Question (Rav Pores): It is difficult also for him! Since the boards get narrower, down to the width of a finger [at the top], he can arrange six sets or more!

He puts the thin (i.e. top) side of this board opposite the thick (bottom) side of another board (so together they are an Amah and a finger), and six sets fit in three Amos and three fingers, and 11 Tefachim remain for air! When you put the [11 Tefachim] in between (make the five gaps between boards equal, each gap is less than three Tefachim), it is Lavud (considered a solid wall)!

Answer #1 (Rav Pores): It is disgraceful to put the thick side of a board, which is close to the ground (when the Mishkan is erected) by the thin side, which is above, where the curtains are spread on them. This resembles what we say "we ascend in Kodesh, and we do not descend."

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Just like they used to remove them from the Mishkan, so they placed them on the wagon that was by the wall of the Mishkan. They did so without toil. To invert them (flip every other board so its top is near the bottom of the previous board) would be a big toil.

Answer #3 (Ri): Perhaps (this opinion holds that they were an Amah thick until half their height, and) from their middle and above they narrowed [until a finger at the top]. Now, one cannot arrange more boards (than according to the other opinion, for at the time middle every board is an Amah thick).

Question: What is the source that we learn from what was not covered? We should learn from what was covered, and one who carries four Amos in a covered Reshus ha'Rabim is liable!

Answer #1: We should learn from the air (what was not covered), for it resembles Reshus ha'Rabim more.

Answer #2: From here we do not learn Reshus ha'Rabim (whether or not it is covered), rather, from Machaneh Levi, like it says above (96b). From here we learn only the Shi'ur of Reshus ha'Rabim, that it is [at least] 16 Amos wide;

Even so, if not that under, between and to the sides [of the wagons] was Reshus ha'Rabim, we would not learn from them the Shi'ur of Reshus ha'Rabim.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The Makshan] is thinking that the wagon was covered.

Question #1: Why would he think to say so?!

Question #2: In all texts, it says "where did he put the rings? On the back of the wagon." Why does [the Makshan] mention rings? He should say only that the wagon was covered!

Question #3: [Rashi's] text above says "bid'Ra'asa" (with spaces between rows), and in all Seforim the text is b'Dara Tasa (the bottom row);

Also according to his text, [bid'Ra'asa] does not connote between rows, like he explained.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam, R. Chananel): B'Dara Tasa is the first row. He put on the wagon so far only the bottom boards. It is not totally covered, for there are spaces between the rows, like it proceeds to explain;

However, when he arranges the second and third row, the air between the rows is blocked. The [rows] could not be even, and to put a row exactly on top [of the row below it];

Rather, each (row) protruded outside, until all the air was blocked, like a half brick on top of a full brick.

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara asks what was the length of the wagon...? I.e. even the first row, underneath was not Reshus ha'Rabim, like it proceeds to explain;

Rav Kahana answers "b'Atba'ei". Even though [the text] does not say "Ela", this is a retraction. Surely, when there are boards on the wagon, even [only] the bottom row, underneath was not Reshus ha'Rabim;

Rather, [Rav] said that [underneath] was Reshus ha'Rabim b'Atba'ei, when only rings are on the wagon. The rings are two pieces of wood with holes at the two ends. They have holes like rings. Therefore they are called Atba'ei;

They insert them on the poles that stand at the two ends of the wagon along its width, in front of it and in back of it, lest the boards fall. Since no Amora was mentioned above (regarding what we retract from, in such a case) the Gemara is not wont to say "Ela".

Explanation #2 (cont.): The Gemara asks, where were the rings placed? On top of the wagon. I.e. after they put the boards on the wagon, they put on them Atba'ei, i.e. rings and brackets, like I explained, in front of it and in back of it, to hold the boards, and then the wagon is already covered!

The text does not say "the wagon itself [is covered!", which connotes even without the boards], rather, "the wagon is covered!"

Explanation #2A: Shmuel answers "with pegs." I.e. Atba'ei that Rav Kahana mentioned are not pieces of wood with holes placed along the width of the wagon like I explained;

Rather, they are pegs, i.e. two long pieces of wood that they similarly puncture them at their two ends, and they put them on poles along the length of the wagon;

On those pieces of wood they place the boards, so they will be elevated, above the wheels. They are made like the Atba'ei along the width of the wagon after loading it;

Because Shmuel merely explains Rav Kahana's words, it does not say "Ela".

Explanation #2B (R. Chananel): [Shmuel] retracts from Rav Kahana's answer.

Rebuttal #1: This is wrong, since it does not say "Ela".

Rebuttal #2: How did Rav Kahana err? It is normal to put the Atba'ei (that go along the width of the wagon) only after loading it!

Observation: In the entire Sugya, it says that the width of the Mishkan was 10 Amos.

Question (Ri): What is the Gemara's source? Perhaps the Mishkan was 11 wide, and we can say that the thickness of the boards was only half an Amah;

Note: The Torah did not say what their thickness is. Our Sugya assumes that it was an Amah; the width of the eight boards on the west (12 Amos) corresponds to 10 Amos width of the Mishkan's interior, and two Amos of the thickness of the boards.

The two boards in the corners of the Mishkan, [one Amah of the width of the corner board] on each side enclosed one Amah of the Mishkan's interior, and the remaining half Amah of the [corner] boards' width corresponded to the thickness of the boards on the north and south!

Why does the Gemara say oppositely, that half an Amah on each side completed the lack of the [western] wall (corresponding to the Mishkan's interior - the total width of the six middle boards was nine Amos), and the remaining Amah [on each side] corresponded to the thickness of the boards on the south and north?

Answer (Ri): We learn from the Beis ha'Mikdash. Its length was 60 and its width was 20. Likewise, the Mishkan's width was a third of its length.

Observation (Ri): Here it says that the Bri'ach ha'Tichon surrounded three sides. It argues with the Beraisa of Meleches ha'Mishkan, which says that it was not a miracle;

Rather, there were five Brichim. Two were above; one began from the beginning of the length of the Mishkan, until midway, and the other began from there and onwards, until the end of that side. Similarly, below there were two Brichim like this;

However, the middle Bri'ach went from the eastern side to the western side, i.e. "Min ha'Katzeh El ha'Katzeh." It did not surround three sides.