(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If [the wall of] a Chatzer was breached to Reshus ha'Rabim, one who throws from it to Reshus ha'Yachid or from Reshus ha'Yachid to it is liable;

Chachamim exempt one who throws from it to Reshus ha'Rabim or from Reshus ha'Rabim to it, for it is a Karmelis.

(Gemara - R. Zerika citing R. Yakov bar Bun citing R. Chaninah): R. Lazar said [that one is liable] only from the place of Mechitzos.

(R. Ze'ira and R. Ila): It is even not in the place of Mechitzos, but the place of Mechitzos, even Rabanan agree [that it is Reshus ha'Rabim. We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.]

R. Ze'ira (to R. Yakov): Many times I learned with R. Yakov bar Bun, and I did not hear this from him!

R. Zerika: Does a person not hear something that his colleague did not hear?! (It is not significant that you did not hear this.)

(R. Yirmeyah citing Rav): (In the coming Mishnah, a Chatzer or house was breached on two sides, it is permitted for that Shabbos and forbidden in the future.) The case is, the corners were removed, as long as [the breach is at most] 10 [Amos. If not, even in one direction it is forbidden - SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.]

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If [on Shabbos] a Chatzer or house was breached on two sides, or if the Lechi or Korah was removed from a Mavoy, it is permitted for that Shabbos and forbidden in the future;

R. Yosi says, if it is permitted for that Shabbos it is permitted in the future. If it is forbidden for the future it is forbidden for that Shabbos.

(Gemara) Question: Why must it say that it was breached on two sides? [It should teach] even if it was breached on one side!

Answer #1: Is this not like Rebbi? Didn't Rebbi say above (5a) that a Chatzer [breached on one side] is permitted through two planks? (Our Mishnah says that it is breached on two sides, for only then it is common that there is no remnant in the corner.)

Answer #2 (R. Shmuel citing R. Ze'ira): [Our Mishnah is even like Rabanan, but the Perush] depends on their argument. The one who says [that it is permitted] there [through] one plank, here one plank (permits, and it is forbidden only if it is breached to both corners). The one who says there two planks, here two planks (he forbids even if it is breached to one corner).

If it was breached from the middle, it is permitted. Shmuel forbids.

Note: There is an implied question. Our Mishnah forbids only on two sides!

(R. Ze'ira): Shmuel's teaching is not difficult. [He means that sometimes even from the middle it is forbidden, i.e. if] the entire side is breached [to one corner, according to Rebbi, or to two corners, according to Rabanan].

Question (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): [Regarding a house, even if an entire side is breached,] this is an Achsadra. Is an Achsadra not permitted [due to Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem?! We explained this like MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.]

(R. Lazar): R. Yehudah said [that if it was breached to Reshus ha'Rabim, it becomes Reshus ha'Rabim] only about a Chatzer or Mavuy, but a house is like a bridge. (He permits under a bridge, due to Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem.)

(Rav and R. Yochanan): [In our Mishnah, R. Yosi] forbids both on this Shabbos and the coming Shabbos.

(R. Yochanan): Kosht (an ingredient of the Ketores), Kiruyah (a hollow pumpkin used to draw water), a Mavuy, a convert and an Am ha'Aretz, all of these [the Tana was ambiguous, and] we are stringent;

Kosht - a Mishnah teaches that Kosht, ginger and spices may be bought with Kesef Ma'aser, and it does not have Tum'as Ochlim. R. Akiva says so;

(R. Yochanan ben Nuri): If they are bought with Kesef Mishneh, they should have Tum'as Ochlim. If they do not have Tum'as Ochlim, they should not be bought with Kesef Ma'aser!

(R. Yochanan): [R. Yochanan ben Nuri] is stringent [due to his Safek]. They have Tum'as Ochlim, and they are not bought with Kesef Ma'aser.

Kiruyah - a Mishnah teaches that a pumpkin that was immersed in water [for a mere stringency], one may be Mekadesh [Mei Chatas] in it. (If it became Tamei, one may not be Mekadesh in it even after Tevilah, lest it emit Tamei water. R. Yehoshua says, if one may be Mekadesh in it initially (before it became Tamei), one may be Mekadesh in it at the end (after it became Tamei and was immersed). If one may not be Mekadesh in it at the end, one may not be Mekadesh in it initially.)

