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