Daf 17

1) You make boards to surround a well in a Reshus Harabim in order to allow you to draw water from it on Shabbos. You need a double board on each corner, which is eight individual boards. They need to be ten Tefachim high, an Amah wide, and the smallest amount thick. [Tosfos explains: although the Halacha L'Moshe M'sinai says that you can't have more empty space in a Mechitza than you have walls, and here you have a lot more empty space; we must say that it was only said when you don't have four Mechitos with an Amah wall for each corner. We also must say that the idea that a middle wall gets Batul from having airspace on both sides of it that's equal or larger than it, at least when it's an Amah wide, must not be from the Torah, or else R' Meir (later) wouldn't say to put up a middle board if the space between the corners are too big.]

Daf 18

2) You can't follow behind a woman, even if she's your wife. It's better to follow behind a lion than a woman. It's better to follow behind a woman than behind an non-Jewish idolater. Better behind an idolater than to pass behind a Shul when they're Davening. After all, you can't pass behind a Shul while they're Davening since it looks heretical, as if you don't want to Daven with them to Hashem.

Daf 19

3) R' Meir says that the empty space between the corners can't be wider than ten Amos. R' Yehuda allows it if it's thirteen and a third Amos.

4) According to R' Meir, if the space is larger than ten Amos, you need to place an extra board in the middle to make the space smaller. According to the first version, there is an unresolved inquiry whether you can also just make the corner boards longer until it's less than ten Amos. The second version says that it's permitted.

5) There's an inquiry according to R' Yehuda if the space is more than thirteen and a third Amos, if you need to extend the corner boards to make the space smaller, or you can add a board in the middle. [Tosfos explains: in a way, extra boards makes it look more like Mechitzos, and if there would anyhow be more space than wall, it would be a Chumra to have only extra boards. However, if the corner boards are far enough apart that, if you would extend them enough to make the space in between small enough to be Kosher, you'll have more wall than space, it's a Chumra to extend the corner walls.]

6) R' Shimon b. Elazar says that if you have a square rock at a corner, it's Kosher since we view it as if it's chiseled out to form a corner (if you have enough there to view that an Amah is sticking out in both directions). R' Yishmael b. R' Yochanan b. Broka allows even if it's round, that we view it as if it was squared, and then we view as if the corners are chiseled out of that square. He holds that we can view it as if two actions was done to it, while R' Shimon b. Elazar holds that we can only view it as if one action was done to it, but not two actions (i.e., squaring it and also chiseling out corner boards).

7) The Gemara has two unresolved inquirys: if you can have the corner Mechitzos made out of reeds that are three Tefachim from each other? Also, if you can have it with a certain type of reed that starts with one big trunk, and reeds protruding from it that spreads out all over. We have a Braisa that permits one of them, but it's not apparent which one.

Daf 20

8) If you have a courtyard open to a Pasei Beiros, you may carry from the courtyard to the Pasim, and vice versa. However, if two separate courtyards are open to the Pasim; Rava allows to carry from them to the Pasim if they made an Eiruv between them through an opening connecting them. However, R' Huna forbids even if they made an Eiruv since outsiders might not know about the opening between them and they'll wrongfully conclude that you can make an Eiruv connecting the courtyards through the Pasim. However, if there is an opening towards the end of the wall (towards the street), which is obvious to all, everyone agrees you can make an Eiruv since everyone realizes that they made the Eiruv through that opening,

9) If the well's water dries up in the middle of Shabbos, it becomes forbidden to carry in the Pasim. After all, they only allow these weak Mechitzos in order to draw the water, and that Heter doesn't exist anymore. [Tosfos explains: it's not applicable to say here that we should permit carrying there with the logic that, once it was permitted on the outset of Shabbos, it should be permitted throughout Shabbos. After all, since we don't have the Heter to carry in weak Mechitzos anymore, it's like the Mechitza doesn't exist, which we don't just allow continuing carrying in it on Shabbos.]

10) If the water flows into the well on Shabbos, you may carry there. After all, it's like any Mechitza that was made on Shabbos that you may carry there as long as it wasn't made with intent to transgress building. [Tosfos explains: when we say in Shabbos that boats that were tied together (and there was an Eiruv between them), and got untied, and then got retied, it returns to the original Heter that you may carry from boat to boat; that's only when it wasn't retied purposely.]

