Reference for Bava Batra 40:16
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ש רישא ומ"ש סיפא אמר אביי סיפא אתאן לחצר אחרת א"ל רבא אי הכי ליתני חצר אחרת מותר אלא אמר רבא
what is the ruling? — These questions must stand over. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua asked: If he stores there figs and pomegranates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does this count as a storeroom, or do we call a storeroom only one where corn, wine and oil are kept? ');"><sup>25</sup></span> what is the ruling? — This question also must stand over. IN POINT OF FACT THE RABBIS PERMITTED IN THE CASE OF WINE etc. A Tanna taught: They declared it permissible in the case of wine because [the smoke]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi; but according to Tosaf. (18a, s. v. [H] the heat is referred to, not the smoke. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> improves it, while they forbade a cowshed because [the smell] spoils it. R. Joseph said: Our wine is adversely affected even by the smoke of a lamp. R. Shesheth said: Cropped corn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Corn cut before it has grown to any height and used for fodder. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> is on the same footing as a cowshed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it emits an evil smell which injures the wine stored above. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN DESIRES TO OPEN A SHOP IN A COURTYARD, HIS NEIGHBOUR MAY PRESENT HIM ON THE GROUND THAT HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SLEEP THROUGH THE NOISE OF PEOPLE COMING AND GOING. A MAN, HOWEVER, MAY MAKE ARTICLES IN THE COURTYARD TO TAKE OUT AND SELL IN THE MARKET, AND HIS NEIGHBOUR CANNOT PREVENT HIM ON THE GROUND THAT HE CANNOT SLEEP FROM THE NOISE OF THE HAMMER OR OF THE MILL-STONES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is one among many instances of the preference shown by the Rabbis to industry over trade. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> OR OF THE CHILDREN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would naturally refer to the noise made by children coming to buy from the shop. and so would seem to contradict the first clause. Hence the question of the Gemara which immediately follows. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Why is the rule in the second case not the same as in the first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. preceding note. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — Abaye replied: The second clause must refer to [a man in] another courtyard. Said Raba to him: If that is so, the Mishnah should say. 'In another courtyard it is permissible'? — No, said Raba: