Explanation #1: It seems that this means that since most people normally go to there to pray, even though they do not give anything to [pay for] building it, in any case since it was made for the sake of those Rabim, its Kedushah is greater, and they cannot sell it.

Explanation #2: [They cannot sell it] because many people (not only from this city) give towards building it and its other needs.

Implied question: Below, Rav Ashi says, because people come due to me" [therefore, I can sell it. If we are concerned that outsiders gave for it, how does it help that people come due to Rav Ashi?]

Answer: This is because they give with intent that he may do like he wants with it.

Inference: The Makshan holds that since they may not be sold, they should not receive Tzara'as, for it is not called "your inheritance." Also, "the owner of the house" cannot apply to it.

Question #1: In Yoma (11a), R. Meir obligates a Beis ha'Keneses of Kerachim in a Mezuzah. (This implies that is called "your house");

Also, we establish the Beraisa there, which says that a Beis ha'Keneses receives Tzara'as, like him! (Perhaps R. Yehudah (who taught our Beraisa) holds like R. Meir!)

Question #2: Why do we discuss of big cities? Even [if he holds like Rabanan,] Rabanan of R. Meir do not distinguish there between [Batei Kenesiyos] of big cities and of villages regarding Tzara'as and Mezuzah!

Answer: Surely, the Makshan erred about two matters. Firstly, there is no difference between cities and villages, like we conclude there according to Rabanan of R. Meir, i.e. R. Yehudah. (He held like the Hava Amina there, that we distinguish);

He also erred (did not realize that) even though they cannot be sold, they can receive Tzara'as according to R. Meir.

Question: In Zevachim (53b) it says that in the southeast corner there was no Yesod, for the Yesod is only in the portion of Toref, i.e. Binyamin, for it says "Binyamin Ze'ev Toref";

Inference: The entire Mizbe'ach was built in the portion of Binyamin!

Answer: The southeast corner, which had no Yesod, was in the portion of Yehudah;

Binyamin was pained [and longed] to swallow it, in order that the entire Mizbe'ach would be in his portion.

Explanation (Rabbeinu Yosef): He holds that since the land, the place of the beds, did not have a particular owner, they were unable to charge a full rental;

In any case, due to their Metaltelim, they used to take the skins of Kodshim.

Question: R. Meir forbids in our Mishnah only a permanent sale, but it is permitted on Tenai (condition). Why is this different?

Answer: R. Meir permits selling on Tenai, i.e. [a Beis ha'Keneses of] Rabim to Rabim, to pray there. There is no disgrace in this sale;

Here we forbid Mashkanta to an individual, due to disgrace.

Inference: The Dalet and Yud in the knot of the straps are not proper letters. Only the Shin on the box is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai.

Explanation: We infer this, for we call the straps only Tashmishei Kedushah [and not Kedushah itself]. Also in Menachos (35b), we call them only Tashmishei Kedushah.

Support: In Shabbos (28b), we ask "Abaye said that the Shin of Tefilin is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai." We do not ask from the Dalet and Yud!

Implied question: In Menachos (35b), we say that "v'Ra'u Kol Amei ha'Aretz Ki Shem Hash-m Nikra Alecha v'Yar'u Mimeka" refers to Tefilin Shel Rosh!

Note: The question assumes like Rashi (cited below) explains, that it refers to the Shel Rosh, since it has two letters of Hash-m's name on it.

Answer: We can say that it is because they are on the top of the head, and they are always seen well for an Os (sign);

However, the letters of the Shel Yad are not seen and they are not an Os, for it says "v'Hayah Lecha l'Os", and we expound that [they are an Os for you, but], they are not an Os for others.

Question: However, according to Rashi, who explains there that the reason [the verse discusses the Shel Rosh] is because it had Shin and Dalet, which are the majority of letters of Shakai, it is difficult from all the sources I brought that the Yud and Dalet are not considered letters.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is a curtain that they spread around the Aron inside of it.

Objection: The Aron itself is Tashmish Kedushah. We say here that one may not make from it (an Aron) a Kursiya (Bimah).

Inference: The Aron is more Kodesh than the Prisa. (Maharsha - the Hava Amina was that the Prisa is Tashmish d'Tashmish because it serves the Aron. Tosfos wants to prove that even in the conclusion that it is Tashmish Kedushah, the Aron is more Kodesh than it, for the Prisa's Kedushah equals that of the Bimah. Both of them have Kedushah because sometimes the Torah is placed on them. If the Prisa were inside the Aron, the Torah is normally inside it. It would be as Kodesh as the Aron!)

Explanation #2: Rather, it is a curtain spread around the Aron outside of it.