Explanation: We refer to Yatzi'a of the verse;

Yatzi'a of our Mishnah, Rav Yosef himself already explained that it is a lean-to with many windows;

Yatzi'a of the Beis ha'Mikdash, we do not find anywhere that it was made full of windows.

Explanation: It says in this verse "v'Lo Hayu Ochzim b'Kiros ha'Bayis", and in the verse of Yatzi'a it says "l'Bilti Achoz b'Kiros ha'Bayis." This shows that Tzela and Yatzi'a are the same.

Question (R. Tam and Ri): After the verse, why do we bring the Mishnah? This is like [we ask] "why do we bring a proof from the custom in Yehudah, and also from a verse?! (Kidushin 6a. Surely the verse alone suffices!)

Answer (Ri): There, we are bothered only by the words "and also." Here it is fine, for it does not say "and also";

We find like this in several places (Bava Kama 92b) "this is written in Torah, repeated in Nevi'im, a third time in Kesuvim, and taught in the Mishnah."

Explanation #1: We discuss the middle cell. It was six. However, the bottom one was five, like it says "veha'Yatzi'a ha'Tachtonah Chamesh ba'Amah Rachbah..."

Implied question: Why didn't it discuss the lowest cell?

Answer: Opposite the lowest [cell], the wall of the Heichal was seven wide. (Below, Tosfos explains why he prefers to discuss when it was six wide.)

Implied question: The eastern wall of the Heichal, in which there were no cells, was six wide above and below!

Answer #1: The other walls of the Heichal, in which there were recessions [for the cells], below they were seven thick, and opposite the middle cell, it was six thick, because the recessions were one Amah. Therefore, the middle cell was one Amah wider than the bottom one;

Therefore, he discusses the middle cell, for he prefers to says that the western wall of the Heichal was six, just like he counts [six Amos for] the eastern wall;

Had he discussed the lower cell, he would have needed to say that the wall of the Heichal was seven and the cell was five. He prefers to say six in the west, just like in the east.

Answer #2 (Ri): The recessions were in the wall of the Heichal, and also in the three walls of the cell. The recessions were half an Amah on each side;

The wall of the Heichal below was six and a half. Opposite the middle cell it was six.

Support: Now it is fine. All of the cells were square. The bottom was five by five, the middle was six by six, and the top was seven by seven.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Midos 4:4) says that the bottom was five wide, and there was Roved of six. The middle was six, and the Roved was seven.

Answer: It calls the recessions "Roved", because it is like a row that sticks out. "Roved" is a row;

Source: The Mishnah in Tamid (1:1) says "it was a big house, surrounded by a stone Roved." The Gemara explains that this is a ledge.

Explanation #3: In Bayis Sheni, the bottom Yatzi'a was six. It was unlike Bayis Rishon;

This is like we find that the cells in the future, in the Mikdash described in Sefer Yechezkeil. It says there "the width of the Tzela is four Amos";

Similarly, perhaps (the cells in Bayis Sheni) were unlike Bayis Rishon. [If so,] we can say that we discuss the bottom.

Question: The Ri was unsure about Yatzi'a, whether we say that he gave wider borders [but really, it is not included], due to the extra [clause in the] Mishnah;

Or, perhaps [we say so] only for a room, which is a different use, like it says here, but he acquired a Yatzi'a.

Explanation #1 (Rivam): All agree that when people mention "Bayis" Stam, this connotes the entire Birah (building);

When they want to mention one "Bayis" without the [entire] Birah, they must explicitly say "one house, without the building, I say";

If so, [when he did not specify,] even if he did not give the outer borders, he sold the entire Birah.

Support: The Rashbam connotes that he wants to explain like this.

Consequence: According to this, what is written in all Seforim "also a Birah [they call] a Bayis", this means that just like they call a Birah "Birah", they call a Birah also "Bayis".

Objection (Ri): If so, we should have answered "no. The case is, they call also a Bayis "Bayis", and everyone calls a Bayis "Bayis" and a Birah "Bayis";

Why did we need to say that some call a Birah "Birah", i.e. and [they do not call it a] Bayis, and some call also a Birah "Bayis"?

