Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. It is better to say that they argue regarding Rav Chisda's law, and that Rav Chisda holds like Rebbi.

Question (cont.): According to Abaye's answer that they are not arguing regarding Rav Chisda's law, it is certainly difficult according to Rav Chisda! This is because there is a Beraisa (100a) that is unlike Rav Chisda. In this Beraisa, the Rabbanan and Rebbi Meir argue regarding a person who threw over ten Tefachim and the object landed in a small hole. Rebbi Meir says he is liable because of Chokikin l'Hashlim, and it is therefore as if it is on a place of four Tefachim. The Chachamim say he is exempt. This implies that everyone agrees that we require the object to rest on a place of four Tefachim in the private domain! (At least if we say that they argue regarding Rav Chisda's law, Rav Chisda will have a Tana (Rebbi) to support him against the Tanaim in this Beraisa!)

Answer: Perhaps it is possible to answer that the reason Rav Chisda says that we do not need the object to rest on an area of four Tefachim in the private domain is because we say that the house is as if it is full (i.e. in its entire width up to the sky), and it is therefore as if it is placed on a place of four Tefachim. However, on a wall we require the hole to be four by four Tefachim.

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Chananel explains that Abaye specifically stated six Tefachim (and not four), as the walls of the beehive are two fifths of a Tefach wide, and there must be four Tefachim of airspace in the beehive. (A square of four Tefachim has a diagonal of five and three fifths Tefachim. Rabeinu Chananel understands that while this space must be inside the beehive, the walls of the beehive reasonably are two fifths of a Tefach long, causing the final width of the beehive to be at least six Tefachim.)

Opinion #1 (cont.): It is ten Tefachim tall, even though it does not have an actual ten Tefachim of airspace inside the beehive. However, the thickness of the bottom of the beehive combines with the airspace inside regarding its height.

Proof: This is as we see from the law in Eiruvin (93a) that a wall that is five Tefachim high and standing on a pile of earth that is five Tefachim high combines with it to a make a private domain.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rashi explains the case (ibid.) as being a wall of five Tefachim next to a pit that is five Tefachim deep.

Answer: His explanation does not appear to be correct.

Proof: This is as the Mishnah states there (99b) that a pit and its rim combine to make a private domain. If so, how can Rav Chisda argue that this is incorrect against a Mishnah? Moreover, in Eiruvin (93b) we say explicitly that Rav Chisda admits regarding the bottom one, since it sees the face of ten Tefachim! Rather, one must explain that this means one made a wall of five Tefachim on a pile of earth that is five Tefachim tall.

Question: Rabeinu Chananel's opinion does not appear to be correct. This is because the thickness of the rim of the pit combines with the space inside the pit to make an area of four Tefachim wide because it is fit to put things on the rim of the pit and use it. This is as the Gemara states in Eiruvin (78a) regarding filling it up with pegs.

Opinion #2: Rather, it must be that when Abaye said six he did not mean exactly six (rather five and three fifths Tefachim including the outside of the beehive, see Maharam), as explained by Rashi (DH "Gevohah").

Explanation: The beehive itself is made into a private domain when it rests, and it is like one who throws from a private domain to a private domain through a public domain who is exempt, as stated earlier (7a) that we do not derive throwing from extending.

Explanation (cont.): Even according to Rebbi Akiva who says that an object passing through airspace is like it is put down, here he is exempt. This is because wherever it is put down it is considered a private domain.

Implied Question: The Gemara currently implies that it is obvious to Abaye that it is considered put down after it became a private domain.

Implied Question: Later (99b), Rebbi Yochanan asks regarding a person who took part of the bottom of a pit that was nine Tefachim deep and put it on top of the pit which was in the public domain, causing the inside of the pit to become ten Tefachim tall. Do we say that his taking of the object and the making of the wall of the pit happen at the same time and he is therefore liable or not?

Implied Question (cont.): If we say that because the pit was not ten Tefachim tall when he took it he is not liable, if the pit was ten Tefachim tall and he put earth into it and made it less than ten Tefachim, what is the law? Do we say that putting the object down and taking away the wall are considered to happen at the same time and he is therefore liable, or not?

Implied Question (cont.): If so there is a difficulty, as we know Abaye understands that it is obvious that a mat can nullify a wall. This is as the Gemara (100a) says that if a person throws a mat into a pit in the public domain that is ten Tefachim deep and eight Tefachim wide, effectively splitting it into two parts that are each less than four Tefachim wide, he is exempt because this area is no longer four Tefachim wide.

Implied Question (cont.): Abaye would say that one is certainly exempt from making a wall, as since there was not a wall of ten there before he threw it he should not be liable. If so, he should be liable here for this reason! Since it was not a wall originally (when it was thrown), it should be considered like an object that landed in the public domain and he should therefore be liable!

Answer: Abaye's reason is because it is not considered uprooting or putting down when the actions happen together. In this case it is not considered putting down, since putting down and making a wall are happening at the same time.

Implied Question: Rebbi Yochanan understands that it is more likely that making a wall should be invalid than taking away a wall. (Why?)

Answer: This is perhaps because we require a significant taking of the object, but we do not require a significant act of putting down the object.

