A Mavuy that is bent and Mefulash - R. Yochanan says, he puts a Lechi or Korah here (on one end), and Tzuras ha'Pesach here (at the other end, for it is like Mefulash).

Reish Lakish says, he puts a Lechi or Korah and permits it. (The bend is like a wall, therefore it is not like Mefulash. Each Mavuy is Me'arev by itself.)

According to Reish Lakish, if they wanted to make a solution [to be Me'arev together] - these use via the place of the bend, and these use via the place of the bend.

Objection: Does it not turn out that both of them use a Reshus forbidden to them?! (Since they transfer through the bend, it cannot be considered a wall. Therefore it is like a Mavuy Mefulash, and a Lechi or Korah does not suffice for it!)

Rather, these use until the place of the [bend, which is like a] wall, and these use until the place of the [bend, which is like a] wall.

Now, it is not found that both Reshuyos use one [common] Reshus. (We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

Rav and Shmuel [argued about this] - Rav holds like R. Yochanan, and Shmuel holds like Reish Lakish.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish lodged in the street of R. Yitzchak. (There was a bent Mavuy, and each half was Me'arev by itself.). Reish Lakish carried in it, like his opinion. R. Yochanan did not forbid them, but he did not carry;

R. Yochanan: Leave the people of the Mavuy (I will not tell them that it is forbidden, for they would not heed me). It is better that they be Shogeg than Mezid!

Question: Was [R. Yochanan] Me'arev [with them], or not? (In any case it is difficult!)

If you will say that he was Me'arev, R. Yochanan contradicts himself! (He holds that it does not help. If he was Me'arev, he condones relying on it!)

If you will say that he was not Me'arev, he should cause Bnei Mavuy to be forbidden! (Why did Reish Lakish carry?)

Answer #1: (He was not Me'arev.) R. Yochanan was Mevatel his Reshus [so he did not forbid them].

Answer #2 (R. Acha): Reish Lakish [verbally] coerced R. Yochanan [to retract], and he carried.

Affirmation (R. Matanyah): This is proper! (Had he not retracted, his Bitul would not help, since he held that one may not be Me'arev. The Mishnah (below, 6:1) says that one who does not agree to the law of Eruv, he forbids.)

What is the reason for R. Meir [the Stam first Tana of Mishnah 6:2, who holds that can a Tzeduki be Mevatel Reshus, even though he does not agree to Dinei Eruv? It is because even if he will be Motzi Kelim afterwards b'Mezid,] they considered him like Shogeg [for he was Mevatel his Reshus] in place of Mezid.

What is the reason for Rabanan (i.e. R. Yehudah, who argues in Mishnah 6:2)? Since [Tzedukim] are suspected to carry, [even if he will be Motzi afterwards b'Shogeg,] they are considered like Mezid [so we do not rely on their Bitul].

Affirmation (R. Matanyah's colleagues): You are correct. [Had he not retracted,] the haters of (this is a euphemism, to avoid saying such a matter about R. Yochanan himself) R. Yochanan would be like a Tzeduki with respect to Bnei Mavuy, and he would forbid the Bnei Mavuy.

Rebuttal (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): A Tzeduki is suspected to carry. Here, what concern is there? (Surely R. Yochanan will not carry after he was Mevatel! Therefore, his Bitul helps.)

Question: What [else do R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish] argue about?

Answer: If [a Mavuy] was like a Chaf (three connected Mavo'os, like three sides of a rectangle), R. Yochanan says that he puts a Lechi or Korah here (at one end) and Tzuras ha'Pesach here (at the other end, and all are permitted);

Note: The Bavli says that "k'Min Chai'' is the Greek Chai (X - shape), and this is clear from the Tosefta Terumos 4:9 and Yerushalmi Terumos 3:3. However, here R. Yochanan connotes that it has only two ends. Therefore, it seems that the text should say the latter "Chaf'' with an apostrophe. Scribes mistakenly copied the apostrophe like a Yud.

Reish Lakish says, even several Koros do not permit it. (MEICHAL HA'MAYIM - since the middle Mavuy must pass through one of the others, there is no way to consider that there is a wall on both sides of it.)

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Bun): If a Mavuy was breached opposite the opening four Tefachim, or on the side more than 10 Amos [one may not carry in it];

Talmidim say in the name of Rav, the same applies whether [the breach is] opposite the opening or on the side. The Shi'ur is four Tefachim.

Assumption: [Talmidim] wanted to say that [they do not argue]. The one who says on the side, more than 10 [one may not carry], but if it is [exactly] 10, it is permitted, that is when there is a width of four of the wall stands between the breach and the opening. The one who said four, whether it is opposite the opening or on the side, that is when there is no width of four.

Objection: Did we not say [above] that Rav holds like R. Yochanan [who requires Tzuras ha'Pesach for a bent Mavuy. I.e. he considers it is as if it is Mefulash, even though the bend is four from the opening! Surely he says so even when it is not 10 wide, for Rav holds that Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help for more than 10! - PNEI MOSHE]

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): [There, Tzuras ha'Pesach] is needed in order to make the entire Reshus like one [for there is much traffic between the two parts of the bent Mavuy. This does not apply to a breach in the side wall more than four from the opening.]