The Beraisa teaches that any gate which leads to a residence (such as the Nikanor Gate leading to Lishkas Parhadrin) must have a Mezuzah.

Question: This could not be the opinion of R. Yehudah, since the Lishkah itself is, according to him, only a Gezeirah, making the Gate a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah.

Answer: He could view it as one inclusive Gezeirah.

The Beraisa teaches that all gates require Mezuzos.

Question: Why were Mezuzos not put on the gates of Mechuza?

Answer: Those gates were only to support the structures above them.

Question: But that should require that they have Mezuzos!?

(Beraisa): If there is a residence within for the Chazan, then the building does require a Mezuzah (implying that a Beis ha'Keneses does not ordinarily require a Mezuzah).

Answer: Rather, they did not put up Mezuzos for fear of the dangers involved, as reported in the incident in Tzipori.

Question: But Sheluchei Mitzvah Einan Nizokin.

Answer: That is not where danger is ever-present, as in the incident of Shmuel.

(Beraisa): This excludes places which are not for human residence.

(Other Beraisas): Others obligate such places but exclude places such as outhouses, bathhouses and places of women's adornments.

R. Kehana explains the opinions above:

Tana Kama derives the obligation from Beisecha; and the others assume the obligation and derive the exclusions.

Women adorn means they bathe there.

Question: Then that is the same as Merchatz?

Answer: Both public and private bathes are thus mentioned (as we might have obligated the latter).

R. Yehudah explains the opinions above:

Tana Kama understands Beisecha as restricted to full, personal residence, and excludes any other place, even if it is also used for people, such as if women adorn themselves there.

Others consider the combined places to be obligated, but exempt the storehouses (used only as such).

Unseemly places (outhouses, etc.) are exempt even if women also adorn themselves there.

Question: How can R. Yehudah claim that an ordinary storehouse would be exempt according to all opinions, when a Beraisa shows that Tana'im hold that they are Chayav!?

Answer: Indeed, this is a Tiyuvta.

Six gates which are exempt... and here are seven of them.

The one, the arched gate, is a Machlokes R. Meir (who obligates) and the Chachamim (who exempt) [however they agree to obligate if the frame rises 10 Tefachim before the arch].

Abaye explains that there is no dispute when Chokekin would not give us 10 Tefachim.

The Machlokes is whether (R. Meir) or not (Chachamim) we hold Chokekin Lehashlim to obligate in Mezuzah.

A Beis ha'Keneses, a woman's home and a home of partners are obligated in Mezuzah.

Question: These are obviously obligated?!

Answer: "Beisecha" could be understood in the singular.

Question: Maybe they are, indeed, exempt.

Answer: All who need long life are obligated.

Question: Then what is implied by the singular "Beisecha"?

Answer: To teach the obligation on the right side.

Another Beraisa teaches that these same three buildings are subject to the laws to Nega'im.

Question: Again, this is obvious!?

Answer: From the singular male lo I might have learned exemptions.

Question: Maybe, indeed.

Answer: All homes which are part of the inheritance are included.

Question: What is implied by the singular lo?

Answer: That the cause for the Nega is miserliness.

Question: But a Beraisa teaches that a Beis ha'Keneses is not subject to the laws of Nega'im?!

Answer: One Beraisa (which subjects a synagogue to the laws) is R. Meir, and the other (which exempts) is Rabanan (as indicated by R. Meir's opinion obligating it in a Mezuzah even without a residence within).

Alternate Answer: They are both the opinion of Rabanan; one speaking where there is an apartment within and one without.