Daf 10

60) A Tzuras Hapesach is Kosher if it's wider than ten Amos, and even if it's higher than twenty Amos high. [Tosfos explains: although the Tzuras Hapesach has Lechis that would permit the average alleyway anyhow; still, we refer to cases where a Lechi is not enough and it needs to work as a Tzuras Hapesach. Like, in the case Daf where the opening is wider than ten Amos, or it refers to an alleyway that's open on both sides (that one of the sides needs a Tzuras Hapesach), or according to R' Yossi who requires three-Tefachim Lechis.] An Amalsra (wondrous designs) help for a Koreh above twenty Amos. However, it's an unresolved inquiry whether it helps for an opening that is wider than ten Amos,

Daf 11

61) Rav held that a Tzuras Hapesach doesn't help for an opening more than ten Amos. R' Yosef wanted to extrapolate from there that it shouldn't help either if there are more gaps in a Mechitza than walls (and you want to close the gaps with Tzuras Hapesachs). The Gemara rejects that extrapolation, since we see that an opening that's more than ten Amos in a Mechitza is more stringent than having more gaps than walls in a Mechitza. After all, by Pasei Bieros (corner boards surrounding a wellspring) where R' Meir doesn't allow openings between boards that are more than ten Amos wide, still allows it when the gap between the boards are more than the boards themselves. Therefore, just because a Tzuras Hapesach doesn't help for a gap that's more than ten Amos wide, it may help when there is more gaps than walls.

62) A Tzuras Hapesach needs to be made of two proper posts and a lintel. However, it's not Kosher if the posts are not even, like when it's made of an unfinished wall, that one row of bricks protrude, and the one beneath it juts in. It's also no good if it only has posts and no lintels.

63) If you have a Tzuras Hapesach that the lintel is not on top of the posts, but is on the side of the posts; if it's only ten Amos wide, Reish Lakish says that it's Kosher both for carrying on Shabbos and regarding Klayim, that it separates grains from a vineyard. R' Yochanan only permits regarding Klayim. If it's wider than ten Amos, Reish Lakish says that it only helps for Klayim, and R' Yochanan says that it doesn't help at all. However, if the lintel is directly above the posts, then everyone agrees that it helps even for Shabbos, even if it's wider than ten Amos.

64) [Tosfos asks: why did they enact to allow Pasei Bieros for the Olei Regalim so that they can easily give their animals to drink? Why didn't they just say to make Tzuras Hapesachs around the well? Tosfos answers: since they need to lift it to be above the height of camels, it will be constantly blown down for every uncommon wind. Also, you need to worry that the camels will knock them down. This is also the reason we need later to surround an encampment with ropes that are within three Tefachim from each other, and not just make a Tzuras Hapesach. Alternatively, they might only permit Tzuras Hapesachs by a courtyard where people are settled there, and not by a temporary camp. Ritzva says: Tzuras Hapesachs only help for two walls of the Mechitza and the other two walls are solid; but you can't make them for all four walls.]

65) R' Chisda says that you need the Tzuras Hapesach to be strong enough to hold up a door, even if it's only a door made of straw.

66) Reish Lakish quotes R' Yanai that the Tzuras Hapesach also needs to have a hole near it so that you can insert a hinge for a door. R' Ashi holds that it doesn't need it.

67) R' Nachman held that the posts of the Tzuras Hapesach doesn't need to reach the lintel (as long as they're directly underneath it). R' Sheishes holds that they need to reach. We have a Braisa like R' Nachman that says that an arch needs a Mezuza, even though the posts on the sides are separated from the top lintel (that goes above the whole airspace of the door) with the curvature of the arch.

68) If a doorway is only four Tefachim wide for its bottom three Tefachim, and it arches afterwards and is now less than that until ten Tefachim (and it only has the status of a doorway if its dimensions are ten Tefachim by four Tefachim); R' Meir holds that we view the wall as if it's chiseled out to complete the four Tefachim width so it's Chayiv to have a Mezuza. The Rabanan don't hold that we view it as chiseled, and it's exempt. However, if it's not wide four for a full three Tefachim of height, or the whole doorway is not ten Tefachim high, everyone doesn't view it as if it's chiseled out, and it's exempt from having a Mezuza.

[Tosfos explains: when the Gemara in Shabbos says that if you throw an object from a Reshus Harabim into a small hole in the wall above ten Tefachim, R' Meir will hold your Chayiv since it has the status of a Reshus Hayachid, (although it's not four Tefachim squared, but) he views it as if the wall is chiseled out to make a four squared area; we must say that it's not the smallest hole. After all, here the Gemara says that he needs some amount that has the right Shiur, like the first three Tefachim. Rather, it must be that it's the regular type of hole that the builders put into a wall, that it's four Tefachim wide to the side facing the Reshus Hayachid, and it tapers to be a lot smaller on the side closer to the Reshus Harabim.]

69) In order to permit a "closed alleyway" (that only has one opening); Beis Shammai says that you need both a Lechi and a Koreh. They hold that it needs four walls to make a Reshus Hayachid. Even if you say that they only need three walls from the Torah, but the rabbis required four walls to carry in it. Therefore, they required more on the fourth wall to block it off better. Beis Hillel holds that you only need a Lechi or Koreh. They held that you only need three walls to make a Reshus Hayachid. Even if you say that you need two walls to make a Reshus Hayachid from the Torah, but the rabbis required three walls to carry there. Thus, we only need a token item on the fourth wall just to make a distinction between the alley and the street.

70) R' Eliezer requires two Lechis, one on each side of the opening. There's an unresolved question if he also requires a Koreh.

Daf 12

71) Rebbi agrees with R' Eliezer by a courtyard, that it needs two posts. However, the Chachumim say that you still only need one. Even so, we Paskin like R' Eliezer by a courtyard.

72) R' Yochanan Paskins that a courtyard needs two small posts, or one post that's four Tefachim wide.

73) If a sea rises and ends up in a courtyard, you can't draw water from it unless there remains a Mechitza (above water) that's ten Tefachim high without having a break that's ten Amos wide. However, even if the opening is more than ten Amos wide, you may carry in the courtyard since there are walls underwater. [Tosfos explains: since the drawing is usually done from the house that's further away, the underwater Mechitzos are not so noticeable to them, so they can't rely on that Mechitza. (Therefore, it's forbidden to carry out from the house to the courtyard for this reason, but it uses the usual use the houses have with the courtyard, that of drawing water.) However, the people in the courtyard can see the Mechitzos, so they can rely on them to carry there. Rivan explains: (really, we usually don't rely on Mechitzos underwater), but we refer to a case where the breach happened before Shabbos, and the water came on Shabbos. Therefore, since you can carry in the courtyard at the outset of Shabbos, we allow carrying there for the whole Shabbos. However, since there was never a Heter to draw the water at the outset, we can't say that we're just extending the original Heter. The Rashbam and R' Tam say that the case is that there is a ledge that's above the water, therefore, you can carry in the courtyard since the ledge is a Mechitza, but you can't draw from the sea. However, we must say that the ledge is far from the sea, or much larger than the sea, or else we need to worry that the sea will deposit debris there until it's no longer ten above the floor. The Sar Mikutzi says: while the Mechitzos are covered, you can't carry or draw water. It's only if the sea recedes and the Mechitzos become uncovered do we allow carrying in the courtyard. The Ritzba explains: (really, you can rely on covered Mechitzos). However, when the walls are covered, if you're going to draw water, you need to worry that the pail might go out of the Mechitzos. However, if there is exposed Mechitzos with only a ten Amos opening, it's noticeable where the Mechitzos are and you won't let the pail go past it.]

74) [Tosfos says: although we see that, if you have a balcony over the water, you can make a Mechitza to draw water even though the water covers it; that's because it's specifically made for the water. However, according to the Ritzba, we don't even need to make that differentiation. Mahrsha: after all, when you draw from the balcony, you don't need to worry that the pail will drift outside the Mechitza.]

75) Abaya holds that a Lechi is a Halachic Mechitza, but a Koreh is not a Mechitza, but just makes a distinction. Therefore, if you have an area with two Mechitzos, if you place a Lechi on a third side, it has three Mechitzos (that makes a Reshus Hayachid from the Torah), and one who throws an item there from a Reshus Harabim is Chayiv. However, if you put a Koreh on the third side, you're exempt if you throw an item into it from a Reshus Harabim. Rava holds he's exempt in all cases since he holds that a Lechi and Koreh aren't Mechitzos, but just a distinction.

76) R' Nachman says: a Lechi and Koreh only permits to carry in an alleyway that has at least two courtyards open to it, and two houses for each courtyard. It also needs to have its length longer than its width. Shmuel assumed that the length needs to be twice as long as the width, but Rav quoting R' Chiya says that even if it's the smallest amount longer than the width. However, if it's not longer, then you need two small boards on each side, or a four Tefachim board on one side. [Tosfos explains: although we allowed a courtyard that's length is longer than its width with a Lechi or Koreh even though it doesn't have the other variables of having houses and courtyards open to it, (which is needed in order to have an abundant population passing through and we don't want to block off the alley's opening at all); that's because it's not open to a Reshus Harabim (but to an alleyway). However, an alleyway that's open up to a Reshus Harabim needs to have the houses and courtyards to permit if with a Lechi or Koreh.]

Daf 13

77) This argument between Beis Shamai, Beis Hillel and R' Eliezer, whether you need a Lechi and Koreh, or a Lechi or Koreh, or two Lechis; R' Meir says that it only applies if the alleyway's opening is bigger than four Amos, but less than that, everyone agrees that you only need a Lechi or Korah. However, the Tanna Kama and R' Akiva both hold that they argue even if it's less than four Amos wide. However, the Tanna Kama and R' Akiva argue whether you need a Lechi or Koreh at all if its opening is less than four Tefachim wide, but it's not certain from their words what position each one takes.

78) There's also an argument between R' Akiva and R' Yishmael if you can put an ingredient 'Kankantom' into ink for a Sefer Torah, which makes the ink unable to be erased. One permitted, and the other forbade it since we see by the Parsha Sotah that you need to erase it [Tosfos: either they learn the Halacha of the Sefer Torah with a Gezeira Shava from Sota. Alternatively, it's a rabbinical law to make it similar.] R' Yehuda quotes R' Meir that it's Kosher except for writing the Parsha of Sota in the Sefer Torah, since he holds it's Kosher to remove the Parsha from the Torah to erase for a Sotah. R' Yaakov quotes R' Meir that it's Kosher to put the Kankantom in except for the Parsha of Sotah written in the Mikdash for an actual Sotah, but it's permitted to use for the Parsha of Sotah in a Sefer Torah since you can't use it to erase for an actual Sotah.

79) The Gemara concludes: we don't need to say that the above argument depends on the following argument: the Tanna Kama says that a Parsha Sotah written for one Sotah can't be used on a different Sotah, and R' Acha b. Yaakov says that it's Kosher, (so, I would say that a Parsha written in a Sefer Torah is similar to a Parsha written not for this Sotah). After all, perhaps R' Yehuda only permits it when it's written for a Sefer Torah since it was written regularly without anyone in mind, but a Parsha that was actually written for someone else could be worse, and he wouldn't allow it. [Tosfos explains: although if you write a Get without anyone in mind, it's still Pasul, here may be different since, when you write the Sefer Torah, you have in mind that you're writing it because, one day, it might be used for a Sotah. Although a Get's definitely Pasul in this case. After all, it's Pasul even if you write it for the husband and wife, as long as it wasn't under the command of the husband, because we consider the Get as lacking L'shma; still, that may only be a rabbinical enactment (to make sure that the Get is written L'shma), but it's not applicable to make such a decree by a Sotah (since the Kohanim in the Mikdash take care of it). Alternatively, the husband cares that nobody should write a Get for his wife without his consent since it's a detriment for him to get divorced. However, the Kohain doesn't care if someone else writes a Parsha Sotah for him.]

Also, we can say that R' Yaakov only forbids using a Parsha from a Sefer Torah since it's written to learn, but he may allow one written for a different Sotah since it was written for the purpose of a Sotah.

Although everyone agrees that a Get not written for a certain woman is Pasul, that's because it says "write it for her," that the writing needs to be done L'shma. However, by Sotah it says "do it for her," that only the doing, i.e., the erasing, needs to be done L'shma. [Tosfos says: although R' Yaakov Pasuls one written for a Sefer Torah, although L'shma is only needed for the erasing; that's Pasul for a different reason since the Pasuk says "you write these curses," you need to write them to be for the curses (i.e., to be used for a Sotah).]

80) The Koreh needs to be wide enough to hold a brick that's a Tefach and a half wide. Thus, the Koreh itself needs to be a Tefach wide, which, if you were laying a brick over it, you would place the brick in the middle and put cement below each quarter of a Tefach that's sticking out on both sides.

81) The Tanna Kama says that it not only needs to be wide enough to hold a brick, it needs to be firm enough to hold it as well. Rav says that he only holds this way by a Tefach Koreh, but if the Koreh is four Tefachim wide, it doesn't need to be so firm that it can hold a brick.

Daf 14

82) Rabbah b. R' Huna says that only the Koreh needs to be firm enough to hold a brick, but the pegs that are sticking out of the alley's walls that support the Koreh don't need to be that firm. However, R' Chisda says that even the supports need to be firm enough to hold up a brick.

83) However, R' Yehuda says that a Koreh only needs to be a Tefach wide, but it doesn't need to be firm. It's Kosher even if it's made with straw that's not a material that's ever able to hold bricks. Even if the Koreh bends in the middle and goes out of the alleyway, and then bends back and continues to the next wall, if there's not a three Tefachim break of the Koreh being out of the alley, (so the two parts of the Koreh that are in the alley are considered as if they're attached through Lavud), it's Kosher and you don't need to worry that someone might carry outside the alleyway where the Koreh is sticking out.

If it's a circular Koreh, we view it as if it's squared. Therefore, if the circumference of the Koreh is three Tefachim, we know that the width is a Tefach. [Tosfos asks; it seems difficult since this is not exact according to the the mathematical experts.]

84) If a Koreh protrudes from one wall, but doesn't quite reach the second wall, or, if you have two Korehs sticking out from each wall, but they don't meet in the middle; if they're within three Tefachim, they're Kosher and you don't need to bring a different Koreh. If not, you'll need to bring another Koreh. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that you don't need another Koreh unless they're four Tefachim apart, (since he holds that Lavud is within four Tefachim, not three).

85) The same applies if the alley has two Korehs, and each one in itself can't hold a brick, if they are close enough that they can jointly hold the width of that brick, it's Kosher. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says that even if it can hold that brick in its length, which is three Tefachim long, it's Kosher.

86) If the two Korehs are not at the same level, but one is higher and the other is lower [Tosfos: however, they must be withing three Tefachim from each other to connect them with Lavud, because we can't say that we view the upper Koreh as if it's lowered next to the lower one, or the other one as if it's placed higher next to the higher Koreh; since that Halacha (of looking as if the objects ar raised or lower) only applies to Tefach-wide objects]; R' Yossi b. Yehuda says that it's Kosher as long as the top one is not above twenty Amos and the lower one is not below ten Tefachim. He holds like his father in one aspect, that a Koreh doesn't practically need to hold a brick, but we can view it as if it could. However, he argues with his father in another aspect, since R' Yehuda allows a Koreh above twenty Amos.

87) A Lechi needs to be ten Tefachim high, but could be the smallest amount wide, even with the size of a coat's drawstring. R' Yossi says that it needs to be three Tefachim wide. However, the Halacha is not like R' Yossi here, nor regarding making saltwater on Shabbos (that he even forbids making it with a small amount). Also, the Halacha is not like R' Tarfon who says to make a Borie Nefashos for the Bracha Rishona of water.

88) If you put a Lechi half way in the alley, you may carry in the inner half of the alleyway until the Lechi, and we don't decree to forbid it lest you'll carry in the front of the alley too.

89) If someone distances the Lechi three Tefachim from the wall of the alleyway, or he lifts it three Tefachim off the ground of the alleyway, it's not a good Lechi. This is even according to R' Shimon b. Gamliel who usually holds that Lavud is four Tefachim would agree here since it's a Mechitza that young goats can walk through under it (which breaks it).

90) If you covered a Koreh with a mat, and that mat drapes down, but it's still above three Tefachim from the ground, you can't carry in the alley. After all, you don't have a proper Koreh since it's covered, and you don't have a proper Mechitza with the mat since young goats can walk under it.

Daf 15

91) If the Lechi was not put up for the purpose of being a Lechi; if you didn't rely on it to be a Lechi from before Shabbos, then everyone holds you can't carry in the alley on Shabbos. If you did had in mind to rely on it from before Shabbos; Abaya says it's a proper Lechi, and Rava holds that it's not a proper Lechi.

92) Everyone holds that, if a Mechitza wasn't made to be a Mechitza, it's a Kosher Mechitza. Therefore, Abaya is consistent to his opinion that a Lechi is a Mechitza, so, such a Lechi is good just like it's good by a Mechitza. However, Rava is consistent to his opinion that a Lechi is not a Mechitza, but it's only a distinction. Therefore, you need to make the Lechi for the sake of being a Lechi. [Rashi: however, the Halacha is like Abaya, and this Lechi is the 'Lamid' in the acronym of "Yaal Kigam," which are the cases where we Paskin like Abaya when he argues with Rava.]

93) If you have bricks sticking out of the alley's side wall into the fourth side, (i.e., since bricks are built to be stacked up in this way, with each bottom brick has two half of bricks on top of it, and since they want to continue the wall, every other row had a brick jutting out, and the other rows jutted in); if the gap between the jutting-out bricks are less than three Tefachim, we say Lavud and we can use it as a Lechi. According to Abaya, even if they weren't made for a Lechi. However, Rava would hold that it's only if it was made with the intention of having a Lechi. The Chidush to him is; even though it seems obvious that the main intent is to extend the wall at that point, and not for the Lechi, that you can't count it as a Lechi; so, we're taught otherwise.

94) The Tanna Kama permits to make a Lechi with a live animal, and R' Meir invalidates it. The Tanna Kama says that you can have an animal for a Golel [Rashi cover of a coffin] and it's Tamai. R' Meir holds that you can't have it, and if you do use it, it's Tahor. However, they both agree that you may write a Get (divorce document) on a living animal. R' Yossi Haglili invalidates such a Get.

95) You need a Get to be something that separates him from her. Thus, if he writes in the Get that it's on condition that she doesn't drink wine or return to her father's house; if the condition is forever, it's not cutting her off from him since she always needs to keep the condition. [Tosfos explains: although you might think that there is a natural limitation with the condition of "never return to your father's house" that she's no longer bound to it after her father dies, just like we say that if you make an oath from entering someone's house, you may go in when he dies or sells it; however, "your father's house" can still exist even after he dies since it refers to any one of his descendants. After all, Yehuda told Tamar to return to her father's house, although the Pasuk infers that her father, Shem, already died.] However, if it's only a condition that she needs to keep for thirty days, then it's considered as the Get cuts him off from her, (although it doesn't cut her off immediately), since it will eventually come to cut him off.

96) If the Mechitza is exactly half closed with a wall, and half open space [Tosfos: which seems to imply that it's possible to be exact]; R' Pappa permits it, and R' Huna b. R' Yehoshua forbids it. The Mishna implies like R' Pappa since it says "you can't have the open airspace to be greater than the walls" (inferring that it's fine if it's equal to the wall). [Tosfos says that we have to differentiate between Mechitzos and Issur, since we forbid a Shechita that's half cut. Also, by Tumah, we say that both halves of an oven are not susceptible to Tumah (if it wasn't for a technicality that you can never measure it to make sure that any side wasn't the majority).]

97) If you cover your Sukkos' roof (with Schach Pasul) like metal spits and bed posts; if there is equal space between them (to place Schach Kosher); it's Kosher. This seems to prove that half and half is Kosher. [According to Rashi:] R' Ami rejects the proof; it must mean that it refers to purposely leaving extra space between the Schach Pasul. Rav answers: that you put the Schach Kosher in the opposite direction of the Schach Pasul (so it must rest upon the Schach Pasul), which results that there is more Kosher Schach than Pasul Schach, since you need extra Kosher Schach that's placed on top of the Schach Pasul to hold it up. [Tosfos asks: even though there is more Schach Kosher this way, but we only say that the Schach Pasul is Batul to the Kosher if they're mixed together in a way where you can't tell which one is which. Also, it's difficult to say that all these Amoraim are answering an opinion, that forbids by half and half, which we don't Paskin like. Rather, Tosfos explains: we even need to answer this according to R' Pappa, since it's impossible to fill up every empty space to have Schach Kosher in it to have exactly half the Schach Kosher. On that, R' Ami says that they piled up extra Schach over it in order to close up all the spaces. Rava says that you can cover every inch by placing the Schach perpendicular instead of sticking it between the Schach Pasul.]

Daf 16

98) If there are Mechitzos separating grains from a vineyard; if the boards are less than three Tefachim apiece, you need to have the gap between them less than three Tefachim (so it would be Lavud) to be Kosher. if the boards are between three Tefachim wide until four Tefachim wide; according to R' Pappa, if the gaps are exactly like the boards, and according to R' Huna b. R' Yehoshua, if the boards are a little more than the gaps, it's Kosher. if not, it's invalid, and it doesn't even protect the area opposite the boards. However, if the boards are four Tefachim wide, even if the spaces are larger than them, they, at least, protect the area opposite the boards; for each four Tefachim board is Chashuv and is a Mechitza in itself. This is not like boards that are from three Tefachim until four Tefachim wide that, although they no longer are within the realm of Lavud, they're not Chashuv in themselves to be a Mechitza.

