1R. Johanan, however, ruled: The tenants on either side may carry up their food and eat it there. We learned, THE TENANTS ON EITHER SIDE MAY CLIMB UP AND EAT THERE. Does not this imply that they may only CLIMB UP but not ‘carry up’? — It is this that was meant: If the top consists of an area of four handbreadths by four they MAY CLIMB UP but may not carry up, and if it consists of less than four by four they may also carry up. R. Johanan follows a principle of his. For when R. Dimi came he stated in the name of R. Johanan: On a place whose area is less than four handbreadths by four it is permissible both for the people of the public domain and for those of the private domain to rearrange their burdens, provided they do not exchange them. Does not Rab, however, uphold the tradition of R. Dimi? — If it were a case of Pentateuchal domains the law would have been so indeed, but here we are dealing with Rabbinical domains, and the Sages have applied to their enactments higher restrictions than to those of the Torah. Rabbah son of R. Huna citing R. Nahman ruled: A wall between two courtyards, one of whose sides was ten handbreadths high and the other one of which was on a level with the ground, is assigned to that courtyard with the floor of which it is level, because the use of it is convenient to the latter but inconvenient to the former, and any place the use of which is convenient to one and inconvenient to another, is to be assigned to the one to whom its use is convenient. R. Shezbi laid down in the name of R. Nahman: A trench between two courtyards, whose one side was ten handbreadths deep and whose other side was on a level with the floor, is assigned to that courtyard with whose floor it is on a level, because its use is convenient to the latter but inconvenient to the former etc. And [the enunciation of] both cases was required. For if we had been informed only of the law of the wall it might have been assumed to apply to it alone, because people make use of a raised structure, but not to a trench, since people do not make use of a depression in the ground. And if we had been informed of the law of the trench only it might have been assumed to apply to it alone, because its use involves no anxiety but not to a wall the use of which involves anxiety. Hence the enunciation of both was necessary. If the height of the wall was reduced, it is permitted to use all the wall if the reduction extended to four handbreadths; otherwise, one may use only that part that was parallel to the reduction. What, however, is your view? If it is that the reduction is effective, one should be permitted to have the use of all the wall, and if it is not effective, even the use of the part that was parallel to the reduction should not be permitted! — Rabina replied: This is a case, for instance, where a section of its top has been pulled down. R. Yehiel ruled: If a bowl is inverted a valid reduction is thereby effected. But why? Is not the bowl an object that may be moved away on the Sabbath and that as such causes no reduction? — This is was required only in a case where the bowl was attached to the ground. But what matters it even if it was attached to the ground, seeing that it was taught: An unripe fruit that had been put into straw or a cake that had been put among coals may be taken out on the Sabbath if a part of it remained uncovered? — Here we are dealing with a case, for instance, where the bowl had rims. But what matters it even if it had rims, seeing that we learned: If a man buried turnips or radishes under a vine, leaving56ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈ
2some of the leaves uncovered, he need not fear the possible transgression of the laws of kil'ayim or of tithe or of the Sabbatical year, and they may be removed on the Sabbath? — This was required in that case only where a hoe or pickaxe is necessary. An Egyptian ladder effects no reduction but a Tyrian ladder does. What is to be understood by an ‘Egyptian ladder’? — At the school of R. Jannai it was explained: One that has less than four rungs. R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi: What is the reason why an Egyptian ladder effects no reduction? — Did you not hear, the other replied, what R. Aha b. Adda stated in the name of R. Hamnuna who had it from Rab: Because it is an object that may be moved about on the Sabbath and which, like all such objects, causes no reduction? — If so, should not the same ruling apply to a Tyrian ladder also? — In the latter case it is its weight that imparts to it a permanency of position. Abaye ruled: If a wall between two courtyards was ten handbreadths high, and one ladder four handbreadths wide was placed on the one side and another of the same width was placed on the other side, and there is less than a distance of three handbreadths between them, a valid reduction is effected, but if there was a distance of three handbreadths between them, no valid reduction is effected. This, however, applies only where the wall was less than four handbreadths thick but if it was four handbreadths thick the reduction is valid even if the ladders were far removed from one another. R. Bebai b. Abaye ruled: If one balcony was built above another balcony a valid reduction is thereby effected if either the lower one had an area of four handbreadths [by four handbreadths] or, where it was smaller, if the upper one had an area of four handbreadths and there was no space of three handbreadths between them. Similarly R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha ruled: A step-ladder effects a reduction if the length of the lower rung was four handbreadths or, where it was shorter, if the upper one was four handbreadths long and there was no space of three handbreadths between them. R. Nahman further stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha:ᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗᵇᵘᵇᵛᵇʷᵇˣᵇʸᵇᶻᶜᵃᶜᵇᶜᶜᶜᵈᶜᵉᶜᶠᶜᵍᶜʰᶜⁱ