Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The Shi'ur for] big [Kelim] is the majority, and for small [Kelim], k'Motzi Rimon.

Question (Ri): This is not a Shi'ur. What is called big, and what is called small, to know for which the Shi'ur is k'Motzi Rimon?!

Explanation #2 (Ri): For big [Kelim], the Shi'ur is k'Motzi Rimon. For small Kelim, that Motzi Rimon is more than the majority, the majority suffices.

Implied question: [Rava] said [regarding Tzamid Pasil] "until the majority is open"! (We assume that he discusses the last law he taught, i.e. Kelim designated for pomegranates are Tehorim from all Tum'ah via Motzi Rimon. If Rava discusses small Kelim for which Motzi Rimon exceeds the majority, why did he require Motzi Rimon? Surely the majority suffices!)

Answer: He does not refer to the Shi'ur of Motzi Rimon, rather, the Shi'ur of Motzi Zayis (for Stam Klei Cheres).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Tum'ah does not enter through the hole, for it is written "v'Chol Kli Fasu'ach" - [Tum'ah] enters through the opening, and not through a hole.

Question #1: A Mishnah (Kelim 10:1) says that the following save through a Tzamid Pasil... and they save both from their openings and their sides;

Inference: It must be surrounded with a Tzamid Pasil when it is punctured from the side!

Question #2: Afterwards, the Mishnah teaches "with what do we surround (make a Tzamid Pasil)"? With plaster, clay and everything that smears. We do not surround with white metal or lead, because it is Pasil (connected), but it does not cling;

Inference: [It must be flush because] Tum'ah enters through a hole of any size!

Question #3: Another Mishnah there, also brought in Bava Kama (105a) says that if a barrel was punctured and sealed with dregs, they saved it. If [the hole] was plugged up with a sprig, [it saves] only if he smeared [e.g. plaster] on the sides. If there were two sprigs [plugged up the hole, it saves] only if he smeared on the sides and between one sprig and the other.

Answer #1 (Ri): These are not difficult for Rashi. Surely, Tum'ah enters through an opening, even through a small hole. We require totally sealing the entire opening. Therefore he must smear;

The Mishnah "both from their openings and their sides" does not discuss when it was punctured like a break on the side. Rather, it was made for the sake of an opening;

The Mishnah brought in Bava Kama (105a) of a barrel that was punctured discusses when the majority was opened, or k'Motzi Rimon, which is considered an opening, and needs a proper sealing.

Question (Riva): A Mishnah in Kelim (9:8) teaches that a hole in a Kli made for food, the Shi'ur is k'Zeisim. [If it is] for liquids, the Shi'ur is like liquids. If it is made for both, we are stringent about a Tzamid Pasil, and [the Shi'ur is] Kones Mashkeh;

Explanation: Since it is made for liquids and food, and it has a hole that is Kones Mashkeh, it does not save what is in it through a Tzamid Pasil. Chachamim decreed due to one that is designated for liquids alone.

Regarding receiving Tum'ah, it is a Kli, since it is designated for food.

Summation of question: [According to Rashi,] through such a hole, how does Tum'ah enter?!

Answer (Ri): Here we require that the majority is open, or a hole k'Motzi Rimon, this is only when it was punctured in a place where there still remains the Shi'ur of a Kli from the hole and below, like the Shi'ur explicitly brought in Chulin (55a);

However, if it was punctured below, and does not remain below the whole the Shi'ur of a Kli from the hole and below, the Shi'ur for [a Kli for] food is k'Zayis, and for liquid, Kones Mashkeh, like the Mishnah in Kelim (9:8).

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Our Sugya means as follows. Until the majority is open, a Tzamid Pasil saves if the holes are sealed. However, if the majority is open, or Motzi Rimon, sealing does not help;

Rather, it is like food covered with mud. It is not saved, like we say in Zevachim (3b). Since the majority is open, it lost the law of a Kli.

