Daf 89

1) R' Meir holds that all roofs of the city are considered to be one Reshus (and you may carry from one to the other) unless one roof is below ten Tefachim from the second roof. This is the same decree that he forbids someone in a courtyard to place an object on a stand there since it might lead him to carry from a Reshus Harabim to a mound there that has the dimensions of a Reshus Hayachid, which is ten Tefachim high, (since the cases are similar). However, they only decreed to prohibit to put the object on something that's established in the courtyard, like a stand or a mill, but he may place an object on a big mortar or a barrel. [Tosfos says that the Halacha is not like R' Meir. Although the Halacha is usually like him when he makes a decree, but here Rav and Shmuel Paskin like R' Shimon. Also, we see R' Yochanan allows placing items on a wall between two courtyards.]

2) We must say, when R' Meir says that all the courtyards of a town are one Reshus (and you can carry from one to the other) that's only when they carry through an opening, but not over the wall. [Tosfos says that they could have answered (that it also refers to carrying over the wall) if the wall is not four Tefachim wide.]

3) The Chachumim say that every roof is its own Reshus. If there is a space between the roofs (i.e., the two houses aren't built together), everyone holds that you can carry on each roof by itself, since we say that the sides of the walls extend up and the roofs are surrounded by Mechitzos. However, if there is no distinction between roofs, (i.e., they're built together); Rav holds that you can't carry on the roofs since we can't take the wall between houses and say it extends upwards in order to have a Mechitza between the roofs, since you can't see the wall from the roof. Therefore, they're both completely open to each other and forbid each other. Shmuel permits to carry since we say the wall between the houses extend up even when you can't see the walls from the roof. However, this is only when there is no one living on the roof, for if there are, we say that their walking over the roof 'tramples' the imaginary Mechitzos.

4) According to Rav: that, which the Rabanan considered each roof as its own Reshus; although, according to him, he can't even carry within his own roof; you must say that they're considered different Reshus regarding that you can't carry two Amos on one roof and another two Amos on the second roof.

5) [Tosfos says; even though Rav and Shmuel don't Paskin like the Rabanan, but like R' Shimon (that roofs are one Reshus), there is still a ramification to their argument regarding utensils that rested in the house from Erev Shabbos. Alternatively, if all the roofs together combine to be more than a Beis Sasayim, Rav and Shmuel will argue if the walls extend up to split them to individual roofs that are less than a Beis Sasayim.]

6) [The Ri says: our roofs that stick out over the house's walls and are slanty are a Karmalus. After all, you can't say that the walls of the house extend upwards to surround the house since you can't see it from the roof (since the roof sticks out over the walls). You can't say that the surface of the roof's thickness extends down to make a Mechitza since we don't say that with a slanty roof. We can't say that we view the roof itself as if it descends to make a Mechitza, since you have young goats that can walk under it that breaks that type of Mechitza. (Mahrsha- although you can say that the main part of the roof should be a Reshus Hayachid since the goats can't walk under it since the house is in the way), however, since it's completely open to the part of the roof that's sticking out beyond the house, and that's a Karmulas, the whole roof becomes forbidden.

Although we have a rule that there is no Karmulas above ten Tefachim off the ground, that's only if it's ten Tefachim of airspace, but not on a surface, like a roof or a protrusion from a wall that's not open to a Reshus Hayachid (or else it would be a hole that's open to a Reshus Hayachid) and the bottom three Tefachim is not stuffed up so that goats can pass (or else we'll say that the protrusion will extend down to form a Mechitza). However, the Yerushalmi says that whatever's above ten Tefachim, even if it has a surface four Tefachim wide, it's a Makum Patur and not a Karmulas.]

7) R' Yosef says: if you have a smaller roof that's open to a larger roof (that extends on both sides from the smaller roof); the larger roof is permitted, and the smaller one is forbidden only if there is actual walls that surround the roofs. Therefore, the smaller roof is open completely to the bigger roof, but the big roof has walls on its fourth side to form a proper opening that acts like a Mechitza to the small roof. [Tosfos points out: we must say that the walls of the small roof extend into the big roof, or else we'll say that the wall on the side of the opening of the big roof can be used as a Mechitza for the small roof, since it's associated to it when viewed from outside the small roof, even though those inside the small roof can't see it.] However, if there are no actual walls surrounding the roofs, the big roof is also forbidden since we don't say that the walls of the building extend up to make the walls, since there is no physical walls between the two roofs, it's not a proper opening, since people don't make such type of openings.

