Parallel
עירובין 92:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Could R. Johanan have made such a statement, seeing that R. Johanan laid down that the halachah is in agreement with an anonymous Mishnah, and weÊlearned: If aïwalà between two courtyards was ten handbreadths high and four handbr‰adths thick, two ‘eru·s may be prepared but not one. If there was fruit on the top of it, the tenants on either side may cli€b up and eat there, provided they do not carrywit down? — The meaning of ‘down’ is ‘down into the houses’. But did not R. Hiyya learn: Provided neither of the tenants stands in his place and eats? — The other replied: Since Rabbi has not taught this ruling whence could R. Hiyya know it! Iô was stated: If there were two courtyards with a ruin between them and the tenants of the one prepared an ‘erub and the tenants of the other did not prepare one, [the ruin] said R. Huna, is to be assigned that courtyard for which no ‘erub had been prepared, but not to the one for which an ‘erub had been prepared, since the tenants of the latter might be tempted to carry objects from their houses into the ruin. Hiyya b. Rab, however, said: It is also assigned to the courtyard for which an ‘erub had been prepared, and both, therefore, are subject to restrictions. For wereXyou to suggest that both are exempt from restrictions, why [I would ask,] is not a courtyard for whic— no ‘erub had been prepared assigned to the courtyard for which one had been prepared? — [No]. In that case since the objects from the houses are safe ÿn the courtyard one might carry [many of them) thither]; but here in the case of a ruin, since the objects from the houses are not safe in a ruin, no one would carry many of them thither. Others read: Hiyya b. Rab said: It is also assigned to the courtyard for which an ‘erub had been prepared; and both, therefore, are free from restrictions. For should you insist that both are subject to restrictions since a courtyard for which no ‘erub had been provided is not assigned to the one for which one had been provided, [it can be retorted]: In that case, since the objects from the houses are safe in the courtyard the Rabbis did not relax the restrictions because otherwise people might carry them out. In a ruin, however, they are not safe. MISHNAH. IF A LARGE ROOF WAS CLOSE TO A SMALLER ROOF THE USE OF THE LARGER ONE IS PERMITTED BUT THAT OF THE LESSER ONE IS FORBIDDEN. IF THE FULL WIDTH OF A WALL OF A SMALL COURTYARD WAS BROKEN DOWN SO THAT THE YARD FULLY OPENED INTO A LARGE COURTYARD, THE USE OF THE LARGER ONE IS PERMITTED, BUT THAT OF THE SMALLER ONE IS FORBIDDEN, BECAUSE THE GAP IS REGARDED AS A DOORWAY TO THE FORMER. GEMARA. What was the point in teaching the same principles twice? According to Rab's view, this was intended to teach us that a ROOF is subject to the same limitations as a COURTYARD: As in a courtyard the walls are distinguishable SO must the walls be distinguishable in the case of a roof also; and according to Samuel's view a no ROOF was meant to be compared to a COURTYARD: As a courtyard is a place upon which many people tread so must a roof be one on which many people tread. Rabbah and R. Zera and Rabbah son of R. Hanan were sitting at their studies, Abaye sitting beside them, and in the course of their session they argued as follows: From our Mishnah it may be inferred that the occupiers of the larger one influence the rights of those of the lesser but those of the latter do not influence those of the former. If, for instance, vines were planted in the larger one, it is forbidden to sow in the lesser one, and if it was sown, the seeds are forbidden; and
—