99) You can make a Mechitza by surrounding an area with three ropes (suspended on corner posts) that are within three Tefachim from each other, and also their thickness needs to be a Tefach and a little more, that all the Lavuds and ropes would equal to ten Tefachim.

100) We say that, if you have more vertical Mechitzos than gaps, it's a Kosher Mechitza. We have an inquiry if, horizontally, you have most of the height of a Mechitza that's solid, but the minority of the height is a gap; if it's a Kosher Mechitza or not?

101) We can't bring a proof from the case of surrounding the area with ropes; why do you need all the ropes' thickness to be more than a Tefach? After all, as long as we have two Lavuds out of the three, then we would have most of the height (i.e, six Tefachim) of the Mechitza considered as solid. The reason this isn't a proof: since there would be no place to leave the four Tefachim space. After all, if the four Tefachim would be left on the bottom of the Mechitza, then it would be Pasul since young goats can pass below the Mechitza. You can't say that you leave it on the top, for then we would say that the space on both sides of the top rope will make it Batul. If you leave it in the middle, then it would need to come on to combining the two closed areas on both sides of the space (since each one is smaller than that space). [Tosfos explains: thus we say the four Tefachim of space in the middle, and the endless space on top of the Mechitza, will make the top three Tefachim closed space Batul. The count from Coucy says; even though there is a way to get out of this problem by having a rope within three from the bottom, have a space that's three and a half Tefachim with a rope, and space less than three Tefachim with a half a Tefach rope, and now the top closed area is a little bigger than the middle space; however, the rabbis didn't want to allow it since people will come to make a mistake when constructing this complicated case.] Rather, the inquiry would involve a mat that seven and a bit Tefachim large that you hang within three Tefachim from the ground, and you cut out three Tefachim towards the bottom of the mat (as long as you left the smallest strip on the bottom to make it Lavud to the ground).

102) They didn't allow suspended Mechitzos (above three Tefachim from the ground) except over water, where the rabbis were more lenient.

103) This, that we allow a Mechitza that's either vertical sticks, or horizontal ropes (combining them with Lavud); R' Yehuda says that we only allow it for an individual, or for two people, if it doesn't exceed a Bais Sasayim (seventy square Amos). If it's for three people then they become a caravan and we allow it to be as big as they need. R' Yossi b. Yehuda agrees with his father by one or two people, but for three people,he only allows it to be thrice the size, i.e., the size that you can plant six Saah. The Tanna Kama allows any amount for one person, as long as he's traveling. The Chachumim allows it by an individual even when he's home.

104) Whenever we give them as much space as they need, they didn't allow it to have an empty space of Beis Sasayim that's not being used to store utensils.

105) R' Nachman Paskins like R' Yehuda, since regarding one or two people, he's supported by his son, R' Yossi; and regarding three people, he's supported by the Tanna Kama.

Daf 17

106) If you have three people at the beginning of Shabbos and you surrounded the caravan with ropes that covered a lot of space, and one died (and it's no longer fit to give that much space). Or, if you have two people in an area surrounded with ropes with too much space, and a third person came on Shabbos (that would allow that much space); R' Huna holds that the beginning of the Shabbos causes the Halacha (and it always follows if you had enough people on the outset of Shabbos despite any changes that happened afterwards), and R' Yitzchok holds that the amount of people that are presently there causes the Halacha, (despite how many were there at the beginning of Shabbos).

107) According to R' Huna; if you make an Eiruv between two courtyards through a window between them, and that window collapses and closes up in middle of Shabbos, we say that, once the courtyards were permitted at the onset of Shabbos, it remains that way for the whole Shabbos.

108) This is not dependent on the argument if the Lechi or Korah was removed on Shabbos, that R' Yehuda says that you can still carry in the courtyard for the duration of Shabbos, and R' Yossi forbids it. After all, R' Huna only permits if the Mechitzos remain, but if the Lechi is removed, he would agree that it becomes forbidden. R' Yitzchok only holds that it's forbidden if there is not enough people living there presently to allow it, but when the Lechi or Koreh was removed, where it still has the required people living there, he might agree with R' Yehuda.