8) The smaller roof is only forbidden if it has a proper wall around it that's fit for people to live up there. However, if only the big roof has a wall around it that's fit to live there, but not the small roof, the people of the big roof can even carry in the small roof. Since the people of the small roof didn't bother to build walls so that they can live there, they have removed themselves from using their roof, and the People from the big one can use it as if it's theirs.

9) Similarly, if only one house makes an established ladder to the roof, but the others didn't, it's as if they removed themselves from using their roofs, and the one who made the ladder could carry in all of the roofs.

10) If one of the residents build a room on top of his roof and he makes a Daka [Rashi: a small entrance] towards the other roofs, he's permitted with all the other roofs [Rashi: since only he made such improvements to his roof,and the others didn't, we assume that the others forgive the use of their roofs to him. However, Tosfos says that the Ri explains that the Daka is a small Mechitza. Therefore, we must say the case is like how R' Chananel explains it; the other people who own the roof made an EIruv, so, in order that he shouldn't forbid the rest, he places a Daka on his entrance to show that he removes himself from the rest of the roof. We must say that this room is completely open (without any partial Mechitza on the fourth side) or that he didn't make the room over the whole portion of his roof, or else he wouldn't forbid the other people in the first place.]

11) However, if he makes the opening of the room on his roof to outside the building, and not towards the rest of the roof; it's only made for watching his garden, and he removes himself from the rest of the roof (and doesn't forbid everyone else).

Daf 90

12) If you have a stand next to a roof, you can't carry two Amos on one surface and two Amos on the other surface, since the roof is a Karmulas and the stand is a Reshus Hayachid. [Tosfos says: only if the stand is four Tefachim away from the roof. However, if it's within four Tefachim, it's considered as if it's completely opened to the roof and is also a Karmulas. However, it's forbidden to carry from one to another despite it's being more than four Tefachim away, even though the item must travel over a Makum Patur (the airspace above ten Tefachim over the ground between the roof and the stand), even according to the opinion that you may carry from a Reshus Hayachid to a Makom Patur to a Karmulas since it's only rabbinic, since we only would allow it if the item rests in the Makom Patur, and here it goes straight from the Karmulas to a Reshus Hayachid without stopping.]

13) [R' Tam explains the case: the stand is not ten Tefachim high, and it's a Karmulas. Therefore, you can't carry from a roof that's a Reshus Hayachid from the Torah to the Karmulas. Although they can't carry on the roof now since they didn't make an Eiruv, but since they would be able to carry on it when they make an Eiruv, it's considered a regular Reshus Hayachid in comparison to a real Karmulas.]

14) There's an inquiry whether you can carry from a roof to a porch [Rashi: that belongs to another person and is more than a Beis Sasayim. (R'Shash's text) or, even if it's less than a Beis Sasayim, if the porch doesn't have any Mechitza. We don't say that the porch has Mechitzos because we view that the surface of its roof descends, since we refer to a slanty roof that we don't say such a thing. We also only would allow on top of the porch's roof, and not below in the porch. Tosfos: since we don't say that a roofed area is forbidden since it's larger than a Beis Sasayim. After all, we say an area that's three Saah big, and one Saah is covered, it's permitted since you only have a Beis Sasayim uncovered.] Do we say that it's forbidden just like it's forbidden to carry from one roof to another? [Rashi explains: we care that you shouldn't carry between areas that have different owners. Tosfos says that this is somewhat difficult. After all, even the Rabanan hold that roofs, courtyards, balconies are one Reshus to carry from one to the other even if they have different owners.] Or do we say: since a porch is not made to live in it that much, it doesn't forbid.

If we say that it would be permitted in the above case; what would be the case by carrying from a roof to an uninhabited house? Do we say that, since it's more livable than a porch, it's forbidden. Or do we say: since no one is living in there now, it's permitted. [Tosfos says that the inquiry is about carrying to the roof of the uninhabited house similar to the case of the porch. However, Rashi explains it that it refers to carrying into its floor.]

