1)

(a)'Karmelis' in the Beraisa on the previous Amud comes to include 'a Keren Zavis ha'Semuchah li'Reshus ha'Rabim'. One explanation of this is when someone whose house protruded into a corner in the street, donated that section of his land to the public, with the result that the house now obstructs the people from walking straight along the street, and they are forced to make a slight detour, giving that part of the street the Din of a Karmelis. According to the second explanation - 'Keren Zavis ha'Semuchah li'Reshus ha'Rabim' refers to someone's house that protruded into a corner of the street, and the owner donated a little bit of his land to the public, with the result that the house obstructs the people from walking straight along the street, and they are forced to make a slight detour, giving that part of the street the Din of a Karmelis. Alternatively, we are speaking about a house which is built at an angle, so that one corner of the house lies right next to the street, forcing people to make a detour, in order to avoid brushing against the corner of the house.

(b)'Between the pillars' - refers to an area in the Reshus ha'Rabim that is full of pillars. The pillars are placed in unaligned rows, and are designated for merchants to hang their wares whilstthey are engaged in business. Here too, the unaligned rows of pillars makes it difficult for the public to walk straight through, gives this section of the street the Din of a Karmelis.

(c)According to Rav Yehudah,it is the 'Itztava' (the seating area) in front of the pillars which is considered a Karmelis - the area of 'Bein ha'Amudim' has the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim.

(d)One of the reasons for the difference between the two areas is because the area between the pillars is readily accessible to the public (in spite of the fact that they cannot walk straight through with ease); the other - is because sometimes, when the street is full, the public will use that area as a thoroughfare. The Itztava, on the other hand, which consists of benches, renders the area totally inaccessible to the public, and is therefore only a Karmelis.

2)

(a)The Gemara concludes, that anything within three Tefachim of the Reshus ha'Rabim (even excrement) is Bateil to the Reshus ha'Rabim. Consequently - one Chayav for throwing something four Amos in the Reshus ha'Rabim if it landed on a brick, a bush or excrement that is less than three Tefachim tall.

(b)If the object landed on top of something that was between three and ten Tefachim tall - then the thrower would be Patur, because the top of a brick is a Makom Petur (provided it is less than four by four Tefachim). Whereas if it were to stick to the side of the brick, he would be Chayav, since the air of the Reshus ha'Rabim is considered part of the Reshus ha'Rabim.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan gives the Shiur of a Karmelis as being at least four by four Tefachim. Rav Sheishes adds 've'Tofeses ad Asarah'. This cannot mean that it must have walls of ten Tefachim - because we have learnt that a house whose walls are less than ten Tefachim on the inside has the Din of a Karmelis, and if the roof makes up the ten Tefachim, one may carry on the roof, because the roof of the house has the Din of a Reshus ha'Yachid. So we see that it is without walls of ten Tefachim that a Reshus becomes a Karmelis, not with them.

(d)The suggestion that the walls might render it a Karmelis (and not a Reshus ha'Yachid) - refers to a Bik'ah that was surrounded by a wall, but was not initially designed for habitation. Halachically, this is a Reshus ha'Yachid, to which the Rabbanan gave the Din of a Karmelis. According to the contention of the Gemara, we thought that it is a Karmelis d'Oraysa.

3)

(a)What Rav Sheishes meant was - that a Karmelis only extends to the height of ten Tefachim, but no higher.

(b)Shmuel made a similar statement, when he said 'Lo Tehavei be'Mili de'Shabsa le'Ma'alah mi'Yud'. We know that he did not mean to say that ...

1. ... a Reshus ha'Yachid only goes up to ten Tefachim, but no higher - because Rav Chisda has taught us that a Reshus ha'Yachid extends even up to the sky.

2. ... a Reshus ha'Rabim only goes up to ten Tefachim, but no higher - because we know already from a Mishnah in 'ha'Zoreik' that the air of a Reshus ha'Rabim above ten Tefachim has the Din of a Makom Petur.

(c)Someone who throws an object four Amos in the Reshus ha'Rabim, and it lands on the side of a wall above ten Tefachim, and sticks there, is Patur - because, as we just learned, the air above ten Tefachim in a Reshus ha'Rabim, is considered a Makom Petur.

4)

(a)We conclude that Shmuel was referring to a Karmelis, and Chazal gave a Karmelis some of the leniencies of a Reshus ha'Yachid, and some of the leniencies of a Reshus ha'Rabim. They gave a Karmelis the leniency ...

1. ... of a Reshus ha'Yachid - inasmuch as if it comprises an area of less than four by four Tefachim, it has the Din of a Makom Petur, and one is permitted to carry from either of the two major Reshuyos on to it or vice-versa.

