(Mishnah): Lechiyim must be [at least] 10 Tefachim tall. The width and thickness can be any amount;

R. Yosi says, they must be [at least] three Tefachim wide.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah discusses when they are distanced from the wall, but if they are next to the wall, even R. Yosi agrees [that Kolshehu suffices].

Objection: Was it taught so?! [A Tosefta says] if one made Lechiyim for a Mavuy, if they are three Tefachim above the ground, or they are three Tefachim from the wall, he must diminish this. (If they argue when it is three from the wall, both are unlike this Tosefta, which disqualifies!)

Note: The other Meforshim do not adopt the text of the Tosefta. However, according to the simple reading that the Beraisa is a support, the support is not so clear, and it is difficult that we do not challenge from this Tosefta. SHIREI KORBAN explains that Beraisa is a challenge, but I did not understand the challenge.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): [They must be at least] three.

Limitation: This is if the standing [width] exceeds the gap [between it and the wall].

Building rocks that stick out from the building (one above the other, for the rows are not even, like bricks laid so that each begins over the middle of the brick below it), if there is not between one and the next three Tefachim, they are considered like Lechiyim.

If a corner sticks out here, and a corner sticks out on the other side, they are judged like two Lechiyim [according to R. Eliezer, who requires two Lechiyim].

If a wall recesses, and from the inside [the wall at the opening] looks like a plank (for it is thicker than the rest of the wall) and it is even with (does not stick out from) the wall on the outside, or it looks like a plank from the outside and is even [with the wall] on the inside, it is considered a Lechi. (Pictures in KORBAN HA'EDAH illustrate both of these.)

If [a Lechi was placed at the end of a wall of the Mavuy, so it] looks like a continuation of the wall; it is even on the inside and recognized on the outside (for it is thinner than the wall), Aba bar Rav Huna says we view it as if it was inside (it is a Kosher Lechi).

Question (Rav Chisda - Mishnah): If a bigger Chatzer was breached to a small one, the big is permitted and the small is forbidden;

[According to you,] the walls of the big (i.e. the Gifufim, i.e. the remaining wall on both sides of the breach) should be like Lechiyim next to the walls of the small (even though they are visible only from the outside), and the small should be permitted!

Answer (Aba bar Rav Huna): The case is, [the Gifufim] extend more than 10 [Amos. This is too much to be considered a Lechi.]

Question (R. Shein, to R. Acha - Beraisa): [In the above Mishnah, the opening of] the big is 11, and the small is 10. (You cannot give the above answer!)

Answer #1: They looked for the Beraisa, and did not fid it. R. Acha told [R. Shein], Reish Lakish said, any Beraisa that did not enter the group (the academy of R. Chiya and R. Oshaya), we do not rely on it.

Answer #2 (R. Yosah) It is like the opinion that a Chatzer is permitted [through Lechiyim] only through two planks, as long as it is a plank of four Tefachim on this side, and a plank of four Tefachim on this side. (The Gifufim are only six Tefachim in all, so they cannot fulfill this.)

Answer #3 (R. Yosah bei R. Bun) It is even like the opinion that a Chatzer is permitted through one plank, as long as it is a plank of four Tefachim. (There are only three Tefachim of Gifufim on each side.)

Note: R. Yosah bei R. Bun establishes the Beraisa to be when the small Chatzer is in the middle, i.e. the Gifufim on each side are equal. R. Yosah (Answer #2) established it even when it is not in the middle, so he needed to establish it like the opinion that requires a plank of four Tefachim on each side.

Answer #4 (Rav Ukva citing Rabanan there (in Bavel)): [The Gifufim] are considered [Lechiyim] for the big Chatzer. They are not considered Lechiyim for the small [since it is not recognized that they are for the sake of the small. We explained this like HA'GAON RAV C. KANIEVSKY, SHLITA.]

If the wall on one side sticks out [towards Reshus ha'Rabim], and [the wall on] the other side is recessed, Kahana says that he puts the Korah on a diagonal (between the ends of the walls) and uses [until] the diagonal.

(R. Acha citing Kahana): He puts the Korah on a diagonal and uses [until] the diagonal, as long as the Korah does not extend more than 10 Amos (for a Korah does not permit an opening more than 10).

Support (R. Yosi citing Rav Avdimi Nechisah): [This permits] as long as the Korah does not extend more than 10.

(R. Acha citing Reish Lakish): [This permits] as long as the [long] wall does not extend four [Amos] more than the short wall. (Then it is like a Mavuy by itself, and it needs a proper wall.)

Observation: What is not known according to this one (we do not know if Reish Lakish allows a Korah more than 10) is clear to this one (Kahana explicitly forbids), and what is not known according to this one (whether Kahana allows the long wall to extend four Amos past the other) is clear to this one (Reish Lakish explicitly forbids. We explained this like PNEI MEIR.)

