Implied question: According to the Targum of Achashverosh (i.e. Megilas Esther, we find that Daniel) was punished greatly. He was killed!

It says "va'Yagidu l'Mordechai Es Divrei Esther", and it does not say there Hasach (even though it says that Hasach told Mordechai's words to Esther), because Haman killed him for passing words between Esther and Mordechai.

Answer: The Bavli disagrees. We expound in Megilah (15a) "where did Hasach go?" (Why didn't he return Esther's words to Mordechai?) It explains that we do not report failures (Esther refused to go to the king).

Explanation: Also the Seifa one can explain like this, i.e. "however, a Stam valley, and a region in which the custom is not to fence in a garden, we do not obligate him."

Explanation: This is not a refutation, for we can say that it juts out of the wall [on the side of the one who built it];

In any case, it is difficult. [If so,] it should have taught "mi'Chutz" (from the outside)!

Implied question: Above, we said that if he cuts it, this will be recognized!

Answer: Regarding [a wall of] Lulavim, it is not recognized.

Explanation: Abaye holds that it is proper that it teach a solution against swindlers.

The text: The text does not say "Nikaf (the one surrounded)", for according to all versions in the Gemara, it refers to the Makif (the one who surrounds), except for the last version, which says that [R. Yosi and the first Tana] argue about the Makif and Nikaf. (Do we obligate the Nikaf only when he built the fourth wall, or even if the Makif built it?)

Implied question: In Bava Kama (20b), it says [that he is liable] only because the Nikaf [built it], but if the Makif [built it], he is exempt! (It understands the Mishnah to teach that the Nikaf built the fourth wall!)

Answer: That Gemara holds like the last version here.

Question: Why is this different than a field in which trees are not normally planted? If Reuven planted trees in [such] a field of Shimon without permission, Rav and Shmuel say (Bava Metzi'a 101a) that we estimate for him, and he receives the lesser [of his expenditures and the increased value! Why doesn't the one surrounded need to pay like this?]

Answer (Ri): Here is different, for [the Nikaf] can say "for me, a cheap guarding suffices";

In any case, he must give [half] the price of sticks when they are sold cheaply, for Anan Sahadei (it is so certain that we can testify) that if he found sticks for so little, he would have fenced with them.

Explanation #1 (Ri): The reason [he shares the cost of the fourth wall] is because there is no one who would not help build the fourth, in order that [his property] will be guarded from all four sides.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): It is because [it is as if] Beis Din already exempted [the Nikaf] from paying for the [first] three. (Therefore, he is exempt even when there are four walls, which benefit him.)

Comment - Question: If so, also for the fourth, he was already exempted for paying for it until the last Tefach! (Until the wall was finished, he did not benefit.)

Implied question: Until now, [we explained that R. Yosi] was more stringent [than the first Tana], like his words connote "we make him pay for everything"!

Answer: Even so, according to this version, this is not so. "Im Amad" connotes that [he discusses only when] the Nikaf [who was passive until now, fenced the fourth side].