2. ... of a Reshus ha'Rabim, inasmuch as, above ten Tefachim, it no longer has the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim, but of a Makom Petur.

5)

(a)We learnt earlier that if the outside of a house is ten Tefachim tall from the roof to the ground, but not the inside, then one may carry (more that four Amos) on the roof, but not inside it. To be able to carry inside the house - one would need to dig a hole of four by four Tefachimin to a depth of ten (i.e. from the roof to the bottom of the pit). It would then be permitted to carry there (even outside the hole), because the main section of the house that is outside the pit, now has the Din of 'Chorei Reshus ha'Yachid' (and everyone agrees that, 'Chorei Reshus ha'Yachid, ki'Reshus ha'Yachid'). Note: See Tosfos Yeshanim, Tosfos DH 've'Im'.

(b)A 'Keren Zavis' which is more than four by four Tefachim, is considered a Karmelis, and if if is less, a Makom Petur.

(c)According to Abaye, holes in a wall facing the Reshus ha'Rabim have the Din of a Reshus ha'Rabim. The reason for the different between them and a Keren Zavis (which is an independent Reshus) is - because the people in the street are not easily able to use a Keren Zavis as they walk along, like they are holes in the wall.

6)

(a)We have learnt in a Mishnah in 'ha'Zorek', that if someone throws something in a Reshus ha'Rabim, and it lands on a wall; if it lands above ten Tefachim, it is as if it had landed in the air; below ten Tefachim, it is as if it had landed on the ground. According to Abaye, the Seifa could speak when the article landed in a hole in the wall. Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Mishnah by a juicy fig that stuck to the wall, because an object that is thrown more than four Amos, and lands in a cavity in a wall, usually bounces out again. His second reason is - because it is evident from the Seifa, that the Mishnah is speaking about an object which actually sticks to the wall, and not one which falls into a cavity (which is a Makom Chashuv), since the Mishnah says that if the article landed above ten Tefachim, it is as if it had landed in the air (i.e. a Makom which is not Chashuv).

(b)Nor can we establish that it fell in a cavity of less than four by four Tefachim (where it is still appropriate to call it 'in the air') - because we are dealing with a Stam Mishnah, whose author is Rebbi Meir, and Rebbi Meir holds that any total area of more than four by four Tefachim, which is partially carved out, we consider it as if it had been completely carved. Consequently, according to him, if the article lands in a small cavity, on an area which is larger than four by four Tefachim, he will be Chayav. We are therefore forced to say that above ten Tefachim, is considered as if the article had landed in the air, speaks when there was no cavity at all - so it must be something like a fig, which stuck to the wall above ten Tefachim.

7)

(a)We learn from Rav Chisda, who says that someone is Chayav on Shabbos for throwing from a Reshus ha'Rabim on to a cane a hundred Amos tall in the Reshus ha'Yachid - that the Reshus ha'Yachid extends to the sky.

(b)If someone throws onto a Ziz that is not four by four Tefachim, the Chachamim rule that he is Patur (because, we think, the Ziz [which usually means a ledge or a plank] is not four by four Tefachim on top) Rebbi says Chayav (because he does not require four by four Tefachim in a Reshus ha'Yachid) - in which case, Rav Chisda holds like Rebbi.

(c)In order for Rav Chisda not to rule against the Chachamim - we establish the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan by someone who threw something in the street, and it landed on the tip of a branch of a tree which protrude from the Reshus ha'Yachid into the Reshus ha'Rabim, and which was less than four by four Tefachim. Rebbi says Chayav, because the branch is considered as if it was in the Reshus ha'Yachid, because that is where the trunk is (and we consider the branch to be where the trunk is); the Rabbanan say Patur, because it is not (we do not consider the branch to be where the trunk is). If the branch would actually be in the Reshus ha'Yachid, both would agree that he would be Chayav (even though the place where the article landed is not four by four Tefachim - like Rav Chisda.

(d)According to Rashi's second explanation - the thrower threw onto a branch that is located, together with the tree, in the Reshus ha'Yachid. Rebbi Says Chayav, because we consider the branch (not only as if it was in the same area as the tree, but) as if it was subsiduary to the tree (which is four by four Tefachim); whereas the Chachamim maintain that the branch cannot be considered part of the tree to such an extent. Consequently, since the article landed on an area of less than four by four Tefachim, the thrower is not Chayav. Rebbi agrees with the Rabbanan however, that Hanachah requires an area of four by four Tefachim - even in a Reshus ha'Yachid, not like Rav Chisda.