Source: It is a Mishnah in Keilim (Perek 18 Mishnah 9) 'And it is subject to Tum'ah together - when it is attached' ...

Source: (cont.): But when it is taken apart, piece by piece, it is not subject to Tum'ah - even the short side together with the two legs.

Explanation #1: Rebbi Eliezer nevertheless concedes that if it comes apart and is then joined once more, it reverts to its former Tum'ah, as he states.

Explanation #1 (cont.): 'And it becomes Tahor together' - If it is Tamei, Tevilah is not effective piece by piece; he must first repair it and then Toveil it.

Explanation #1 (concl.): Whereas the Chachamim maintain that it is subject to Tum'ah (even) piece by piece, as the Gemara concludes - by the long side and its two legs - This is what the Mishnah in Keilim appears to be saying at first glance.

Explanation #2: However, the Tosefta in Keilim does not imply this, when it says 'How is that? If a leg came off from the long side together with the short side, according to Rebbi Eliezer it is considered attached, and if one Tovels it, it is not a Chatzitzah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas the Chachamim says that it is not attached and that in the event that one Tovels it, it is a Chatzitzah.

Clarification: According to the Tosefta, the Mishnah means as follows: 'It is subject to Tum'ah together' - Just as when it is complete, if one of its parts becomes Tamei, it all becomes Tamei ...

Clarification (cont.): So too, if a leg separates from the long side and stands together with the short side, it is considered attached, and if the leg becomes Tamei, the short side becomes Tamei, too ...

Source: And this is what the Tosefta means when it says citing Rebbi Eliezer 'Harei Zeh Chibur'.

Clarification (cont.): 'And it becomes Tahor together' - If one Tovels the leg together with the short side, the short side does not interrupt, just as it does not interrupt when one Tovels the complete bed.

Clarification (cont.): And the Chachamim say 'It is subject to Tum'ah independently, but not together; and if the leg becomes Tamei, it is Tamei but not the short side, since they are not considered attached like by a complete bed.

Source: And this is what the Tosefta states, citing the Chachamim 'Einah Chibur'.

Clarification (cont.): 'And it becomes Tahor piece by piece' - One Tovels the leg independently, but not when it is attached to the short side

Reason (cont.): Since the short side interrupts, rendering it incomplete ...

Clarification (concl.): Because someone who Tovels a complete bed, even though he did take it apart, it is Tahor.

Inference: This implies that flat wooden Keilim are subject to Tum'ah - such as a bed, which is subject to Medras, and that they can also be Toveled in a Mikvah.

Implied Question: And the Gemara in Perek Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos, Daf 84a & 84b) which implies that a Mapatz (a wooden mat) is not subject to Taharah in a Mikvah ...

Answer: Rabeinu Tam establishes by a mat of different kinds of reeds.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Keitzad ha'Regel (Bava Kama, Daf 25b & 26a) in connection with a 'Mapatz' - that 'One learns it out both as regards Tum'as Erev and as regards Tum'as Shiv'ah', implying that it is subject to Taharah after seven days ...

Refuted Refutation: Because even if one explains that it is talking about becoming Tamei for seven days - that it becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah ...

Reason: There is nothing that is Tamei for seven days which does not become an Av ha'Tum'ah ...

Refutation: Nevertheless, if it was not subject to Tahaarah in a Mikvah, it could not become an Av ha'Tum'ah, as is evident in Eruvin (Daf 104b).

Answer: We are therefore forced to say that that Beraisa 'From where do we know Mapatz be'Meis?' speaks about every kind of Mapatz, both one that is made wood, such as a mat of canes, and one made of reeds ...

Answer (cont.): And the above Gemara in 'Rebbi Akiva' extrapolates from a mat of reeds, whereas the Gemara in 'Keitzad ha'Regel' extrapolates from one made of wood.

Implied Question: And the reason that flat wooden vessels can be Toveled in a Mikvah, even though the Pasuk at the end of Shemini (11:32) "It shall be brought to water" is written in connection with wooden receptacles, as the Torah writes there "From all wooden vessels, garments of cloth or of leather or sack (which is a receptacle)" ...

Answer: We nevertheless learn it from the other Pasuk, which states in Parshas Midyan (Bamidbar, 31:2) "All goat-skin and all wooden vessels, shall be purified".

