Explanation: Two are forbidden even if they were Me'arev, and if they were joined, i.e. he [made an opening between them] and joined them, they are permitted when they were Me'arev.

Implied question: Abaye (93b) holds that once Shabbos was permitted, it was permitted!

Answer: Here he agrees, for there are no Mechitzos.

Implied question: It says in Shabbos (101b) that if boats were tied on Erev Shabbos, and became untied, and were tied again, whether [they were retied] b'Shogeg, b'Mezid, mistakenly or through Ones, the initial Heter returns!

Answer #1: When he was Mezid, they did not return totally to their initial Heter to carry [from one to another]. Rather, they are Reshus ha'Yachid mid'Oraisa.

Answer #2: [They return to their initial Heter] does not apply to Mezid. (We must say that "whether b'Mezid" was taught due to the Seifa, "any Mechitzah made on Shabbos is a Mechitzah.")

Distinction: However, R. Yochanan surely said "here [Chachamim taught the strength of Mechitzos]", and he himself disagrees, like we say below (22a).

Explanation: Below (99a) we establish this to discuss items that he needs, and we decree lest he bring it to himself.

Question: Even without [this decree, it should be forbidden because] he brings from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid, just like below (98b) we forbid to urinate or spit from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid!

Answer #1 (Rashi, below): [Drinking] is unlike urinating or spitting. One who drinks does Akirah and Hanachah in one Reshus. The liquids rest in his mouth, which is Mekom Petur;

Even though later they are swallowed, we are not concerned, since they rested in Mekom Petur.

Implied question: In a place that is less than four by four [Tefachim, i.e. Mekom Petur], we say "as long as he does not transfer [from Reshus to Reshus through it]"!

Answer: There, we decree lest he come to overtly take [from Reshus to Reshus]. Here, it is impossible that [the liquids] will not rest in his mouth a little before he swallows them;

However, one who urinates or spits, his mouth is not considered Mekom Petur, since his mouth and body are in one Reshus.

Consequence: According to this, one may stick his head [from Reshus ha'Yachid to] Reshus ha'Rabim and spit. Since his mouth is in a different place [than his body], it is Mekom Petur.

Implied question: Below (99a) we ask if he is in Reshus ha'Yachid, and the end of his Ever is in Reshus ha'Rabim, what is the law (may he urinate? Surely it should be permitted, just like spitting!)

Answer: [We ask] because once urine is uprooted from the body, it does not rest in the Ever.

Question: In Shabbos (3b, one Beraisa says that if a man was holding Peros and put his hand outside, he may not return it. Another Beraisa forbids. We say that we fine him when he put out his hand on Shabbos, but not if he put it out on Shabbos. We then say) just the contrary! [If he put it out] on Shabbos, if he will cast it down he will come to a Chiyuv Chatas, we do not fine him;

Now, how can he come to a Chiyuv Chatas, since it rested in his hand, which is Mekom Petur?!

Answer: It is considered Hanachah in Mekom Petur only for a matter that he takes from its place. However, there the Kli rests by itself. It is not considered Hanachah in Mekom Petur.

Consequence: According to this, one may not stick his head out to Reshus ha'Rabim and spit.

Question: Still, it is possible that he will not come to a Chiyuv Chatas, e.g. he will put from this hand to his other hand (before casting it down)!

Answer: We discuss when the hole [through which he stuck his hand] is small. He cannot fit both hands through it.

Answer #1 (to Question (b)): [Drinking] is unlike urinating or spitting. Here, when he swallows [the liquids], immediately they are considered Nach, even though they do not rest until they reach his innards, for they are Batel to his body, and Akirah and Hanachah are in one Reshus.

Support #1: Rava said like this in Shabbos (80a). If one was Motzi [enough ink to write] two letters and he wrote them while walking, he is liable, for writing them is their Hanachah;

Support #2: Now it the Mishnah (Kerisus 13b) is fine. For one eating, [one can be liable four Chata'os...] R. Meir says, if it was Shabbos and he was Motzi it in his mouth, he is liable [also for Hotza'ah];

Question: How is he liable for Hotza'ah together with the others? At the time he is liable for them, i.e. when his throat benefits from it (when he swallows), he is not yet liable for Hotza'ah, until they rest in his innards!

Answer: Also for Hotza'ah he is liable from the time of swallowing, for it is considered resting.

Question: This is unlike the style of the Gemara! Above, it says that when he holds the Kli and not [the animal], you need not ask, for we require Roshah v'Rubah. Now, we ask "is this permitted?!"

Answer: We did not say [that you need not ask] because it is obvious. Rather, even if you will say that it is permitted, it is permitted only with Roshah v'Rubah.

Explanation: This was taught regarding Pasei Bira'os. It connotes that it refers to our Mishnah, and [it forbids] even though there is Roshah v'Rubah;

You are forced to say that this discusses when he is not holding [the animal]. If he was holding it, how does Roshah v'Rubah of the cow help?! (On 21a (DH Mah), Tosfos says that if it is permitted when he holds the animal, Roshah v'Rubah is not needed.)

Explanation: The animal eats from the trough in Reshus ha'Rabim, by the Pasim. The Chidush is that he may not fill the Kli and put it at the end of the trough and hold it in his hand, lest he see that the end of the trough in Reshus ha'Rabim was ruined, and he will go there with the bucket and take from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim;

Rather, he pours in front of it. Even if he sees that the end of the trough was ruined, and he goes to there, he has nothing in his hand, for when he poured [the water into the trough, he left the bucket between the Pasim.

Remark: There was no need for Rashi to explain that the animal stands in the house.

Alternative text: Some texts say, like the text of R. Chananel, perhaps he will see that the trough was ruined, and he will take the bucket with him;

Explanation: [He will take it because] he cannot leave the bucket on the end of the trough between the Pasim (because it is broken), and takes out the bucket via the trough. The person stands in Reshus ha'Rabim and moves in Reshus ha'Yachid, and sees that the other side is ruined;

[R. Chananel wrote that] he rests it, and takes from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim. "He rests it", i.e. on the ground in Reshus ha'Rabim until he fixes the trough. (Ritva - he rested it on the end of the trough in Reshus ha'Yachid, and saw that it does not rest well, and took it out and rested it in Reshus ha'Rabim. Why did we ask that he is not liable in such a case? He did not let go when he rested it on the trough, so when he decided to take it from there to Reshus ha'Rabim, there is no new Akirah.)

Remark: "Ovsin" (forcing food down its throat, to make a feeding trough) is not precise. Rather, Mal'itim (we put in the throat to a place where it can spit it out; some explain, it is to a place where it cannot spit it out, but by hand, without a Kli), for the Mishnah (Shabbos 155b) says that we are not Oves a camel, rather, Mal'itim.