Reference: In Sukah (24b) we establish this when he [tied the foliage] with Lulav or laurel branches, lest it be difficult for Rav Acha bar Yakov;

[Rav Acha] said that any Mechitzah that cannot stand in a common wind, i.e. the wind blows it to and fro, is not a Mechitzah. Why is [the Sukah] Kosher? [The trees, or at least the foliage] goes to and fro! (Therefore, we established that he tied the foliage.)

Question: According to this, there is no question here!

Answer #1: He could have said "ul'Taimech" (if you think that he did not prepare the walls at all, this is unlike Rav Acha bar Yakov)!

Answer #2: It connotes to him that we discuss in every case, whether the majority of the wall is from the thickness of the tree, which does not move in the wind, or if the majority of the wall is from the foliage.

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer like above (the Beraisa teaches that we do not decree lest one use a tree on Shabbos or Yom Tov)?

Answer: [The Beraisa] would not mention two matters (a fence or Chitzas ha'Kanim, i.e. reeds growing out of a stump, which are not a Chidush), due to one matter (a tree, which is a Chidush. We answer that the reeds are separated by less than three, i.e. we rely on Lavud. Now, two of the three matters are Chidushim.)

Implied question: This is difficult for the opinion (Sukah 24a) that a Mechitzah not made through man is not a Mechitzah!

Answer: [That opinion] comes to exclude only something not possible to make through man, e.g. living beings.

Explanation: This is according to one version above, regarding if [a Korah] was above 20 [Amos] and he comes to lower it (5a), in which [Abaye] holds that even a Korah [permits] due to Mechitzah, and all the more so a Lechi. That version is considered primary;

Rava holds like he taught above (12b) that both of them are due to Heker.

Alternative text: R. Chananel's text does not say "l'Taimei". Rather, his text explicitly says "Abaye says that a Lechi [permits] due to Mechitzah, and Rava says that a Lechi [permits] due to Heker."

Implied question: Rav Huna holds below (17a) that once Shabbos was permitted, it is permitted. He does not need to rely on the date tree!

Answer #1: We conclude below that when there are no Mechitzos, Rav Huna agrees that we do not say "since it was permitted, it is permitted."

Answer #2: Here he asked according to Rav. (Even if you do not say "since it was permitted, it is permitted", you should permit due to the tree!)

Implied question: We should say that "v'Chasav Lah" is a Klal, "Sefer" is a Prat, and the Klal includes only the Prat - a Sefer, but nothing else!

Answer: "V'Nasan b'Yadah" is another Klal. (From a Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal, we include everything similar to the Prat.)

Implied question: The Beraisa brought only the first Klal!

Answer: This does not show [that there is only one Klal]. We find like this in Kidushin (21b). A Beraisa teaches "I would know only an awl (may be used to pierce an Eved Ivri's ear). What is the source to include a sharp piece of wood or a thorn? It says "v'Lakachta" - anything taken in the hand";

It connotes after this [there] that we expound a Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal, for it says "v'Nasata b'Azno" is another Klal.

Implied question: Below (27b), regarding "b'Bakar uv'Tzon" [written regarding] Ma'aser Sheni, it adopts the common property of them that they reproduce and grow from the ground, and in Sukah (11b) regarding Chagigah it adopts that they are not Mekabel Tum'ah and they grow from the ground!

Answer: Everything is based on what Chachamim deem proper [to expound in every place].

Implied question: They need it to expound "v'Chasav Lah" - Lishmah (it must be written with intent to divorce this woman)!

Answer: It is written "v'Chasav Lah" twice. (We ask what they expound from the other.)

Implied question: We expound in Gitin (87a a third Drashah -) "v'Chasav Lah", and not for her and her colleague (one may not write one Get to divorce two women)!

Answer: There, we expound from "Lah" of "v'Chasav [Lah]" here. (Here we expound from "v'Chasav".)

Observation: This Drashah is only according to Rava, but Abaye derives this in Kidushin (5a) from reasoning, that the advocate (money, which makes Kidushin) cannot become the prosecutor (divorce);

In any case, even Abaye needs v'Chasav to teach that she is divorced through writing [a Get], and not through Chalitzah.

Implied question: In Kidushin (3b) we expound that she is not divorced through Chalitzah from "Sefer Korsah"!

Answer: That Drashah is like R. Yosi ha'Gelili, like it connotes here. The Gemara adopted it because it is a simpler Drashah. This is the style of the Gemara.

Source #1: In Bava Kama (87a) it brings the verse "bi'Ne'ureha Beis Aviha" regarding [payment for] wounding (the Na'arah's father receives it), and in Kidushin (3b) it says that the verse is written [only] regarding vows.

Source #2: In Sanhedrin (34b) we expound that we see Tzara'as [to rule about it] during the day from "uva'Yom Hera'os Bo", which is like Abaye in Mo'ed Katan (8a), and abandon Rava's Drashah there, from "Li" (it appears to me that there is a Nega), and not [it appears based on what I saw] through my light (e.g. lamp).

Question: If her father dies, [his house] is not considered Beis Aviha, like a Beraisa in Nedarim (46a) teaches "Konam (is forbidden to me like a Korban) your house that I will not enter it", or "your field that I will not buy it", if [the owner] died or sold it to someone else, it is permitted immediately!

Answer: All her father's descendants are called Beis Aviha, like it says about Tamar "Shevi Almanah Beis Avich", even though it is proven from verses that Shem (her father) already died. (He died 502 years after the Mabul, in 2158, before Yehudah was even born in 2193 (give or take a year). However, the Torah does not explicitly say that her father was Shem.)

Question (Ri): In Gitin (83b) it says about Rabanan of R. Elazar ben Azaryah that they do not expound "Kares-Kerisus" (the fact that the Torah wrote the plural), and R. Yosi ha'Gelili is among those Rabanan!

Answer: There, it says that they do not expound it for that Drashah. It does not mean that they do not expound it at all.

Inference: Here it connotes that Efshar Letzamtzem, like I explained above (5b, DH v'Safek).

Implied suggestion: Also Chulin (38b connotes like this). It establishes the verse "Tachas Imo" to exclude an animal orphaned [at birth] - this [its mother] died, and this [the fetus] emerged to life [at the same moment];

If Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, why do we need to exclude this? [Without a Drashah] I would forbid, lest its mother died first, and then the child was born, and it is [considered] Yotzei Dofen (like through Caesarian section, since it was not through a live birth)!

Rejection: One cannot derive this. Amidst difficulty, we could say that we need the verse in case Eliyahu will tell us [that birth and death were simultaneous].

Proof: We can prove [that Efshar Letzamtzem] from Chulin 70a, regarding the question of whether or not limbs are judged according to their majority. We establish it that half [of a Bechor] left [the womb] including the majority of a limb. (If it is as if the entire limb left, the majority of the animal was born.)

If Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, what was the question? In any case it must be buried, lest the majority left!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since it is Efshar Letzamtzem, we should say that Kemoso (like it) is precise (the Kosher and Pasul Sechach are exactly equal)!

R. Ami answered that he put more. I.e. in our Mishnah, he was not exact. It taught Kemoso (spaces for Kosher Sechach as wide as the spits, with extra room for the spits) to exit and enter.

Question #1: This is not the Gemara's style, to answer that he put more, and it is not concerned for the question (it is possible to be exact)!