(R. Yochanan): [R. Yehoshua] is stringent. One may not be Mekadesh in it initially, and not at the end.

Mavuy - our Mishnah teaches that if the Korah of a Mavuy was removed... [R. Yosi says, if it is permitted for that Shabbos it is permitted in the future. If it is forbidden for the future it is forbidden for that Shabbos];

(R. Yochanan): [R. Yosi] is stringent. They are forbidden both for that Shabbos, and for the next Shabbos.

A convert - a Beraisa teaches that if a convert converted and he had wines, and he says "it is clear to me that they were not poured [to idolatry]'' - if he made the wine himself, it is Tahor (permitted) to him and Tamei (forbidden) to others. If others (Nochrim) were involved in it, it is Tamei to him and to others;

R. Akiva says, if it is Tahor to him, it should be Tahor to others. If it is Tamei to others, it should be Tamei to him!

(R. Yochanan): [R. Akiva] is stringent. It is Tamei both to him and to others.

An Am ha'Aretz - a Beraisa teaches that if an Am ha'Aretz accepted to be a Chaver (trustworthy about Taharos) and he has Taharos, and he says "it is clear to me that they were made in Taharah'' - if he made them himself, they are Tahor to him and Tamei to others. If others (Amei ha'Aretz) were involved in them, they are Tamei to him and to others;

R. Akiva says, if they are Tahor to him, they should be Tahor to others. If they are Tamei to others, they should be Tamei to him!

(R. Yochanan): [R. Akiva] is stringent. They are Tamei both to him and to others.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If one built an Aliyah on top of two houses on opposite sides of Reshus ha'Rabim, and similarly bridges Mefulash (on top of walls on opposite sides of Reshus ha'Rabim), one may carry underneath them on Shabbos;

Chachamim forbid.

R. Yehudah said further, that one may be Me'arev a Mavoy Mefulash;

Chachamim forbid.

(Gemara - Rav Huna): There is no covered Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question (R. Shimon bar Karsenah, to Rav Huna): Do we not learn from the Midbar? In the Midbar [under the wagons was Reshus ha'Rabim, and that place] was covered! (PNEI MOSHE)

Observation: Our Mishnah is unlike [R. Shimon bar Karsenah]! And similarly bridges Mefulash, one may carry underneath them on Shabbos. R. Yehudah says so, and Chachamim forbid;

It says only that Chachamim forbid, but [they agree that] there is no Chiyuv Chatas (it is not Reshus ha'Rabim)!

Question: Is a Mechitzah needed [to carry underneath, according to R. Yehudah? I.e. there are two walls, and he holds that this suffices to make Reshus ha'Yachid? Or, does he permit due to Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem?]

Answer #1 (Rava): A Mechitzah is needed.

Answer #2 (R. Yosi): A Mechitzah is not needed.

Question (Talmidim, to R. Yosi): R. Ba (i.e. Rava) said properly. A Mishnah (8:6) supports him! (If there is a pit between two Chatzeros, a Mechitzah is needed to permit drawing water.) R. Yehudah says, the Mechitzah is no better than the wall between the Chatzeros! (The wall itself permits.)

Note: How did they think that to learn from a pit, where there is no Pi Tikra? They thought that a Heker is always needed where a Reshus opens to a forbidden Reshus. R. Yosi answers that there, there is a roof, so Pi Tikra is the Heker. I understand so from MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.

Answer (R. Yosi, to Talmidim): There (i.e. here, regarding a bridge) there is a roof, so no Mechitzah is needed. Here (i.e. there, regarding a pit) there is no roof, so a Mechitzah is needed;

(Rav Yehudah): [R. Yehudah permits without a Mechitzah] when [bridges] are Mefulash to a valley (Karmelis), but if they are Mefulash to Reshus ha'Rabim, it is forbidden without a Mechitzah. If there is a Mechitzah, it is permitted.