Parallel
עירובין 94:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
but it was one, for instance, that occurred in a corner where people make no doors. AND SO ALSO IF A BREACH WAS MADE IN TWO SIDES OF A HOUSE. Wherein does a breach in one side differ [from breaches in two sides]? Is it in that it may be assumed that the edge of the ceiling is deemed to extend downward and to close the gap, why should it not be assumed in the case of breaches in two sides also that the edge of the beam extends and closes them up? — At the school of Rab it was explained on the authority of Rab: This is a case of a house whose breaches, for instance, occurred in a corner and whose ceiling was lying in a slanting position so that it cannot be said that the edge of the ceiling extends downwards and closes them up. Samuel, however, replied: The breach might have been even wider than ten cubits. If so, should not the same restrictions apply even where the breach was made in one side? — [This was not mentioned] on account of the house. But does not the same difficulty arise in respect of a house: Wherein does a breach in one side differ [from breaches in two sides]? If it is in the assumption that the edge of the ceiling descends downward and closes the breach, why should not the same assumption, that the edge of the ceiling extends downwards and closes up the breaches, be made where these breaches occurred in two sides? Furthermore, it may be objected, does Samuel at all uphold the principle that the edge of a ceiling is deemed to descend downwards to close a gap, seeing that it was stated: ‘if an exedra was situated in a valley it is, Rab ruled, permitted to move objects within all its interior, but Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved within four cubits only’? — This is no difficulty: He does not uphold the principle in respect of four walls only but in respect of three walls he does. Does not the first difficulty, at any rate, remain? — As at the school of Rab it was explained in the name of Rab, ‘This is a case of a house whose breaches, for instance, occurred in a corner and whose ceiling was in a slanting position’, so here also it may be explained: This is a case of a house whose breaches, for instance, occurred in a corner and whose ceiling presented a four sided breach. Samuel does not give the same explanation as Rab since it was not stated that the ceiling was slanting. Rab, on the other hand, does not give the same explanation as Samuel, for in that case the house would in this respect have been in the same legal position as an exedra, and Rab follows his view that it is permitted to move objects in all the interior of an exedra, for it was stated: If an exedra, was situated in a valley, Rab ruled, it is permitted to move objects within all its interior; but Samuel ruled: Objects may be moved within four cubits only. Rab ruled that it was permitted to move objects in all its interior because we apply the principle: The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up. But Samuel ruled that objects might be moved within four cubits only because we do not apply the principle: The edge of the ceiling descends and closes up. [Where a breach was not wider than] ten cubits there is no divergence of opinion between them. They only differ where [the breach was] wider than ten cubits. Others read: Where it was wider than ten cubits there is no divergence of opinion between them, and they only differ [where it was not wider than] ten cubits. With reference, however, to Rab Judah's ruling
—