[if it was made] in a side [wall, a gap] of ten cubits is permissible, [but if it was] in the front [wall, only a gap] of four cubits is allowed. Wherein, however, does a side wall differ [from the front wall] that [in the case of the former] a gap of ten cubits is allowed? [Presumably] because one can say [that the gap] is an entrance, [but then] could not one say also [when it is made] in the front wall that it is an entrance? R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: [The ruling applies to a case,] for instance, where the breach was made in a corner, since people do not make an entrance in a corner. R. Huna, however, ruled: The one as well as the other [is subject to the limit] of four cubits. And so, in fact, did R. Huna say to R. Hanan b. Raba: ‘Do not dispute with me, for Rab once happened to visit Damharia and actually gave a decision in accordance with my view’. ‘Rab’, the other replied, ‘found an open field and put a fence round it’. R. Nahman b. Isaac remarked: Reason is on the side of R. Huna. For it was stated: ‘A crooked alley, Rab ruled, is subject to the same law as one that is open on both sides, but Samuel ruled: ‘It is subject to the law of a closed one’. Now with what case are we dealing here? If it be suggested: with [one where the passage through the bend is] wider than ten cubits, would Samuel in such circumstances [it may be retorted] rule that ‘it is subject to the law of a closed one’? Consequently [it must be conceded that the width of the communication passage is] within [the limit of] ten cubits, and yet Rab ruled that it ‘is subject to the same laws as one that is open on both sides’ — From which it definitely follows that [the permissibility of] a breach in a side [wall] of an alley is limited to four cubits. And R. Hamn b. Raba? — There it is different, since many people make their way through it. [This] then implies that R. Huna is of the opinion that even if not many people make their way through it [a breach of no more than four cubits is allowed], but why should this be different from the ruling of R. Ammi and R. Assi? — There [it is a case] where ridges [of the broken wall] remained, but here, [it is one] where there were no ridges. Our Rabbis taught: How is a road through a public domain to be provided with an ‘erub? The shape of a doorway is made at one end, and a side-post and cross-beam, [are fixed] at the other. Hanania, however, stated: Beth Shammai ruled: A door is made at the one end as well as at the other and it must be locked as soon as one goes out or enters, and Beth Hillel ruled: A door is made at one end and a side-post and a cross-beam at the other. May an ‘erub, however, be lawfully provided for a public domain? Was it not in fact taught, ‘A more [lenient rule] than this did R. Judah lay down:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