11) If someone throws from a Reshus Harabim to the area between the Pasim, even if there is no well there and even if the traffic flows through there, he's Chayiv. After all, the Torah considers them Mechitzos, (even if the rabbis don't always allow carrying there), and we don't say that the public that passes through breaks the Mechitza.

12) you can make the Pasim close to the well as long as you distant it two Amos from the well, which is enough for a cow to have its head and most of its body within it.

13) We have a rule by a persons that he can't stand in a Reshus Hayachid and drink in a Reshus Harabim, or vice versa, unless he has his head and most of his body over the Reshus he's drinking in [Tosfos explains: since we're afraid he'll bring the drink to him in his Reshus if he needs the utensils that he's drinking from. However, if it wasn't for that decree, there would be no problem to drink from the other Reshus and we don't say that you're taking the water from one Reshus and depositing in a second Reshus, within your stomach. Rashi later in the Mesechta explains the reason because it rested in his mouth that's a Makom Patur. Although it will go right away into his stomach, and you're not allowed to bring something from one Reshus to another, even if it rests in a Makom Patur in between; that's only when it's possible to carry from one Reshus to the other directly without having it rest in the Makom Patur. However, here, it's impossible for the water to go to the stomach without resting in the mouth first. We only consider a mouth a Makom Patur in this case where it's in a separate Reshus than its body. However, when it's in the same Reshus, we consider it as Batul to the body and has the status of the Reshus he's in. After all, we say that someone can't spit from a Reshus Hayachid to a Reshus Harabim, although it must first rest in his mouth. Also, if you stick your hand out a window, and the object remains in your hand, we don't consider it as if it's now resting in a Makom Patur, and when you place the item down in the Reshus Harabim, you'll be Patur. We only say that it's like you made an Hanacha in a Makom Patur if the item was placed there when it was a Makom Patur. However, here the item was placed in the hand while it was a Reshus Hayachid, we don't consider as it was placed in a Makom Patur by just sticking out his hand.

However, Tosfos answers why he's not Chayiv for drinking: we consider the water making a Hanacha when it's swallowed, and not when it finally lands in the stomach. As we see that someone is Chayiv when he carries out ink and writes it down on a paper, although he's still carrying the paper, but we consider the ink resting since it becomes secondary (Batul) to the paper. So too here, when he swallows the water, it becomes Batul to his body.]

14) The Gemara inquires whether an animal also needs to have its head and most of its body within the Pasim if the owner is holding the pail its drinking from, and holding it, at the same time. However, if the owner is only holding the pail, the animal must have its head and most of its body within the Pasim. Another version of the inquiry: if the owner is holding the pail and the animal, you may give the animal to drink when it has its head and most of its body within the Pasim. The inquiry is when he holds the pail and not the animal, if you can give it to drink even when it has its head and most of its body within the Pasim.

15) When you're feeding a camel, even if you're holding the camel, you need its head and most of its body to be within the Pasim. (Although you might be able to feed other animals even when their heads and most of their bodies are not within the Pasim), since the camel has a long neck, we need to worry that it will stick its neck out of the Pasim even when you're holding it.

16) If you have a trough that starts from your property and goes through a Reshus Harabim until it ends within the Pasim, you may pour water into the trough, and it will flow down to your animal in your property. However, you can't bring the pail to the animal by carrying it over the trough. The reason: since you might see some problem with the trough when you're bringing it, and you'll bring the pail out to the Reshus Harabim when you go to fix it. However, this wouldn't be a Chiyuv for carrying, since you didn't originally lift the pail from the Reshus Hayachid with the intent to carry out. However, we still have another worry, that after you finish fixing the problem, you'll bring the pail back over the trough and be Chayiv for carrying from a Reshus Harabim to a Reshus Hayachid.

17) The reason why they gave the Heter for the Pasim is for the animals of the Olei Regel (so it should be easy for them to give their animals to drink from public wells). Still, they enacted that it only works for wellsprings, which is fit for even humans to drink. [Rashi explains: since the water creates the Mechitza, (since we only consider them to be Mechitzos when the water is there), it needs to be Chashuv water. However, Tosfos explains; since, if you draw water for an animal, even humans can drink from the leftovers. Alternatively, once it was made for the animals, humans may draw for themselves.]

