Explanation: Now, even if the Halachah does not follow R. Eliezer, he may enter.

Question: Since Rabanan say that even if he is one Amah [outside the Techum] he may not enter (more than four Amos from his current place), even though his four Amos extend into his first Techum, also when there are enough men, and the Mechitzos reach into the Techum, he should not [be allowed to] enter (past the Mechitzos)!

Answer: This is different. Here, when you remove the Mechitzah of men, and he already left through the Mechitzah the four Amos that Chachamim gave to him, and now it is proper to give to him four other Amos, since he is in his initial Techum, we do not give to him four other Amos. Rather, he returns to his initial Techum;

However, when his four Amos enter [his Techum], he did not lose his four Amos through entering (for he is still within the four Amos he received), he may not enter.

Implied question: Below, R. Meir disqualifies an animal for a Sukah wall. (Perhaps likewise, people cannot make a wall!)

Answer: It is obvious to him (Rava, who explained Rav Chisda's Safek) that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah.

Suggestion: Perhaps regarding a person, even R. Meir agrees [that he is valid for a wall], for the reason [to disqualify an animal] "lest it flee" does not apply.

Rejection: This is not R. Meir's reason, like we conclude in Sukah (23a, lest it die).

Implied question: [The Gemara] asks below "did you hear [that R. Meir disqualifies for a wall] a person or Kelim?!" (Indeed, he disqualifies a person, for also a person could die!)

Answer: This is according to the opinion in Sukah that explains that R. Meir's reason is lest it flee.

Implied question: We say in Shabbos (43b) that we do not make a Mechitzah [on Shabbos] for the sake of a Mes!

Answer #1: We permit here like it explains there. People sit next to [the Mes. When they get hot, they erect a wall for themselves...]

Answer #2 (Ri): Here it is properly for the sake of the living. If the Mes will rot, they will need to leave the Sukah!

Explanation #1 (Rashi, in Shabbos 125b): This window is above, on the roof. However, on the side, the Isur of an Ohel does not apply.

Proof (Rashi, for himself): Below (94a, it says that) Rav and Shmuel were in a Chatzer. The wall between it and the adjoining Chatzer fell. Shmuel said to spread a garment [where the wall used to be]. Rav turned his face away (to show that he forbids.)

The Gemara asks why Shmuel needed to do so (spread a garment). He holds that people [of each Chatzer] may carry up to where the wall was! It answers that he did so merely for privacy.

Inference: If Shmuel forbade to carry, like Rav, it would not be difficult at all why it is permitted to do so. This shows that making walls on the side it is not considered an Ohel!

Rav did not disapprove of making Mechitzos, rather, because he held that one may not carry the sheet in [the Chatzer].

Question (Sukah 16b): A case occurred in which they forgot to bring a Sefer Torah from before Shabbos [to the Beis ha'Keneses]. The next day (Shabbos), they spread sheets on pillars and brought a Sefer Torah and read in it;

The Gemara asks "may they spread l'Chatchilah?!" It was taught that all agree that one may not initially make a temporary Ohel on Shabbos! (This shows that even from the side, it is an Ohel.)

Answer #1: Rashi's text says only "do you think that they spread?! How could they bring it through Reshus ha'Rabim? It answers that they found spread sheets.

Rebuttal #1: We should not erase the text in Seforim.

Rebuttal #2: What was the question "how could they bring them?" Perhaps they brought them through wearing them, like garments!

Rebuttal #3: In our Sugya it is proven that making an Ohel applies from the side, for we bring it regarding making a wall!

Rebuttal #4: The word "Chalon" (window) applies to a wall. [An opening] in a roof is called "Arubah" (skylight), like a Mishnah (Beitzah 35b) says "we may lower Peros through the Arubah."

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Making an Ohel applies from the side. When the Mechitzah helps to permit, it is considered making an Ohel initially, like the case in which they spread sheets;

Rav, who forbade carrying in the case below (94a), holds that making an Ohel initially applies. He objected to making Mechitzos. It is like the third wall of a Sukah, which here we consider it to be an Ohel.

However, according to Shmuel, who permits to carry, it is considered only like adding to an Ohel, like the fourth wall of a Sukah. He considers it an addition, because it is permitted even without it;

If Shmuel forbade, all the more so it would have asked how he permits to do so!

The one who permits adding to an Ohel [on the side] permits also above, like is proven below (102a) regarding the rams that needed shade during the day and air at night, and in Sukah (27b) regarding R. Eliezer, who spent Shabbos in the Sukah of R. Yochanan.

Explanation #1: Now we want to say that we discuss the third wall. Even so, it is considered a mere addition according to R. Meir, who disqualifies.

Question: It explicitly taught there "in order that he eat, drink and sleep" (i.e. it helps)!

Answer #1 (Rashi): We could have asked this. Even without this, we asked properly.

Question: Still, what was the question below "Rabanan said only to add. Did they say to make from the beginning?!" According to R. Meir, who disqualifies, it is considered a mere addition!

Answer #2: You are forced to say that surely, this is the question! Since it says "in order that he eat, drink and sleep", this shows that the Sukah is Kosher through this, for the primary Mitzvah of Sukah is these three matters. If so, this is making an Ohel initially!

Question (ha'Sar mi'Kutzi): Now, when he answers that this [Beraisa] is R. Meir, and this [Beraisa] is R. Yehudah, he did not answer at all about the episode with Nechemyah! (If the Mechitzah helps, it is forbidden to make it.)

Explanation #2: He means as follows. Since R. Meir disqualifies for the seven days of Sukos, since [an animal] cannot stand there for seven days, regarding Nechemyah it is permitted l'Chatchilah;

Even though it helps, it is considered a mere addition, since the Mechitzah is not proper for seven days.

Similarly, this that it taught "in order that he eat, drink and sleep", it is permitted, for there is no concern lest it flee in a short time.

Afterwards, he asks "Rabanan said only to add. Did they say to make l'Chatchilah?!" Since it helps, even for a short time, it is considered making an Ohel initially, just like the stopper for a window.

Implied question: Why wasn't this listed in Beitzah (11b) among those three for whom we permitted the end, due to the beginning?

Answer: This is not a Chidush. All [the three taught] needed to be taught, like we say there.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rabah argues with Neharde'ei, who said above (41b) if he is clever, he will enter his Techum, and once he entered, he entered!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Rabah holds like Neharde'ei. Once he entered his Techum, (which was permitted) due to Kevod ha'Beriyos, and left his four Amos, since it is necessary to give to him four new Amos, he can return to his initial Techum;

However, here, since he left his Techum and acquired another Techum, he may not uproot himself from the Techum that he fixed, like I explained above (44a DH Oh).

If not, our Mishnah would be difficult for Neharde'ei, who say that [if he is] even one Amah [outside the Techum], he may not enter. Even though through his four Amos he enters the Techum, we do not say that once he entered, he entered!