109). [Tosfos says that the Halacha is like R' Huna that an enclosure that's permitted at the beginning of Shabbos is permitted for the whole Shabbos as long as it still has the proper Mechitzos. Therefore, if an Eiruv was made for many weeks, and suddenly, if the window gets plugged up during the week and breaks the Eiruv, if it gets unplugged on Shabbos, it returns to its original Heter. This is similar to what we allow in Mesechta Shabbos if two boats are tied together and they made an Eiruv together, and then they get untied; they become permitted when they get tied again on Shabbos. Rosh: we must be referring to a case where it was untied during the week, and was tied together the next Shabbos. After all, if it gets untied on this Shabbos, it should be permitted even if it didn't get retied on Shabbos. As we Paskin that, once it's permitted on Shabbos, it remains permitted for the whole Shabbos.]

110) They permitted four things in an army camp. One of them is; you may bring wood from anyplace (i.e., even from other people's propertys). Although one of Yehoshua's conditions to inherit Eretz Yisrael was to allow anyone to get wood from other people's fields; that was only from thorn bushes while they're still attached and still fresh. However, for the army, they even allowed to collect other wood, even after they're detached, and even if they're dried out.

111) R' Yehuda b. Teima adds: they can encamp wherever. If they're killed, they acquire the place of they're death as a grave. Although they enact that by all Meis Mitzvah, but here he acquires it even if he's not technically a Meis Mitzvah, like if there is someone else to bury him [Rashi; an heir]. As we say, if the one who finds the corpse calls out, and someone else there answers, it doesn't have a status of a Meis Mitzvah.

112) If the Meis Mitzvah is over the whole width of a road, and someone can't pass unless he would be hovering over the corpse if it would get buried there; they enacted for the sake of Kohanim and others who deal with Taharos, to move the corpse to bury it in an adjacent field. If there are two fields, one on each side of the road; you bury it in a fallow field before burying it in a plowed field. You need to bury it in a plowed field before you bury it in a planted field. However, if they're both the same type, i.e., they're both fallow, or both plowed, or both planted, you may move it to which field you want.

113) A second thing they allowed by an army camp: you may forgo washing your hands. However, this is only for Mayim Rishonim, but Mayim Achronim is an obligation because of the danger of Sodom salt that can blind you. Therefore, if you need to wash your hands after eating since you might have touched this salt, of course you need to wash your hands if you measured salt. [Tosfos says: we're not accustomed to wash Mayim Achronim these days since Sodom salt is not found among us. Also, it's not our custom to stick our fingers in salt after eating like they did in the days of Chazal.]

114) A third thing they allowed for the army: they can eat Damai. As we learned: Beis Shammai doesn't allow the poor and people of the army to eat Damai, and Beis Hillel permits them. [Tosfos points out: it seems here that we allow Jewish soldiers to eat Damai. However, there is an opinion in the Yerushalmi that we only allow to feed it to non-Jewish soldiers (that the government orders you to feed). After all, you can't feed them Tevel because you're prohibited to partake pleasure from Tevel, but they were lenient when it comes to Damai.]

115) The fourth thing that they allowed by the army is that they didn't need to make an Eiruv Chatzeiros. However, they required an Eiruv T'chumim, as R' Chiya taught that the Torah gives the punishment of Malkos for someone who walks out of the T'chum [Tosfos: according to the opinion that T'chumim is forbidden from the Torah]. However, R' Yehonason says that he doesn't get Malkos [Tosfos: even according to the opinion that T'chumim is forbidden from the Torah] since the Lav was given for a punishment of execution. After all, the Lav of "a person shouldn't leave his place" refers to carrying out. R' Ashi explains R' Chiya (why he held this is not a Lav that was given for a punishment of execution): since it says "don't go out" instead of "don't bring out." [Tosfos explains: although the Pasuk also refers to the prohibition of carrying; still, since the simple reading of the Pasuk refers to walking out of the T'chum, we say it's the main prohibition of the Lav, so it's mainly given for the punishment of Malkos.]

116) [Tosfos explains: we need two P'sukim to give a Lav to carrying out on Shabbos, this one, and the Pasuk "the nation finished bringing etc." Since carrying is such a weak Melacha (since you can carry from one house to another, as long as you don't carry outside), we need one for the carrying out of the rich person (who's inside and sticks out the item) and one for the carrying out of the poor person (who grabs the item from inside and takes it out to himself.]