Refuted Explanation: The Gemara is not saying that those two Amos were placed on the roof of the Heichal ...

Refutation: Since the eastern gate on top of which was the picture of Shushan ha'Birah was one of the gates of the Azarah.

Correct Explanation: What the Gemara therefore means is that just as the eastern gate was sanctified in order to place the holy vessels on top of it, so too, when it says that the roof of the Heichal was sanctified, it means to place on it holy vessels.

Clarification: This does not mean that the holy vessels require a location that is sanctified, as is evident in a number of places ...

Conclusion: But that they possess the sanctity to place them there.

Question: But Rebbi Shimon himself in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 18:) holds both 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra' and 'Yesh Eim le'Masores' ...

Source: When he Darshens "be'Vigdo vah" - 'Be'Vogdo vah' - that a man may not sell his daughter as a maidservant after she has been married, and not as a wife after she has been a maidservant?

Answer: There, the two D'rashos do not contradict each other, so that it ia possible to Darshen them both, whereas here, where it is only possible to Darshen one of them, he Darshens Mikra.

Precedent: And the same applies to the first Perek of Sanhedrin (Daf 4. [where Rebbi Shimon holds 'Yesh aeim le'Mikra').

Clarification: And what the Gemara said earlier (Daf 85.) 'Someone who takes the Basar of a Pesach from one group to another, transgresses a Lo Sa'aseh' goes even according to the opinion that permits a Pesach to be eaten in two groups ...

Reason: Because once they have split up, and each group has taken its portion, it is forbidden to take the portion of one group to the location of the other group.

Clarification #1: The Mishnah needs to tell us this to teach us that, even though she ate part of the Se'udah without turning her face, it is not considered to be two locations.

Clarification #2: Alternatively, the Tana teaches us that she is obligated to turn her face, as the Gemara says ' "Kalah', the Mishnah says!'

Implied Question: 'Ein Mesarvin' is not applicable to where he sat on the couch ...

Answer: Because sitting on a couch is indicative of haughtiness and pompousness, and he ought not to have done it, if not because of 'Whatever the the Ba'al ha'Bayis tells one to do, one should do'.

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains that - If some members of a group was designated to eat the Pesach arrived at the time that people generally eat, and the Shamash went to look for the remainder of the group but could not find them, then if three of them were already gathered, then it is not necessary to wait for the others; but less than three, must wait.

Clarification (cont.): But if after having already gathered, they went out and were late in returning, and the Shamash went to look for them but could not find them, then even if only one of them remained, he does not need to wait for them ...

Clarification (cont.): Since they were already there and left.

Clarification: Whoever eats the Pesach:

Clarification (cont.): But he Halachah is not like him ...

Clarification (concl.): Provided he arrives at a time that people generally eat, and the Shamash went to look for them.