Implied Question: The Gemara should have used the word "ha'Motzi" -- "one who takes out" which was discussed by the previous Beraisa, since he is exempt until he puts the object down (there as well, and not just in a case where he is carrying four cubits in the public domain). (Why didn't it use this word?)

Answer: However, because it later had to say "Ma'avir" -- "one who transfers" it used this word here as well. Whenever this word is used, it refers to carrying in the public domain.

Implied Question: One who carries, extends, and passes four cubits in the public domain through an area that is higher than ten Tefachim (above the public domain) is liable, despite the fact that if he would put down the object in this area that is higher than ten Tefachim (above the public domain) he is exempt. (This indicates that one is not liable for carrying in every area of the public domain!)

Answer: Even so, the ground underneath him which supports him when he is walking is a place where he is liable. However, one is not liable for the ground of a Stav.

Question: Why is going through the sides of a public domain more obvious to us than going through a Stav?

Answer: It is normal for a house to have side areas to it, and it was probably this way in the Mishkan as well (that they transported from the Mishkan through the sides of the public domain to the public domain, see Ramban).

Question: This is difficult, as in Eiruvin (94a) the Gemara asks, why don't we say they argue regarding the sides of the public domain? In other words, why do they argue regarding a courtyard that has a hole (facing the public domain)?

Question (cont.): The Gemara (ibid.) answers that if they argued in general regarding the sides of the public domain, I would think that the Rabbanan only argue when there are small pegs (blocking people from banging into the wall of the courtyard, similar to bars set up to stop cars from going onto sidewalks). However, if there are no such pegs, they would agree. This is why it discussed a courtyard with an open hole facing the public domain. This implies that Rebbi Eliezer also argues when there are pegs!

Answer #1: The Gemara means that the fact that the case is regarding a hole in the courtyard teaches that they only argue when there are not any pegs. When there are pegs, Rebbi Eliezer admits.

Answer #2: Alternatively, that Gemara (ibid.) is according to Rav Papa quoted in our Gemara who does not differentiate.

Question: Why should he admit regarding extending and throwing? Since he does not derive carrying through a Stav from carrying through the sides of the public domain, he also should not derive this regarding throwing and extending!

Answer: According to Ben Azai, a person who carries through the sides of the public domain is also exempt, even though this was done in the Mishkan. This is because walking is like standing. However, throwing and extending through a Stav is derived from throwing and extending through the sides of the public domain.

Question: The Rashba has a difficulty. Why doesn't it say there are five domains, as a Karfeif (empty area) that is more than a Sa'asayim and was not surrounded buy walls in order for a person to live there is like a separate domain! One who throws from the public domain into it or visa versa is liable (so it is similar to a private domain), and one can only carry four cubits in it on Shabbos (unlike a private domain, meaning it is a separate category)!

Answer: It is in fact a private domain. However, Chazal viewed it regarding carrying four cubits (in it) like a Karmelis. A private domain and Karmelis are already in this list (and therefore it was not necessary to state a fifth domain). This is also why it does not list a joint courtyard in which there is no Eiruv (Chatzeiros).

Observation: The Yerushalmi in the beginning of Shabbos says that Rebbi Chiya taught that Karmel is soft, not wet and not dry, rather in between. So too, a Karmelis is not like a private domain or a public domain.

Observation: The Tosefta in Eiruvin (ch. 7) says whether there is a window between two courtyards or two houses...bridges, structures over graves (two walls and a roof, similar to a bridge), and a covered public domain, one can carry under these areas on Shabbos. These are the words of Rebbi Yehudah.

Observation (cont.): Moreover, Rebbi Yehudah says etc. This means that this is even true regarding two houses that are on two opposite sides of the public domain. Even though one cannot say in this case that the lip of the roof is as if it goes down and closes off the area (as if there were four walls), such as we can say regarding bridges, structures over graves, and a covered public domain mentioned in the first part of the Tosefta, even so one can carry between these two houses. This is because Rebbi Yehudah is of the opinion that if there are two walls in an area it causes it to be a private domain according to Torah law, as stated in Eiruvin (95a).

Question: Why doesn't our Gemara quote the Mishnah in Eiruvin (95a) that states, "And Rebbi Yehudah additionally said that one can make an Eiruv in an alleyway that has a wall on each side (with no walls on the other two sides)?"