15) According to R' Meir, if you have many roofs that are level to each other, or according to the Rabanan, according to Shmuel who says that the walls of individual houses extend up and make a Mechitza to block it off from the other roof, we must refer to a singular house (without walls in between), which has an area more than a Beis Sasayim; there's an argument whether we say that the outer walls, that are made for people to live in the houses, extends upwards to form a Mechitza on the roof that will classify as surrounding the roof for living there and permit it even though it's more than a Beis Sasayim, or not. Rav holds that we say that those walls are made for living, so it helps for the roof too, but Shmuel holds that the walls were only made for people to live in the houses, but not on top of the roof. [Tosfos says; although Shmuel holds the roof is not surrounded by Mechitzos to live there and it's like a Karfeif; still, we consider that people are living on the roof enough that the Rabanan of R' Shimon hold that it's forbidden to carry from a roof to a Karfeif since the former was made for living and the latter not. Also, you can carry from the courtyard to the roof since they're both similar that they're made for living.

Tosfos explains why this Halacha is true to R' Meir if there are many houses, and we don't say that the individual houses walls extend up (according to Shmuel) and cut off roofs from the others so that it would be that every individual roof is less than a Beis Sasayim. After all, we only say this by utensils that rested in the house Bein Hashmashes, but there is no reason not to consider them as one roof regarding utensils that rested on the roof Bein Hashmashes.]

16) A boat [Tosfos: that's more than a Beis Sasayim]; Rav allows carrying in there since they have Mechitzos. Shmuel says that you can't carry in it since the boats walls are only made to block out the water. [Tosfos says: therefore, he doesn't consider it as surrounded to live in to permit them more than a Beis Sasayim. We see in the fourth Perek that R' Zeira held this logic why we can't say that you can walk in a boat that went outside the T'chum; however, we don't need to say that he must hold here like Shmuel, since he could be just stringent regarding T'chum. However, if the boat is not a Beis Sasayim, Shmuel agrees that you can carry in them and it's not considered as if it doesn't have Mechitzos since Shmuel Paskins like R' Gamliel by a boat (that if your in a boat that went out of the T'chum) that you can walk the whole boat since you rested in those Mechitzos Bein Hashmashes.]

17) Shmuel admitted that the Halacha is like Rav. Rav admits that, in a case where the boat was overturned to tar, you can't carry there if it's more than a Beis Sasayim since it's not surrounded anymore to live there. However, if you overturn the boat to live underneath, it's surrounded to live there and you can carry there even if it's more than a Beis Sasayim.

18) Another version: they argue about a (free standing) porch. Rav allows carrying underneath since we say we view the surface of the roof's thickness as if it extends downwards to create a Mechitza, and Shmuel forbids since we don't view it as if it extends downwards.

19) According to Rav, who holds that the house walls that extend upwards to surround the roof is considered as surrounding it to live, the reason why R' Meir forbids carrying from a courtyard to a roof has nothing to do with carrying from a living area to a non-living area, since they're both surrounded to live. Rather, R' Meir forbids it so that you won't come to carry from a street to a mound that's ten Tefachim high.

20) According to Shmuel, who holds that the house walls that extend upwards to surround the roof is not considered as surrounding it to live, the reason the Rabanan don't allow carrying from a roof to a Karfeif can't be because they're different regarding how they're living there, since they seem to be similar. Rather, we're afraid that some of the roof will collapse without you realizing, but you can carry from one Karfeif to the other without worrying that it will also collapse since that is more recognizable. [Rashi says: we're referring to areas more than a Beis Sasayim and carrying from one to another within four Amos. So, we're afraid that the roof will collapse partially and it will now be less than a Beis Sasayim, and you'll be carrying from a full Reshus Hayachid to a Karfeif that's more than a Beis Sasayim. However, you don't need to worry that a regular Karfeif will have something collapse in it to make its area less than a Beis Sasayim. After all, you would realize if it did since it's surrounded with walls.

Tosfos quoted the Ri who asks: where does Rashi get that we're referring to areas that are more than a Beis Sasayim? After all, the rules must only have been said for carrying in an area of a Beis Sasayim, because if they refer to more than a Beis Sasayim, R' Shimon wouldn't allow carrying from a courtyard to a Karfeif, since that Karfeif is a Karmulas. Rather, we must say that the question is; why aren't you completely allowed to carry from a roof less than a Beis Sasayim into a Karfeif that's less than a Beis Sasayim since they're both not surrounded to live in. (You can't say that we see it's more livable than a Karfeif and that's why they allow carrying from a roof into a courtyard. After all, we should say, since the roof is more similar to a Karfeif than to a courtyard since they're both not surrounded to live in it, and a courtyard is surrounded to live in. Therefore, if the roof is similar enough to a courtyard to carry in it, it's even more similar to a Karfeif, and you should be able to carry in it.) Rather, the reason is that the roof might collapse and now be open to the house, and the people in the house will use the roof. Therefore, it would be considered as a regular Reshus Hayachid surrounded to live in since it's connected to the house. Although we usually say that it doesn't get the status of being surrounded to live in if it's opened to a house after the walls were constructed; that's only by a Karfeif since it's not made for living at all. However, a roof, which is already somewhat made to live in, even if it opens up later to a house, we'll consider it as if it supplements the living there for it to reach the status as if it was surrounded completely for people to live there. However, you don't need to worry about carrying in a Karfeif that the wall will collapse and it would be breeched to a Reshus Harabim, since that would be more obvious.]

