan does not hold the same opinion [and that it was] for this reason that he did not teach it; but as regards R. Hiyya if it is a fact that he does not hold the same opinion, what need was there for him to teach it? Rabbah son of R. Huna said: [A post that is] seen from without though it appears even from within is regarded as a valid side-post. Said Rabbah: We, however, raised an objection against this traditional ruling: [If the full width of a wall of] a small courtyard was broken down [so that the yard now fully opens out] into a large courtyard, [movement of objects on the Sabbath] is permitted in the large one but forbidden in the small one because the gap is regarded as an entrance to the former. Now, if this is valid, should not the movement of objects in the small courtyard also be permitted on [the principle that the entrance may be] seen without though it appears even from within? — R. Zera replied: [This is a case] where the walls of the small one project into the large one. But why should not the principle of labud be applied so that the use of the smaller courtyard also might be permitted? And should you reply that [the walls] were too far apart, surely, [it may be retorted] did not R. Adda b. Abimi recite in the presence of R. Hanina: [The ruling applies to a case where] the small courtyard was ten and the large one eleven cubits? — Rabina replied: [This is a case] where [the projections] were removed by two handbreadths from one wall and by four from the other. Then let labud be applied to one side and [thereby the smaller courtyard would] be permitted?
—