Answer: One can understand that Mishnah as stating that Rebbi Yehudah holds one can make an Eiruv if he makes a Tzuras ha'Pesach on one of the open sides. He could therefore still hold (like the mainstream opinion, if we only knew this Mishnah) that one needs three walls to make a private domain according to Torah law.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in Eiruvin (10a), regarding the Mishnah that says that if an entranceway is wider than ten cubits it should be lessened, the implication is that even Rebbi Yehudah only permitted an entranceway of thirteen and one third cubits wide.

Answer: This is according to Rabbinic law. However, according to Torah law, even if it is sixteen cubits wide one can carry in this area, as it has two walls (which is the requirement according to Torah law for a private domain).

Answer (cont.): It must be that Rebbi Yehudah is referring to a public domain in which many people pass through, as is apparent from the Gemara in Eiruvin (6b) which discusses how one can make an Eiruv in a public domain. I explained this there.

Question: Since the second part of the Beraisa states that alleyways that have two walls (one on each side) are considered a public domain, this excludes the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who says that two walls cause an area to be a private domain according to Torah law. According to Rebbi Yehudah, such alleyways are not a public domain as they have two walls!

Answer: We would not have said that this second part of the Beraisa excludes the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. I would think that Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning is that a Lechi (beam ten Tefachim tall standing straight up) or Korah (beam going across the top of two walls) is effective as a (third) wall. There is such an opinion in Eiruvin (15b). This is why the Beraisa had to say that this is a complete public domain, in order to exclude the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. It is not a private domain, as a Lechi and Korah cannot make a (third) wall.

Question: The Ri says (i.e. asks, see Chidushei ha'Rashba) that the term "Gemurah" indicates the opposite of what the Gemara is trying to say, as it sounds like it is saying that this is a complete private domain, while there are other private domains that are not complete but are still called private domains!

Answer: Rashi answered this question in a forced fashion according to the (context of the) Gemara. (See the Maharsha who understands Rashi as explaining the word "Gemurah" as referring to the walls being completed in order to have enough walls to be a private domain, as opposed to the understanding of the Ri in his question that "complete" refers to the domain being the quintessential private domain.)

Observation: The Gemara implies that an area is only a public domain if there are six hundred thousand people present there, just as there were in the desert (when Bnei Yisrael were there before they entered Eretz Yisrael).

Explanation: Since this is teaching us that one domain is a private domain and the other is a public domain, it is obvious that if one carries accidentally from one to the other he is liable to bring a Chatas!

Opinion: The Ri deduces from here that when Isi stated that he is only liable for one of them, he means that he only receives stoning for one of them. However, he is obligated to offer a Chatas for each one.

Proof: If he was also referring to a Chatas, when the Gemara asks that he is obviously obligated to bring a Chatas, it should have answered that he is teaching us the opinion of Rav. The answer that it is needed because if he sins purpose he is liable to receive Kares and be stoned is also not an answer (as determined by the Gemara).

Proof (cont.): Originally, the Gemara certainly did not know that he was referring to stoning, as is apparent from the question from Rebbi Yochanan that this must be referring to a Chatas. This is because the phrase, "he is only liable once" cannot refer to death by stoning, as we cannot kill him twice!

Proof (cont.): However, when we explain that the phrase Isi said was, "he is not liable for one of them" we understand that Isi is talking about stoning. He clearly is not arguing on the Mishnah later (73b) that says that the amount is in order to teach he is liable for each prohibition.

Proof #2: The Gemara later (69a) is therefore understandable. The Gemara asks regarding Rebbi Yochanan's statement that if he does them all at once he is liable etc., "what did he know that applied on Shabbos?" The Gemara answers that he knew the laws of Techumim according to Rebbi Akiva (who says they apply according to Torah law).

Proof #2 (cont.): We cannot say that he knew the law of Isi, as Rebbi Yochanan states that he is liable for all of them. This is also explained by Rashi.

Proof #3: Later (96b), the Gemara quotes Isi regarding stoning and nowhere does it ever quote him regarding a Chatas.

Implied Question: The Gemara later (154a) asks that according to Rami bar Chama perhaps the Beraisa means, "Whatever one is liable to bring a Chatas for if he transgresses accidentally, he is liable to be stoned if he transgresses it on purpose." (This rule is not in accordance with the opinion of Isi!)

Answer: The Riva says that this Beraisa is indeed according to Rami bar Chama and unlike Isi, as according to Isi there is a case where one is liable to bring a Chatas if he sins accidentally, and he would not receive stoning if he did it on purpose.

Explanation: One does not have to explain that this is a question, as presumably Isi does not argue on this. Rather, the Gemara is saying we can even deduce this from the words of Isi, as he states an amount of Melachos. A similar manner of deduction is used later (73b).