18) [Tosfos says: if you made the Mechitza for water that humans can drink, you can use items within the Mechitza that are not edible to humans.]

Daf 21

19) However they didn't allow Pasim just for humans since they have the ability to climb down the well and drink, and then climb back up. However, if the well is too wide for the humans to climb down, it's permitted for humans too. [According to Tosfos' second explanation earlier, it means that you can make the Pasim for the humans.]

20) (You can rely on a guard's hut to extend the city {if it's within seventy and two-thirds Amos from the furthest house}, regarding the Tchum.) There are no guard's huts in Bavel since tidal waves are common there that will wash these huts away. Other say: it doesn't help in other parts of the Diaspora either, since robbers are common (that will ransack them). Therefore, we can't give them a status of a 'house.'

21) There are no Pasim in the other parts of the Diaspora, since we only allow them for Mitzvos like Olei Regel, and traveling for Mitzvos were uncommon) since it was uncommon to have people travel there to Yeshivos. Others say; they didn't allow it in Bavel either. Granted, people traveled to Yeshivos, but they only allowed it when it's needed because it's uncommon to find water, and they need to rely on wells; but they had plenty of water in Bavel.

22) The Tanna Kama says: you may distant the Pasim from the well (allowing more space in the enclosure) even if it contains ten Kurim, as long as you lengthen the boards accordingly. [Tosfos explains: since the well water is fit for humans, it's considered as the Mechitzos are made for living space for humans, and you don't need to limit the space to a Beis Sasayim. Although we didn't allow the rope Mechitzos even for a caravan if there is a Beis Sasayim of empty space; that's because they're not as established Mechitzos like the Pasim. Alternatively, just like the rabbis gave Pasim extra Heterim and allowed it even though it has more gaps in the wall than solid walls, they permitted it even though it has a Beis Sasayim of empty space.] R' Yehuda only permits up to a Beis Sasayim. Since they're only Pasim, we can't be as lenient by them (to allow a bigger area) like we do with regular Mechitzos.

Daf 22

23) According to the Gemara's conclusion: when we say it can only be a Beis Sasayim, it's referring to the area of the well itself, even though it's bigger if you factor in the area that's within the Pasim, since people only assess the area with the area of the well. Therefore, since the area of the well is not larger than a Beis Sasayim, then people won't permit a Karfeif, (storage area, which is not enclosed for people to live there like other enclosed areas like courtyards, where people use to spend time there), when it's bigger than a Beis Sasayim. [Tosfos adds: it's only when you don't distant the Pasim from the well more than two Amos, which is the smallest area we allow for Pasim so that your cow's head and most of its body can fit into it.]

24) [Tosfos points out: if people would assess the whole area with the Pasim, we would only allow a Beis Sasayim for the whole Pasim area. We wouldn't say that we should permit it even if it's larger since the well in the middle should be subtracted from the calculation like we'll say about stands in a Karfeif that are ten Tefachim tall; since we only permit it by regular Mechitzos, and not by Pasim.]

25) R' Yehuda permits a well that's only a Beis Sasayim, even if it's an oval, and R' Shimon b. Elazar held that it needs to be a circle.

26) Any roofed area that's only made for the area outside it, like by the guard huts (that's made to guard the area outside it), can't be larger than a Beis Sasayim.

27) If the public travels through the Pasim; R' Yehuda holds that you need to detour them to only travel around the Pasim. The Chachumim say that it's not necessary since we don't say that the public traffic through the Mechitza cancels the effectiveness of the Mechitzos.

28) Although we see that R' Yehuda allows to make an Eiruv in a Reshus Harabim that has houses on each side by placing a Lechi or Koreh on each end of the houses, and we don't say that the traffic breaks the Mechitzos; that's because the street has two solid Mechitzos on its sides, but weaker Mechitzos, like Pasim, can't be saved if traffic walks between it.

29) Although the Rabanan don't allow making an Eiruv through a Reshus Harabim since the traffic cancels the Mechitzos; that's because it doesn't have but two Mechitzos. However, we don't say that by Pasim that have four Mechitzos.

