Parallel
עירובין 94:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
The tenants on either side may move their objects to the very foundation of the wall. The ruling of Rab, however, was not explicitly stated but was arrived at by implication. For Rab and Samuel were once sitting in a certain courtyard when a parting wall collapsed. ‘Take a cloak’, said Samuel to the people, ‘and spread it across, and Rab turned away his face. ‘If Abba objects’, Samuel told them, ‘take his girdle and the with it’. Now according to Samuel's view, what need was there for this, seeing that he ruled: ‘The tenants on either side may move their objects to the very foundation of the wall’? — Samuel did that merely for the sake of privacy. If Rab, however, held that this was forbidden, why did he not say so to him? The place was under Samuel's jurisdiction. If so, why did he turn away his face? — In order that it might not be said that he held the same opinion as Samuel. MISHNAH. IF THERE WAS A BREACH IN A WALL BETWEEN A COURTYARD AND A PUBLIC DOMAIN, ANY MAN WHO BRINGS ANY OBJECT FROM THE LATTER INTO A PRIVATE DOMAIN OR FROM A PRIVATE DOMAIN INTO IT IS GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE; SO R. ELIEZER. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: WHETHER A MAN CARRIED AN OBJECT FROM IT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OR FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAin INTO IT HE IS EXEMPT BECAUSE IT HAS THE SAME STATUS AS A KARMELITH. GEMARA. As to R. Eliezer, does it become a public domain because there was a breach between it and the public domain? Yes; R. Eliezer follows his view, it having been taught: R. Judah citing R. Eliezer said: If the public chose a path for themselves, that which they have chosen is theirs. But this cannot be right, for did not R. Giddal citing Rab explain: This applies only to a case where their path had been lost in that field? And Should you reply that here also it is a case where their path had been lost in that courtyard, surely, [it could be retorted], did not R. Hanina state, ‘The dispute referred to [all the courtyard] as far as the position of its walls’? Read: The dispute concerned only the position of the wall. And if you prefer I might reply: Their dispute refers to the status of the sides of a public road, R. Eliezer holding that the sides of a public road are like the public road while the Rabbis hold that the sides of a public road are not like the public road. Why then did they not express their difference of opinion in respect of the sides of public roads generally? — If they had expressed their difference of view in respect of the sides of public roads generally it might have been assumed that the Rabbis; differed from R. Eliezer only where there were border-stones but where there were no border-stones they agree with him, hence we were informed [that even in the latter case they also differ from him]. But did he not say: FROM IT? — As the Rabbis used the expression FROM IT he also used a similar expression. As to the Rabbis however, how is it that R. Eliezer speaks of the sides of a public road and they retort to him FROM IT? — It is this that the Rabbis said to R. Eliezer: You agree with us, do you not, that where a man moved an object from it into a public domain or from a public domain into it he is exempt because it is a karmelith, well the same law should apply to the sides also. And R. Eliezer? There not many people tread on the spot but here they do. MISHNAH. IF A BREACH WAS MADE IN TWO SIDES OF A COURTYARD TOWARDS A PUBlic DOMAIN, AND SO ALSO IF A BREACH WAS MADE IN TWO SIDES OF A HOUSE, OR IF THE CROSS-BEAM OR SIDE-POST OF AN ALLEY WAS REMOVED, THE OCCUPIERS ARE PERMITTED THEIR USE FOR THAT SABBATH BUT FORBIDDEN ON FUTURE SABBATHS; SO R. JUDAH. R. JOSE RULED: IF THEY ARE PERMITTED THEIR USE ON THAT SABBATH THEY ARE ALSO PERMITTED ON FUTURE SABBATHS AND IF THEY ARE FORBIDDEN (IN FUTURE SABBATHS THEY ARE ALSO FORBIDDEN ON THAT SABBATH. GEMARA. With what kind of breach do we deal? If it be suggested: With one that was not wider then ten cubits, wherein, then, [it may be objected, does a breach] in one side differ [in such a case from breaches in two sides? Is it] that it may be regarded as a doorway, [should not breaches] in two sides also be regarded as doorways? If, however, the breach spoken of was wider than ten cubits, [should not the same restrictioss apply] even where it was only in one side? Rab replied: The fact is [that the breach spoken off was] not wider than ten cubits 54
—