Question: How is this different than a fat fig cake? We said above (99b) that it is not Mevatel [walls]!

Abaye, [who says] here [that Peros are Mevatel Mechitzos] holds like the answer of a fat fig cake, like it says above (7b), that sometimes [Abaye] answered [that R. Yochanan holds that the Mishnah discusses a wall without a hole, therefore he established it to discuss] a fat fig cake...

Answer #1: A fig cake is not as destined to be Misbatel (left permanently) in the wall the way it is normal to be Mevatel Peros in a pit, e.g. grain.

Answer #2: A fig cake is a small amount, and it is not Batel. A pit full of Peros or half [full], this is Mevatel [the law of] Reshus ha'Yachid. Similarly, one seed or a small matter is not Mevatel Reshus ha'Yachid.

Question: How are these Peros Batel? It says in Eruvin (77a) that anything that may be taken on Shabbos (if it is put in front of a wall) does not diminish [so it will not be considered 10 tall]!

Suggestion: We discuss Tevel, which may not be taken on Shabbos.

Rejection: Even so, since mid'Oraisa one may take it, why is one who throws into [the pit] exempt?

Answer (Ri): Mid'Oraisa, anything diminishes, even if one may take it. Rabanan decreed that something that one may take, it does not diminish;

This is why he did not say that one may throw into it, rather, he said that one who throws into it is exempt. This implies that there is an Isur mid'Rabanan;

Even regarding a ditch between two Chatzeros, they said that something that one may take, it does not diminish, even though it is a leniency, that they do not forbid each other.

Question: In Eruvin (79a) it brings about a house full of straw [that Bitul helps] for Tum'as Ohel mid'Oraisa!

Explanation: We discuss a hole that goes all the way through. Chokekin Lehashlim (we consider a solid as if it was carved out) is to consider the place as if it is four [by four], like I explained above (7b).

Question: What was the question? A Beraisa above (97a) says that [if one threw] within three [Tefachim of the ground], he is liable even if it did not rest!

Suggestion: [The Gemara asks about the Reisha, when he threw] within four Amos, why is he exempt? It did not rest. If so, when it rests afterwards outside four Amos, he will be liable!

Rejection: From the Beraisa brought to support [R. Yochanan] it connotes that the question was why is he liable [when it went] outside of four Amos (and later rolled back within four).

Answer: He asks according to Rava, who says that within three, Rabanan require Hanachah on something.

Explanation: [The wind] detained it on the ground, or even in the wind, like Rashi explained. Being held in the wind is like resting on something.

Assertion: Even R. Yehudah, who is the Rabanan whom Rava says that [even within three] they require Hanachah, on the ground he agrees that we do not require Hanachah, for there is a difference between rolling and not rolling, like I explained above (80a DH v'Ha).

Question: Below, we conclude oppositely! If it is rolling, since it is not destined to rest, it is not like resting. This case (the wind detained it), since it is destined to rest, is like resting!

Retraction: The Ri retracted to explain that surely, R. Yehudah holds like R. Akiva, that Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah when he wants that it rest, like above (97b. If one threw from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim and it passed four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable twice, for it is as if it rested in between);

However, in the case in Eruvin (97b), that one was reading a Sefer [on the roof and it became unraveled], he does not want it to fall there (in Reshus ha'Rabim), R. Yehudah requires that it rest on something.

Rava says that Rabanan of R. Akiva do not say Kelutah k'Mi she'Hunchah anywhere, even if he wants it to rest there, even within three [of the ground];

[Rava] does not hold like the Beraisa above, that taught that within three, all agree that he is liable. Rather, he holds like the Beraisa here, which teaches that if the wind detained it Mashehu (he is liable).

Also our Mishnah connotes that it discusses when it rested on something, like R. Yochanan established, similar to the Reisha, which teaches that within four Amos he is exempt, for he discusses when it rested. If not, why is he exempt (when it rests later)?

Rav Chilkiya bar Tuvya, who said above (97a) that within three, all agree that he is liable, establishes our Mishnah when it did not rest;

The Reisha, which teaches that he is exempt, discusses when his Ko'ach ceased, and due to the wind it rolled outside four Amos.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He makes small Mechitzos.

Rejection (R. Tam, Ri): A Mishnah in Eruvin (87b) teaches that if a balcony is above water, one may take water (through lowering a bucket through a hole in the balcony) only if he made a wall (around the hole) 10 tall!

Explanation #2: Rather, "he makes a place", i.e. the ledge will be four Tefachim wide, lest the Mechitzos be for a place less than four (by four Tefachim).

Implied question: This is difficult for the one who allows a ledge of any size!

Answer: He establishes (that Mishnah) when the water is not 10 deep. Alternatively, there, we decree lest the sea bring up debris, like we decree in Eruvin (8a);

However, a [big] boat never goes in water less than 10 deep, and it is not applicable to decree (about debris).

Implied question: It says in Eruvin (43a) "[a boat] going in shallow water over gravel"!

Answer: There we discuss a small boat. Here we discuss big boats that are greatly loaded, and they are submerged much in the water and they do not go in water less than 10.

Assertion: We must say that even the Kli with which he draws water, and is submerged in the water, is above 10. If not, why may he fill it?! (Rabanan do not permit to go from Karmelis to Reshus ha'Yachid through Mekom Petur.)

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): Perhaps there is Mursha (a mound) of land near the boat. The land is high there, and if he casts out the bucket there, [it falls on water] less than 10 [above the sea floor] where he fills, since the land is high there.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): Mursha (is the prow, i.e. the front) of the ship.

Consequence: According to this, the text cannot says "perhaps" (there is Mursha), which is the text in all Seforim. Rather, the text says "it has Mursha!"

Observation: It answers similarly below (141a) about one who bathes in water (Chachamim did not decree about Kocho in Karmelis).

Question (Ri): In Eruvin (88a) it says about a balcony above water "this is only to draw [water], but one may not spill water, for from his Ko'ach the water is driven out of four Amos;

Inference: Kocho is forbidden in Karmelis!

Answer: Sometimes a balcony is near the place where Reshus ha'Rabim goes. They decreed about his Ko'ach in Karmelis due to his Ko'ach in Reshus ha'Rabim;

However, in a boat, it is always his Ko'ach in Karmelis. They did not decree.