for if he wishes, he can tear the seam and take the money. The Talmud answers: Here, it is referring to long metal strips. As long as the entire purse is not in the public domain, he did not acquire any of the long strips, and he is not liable for theft. The Talmud asks: And since the purse has laces to close its opening, to be liable for theft it is sufficient that he carry it out so that its mouth is in the public domain, as he can untie the straps and remove the contents of the purse. And since the laces remain bound inside the private domain, he is not yet liable for violating the prohibition of Shabbat. The Talmud answers: This is referring to a case where the purse does not have laces. And if you wish, say instead that it is referring to a case where it has laces, and the laces are wound around the purse.
וכן אמר רבא: לא שנו אלא בקופה מלאה קישואין ודלועין, אבל מלאה חרדל — חייב. אלמא קסבר אגד כלי לא שמיה אגד. אביי אמר: אפילו מלאה חרדל — פטור, אלמא קסבר אגד כלי שמיה אגד. קם אביי בשיטתיה דרבא, קם רבא בשיטתיה דאביי, ורמי דאביי אדאביי, ורמי דרבא אדרבא.
There is a dispute between Abaye and Rava that parallels the dispute between Ḥizkiya and R' Yoḥanan. And, so too, Rava said: They only taught in the Mishnah that one is exempt with regard to carrying out a basket full of cucumbers and gourds. However, for carrying out a basket full of mustard seeds, he is liable. Apparently, Rava holds: fusion of several objects in a single vessel is not considered fusion. Abaye said: Even if the basket is full of mustard seeds, he is exempt. Apparently, Abaye holds: Fusion of several objects in a single vessel is considered fusion. The Talmud comments: Abaye later assumed the opinion of Rava, and Rava assumed the opinion of Abaye. And a contradiction is raised between one statement of Abaye and another statement of Abaye; and a contradiction is raised between one statement of Rava and another statement of Rava.