מחלוקת שיש בה כדי חלוקה אבל אין בה כדי חלוקה דברי הכל מותר

The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis is with regard to a courtyard where there is sufficient area in the courtyard for it to be divided into four square cubits for each partner, so each can be said to have a real portion that can be forbidden to the other. But if there is not sufficient area in it to be divided, everyone agrees that it is permitted to benefit from it, since the entire courtyard is viewed as belonging to both of them and each one can say that he is entering his own portion.

אמר ליה רב יוסף הרי בית הכנסת דכמי שאין בו כדי חלוקה דמי ותנן שניהן אסורין בדבר של אותה העיר

Rav Yosef said to Rabba: A synagogue belongs to the entire public and is therefore considered like a courtyard in which there is not sufficient area in it to be divided, and we learned in a mishna later in the chapter (48a) that with regard to two people who vow not to derive benefit from each other, both are prohibited from deriving benefit from an entity belonging to that city such as a synagogue. Evidently, the Rabbis prohibit deriving benefit even from such entities.

אלא אמר רב יוסף אמר זעירי מחלוקת שאין בה כדי חלוקה אבל יש בה כדי חלוקה דברי הכל אסור

Rather, Rav Yosef said: Ze’eiri must have said: The dispute holds where there is not sufficient area in the courtyard for it to be divided, but if there is sufficient area in it for it to be divided, everyone agrees that it is forbidden, since if either enters it he may be entering the other’s portion.

אמר רב הונא הלכה כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב וכן אמר רבי אלעזר הלכה כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב

Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. And so too, Rabbi Elazar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.

המודר הנאה מחבירו ויש לו שם מרחץ וכו׳ וכמה תפיסת יד אמר רב נחמן למחצה לשליש ולרביע אבל בבציר לא אביי אמר אפילו בבציר אסור היכי דמי דשרי דמקבל בטסקא

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another and he has a bathhouse or an olive press in the city that is leased out and available for public use, the forbidden party may use it only if the owner has forfeited his own right to profits from usage. The Gemara asks: And how much is this right to profits from usage that prohibits the subject of the vow from entering the bathhouse? Rav Naḥman said: In cases where he receives one half, one-third, or one-quarter of the profits of the bathhouse. But in a case where he receives less, it is not forbidden. Abaye said: Even in a case where he receives less, it is forbidden. If so, what are the circumstances in which it is permitted and he is not considered to have a right to profits from usage? Where he completely forfeits all profits and receives only an annual rental fee [taska] from a tenant.