1 What, [however, is the law where these are] reversed? — Come and hear what was taught: [‘A cross-beam spanning the] entrance [to a blind alley] at a height of more than twenty cubits should be lowered but if [the entrance] had the shape of a doorway there is no need to lower it’. What [about the effectiveness of] a cornice in respect of its width? — Come and hear what was taught: ‘[A cross-beam spanning the] entrance [to a build alley] at a height of more than twenty cubits should be lowered, and [an entrance] that is wider than ten cubits should be reduced [in width], but if it had the shape of a doorway, there is no need to reduce [the height of the beam] and if it ‘has a cornice there is no need to reduce’. Does not this refer to the last clause? No; [it may refer] to the first clause. Rab Judah taught Hiyya b. Rab in the presence of Rab: It is not necessary to reduce [its width]. Teach him, [Rab] said to him, ‘It is necessary to reduce it’. Said R. Joseph: From the words of our Master we may infer that a courtyard the greatest part [of the walls] of which consists of doors and windows cannot be converted into a permitted domain by [the construction] of the shape of a doorway. What is the reason? Since [an entrance] wider than ten cubits causes the prohibition of an alley and a breach [in a wall] that is larger than its standing [portions] causes the prohibition of a courtyard [the two may be compared]: As [an opening that is] wider than ten cubits, which causes the prohibition of an alley cannot be ritually rectified by means of the shape of a doorway, so also a [wall] the breach in which is larger than its standing [portions], which causes the prohibition of a courtyard, cannot be ritually rectified by means of the shape of a doorway. — [This, however, is no proper analogy, for the shape of a doorway] may well [be ineffective in the case of an opening] wider than ten cubits, which causes the prohibition of an alley, since it cannot effect permissibility in the case of enclosures of wells, in accordance with the views of R. Meir; but how could you apply [this restriction] to the case where a breach [in a wall] is larger than its standing portions, though it causes the prohibition of a courtyard, when this was permitted in respect of enclosures of wells in accordance with the opinion of all? May it be suggested [that the following] provides support to his view? [It was taught: The space enclosed by] such walls as consist mostly of doors and windows is permitted, provided the standing portions exceed the gaps? — [You say:] ‘As consist mostly’! Is this conceivable? — Rather read: ‘[The space] in which there were many doors and windows [is permitted] provided the standing portions exceed the gaps? — Said R. Kahana: That may have been taught in respect of Semitic doors. What is meant by ‘Semitic doors’? — R. Rehumi and R. Joseph differ on this point. One explains: [Doors] that have no [proper] side-posts, and the other explains: Such as have no lintel. R. Johanan also holds the same view as Rab. For Rabin son of R. Adda stated in the name of R. Isaac: It once happened that a man of the valley of Beth Hiwartan drove four poles in the four corners of his field and stretched across [each two of] them a rod, and when the case was submitted to the Sages they allowed him [its use] in respect of kil'ayim. And [in connection with this statement] Resh Lakish remarked: As they allowed him [its use] In respect of kil'ayim so have they allowed it to him in respect of the Sabbath, but R. Johanan said: Only in respect of kil'ayim did they allow him [its use]; they did not allow it in respect of the Sabbath. Now [what is the form, of the construction] with which we are here dealing? If it be suggested [that it is one where the rods were attached] sideways, surely [it could be objected] did not R. Hisda rule that the shape of a doorway that was made [with the cross-reed attached] sideways is of no validity? Consequently [it must be a case where the reeds were placed] on top of the poles. Now, how [far were the poles from one another]? If [it be suggested] less than ten cubits, [the difficulty arises] would R. Johanan in such a case have said that in respect of the Sabbath there is no validity [in such a door]? Must it not [consequently be conceded that the distance was] greater than ten cubits? — No; [the distance] in fact [might have been] within that of ten cubits, and [the reeds might have been attached] sideways, but the principle on which they differ is that laid down by R. Hisda. An incongruity, however, was pointed out between two rulings of R. Johanan as well as between two rulings of Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish stated in the name of R. Judah son of R. Hanina:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐ
2 A plait [of rods trained on poles] is a valid partition in respect of kil'ayim but not in respect of the Sabbath; and R. Johanan stated: As it has no [validity as regards] partitions in connection with the Sabbath, so it has no [validity in respect of] partitions in connection with kil'ayim. One might well concede that there is really no incongruity between the two rulings of Resh Lakish, since the former might be his own while the latter might be that of his Master; but do not the two rulings of R. Johanan represent a contradiction? [Still] if you were to concede that there [the rods were placed] on the tops of the poles while here [the plait was trained] on the sides [all would be] well. If, however, you maintain that in both cases [the rods were attached] sideways, what can be said [in explanation]? — The fact is that it may be maintained that both cases refer [to rods attached] sideways, but there [the distance between the poles was] within that of ten cubits while here it exceeded that of ten cubits. But whence is it derived that we draw a distinction between [distances of] ten, and more than ten cubits? — [From the following] which R. Johanan said to Resh Lakish. ‘Did it not so happen [the former said to the latter] that R. Joshua went to R. Johanan b. Nuri to study the Torah; and, though he was well versed in the laws of kil'ayim, on finding that [the Master] was sitting among the trees, he stretched a rod from one tree to another and said to him: Master, if vines were growing on one side of the rod would it be permitted to sow corn on the other? [And the Master] told him: [If the distance between the trees is] within that of ten cubits it is permitted but if it exceeds ten cubits it is forbidden?’ Now, what was the case under discussion? If it be suggested: [one where the rod was placed] on the tops of the trees, [why was it ruled, it could be objected, that] ‘if it exceeds ten cubits it is forbidden’ seeing that it was taught: If forked reeds were there and a plait was made above them it is permitted even [if the distance between the reeds] exceeded that of ten cubits? Must it not consequently [be one where the rod was attached] sideways? And yet he told him, ‘[If the distance between the trees is] within that of ten cubits it is permitted but if it exceeds ten cubits it is forbidden’ — This proves it. [Reverting to] the [previous] text, R. Hisda ruled that the shape of a doorway that was made [with the cross-reed attached] sideways is of no validity. R. Hisda further ruled: The shape of the doorway of which they spoke must be sufficiently strong to support a door [made of the lightest material] even if only a door of straw. Resh Lakish ruled in the name of R. Jannai: The shape of a doorway must have a mark for a hinge. What [is meant by] ‘a mark for a hinge’? R. Awia replied: A loop. R. Aha the son of R. Awia, met the students of R. Ashi. He asked them, ‘Did the master say anything in respect of the shape of a doorway?’ ‘He,’ they replied to him, ‘said nothing at all [about it]’. It was taught: The shape of a doorway of which they spoke must have a reed on either side and one reed above. Must [the side-reeds] touch [the upper one] or not? — R. Nahman replied: They need not touch it, and R. Shesheth replied: They must touch it. R. Nahman proceeded to give a practical decision in the house of the Exilarch in agreement with his traditional ruling. Said R. Shesheth to his attendant, R. Gadda, ‘Go pull them out and throw them away’. He accordingly went there, pulled them out and threw them away. He was found, however, by the people of the Exilarch's household and they incarcerated him. R. Shesheth thereupon followed him and, standing at the door [of his place of confinement], called out to him, ‘Gadda, come out’, and he safely came out. R. Shesheth met Rabbah b. Samuel and asked him, ‘Has the Master learnt anything about the shape of a doorway?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied, ‘we have learnt: An arched [doorway], said R. Meir, is subject to the obligation of a mezuzah but the Sages exempt it. They agree, however, that if its lower section was ten handbreadths in height [the doorway] is subject to the obligation. And Abaye stated: All agree that, if [an arched doorway] was ten handbreadths high but its lower section was less than three [handbreadths in height], or even if the lower section was three [handbreadths high] but its total height was less than ten handbreadths, the doorway is not valid at all. They only differ where [the height of] its lower section was three handbreadths, its total height was ten cubits and the width [of its arch] was less than four handbreadths, but [its sides are wide enough for the arch] to be cut to a width of four handbreadths. R. Meir is of the opinion [that the sides are regarded as] cut for the purpose of completing [the prescribed width], while the Rabbis maintain [that they are not regarded as] cut for the purpose of completing [the prescribed width]. ‘If you meet the people of the Exilarch's house’, he said to him, ‘tell them nothing whatever of the Baraitha about the arched doorway’. MISHNAH. THE RENDERING OF AN ALLEY FIT [FOR THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS WITHIN IT ON THE SABBATH], BETH SHAMMAI RULED, REQUIRES A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM, AND BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. R. ELIEZER RULED: TWO SIDE-POSTS. A DISCIPLE IN THE NAME OF R. ISHMAEL, STATED IN THE PRESENCE OF R. AKIBA: BETH SHAMMAI AND BETH HILLEL DID NOT DIFFER ON [THE RULING THAT] AN ALLEY THAT WAS LESS THAN FOUR CUBITS [IN WIDTH] MAY BE CONVERTED INTO A PERMITTED DOMAIN EITHER BY MEANS OF A SIDE-POST OR BY THAT OF A BEAM. THEY ONLY DIFFER IN THE CASE OF ONE THAT WAS WIDER THAN FOUR, AND NARROWER THAN TEN CUBITS, IN RESPECT OF WHICH BETH SHAMMAI RULED: BOTH A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM [ARE REQUIRED] WHILE BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. R. AKIBA MAINTAINED THAT THEY DIFFERED IN BOTH CASES. GEMARA. In accordance with whose [view was our Mishnah taught]? Is it in agreement neither with the view of Hanania nor with that of the first Tanna? — Rab Judah replied: It is this that was meant: How is a blind ALLEY RENDERED FIT [FOR THE MOVEMENT OF OBJECTS WITHIN IT ON THE SABBATH]? BETH SHAMMAI RULED: [By the construction of] A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM AND BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. BETH SHAMMAI RULED: A SIDE-POST AND A BEAM. Does this then imply that Beth Shammai hold the opinion that Pentateuchally four partitions [and no less, constitute a private domain]? — No; as regards throwing [into it from a public domain] one incurs guilt even if [the former had] only three walls, [but in respect] of moving [objects within it] only where there are four walls [is this permitted]. BETH HILLEL RULED: EITHER A SIDE-POST OR A BEAM. Does this imply that Beth Hillel hold the view that Pentateuchally three partitions [are required to constitute a private domain]? No; as regards throwing [from a public domain into it] one incurs guilt even if [the former had] only two walls, [but in respect] of moving [objects within it], only where there are three walls [is this permitted]. R. ELIEZER RULED: TWO SIDE-POSTS. A question was raised: Does R. Eliezer mean two side-posts and a beam or is it likely that he means two side-posts without a beam? — Come and hear: It once happened that R. Eliezer went to his disciple, R. Jose b. Perida,ᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗᵇᵘᵇᵛᵇʷᵇˣᵇʸᵇᶻᶜᵃᶜᵇᶜᶜᶜᵈᶜᵉᶜᶠᶜᵍᶜʰᶜⁱᶜʲᶜᵏᶜˡᶜᵐ