Explanation #2 (Ri): It means as follows. Rather, they call also a Birah "Bayis", just like they call a Bayis "Bayis". [If so], he sold all of it, since he gave the outer borders!

After this, he answers that not everyone calls a Birah "Bayis". Rather, some call a Birah "Birah", and not a Bayis.

Question: We should say that the price shows [whether he bought the entire Birah, or just that Bayis]!

R. Yehudah says so about one who sold a Tzemed (yoke; also with the oxen it is called Tzemed), below (77b). It is known that the yoke itself is not worth 200 Zuz (about a year's income)...

Also here, it is known that a Bayis is not worth so much. Rather, he means [to sell] the entire Birah!

Answer #1: Here we explain like Rabanan of R. Yehudah, who say that the price is no proof.

Below (92a), we ask "let us see. If he paid the price of a plowing ox, he bought it for plowing!" We will explain it when we reach there, with Hash-m's help.

Answer #2 (Ri): Our Sugya is even like R. Yehudah. Regarding land, "the price shows" does not apply, for sometimes one buys land for far more than it is worth;

It says in Kesuvos (91b) that there was a man who owed 1000 Zuz. He had two mansions, and sold each for 500 Zuz (to the same man).

The creditor took one mansion, and was going to take the other. The buyer took 1000 Zuz cash and said 'if one mansion is worth 1000 to you, consider one mansion full collection. If not, take 1000 Zuz and leave.'

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): "The price shows" does not apply to land, for Ona'ah (overcharging) does not apply to land.

Rebuttal #1 (Ri): This is not because [land] is worth more. Also Hekdesh and slaves, Ona'ah does not apply to them! Rather, it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv [that there is no Ona'ah]. "The price shows" properly applies.

Note: Above, the Ri says that "the price shows" does not apply to land! He means that if there were no reason other than "Ein Bo Ona'ah", it would apply.

Rebuttal #2: Also, Bitul Mekach applies [to land, if one paid more than twice the value].

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (103a) that one who lends a shovel to his friend to dig with it "Pardesai" (my orchards), he may dig all orchards he has with it. We do not say that Pardesai connotes two!

Answer #1: There, it is normal that one who lends, he lends for all needs. However, here, just because one sells two fields, we do not [have a reason to] say that he sells all his fields.

Answer #2: Some say that there, the lender has the lower hand, for the borrower is Muchzak. Here, the buyer has the lower hand, for the seller is Muchzak.

Rebuttal (Ri): Also there, since [the shovel] is destined to return to its owner, the lender is Muchzak;

Source: Rav Nachman said (Bava Metzi'a 102b) that land is in the Chazakah of its owner, for it is destined to return to its owner. (If one rented a house for 12 Dinarim for the year, a Dinar per month, and it was made a leap year, the tenant must pay for the added month.)

Suggestion: Perhaps we can distinguish between land and Metaltelim, for a renter's Chazakah in land is less significant than [a borrower's Chazakah] in Metaltelim;

We find (below, 92a) that if one sells an ox to his friend, and it was found to be a gorer, it depends on who is Muchzak now in the coins. (If the seller is Muchzak, he need not return the coins, for he can say that he sold an ox for Shechitah.)

This is even though initially, they belonged to the buyer. We do not say that they are in the Chazakah of the original owner! (This shows that the original owner's Chazakah does not help for Metaltelim.)

Rejection: It is unreasonable to distinguish. There, Rav Nachman discusses even if he came at the end of the [extra] month, and his Chazakah finished, for he lived there. Even so, we establish it in the Chazakah of its owner.

Also in Bava Metzi'a (110a), when the lender says that [the borrower mortgaged his land to him to eat the Peros for five [years], and the borrower says three, the Peros are in the Chazakah of the one who ate them.

The Gemara asks "why don't we establish them in the Chazakah of the owner?", even though the lender already consumed them!

Inference: The reason is not because the Chazakah of land is weak. Rather, it is because it is destined to return.

Answer #3: Rivam distinguishes between "Pardesai" and "Ar'asa". Also here, if he said "Mekarkai" (my land), this connotes all his land, like is proven below (148b).