Explanation: [Hash-m] has a jovial countenance and delays [paying reward] to Tzadikim until the future, and an angry countenance towards Resha'im and delays their punishment until the world to come;

Also this is good [for Resha'im], so they have time to repent, like it connotes in Sanhedrin (111a) that also this is good. (See also Tosfos Bava Kama 50b, who says that our Gemara connotes that it is bad for Resha'im, i.e. if they will not repent.)

Explanation: [The pit may be up to Beis Sa'atayim,] and the Pasim may be distanced from the pit only enough for Roshah v'Rubah of a cow.

Suggestion: Perhaps if he wants, also the Pasim may be far from the pit, up to Beis Sa'atayim [in all]!

Rejection: Below, it says "if so, what is the difference between R. Shimon and R. Yehudah?" According to this suggestion, they differ greatly! R. Shimon permits to distance [the Pasim from the pit] only enough for Roshah v'Rubah of a cow, and R. Yehudah permits until Beis Sa'atayim!

Conclusion: Rather, surely also R. Yehudah permits to distance only enough for Roshah v'Rubah of a cow. Even though a person looks at the pit and not at the Mechitzah, we should not permit more.

Implied question: It says below (25a) that if a Karfef was more than Beis Sa'atayim, and one built a pillar 10 [Tefachim] tall and four [Tefachim] wide, he diminished it. Why doesn't this pit likewise diminish [the area from Beis Sa'atayim]?

Answer: There, there are good Mechitzos. Through Pasim, they permitted only Beis Sa'atayim in all.

Question: Yerushalayim is different, for it was 16 Amos wide. There are only [at most] 13 and a third [Amos] between Pasim!

Answer: Since Yerushalayim had Tzuras ha'Pesach, which is considered like a Mechitzah, like it says above (11a) "if it has Tzuras ha'Pesach, one need not diminish it", traffic of the Rabim should not be Mevatel the Mechitzah;

Even Rav, who teaches [that the Mishnah says that even if it has Tzuras ha'Pesach], "one must diminish it", agrees that mid'Oraisa it helps.

Proof: Pe'ah (Tzuras ha'Pesach) permits Kil'ayim, even if [the opening] is more than 10 [Amos - above, 11b].

Note: The custom is like R. Yoshiyah, that one is liable for Kil'ai ha'Kerem only if he seeded grapes and two other species in the same hole (Brachos 22a). If likewise one is liable for Kil'ai Zera'im only for two species seeded together, mid'Oraisa no Mechitzah is needed. What is Tosfos' proof?! Minchas Shlomo (2:101) leans to say that Kil'ai Zera'im is different. (However, he infers from Tosfos below (92b) that Tzuras ha'Pesach does not permit Kil'ayim. This requires great investigation.) Alternatively, since it said Stam that Pe'ah permits, this implies that it is not only according to R. Yoshiyah.

Answer #2: Based on what I explained above (6b DH v'Chi) regarding "more than this", this is not difficult. (Mid'Oraisa there is no difference between 13 and a third Amos wide and 16. Even though Yerushalayim was 16, since one would be liable for it mid'Oraisa had they not locked the doors, the same applies to 13 and a third.)

Question: Since we conclude that R. Yochanan holds like R. Yehudah, why is one liable for Reshus ha'Rabim? [R. Yehudah] holds that two Mechitzos [make Reshus ha'Yachid] mid'Oraisa!

Answer: Yerushalayim was Mefulash from four sides. One [would be] liable for it Reshus ha'Rabim for one who stands in the middle where it is open, for there are no Mechitzos (there is an open square 16 Amos wide).

Explanation: The Makshan is thinking that according to R. Yehudah, three Mechitzos are mid'Oraisa, and a Lechi and Korah [permit] due to Mechitzah. We infer that [traffic of] the Rabim are not Mevatel a Mechitzah;

If two Mechitzos were mid'Oraisa, there is no question at all!

Explanation #1: [The Gemara] answers that [R. Yehudah] holds that two Mechitzos are mid'Oraisa.

Explanation #2: Even if he holds that three Mechitzos are mid'Oraisa, [traffic of] the Rabim are not Mevatel the third Mechitzah, since there are two full Mechitzos.

Observation: We could have answered that Rabanan argue with R. Yehudah only mid'Rabanan, but mid'Oraisa they agree with him.

Implied question: He could have asked from R. Yochanan himself, who said above (22a) that had they not locked the doors of Yerushalayim, one would have been liable for it for Reshus ha'Rabim!

Answer: Perhaps above he said so according to R. Yehudah, who holds that Rabim are Mevatel a Mechitzah, and here he teaches according to Rabanan.