30) R' Yochanan held like R' Yehuda and, therefore, he says that Yerushalayim would be a Reshus Harabim, (since the public walks through the streets and would make the Mechitzos Batul), if it wasn't for the fact that their doors were locked at night. [Tosfos asks: even according to R' Yehuda, since Yerushalayim streets have two Mechitzos, it should make it into a Reshus Hayachid, so, why would Yerushalayim be a Reshus Harabim? Tosfos answers: it has intersections that don't have two Mechitzos.]

31) [You must say that the Rabanan agree that traffic will break natural Mechitzos (i.e., not made by man), or else the whole world would be a Reshus Harabim since it's surrounded by the oceans' continental shelves.]

32) R' Yehuda says that the public traffic cancels the Mechitzos even when it's not an easy path to walk (like on a steep mountain). However, it's only by an area that was given over as public property, and not private property, (even if traffic goes through). [Tosfos explains: this is only when it's hard to walk the path, but if it's an easy terrain and is fit to give to the public to travel, then, the public traffic breaks the Mechitzos, even if it's private property.]

33) R' Akiva allows Pasim around a public well, and any wellspring, whether it's private or public. However, you can't have it by a private well, since it's not a spring, we're afraid that the water will run out, and the owner might not realize that he shouldn't carry there anymore. However, if it belongs to the public, there will be enough people remembering to remind each other. R' Yehuda b. Bava says they only allowed it by a public wellspring, [Tosfos: he needs it to be a wellspring so it should be fit for humans, and he needs it to belong to the public just in case it runs dry, so that they would remind each other], and the Halacha is like him.

Daf 23

34) R' Yehuda b. Bava says that it's only permitted to carry in a garden or a Karfeif (i.e., enclosures not made for living), if they have a guard hut or a house in it, or it's close to a city. [Tosfos explains; however, they only allowed a Beis Sasayim, and we don't consider it now as enclosed to live there just for these additions. However, if you build the enclosure open to an actual living quarters, he would admit that it's a true living enclosure and would allow more than a Beis Sasayim. However, Rashi implies that, even in that case, we would only allow a Beis Sasayim and not more. Although a courtyard can be a lot larger, that's because people use it very often, so it's more of a living area than a Karfeif, which people don't use often, even when open to a living quarters.] R' Yehuda says that you only need a well or a trench, (i.e., some water source to be considered an somewhat fit to live there, even though that you don't have a house there like R' Yehuda b. Bava requires).

35) R' Akiva says that it doesn't need to have anything in the Karfeif, and you may carry in it as long as it's exactly seventy and two-third Amos squared. The Tanna Kama says that it could be a full Beis Sasayim squared (i.e., fifteen hundred square Amos). The difference between them is a small amount (i.e., the Tanna Kama's area is around a finger width's more than seventy and two-thirds Amos squared).

36) R' Elazar and R' Yossi both agree that the Karfeif can have its length double than its width. The difference between them is; [Rashi explains that R' Eliezer holds that it should L'chatchila have the length double than its width and R' Yossi holds that it should be L'chatchila squared. Tosfos holds it's difficult to say that there is a L'chatchila way to fence in your property. Rather, R' Elazar only allows the diagonal (hypotenuse) to be double the width, not the length, and R' Yossi even allows when the length is double.] The Halacha is like R' Yossi, and you don't need a hut etc. to put in the Karfeif.

Daf 24

37) If you have a Karfeif that's enclosed for people to live there (i.e., open to a house), and it's more than a Beis Sasayim, and you plant a garden for most of the area (which you can't walk in it, so it can't be for living), you may not carry there. Even though the actual garden is not a Beis Sasayim, but since it's most of the area, we say; even the area that trees are planted there, (and people can take walks there), is Batul to the garden and we consider the whole Karfeif as if it would be generally not made to live there.

38) If most of the area was planted with trees; according to the Rabanan who hold that you can't carry from a Karfeif to a courtyard, if the garden area is less than Beis Sasayim, you may carry in the whole area. [Tosfos explains: granted that you can't carry from a courtyard into a Karfeif that's less than Beis Sasayim, and the planted area should be considered completely open to an area that it's forbidden to carry to (which usually forbids carrying there); still, it's permitted since we say the garden area is Batul to the tree area and the whole enclosure has the status of a courtyard.] However, if the garden is a Beis Sasayim, you can't carry in it [Tosfos: since it's a Beis Sasayim, it's a Chashuv area in itself, so we don't say that it's Batul to the tree area.]

