Bava Batra

we are dealing here with a courtyard belonging to several joint owners, who do not object to [any one of their number] merely stationing things there, but who do object to [his making] a partition there.  But do they not object to things being merely stationed [there]? Have we not learnt that joint owners of a courtyard who have vowed to have no benefit from one another are forbidden to enter the courtyard?  — The truth is, said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, that we are dealing here with the open space behind the houses, where the owners do not mind things being stationed, but where they do mind a partition being made. R. papa said: In both cases [of the vow and of the beast etc.] we are dealing with a courtyard of joint owners, [and the reason why the rule is different is this:] Some owners are particular and some are not. Where the issue is a pecuniary one,  we take the more lenient view.  But where the issue is one of [breaking] a religious precept,  we take the more stringent view.  Rabina said: Indeed we assume in all cases that the joint owners are not particular,  and the rule [regarding vows] is based on the opinion of R. Eliezer, as it has been taught: R. Eliezer says, One who has vowed to receive no benefit from another is forbidden to take even a makeweight from him. R. Johanan said in the name of R. Bana'ah: Joint owners of a courtyard can stop one another from using the courtyard for any purpose save that of washing [clothes], since it is not fitting that the daughters of Israel should expose themselves to the public gaze while washing [clothes].  It is written: [The righteous one is] he that shutteth his eyes from looking upon evil,  and [commenting on this] R. Hiyya b. Abba said: This refers to a man who does not look at the women when they are washing [clothes]. How are we to understand this? If there is another road, then if [he does not take it] he is wicked.  If there is no other road, then how can he help himself? — We suppose that there is no other road, and even so it is incumbent on him to hide his eyes from them. R. Johanan asked R. Bana'ah  how [long] the under-garment  of a talmid hakam  [should be]. He replied: So long that his flesh should not be visible beneath  it. How [long should] the upper garment of a talmid hakam [be]? — So long that not more than a handbreadth of his under-garment should be visible underneath. How should the table of a talmid hakam be laid? — Two-thirds should be covered with a cloth and the other third should be uncovered for putting the dishes and vegetables on;  and the ring  should be outside.  But has it not been taught that the ring should be inside?  — There is no contradiction. In one case [we suppose] there is a child at the table,  and in the other that there is no child. Or if you like I can say [that in both cases [we suppose] there is no child, and still there is no contradiction: in one case [we suppose] there is a waiter at table  and in the other there is no waiter.  Or if you like I can say that in both cases [we suppose] there is a waiter, and still there is no contradiction; in the one case we refer to the day  and in the other to the night. The table of an 'am ha'arez  is like