Reference for Eruvin 45:16
רבי עקיבא אומר אפילו אין בה אחד מכל אלו מטלטלין בתוכה:
used the expression of FURTHER? If it be suggested: Because he taught one restrictive ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the preceding Mishnah, that only a public well may be provided with strips of wood (supra 22b) .');"><sup>24</sup></span> and then he taught the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first ruling in our Mishnah which restricts the permitted space within an enclosure, though set up for dwelling purposes, to seventy and two-thirds cubits square.');"><sup>25</sup></span> he therefore used the expression of FURTHER, surely [it could be retorted] did not R'Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Judah b. Il'a.');"><sup>26</sup></span> teach one restrictive ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That only an area of two beth se'ah is permitted (supra 18a ab init.) .');"><sup>27</sup></span> and then he taught another one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a public road through an enclosure round a well must be diverted to one of the sides (supra 22a) .');"><sup>28</sup></span> and yet he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna of the Mishnah, supra 22a.');"><sup>29</sup></span> did not use the expression 'further'? - There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rulings of R. Judah b. Il'a.');"><sup>30</sup></span> the Rabbis interrupted him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their statement (supra 18a ab init.) intervenes between R. Judah's two rulings.');"><sup>31</sup></span> but here the Rabbis did not interrupt him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah b. Baba's rulings immediately follow one another in the Mishnah (cf. supra 22b ad fin. and the first clause of our Mishnah) .');"><sup>32</sup></span> [Is it then suggested] that wherever the Rabbis interrupted one's statements the expression of 'further'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the two statements have a logical connection.');"><sup>33</sup></span> not used? Surely, [it may be objected] was not R'Eliezer, in the case of a law about sukkah, interrupted by the Rabbis and the expression 'further' was nevertheless used?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Suk. 27a.');"><sup>34</sup></span> There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rulings of R. Eliezer about sukkah.');"><sup>35</sup></span> they interrupted him with [a ruling on] his own subject but here they made the interruption with another subject.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah spoke of wells' enclosures and they spoke of a garden, a karpaf and the like. After such an interruption the expression of 'further' is obviously unsuitable.');"><sup>36</sup></span> R'AKIBA RULED: EVEN IF IT CONTAINED NONE OF THESE IT IS PERMITTED TO MOVE OBJECTS WITHIN IT.