Answer #1: Also there, since they did not intend to come at once, it is like bi'Ydei Shamayim. (Efshar Letzamtzem bi'Ydei Adam only when one intends to exact.)

Answer #1 (to Question (c), 5b): Since Efshar Letzamtzem only through great toil, [Chachamim] did not obligate to be meticulous and measure for a Safek mid'Rabanan.

Support: Rashi connotes like this. He explained that most people cannot be exact, and it is a Safek whether he was exact and it is forbidden, or he was not exact and it is permitted.

Answer #2 (to Questions (c, c:3, c:5), 5b - R. Yeshayah): Also bi'Ydei Adam, Iy Efshar Letzamtzem.

Implied question: Why [do we hold that] Parutz k'Omed is permitted [even for Torah laws? It is a single Safek!]

Answer: It is like a Sefek-Sefeka. Perhaps Omed Merubah. And even if [Omed] is not greater, rather, they are the same, it is permitted. (Iy Efshar Letzamtzem means that we cannot know that it is exact, but it is possible that it is exact.)

Support: Now it is fine that it is called a Safek mid'Rabanan. (Even if we measure and it seems exact, it is a Safek.)

Question: Why do we [permit] only a Safek mid'Rabanan? Even a Safek mid'Oraisa should be permitted, since Heter is more likely than Isur! (Perhaps it is exact. And even if it is not, perhaps Omed Merubah.) This is why we wanted to permit Shechitah of half!

Answer: Here [Rav Ashi forbids Parutz k'Omed]. He permits [even] if Parutz Merubah, i.e. when [the width] is exactly eight. However, [we cannot know that it is exact]; perhaps there is a little more [than eight. If Parutz k'Omed, it is forbidden.] And even if Parutz Merubah, [perhaps] there are four Amos [of wall, so it is not a valid Lechi]. Therefore, we permit only a Safek mid'Rabanan.

Question: In Bechoros (17b), it says that if a [murdered body] was found equally distant from two cities, they bring one Eglah Arufah (behead a calf to atone) and stipulate (that it is for the closer city);

Now (that we resolve Sefekos through joining the possibility that it is exact to one side), each city should bring Eglah Arufah by itself, for perhaps it is closer, and even if they are exactly (equal), we say "ha'Kerovah" - even cities (that are equally distant, both bring)!

Answer: No matter what you will say, one suffices. If [this city] is further, it is exempt. If it is closer, it fulfills the Mitzvah through the Eglah Arufah brought with a stipulation;

Will you say that perhaps they exactly equally distant? This is not common (we are not concerned for it, even if it seems to us that they are equally distant).

Observation: "Ten" is unlike "four". [Exactly] 10 [Amos] is like less [than 10, and it is permitted], but four [Tefachim] is like more [than four, and it is forbidden].

Explanation: However, if he made like an opening with doorposts and a lintel (above), this is a proper opening, like it says above (5a) "he opened to it in the corner."

Explanation: [It is four] if it was breached in the corner, but if it was breached at the head [of the Mavuy, i.e. the side open to Reshus ha'Rabim] not in a corner, the Shi'ur is not four [Tefachim];

He does not argue with Rav Yehudah, who says below (10b) that a Mavuy wider than 15 Amos, he distances two Amos [from one end] and makes a plank three Amos. Now, there is a breach two Amos (which is more than four Tefachim)!

Explanation: On the side, the Shi'ur is four [Tefachim] because it diminishes traffic [people will abandon the opening, and go through the breach]. When the breach is at the head, it does not diminish traffic, for people will not abandon a big opening and go through a small opening.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He must make Tzuras ha'Pesach at the bend. The opening that it is open to the other [Mavuy] is like an opening to Reshus ha'Rabim. At the two openings to Reshus ha'Rabim, he puts a Lechi or Korah at each one;

Regarding Shmuel's opinion, that it is like a closed [Mavuy, Rashi] explained in the name of his Rebbi, the elder, that one must do at its bend what is needed for a closed Mavuy, i.e. a Lechi.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): [Shmuel holds that] its law is like closed, and nothing is needed at the bend.

Source: The wording [of the Gemara] forced him to say so. Since its law is like closed, what need is there to do anything at the bend?!

Support #1 (for Rashi, that they argue about what is needed at the bend): It says below "if it is more than 10, would Shmuel say that it is like closed?!" This connotes that this is fine for Rav;

Question: If "its law is like Mefulash" refers to the openings [to Reshus ha'Rabim], i.e. that one must make Tzuras ha'Pesach at one of the openings, and at the second Lechi or Korah, but not at its bend, if so also according to Rav this is difficult!

