According to our previous assumption, however, that [Rab and Samuel] are in disagreement irrespective of whether a joint ‘erub was made or not, on what principle do they differ where a joint ‘erub was made and on what principle do they differ where no such ‘erub was made? — Where no joint ‘erub was made they differ [on the question whether a gap] that has the appearance [of a door] from without but is even [with the walls] within [may be regarded as a door]; and where a joint ‘erub has been made they differ on a principle that underlies a statement of R. Joseph. For R. Joseph stated: This has been taught only [in respect of all alley] that terminated in the middle of the backyard but if it terminated at the side of the backyard [all movement of objects in the alley on the Sabbath is forbidden. Rabbah said: The statement [that termination] at the middle of a backyard is permitted, applies only [where the gaps were] not facing one another, but if they were facing one another [movement of objects in the alley on the Sabbath] is forbidden. R. Mesharsheya said: The statement [that where the gaps were] not facing one another [the use of the alley] is permitted, applies only to a backyard that belonged to many people, but [not to] a backyard of an individual who might sometimes reconsider [his attitude] towards it and build houses in it and the alley would thus be one that terminated at the sides of a backyard [in which the movement of objects on the Sabbath] is forbidden. Whence, however, is it inferred that a distinction is made between a backyard belonging to many people and one belonging to an individual? — From what Rabin b. R. Adda stated in the name of R. Isaac: It once occurred that one side of an alley terminated in the sea and the other terminated in a rubbish heap, and when the facts were submitted to Rabbi he neither permitted nor forbade [the movement of objects on the Sabbath] in that alley. [He did not declare it] forbidden because partitions in fact existed, [and he did not declare it] permitted since the possibility had to be considered that the rubbish heap might be removed or the sea might throw up alluvium. Now is it necessary to take into consideration the possibility that a rubbish heap might be removed? Have we not in fact learnt: ‘If a rubbish heap in a public domain was ten handbreadths high, objects from a window above it may be thrown on to it on the Sabbath’? Thus it clearly follows that a distinction is made between a public rubbish heap and a private one, and so here also a distinction may be made between a backyard that belonged to many people and one that belonged to one person. And what [was the view of] the Rabbis [on the question of the alley]? R. Joseph b. Abdimi replied: A Tanna taught that the Sages forbade it. R. Nahman stated: The halachah is in agreement with the ruling of the Sages. Some there are who say: R. Joseph b. Abdimi stated: A Tanna taught that the Sages permitted it, and R. Nahman said: The halachah is not in agreement with the ruling of the Sages. Meremar partitioned off Sura by means of nets, because, he said, the possibility must be considered that the sea might throw up alluvium. A certain crooked alley once existed at Sura [and the residents of one of its arms] folded up some matting and fixed it in its bend. This [arrangement], said R. Hisda, is neither in agreement with the view of Rab nor with that of Samuel. According to Rab, who ruled that the law of such [an alley] is the same as that of one that is open at both ends, [a structure in] the shape of a doorway is required; and [even] according to Samuel who ruled that it is subject to the law of a closed one [it must be understood that] his ruling applied only where a proper side-post [had been fixed], but such [matting], since the wind blows on it and throws it about, is useless. If a pin, however, was inserted therein and it was thus fastened [to the wall] it may be regarded as a proper partition. [Reverting to] the main text: ‘R. Jeremiah b. Abba laid down on the authority of Rab that if an alley was broken along its full [width] into a courtyard, and a breach was made in the courtyard [wall] over against it, the courtyard is ritually fit but the alley is forbidden.’ Said Rabbah b. ‘Ulla to R. Bebai b. Abaye, ‘Master, is not this ruling [one that already appeared in] a Mishnah of ours: [If the full width of a wall of] a small courtyard was broken down [so that the yard now fully opens out] into a large courtyard, [movement of objects on the Sabbath] is permitted in the large courtyard but forbidden in the small one because the gap is regarded as an entrance to the former’? — The other replied: If [our information had been derived] from there it might have been assumed that the ruling applied only where not many people tread, but that where many people tread even the courtyard also [is forbidden]. But did we not learn this also: A courtyard into which many people enter from one side and go out from the other [is deemed to be] a public domain in respect of levitical defilement and a private domain in respect of the Sabbath? — If [the ruling were to be derived] from there it might have been assumed to apply only where the gaps were not facing one another45ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