21) R' Yehuda (the Amorah) says: R' Meir holds all roofs are their own Reshus, all courtyards are their own Reshus, and all Karfeifs are their own Reshus. The Rabanan say: courtyards and roofs are their own Reshus, and Karfeifs are their own Reshus. R' Shimon says that they're all, i.e., roofs, courtyards and Karfeifs, one Reshus.

Daf 91

22) We have a Braisa like Rav that the Rabanan forbid roofs that are next to each other, and we don't say that the wall that divides the houses extends upwards, since you can't see it from the roof. Also, we have a Braisa like R' Yehuda (in #21).

23) Rav holds that the Halacha is like R' Shimon in the case where the courtyards didn't make an Eiruv and they can't carry out from their houses. However, if the courtyards made their own Eiruv, you can't carry from one to another even utensils that rested Bein Hashamashes in the courtyard, since you might also carry out utensils that rested Bein Hashmashes in the houses. [Tosfos explains: I.e., that this is R' Shimon's opinion, and not that he just partially Paskins like him.] R' Yochanan and Shmuel held that the Halacha is like R' Shimon even when the courtyards made their individual Eiruvs. After all, R' Shimon here is consistent to his opinion by three courtyards that are opened to each other, that the outer ones made an Eiruv with the inner one, but they didn't make an Eiruv with each other, that they may carry from the outer to the inner and they don't need to worry that they'll carry the utensils of one outer courtyard into the other outer courtyard. [Tosfos says; it comes out that Rav and Shmuel seem to contradict their own opinions, as Rav held like R' Shimon by the three courtyards, even though he forbids here if they made an Eiruv; and Shmuel (according to R' Tam's explanation) held like the Rabanan, and here he allows even if they made an Eiruv. Furthermore, Shmuel says here that these two Halachos are one and the same, so how can he split his decision?]

24) [Tosfos says: we see Shmuel in Gitten holds that you can't capture rain from your friend's roof and bring it over; it can't mean that you can't bring it to your roof or courtyard, since Shmuel here Paskins like R' Shimon in all cases. Rather, it means that you can't bring it down into your house. However, you can capture it on your roof and bring it down to your house even if there's no wall between your roof and the next roof, since Shmuel holds that we say that the houses' walls extend up to make a Mechitza between them. The Chidush that you can't bring it to your house from your friend's roof, (which should be obvious), is; this is true even when you capture the rain as it falls, and it did not land yet on the other roof.]

25) We say that R' Shimon holds that all courtyards are the same Reshus regarding utensils that rested in the courtyard and not those that rested in the house. If so, according to Rav that R' Shimon only permits when they didn't make an Eiruv, how do you find utensils that rested in the house in the courtyard on Shabbos? The Gemara answers: it refers to clothes that someone wore out from the house, and he took it off in the courtyard.

26) Everyone agrees that the Rabanan of R' Shimon holds that you can't carry from one courtyard to another when they made Eiruvs since you need to worry that they'll also carry the utensils that rested in the house.

Daf 92

27) If you have an uninhabited house between two courtyards; one courtyard made an Eiruv, and the other one didn't; R' Huna says that you allow the one that didn't make an Eiruv to carry in the uninhabited house, and not the one that made an Eiruv since we're afraid they'll carry there utensils that rested in the house.

