Question (Rashba): It says above that in two scrolls, they divide, and Rashi explained e.g. Torah in one scroll, and Nevi'im in one scroll!

Inference: We do not divide Torah and Nevi'im in one scroll, even if both want. If so, how do we say here that he may cut?

Answer: It is a disgrace to the Sefer [to cut] only when he cuts in order to divide.

Explanation: Gevil is hide that was not processed at all, just they removed the hair and write on the side of the hair.

Support: It is called Gevil for it is not processed, just like it says above (3a) that Gevil are rocks that were not smoothed.

Remark: Sometimes they cut it into two through the thickness (separate the hide into two layers). The side towards the flesh is called Duchsustus;

"Duchsustus" means the place of meat, for in the Mede's language they call meat "Sustus", and "Duch" is place, like "Duch Ploni";

They write on Klaf (the other layer, which was closer to the hair) on the side of (the Klaf that faced) the meat, like it says in Shabbos (79b), and on "Duchsustus" on the side of (that faced) the hair. Both of these are in the place of the cut (where the two layers were separated), for there it is good to write.

Pesak: Our parchments have the law of Klaf, and not the law of Duchsustus. Therefore, we may write on them Tefilin, which are not Kosher on Duchsustus, rather, on Klaf, like it says in Shabbos (79b).

Explanation (R. Tam): This verse is called Torah, like it says in Sukah (42a) 'a child who knows how to speak, his father teaches to him Torah. What is Torah? "Torah Tzivah Lanu Moshe."'

Question: They did not take [the Sefer Torah] out of the Aron, for one may not enter the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim (other than the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur), and on Yom Kipur, we do not find in the order of the Avodah of the day that [the Kohen Gadol] removed it!

Answer #1: For a need, e.g. in order to fix (the structure), one may enter the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, like it says in Eruvin (105a). Similarly, one may enter in order to fix the Sefer Torah, so it will not get moldy and ruined.

Answer #2: From when the Mishkan of Shilo was destroyed, until Shlomo built the Beis ha'Mikdash, they could remove it from the Aron and look in it.

Assertion (R. Tam): The text does not say "and a half", rather, "a finger for this wall."

Proof: If the text says "and a half", it is difficult (for the walls occupy three fingers, which is at least half a Tefach, and even more than if they are thumbs). How can 12 (Tefachim of the Luchos and broken Luchos) fit in 12, like we ask below?

Rather, the text says "a finger", and it is small [finger, i.e. a pinky]. There are six of them in a Tefach. (Therefore, the walls occupy only a third of a Tefach.)

Assertion (R. Tam): [The pillars] are a Siman for erecting Yisrael. He did not make them of gold, lest they allude to the golden calf, for the prosecutor cannot become the advocate.

Support: So we say in Rosh Hashanah (26a) that for this reason, the Kohen [Gadol] did not serve inside [the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim] in garments [containing] gold, for the prosecutor cannot become the advocate;

We ask there that the Aron was of gold, and it was inside [the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim], and we answer that we said [that the prosecutor cannot become the advocate] regarding Mechaper (one who comes to atone).

Also these pillars are like a Mechaper, for they are a Siman for erecting Yisrael.

Support: It says in a Piyut "the form of the sign of Yosef, he made its pillars silver";

I.e. due to the form of the sign of Yosef, i.e. the [golden] calf, for Yosef is called ox, like it says "Bechor Shoro Hadar Lo", therefore he made its pillars of silver, and not of gold, to avoid alluding to the episode of the calf.

Inference: With the poles, its circumference was six;

If its circumference was [six] without the poles, if so [the width] would be more than two Tefachim with the poles!

Note: The Chasam Sofer points out that the width is slightly less than a third of the circumference. The ratio is 1/Pi, about 7/22. He explains that its circumference was six without the poles, and the poles' width added the lacking 1/11 of a Tefach, to complete two Tefachim.

Implied question: (What is difficult?) There is much space (two extra Tefachim) according to R. Meir along the entire length, except for opposite the Sefer Torah! (There, we needed extra space so it maybe removed and returned easily.)

Answer: It was obvious to him that they were on the end of the Aron where the Sefer Torah rested.

Question: Why does it say "according to the opinion"? This Tana himself holds that [Iyov] was in the days of Moshe, for the Seifa says "Moshe wrote Sefer Iyov"!

Answer: He did not yet know the Seifa of the Beraisa.

Question: It should be written (i.e. arranged in Kesuvim) right after Rus!

Answer (Ri): The end of Rus was an end from which came David, who satiated Hash-m with songs and praises. Therefore, those songs (Tehilim) are written immediately after [Rus]. They are its end.

Question: According to the opinion that [Iyov] returned from the exile [in Bavel, his Sefer] should be written at the end!

Answer #1 (Ri): It was written with Tehilim and Mishlei, for it is similar to them. [All three are] written like a song, with short verses and one tune.

In their days there was a tune [for Iyov], like we say (Megilah 3a) "va'Yikre'u va'Sefer b'Soras ha'Elokim Mefurash v'Shum Sechel." "Va'Yavinu ba'Mikra" refers to the cantillation (the musical notes which shows how to sing the words).

Implied question: Why wasn't [Iyov] written after Mishlei?

Answer #1: It is to avoid interrupting in the words of Shlomo.

Answer #2 (to Question (c) - R. Tam): It was written with (next to) Tehilim because it says below that David wrote his Sefer (Tehilim) through (i.e. including) 10 [other] Chachamim. Also Iyov was written through four [other] Chachamim - Tzofar, Bildad, Elifaz and Elihu.

Answer #2 (to Question d:1): Now it is fine that it was not written after Mishlei.

Question: Also Iyov has a [good] end!

Answer #1: The end of Rus is [a good] end for all of Yisrael.

Answer #2: There is an opinion that Hash-m doubled [Iyov's] reward only to [pay him in this world, and] deprive him of the world [to come].