Eruvin

is less than four cubits [in width] it may be regarded as a side-post1 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, and2 another post is required to effect its ritual fitness’.3 Where, however, does one put up that ‘[other] post’? If it be attached to the projection,4 would not one be merely adding to it?5 — R. Papa replied: One puts it upon the other side.6 R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: It may even be maintained that it7 is attached to the projection4 but it is made bigger8 or smaller.9 R. Huna son of R. Joshua stated: This10 has been said only in respect of [an entrance to] an alley [that was no less than] eight [cubits in width],11 but where [the entrance to] an alley is seven [cubits wide],12 Sabbatic ritual fitness is effected13 because14 the portion built-up15 is longer than the breach. [This ruling is inferred] a minori ad majus from [the law relating to] a courtyard: If a courtyard16 [the movement of objects in which on the Sabbath] cannot be rendered permissible17 by means of a side-post and a cross-beam18 is nevertheless deemed fit13 [for such movements] where its built-up portions15 are larger than its broken [parts],19 how much more then should an alley, where [such movements] may be rendered permissible by means of a side-post and a crossbeam,20 be deemed fit13 when21 the built-up portion15 [across its entrance] is larger than its open [part]. But is not a courtyard, however, different22 [from an alley]23 since a gap of ten cubits24 [was also allowed in it]?25 Then how can one apply26 [the same ruling] to an alley where only a gap of four cubits27 [was allowed]?28 — R. Huna son of R. Joshua holds the opinion that in an alley also a gap of ten cubits is allowed.24 But whose view has been under discussion?29 [Obviously that] of R. Huna;30 and R. Huna, surely, is of the opinion, [is he not,] that only a gap of four cubits [is allowed in an alley]?31 R. Huna son of R. Joshua only stated his own view.32 R. Ashi said: It may be maintained that even [where the entrance to] an alley was eight [cubits wide] no side-post is required,33 since, whatever your assumption [might be, the ritual fitness of the alley cannot be affected]. For if the built portion is bigger34 [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 bigger35 [the projection]36 might be regarded as a side-post.37 What [other possible objection can] you submit? That both38 might be exactly alike?39 [But such an assumption] would amount to an uncertainty in respect of a Rabbinical enactment,40 and in any uncertainty appertaining to a Rabbinical enactment the more lenient course is followed. 41 R. Hanin b. Raba stated in the name of Rab: As to a breach that was made in an alley a proper wall. extension of the projection. the unbroken parts exceeds that of the gaps. as regards permissibility of movement where the built portion is larger than the gap. How then (cf. supra note 14) could a law relating to an alley be inferred from one relating to a courtyard? disagreed with it on the strength of the argument he advanced in the case of one of the width of seven. represented a higher figure, and the remaining space was in fact less than four cubits in width. larger than the gap which is also four cubits wide.