Implied question: According to Rabanan, a Karfef less than Beis Sa'atayim, its law is like a Karfef Beis Sa'atayim to [forbid to] carry from it to the Chatzer, because it is unreasonable to have three different laws for amounts that differ by Mashehu!

Answer: Here, the minority that was seeded does not forbid the majority that was not seeded, to which it is totally open. Since [the seeded minority] is less than Beis Sa'atayim, it is not important, and it is Batel to the majority that was not seeded.

However, Beis Sa'atayim is more important, and it is not Batel.

Distinction: When the majority is seeded, even if it is not Beis Sa'atayim, it is forbidden, for [the unseeded part] is Batel to the majority, and it is as if all was seeded.

Observation: The same applies if it was not fixed. It is Tamei Midras;

Source: If when it was snapped, the Tum'ah departed, it would not return, for the only case in which an old Tum'ah returns is metal Kelim, like it says in Shabbos (16a)!

Implied question: Why does it say that he fixed it?

Answer (Rashi): This teaches that even though he fixed it, when the second snapped, it is Tahor from Midras, for Panim Chadashos came to here.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [It is Tamei due to touching a Midras] because it is still a Kli to use it for another use.

Consequence: According to this, even if the second snapped, it is Tamei Maga Midras!

Question: The Seifa of this Mishnah in Kelim (26:4) explicitly teaches that if he did not fix the first before the second snapped, it is Tahor!

Explanation #2: Rashi retracted and changed the text to say "but it is Tamei Maga Midras, for it is still a Kli, and it is proper for its first use, for the first [strap] was fixed."

Consequence: According to this, the text in the Reisha must say "and he fixed it", for if he did not fix it, when the second snapped, it would not be Tamei even Maga Midras;

Since it taught in the Reisha [and he fixed it], it taught also in the Seifa [that he fixed the second strap].

Question: When does Tum'as Maga Midras come to it?

Suggestion: Maga Midras and Midras came together, e.g. a Zav stepped on it with his bare foot, or even [wearing] a shoe, and no Pashut Kli Etz interrupted.

Rejection: If so, there are Panim Chadashos for Maga Midras, just like Midras!

Answer - part 1: According to Explanation #1, this is fine. Even if both straps snapped, it is Tamei Maga Midras, since it is proper for another use.

Explanation #3 (Rashi in Shabbos 112b): It is Tamei Maga Midras, because it touched itself when it was an Av ha'Tum'ah.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. This is Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim, and the Halachah does not follow R. Meir, who is Metamei!

Source: The Gemara asks simply in Chulin (72b, 129b) "this is Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim (it should be Tahor)!"

Explanation #4 (Rashi, here): At the time it separated from the strap, it received Tum'ah from its "father" (the intact sandal).

Rebuttal: In Chulin (72b) we say that [if a Mishkav was Tamei Medras, and a piece was torn from it, according to R. Yosi, who is Metaher Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim, for the piece to have Tum'as Maga Mishkav,] we require that it separated from a big garment (three by three Tefachim remained)!

Suggestion: When he fixed the first strap, after he sewed half, it became attached, and Tum'as Midras came to it, for [the strap] is Batel to the sandal, and when he sewed the second half, the sandal gets Maga Midras from the strap, and there are not Panim Chadashos.

Rejection: If so, we could resolve the question in Menachos (24a), that we do not say Sava Lah Tum'ah! (Even though the sandal had Tum'as Midras, it was able to get Tum'as Maga Midras.)

Defense #1 (of suggestion): According to R. Shimon of Yeinvi, who explains that we do not say Sava Lah Tum'ah when the Tum'ah comes from it itself, this is fine (that we could not resolve the question, which is only when the Tum'ah comes from elsewhere).

Defense #2: We can say that Maga Midras and Midras came to the strap together when it was sewn to the sandal, and the sandal is Batel to the strap, for it is impossible for one to have Tum'ah without the other;

Since they came together, Sava Lah Tum'ah does not apply.

Explanation #5 (Ritzva): Panim Chadashos does not apply to Maga. This is because even if both straps snapped [even before he fixed it], it is proper to receive Tum'as Maga, if he designated it for another use;

The designation is not Batel from now [that it snapped], for he fixes it every time [it snaps], and he intends to use it;

However, to wear it on the foot, if both straps snapped, even if he designated it, Batlah Daito Etzel Kol Adam (normal people would not wear it like this. It is not proper for Tum'as Midras until he fixes it, and then, this is Panim Chadashos.)

Explanation: We challenge Rav Nachman, who taught that if he makes an opening, he may carry. The Gemara understands that he opened and later was Makif. We ask that this is obvious!

However, we do not challenge the Gemara, which explained "this is only [if he made an opening and later surrounded]. This teaches that if he surrounded and later made an opening, it does not help, to teach unlike the Amora'im below (25b) regarding the orchard.

Explanation: The area where it is 10 [Tefachim] deep is less than Beis Sa'atayim. Where it is 10 deep is like seeds (it is not for residence).

This is like R. Shimon, whom the Halachah follows. According to Rabanan, even Beis Sa'atayim is forbidden [even if the minority is not proper for residence], like we said above (24a).

Explanation #1: The case is, the area where the water is 10 deep is the minority. If it were the majority, what is not 10 deep would be the minority, and is Batel to the majority, and forbidden, like we said above (24a).

Explanation #2 (Ri): It is permitted even if in the majority, the water is [10] deep. Since there is Beis Sa'atayim only counting the deep and shallow water together, [even the deep area] is not considered like seeds, rather, like trees, which are [considered for residence] like a pit.

Distinction: However, if [the deep area] is more than Beis Sa'atayim, it is forbidden, for it is not normal to make a trench full of water more than Beis Sa'atayim, and it is considered like seeds.

