טז והיכא דלא שבת לא
16 maintains that it is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man's movements are consequently restricted to one Sabbath limit even though that limit overlapped with his original one. Hence ,htu Rabbah's recourse to a different answer from that of R. Shimi. (For another interpretation v. Rashi s.v. a.l.) .');"><sup>35</sup></span> Said Abaye to Rabbah: Are you not of the opinion that the overlapping of Sabbath limits is of significance? What if a man spent the Sabbath in a cavern<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two of whose opposite walls were sloping upwards towards one another and thereby reducing the length of the roof in which there were two doors, one at the side of either wall.');"><sup>36</sup></span> the length of the floor of whose interior was four thousand cubits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note.');"><sup>37</sup></span> and that of its roof was less than four thousand cubits?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note.');"><sup>37</sup></span> Would he not be able to move all along its roof and two thousand cubits beyond it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In either direction, from either door. If one door, for instance, was on the east side of the cavern and the other on its west side, the former would enable the man to move a distance of two thousand cubits from the east side of that door and another two thousand cubits from its west side, while the latter door would similarly enable him to move along equal distances from both its sides. But since the western limit of the eastern door overlaps along the roof with the eastern limit of the western door, the man is in consequence permitted to move along a distance of more than four thousand cubits, beginning in the east at a point two thousand cubits from the eastern door and extended along the roof to a point in the west two thousand cubits distant from the western door. If the two Sabbath limits, however, had not overlapped along the roof as would be the case where the roof of the cavern, like its floor, was four thousand cubits long, the man on leaving the eastern door would have been allowed to move to a limit of two thousand cubits in either direction but no further and a similar distance and no further if he left by the western door. How then could Rabbah maintain that overlapping is of no consequence?');"><sup>38</sup></span> - The other replied: Do you make no distinction between a case where<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in that of the cavern.');"><sup>39</sup></span> the man began to spend the Sabbath within the walls of his abode, while it was yet day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sabbath eve.');"><sup>40</sup></span> and one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case spoken of in our MISHNAH:');"><sup>41</sup></span> where he did not begin to spend the Sabbath between the walls<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of his second 'abode', the spot where the report was brought to him.');"><sup>42</sup></span> while it was yet day?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a distinction must, of course, be drawn. In the former case the two Sabbath limits are acquired simultaneously through the man's stay at the same time within the same cavern; hence the significance and value of the overlapping of the limits. In the latter case, however, when the man was within his original home he had no right whatever to his new Sabbath limit, and when he entered his new 'abode' and acquired the right to the new limit he had already quitted his original home. If, therefore, he is entitled to the latter he must, despite the overlapping, lose his right to the former and Vice versa.');"><sup>43</sup></span> - [You say] that where a man did not begin to spend the Sabbath [within the walls of an abode common to both limits overlapping of the limits is of] no consequence,