How does a Lechi at one end, or even Tzuras ha'Pesach for a breach 10 Amos help? Rav holds that even though it has Tzuras ha'Pesach, he must diminish!

Answer: If we discuss at the bend, like Rashi explained, this is fine according to Rav, that Tzuras ha'Pesach helps, even for more than 10, since the openings of the Mavuy open to Reshus ha'Rabim are not more than 10;

Tzuras ha'Pesach helps mid'Oraisa even according to Rav when it is more than 10, like we say below (11a) regarding Kil'ayim.

Rejection: We can say that we could have challenged Rav, but the question against Shmuel was simpler.

Support #2: There was a bent Mavuy in Neharde'a, and they required doors (6b);

Rashi explained that it was bent like a Ches, and they required doors at the two bends, for if not, one door suffices!

Rebuttal #1: R. Chananel's text says "they required a door." So it is written in most Seforim.

Rebuttal #2: Even if the text says "doors", we can say that it was totally Mefulash and bent in the middle like this [picture in Tosfos] and has three openings to Reshus ha'Rabim. No matter what you will say, it needs doors [because it is Mefulash]!

For Reshus ha'Rabim, Chananyah requires one door (according to Beis Hillel), and the first Tana does not (below on this Amud). Rav (7a) said that they argue similarly about a Mavuy Mefulash, and Rav rules like the first Tana! However, they applied the stringencies of Rav and Shmuel to that Mavuy. Tosfos requires doors, for since there are three openings to Reshus ha'Rabim, if there is only one door, it is still Mefulash.

Support #3: Regarding a Mavuy like a centipede (8b. many small Mavo'os branch off on its sides, no two openings to Reshus ha'Rabim are opposite each other), it connotes like Rashi. It says that rather, he makes Tzuras ha'Pesach for all of them, i.e. on the side of the big Mavoy. The other side is permitted through Lechi or Korah, i.e. on the side of Reshus ha'Rabim. This is like Rashi;

However, if "he makes Tzuras ha'Pesach for all of them" is on the side of Reshus ha'Rabim, and "the other side" refers to the opening of the big Mavuy, then the wording "the other side" is difficult.

Implied question: Why should a bent Mavuy be more stringent than a totally Mefulash Mavuy, for which Tzuras ha'Pesach and one Lechi suffices?

Answer: We require that all people of the Mavuy see Tzuras ha'Pesach.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Reshus ha'Rabim is 16 Amos wide, and it is open at two ends from gate to gate, and 600,000 people are commonly there. Also Bahag requires that 600,000 go there.

Question #1 (R. Tam): In Shabbos (98a) it says that the wagons [used to carry the Mishkan], under them and between them was Reshus ha'Rabim. There were not 600,000 people who went under them!

Answer (Ri): In any case, they used to leave and come on that path.

Question #2 (R. Tam): In the encampments in the Midbar, there were children and women. We do not know their number. Similarly, it is difficult due to the Eruv Rav!

Answer: We learn from the Mishkan only a matter whose number was written.

Implied question: A Lechi does not help for an opening more than 10 Amos wide!

Answer: They make a Lechi so wide that it diminishes the empty space to less than 10.

Explanation (Rashi): Above we discuss one who built an Aliyah... R. Yehudah permits carrying under it, due to Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem;

It says in a Beraisa that R. Yehudah said a bigger Chidush. Even though there is no Pi Tikra, R. Yehudah permits because there are two proper walls.

Support: A Tosefta explicitly connotes like this (7:13), that "more than this" refers to [the Aliyah].

Explanation: He has two Chatzeros, for a Mavuy is permitted through a Lechi only if Chatzeros open to it.

Support: The text in the Tosefta explicitly says "two Chatzeros."

Inference: We conclude that one cannot be Me'arev it even with doors. If so, we discuss a proper Reshus ha'Rabim 16 Amos wide.

Question: Below (10a), we say that at most, R. Yehudah permitted 13 and a third!

Answer #1: Initially, we thought that surely, R. Yehudah discusses what is 16 Amos wide;

However, in the conclusion, that we answer that "how are we Me'arev a Mavuy Mefulash?", also "more than this" refers to a Mavuy Mefulash, and it is not 16 wide. One may not be Me'arev it through this, but one may be Me'arev it through doors. It is not difficult from Yerushalayim, which was 16 Amos wide.

Answer #2: Also initially, he knew that R. Yehudah permits only 13 and a third, and even so, it is a full Reshus ha'Rabim, e.g. one Reshus ha'Rabim is on both sides of the Mavuy 16 wide, and the length of Reshus ha'Rabim goes through the Mavuy;

Now, even in a Mavuy that is not 16 Amos wide, it is a full Reshus ha'Rabim, since on both sides of the Mavuy it is 16 Amos wide;

This is like between the pillars. It says in Shabbos (7a) that it is Reshus ha'Rabim, even though it is not 16 Amos [wide].

