אבל זה כנגד זה אימא לא
but if the two breaches are opposite one another, you might say that it is not considered a private domain even with regard to Shabbat. Rav therefore teaches us that even if the breaches of the courtyard line up with each other, carrying is nonetheless permitted therein.
ולרבה דאמר זה כנגד זה אסור הא דרב במאי מוקי לה בזה שלא כנגד זה תרתי למה לי
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And according to Rabba, who said that where the alleyway terminates in a backyard and the breaches are one opposite another, carrying is prohibited, how does he construe Rav’s case? Rav’s ruling must refer to a case where the breaches are not one opposite another, and if so, why do I need two rulings? The essence of this halakha, that the yard is deemed a private domain with regard to Shabbat, was already stated in the Tosefta, so why did Rav need to teach another halakha with regard to the very same issue?
אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי לזרוק אבל לטלטל אימא לא קא משמע לן
The Gemara explains that there is a novelty in Rav’s teaching: If one learned the halakha from there, the Tosefta, alone, I would have said that this ruling that the courtyard is a private domain with regard to Shabbat only applies to the issue of throwing, i.e., that one who throws from the public domain into this courtyard is liable, since it is considered a private domain according to Torah law. But to allow carrying in it like a proper private domain, you might say no, that the Sages forbade carrying in it, owing to the many people passing through it. Rav therefore teaches us that we are not concerned about this, and that carrying in the yard is permitted, even by rabbinic law.
איתמר מבוי העשוי כנדל אמר אביי עושה צורת הפתח לגדול והנך כולהו מישתרו בלחי וקורה
It was stated that the amora’im disagree about the following matter: With regard to an alleyway that is shaped like a centipede, i.e., a long alleyway that opens to the public domain but with a series of small alleyways branching off of it on both of its sides, all of which also open to the public domain, Abaye said: An opening in the form of a doorway is made for the large alleyway, and all the small alleyways are permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam.
אמר ליה רבא כמאן כשמואל דאמר תורתו כסתום למה ליה צורת הפתח ועוד הא ההוא מבוי עקום דהוה בנהרדעא וחשו לה לדרב
Rava said to him: According to whom do you state this halakha? Apparently according to the opinion of Shmuel, who said that the halakha of a crooked L-shaped alleyway is like that of an alleyway that is closed at one side. For in this case of an alleyway that is shaped like a centipede, when each of the smaller alleyways connects to the larger alleyway, it forms a crooked L-shaped alleyway. However, if the halakha is indeed in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, why is the form of a doorway needed for it? According to Shmuel, an alleyway of this kind only requires a side post or a cross beam at each end in order to permit carrying within it. And furthermore, with regard to the crooked, L-shaped alleyway in Neharde’a, which was Shmuel’s place of residence, didn’t they take into consideration the position of Rav? This indicates that the halakha in practice follows Rav as opposed to Shmuel.
אלא אמר רבא עושה צורת הפתח לכולהו להאי גיסא ואידך גיסא מישתרו בלחי וקורה
Rather, Rava said: An alleyway made like a centipede can be rendered fit for one to carry within it as follows: An opening in the form of a doorway is made for all of the small alleyways on this one of their sides, and the other side is permitted by means of a side post or a cross beam.
אמר רב כהנא בר תחליפא משמיה דרב כהנא בר מניומי משמיה דרב כהנא בר מלכיו משמיה דרב כהנא רביה דרב ואמרי לה רב כהנא בר מלכיו היינו רב כהנא רביה דרב מבוי שצידו אחד ארוך וצידו אחד קצר פחות מארבע אמות מניח את הקורה באלכסון ארבע אמות אינו מניח את הקורה אלא כנגד הקצר רבא אמר אחד זה ואחד זה אינו מניח את הקורה אלא כנגד הקצר
The Gemara considers a new case: Rav Kahana bar Taḥalifa said in the name of Rav Kahana bar Minyumi, who said in the name of Rav Kahana bar Malkiyu, who said in the name of Rav Kahana, the teacher of Rav; and some say that Rav Kahana bar Malkiyu is Rav Kahana, the teacher of Rav: With regard to an alleyway that opens into the public domain, its one side being long and its other side being short,i.e., one side juts out into the public domain more than the other, the halakha is as follows: If the difference in length between the two sides is less than four cubits, the cross beam is placed diagonally across the opening between the ends of the two walls of the alleyway. If, however, the difference is four cubits or more, the cross beam is placed straight across the alleyway at the end of the short side, i.e., at the end of the short side straight across toward the corresponding spot on the longer wall such that the beam is perpendicular to both walls, and no use may be made of the portion of the alleyway that lies beyond the cross beam. Rava disagreed and said: In both this case and in that case, the cross beam is placed straight across the alleyway at the end of the short side.
ואימא טעמא דידי ואימא טעמא דידהו אימא טעמא דידי קורה טעמא מאי משום היכר ובאלכסון לא הוי היכר
Rava added: I will state my reason, and I will state their reason. I will state my reason: What is the reason for a cross beam? To function as a conspicuous marker that separates the alleyway from the public domain, so that the residents of the alleyway should know the boundary within which carrying is permitted, and when placed diagonally, the cross beam is not sufficiently conspicuous. Those who see people carrying in the section extending past the short side will think that one is generally permitted to carry in a public domain.