Implied question: Regarding a pit, even R. Yehudah does not forbid more than Beis Sa'atayim through absolute walls, only specifically when there are [merely] Pasim, like it says above (19b) "this is a Mechitzah, and these are Pasim!"

Answer: That is only regarding a properly made pit, but not regarding a trench.

Explanation (Rashi): This Rechavah was a Karmelis, and it forbade the Mavuy, even though at one end there was Tzuras ha'Pesach, or it was closed.

[The Rechavah] also forbade the path, which had three walls, for the bank of the river is a proper Mechitzah.

Implied question: The Rechavah had Gifufim (remnants of a wall on the sides), like is proven in the Sugya. They should help for the Mavuy and path, because [we hold that] Nir'eh miba'Chutz v'Shavah mibi'Fnim is considered a Lechi (10a)!

Answer: Since it does not help for the Rechavah itself, all the more so it does not help for the Mavuy and the path.

Note: Tosfos did not explain why it does not help for the Rechavah itself. Below, Tosfos connotes that it is considered to have Chatzeros and houses open to it. Perhaps it is because the Lechi is on the inside [of the place it needs to permit - see Tosfos 9b DH Kosel], or the Rechavah was not Hukaf l'Dirah.

Explanation (cont.): Rashi explained that the path had residents.

Support: It is fine that we say below that a Lechi helps for the path. If there were not houses and Chatzeros open to it, a Lechi would not permit it (5a)!

Observation: Here Rashi retracted from what he wrote above (7b) that the Rechavah there had no residents.

Explanation: The path should be like an addition to the Rechavah, and the path and Rechavah will be like one entity, and it will be as if this Mechitzah was made in the Rechavah.

Assertion: It seems that there was [an opening to the river] more than 10 [Amos] wide, and therefore through the Mechitzah it is considered Mukaf l'Dirah.

Proof: If [the opening] was at most 10, even without [the new Mechitzah] it was [considered] closed, and even if it was totally open to the river, a Lechi Mashehu (of any width) would have sufficed!

Rather, it was more than 10. Therefore, even Tzuras ha'Pesach would not have helped according to Rav (2b, who taught that even with Tzuras ha'Pesach, one must diminish the width to at most 10).

Question: We say below (25a) that if one made a Mechitzah on a mound, it helps, for he lives in the airspace of the upper Mechitzos! (Likewise, a wall on top of the river bank helps, for the path is in the airspace of the wall.)

Answer #1: There was there a mound 10 [Tefachim] higher than the path. (Building another 10 Tefachim on top of does not add anything.)

Support: Now it is fine why we are not concerned lest the river deposit debris, even if we do not distinguish between a sea and other rivers. (Deposit of debris could make a non-steep incline on the river floor to the bank, and it would cease to be a Mechitzah. Not much is deposited on the land, so the mound would keep its status.)

Question: They should make Mechitzos four Tefachim away [from the existing Mechitzos]. We say below (25a) that this helps!

Answer: They did not want to shorten the path.

Note: Meforshim say that the next Dibur is the continuation of this Dibur. Tosfos will give another answer to Question (a).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The path] is open to the Rechavah. Since [Tzuras ha'Pesach] helps for the path, it helps also for the Rechavah.

Question #1: It connotes that the Migo (since it helps...) is not needed until later!

Question #2: Why did [the Gemara] mention Tzuras ha'Pesach at all, since a Lechi suffices, like Abaye himself said?

Question #3: Why did [the Gemara] change from the initial expression "at the mouth of the path", and regarding a Lechi it says "at the opening"?

Question #4: [The Gemara] asked "a Lechi should help for the path in the vineyard when it is Mefulash." How could it err [to equate] this path, which had Gidudei, to a Stam path?

Question #5: He must explain that there was a mound 10 [Tefachim] tall. All the more so they would not err [to equate it to a Stam path]!

Explanation #2: A path in a vineyard has no residents, like is proven below (74a);

[Abaye asked, "did] R. Yochanan say [that a Lechi or Korah permits] even in a path in a vineyard?" [Rav Yosef answered] "no, he said only in a Churvah, which is proper for residents, but not in a path in a vineyard."

Even so, a Lechi helps, for Bnei Mavuy used there, and there were many houses and Chatzeros in the Mavuy.

Answer #2 (to Question (a) in DH Ein): [The suggestion] "they should make a Mechitzah on the bank of the river" refers to the other side of the river, and the same applies to Tzuras ha'Pesach, which is like a Mechitzah. The river was less than 10 [Amos] wide, and on the other side of the river were Gidudim 10 [Tefachim] tall and on the side of the path it was low.

Support #1: Now it is fine what it says "we do not make a Mechitzah on a Mechitzah", for on the side of the path it was low. (The Gidudim were already like a wall with respect to the path. Adding to them has no effect.)

Support #2: Also, now we are not concerned for deposit of debris, for it will always slope 10 Tefachim amidst four Amos (so the bank will still be considered a wall. Surely the deposit will not span four Amos, which is almost half the river's width - Maharsha.)

Explanation: [The suggestion was to make Tzuras ha'Pesach] on the river bank. They did not want to make a Mechitzah there and close the path, for they gave the camels to drink through there.

Explanation: Now, surely it does not help without a Migo.

Explanation #1: [People will say that a Lechi helps in a Stam path in a vineyard] that is not used by people of a Mavuy. It will not cross their minds that here [it helps] due to the Mavuy.

Explanation #2: They will say that a Lechi helps in a Stam path in a vineyard that is Mefulash. It will not cross their minds that Gidudei on the other side of the river help.

Explanation: [One may carry in the Rechavah] Kelim that were Shoves in it, and similarly regarding the path.