Implied question: There is an opinion there that between the pillars is considered Karmelis!

Answer: That is because the pillars are not opposite each other, and it is not convenient to use it.

Implied question: Why is this unlike Mavo'os Mefulashos?

Answer: There, Reshus ha'Rabim does not pass through the Mavuy, just two Reshus ha'Rabims pass by the openings.

Consequence: According to this, we must say that even though according to R. Yehudah, a Lechi or Korah works mid'Rabanan for 13 [and a third], but it does not help for 16, he agrees that mid'Oraisa there is no difference between 13 and 16, and he holds that two walls [make Reshus ha'Yachid] mid'Oraisa;

This is why we ask from Yerushalayim, even though [the road] was 16 Amos. Since one would be liable for it mid'Oraisa for Reshus ha'Rabim [had they not locked the doors], the same applies to 13 wide, for mid'Oraisa there is no difference.

Question: Since R. Yehudah holds that two walls are mid'Oraisa, why did the Beraisa in Shabbos (6a) need to teach "this is a full Reshus ha'Yachid" regarding a ditch 10 [Tefachim] deep and four [Tefachim] wide, to teach unlike R. Yehudah's case "a bigger Chidush..."?

Since the Reisha taught "what is Reshus ha'Rabim? It is an intercity road, commercial area or Mavuy Mefulash", we know that this is unlike R. Yehudah, for according to him a Mavuy Mefulash is not Reshus ha'Rabim, since there are two Mechitzos!

Answer: If we had only the Reisha, one might have thought that R. Yehudah's reason is not due to two walls. Rather, he holds that a Lechi and Korah are considered a Mechitzah. There is an opinion like this in our Perek (12b, 5a);

Therefore, we need "this is a full Reshus ha'Yachid" to teach unlike R. Yehudah's case. It is not Reshus ha'Yachid, because a Lechi and Korah are not considered a Mechitzah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The Makshan] asks why we permit a Lechi or Korah from one side;

It seems that he does not ask that he should need to lock the door, for we can establish that also the door [that Chananyah says that Beis Hillel require] is locked.

Question: Since there are two Mechitzos, and the third [side] is locked, there are three Mechitzos. Below we say that at the most, Beis Hillel say that three Mechitzos are [enough to make Reshus ha'Yachid] mid'Oraisa!

Answer: According to [Rashi's] Perush, it is mid'Oraisa only when there are three full Mechitzos. However, here that the third is through a door, also the fourth [side] needs a door.

Explanation #2 (Ri): He asks because it connotes to him that Beis Hillel do not require locking [the door].

Support: Also [Amora'im] say so below, for the Beraisa does not specify in Beis Hillel's words locking, like it specifies in Beis Shamai's words.

Question: How do we ask from R. Yochanan? It says below (22a) that [his teaching] is according to R. Yehudah, who says that Rabim (traffic) is Mevatel a wall, and Rabanan argue with him there!

Answer: We ask that just like according to R. Yehudah, regarding four nominal walls (Yerushalayim) that are not important to him, he requires locking, also here two Mechitzos, which are not important according to Rabanan, should require locking.

Support: It connotes like this below (22a) that two Mechitzos according to Rabanan are like four Mechitzos according to R. Yehudah. (Traffic is Mevatel them.)

Question: What was the Havah Amina, since [the stringencies] do not contradict each other? Because the Halachah follows him (Rav, or Shmuel) in one place, does the Halachah follows him everywhere?

In several places we hold like one Chacham in this Halachah, and like another Chacham in another Halachah!

Answer: That is unlike this Mavuy, for all agree that Tzuras ha'Pesach permits it. No one requires doors.

Question: Why is the Bas Kol [that came to rule like] R. Eliezer (Bava Metzi'a 59b) different? We do not hold like it!

Answer #1: There, [the Bas Kol] came only for his honor, like is proven there.

Answer #2: There, [the Bas Kol] was against the majority, and the Torah says "Acharei Rabim Lehatos";

Here, just the contrary, Beis Hillel were the majority. The Bas Kol was needed only because Beis Shamai were sharper. (One might have thought that we follow the majority of the sharpest Chachamim, and most were from Beis Shamai.)

Question: If so, why do we say "this is like R. Yehoshua, who says that we do not heed a Bas Kol"? R. Yehoshua said so only regarding the Bas Kol of R. Eliezer!

Answer: [R. Yehoshua said "Torah law] is not in Shamayim." This implies that we do not heed a Bas Kol at all.