Explanation #1: The path does not have residents to forbid [the Rechavah].

Explanation #2 (Rashi): [The path] has residents. They do not forbid [the Rechavah] because there are Gifufei (walls on both sides).

Explanation: The houses by the Rechavah will open from their houses to the Rechavah, and they will forbid the Rechavah to the people of the Mavuy to take out [to the Mavuy] Kelim that were Shoves in it (the Rechavah);

Therefore, it is forbidden to carry from the Mavuy to the Rechavah, lest people carry also after residents open [to the Rechavah] without an Eruv, like they [carry] now.

Distinction: However, the Rechavah itself is permitted, for even after they open, one may carry Kelim that were Shoves in it.

Alternative text: Rashi's text does not say "on the edge of the mound", for this would connote [that it helps for] those who live below;

Rather, his text says "on the mound", and it helps for] those who live on the mound.

Observation: However, [even according to his text] he must explain that we discuss [a Mechitzah] on the edge of the mound, for if he distanced four [Tefachim] from the edge, this is no Chidush, for also below, if he distanced, it helps.

Explanation #1 (Rashi, 90b): An Achsadra is open in all four directions.

Support: Now it is fine that it discusses in a valley, which has no Mechitzos, and not in a Chatzer.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi's text below (94b), when we answer the contradiction in Shmuel, says "he does not say [Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem] on four [sides], but he says so on three."

Question: In Sukah (18b) we say that even on two sides, one opposite the other, we do not say Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem, for it is like Mefulash!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): An Achsadra has three walls, like we say in Bava Basra (25b) "the world resembles an Achsadra. [The sun traverses three sides, but it does not traverse the north side."

The text below (94b) says "[Shmuel] does not [say Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem] regarding three, but he says regarding four." I.e. there are three Mechitzos, and a little of the fourth;

Rav says Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem even on two sides that are not opposite each other.

Implied question: Why didn't [Rav and Shmuel] discuss an Achsadra in a Chatzer?

Answer: A Stam Achsadra in a Chatzer has three walls. Therefore, it mentioned a valley, for even when there are only two Mechitzos, Rav says Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem.

Explanation: It was surrounded from three or two sides.

Version #1: It was open on four sides. Arsala is a bed, like the Targum of "ki'Melunah v'Mikshah", which is k'Arsala;

They are ropes stretched from one tree to another, like a bed (hammock), and the Shomer lies in it at night and sits in its shade during the day.

Version #2: Rashi's text is "like Arzila." It is sloped, and does not have a [flat] edge, so we do not say Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem.

Explanation: It is totally breached to a place permitted to it. Also, the [area of the Chatzeros] does not make it too big [it does not count towards the upper limit of the size of a Karfef in which one may carry, i.e. Beis Sa'atayim] because all the Chatzeros are Mukafos l'Dirah. (The reason we forbid carrying in a Karfef more than Beis Sa'atayim because it was not Mukaf l'Dirah);

Abaye responded "like whom do you say so? It is like R. Shimon", for according to Rabanan, who say that [a Chatzer and a Karfef] are two [separate] Reshuyos, it is totally breached to a place forbidden to it;

According to [Rabanan], the area of the Chatzer, which is forbidden to [the Karfef, joins and] makes it too big.

Implied question: The Chatzer is Mukaf l'Dirah! (How can it forbid the Karfef due to being a large area not Mukaf l'Dirah?!)

Answer: The Chatzer is Mukaf l'Dirah regarding what is in it. Regarding the Karfef, which is a separate Reshus, [the Chatzer] is not considered Mukaf l'Dirah, and makes it too big.

However, according to R. Shimon, this is fine, for it is one Reshus, and it is an area permitted [to the Karfef].

Question: Since [Abaye] said "like whom do you say so? It is like R. Shimon. Also according to R. Shimon...", this implies that R. Zeira's opinion is simply like Rabanan;

If it is like Rabanan, why did he say "the area of the Chatzer makes it too big"? Even without this [one may not carry in the Karfef] because it is totally breached to a place forbidden to it!

Answer #1: [R. Zeira] teaches that it is forbidden also because the area of the Chatzer makes it too big. The relevance [of a second reason to forbid] is if it was breached from one side to Reshus ha'Rabim. It needs Tzuras ha'Pesach on one side, and a Lechi on the other side;

However, due to being totally breached to a place forbidden to it, it would require only a Lechi on the side of Reshus ha'Rabim, like it connotes above (7b) that a Mavuy totally breached to a Chatzer does not need anything, even if they were not Me'arev.

Answer #2: He teaches that [the area of the Chatzer] makes it too big, and [the Karfef] is like Karmelis, and if it was breached to another Karmelis, one may carry [from one to the other up to four Amos, e.g. two Amos in this and two Amos in this;

However, if [the Chatzer] did not make it too big, even though [the Karfef] is totally breached to a place forbidden to it, it is not considered Karmelis, and one may not carry from it to another Karmelis.

Support: So Rashi explained below (90b) regarding the question against Shmuel that Rabanan should permit transferring from a roof to a Karfef.

Explanation: It was not breached more than 10 [Amos]. If it was more than 10, also the Chatzer is forbidden.

Question (Ri): You are forced to say that we discuss a Karfef Beis Sa'atayim, since we say "since the area of the Chatzer makes it too big";

If so (the side that was totally breached is at most 10, and the total area is 5000 square Amos), the length is much more than twice the width. We do not find any Tana who permits this!

