Explanation: They may take from the house [up onto the wall];

From the Chatzer, it is permitted even if it [the wall] is four wide, for R. Yochanan establishes [our Mishnah] like R. Shimon below (92a).

Question: What was the Havah Amina? Did he not know that R. Yochanan discusses when there are not four [Tefachim]?

Answer: One might have thought that R. Yochanan's reason is because it is not common to use there, and they do not forbid each other, and the same applies when it is four wide, since it is 10 tall and it is not convenient to use there;

Therefore, he asks only according to R. Yochanan, but according to Rav, that the reason is because it is Batel, this is applicable only when it is not four by four.

Assertion: This is only in a case like here, that everything is Reshus ha'Yachid, just they were not Me'arev;

However, a place that does not have four by four that is between Karmelis and Reshus ha'Yachid, it does not seem that Rav would argue. Rather, it is permitted for people of Reshus ha'Yachid and people of Karmelis to adjust loads on it.

Support: It is somewhat proven like this above (9a). Rava establishes this that Rav said "in the opening [of the Mavuy], even though there is not four by four, needs another Lechi to permit it", when it is open to Karmelis, for the type [of Reshus] met with its own kind;

It does not say that it is because [Chachamim] strengthened [their decree]! Rather, surely according to Rav, they did not strengthen between Karmelis and Reshus ha'Yachid.

Rejection (of support): However, we could say that there, [Rava] did not mention the reason of strengthening because he has another reason.

Observation: Below (87b), Rav Dimi is more lenient in the name of R. Yochanan about Reshuyos d'Rabanan, and permits even to transfer when there is between Reshus ha'Yachid and Karmelis a place less than four by four;

This that R. Yochanan said here that these bring up from here and eat (which connotes that they may not transfer), we conclude that Ze'iri said it. (He argues with Rav Dimi about R. Yochanan's opinion.)

Observation: It is not truly even, for if so it is not a wall. Rather, it is all the ground of the Chatzer!

Answer: Rather, whatever is not 10 tall, [Rav Nachman] calls this "even with the ground." Rashi explained so.

Question: According to Rav Chisda, who says below (93b) that Gidud (e.g. a vertical ascent between two lands, one of which is elevated more than the other) of five [Tefachim] and a wall of five do not join, why do we say that we give (permit use of the top of the wall) to the [top Chatzer], for which it is even with the ground?

One may carry in the top [Chatzer] only within four Amos! (Since it is not considered a wall, it is totally breached to the lower Chatzer.)

Answer: In any case, this is relevant to within four. One may transfer from the wall to the top [Chatzer].

Explanation: We discuss when they did not take root, for if they took root, one could not take them on Shabbos.

Question: Granted, regarding Kil'ayim and Shevi'is, it needs to teach that we do not decree when he intended to store them due to lest he come to plant;

However, what is relevant [to teach about] Ma'aser here, even if it took root, since there is no Tosefes (additional growth)?

Suggestion: He mentioned Ma'aser that it is permitted to tithe on it from detached [Peros], or from it on detached;

Rejection: If so, he should have mentioned Terumah, for regarding attached and detached, [the Gemara] usually mentions Terumah everywhere - "we are not Torem from detached on attached." "The detached Peros of this patch should be Terumah on these attached Peros."

Answer (Ri): It is common that they increase due to moisture of the ground, like we see that garlic and onions increase even when they are placed in the window;

Regarding that increase, it teaches that he need not tithe, since they were fixed (tithed) beforehand. (It mentions Ma'aser, because Ma'aser must be exactly a tenth. Mid'Oraisa, any amount of Terumah suffices, and even mid'Rabanan there is no problem if he thinks that the increase is Tevel and gives extra due to it.)

He mentioned specifically storing, but if he does (puts them in the ground) for the sake of planting, he is concerned for all of them (Kil'ayim, Ma'aser and Shevi'is. Mishnah Berurah 311:27 says that several Rishonim say so [also] about Shabbos.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The Mishnah] mentions [that some leaves are exposed] due to Shabbos.