ואימא טעמא דידהו קורה משום מאי משום מחיצה ובאלכסון נמי הוי מחיצה
I will state their reason as well: What is the reason for a cross beam? To function as a partition, that is to say, the cross beam is considered as though it descended to the ground, creating a fourth wall for the alleyway. Hence, even when placed diagonally, it is considered a partition.
אמר רב כהנא הואיל ושמעתתא דכהני היא אימא בה מילתא הא דאמרת מניח הקורה באלכסון לא אמרן אלא שאין באלכסונו יותר מעשר אבל יש באלכסונו יותר מעשר דברי הכל אינו מניח אלא כנגד הקצר
Rav Kahana said: Since this involves halakhot of Sages named Kahana, I too will say something with regard to it: That which you said, that the cross beam is placed diagonally across the alleyway, this was only said in a case where the diagonal is no more than ten cubits. But if the diagonal is more than ten cubits, then even if the width of the alleyway itself is less than ten cubits, all agree that the cross beam must be placed straight across the alleyway at the end of the short side, for an entrance wider than ten cubits cannot be permitted by a cross beam, and here the entire length under the cross beam is considered an entrance.
איבעיא להו מהו להשתמש תחת הקורה רב ורבי חייא ורבי יוחנן אמרו מותר להשתמש תחת הקורה שמואל ורבי שמעון בר רבי ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמרו אסור להשתמש תחת הקורה
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to utilizing and carrying in the area beneath the cross beam spanning the opening of an alleyway, which the beam permits carrying? Opinions differ on the matter. Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is permitted to utilize the area beneath the cross beam. Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is prohibited to utilize the area beneath the cross beam.
לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר קורה משום היכר ומר סבר קורה משום מחיצה
The Gemara suggests a way to understand this dispute: Shall we say that these amora’im argue over the following issue, that Master, representing those who permit it, holds: A cross beam serves in an alleyway as a conspicuous marker that separates it from the public domain, and Master, representing those who prohibit it, holds: A cross beam serves as a partition.
לא דכולי עלמא קורה משום היכר והכא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר היכירא מלגיו ומר סבר היכירא מלבר
The Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone might agree that a cross beam serves as a conspicuous marker, but here they argue over the following: Master, representing those who forbid it, holds that the conspicuous marker is intended for those situated inside the alleyway, and hence the area outside the inner edge of the cross beam may not be used; and Master, representing those who permit it, holds that the conspicuous marker is intended for those outside in the public domain, and it is therefore permitted to carry up to the outer edge of the cross beam.
ואיבעית אימא דכולי עלמא משום מחיצה והכא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר חודו הפנימי יורד וסותם ומר סבר חודו החיצון יורד וסותם
The Gemara proposes an alternative explanation: And if you wish, you can say that everyone agrees that a cross beam permits carrying as a partition, and here they argue over the following issue: As one Sage holds that the inner edge of the cross beam descends to the ground and seals off the alleyway, and therefore under the cross beam is not within the closed-off area; and the other Sage holds that the cross beam’s outer edge descends to the ground and seals off the alleyway, and therefore it is permitted to carry even in the area beneath the cross beam. Consequently, there is no need to connect the dispute with regard to utilizing the area beneath the cross beam to the dispute with regard to the nature of the cross beam.
אמר רב חסדא הכל מודים בבין לחיים שאסור
Rav Ḥisda said: All concede that utilizing the area between the side posts placed at the entrance to an alleyway to permit carrying is prohibited, for a side post functions as a partition, and therefore one may only use the space up to its inner edge, but no further.
בעא מיניה רמי בר חמא מרב חסדא נעץ שתי יתידות בשני כותלי מבוי מבחוץ והניח קורה על גביהן מהו
Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: What is the halakha in a case where a person inserted two pegs in the two alleyway walls, one in each wall, on the outside of the entrance facing the public domain, and he placed a cross beam on top of the pegs, such that the beam is attached to the front of the alleyway walls instead of on top of them? Does this cross beam permit carrying within the alleyway?
אמר ליה לדברי המתיר אסור לדברי האוסר מותר
Rav Ḥisda said to him: According to the statement of the one who permits utilizing the area beneath the cross beam, carrying within the alleyway is prohibited, for he holds that the cross beam’s outer edge is the critical one, and here this outer edge is positioned outside the alleyway and therefore cannot permit it. Whereas according to the statement of the authority who prohibits utilizing the area beneath the cross beam, carrying in the alleyway is permitted, for the cross beam’s inner edge is attached to the entrance of the alleyway.
רבא אמר לדברי האוסר נמי אסור בעינן קורה על גבי מבוי וליכא
Rava, however, disagreed and said: Even according to the opinion of the one who prohibits utilizing the area beneath the cross beam, carrying in the alleyway is prohibited, for we require that the cross beam that permits the alleyway be placed on top of the walls of the alleyway, and it is not. A cross beam that merely touches the alleyway from the outside does not permit it.
איתיביה רב אדא בר מתנה לרבא היתה קורתו
Rav Adda bar Mattana raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: If the cross beam being used to render an alleyway permitted for carrying is