Explanation: This is only in Eretz Yisrael, like it explains below, that Yehoshua loved Yisrael [and gave what is convenient to the Rabim, and what is inconvenient to individuals], but in Chutz la'Aretz one is liable;

This is according to R. Yehudah, but according to Rabanan, he is exempt even in Chutz la'Aretz, for Rabim are not Mevatel a Mechitzah;

Question: According to Rabanan, all of Eretz Yisrael should be a Reshus ha'Yachid, through the steep rocks of Tzur, and the furrow of Geder. Also Bavel is between the Diglas [and Pras rivers]. The Rabim should not be Mevatel their Mechitzos! (Beis Efrayim 26 DH v'Hineh - this is the Gemara's question! Abaye wanted to prove that there must be a limit to how much Mechitzos can enclose, for if not, everything is Reshus ha'Yachid. The next line clarifies that Tosfos asks according to R. Yochanan, who taught that there is no limit how much Mechitzos can enclose.)

[The question is] according to R. Yochanan, who says below (67b) that a Karfef more than Beis Sa'atayim that was not Hukaf l'Dirah (surrounded for the sake of residence), even if it is one or two [Beis] Kor, one who throws into it is liable, and the same applies if it is 1000 Kor, for what limit is there?!

Answer: A Mechitzah not made through man is not considered a Mechitzah so much. Even Rabanan agree that Rabim are Mevatel [such a] Mechitzah.

Explanation: "Reishcha" (your master) is Rabah, who was Abaye's Rebbi. This is like "Reishcha is in cold water (will be punished mildly), and Reisha d'Reishcha is in hot water" (Shabbos 55a).

We find that Rabah went to Eretz Yisrael to learn Torah in front of R. Yochanan in Kesuvos (111a), but we do not find that Abaye himself went to learn Torah there;

Also, Abaye did not see R. Yochanan, but Rabah was the Talmid of R. Yochanan.

Explanation: [Rachbah, who asked about a mound that slopes 10 Tefachim over four Amos,] had not heard R. Yochanan's teaching about inclines in Eretz Yisrael (one is exempt for them), but in Chutz la'Aretz, he is liable. (Sefas Emes - Tosfos assumes that the inclines slope 10 Tefachim over four Amos. The Gemara and Rashi connote that they do not. They are not Reshus ha'Rabim because they are inconvenient to use!)

Question: He should say that really, it is Rabanan, and he teaches that even to carry is permitted, for we do not learn from Pasei Bira'os, for Chachamim were lenient for Olei Regalim!

Answer: He gave a better answer.

Question: We should establish that there are two full Mechitzos. In such a case, surely R. Yehudah agrees!

Answer: You are forced to say that it was breached from [all] four sides. If it was breached from two sides, why must we say that it is not convenient to use? Even if it is convenient to use [it is not Reshus ha'Rabim], like we ask according to Rabanan!

Citation: In the Mishnah in Taharos (6:6), the text says Gisos, i.e. pits under the winepresses [to hold the wine].

Explanation (R. Chananel): The case is, the pit is three Tefachim from the wall on each side, and people go from both sides. The Chidush is that even so, the Mechitzah is not Batel;

If the pit went from wall to wall, obviously it is Reshus ha'Yachid!

Implied question: Why did it mention a pit, and not a Mechitzah three from the wall?

Answer: Regarding a pit, it is a bigger Chidush. Even though Reshus ha'Rabim also goes in it, even so it is Reshus ha'Yachid for Shabbos.

Question #1: You are forced to say that the paths of Beis Gilgul slope 10 Tefachim over four Amos, since they are Reshus ha'Yachid for Shabbos;

If so, why did he need to bring R. Yanai's teaching (that they are too steep for a slave to run...)?

Question #2: Why didn't he answer that [the Tana] needed to teach that it is a Reshus ha'Rabim for Tum'ah, like we answered above?

Answer: He brings R. Yanai's teaching, for it connotes that the primary Chidush is that it is Reshus ha'Yachid for Shabbos, since it does not say "even if a slave cannot run...", it is Reshus ha'Rabim [for Tum'ah].

Question: Why do we say "a slave cannot run..."? Even if he can, it is Reshus ha'Yachid, since it slopes 10 [Tefachim] over four [Amos]!

Answer: We require that it is not convenient to use, lest it be like a step, lest it be like a Mechitzah that is trampled on, which it says below (89b) that it is not a Mechitzah.

Limitation: This is only for the paths of Beis Gilgul, which are not convenient to use at all, like R. Yanai explains, that a slave cannot run...;

However, a Mavuy that is Mefulash to pits, and a Chatzer that many enter through this [side] and leave through this, is Reshus ha'Rabim according to R. Yehudah, even though they belong to an individual;

Since they are convenient to use, and it is proper to hand them over to the Rabim, they are Reshus ha'Rabim according to R. Yehudah through much traffic.

Support: This is why it does not say Ela (which denotes retraction), because it connotes that we still need the previous answer (that it is like R. Yehudah. Toras Chayim questions this support, for in several places Tosfos says that the Gemara says "Ela" only when we retract from an answer that an Amora said.)

Explanation: This means a Mechitzah.