(Beraisa): The Kerashim were grooved (most of the bottom Amah was cut out, only two pegs stuck out, which fit into the Adanim); the Adanim were hollow (each had a hole for a peg of a Keresh); the clasps joining the loops [at the end of each set of five lower curtains] could be seen, like stars.

(Beraisa): The lower curtains were of [dyed wool of three colors,] Techeiles, Argamon (purple), Tola'as Shani (crimson) and linen;

The upper curtains were of goats' hair;

The Chachmah used to make the upper curtains exceeded that used for the lower curtains:

Regarding the lower curtains it says "V'Chol Ishah Chachmas Lev b'Yadeha Tavu";

Regarding the upper curtains it says "V'Chol ha'Nashim Asher Nasa Liban Osana b'Chachmah Tavu Es ha'Izim";

(Beraisa - R. Nechemyah): They washed [the hair while it was still] on the goats and they spun on the goats.

(Mishnah): If two ledges...

(Rav): The wagons, underneath them, between them and to the sides of them were Reshus ha'Rabim.

(Abaye): The distance between wagons (side by side) was equal to the length of the wagons.

Question: What was the length of the wagons?

Answer: It was five Amos.

Question: Four and a half Amos would have sufficed! (Tosfos - the boards lay on their thickness (one Amah); only four fit across, for we must allow room for the rings, which point to the side - still, four and a half Amos would suffice. Rashi - alternatively, if they lie on their width (one and a half Amos), three fit across; they occupy only four and a half Amos (the rings point up or down).

Answer: We do not want to force the boards to fit exactly (Rashi - i.e. lay them on their width; Tosfos - we want to leave extra room, so they will not press on each other).

(Rava): The sides of the wagons (the thickness of the wheel and the distance of the wheel from the interior of the wagon; Rashi - and the thickness of the wall) was equal to the width of the wagons.

Question: What was the width of the wagons?

Answer: It was two and a half Amos. (Rashi - both sides together equaled two and a half; Tosfos - each side was two and a half.)

Question: One and a half Amos would have sufficed (to hold the ends (Tosfos; Rashi - middle) of the boards, and they could have balanced)!

Answer: They were two and a half in order that the boards would not tilt to the side.

Question: We learn from the Mishkan that Reshus ha'Rabim is 16 Amos wide - the wagons occupied only 15 Amos across! (There were five Amos between wagons, each wagon was five Amos including its two sides (Rashi; Tosfos - including its outer side - the two inner sides comprised the five Amos between wagons).)

Answer: There was an extra Amah for a Levi to walk to the side, to fix the boards if they were about to fall into the Amah between the piles. (Rashi - there was a half-Amah for a Levi on each side; Tosfos - there was a full Amah for one Levi on one side.)

(Mishnah): If a Chulyas ha'Bor (a ring of dirt dug out from a pit) or a rock is 10 tall and four wide [it is Reshus ha'Yachid], and one takes an object from it or puts on it, he is liable;

If it is less than 10 by four, he is exempt.

(Gemara) Question: [We learn about taking from an elevated place from the case of the rock, surely, Chulyas ha'Bor teaches about a pit -] why didn't the Tana directly say, a pit or a rock...?

Answer: This [teaches like, and thereby] supports R. Yochanan:

1. (R. Yochanan): [The depression of] a pit and [the height of] its Chulyah join with each other to complete the Shi'ur of 10 [to make the pit a Reshus ha'Yachid].

Support (Beraisa): If a pit in Reshus ha'Rabim is 10 deep and four wide, one may not fill a jug with water from it on Shabbos, unless there is a wall around it 10 tall;

One may not drink from it unless he sticks in his head and majority [of his body into the pit];

A pit and its Chulyah join for the Shi'ur of 10.

Question (Rav Mordechai): If a pillar in Reshus ha'Rabim is 10 tall and four wide, and one threw something and it landed on it, what is the law?

Since Akirah and Hanachah were both from Makom Isur (a place where Hotza'ah or Hachnasah is forbidden, e.g. Reshus ha'Rabim or Reshus ha'Yachid), he is liable;

Or, since it passed through Makom Patur (it was above 10 before it landed), he is exempt?