39) However, according to R' Shimon who holds that you may carry from a courtyard to a Karfeif; in a case where the trees are most of the enclosure; it's only forbidden to carry if the garden area is more than a Beis Sasayim, which makes it an area that you can't carry in, and the tree area is also forbidden since it's completely open to a forbidden area. However, if the garden is only a Beis Sasayim, it's permitted to carry in the area, since the tree area is open to an area it's permitted to carry to, since you can carry from a courtyard to a Karfeif.

40) R' Yehuda permits a tree area to be considered as if it's fit for living only if it's planted in nice rows, where it's easy to transverse around the trees. R' Nachman allowed even without these orderly rows.

41) If you first made the enclosure, and then you construct a door from the house into it, you can't carry into it if it's more than a Beis Sasayim since it wasn't originally enclosed for it. You can only carry if the door was first open to the area and then you enclosed it. This is permitted even if there is a place in there to pile grain, we say that it was enclosed to live in the area, and not just to guard the grain.

42) If he enclosed it before the door was open to the area; you need to make a breach in the fence for more than ten Amos (disqualifying it as a Mechitza), and then fence it up until it's ten Amos or smaller, and it's considered as if you made a new Mechitza. If one Amah gets breached, and you fix it, then another Amah was breached and you fixed it etc., until the new fence is more than ten Amos, you may carry in it. Although it didn't have a larger than ten Amos breach at one time, we say that the new fencing is a "new surface" to the fencing (and it's as if the old fencing has a breach of ten Amos and is no longer a Mechitza by itself without the new fencing).

43) This is true by a regular man's utensil that's Tamai, that needs to get a hole that a pomegranate can fall through in order to make it no longer susceptible to Tumah. If it gets a hole the size of an olive, and it gets patched, and then gets another olive-size hole, and it gets patched etc., until all the holes would equal the size of a pomegranate, the utensil is Tahor. Since the utensil gets a "new surface" with each patch, it's like a new utensil that came after it touched Tumah.

44) The same is true by a shoe that a Zav wore and made Tamai Medris, where one of its shoelace holes ripped off, and it was fixed, and then the second one was ripped, (since it can't be Tamai without one of the holes), we look at the shoe as if it has a new surface, and is no longer Tamai Medris, but only Tamai as an object that touched something that's Tamai Medris. [Rashi explains why we don't consider it a new utensil regarding touching something Medris too: since it's still a utensil after the holes are ripped, since it can be used for other uses. However, Tosfos asks: the Mishna in Keilim says that it's completely Tahor if the second hole ripped before fixing the first one. Rather, Tosfos explains: when you stitched the first hole on, since the shoe was still a Medris, that new hole gets simultaneously Tumas Medris (by becoming a part of the shoe), and touching Medris (by touching the shoe when it's being sewn on). We don't say that it can't receive the Tumah of touching a Medris since it's already full with Tumah by being a Medris, since it wasn't already Tamai, since both Tumos come at the same time.

Ritzva says: since it's possible to keep it's regular Tumah on the whole time, even if both holes ripped at once, if it's designated for another use. Therefore, we don't have a new surface regarding regular Tumah Although it's not designated for another use, but since it never got to a point that it's not fit for a shoe, since the holes ripped at different times, so it was always designated for use, and even if it ripped together, it's possible to use it. Therefore, it never lost its status of being a regular utensil. However, regarding wearing as a shoe, since nobody would wear it when both holes are ripped, it doesn't help to designate it for it, since his intentions are considered null as compared to what others consider to be normal.]

45) Regarding a Karfeif that's more than a Beis Sasayim and is enclosed to live; if water fills the area, even if it's in a hole that's ten Tefachim deep (and is no longer just part of the Karfeif), you can still carry there since it's like trees (since water is a use for people, it's considered part of the living area), as long as the water is fit to drink.

