If a man had two houses on the two sides [respectively] of a public domain he may construct one side-post [on any of the houses] on one side and another on its other side or one cross-beam on the one side [of any of the houses] and another on its other side and then he may move things about in the space between them; but they said to him: A public domain cannot be provided with an ‘erub in such a manner’? And should you reply that it cannot be provided with an ‘erub ‘in such a manner’, but that it may be provided with one by means of doors, surely, [it can be retorted,] did not Rabbah b. Bar Hana state in the name of R. Johanan that Jerusalem, were ‘it not that its gates were closed at night, would have been subject to the restrictions of a public domain; and ‘Ulla too has stated that the city gateways of Mahuza, were it not for the fact that their doors were closed at night, would have been subject to the restriction of a public domain? — Rab Judah replied: It is this that was meant: How is an ‘erub to be provided for alleys that open out at both ends into a public domain? The shape of a doorway is made at one end and a side-post and cross-beam, at the other. It was stated: Rab said: The halachah is in agreement with the first Tanna, and Samuel said: The halachah is in agreement with Hanania. The question was raised: According to Hanania's ruling in the name of Beth Hillel , is it necessary to lock [the single door of the alley] or not? — Come and hear what Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: It is not necessary to lock it; and so also said R. Mattenah in the name of Samuel: It is not necessary to lock it. Some there are who read: R. Mattenah stated: ‘I myself was once concerned in such a case and Samuel told me that there was no need to lock [the door]’. R. ‘Anan was asked: Is it necessary to lock [the door of an alley] or not? He replied: Come and see the [alley] gateways of Nehardea which are half buried in the ground and Mar Samuel continually passes through [these gates] and yet never raised any objection. R. Kahana said: Those were [partially] closed. When R. Nahman came he ordered the earth to be removed. Does this then imply that R. Nahman is of the opinion that [alley doors] must be locked? — No; provided they are capable of being closed [Sabbatic ritual fitness is effected] even though they are not actually closed. There was a certain crooked alley at Nehardea upon which were imposed the restriction of Rab and the restriction of Samuel, and doors were ordered [to be fixed at its bends]. ‘The restriction of Rab’ who ruled that [a crooked alley] ‘is subject to the same law as one that is open on both sides’; but [as] Rab in fact stated: ‘The halachah is in agreement with the first Tanna’ [the second restriction was applied] in agreement with Samuel who stated: ‘The halachah is in agreement with Hanania’. And [as] Samuel in fact ruled [that a crooked alley] ‘is subject to the law of a closed one’ [the first restriction was applied] in agreement with Rab who ruled that ‘[a crooked alley] is subject to the same law as one that is open at both ends’. Do we, however, adopt the restrictions of two [authorities who differ from one another]? Was it not in fact taught: The halachah is always in agreement with Beth Hillel, but he who wishes to act in agreement with the ruling of Beth Shammai may do so, and he who wishes to act according to the view of Beth Hillel may do so; [he, however, who adopts] the more lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and the more lenient rulings of Beth Hillel is a wicked man, [while of the man who adopts] the restrictions of Beth Shammai and the restrictions of Beth Hillel Scripture said: But the fool walketh in darkness. A man should rather act either in agreement with Beth Shammai both in their lenient and their restrictive rulings or in agreement with Beth Hillel in both their lenient and their restrictive rulings? (Now is not this self-contradictory? You said: ‘The halachah is always in agreement with Beth Hillel, and then you [proceed to] say: ‘But he who wishes to act in agreement with the ruling of Beth Shammai may do so’! — This is no difficulty; the latter statement [was made] before [the issue of] the bath kol while the former [was made] after [the issue of] the bath kol. And if you prefer I might reply: Both the former and the latter statements [were made] after [the issue of] the bath kolᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