Parallel
עירובין 5:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
is less than four cubits [in width] it may be regarded as a side-post and no other post is required to effect the ritual fitness of the alley, [but if it is] four cubits [wide] it is deemed to be [a part of the structure of the] alley, and another post is required to effect its ritual fitness’. Where, however, does one put up that ‘[other] post’? If it be attached to the projection, would not one be merely adding to it? — R. Papa replied: One puts it upon the other side. R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: It may even be maintained that it is attached to the projection but it is made bigger or smaller. R. Huna son of R. Joshua stated: This has been said only in respect of [an entrance to] an alley [that was no less than] eight [cubits in width], but where [the entrance to] an alley is seven [cubits wide], Sabbatic ritual fitness is effected because the portion built-up is longer than the breach. [This ruling is inferred] a minori ad majus from [the law relating to] a courtyard: If a courtyard [the movement of objects in which on the Sabbath] cannot be rendered permissible by means of a side-post and a cross-beam is nevertheless deemed fit [for such movements] where its built-up portions are larger than its broken [parts], how much more then should an alley, where [such movements] may be rendered permissible by means of a side-post and a crossbeam, be deemed fit when the built-up portion [across its entrance] is larger than its open [part]. But is not a courtyard, however, different [from an alley] since a gap of ten cubits [was also allowed in it]? Then how can one apply [the same ruling] to an alley where only a gap of four cubits [was allowed]? — R. Huna son of R. Joshua holds the opinion that in an alley also a gap of ten cubits is allowed. But whose view has been under discussion? [Obviously that] of R. Huna; and R. Huna, surely, is of the opinion, [is he not,] that only a gap of four cubits [is allowed in an alley]? R. Huna son of R. Joshua only stated his own view. R. Ashi said: It may be maintained that even [where the entrance to] an alley was eight [cubits wide] no side-post is required, since, whatever your assumption [might be, the ritual fitness of the alley cannot be affected]. For if the built portion is bigger [the movement of objects in the alley would] be permitted by [reason of the fact that] the built portion [across the entrance] is larger than the opening; and if the open section is bigger [the projection] might be regarded as a side-post. What [other possible objection can] you submit? That both might be exactly alike? [But such an assumption] would amount to an uncertainty in respect of a Rabbinical enactment, and in any uncertainty appertaining to a Rabbinical enactment the more lenient course is followed. R. Hanin b. Raba stated in the name of Rab: As to a breach that was made in an alley
—