46) if you have an alleyway that's open to a Rachva (i.e., back-of-the-house area, and this one is more than a Beis Sasayim and is not enclosed for people to live there), which is also opened to a path in a vineyard that leads to a river [Rashi: and there is a ten Tefachim ledge before the river], and you want to make a fix to make the Rachva considered as if it's enclosed to live in, (i.e., because they opened doors into it from houses after it was enclosed); it won't help to make a wall on the ledge of the river that's at the end of the path in the vineyard [Tosfos: that's wider than ten Amos, or else you wouldn't need more than a Lechi], (and it's considered as making a wall for the Rachva, since the path is an extention from the Rachva); since the ledge is a Mechitza, it doesn't help to build a Mechitza on top of another Mechitza. [Tosfos says: although we say that you can make a Mechitza on top of a hill, although the hill is a Mechitza, since it encloses the people on top of the hill; we must say here that there was a mound at the end of the path before the river that forms a Mechitza for the people on top. We can't say that they should distance themselves four Tefachim from the mound and build the wall there (and it would be considered as its own Mechitza), since they don't want to shorten the path so much.] You can't just build a Tzuras Hapesach for the opening to the path in the vineyard, and once it's a permitting Lechi for the path, we'll say it will also permit the Rachva; since we're afraid that camels will knock it down. We can't say to make a Lechi for the path, which should help since the path is enclosed for people to live there, and once it helps for the path, we'll say it helps for the Rachva too; since we need to decree that a Lechi doesn't help for the path. Although it should technically help for this path, we need to forbid it since you might come to make a Lechi for a regular path in the vineyard that's not open to a river's ledge, but to a Karmulas, and would need a Tzuras Hapesach. [Tosfos holds this to be difficult, since the ledge makes it obvious that it's not open on both sides, and this is especially true according to our explanation that there was a mound on top of the ledge too.] Rather, you should place a Lechi on the side it's open to the alley, (and a Tzuras Hapesach on the other side of the alley open to the Reshus Harabim), and once the it's a permitting Lechi for the alley, it would help to permit the Rachva too. [Tosfos explains; the reason the alley and path need a Lechi by the opening facing the Rachva, although the Rachva has part walls from those openings to its side walls, and those walls should be a Lechi for the alley and pathway since it's a Lechi that's seen to the people outside the alley, which is Kosher even if it can't be seen by the people inside the alley; but here, since those walls don't help to permit the Rachva that it's mainly made for, we can't say that it helps the alley or path at all either.]

[However, Tosfos explains the Sugya: the path in the vineyard is not enclosed for people to live there. The ledge of the river is not ten Tefachim on the side closer to the path but on the other side of the river, but this side of the river is on the same level as the path. However, the river is not considered to be a breach in the Mechitzos of the path since the river's width is not ten Amos wide, it's a proper opening and not a breach. Therefore, you can't build a wall on top of that ledge, since it's a Mechitza on top of a Mechitza. Nor does it help to put a Tzuras Hapesach between the path and the river, since the camels will knock it over on the way to drink. You also can't place a Lechi between the Rachva and the path, and it will help for the path despite that it doesn't have people living there, but it will help because we can say the people of the alley will extend their living area to the path. Still, we decree that you shouldn't do it since you might end up putting one for a path that's not open to an alley, (or you might allow it even if it's open on both sides, and you might not realize that the ledge on the second side of the river helps to close up the path). Rather, you put the Lechi by the alleyway, and the same way the Lechi helps the alley, it will help the Rachva.]

47) R' Acha and Raveina argue whether one can carry from the alley to that Rachva. One says that they can since the Rachva doesn't have their own people living there. [Tosfos explains: even according to Rashi that the pathway has people living there, those people don't forbid the alleyway to the Rachva, since the Rachva has part walls on the side that it's open to the path to be a Mechitza between them.] The other forbade it since the Rachva sometimes has people living there [Tosfos: when they open doors from the house into it], therefore they decreed not to carry in there in all cases.

Daf 25

48) If you have a Karfeif that's more than a Beis Sasayim, if you're trying to decrease the area to a Beis Sasayim, it doesn't work by planting trees in there (and you must count the area that the trees stand on) since it's normal to have trees in a Karfeif. However, if you build a stand that's four Tefachim square in it, it decreases the area. If it's not even three Tefachim, then it doesn't decrease the area. If it's between three and four Tefachim; Rabbah says that it does decrease the area since it's no longer an insufficient area since it's not within Lavud. Rava says that it doesn't decrease the area since it's not a Chashuv amount of four Tefachim.