28) However, R' Chiya b. Rav said: I heard from my father that we give it also to the one that made an Eiruv. In the first version, the Gemara says that it makes sense that he wants to forbid both courtyards (and you can't carry to it from either courtyard like a Reshus that equally belongs to two courtyards) because we forbid the one that didn't make an Eiruv because, if not, we'll come to permit also the one that made an EIruv. After all, he can't mean that we should allow even the one that made an Eiruv, since Rav forbids carrying from one courtyard that made an Eiruv to another courtyard that didn't make an Eiruv. [Tosfos says: the Gemara could have also said that they can't carry to another courtyard that made an Eiruv, but they said it this way to parallel the case we're referring to until now, where one courtyard made an Eiruv and the second one didn't. However, Rashi is also correct by saying that one didn't make an Eiruv to hint that; it's only forbidden carrying from the one that made an Eiruv to the one that didn't, but you may carry from the one that didn't make the EIruv to the one that made an EIruv.] The Gemara pushes off that logic by saying: perhaps they're more worried by two courtyards since it's more apt to carry from one to another, but not from carrying from a courtyard to an abandoned house which is not too safe to leave your items.

29) According to the second version: Rav permits carrying from both. After all, they're more worried by two courtyards since it's more apt to carry from one to another, but not from carrying from a courtyard to an abandoned house which is not too safe to leave your items. [Tosfos says that this seems to not fit in well to an earlier Sugya that we said that R' Yochanan allows using an uninhabited house as a component to allow an alley with a Lechi or Koreh since he holds that the Halacha is like R' Shimon even with an Eiruv and you can carry from the alley into the uninhabited house. However, according to our Gemara, even Rav who argues that you can't carry into a courtyard will agree that you can carry into the uninhabited house.]

30) In a case of a larger roof next to a smaller roof, you can carry in the big roof, but not on the smaller one. (According to Rav, you need the outer walls to be seen so you can say that the outer walls extend upwards to make Mechitzos for the roof, and according to Shmuel, in order to say that the wall separating the two houses not to extend upwards to block off the two roofs with a Mechitza, we must say that the area on top of the wall is trampled on by people.) [Tosfos points out: according to the opinion that a Lechi that's seen from the outside, but not the inside, is valid; the reason that the side walls of the big roof's fourth side doesn't permit the small roof is because we refer to a case where the walls of the small roof extend and stick into the large roof, which blocks off those side walls from the small roof.]

31) Therefore, if you have vines planted in the big courtyard, you can't plant the smaller one with grain. However if the vines are in the small one, you can plant the whole big one with grain. [Rashi explains: since the only Klayim that's prohibited from the Torah are canvass and 'Luf' seeds, as the Gemara says in Menachos; we don't forbid the vines of Reuvein when Shimon plant grains in his field. Therefore, since planting these grains are only a rabbinic prohibition, we only fine he who did the sin. Therefore, since the grain in the big field is considered cut off from the vines, he didn't do an Aveira, it's only causing the vines in the smaller courtyard to be exposed to the grain, so we don't fine to forbid it on anyone. Even if both courtyards belong to one person, (and he planted the vines first), since he didn't do a sin when he planted later the grain, we permit it. However, Tosfos asks; we Paskin that even if the Klayim sprout out by itself, the field is forbidden if you don't uproot it right away after you discover it, and of course it will be forbidden if you caused the Klayim. Therefore, we must explain the Gemara in Menachos as referring to when the owner is not aware that it was planted. Therefore, Tosfos explains our Gemara: since we view the smaller one as if it's in the bigger one, but the bigger one is cut off from the smaller one, we only consider the vines with the grain, but not the grain being with the vines. The Torah only forbids planting grain in a vineyard, but not planting vines in a grain field. Therefore, when the grain is in the smaller area, it's like your planting in the large area by the vines and it's forbidden. However, when the vine is in the smaller area, the grain is not in it, so it's permitted.]

35) If you have a wife in the big courtyard, and the Get was thrown in the smaller courtyard, she's divorced. However, if she's in the small courtyard and the Get is in the big courtyard, she's not divorced. [Rashi explains: the woman needs to be in the same place as the Get. Therefore, if she's in the big one, it's as if the small courtyard is in the big one, and she's divorced. However, if she's in the smaller one, she's not considered as within the bigger one, and she's not with the Get, so she's not divorced. The Ri says that you don't need to be in the same area as the Get, and your divorced just being near the area. Rather, we refer to the wife borrowing the area to make the Get acquisition with. Therefore, if she borrowed the big courtyard, since the smaller one is considered in the big one, it's as if she borrowed also the small one. Therefore, if it falls in the small one, she borrowed it and she can acquire her Get. However, if she borrows the small courtyard, the big courtyard is not included. Therefore, if it lands in the big one, it's not hers to acquire the Get with.]

36) If you have the congregation in the big courtyard and the Chazon in the smaller one, the Chazon could be Moitzie them in Davening. However if the Chazon is in the big one, he can't be Moitzie the congregation in the smaller courtyard.