[The Gemara] asks because the entire thick part is covered, and only some leaves are exposed, similar to a basin that has brim.

Question: It connotes in Shabbos (123a) that according to Rabanan of R. Eliezer ben Tadai, who hold that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is considered moving, an upside down radish is forbidden, for the wide side is below. (When he removes it, he moves earth);

Why is this unlike a radish, that some of its leaves are exposed? It is permitted, and it is not considered even Tiltul Min ha'Tzad, even though the thick part below the leaves is totally covered!

Answer: In any case it is easier to lift it and shake off the earth [when the thick part is above] than when it is upside down.

Question: It connotes here that shaking off is not considered Tiltul Min ha'Tzad, since we permit when some of its leaves are exposed, even according to Rabanan;

And several Mishnayos permit shaking off, like the Mishnah (Shabbos 49a) "he takes the cover, and (the wool shearings) fall." If coins are on a pillow, he shakes the pillow, and they fall (142b). A rock on a barrel, he tilts it on its side, and it falls (142b);

If so, why does Rav forbid (Shabbos 43b) regarding a Mes in the sun to flip it from bed to bed, because Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is considered moving?

Suggestion: If he placed [the Muktzah on the Heter intentionally], we forbid in Shabbos (142b) due to a Bosis for Isur.

Rejection: One who died on Shabbos is like one who forgot, and anything he planned to take on Shabbos, and not leave it there the entire Shabbos, even if he placed it, it is considered as if he forgot!

This is like the case of "he takes the cover, and they fall", even though he intentionally covered with something that may not be taken.

Answer (Ri): Moving a Mes is different, for he moves primarily for the Mes itself, which is forbidden [to move it];

It is unlike all these other cases, in which he moves for the sake of Heter, and not for the sake of Isur, like the turnip and radish, in which he does not need to move earth, and similarly regarding wool shearings, coins and a rock. He does not need to move them.

Therefore, in Shabbos (43b) regarding the argument of Rav and Shmuel (about how to move a Mes on Shabbos), it brings only the case of R. Yehudah ben Lakish (saving a Mes from a fire through Tiltul Min ha'Tzad), and it does not bring the argument of R. Eliezer ben Tadai and Rabanan.

Support: Now it is fine that it is not difficult Rav's teaching against Bei Rav (Rav Huna, whom we assume to hold like Rav), in Shabbos (141a), for it connotes that he holds that is not considered moving. It is unreasonable to say that they argue!

Observation (Ri): Even though normally we hold that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is not considered moving, for in Shabbos (123a), Rav Nachman rules like R. Eliezer ben Tadai...

Even so, in the case of a Mes, the Halachah follows Rav, who forbids, for we follow Rav [against Shmuel] regarding Isurim, and since we concluded about it that all agree that Tiltul Min ha'Tzad is considered moving, i.e. R. Yehudah ben Lakish and Rabanan [agree].

[The Gemara] could have said that [Tiltul Min ha'Tzad] is not considered moving, and established the argument about absolute Tiltul. It is not proper to elaborate here.

Inference: Here it connotes that all ladders maybe taken on Shabbos, whether Mitzri or Tzuri.

Question #1: In Beitzah (9b), it connotes that one may not move a ladder of the Aliyah. We allow there only a dovecote ladder, for the dovecote proves about it (that he intends to get birds, and not for forbidden Melachah)!

Even tilting an Aliyah ladder is forbidden there, according to the latter version of Bnei R. Chiya!

Question #2: R. Chiya himself, who forbids there, in our Sugya (78a) it connotes that he permits, for he holds that ladders of Bavel must be fixed [in order to diminish a wall]!

Poor Answer #1: It is difficult to establish [that here] he discusses a dovecote ladder.

Suggestion: We can establish our Sugya like R. Chanan bar Ami, who explains there that they argue about in Reshus ha'Rabim, but in Reshus ha'Yachid it is permitted!

