Explanation: The case is, it is sealed below with something, so goats cannot penetrate below them, or there are walls above the balconies. Then, we are not concerned for penetration of goats;

Similarly, the wagons were Reshus ha'Yachid, because from the wagon itself until above the boards was much more than 10 [Tefachim].

Explanation: This is mentioned for a mere Siman (aid to remember). In passing, it teaches that the length of a wagon was five Amos.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The wagons were five wide] if you will arrange [the boards] on their width (there will be extra space, and they will not press on each other. The width of three boards is four and a half Amos.)

Question: Above (98a) we concluded that [the boards] were placed on their smallest dimension (their thickness)!

Explanation #2: It is lest the boards press on the rings, for they are opposite each other, and there are Atba'ei, like it explains that they are clamps;

Even though four and a half Amos would suffice, in any case due to their weight, they get displaced and press on each other, unless there is much room between them. This is difficult.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The two wagons were separate from each other, and there is a distance of five Amos between them. Each one held by itself a load of boards.

Question #1: How could boards, which are so heavy, and they are 10 Amos long and one and a half Amos wide and an Amah thick, balance on a width of two and a half Amos?

Question #2: The Gemara asks that one and a half Amos should suffice. How can such a great weight balance on one a half Amos?

All the more so, according to the opinion that they narrowed until a finger, they could not balance! (The bottom half weighed almost three times as much as the top half. Half the weight was in the bottom 30% of a board. Perhaps that opinion holds that the boards were not centered. A small part on the bottom side stuck out from a wagon, and it weighed as much as a bigger part of the top sticking out on the other side.)

Question #3: How could two wagons go next to each other in 15 Amos? If so, the boards would knock each other!

Question #4: According to his Perush, we must say that the boards leaned on the tents or on the Chatzeros above 10 Tefachim, on every side two Amos, like Rashi himself explained, for the length of two boards is 20 Amos, and Reshus ha'Rabim is only 16 Amos wide!

Question #5: What is his source that the wagons went side by side, to learn from this that Reshus ha'Rabim is 16 Amos wide? Perhaps all went one after the other, and Reshus ha'Rabim was small (narrow), or all four went together (side by side), and Reshus ha'Rabim was very big (wide)!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Two wagons were connected together. There was a long wood 15 Amos long, and it had four wheels, like for two wagons, and two walls, like for two wagons;

Between one wagon and another was like the length of a wagon. I.e. between the wall of this wagon and the wall of the other wagon was five Amos, and the sides of the wagon were like the full width of the wagon from every side, for including the wall of the wagon with the wheel is two and a half Amos;

This is unlike Rashi, who explained one and a quarter Amos on every side.

The width of two wagons with their sides is 15 Amos. From the outside wall of this wagon to the outside wall of the other wagon was 10 Amos, like the length of a board. He laid the board on the two walls of the wagons;

Two other wagons went in front of them. If they would go one to the side of the other, they would bang each other. One after the other, they go nicely.

Support: Now we ask properly, one and a half Amos suffice, since they laid [the boards] on two wagons. One might have thought that they will not tilt to the side. It answers that even so, they would tilt.

Explanation: At the side of the wagon a Levi stood. He needs an Amah, for [the width of] a person occupies an Amah, like it says in Sukah (7b) regarding a Sukah [round] like a furnace.

Implied question: Sometimes [the Levi] was on one side of the wagon, and sometimes on the other side!

Answer: Still, one Amah sufficed for him, for whichever side he wanted to enter, he would tilt the wagon to the other side, and he would enter between the tent and the wagon, and fix [the boards].

Implied question: He was two and a half Amos distant from the boards, like the amount of the side of the wagon!

Answer: In any case, he could stretch his hand there and fix [the boards] through a stick or something.

Question: Why does the Mishnah need to teach this? It was already taught in Eruvin (99b) that if a pit in Reshus ha'Rabim and its Chulyah (the ring of earth around it) are 10 Tefachim (i.e. the top of the Chulyah is 10 above the bottom of the pit), a window above may fill from it on Shabbos (for both are Reshus ha'Yachid);

In the Gemara, R. Yochanan establishes it when it is nearby. [The Mishnah] teaches that a pit and its Chulyah join to 10!

Answer #1: The Tana is wont to teach [a law] concisely even though he already taught it elsewhere;

This is like we say in Brachos (2a) that [the Tana] taught by the way that after Ha'arev Shemesh (when night comes after one immersed), a Kohen may eat Terumah (even if he is Mechusar Kipurim), even though a Mishnah (Nega'im 14:3) explicitly teaches that after Ha'arev Shemesh, he may eat Terumah. There are many cases like this in the Gemara.

Answer #2: From the extra words in our Mishnah we learn that they join to four [Tefachim]. It discusses using something on it, for something was placed on it and he uses, like we say in Eruvin (78b), and we discuss when the Chulyah is 10 tall (above the ground, and not merely 10 above the bottom of the pit);

If it were not 10 tall, one who took from it or placed on it would not be liable.

Support: Now it is fine that our Mishnah taught "they are 10 tall", and that it also mentioned (taking from or placing) on top of them;

If it discussed joining to 10, and the Chulyah is not 10 tall [by itself], it would not be proper what it taught "10 tall." Also, one who placed on top of them would not be liable when he places on top of a Chulyah that is not 10 tall.