Implied Question: Since one cannot say 'Just as what is made of goat-skin can be moved both full and empty ... ' ...

Answer: since that D'rashah is only applicable with regard to sack, which one manufactures specifically to handle both full and empty ... since it is made to carry loads, as the Torah writes in Bersishis (42) "And to return each man's money to his sack".

Clarification: Even if he had (Aniyim) in mind, his thoughts are Bateil (to those of most other people).

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Zevachim, Perek Dam Chatas (Daf 94a) implies that Machshavah helps by a piece of cloth that is less than three by three finger-breadths ...

Answer: It is not comparable to the case here, since it speaks there where his thoughts are discernable via his actions, as emerges from Keilim, Perek 28 [See Mesores ha'Shas]).

Clarification: One can explain that Rav Huna follow his own reasoning, since he said earlier (Daf 10a), in connection with 'Between one Sukah and another' - one Tefach.

Suggestion: It is even possible that the opinion that holds there 'four Tefachim' will concede here ...

Proof: Since according to Shmuel, who says there 'ten Tefachim', it is not applicable here (See Maharam).

Refuted Text: There are texts that read 'Bein mi'Lema'alah bein mi'Lematah bein mi'Toch Ogno'.

Refutation #1: This is not correct however ...

Reason: Because if so, 'mi'Lema'alah' means outside the pit, since inside the pit close to the edge is synonymous with 'inside the border' ...

Refutation #1 (cont.): That being the case, that is the wall between them, which Rebbi Yehudah says divides between the two pits, and which is suspended over the mouth of the pit?

Refutation #2: Moreover, if it is so, the 'Le'ma'alah of the Tana Kama is not equivalent to the 'Lema'alah' of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel ...

Refutation #2 (cont.): Since in Perek Keitzad Mishtatfin (Eruvin, Daf 86a) Amora'im argue (over Raban Shimon ben Gamliel), in that Rav Huna says that both 'le'Matah' and 'le'Ma'alah' are meant literally, and both refer to the pit ...

Refutation #2 (cont.): Whereas Rav Yehudah says 'le'Matah' means below the water, whilst 'le'Ma'alah' refers to above the water.

Text: All the Sefarim reverse the opinions - in Perek Keitzad Mishtatfin (Eruvin, Daf 86a).

Explanation #1: Since it was forbidden to carry there?

Clarifying Text: We do not have the text 'Does everyone not agree ... ?' - seeing as a Mechitzah without a roof is not an Ohel, and such a Mechitzah one is permitted to make on Shabbos ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek Kol Gagos (Ibid. Daf 94a) - 'Shmuel said to them "Take a coat and spread it out for me!" '

Explanation #1 (concl.): This is how Rashi explains the Sugya here, and how he similarly explains in Perek kol ha'Keilim (Shabbos, Daf 125b, in the case of a window-stopper, where he says (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) that that 'The window was on top on the roof, but that at the side (when it is vertical) the Isur of Ohel does apply'.

Introduction to Proof: And he brings a similar proof for this from the case in 'Kol Gagos' - where Shmuel said to them 'Spread out a coat!' and where Rav turned his face away'. And in answer to the question why Shmuel saw fit to do that, seeing as (elsewhere) he said that 'Each one is permitted to carry up to the Mechitzah'? ...

Introduction to Proof (cont.): The Gemara says 'that Smuel did it merely out of Tzeni'us', implying that had Shmuel forbidden it like Rav, there would have been no problem as to why he did it (spread out the coat), and the Gemara would not have asked how Shmuel could do it.

Proof: So we see from the fact that Rav was concerned, not with making the Mechitzah, but with carrying the sheet in to the Chatzer, that vertical walls that one puts up are not considered an Ohel.

Question #1: One can query Rashi's Kashya however, 'How they could bring the sheets', since perhaps they wore them?

Question #2: Moreover, 'Chalon' (a window) applies to a wall; In the roof, it is called 'an Arubah' (a skylight)? ...

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in Beitzah (Daf 35a) 'One may lower fruit by way of the skylight'.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara asks in the last Perek of Yoma (Daf 76a) 'How many skylighhts are there in a door?' ...

