Reference for Eruvin 187:25

אמר רב לעולם בעשר

the Rabbis said to R'Eliezer: You agree with us, do you not, that where a man moved an object from it into a public domain or from a public domain into it he is exempt because it is a karmelith, well the same law should apply to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., ' (there should be) no difference'.');">³⁹</span> the sides<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the public road.');">⁴⁰</span> also. And R'Eliezer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of the objection, does he justify his view?');">⁴¹</span> There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within the courtyard.');">⁴²</span> not many people tread on the spot but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the side of public road.');">⁴³</span> they do. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A BREACH WAS MADE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath.');">⁴⁴</span> IN TWO SIDES OF A COURTYARD TOWARDS A PUBlic DOMAIN, AND SO ALSO IF A BREACH WAS MADE IN TWO SIDES OF A HOUSE, OR IF THE CROSS-BEAM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc, MS.M. and Rashi (cf. Tosaf. supra 17a and Rashi a.l.) . Cur. edd. use the plural.');">⁴⁵</span> OR SIDE-POST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc, MS.M. and Rashi (cf. Tosaf. supra 17a and Rashi a.l.) . Cur. edd. use the plural.');">⁴⁵</span> OF AN ALLEY WAS REMOVED, THE OCCUPIERS ARE PERMITTED THEIR USE FOR THAT SABBATH BUT FORBIDDEN ON FUTURE SABBATHS; SO R'JUDAH. R'JOSE RULED: IF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra.');">⁴⁶</span> THEY ARE PERMITTED THEIR USE ON THAT SABBATH THEY ARE ALSO PERMITTED ON FUTURE SABBATHS AND IF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained in the Gemara infra.');">⁴⁶</span> THEY ARE FORBIDDEN (IN FUTURE SABBATHS THEY ARE ALSO FORBIDDEN ON THAT SABBATH. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>With what kind of breach do we deal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah where the BREACH is assumed to have been made IN TWO SIDES.');">⁴⁷</span> If it be suggested: With one that was not wider then ten cubits,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'within ten'.');">⁴⁸</span> wherein, then, [it may be objected, does a breach] in one side differ [in such a case from breaches in two sides? Is it] that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being no wider than ten cubits.');">⁴⁹</span> may be regarded as a<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that one says'.');">⁵⁰</span> doorway, [should not breaches]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being no wider than ten cubits.');">⁴⁹</span> in two sides also be regarded as doorways?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then are restrictions imposed?');">⁵¹</span> If, however, the breach spoken of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah where the BREACH is assumed to have been made IN TWO SIDES.');">⁴⁷</span> was<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but'.');">⁵²</span> wider than ten cubits, [should not the same restrictioss<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That are imposed when the breach was made in two sides.');">⁵³</span> apply] even where it was only in one side? Rab replied: The fact is [that the breach spoken off was] not wider than ten cubits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'within ten'.');">⁵⁴</span>

Jastrow