Opinion: The Riva understands that this (even) refers to when it is six Tefachim wide. When it is slightly over seven Tefachim long, he is (still) liable. This is because when the walls reach within three Tefachim of the ground they are not considered ten Tefachim tall. The thickness of the bottom of the beehive does not combine, as we require a wall that sees the airspace of the vessel which is ten Tefachim.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that when the beehive is ten Tefachim tall, the bottom of it does combine to have a private domain on it, as stated earlier regarding a house that is not ten Tefachim tall inside the house etc. Since the top of the beehive is a private domain, one who throws it is exempt.

Answer: Even so, since it is only ten Tefachim tall through Lavud, the air that is less than three Tefachim does not combine unless the walls are ten Tefachim tall without including the thickness of the bottom of the beehive. This is because we only say Lavud with walls (i.e. the sides of the beehive, not the bottom), as explained by Rashi.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that we do not say Lavud regarding the area under the bottom of the beehive.

Explanation: When the walls are within three Tefachim of the ground (and it is seven and a half Tefachim long), there are walls of ten Tefachim without having to include the bottom of the beehive. It is therefore considered a private domain and as if it is resting. He can no longer be held liable, even though it proceeds to fall to the ground and can no longer be considered a private domain. It is considered as if it is placed in the public domain.

Explanation (cont.): However, if it is not six Tefachim wide, even if it is seven and a half tall he is liable, as we only say Lavud regarding walls, and walls are only where there is an area that is four Tefachim wide. However, in an area which is not four Tefachim wide it is like any other object and we do not say Lavud.

Explanation: According to Abaye, the parts of the reeds that are sticking out are not enough to consider the object gathered in a Makom Petur (and to make him exempt).

Explanation: We can say that "So too regarding a ditch" is as if he said that even if a pole is nine Tefachim tall we can say it is a public domain, as people use it though it is somewhat difficult to do so. Certainly, then, if a ditch is less than nine Tefachim deep it is considered part of the public domain, as it is easier to use.

Explanation (cont.): This is also implied later, as it says regarding a Beraisa quoted, "It must be that "so too regarding a ditch" is regarding the second part of the Beraisa" implying that anything less than ten Tefachim can be carried, like the case of the box.

Implied Question: It should be enough for the Gemara to say one "Tzerichusa," that if the Tana only stated the case of the large puddle once, I would say that it is only regarding cases like it. This is why the Tana said this type of case twice. (Why did it say two?)

Answer: Rather, since we find a different Tzerichusa, we establish that it is as if one of the cases explicitly stated it was discussing the summer, while the other was explicitly discussing the winter.

Question #1: This is difficult. What is it teaching? It is obvious that he is not liable, since he did not uproot anything!

Question #2: Additionally, why is this stated here?

Answer: Rav Yehudah is teaching that even though it is normal to carry them in this fashion as they are difficult to carry, and it is similar the Gemara earlier (5b) that said that one who stops to readjust his load is liable, even so he is exempt.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara mentioned this here because it previously discussed a pole that is nine Tefachim tall in the public domain, and many people used it to readjust their load (just like this case deals with someone who is constantly readjusting how he is carrying).

Opinion: This is specifically referring to someone who picks up a bundle and straightens it in a way that when he puts the top of the bundle outside of four cubits, the other side of it is inside of four cubits. When he proceeds to throw the other side outside of four cubits he is still not liable, as he is like a person who is dragging an object until he drags its head outside of four cubits. Even though he continues to pull it until it is outside of four cubits he is exempt, as the Melachah was not done all at once.

Opinion (cont.): However, if he drags a bundle of reeds four cubits in one motion, or if he carries if from a private domain to a public domain, he is liable.

Proof: This is as the Gemara states (91b) regarding a person who steals a wallet on Shabbos that if he dragged it when he went out he is exempt (from the stealing), as the prohibition of Shabbos and stealing happen at the same time (this shows he is liable for carrying on Shabbos even though he was dragging).

Observation: The Ri says that if one rolls a barrel four cubits in the public domain or from the private domain into the public domain, he is liable. This is because it is like dragging (a wallet), as it does not rest at all (it keeps rolling). However, if one rolls a square box he is exempt, as it is the same as picking up and straightening this bundle, as it is impossible it will not come to rest at all (while he is transporting it).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is even though he transported it over ten Tefachim which is a Makom Petur.

Question #1: This does not seem correct, as if so the Gemara should ask a question (on its question) from the Rabbanan earlier (5b) who say that if someone carried from a store to an open public domain through a Stav, he is liable. How can the Gemara ask that this should be a strong question on Rava? The Rabbanan hold like Rava!

Question #2: Additionally, in Eiruvin (98b) the Mishnah states that a person can stand in the private domain and carry in the public domain, as long as he does not carry outside of four cubits. The Gemara deduces that if he does carry outside of his four cubits, he is liable! This should be a proof to Rava who says that if someone carries etc. According to Rashi, the Gemara should have no proof to Rava as the cases are different!

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that Rabeinu Chananel's explanation is correct. He explains that the Gemara means that he carried in front of him, meaning opposite his body. I would think that if it is opposite him it is as if it is as rest, and this would mean that he did not carry four cubits at a time. The Gemara there answers that it did not rest, meaning that this is not considered resting [when he is still carrying it].