Explanation: [He asks] whether Tzuras ha'Pesach helps for height.

Question (R. Tam): Tzuras ha'Pesach is a stick on each side and a stick on top of them. Even without the stick on top of them, it should be permitted through the sticks on the sides, which are a Lechi [which is Kosher even if it is] Mashehu!

Answer #1: He asks about a case in which a Lechi does not help, e.g. [the Mavuy is] Mefulash or more than 10 Amos [wide], which requires Tzuras ha'Pesach.

Answer #2: [He asks] according to R. Yosi, who requires a Lechi to be three [Tefachim] wide.

Support: This is how we establish the Beraisa that he brings.

Explanation: [The openings and windows] are less than 10 [Amos].

Proof: If they are more than 10, even if Omed Merubah, Rav taught that one must diminish [their size].

Explanation: We discuss [Parutz Merubah] on four sides. If it is [only] on two sides, Rav agrees that Tzuras ha'Pesach helps, for we say above (6b) that the Halachah follows the first Tana [of Chananyah, who says that Tzuras ha'Pesach helps for a Mavuy Mefulash on one side].

Question: From this Binyan Av (just like Tzuras ha'Pesach does not permit a breach more than 10, it does not permit Parutz Merubah), we should learn that Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help even for [if there are three proper walls, and Tzuras ha'Pesach on] the fourth wall, just like it does not help for [a breach more than 10] even for one wall!

Answer: We learn only regarding four walls, for one wall [breached] more than 10 is like Parutz Merubah in four walls;

One wall [breached] more than 10 is forbidden, because it is not called an opening. Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help also for Parutz Merubah from four sides, because people do not make openings in four directions;

However, people make an opening in one wall. Obviously, Tzuras ha'Pesach helps. It is not applicable to learn about this.

Implied question: [We cannot learn from] a Mavuy, for its breach [where a side wall meets the opening] is four [Tefachim - 6a]!

Answer: A breach more than 10 [Amos] forbids also a Chatzer [so we can learn directly from a Chatzer. Rav Yosef] mentioned a Mavuy only because Rav was discussing it.

Explanation (R. Chananel): These are openings of Eretz Yisrael, which is the land of descendants of Shem (ben Noach).

Implied question: What was the question? Perhaps he holds like [Chachamim of] Neharde'ei (6b), who obligated doors even for [an opening of] 10 [Amos]!

[Do not say that it was more than 10,] for if it were more than 10, also Shmuel agrees that it is like Mefulash!

Answer: Here we discuss a valley, which is a Karmelis. No one argues to say that Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help, like we said above (7a).

Question: Above, Rav Yosef forbade even 10, since Parutz Merubah. He discusses even if it ends at a valley, similar to the case of more than 10, which [Rav, from whom Rav Yosef learned] forbids (even if Omed Merubah), and even if it ends at a valley, since the Gemara brings [a support for Rav] from R. Yochanan, who discusses a valley;

If so, what was the question "in this case (10), does R. Yochanan [forbid]?!" Rav Yosef holds like this!

Answer #1: We are not concerned for Rav Yosef's words, since they were rejected.

Question: Since Tzuras ha'Pesach helps from all four directions, regarding Pasei Bira'os, why did they obligate four corner-posts, and it is permitted only for animals (20b), both according to R. Meir and R. Yehudah?

They should have made four poles and a vine on them, according to Rav 10 Amos, and according to our Mishnah for more than 10!

And regarding a caravan, why did they require [surrounding it with] three ropes one above the other, or sticks less than three [Tefachim] apart (16b)? They should make Tzuras ha'Pesach from four sides!

Answer #1 (Ri): [Tzuras ha'Pesach] would not last so much, for camels would come and cast it down. Also, it can fall easily in an uncommon wind, because they need to make it higher than the camels that enter there to drink. The same applies to a caravan;

Also, in a caravan it is improper to permit, [un]like we permit in a Chatzer, which was Mukaf l'Dirah (surrounded for residential needs).

Answer #2 (Ritzva): Here we do not discuss four walls. It means as follows. So they permitted regarding Shabbos when it is Mefulash, i.e. two walls, for two walls regarding Shabbos is like four walls regarding Kil'ayim. In Kil'ayim, there is no difference between two and four. (There is no need to surround an area. One merely needs a wall between diverse species. It seems that the Ritzva came to answer Question (c), and it is also another answer to Question (e).)

Support: Now it is fine "would R. Yochanan say here [a breach at most 10], that for Shabbos, no (it does not permit)?!", since for two walls, we are not concerned if Parutz Merubah Al ha'Omed.

Answer #3 (to Question (c) - ha'Sar mi'Kutzi): It means as follows. Would R. Yochanan say about [at most 10], that for Shabbos, no (Tzuras ha'Pesach does not permit), if he disagrees with Rav, who says that Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help for more than 10?

Rav Yosef's teaching, that Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help for Parutz Merubah, was based on Rav, who forbids more than 10 [even for Omed Merubah]!

Conclusion: Regarding more than 10, R. Yochanan holds like Rav, that Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help. Therefore, even for 10, R. Yochanan says that Tzuras ha'Pesach does not help;

This is because Rav Yosef forbids Parutz Merubah even through Tzuras ha'Pesach, since he holds like the Binyan Av (just like Tzuras ha'Pesach does not permit more than 10, it does not permit Parutz Merubah).

Explanation: Now we do not need to answer for Reish Lakish "this is his own opinion, and this is his Rebbi's opinion."

Implied question: It says in Shabbos (7b) that if one threw above 10, and it went and landed in a hole Kol she'Hu, this depends on the argument of R. Meir and Chachamim about Chokekim Lehashlim!

Answer (Ri): We discuss holes that it is normal to make at the time of building. They are Mefulashim to Reshus ha'Rabim, [and there they are Mashehu,] but on the side of Reshus ha'Yachid they are four by four [Tefachim];

If not, R. Meir would not say Chokekim, like it connotes here.