37) If you have nine people in the big courtyard and one person in the small courtyard, they combine to a Minyan. However if you have one in the big courtyard and nine in the smaller one, they don't combine. [Tosfos says: this is not exact, but even if you have five in both courtyards, they don't combine until you have six in the bigger one. The only reason they used the case of nine to one was to parallel the first case.]

38) [Tosfos says: we have an argument in Pesachim that Rav held that a threshold separates people from a Minyan, and R' Yehoshua b. Levi says that even an iron wall can't separate the people to their father in heaven. We Paskin like R' Yehoshua b. Levi, yet here we Paskin that a Mechitza separates. We must reconcile that, here, they're combining to make a Minyan, but there, there's a Minyan in one place and the question is: if someone that's outside the area where the Minyan is could answer to Kaddish and Kedusha, which you need a Minyan to say. If it doesn't need a Minyan, you can be Moitzie others behind a wall according to everyone, as we have explicit Mishnayos that someone is Yoitza if he hears the Shofar, or the Megila, from behind the Shul's walls.]

39) If you have dung in the small courtyard, you can read Shma in the big courtyard. However, if you have dung in the big courtyard, you can't read Shma in the small courtyard.

40) [Rashi says: we view it as if the whole small courtyard is within the big courtyard, since it's like an opening to it, (like a hallway leading to it). Therefore, even if you distance the grain a hundred Amos from the vines in the big one, it's still forbidden since it's like it's in the big courtyard and it's not as if it's only completely breached to it (that we would allow planting four Amos away from the vines). However, Ri says that it's no worse than a breach. Therefore, you can plant four Amos away from the vines, but since it's surrounded by Mechitzos, you need to have a twelve Amos length, so that you can distance four Amos, plant four Amos, and have four Amos space from the back wall. However, Tosfos concludes that the Sugya seems to be like Rashi.]

Daf 93

41) If half an area is covered, you can plant vines under it and you can plant grains right next to it, since we view the surface of the roof as it extends down to make a Mechitza between them. [Tosfos says that this is even true according to Shmuel who doesn't view this extention if it takes up even one full wall; that's only by Shabbos that's more stringent, and not by Klayim, as we see in the first Perek that we're more lenient by the Mechitzos of Klayim.]

42) If three people were on their way, and each one made a enclosure that's open to each other's enclosure. (I.e., there are three enclosures next to each other with an opening between each of them). If the outer ones are larger in length than the inner one that looks like an 'H,' (so the inner one is like a small courtyard that's open to larger ones, that we say that it's as if they're in the larger ones) we consider all three people if they're in the inner one, so they become a 'caravan' of three that we allow carrying within the whole structure no matter how large it is. However, if the inner one is larger than the outer ones (like a '+') the most we can do is view the inner one as if he's with each outer one, which you'll only get two in each outer one, which doesn't make a three man 'caravan.'

We have an inquiry: if you have two people in the inner one, and one in each outer one; do we say that we put both inner people in an outer enclosure, and you'll have three people to have a caravan; or do we only put each inner person into one of the outer ones, and both outer ones will only have two. If you want to say that we should put each of the inner people in a different enclosure, what would be the case if you have one person in the inner one, and you have two in each outer one. Do we say that, no matter which way you put the middle one, you'll have three, and it's a caravan. [Tosfos says that this is not similar to the case of a Minyan that having one in the big courtyard doesn't combine to the nine in the small courtyard, since we have a specific reason to say here that we can place this middle person to either side.] Or do we say that, since we can't figure which side we should send him, we don't send him to either side and you don't have a caravan. However, the Gemara says that we could be lenient by both inquiries.

43) If you have one courtyard on ground that's five Tefachim higher than the next courtyard, and he built a five Tefachim wall to supplement the ground height to ten Tefachim [Tosfos: and not like how Rashi explains in Gitten that we refer to building a wall around a pit; since everyone agrees that the deepness of a pit and the walls surrounding can combine to ten Tefachim to make the pit a Reshus Hayachid. Also, we say later that R' Chisda says it's a Mechitza to the area that faces ten Tefachim]; R' Chisda says that we don't consider the upper courtyard as if it has a Mechitza, since there's only a five Tefachim wall facing them. However, they can't make an Eiruv with the lower courtyard, since it's considered as if there is a full Mechitza before them since they're facing a ten Tefachim wall (i.e., combination of high ground and wall). [Tosfos asks: according to this; if you have a five Tefachim mound in a street, and it's surrounded with a five Tefachim wall; if you throw from the Reshus Harabim into it, you're Chayiv since you're facing a Mechitza of ten Tefachim, but if you throw from the mound out you're exempt since you're not in a Reshus Hayachid since you're not facing a ten Tefachim Mechitza.]