The case of a barrel that was punctured and sealed with dregs discusses when it was not opened like the Shi'ur [to nullify it from being a Kli], and dregs sealed the entire hole.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (105a), Rava asked what is the law if half was corked?

Answer: It means that he corked half, and he sealed half with dregs. Is it a proper sealing, or not?

[Rav Yemar] brought [a Mishnah about a barrel that was punctured, and] plugged up with twig[s]. It is not considered sealed without plastering to the sides and between one twig and another;

Similarly, it is not considered sealed if he corked half, and he sealed half with dregs!

This is rejected. There (a barrel plugged up with twigs without plastering), it will not stay. Here, it will stay [even without plaster].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): They argue about Hechsher Zera'im.

Rebuttal (R. Tam): In Uktzin (2:10), the Mishnah says that the Shi'ur for Hechsher Zera'im is like a small root!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Rather, they argue about a Kli with a Tzamid Pasil.

Question: A Mishnah in Kelim (3:1) teaches this! [A Kli] made for food, the Shi'ur is olives.

Answer: [R. Elazar] needs to teach that designation for pomegranates does not help, unlike Rava.

Support: This is why he concluded to explain "it is like stone Kelim", which are totally Tahor.

Question: According to Rabah (above, 4a), who establishes the argument of R. Akiva and Rabanan to be about Kelutah (something in the air, whether or not it is considered to be resting), and they argue about below 10 Tefachim, "Keitzad (what is the case?)" is difficult, for it does not refer to [what was taught] above!

Here it discusses balconies above 10, similar to wagons. Even R. Akiva agrees there!

According to the opinion that they argue about above 10, it is fine.

Answer: In the Yerushalmi, some teach [in the text of the Mishnah] "Keitzad", and some do not teach "Keitzad" It explains there that the Amora who establishes the argument above 10, teaches Keitzad, and the one who establishes it below 10, does not teach Keitzad.

Implied question: [Hotza'ah] was in the Mishkan, like it says there 'they took boards off the wagon' (which was Reshus ha'Yachid, to Reshus ha'Rabim)!

Answer: Even so, if it were not written, we would not obligate for it, since it is an inferior Melachah, like I explained above (2a DH Pashat).

Alternative text: R. Chananel's text does not say all this, until "we find Hotza'ah", for even [if the verse discusses Hotza'ah] on a weekday, we properly learn that Hotza'ah is a Melachah, for the Torah calls it Melachah;

It says "Ish v'Ishah Al Ya'Asu Od Melachah li'Srumas ha'Kodesh", and it is written (the end of the verse) "va'Yikalei ha'Am me'Havi." This shows that Hotza'ah is called Melachah. The Yerushalmi explicitly expounds like this.

Question: Why do we need this reasoning, since [Hachnasah] was in the Mishkan, like it says 'they lifted boards onto the wagon' (i.e. from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid)?

Below, it connotes regarding throwing that if it were in the Mishkan, we would properly know it!

Answer: Also regarding throwing, there is the reasoning "what is the difference whether it is through Hotza'ah, or through throwing?"

If not for the reasoning, we would not consider it to be a Toldah of Hotza'ah;

If it was not also in the Mishkan, we would obligate for it based on reasoning, since it is an inferior Melachah.

Implied question: He could have said that it makes a difference regarding warning, like I explained above (73b)!

Answer: We can say that this is the answer "this that was in the Mishkan is important..."

Version #1: Some texts say "this that was important in the Mishkan is called an Av. This that was not important in the Mishkan is called a Toldah."

Consequence: According to this, there are Melachos that were in the Mishkan, such as weeding and watering seeds, that are not important, and they are not Avos.

The same applies if the text says "that was in the Mishkan, and was important, is called an Av."

Version #2: However, if the text says "what was in the Mishkan is important, and it is called an Av. What was not in the Mishkan is not important, and it is called a Toldah." According to this, Toldos were not in the Mishkan.

Explanation: This version is needed only due to Hotza'ah.

Observation: Likewise, we could have asked "perhaps they sat within four Amos [of each other]!"