49) If you want to make a new wall inside the Mechitzos to make it now fenced in for the sake of living there; if you distance it four Tefachim from the original wall, it helps. If it's within three Tefachim, it doesn't help. If it's between three and four Tefachim; Rabbah says that it does help since it's no longer an insufficient area since it's not within Lavud. Rava says that it doesn't help since it's not a Chashuv amount of four Tefachim.

50) Rabbah b. Simi taught the last case leniently. If it's between three and four Tefachim everyone says that it does help. The argument is if it's just making the original wall thicker. If it's thick enough to stand by itself, everyone agrees that it helps. They only argue when it can't stand by itself. Rabbah says that it still helps since it's now standing. Rava says that it doesn't help since it can't stand by itself.

51) If you build a fence on top of the original fence; R' Chisda says that it doesn't help to acquire (through Chazaka) the Hefker field of a convert who died without any heirs, but it's considered as a Mechitza regarding Shabbos, and the area is considered as enclosed for people to live there. R' Sheishes says that it doesn't even help regarding Shabbos. However, R' Sheishes admits that if he built a fence on a mound (even though we consider the mound as having Mechitzos and is a Reshus Hayachid); it helps for Shabbos since people now live in the upper fence, (since that's what practically encloses them).

52) If you built a fence on a fence, and the bottom one sunk in the ground (and now, only the top one remains), you don't acquire the convert's field. After all, since nothing of consequence happened when you built it, when it sinks into position later, it's as if it happened by itself, and you didn't improve the field. As we see that someone doesn't acquire it when he plants a seed, since nothing happens at the planting, and what grows afterwards improves the field by itself. However, it helps regarding Shabbos even if it sinks on Shabbos As we say, all Mechitzos made on Shabbos are Mechitzos that you may even carry there unless they were made purposely with the understanding that you're transgressing Shabbos.

53) If you have a Karfeif that consists of three Saah, and you covered one Saah with a roof (and the rest is a Beis Sasayim); if the roof is made like an Achsadra (porch) [Rashi: that they don't have any walls, but they have flat roofs]; there is an argument between Rav and Shmuel whether we say that we view the surface of the roof's thickness as if it descends and forms a Mechitza. However, if the roof is slanty without having a perpendicular surface of the roof's thickness, Rava says that the covered Saah combines to the rest of the Kafeif to make it more than a Beis Sasayim. R' Zeira says: even in this case, we say that we view it as if it comes down to form a wall. [However, Tosfos asks that the Gemara in Sukka says that Rava says that we don't view the surface coming down when it has two walls, when the two sides without walls are open one to another. Rather, Tosfos explains: Rav and Shmuel argue if it forms a wall when it at least has two walls that are adjacent, but not opposite each other. Rava and R' Zeira argue, (not by a slanty roof like Rashi), but if there are no walls around the roof, if it helps. (I.e., R' Zeira holds that Rav doesn't need to have any walls, and only argues with Shmuel when it has two walls to show that Shmuel forbids even in that case.)]

54) If a Karfeif completely breaks open to a courtyard (by having the wall between them collapse), even according to R' Shimon who says that you may carry from one to each other; if the Karfeif was originally an exact Beis Sasayim, and the extra space added for the wall now makes it more than a Beis Sasayim, it's forbidden to carry inside it. However, you can carry in the courtyard despite it being open to a forbidden Karfeif, since there are still small walls connecting the side walls to the opening of the Karfeif that forms a Mechitza. [Tosfos points out that the opening can't be more than ten Amos wide, or else it would be considered that the courtyard has a breach into the Karfeif, and it will be forbidden to carry there. Tosfos asks: if so, it comes out that the Beis Sasayim Karfeif is only ten Amos wide, and, therefore, the length must be more than double the width. If so, before the breach, how could they carry there? After all, the most lenient opinion only allows carrying if the length is double and not more.

Tosfos answers: only by the opening to the courtyard was it only ten Amos wide, but then it got much wider as it spread out. Alternatively, it's only forbidden to carry when the length is more than double the width when it's exactly Beis Sasayim. However, if it's less than a Beis Sasayim, it's permitted. So, this Karfeif started out less than a Beis Sasayim, so you could carry in it. However, when the wall collapsed, it added enough space to the Karfeif to make it exactly a Beis Sasayim, which causes the prohibition of carrying in it since its length is more than double its width.]