Answer: It is referring to skylights in the roof, as we find (in Bereishis, 7) 'And the skylights of the Heaven"

Question #3: And it is also evident that (the Isur of) making an Ohel applies to the walls in Perek Mi she'Hotzi'uhu (eruvin, Daf 44a & 44b) ...

Proof #1: When it asks in connection with making a wall 'But did we not learn on that that "Everyone agrees that one is not permitted to make a temporary Ohel on Yom-Tov?'

Proof #2: And in Perek Keitzad Mishtatfin (Ibid, Daf 86b) Rashi concurs with the text that is written in the Sefarim - 'Is it permitted to spread it out Lechatchilah? But did Mar not say that "Everyone agrees that one is not permitted to make a temporary Ohel on Shabbos Lechatchilah?" '.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that making an Ohel applies even on the side, and wherever we say that a Mechitzah is effective in that it permits ... , it is considered making an Ohel Lechatchilah, such as 'where they spread the sheets'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And it is akin to the third wall of a Sukah, which is considered an Ohel in Perek Mi she'Hotzi'uhu (Daf 44a).

Explanation #2 (concl.): But the fourth wall is merely Tosefes Ohel (adding on to an existing Ohel), seeing as it is Kasher without it.

Rav - Clarification: And Rav who was particular in Perek Kol Gagos (Ibid, Daf 94a), it was on account of making an Ohel that he was particular ...

Rav - Clarification (cont.): Because according to him, since it was forbidden to carry, one ought not to have spread a sheet there on Shabbos on account of making an Ohel.

Shmuel - Clarification: And when the Gemara asks why Shmuel saw fit to do that, seeing as he permitted to carry up to the Mechitzah ...

Shmuel - Clarification (cont.): Had it been forbidden to carry, the Gemara would all the more have queried Shmuel - how he could have done such a thing, only it asked based on the Emes.

Conclusion: The opinion that permits Tosefes Ohel, permits it even on the roof ...

Proof #1: As is evident in Perek ha'Motzei Tefilin (Ibid, Daf 102a & 102b) in connection with the case of 'Those goats belonging to Rav Huna, which required shade by day and air by night' ...

Proof #2: And later in Perek ha'Yashein (Daf 27b) in connection with the episode of Rebbi Eliezer who spent Shabbos in the Sukah of Rebbi Yochanan b'Rebbi Ila'i in Caesaria.

Question: This too, is obvious, seeing as the Gemara earlier (on Daf 7a) declared Kasher a series of canes that are spaced less than three Tefachim apart ...

Reason: Based on the fact that the wall of a Sukah is compared to a wall regarding Shabbos.

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara thinks that there is a distinction between vertical posts and horizontal ones.

Refuted Question: Nor can one ask that two ropes that are less than a Tefach thick should suffice - applying L'vud ...

Source: Like we find in the first Perek of Eruvin (Daf 16b) where 'They surrounded (the camp) with three ropes', whilst here two will be enough?

Answer: Since the Gemara there says that they only permitted it by an encampment.

Explanation #1: It speaks where it is very high, says Rashi, so that one cannot apply two L'vudin. Consequently, one requires matting of seven Tefachim and a bit, which one places within three Tefachim of the ground.

Refutation: This does not conform however, with the text cited in all the Sefarim 'What is it coming to teach us? That one weaves walls from the top downwards, like Rebbi Yossi'.

Explanation #2: One is therefore forced to explain that one places it on top, within three Tefachim of the S'chach, because, irrespective of how high it is from the ground, it is Kasher according to Rebbi Yossi, who holds that a suspended wall permits (one to carry)'.

Clarification: Regarding this case where the post is standing, the term 'Pas' is appropriate, whereas earlier, where it talks about one whose width runs up the height of the wall, the term 'Mechtzeless' is applicable.

Clarification: The Mitzvah of Sukah comprises two walls - as all the Amora'im earlier in the Perek maintain, like the Rabanan, who say 'Two walls as specified (i.e. complete walls), shaped like a Greek 'Gama' ...

Clarification (cont.): And assuming that one of the complete walls is placed along the east side, one adds the four-Tefachim-plus post on the south or on the north within three Tefachim of the eastern wall (adjacent to it), and it is considered as if it (the gap) was closed up ...

Clarification (concl.): So that there are now two complete walls.