Bava Batra

it carries with it only four cubits in front of his door. R. Huna said: An exedra  does not carry with it four cubits. For why are the four cubits ordinarily allowed? To provide space for the owner to unload his animals. If there is an exedra he can go into it and unload there. R. Shesheth raised an objection [to this from the following]: 'Gates of exedras equally with gates of houses carry with them four cubits? — That was taught in reference to the exedra of a school-house. That the gate of the exedra of a schoolhouse carries with it four cubits is obvious, is it not, since it is a proper room?  — We should say, therefore, [that it was taught in reference to a] Roman exedra. Our Rabbis taught: A lodge,  an exedra, and a balcony  carry with them four cubits. If there are five rooms opening on to the balcony, they carry with them only four cubits between them. R. Johanan inquired of R. Jannai whether a hen-coop  carried with it four cubits or not. He replied: Why are the four cubits ordinarily allowed? — To provide room for a man to unload his animal. Here the fowls can clamber up the wall to get out and clamber down the wall to get in. Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If a room is half roofed over and half unroofed, has it four cubits or not? He replied: It has not four cubits. If the roofing is over the inner part,  this goes without saying, since it is possible for him to go into the room and unload.  But even if the roofing is over the outer part, it is still possible for him to go right through and unload [under the open part]. R. Huna inquired of R. Ammi: If a man residing in one alleyway desires to open  a door on to another alley-way,  can the residents of this alley-way prevent him or not? He replied: They can prevent him. He then inquired: Are troops billeted per capita  or [on each one] according to the number of his doors? He replied: Per capita. It has been taught to the same effect: The dung in the courtyard is divided according to doors [belonging to each resident], billeted troops per capita. R. Huna said: If one of the residents of an alley-way desires to fence in the space facing his door,  the others can prevent him, on the ground that he forces more people into their space.  An objection was brought [against this from the following]: 'If five [adjoining] courtyards open on an alley-way, all [the inner ones] share with the outside one  the use [of the part facing it], but the outside one can use that part only. The remainder [the inner three] share with the second, but the second has the use only of the part facing itself and the outside one. Thus the innermost one has sole use of the part facing itself and shares with all the others [the use of the part facing them]'?  — There is a difference on this point between Tannaim, as it has been taught: If one of the residents of an alley-way desires to open a door on to another alley-way, the residents of that alley-way can prevent him. If, however, he only desires to reopen there one which had been closed, they cannot prevent him. This is the opinion of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If there are five adjoining courtyards opening on to an alleyway, they all share the use of it alike.  How does 'courtyards' come in here? — There is a lacuna in the text, and it should run as follows: [They cannot prevent him;] and similarly, if there are five courtyards opening on to an alley-way, all share with the outside one, but the outside one can use that part only etc. This is the opinion of Rabbi.  R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that if five courtyards open on to an alley-way, they all share the use of it. The Master has stated: If he desires to reopen a door which has been closed, the residents of the other courtyard cannot prevent him. Raba said: This rule was meant to apply only if he had not taken down the posts of the closed door,  but if he had done so, then the residents of the courtyard can prevent him reopening it. Abaye said to Raba: It has been taught in support of your opinion: