Question: In Chagigah (27a), we make a Kal v'Chomer from Salamandra (a creature created from fire. One who anoints with its blood, fire does not rule over him). All the more so, Chachamim (whose very essence is fire.) fire does not rule over them! (Since here we say so even about sinners, why was that Kal v'Chomer needed?)

Answer: The faces of sinners blacken [due to the fire, but the fire does not rule over them]. Chachamim are not [harmed] at all.

Implied question: Why isn't this included in Bava Metzi'a (58b) among three who descend to Gehinom and do not come up?

Answer: This (a Yisrael who had Bi'ah with a Nochris) comes up after he received his punishment.

Implied question: Why doesn't it list there sinners of Yisrael with their bodies, and Tzedukim..., who do not come up?

Answer: It is because they are [already] taught in a Beraisa (Rosh Hashanah 17a).

Implied question: It lists there one who humiliates his colleague, even though it is taught in Avos (3:11)!

Answer: It teaches that calling him a nickname is considered humiliating, even if he is used to it.

Source: It says "Gei Ven Hinom... Yerushalayim." The text does not say "this is [the opening in] the Midbar.

Explanation: [Shachas] is Be'er Shachas.

Observation: We could have brought from this verse that it is called She'ol.

Implied question: Why didn't we bring the verse "v'Atah Elokim Toridem li'Ve'er Shachas"?

Answer: That verse discusses the grave, like is proven from the end of the verse "Anshei Damim u'Mirmah Lo Yechetzu Yemeihem."

Question: This verse is written regarding [one who was imprisoned and released, who is among] the four who must thank (Ba'al ha'Gomel - Brachos 54b)!

Answer: It seems that the correct text is like Seforim that say "v'Lo Ashuv El Eretz Choshech v'Tzalmaves."

Source: [The text cannot say Tachtis, for the Gemara says that this is a tradition, and] Tachtis is written in Yechezkel (31:14), when Hash-m showed him that all the Nochrim descend to Gehinom, it is written there "El Eretz Tachtis."

Question: Why don't we list Alukah? (Mishlei 30:15 - "la'Alukah Shtei Vanos...")?

Answer (R. Tam): Alukah is the name of a Chacham, like "l'Isi'el" (Mishlei 30:1. It alludes to Shlomo, who wrote Mishlei.)

Implied question: Why in Avodah Zarah (17a) do we establish [Alukah] to mean Gehinom?

Answer: It is because the next verse says "She'ol v'Otzer Rechem."

Question: In the Pesikta, [Alukah] is not listed among the names of Shlomo. And in the Midrash "three things and four things" written about that Sefer, Alukah is not listed! (Tosfos in Avodah Zarah 17a says that it is a name of a Chacham, but not of Shlomo.)

Implied suggestion: (Perhaps it omits some of his names.) Also Yakeh it does not list (Mishlei 30:1 - "Divrei Agur Bin Yakeh")!

Rejection: Perhaps Yakeh is included with Agur (which was listed)!

Strengthening of question: Also the author of a Piyut [for Chanukah] considers it a name of Gehinom, in the Zulas (Piyut) "Ein Tzur Chelef... Yakdu b'Havhavei Elek"!

Inference: "Between the rivers" is not Bavel.

Question #1: This is unlike Rashi explained in Kidushin (72a) "between the rivers is like Goleh (Bavel) regarding lineage." (Bavel had the best lineage, because Ezra took all the Pesulim with him when he ascended to Eretz Yisrael.)

Question #2: Also below (22b), we say that also Bavel is surrounded by the Peras (Euphrates) river on one side, and the Diglas (Chidekel) on the other side. (I.e. also this connotes like Rashi, and unlike the connotation of our Gemara.)

Implied question: Why didn't the Gemara asks "does he come to teach the number (calculation)", like it asks in Kidushin (17a)?

Answer: This is not difficult, since [the Mishnah] did not teach the number of cows.

Observation: [Rav Papa] could have said that if the pit is 11 and a third and Mashehu [Amos, all agree that planks are required in the middle. With two Amos on each side for the head and majority of a cow, it is 15 and a third and Mashehu from one side to the other. Since the Diyumdin are one Amah in each direction, the space between them exceeds 13 and a third]. He was not precise [to mention the smallest size for which all require planks in the middle].

Implied question: He answered above the Beraisa, that [the distance is] more than 13...!

Answer: [He answered that] after he heard [the Beraisa. He taught that all agree about a pit less than eight or more than 12, before he heard the Beraisa.]

Question: Here it is obvious that lengthening the Diyumdin is better than adding simple planks. Above, according to R. Meir, it connotes oppositely!

Answer: Above, he asks when even if he lengthens the Diyumdin, it will be Parutz Merubah. Then, simple planks are better, for there is more Heker;

However, here we discuss when it is very wide. If he lengthens the Diyumdin, they will be Omed Merubah, like it teaches "don't you admit about a Dir or Sahar (places where animals graze) or Muktzah (a place in back of the house to dry Peros or store wood). Even if it is 10 [Beis] Korim or more, it is permitted! (Even if it is only a Beis Se'ah, each side exceeds 70 Amos. If one lengthens Diyumdin to enclose such an area, and the gap is at most 13 and a third, the Omed is Merubah.)

Therefore, it is a proper question 'he should say "this is a Mechitzah, and this is a Mechitzah"!'