Answer #1: The place where it was breached is not more than 10, but from there and onwards it gets wider. (The Karfef can be like a square, with a protrusion on one side that narrows to 10 Amos.)

Answer #2: When it is Beis Sa'atayim, we do not permits a length more than twice the width, but when it is anything less than Beis Sa'atayim, we permit more (even if it is very long and thin. The Karfef itself, without the Chatzer, is less than Beis Sa'atayim.)

Explanation: If [Rav Chisda's teaching] were like Rabanan [sometimes we would find oppositely, i.e. the Karfef is permitted and the Chatzer is forbidden,], e.g. the Karfef is bigger than the Chatzer (and the Chatzer was totally breached to the Karfef).

Inference: Since [Rav Chisda] mentioned that the Karfef is forbidden, this shows that he holds like R. Shimon. It is not forbidden because they are two [separate] Reshuyos, rather, due to added area within Mechitzos. In a Chatzer this does not forbid, and in a Karfef it forbids.

Implied question: Why couldn't he teach oppositely [according to R. Shimon]?

Answer: If the Chatzer was totally breached and the Karfef had Gifufei (walls on the sides), R. Shimon permits both of them, for he holds that all (roofs, Chatzeros and Karfifos) are one Reshus;

Also, there is no problem of added area to the Karfef, since it has Gifufei. Rashi explained like this.

Question: Really, we can establish [Rav Chisda] like Rabanan. He did not say oppositely because there is no Isur of added area in a Chatzer. It is forbidden only if it is totally breached!

Answer: If so, he should have explained that the Karfef is forbidden because the area of the Chatzer makes it too big, if it is like Rabanan, and [then] one could not say oppositely [since even a big Chatzer is permitted].

Implied question: Why did [Abaye] need to bring Rav Chisda's teaching, which is like R. Shimon [to show that R. Shimon agrees that the Chatzer makes the Karfef too big]? He can prove that R. Zeira's teaching is like R. Shimon, since he did not say oppositely!

Answer: [He cannot prove from R. Zeira,] for [R. Zeira] needed to say "even though if he roofed a Beis Se'ah, I say that it does not make it too big, I agree that here, [the Chatzer] makes the [Karfef] too big." Therefore, he could not say oppositely.

Explanation #1: It was Hukaf and later opened. He distanced four and made a wall, and there was also an opening to the orchard. The wall fell;

Rav Bivi holds that since once it was Hukaf l'Dirah, even though it fell, it is permitted, since it is open also to the house. Even though the opening to the house was after it was Hukaf, it does not lose its Heter;

We conclude [like Rav Papa] that the wall of the house does not help.

Explanation #2: Rashi did not explain like this. (Rather, the orchard was considered Hukaf l'Dirah due to a wall of the house. The wall fell, and Rav Bivi wanted to say that the orchard is Hukaf l'Dirah due to the other walls of the house. Rav Papa rejected this.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi's second Perush, from Bahag): Avavurnaka is like an Achsadra or booth that kings make in an orchard;

Rav Huna [bar Chinena] went and erected sticks less than three Tefachim [from each other, to permit carrying on the path to the Avavurnaka]. He did not want to rely on the Avavurnaka, because it was Hukaf and later inhabited, and because it is a Mechitzah for guarding and for privacy, like we conclude;

He made a path of sticks less than three Tefachim apart from the opening of the orchard to the Avavurnaka, if the Avavurnaka was in the orchard;

However, if the Avavurnaka was to the side of there was no need to make a path, only to divide the orchard and diminish it from [Beis] Sa'atayim.

Even though the Avavurnaka was Hukaf for guarding and for privacy, it was permitted to carry Kelim that were Shoves in it.

Implied question: [If such Mechitzos help, why did Rabah bar Avuha require separate Eruvin for] the [date] pits in trenches [for cattle]?

Answer #1: They were more than Beis Sa'atayim. Therefore each neighborhood needed to be Me'arev by itself.

Answer #2: They could not be Me'arev together for Kelim that were Shoves in the house.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rava removed the sticks. He held that the wall around the Avavurnaka was considered like Hukaf l'Dirah, even though it was Hukaf and later inhabited.

Possibility #1: We must say that (the Amora'im who challenged Rava) knew that Rava permitted due to the Avavurnaka, and not because "Hukaf and later opened" helps, for they challenged him from builders' walls and walls for guarding. One could not ask this if [Rava permitted] because it was Hukaf and later opened!

Or, perhaps no house was open there. (If so, obviously Rava considered it Hukaf l'Dirah due to the Avavurnaka.)

Possibility #2: Alternatively, we can say that the Avavurnaka was inhabited and later Hukaf. They did not know whether Rava relied on "Hukaf and later opened", and a house was open to it, or on the Avavurnaka.

[Ravina] challenged him from a new city. Hukaf and later inhabited does not help, and all the more so Hukaf and later opened!

Afterwards, [Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua and Rav Papa] challenged him that Avavurnaka is not considered a Mechitzah, because it is for guarding and privacy.

Explanation #2 (R. Nesanel): [Rav Huna] made a wall of sticks less than three Tefachim, i.e. he distanced four [Tefachim] from the wall in order to permit the entire orchard, and the house was open to it. Now, it is like opened and later Hukaf;

Rava held that nothing is needed, due to the Avavurnaka. Even though Hukaf and later opened does not help, Hukaf and later inhabited helps.