44) Mareimar says that you combine the ground and the wall even for those who are in the higher courtyard, and that's also the Halacha.

45) New residents that come to an enclosure on Shabbos (like if the wall fell between two courtyards, and they now all live in this new larger courtyard, and they all didn't make an Eiruv together); Rabbah, R' Huna and R' Yehuda all hold that they don't forbid carrying (even though they're not part of the Eiruv). After all, once the courtyard is permitted at the onset of Shabbos, it remains permitted for the whole Shabbos.

46) If a wall fell between two courtyards; Rav forbade carrying since he doesn't hold of the concept of "once the courtyard is permitted at the onset of Shabbos, it remains permitted for the whole Shabbos." [Rashi says: this is even according to R' Shimon even regarding utensils that rested in the courtyard. After all, Rav holds that R' Shimon only permits if you didn't make an Eiruv, but when you made an Eiruv and you have utensils that rested in the house in the courtyard, even utensils that rested in the courtyard are forbidden. However, Tosfos says that the prohibition only applies to utensils that rested in the house according to R' Shimon. See Mahrsha that Tosfos held that; since you can no longer carry out from the house, it won't be common to have utensils from the house in the courtyard.] However, Shmuel allows this, therefore, each courtyard may carry until where the wall was originally.

Daf 94

47) If you have a courtyard that its wall fell and it's now open to the street: R' Eliezer held that the fallen wall has the status of a Reshus Harabim, and the Chachumim say that it has the status of a Karmulas.

48) The Gemara has two ways to establish their argument. One way: the public had a path by the courtyard but it got lost and nobody remembers where it was. R' Eliezer holds that they can choose their own path, and since they chose the path to be by this wall, it gets the status of a Reshus Harabim, and the Chachumim hold that they can't choose a path so it still belongs to the courtyard's owner. [Tosfos explains: although the public walks there, we said in the second Perek that it's only a Reshus Harabim if it was given over to the public to walk there. See R'shas who says that this seems to contradict Tosfos over there that qualifies it only if it's hard to walk on that path, but if it's easy, then it's a Reshus Harabim if the public travels there even if it belongs to an individual.]

Alternatively, it becomes "the side of the Reshus Harabim" (which was a little buffer zone at the side of the road so that wagons shouldn't rub against the house). They argue whether this side of a Reshus Harabim has the status of a Reshus Harabim or it doesn't. It doesn't make a difference if the side had pegs to separate it from the main Reshus Harabim or not, R' Eliezar still considers it a Reshus Harabim with the pegs, and the Chachumim consider it a Karmulas even without the pegs. [Tosfos says: this is true even if that area has an owner. After all, most of the time this side of the road was left by the house owners who purposely built the houses a certain amount into their property so that there will remain such a buffer. Tosfos also says: this is not like R' Acha in the beginning of Shabbos who says that R' Eliezer only says this without pegs, but like R' Pappa there who seems to argue.]

49) If there is a breach in a corner wall, it's considered a breach (and breaks the Mechitzos) even if it's much less than ten Amos since we can't define it as a proper opening, since people don't make proper openings in the corner.

50) [Tosfos says: when you have a courtyard, and there is an opening on one side, and a breach in the back wall opposite it, you need boards on the opening, and a Tzuras Hapesach on the breach if it's also open to a Reshus Harabim or to a Karmulas. However, you don't need anything on the second side if it's opened to another courtyard or alleyway.]

51) If you have a Achsadra [Rashi: i.e., it's a roof that's open to all four sides], Rav permits carrying in it, since he says that you can view the four surfaces of the roof's thickness as they extend downwards forming Mechitzos from all four sides. Shmuel forbids carrying there since we only say that the thickness extends down by three walls, like if one side has a wall, and not by all four. [Tosfos says that nobody can hold that it descends on all four sides since the Gemara in Sukka says that it even can't extend down to make Mechitzos by two sides that are opposite each other and people can pass through. Rather, the text is that Rav allows by three walls, and you need the descending surface to form a complete fourth wall. The truth is that he even allows with two adjacent walls, as long as they're not parallel. However, Shmuel forbids if you need it for a complete fourth wall. However, he allows if the fourth wall was already started, but it's not enough to permit by itself, like if there was a Lechi on the fourth side or a board, and you would need two boards; or it's a breach larger than ten Amos, so we say the surface of the thickness descends to supplement the Mechitza on the fourth wall.]

