a cross-beam of the width of four handbreadths effects permissibility in the case of water, does not the bucket swing to the other side and thus carry up the water from it? — The Rabbis have ascertained that a bucket does not swing beyond four handbreadths. But are not the waters mixed under the cross-beam at least? — The fact is that the Sages have relaxed the law in respect of water; as R. Tabla, when he enquired of Rab whether a suspended partition can convert a ruin into a permitted domain, was told: A suspended partition effects permissibility of use in the case of water alone since in the case of water did the Sages relax the law. R. JUDAH OBSERVED: THE PARTITION COULD NOT BE. Rabbah b. Bar Hana citing R. Johanan explained: R. Judah made his submission on the lines of the view of R. Jose who holds: A suspended partition effects permissibility even on dry land. For we learned: If its walls were suspended from above in a downward direction [the sukkah] is invalid, if they were removed three handbreadths from the ground; but if they are raised in an upward direction the sukkah is valid if they were ten handbreadths high. R. Jose ruled: As walls of the height of ten handbreadths are valid if they rise from the ground upwards so are those that stretch from above downwards valid if their height is ten handbreadths. This, however, is not correct; neither does R. Judah hold the view of R. Jose nor does R. Jose hold that of R. Judah. R. Judah does not hold the view of R. Jose, since the former maintained his view only in respect of ‘erubs of courtyards which are merely a Rabbinical institution but not in that of sukkah which is Pentateuchal. Nor does R. Jose hold the view of R. Judah, since the former maintained his view only in respect of sukkah which is merely a positive commandment but not in that of Sabbath which involves a prohibition punishable by stoning. And should you ask, ‘In agreement with whose view was that incident at Sepphoris decided upon?’ It was not decided upon [it might be explained,] in agreement with the view of R. Jose but with that of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose. When R. Dimi came he related: The people once forgot to bring a scroll of the Torah on the Sabbath eve and on the following day they spread a sheet upon the pillars, brought the scroll of the Torah and read from it. ‘They spread!’ But is this permitted ab initio seeing that all agree that not even a temporary tent may be put tip on the Sabbath? The fact is that they found sheets spread upon the pillars and so they brought the scroll of the Torah and read from it. Rabbah observed: R. Judah and R. Hananya b. Akabya have said practically the same thing. As to R. Judah there is the ruling just mentioned. As to R. Hananya b. Akabya, it was taught: R. Hananya b. Akabya ruled: In a balcony that has an area of four cubits by four cubits42ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