Implied Question: The Gemara did not want to say that this was stated to teach about the sides of the public domain. (Why not?)

Answer #1: This is because according to Rebbi Eliezer they are like the public domain, even if they have pegs in front of them.

Answer #2: Alternatively, perhaps the Gemara is unclear regarding whether Rebbi Eliezer admits to the Rabbanan or not.

Explanation: It is considered a public domain even though there is not sixteen cubits between the poles. This is because the people of the public domain go through the area between the poles, and outside the poles there is an area that is sixteen cubits wide.

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam says that if it is rests higher than three Tefachim, the brick's surface must be four by four Tefachim wide. Whatever is stuck to the brick is considered as if it is resting on it, even though it is over the air (i.e. the brick is not under it, rather on the side of it).

Opinion #1 (cont.): Similarly, when the Mishnah says that under ten Tefachim is like it is thrown on the ground, and Rebbi Yochanan says the case is regarding a thick fig cake this is because it is stuck on the wall that is four by four Tefachim wide. It is therefore considered as if it is placed on the wall.

Opinion #2: The Riva says that even if it is higher than three Tefachim from the ground, the brick or wall does not have to have a surface of four by four Tefachim. Since the floor of the public domain is directly below the bottom of the item, it is considered as if it is on the floor of the public domain.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. Earlier (4a), the Gemara asks on our Mishnah where "he stuck out his hand," "Doesn't he require uprooting and putting down from/on a place that is four by four Tefachim?" Why doesn't the Gemara answer that the Mishnah is discussing a case where he is holding the item in a way where the floor is directly below it!

Opinion: Rashi explains that this is like a valley that is surrounded by a wall, larger than a Beis Sa'asayim, and not surrounded in order for people to live there.

Question #1: This is difficult to the Ri. This area is a private domain both according to Ula and Rav Ashi. There is no reason to quote this from Rav Gidal!

Question #2: Additionally, how can the Gemara say, "If not, it is not a Karmelis?" An ocean and a valley do not have walls (and yet they are classified as a Karmelis)!

Answer: It appears to the Ri that the question is as follows. If you will say that it is unless there are walls that are ten Tefachim tall, meaning airspace fitting for walls that are ten Tefachim high, excluding a roofed valley whose roof is lying on poles in a manner where it is less than ten Tefachim off the ground making it into a Makom Petur and therefore one is allowed to carry in it, doesn't Rav Gidal say etc.

Question: The Riva asks, why is this different than a Sukah that is not ten Tefachim tall? The Gemara in Sukah (4a) states that if one dug out the bottom of a Sukah in order to make it ten Tefachim tall, if the edge of the area dug out is more than three Tefachim away from the wall, it is invalid. However, regarding our case of a private domain, even if the edge of the area dug out is well away from the wall it turns into a private domain!

Answer: He answers that Sukah is different, as we require walls that are next to the Sechach. We derive the requirement of walls (ibid. 6b) from, "ba'Sukos, ba'Sukos, ba'Sukos" as stated there that if one distanced the Sechach from the walls it is invalid. This is why we require that the edge of the area dug out should be less than three Tefachim from the walls of the Sukah, as we need to combine the wall of the area dug out to the regular walls in order that the walls should be close to the Sechach.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the law of Dofen Akumah causes the Sukah to be valid even if it is four cubits away from the Sechach. (Why, then, does the Gemara in Sukah it must be less than three Tefachim away from the edge of the wall?)

Answer: This is where there are good walls. However, in this case that we are trying to make the Sukah have kosher walls, the area dug out must be less than three Tefachim away from the wall in order to cause the two to form a valid wall and be close to the Sechach. If it is further than three Tefachim away, it does not combine to be a valid wall.

Implied Question: The sides of the public domain according to the Rabbanan are not like the public domain, even though they are easier to use than a "corner area" (see Rashi 7a, DH "Lo Neicha"). (Why shouldn't they be deemed a public domain just like holes in the walls of a public domain?)

Implied Question (cont.): Even Rebbi Eliezer who argues regarding the sides of the public domain admits regarding a corner area, as I explained earlier.

Answer: Even so, they (the sides of the public domain) are not like the holes in the public domain, as the holes in the public domain are easier to use (and are therefore classified like the public domain itself).

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. We say in Eiruvin (11b) regarding a doorway with an arch that Rebbi Meir says "Chokikin l'Hashlim" - "we only look at it as if it is dug out in order to be a size (that requires a Mezuzah)" if the feet of the doorposts (before they start to arch inwards) are "three" and the height is "ten." This means that they are three Tefachim tall and are more than four Tefachim wide. However, if they are not three Tefachim tall or the whole structure is not ten Tefachim tall, we do not say that it is as if it is dug out etc.

Question (cont.): If so, how can we say Chokikin l'Hashlim regarding the hole in the wall in our Gemara according to Rebbi Meir?

Answer: The Ri answers that this is referring to holes that were normally made during construction that were open to the side of the public domain. They were four Tefachim wide on the side of the private domain, but not on the side of the public domain.

Answer (cont.): According to everyone, such a hole is considered a private domain, as holes in the private domain are considered like a private domain. They only argue regarding making it a place of four by four Tefachim. According to Rebbi Meir we say Chokikin l'Hashlim, and it is therefore considered as if it is four by four Tefachim. However, if it is really just a small hole (and is not four wide on the side of the private domain), even Rebbi Meir will admit that we do not say Chokikin l'Hashlim.

Proof: This is also implied by the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi says, "According to Rebbi Meir, whether there is four or not we look at the wall as if it is hollowed out. Only what is higher than ten Tefachim is considered holes in the private domain. Whatever is lower than ten Tefachim is not used by the people in the private domain, as the people in the public domain use it."

Proof (cont.): This means as follows. If you will say that there is not four Tefachim, and even though they are holes in the private domain it is like throwing it in the air because it did not rest on a place of four Tefachim, didn't Rav Yehudah say etc.

Implied Question: We do not establish the Mishnah as discussing a tiny hole, and that it is saying we do not say Chokikin l'Hashlim in such a case. (Why not?)

Answer #1: This is because most holes are larger than tiny holes.

Answer #2: Additionally, the Gemara has to say that it is referring to a thick fig cake and it cannot say it is referring to a small hole regarding which we do not say Chokikin l'Hashlim. Otherwise, why would we say that putting something down less than ten Tefachim is like throwing it onto the ground? It did not rest on a place of four Tefachim!

Implied Question: One does not have to explain, as does Rashi, that the question is because a Stam Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir.

Explanation: Rather, if it is referring to a very small hole that is not four Tefachim wide, we must establish that it is according to Rebbi Meir who says Chokikin l'Hashlim. According to the Rabbanan, why would less than ten Tefachim be like throwing it on the ground?

Answer: One can answer for Rashi that he needed to say the question was because a Stam Mishnah is according to Rebbi Meir. Otherwise, the Gemara should have explicitly asked, "If it is not four Tefachim wide in a place lower than ten Tefachim (from the ground), why is it like throwing it on the ground?"