52) Although the Mishna forbids if two walls of a house fall down and we don't say that it's considered enclosed by the descending thickness of the roof; Rav answers: the Mishna refers to when the roof is a slant. [Rashi explains: we don't say Pi Tikra with a slanty roof. Tosfos explains that the roof also collapsed, and the remainder of the roof is at a diagonal that spans from the remnants of one wall to the remnants of the other wall. We can't permit a Pi Tikra by such a roof that's broken by the corner of the house.]

53) Shmuel explains why it's forbidden [Rashi; although Shmuel admits to Pi Tikra by two walls. Tosfos: although he admits when you don't need it for a full wall]; since we refer to a case where it broke in four. [Rashi explains that the roof didn't break to form a straight line, but it goes in a and out four times, and therefore, creating a need to make Pi Tikra on four surfaces, which Shmuel says that we don't allow. Tosfos explains: the roof collapse into the interior of the house for four Tefachim, so that the surfaces are no longer associated to the walls, and we don't say Pi Tikra without any walls. Granted that this is true by one wall, the reason that the Mishna composes this case by two walls is because: it's the regular case, since the roof usually doesn't collapse unless the walls break in the corners. Alternatively, the above reason that we don't say Pi Tikra here is only because we combine that reason with another reason; that it doesn't look like a proper opening since it's by the corner. (After all, Pi Tikrah needs to have the form of a proper opening, as we'll differentiate between a breach larger than ten Amos, and one that's smaller than ten.)]

54) One version holds that Rav and Shmuel only argue with Pi Tikra if the breach is larger than ten; but less than ten, everyone holds it's Kosher. [Rashi explains: since it's anyhow a proper opening of ten Amos. Tosfos asks: if so, in the second version, Shmuel forbids it even with ten Amos and doesn't hold it to be a proper opening. How can that be? Rather, Tosfos says: we refer to a case where it's completely open to the street, which is not a proper opening, and yet we say it becomes a proper opening through a Pi Tikra]. The other version says: they only argue if the breach is ten Amos, but more than ten, everyone agrees that you don't say Pi Tikra.

Daf 95

55) That, which we find an argument between Abaya and Rava in Sukka whether you can make a Sukka on these Achsadras, (i.e., that you have three Achsadras surrounding this area and you place Schach over this area between the Achsadros, and they argue whether we say that the surfaces of the Achsadras' roofs extend down to make Mechitzos for the Sukka); you don't need to say that they argue with the same argument as Rav and Shmuel. Rather, everyone agrees with Rav that usually we say Pi Tikra, but Rava holds that is only true to consider the Achsadra as if it's surrounded with Mechitzos, since the roof was made for the Achsadra; but not for it to work for outside the Achsadra, to consider the area between the Achsadras as if it's surrounded with walls.

56) If the Lechi or Koreh fell down in middle of Shabbos; R' Yehuda says that since it was permitted in the outset of Shabbos, it remains permitted for the duration of Shabbos. However, R' Yossi says, since it will be forbidden for the next Shabbos, it's forbidden for the duration of this Shabbos too. Rav Paskins like R' Yossi and Shmuel only Paskins like R' Yossi when it's open to a Reshus Harabim, but like R' Yehuda when it's opened to a Karmulas since you won't transgress a Torah prohibition if you carry out to it. [Tosfos says: we Paskin like Rav when he argues with Shmuel in non-monetary cases. However, this is only because part of the Mechitzos fell down, but when the Mechitzos are complete (but there is a problem with the Eiruv), then R' Yossi admits to the concept of "once it was permitted on the onset of Shabbos, it's permitted for the duration," as we say in the first Perek.]

57) R' Yehuda allows carrying in the street under an underpass, like if a second floor was built across two houses that are on the opposite sides of the street, or a bridge going over the street, since we say Pi Tikra in that case. The Rabanan argue. Not only that, but R' Yehuda allows carrying in the street without an overhang, like if you have two houses on opposite sides of the street, you can put a Lechi or Korah on both sides of the street and carry there. However, the Rabanan say that you can't make an Eiruv in the Reshus Harabim like that.