Shabbat

houses and courtyards  open into it, whereas here we have houses but not courtyards?  Then even if they are not combined, let us regard these houses as though closed [up],  so we have courtyards but not houses? — They can all renounce  their rights in favour of one.  But even so, we have a house, but not houses?  — It is possible that from morning until midday [they renounce their rights] in favour of one, and from midday until evening in favour of another.  But even so, when there is one there is not the other? — Rather said R. Ashi: What makes the courtyards interdicted [in respect of the alley]? [Of course] the houses; and these are non-existent. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: Not in respect of everything did R. Eliezer rule that the preliminary preparations of a precept  supersede the Sabbath, for lo! the two loaves  are an obligation of the day,  yet R. Eliezer did not learn them  from aught but a gezerah shawah.  For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: Whence do we know that the preliminaries of the two loaves supersede the Sabbath? 'Bringing' is stated in connection with the 'omer,  and 'bringing' is stated in connection with the two loaves:  just as with the 'bringing' stated in connection with the 'omer, its preliminaries  supersede the Sabbath, so with the 'bringing' stated in connection with the two loaves their preliminaries supersede the Sabbath. These must be free,  for if they are not free one can refute [this analogy]: as for the 'omer, [its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath] because if one finds it [already] cut,  he must cut [other sheaves]; will you [then] say [the same] in the case of the two loaves, seeing that if one finds [the wheat therefore] cut he does not cut [any more]? in truth they are indeed free. [For] consider: it is written, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest:  what is the purpose of 'from the day that ye brought'? Infer from it that it is in order to be free. Yet it is still free on one side only, while we know R. Eliezer to hold that where it is free on one side [only], we deduce, but refute? — 'Ye shall bring' is an extension. What is it to exclude?  Shall we say that it is to exclude the lulab,  surely it was taught: The lulab and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! Again, if it is to exclude sukkah,  — surely it was taught: The sukkah and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! Again, if it is to exclude unleavened bread, — surely it was taught: Unleavened bread and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! If, on the other hand, it is to exclude the shofar,  surely it was taught: The shofar and all its preliminaries supersede the Sabbath: this is R. Eliezer's view! — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: It is to exclude fringes for one's garment and mezuzah for one's door.  It was taught likewise: And they agree that if one inserts fringes in his garment or affixes a mezuzah to his door,  he is culpable. What is the reason? R. Joseph said: Because no [definite] time is appointed for them. Said Abaye to him, On the contrary, since no time is appointed for them,