(R. Ula): [Kahana] discusses when [the long wall] is between three and four [Tefachim longer than the short wall]. If it is less than three, even if [the Korah is] more than 10 it is permitted.) If [the long wall] is four [Tefachim longer], even if [the Korah is] less than 10 it is forbidden. Rather, the case is, it is between three and four. (HAGAHOS R. DINAR - this is like the opinion that four Tefachim is the Shi'ur of a Mavuy.)

(Mishnah): A Lechi may be made of anything, even if it is alive;

R. Meir forbids [something alive].

If something alive was used for a Golel (a monument marking the location of a grave), it is Metamei;

R. Meir is Metaher.

One may write a Get (divorce document) on [something alive];

R. Yosi ha'Gelili disqualifies.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Meir): Anything alive, one may make it a [Sukah] wall, but one may not make it a Lechi;

Chachamim say, one may not make it a [Sukah] wall, but one may make it a Lechi.

(R. Acha): They are two Tana'im. The one who permits making it a wall, permits also making it a Lechi. The one who says that one may not make it a wall, one may not make it a Lechi.

(R. Yosah): [The Reisha] is one Tana. Why may one make it a wall? If it will go away, one will sense this [and know that his Sukah is Pasul]. One may not make it a Lechi, for if it will go away, one will not sense this [and continue to carry in the Mavuy].

R. Yoshua of the south encountered the Talmidim of R. Acha. They said to him, the Seifa argues with your Rebbi (R. Yosah, who says that one Tana taught the Reisha, and presumably, also the Seifa)! Chachamim say, one may not make it a wall, but one may make it a Lechi.

[Regarding a Lechi,] if it will go away, one will not sense this, and you say that it is permitted. Here (a wall), if it will go away, one will sense this, all the more so it should be permitted! [Rather,] we must say that two Tana'im taught [the Seifa].

R. Yosi must say, just like according to R. Acha, [the Reisha] is two Tana'im, so you must say here (the Seifa) is two Tana'im according to R. Yosah. (R. Yosah was not concerned for this question. He holds that Chachamim were stringent about Sukah mid'Oraisa, and lenient about Mavuy mid'Rabanan. We explained this like PNEI MEIR.)

(R. Shimon bar Karsena citing R. Acha): R. Meir, R. Yosi and R. Elazar ben Azaryah - all three of them said one matter;

R. Meir [in our Mishnah of] Lechiyim - [the first Tana] is Metamei [something alive used for] a Golel, and R. Meir is Metaher [for it is not considered Kavu'a, i.e. fixed];

R. Yosah [in a Mishnah of] Ohalos - R. Yosah says, a house in a boat does not bring Tum'ah [through Ohel, for it is not considered Kavu'a];

R. Elazar ben Azaryah, like it was taught, a case occurred in which R. Elazar ben Azaryah and R. Akiva were coming on a boat. R. Akiva made a Sukah at the head of the boat, and a wind came and uprooted it. R. Elazar ben Azaryah said to him, where is your Sukah?! (He holds that even before it blew away, it is Pasul, for it is pone to be blown away, so it is not considered Dirah.)

Question: What is the reason for R. Yosi ha'Gelili [who disqualifies a Get written on something alive]?

Answer: [The Torah said] "Sefer'' - just like a Sefer (parchment) is special, that it is not alive, also everything [Kosher for a Get] is not alive. Just like a Sefer is special, that it is not food, also everything [Kosher for a Get] is not food.

Question: What is the reason of Chachamim?

Answer: Just like a Sefer is detached, also everything [Kosher for a Get] is detached.

Question: According to R. Yosi ha'Gelili, Yados are (handles of) food like food (to disqualify a Get on them)?

Answer #1: We learn from the following. If one wrote [a Get] on a [dead] deer's horn, cut it off, signed it (i.e. witnesses signed it on his command) and gave it to her, it is Kosher, because he cut it and afterwards signed it;

Inference: If he signed it and afterwards cut it, no [because it was attached to food]!

Rebuttal (and Answer #2 - R. Acha citing R. Maisha): This is only if he wrote on Zacrusah (the interior) of the horn, but if he wrote on the case, it is like something separate, and it is Kosher. (We infer that when it needed to be cut between signing and giving, it is Pasul, but when this is not a problem, it is Kosher even though it is attached to food.)

Question (R. Yonah): Is the law like this even for Hechsher Zera'im?

What is the case? He intended [for one of the seven liquids] to fall on an animal, and from the animal onto food.

R. Yosi ha'Gelili said "Sefer'' - just like a Sefer is special, that it is not alive, also everything [Kosher for a Get] is not alive. Also here is so [the Torah said that there is Hechsher when liquid falls "Al Kol Zera Zaru'a'', but not on an animal.

Or, perhaps here is different, for it says "v'Chol Mashkeh Asher Yishaseh b'Chol Kli Yitma'' [to include].

Question: If so (it includes), we should include even if he intended that [rain] fall in pits and caves!

Answer: Here is different, for it is written "Kli'' (to exclude something attached, which is not at all like a Kli).