Answer (Rabah): We learn from our Mishnah!

Rav Mordechai asked Rav Yosef, and then Abaye; both gave him the same answer.

Rav Mordechai: You all give the same inadequate answer!

Abaye: Surely you agree - the Mishnah says, if one takes an object from it or puts on it, he is liable [even though it passed through Makom Patur]!

Rejection (Rav Mordechai): Perhaps the Mishnah discusses a needle (it was never above 10).

Question: Even a needle [has some thickness, hence it] had to be a bit above 10!

Answer #1: The rock has a small hole [below 10] into which the needle was inserted (a small hole in Reshus ha'Yachid is like Reshus ha'Yachid).

Answer #2: The rock has a crack [at the top] into which the needle was inserted.

Question (Rav Meisha citing R. Yochanan): If there was a Karmelis in Reshus ha'Rabim, and one surrounded it with a wall 10 tall but less than four wide, making it Reshus ha'Yachid, and one threw something and it landed on the wall, what is the law?

Since it is not four wide, it is Makom Patur;

Or, since it made a Reshus ha'Yachid, it is as if the interior is full [up to 10 Tefachim, so the wall is also Reshus ha'Yachid]?

Answer (Ula): Since it is a Mechitzah [by itself], and it makes something else Reshus ha'Yachid, all the more so it itself is Reshus ha'Yachid!

Ula's Halachah was also taught by Rav, and by R. Yitzchak in the name of R. Yochanan.

Question #1 (R. Yochanan): If there was a pit in Reshus ha'Rabim nine deep, and one removed dirt, completing it to 10, and deposited the dirt in Reshus ha'Rabim, what is the law?

If it becomes Reshus ha'Yachid at the very moment he uproots the dirt, he is liable;

Or, perhaps [it is not Reshus ha'Yachid until after the dirt is removed, so] he is exempt?

Question #2 (R. Yochanan): If you will say that since it was not Reshus ha'Yachid from the beginning he is exempt, what if the pit was 10 deep, and he threw in dirt, making it less than 10?

It ceases to be Reshus ha'Yachid at the time of Hanachah - is he liable in such a case?

Suggestion: We can answer this from another teaching of R. Yochanan!

(Mishnah): If one threw something four Amos at a wall, if this was above 10, he is [exempt] like one who threw in the air. If this was below 10, he is like one who threw on the ground. One who threw four Amos on the ground is liable.

Question: When it was below 10, why is he liable - there was no Hanachah [outside of four Amos, for it bounces back]!

Answer (R. Yochanan): The case is, he threw a fat fig-cake [it stuck to the wall].

Version #1 (Rashi) Question: The thickness of the fig-cake itself should be deducted from four Amos! (Rather, we must say that he is liable because at the beginning [when he threw] there were four Amos until the wall, even though they were diminished at the time of Hanachah.)

Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: The thickness of the cake itself is Batul to the wall, that place loses the law of [Reshus ha'Rabim, to Mechayev one who throws at it] four Amos! (Rather, even though at the end it is not Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable because when he threw it was Reshus ha'Rabim; (end of Version #2)

Note: Likewise, regarding the pit he should be liable!

Rejection: No - here, he will not leave the cake there, therefore it is not Batul;

Regarding the pit he will Mevatel the dirt (therefore, perhaps he is exempt).

Question (Rava): If one threw a board and it landed on pegs, what is the law? (Tosfos - there are already two walls, after it lands it is considered as if there is another Mechitzah on account of Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem (it is as if the edge of the board extends down to the ground to make a Mechitzah).)

Question: What does he ask about?

Answer #1: He asks about when a Mechitzah is made at the time of Hanachah.

Objection: That was R. Yochanan's question!

Answer #2: Rava asks about throwing a board with an object on it. (If you will say that in R. Yochanan's case he is exempt because the Mechitzah was not there from the beginning, likewise here he is exempt for the board - is he liable for the object?)

Since the Mechitzah is made at the time of Hanachah, he is exempt;

Or, since the board lands a bit before the object, the Mechitzah preceded Hanachah, he is liable!

This question is not resolved.