Inference: The wasteheap is far from the wall, and they throw to it from above 10 [Tefachim], which is Mekom Petur.

Alternative text: Some texts say "they pour."

Implied question: [Rav] teaches that Nir'eh miba'Chutz v'Shavah mibi'Fnim is not considered a Lechi! We could establish our Mishnah to be when the walls of the small enter the big. (Nir'eh miba'Chutz... does not apply, for there is no wall to the side of the breach.)

Answer: If so, Rav should have explained our Mishnah, that it does not discuss when the walls enter, or he should have explicitly said that Nir'eh miba'Chutz is not considered a Lechi.

Explanation (R. Tam): There are small Mavo'os open to the big Mavoy from two sides. They are not one opposite the other, for if so, they are Mefulashim;

This is like legs of a centipede. It has two rows of feet, on the right and left, and they are not one opposite each other.

Implied question: Why didn't [Rava] ask from this that they were concerned also for Shmuel, and he should obligate doors?

Answer: They were concerned [for Shmuel] because Neharde'a was Shmuel's region. (This does not show that the Halachah follows him.) However, it is a proper question from being concerned for Rav in Shmuel's region. (The Halachah must follow Rav!)

Explanation (Rashi): He uses (may carry) here on the long side, and here on the short side (until the Korah).

Support: This is correct. If not, why does he put the Korah on a diagonal? The Korah must cling to the Mavuy! (If one may carry only up to the end of the short side, the other end of the Korah is far from where one may carry.)

It says below about two pegs on two walls... according to the opinion that permits (under the Korah, for Pi Tikra Yored v'Sosem applies to the outer edge) forbids [the entire Mavuy, for the wall created is distanced from the Mavuy]!

Even though here one end is on the Mavuy, it is unreasonable to distinguish [and say that this suffices].

Question: Why may he use opposite the long wall? He is within only two Mechitzos!

Answer #1: [Rav Kahana bar Tachlifa] holds that a Korah is considered a Mechitzah. The one who holds that it is a Mechitzah, this is mid'Oraisa, like is proven below (12b).

Answer #2: Since one side is long, presumably there is not much traffic (so it is not Reshus ha'Rabim), so Rabanan did not decree and it is Batel to the Mavuy, even if the area is four by four [Tefachim].

Explanation: The reason is because a Lechi can be even Mashehu [wide], and [if one may carry opposite the Lechi], people will come to take outside (past the Lechi). However, a Korah must be [at least] a Tefach thick, so there is no concern.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps Rav Chisda's reason is because he holds that Korah is due to Heker, and Lechi is for a Mechitzah. Therefore, Bein Lechayayim is forbidden, for one may carry only from the Mechitzah and inside!

Rejection: Above (5a) regarding if [a Korah] was above 20 [Amos] and he comes to lower it, in one version Abaye holds that Korah is due to Mechitzah, and all the more so Lechi, and below he says that presumably, R. Yochanan [rejected the teaching only because it forbids] under the Korah, but [he agrees that] Bein Lechayayim is forbidden!

Also Rava holds below (12b) that both are for a Heker, and below Rava agrees that one may not carry Bein Lechayayim when it is four [Tefachim] wide!