Pesak: (There was an enactment to permit taking from a well on Shabbos through Pasim, i.e. L-shaped posts in four corners around it, even though normally a Mechitzah must comprise the majority of the length of every side, and they do not.) However, Pasim help only for a well of flowing water, or a pit [of collected water] of the Rabim, like a Mishnah (Eruvin 22b) teaches "but an individual's pit, we make for it a Mechitzah..."

This is only if [the pit] is 10 deep and four wide. If it is less than this, it is Karmelis, [Chachamim] were not so stringent, and it is properly permitted through Pasim. Rav Pores said so.

Question: What was his question? He should resolve from a Beraisa (above, 6a). If one was Motzi from a store (Reshus ha'Yachid) to the market (Reshus ha'Rabim) via a Stav (Karmelis), he is liable. Likewise, if he threw or passed the item, he is liable;

And we said above (92a) that if one carried a burden above 10, he is liable!

Answer (Rav Pores): He asks only when the thrower's Ko'ach (impetus) ended in Mekom Petur, e.g. he threw above 10, above the air of Reshus ha'Rabim, and the rock descended on a slant and rested on the pillar. This descent is not from his initial impetus, rather, it is Ko'ach Kocho;

Since it comes from Mekom Petur, there is an interruption between the first Akirah and Hanachah.

However, if he threw straight at the pillar, and it did not go on an angle at all, rather, it went from his Ko'ach until the pillar, surely he is liable.

Explanation: He asks only about throwing, like I explained, but Motzi and Machnis, it is obvious to him that he is liable.

Implied question: Why does he bring a proof from this that one who carries and puts on it is liable? (His already knew that one is liable for this. He asks only about throwing!)

Answer: It connotes to him that [our Mishnah] discusses every case, whether he throws or passes, like the Reisha (96a) taught [both cases], that one who throws is exempt, and one who passes is liable.

Now, this is unlike one who is Motzi from a store to the market via a Stav. There, it comes to Reshus ha'Rabim through his Ko'ach.

Inference (Ri): [He asks] only if he surrounded Karmelis. Since he surrounded Karmelis, (which already had a semblance to Reshus ha'Yachid) it is not so reasonable to make it a Reshus ha'Yachid, due to the reason "since it is a wall for others";

However, if he surrounded Reshus ha'Rabim and made it Reshus ha'Yachid, obviously this helps also for (the walls) themselves.

Implied question: [Even if it would not make the walls themselves Reshus ha'Yachid,] he should be liable for Chorei (holes of) Reshus ha'Yachid, like above "he cast [the needle] in a crack"!

Answer: It is not so convenient for people of Reshus ha'Yachid to use on top of the wall.

Implied question: We should say so about Chulyas ha'Bor! [If it joins to the Shi'ur of 10 to make the pit Reshus ha'Yachid,] one who uses it from Reshus ha'Rabim (places) on it should be liable!

Answer: It is not so applicable to say so, since the Chulya itself is not 10 tall.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It connotes to him that we discuss even precisely four Amos. The thickness of the fig cake diminishes from four Amos.

Question (Ri): In such a case it seems that he is not liable, since it is partially inside [four Amos], like one who was Motzi a box to Reshus ha'Rabim. He is not liable until he is Motzi all of it;

If one threw a spear or anything [at least four Amos] long a distance of Mashehu, is he liable because its end left four Amos (from where the other end was initially)?!

Suggestion: There is a tradition to obligate one who throws four Amos in such a case.

Rejection #1: If so, how can we resolve [R. Yochanan's question] from this?!

Rejection #2: Why does it connote [to the Makshan] that throwing four Amos at a wall that they are exact, more than four Amos taught in the entire Mishnah?

Explanation #2 (Ri): Here we discuss when he threw outside four Amos, like everywhere. He asks as follows. He diminishes from four Amos, for the place of the fig cake is Batel from the law of Reshus ha'Rabim, since it is Batel to the wall;

[The wall with the cake] is like a thick wall. On top of [the cake] is not Reshus ha'Rabim. If one threw a needle or thorn four Amos and it landed on the cake or was inserted in it, he would be exempt, for the place of the cake was excluded from the law of Reshus ha'Rabim...

Even so, he is liable, since at the beginning of the throwing until before Hanachah it had the status of Reshus ha'Rabim, and Hanachah and losing the law of Reshus ha'Rabim come together;

Also here, we should say that Hanachah and losing the law of a wall come together!

We reject this. There, he is not Mevatel it (resolve to leave it there permanently), therefore the law of Reshus ha'Rabim is not Batel.

Question: Even if there is no penetration of goats, how is [the Daf] important to make what is under it Reshus ha'Yachid? Why is it different than a basket and a pillar in Reshus ha'Rabim 10 tall and four wide, and at the bottom it is not four [wide]? We say below (101a) that if he threw and it landed on top of it, he is liable;

Inference: Only on top of it [he is liable], but not under (e.g. if he threw something and it inserted into the pole below, or the underside of the basket)!

Answer (Ri): The case is, there are two Mechitzos of pegs, and for the third [wall needed to make Reshus ha'Yachid] we say Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem (we project the edge of the Daf down, and it is considered a wall).