55) There was an orchard that was open to a palace [Rashi's explanation:] (which made the orchard "enclosed to live in"), and the outer wall of the palace fell down, you can't rely on the inner wall of the palace to make the orchard be considered "enclosed to live there," since the inner wall wasn't made to surround the orchard. [Tosfos explains the case: the orchard was originally surrounded not to live in since there wasn't doors that was opened to the palace. When they eventually opened doors, they built another wall four Tefachim away from the palace to make it enclosed to live in. Then the new wall fell down. We say that it's forbidden to carry in the orchard, and we don't say that, once it was considered enclosed for living in it, and they're still living there, and it's enclosed by the palace's wall; it keeps its Heter.]

56) There was a great shade tree planted in order to place benches underneath for people to congregate there. It was in an orchard that was bigger than a Beis Sasayim and wasn't enclosed for people to live in it. [Rashi's first explanation: you can't make a small Mechitza inside, consisting of reeds within three Tefachim from each other to place a guard there, and to place the food that's needed for the next day. The second explanation: you can't say that the orchard was enclose to live in there because of the shade tree, and you can only permit by making those Mechitzos of reeds to make a path to the tree, and to surround the tree with it.] After all, it's a Mechitza that was enclosed before people started living there. Also, the Mechitza was only made for privacy [According to Rashi's first explanation: it's only temporary. According to the second explanation, it's like the simple meaning, the walls of the orchard was only made for privacy]. Also. the Mechitzos are only made for 'Nachas.' [According to Rashi's first explanation: not for themselves, but just to guard that area outside it. According to the second explanation, it was made to hang up their clothing and utensils on them.]

Daf 26

57) Rabbah b Avuah made an Eiruv for each alley individually in Mechuza, and he didn't make the whole Mechuza in one Eiruv since there were large ditches between each alleyway to hold date pits, which were fodder, and the Mechitzos were made for Nachas. [Rashi explains: the walls surrounding Mechuza was only made to guard these pits, so you can't rely on them to say that the whole Mechuza, which is obviously more than a Beis Sasayim, is surrounded by walls. Tosfos asks: the Gemara implies that it's only forbidden because the ditches full of dates are still there, but would be permitted if removed. However, according to Rashi, since the walls weren't made for living, it shouldn't permit after it was removed either. Also, it seems that Mechuza was a regular walled city, as it says that it would be a Reshus Harabim if the city's gates weren't locked at night. Rather, Tosfos explains: these ditches were bigger than a Beis Sasayim, and since their walls around them were to guard the date pits, so you can't carry within them, so these forbidden ditches separated the alleyways from each other so they can't make one big Eiruv.]

58) R' Ilay heard that R' Eliezer allowed to carry in a Karfeif even if it was a Kur big (i.e., thirty Saah). Chananya holds that even if it's forty Saah big. They both learn it from Yeshaya's courtyard that the Pasuk calls "a city." R' Ilay held that a medium city is a Kur, and Chananya held it's forty Kur.

59) R' Ilay also heard from R' Eliezer that, if someone in a courtyard forgot to contribute to the Eiruv, and he holds everyone back from carrying in the courtyard, which the remedy is for him to Mevatel Reshus (i.e., to give up his rights to the property so that the others can have it), the other people can carry from the courtyard into this person's house. However, the Chachumim say that nobody can carry from the courtyard to his house.

60) The reason for R' Eleizer is; that he's Mevatel generously. Therefore, when he is Mevatel his rights, not only does he give up the rights to his courtyard, he gives up his rights to his house too. Therefore, he also holds that, if you Mevatel to one of them, we assume he's also Mevatel to all of them, and he doesn't need to explicitly Mevatel to them all.

61) The Chachumim hold that he Mevatels stingily. Therefore, he only Mevatels his rights to the courtyard and not to his house. Therefore, he needs to explicitly Mevatel to everyone in the courtyard and we can't assume that, just because he Mevatel to one of them, he was Mevatel to all of them.

62) However, they both agree that, if the person explicitly only wants to Mevatel the courtyard, or also the house, he may do so and we don't say that his intent is null against what everyone else considers to be normal.

63) He also heard from R' Eliezer that you're Yoitza Maror on Pesach with the 'Arkbulan.' [Rashi explains it to be a vine that grows around the palm tree. Tosfos adds: it must be a plant, and not a tree, since we say in Pesachim that Maror must be from a plant.]