Rejection: That is not the Halachah. Rather, we hold like Rav, who said that whenever Chachamim forbade due to Maris ha'Ayin (suspicion), even in an inner room (where no one else will see him) is forbidden. Also a hidden scroll rules like this.

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here we discuss house ladders. It is normal to move them from corner to corner;

They are unlike Aliyah ladders, which are big, and they are proper to plaster the roof, and so are dovecote ladders.

Answer #2 (R. Avraham): There, on Yom Tov, he takes the ladder in Reshus ha'Rabim, and they see him, and they say that he needs to plaster his roof. Since it is forbidden in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is forbidden [even] in an inner room;

However, on Shabbos, it is not common to bring it to Reshus ha'Rabim. [Chachamim] did not decree in a Chatzer. (On Yom Tov it is common to take a ladder to take birds, to slaughter them.)

Consequence: According to this, one may not move our [movable] ladders on Yom Tov.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Its length is four, and in this [length] the height of the wall was diminished from 10 [Tefachim].

Inference: It need not be four by four.

Explanation #1 (cont.): He similarly explained "a ladder that its rungs are Porchos" is like our ladders (air separates the rungs);

The length of the rungs can be four, but they are not four wide, for they make them like thin poles.

Question: Below (78a), we require that the ladder reaches to [or within three of] the top of the wall! We require a ladder 14 [Tefachim] or seven and Mashehu!

Suggestion: That is when it is not four [wide].

Rejection: A Stam ladder is four wide, except where it says [that it suffices] "any amount", like regarding a ledge. Due to the ledge, we do not require four wide.

Support: It connotes like this below (78a). If there is a ladder on each side and straw in the middle, what is the law? If he carved out [a cavity] to complete [the required width of steps to the top], how much [height is required]? This implies that it must be four wide. (Once we find that there is a required width, surely it is four Tefachim.)

It is difficult to say that this that we require that it reach the top of the wall, and it is not enough to diminish, discusses when there is between one and the other three, and also the bottom tier is three high above the ground, which is a reduction in the air, which is not a reduction.

Answer #1 (Ri): Here we require four by four so it is proper to stand and delay there and alight on the wall. Therefore we require only that he diminish the wall from 10;

However, below we require that it reach to the top of the wall. It does not discuss when it is four by four wide.

A ladder whose rungs are Porchos is not like our ladders. Rather, it is like steps called Gardish. It is unlike stone steps, that they make like platforms in front of platforms. Rather, it is steps that protrude one on the other. There is a gap and airspace between one tier and another;

The expression "Porchos" means [extends,] like "it turns out that the ramp [to the Mizbe'ach] was Pore'ach over the Amah of the Yesod and the Amah of the Sovev" (Zevachim 62b).

The tiers were four by four. Therefore, they diminish. [Rav Bivi and Rav Nachman] needed to teach about a platform and a staircase of tiers covering (one another);

Had they taught [only] about a platform, one might have thought that a ladder in which the bottom is not four, and the top [rungs], it diminishes, and it is not considered a reduction in the air. Since in back of the ladder everything is connected together, it is like one platform;

Had they taught [only] about a ladder, one might have thought that a platform, even if there are not three [Tefachim] between one [tier] and another, is considered a reduction in the air, for the bottom platform is not Mevatel the air, and it is not considered a ladder Kolsheu (i.e. even less than four wide) that is proper to ascend, and is Mevatel the air under the ledge.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): We require that the ladder reaches to the top of the wall, i.e. for a ladder that is not fixed.

Rebuttal #1 (Ri): Regarding a hole in the ceiling open to the Aliyah, we asked above (76b) whether or not a fixed ladder is needed. This implies that everywhere else, we require a fixed ladder!

Rebuttal #2 (Ri): [A ladder] that is not fixed, since it may be taken on Shabbos, even if it reaches to the top of the wall, it should not help, like a ditch between two Chatzeros;

A Mishnah below (78b) teaches that even if [the ditch] is full of straw or stubble, each Chatzer is Me'arev by itself, and they may not be Me'arev together, since [the straw] is not fixed there, and later it will be taken.