Explanation #1 (Rashbam): If there is room for an ox and its Kelim between one tree and another, give land to him.

Question: According to this, Rav Yosef did not bring a proof about what Abaye challenged him (that they may be spaced up to 16 Amos apart)!

Answer #1: He brings a support for his, i.e. Rav Yosef's, initial words, that from four Amos [and above] they are not considered too dense. If so, the initial words of Rav Nachman are wrong. Since his initial words are wrong, also his final words are wrong.

Answer #2: The episode of Rav Yehudah is like R. Shimon, and R. Shimon holds that from four Amos until eight Amos [is the proper spacing];

He holds that it is unreasonable to establish that it is like Rabanan, and Rabanan hold that from four until 16 [is the proper spacing];

This is like [Rav Nachman] says below, that since according to R. Shimon, [the smallest proper spacing is] half [the largest proper spacing], also according to Rabanan.

Explanation #2: Some say that [Rav Yehudah ruled that] if for every tree there is room (four Amos) for an ox and its Kelim between one tree and another, i.e. eight Amos between trees, give land to him, but more than this is too sparse;

Rav Yosef explicitly heard from Rav Yehudah that he comes to exclude more than eight Amos, which is too sparse, and not to exclude less than eight Amos, and say that they are too dense.

Observation: According to all Perushim, he mentioned room for an ox and its Kelim merely to teach the Shi'ur, but not because we need room for an ox and its Kelim to pass.

Source: The city of shepherds was in Bavel, and in Bavel the Shi'ur of an ox and its Kelim is only two Amos, like it says above (26a);

Even though regarding distancing from his friend's field, we distinguished between Bavel and Eretz Yisrael, regarding density in our Sugya, there is no distinction.

Proof: Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel that less than eight is too dense, whereas regarding distance, we require only four Amos, like it says above (26a).

Question: It is unclear why this expression was used.

Question: We cannot prove anything from the episode. Perhaps they would have permitted also more than eight, and the episode just happened to be [that they were eight apart]! (This question is based on Explanation #2 in the previous Dibur.)

Answer: It is reasonable that they did according to Chachamim, and they permitted to him as much as possible.

Question: Regarding a sale, 16 [apart] is not considered too sparse, and he acquired land, and regarding Kil'ayim, it is considered too sparse, for above it taught "a vineyard planted based on 16 Amos (between adjacent vines), one may seed there"!

Answer: Regarding a sale, we measure precise Amos (in each Tefach, i.e. handbreadth, there are no spaces between the fingers). The Amos of Kil'ayim are smiling (with spaces between the fingers). It is impossible that there are not more than 16 [precise Amos]. Therefore, they are considered too sparse.

Consequence: Above, we said between four and eight, and similarly between eight and 16. The [upper] limit is included.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): "Ha'Rechuvah" is an expression of grafting.

Question #1: The text in the Mishnah in Kil'ayim is "ha'Arkuvah".

Question #2: That Mishnah does not discuss grafting at all!

Question #3: What is the relevance of this grafting to Kil'ayim?

Explanation #2: Arkuvah is Havrachah, like a person who bows on his Birkayim (knees). So they bend the vine to the ground when it is very old, and they cover it with land in the middle, so it will take root;

It says that regarding Kil'ayim, they measure only from the second Ikar (root). Since it used an expression of "Ikar", this proves that we measure from where it is wide.

Explanation: We do not discuss when it is 16 wide (for surely this is a separation), even though Stam [Reshus ha'Rabim] is [16 wide].

Explanation: "Kaneh" is the lungs with the heart.

Question: The Ri was unsure if he sold the heart, whether or not he sold [also] the lungs, and if he sold the lungs, whether or not he sold [also] the heart.

Explanation (R. Tam): Rava ruled in Bava Metzi'a (50b) that [if the Ona'ah, i.e. undercharge or overcharge was] a sixth, the sale stands, and he returns the Ona'ah. This can properly be like Rav Chisda;

We need not say that he acquired Bal Korcho (against his will). Rather, if he wants, the sale stands and he returns the Ona'ah;

Rava was not concerned to specify "if he wants", because he discusses our Mishnah there, which teaches "he has the upper hand" (to decide whether or not the sale stands);

There, we bring a Beraisa like Rava. The support is from [the opinion of] R. Yehudah ha'Nasi, who says that if [the seller] wants, he says "return my sale item to me" [or if he wants, he says "return the Ona'ah to me". Rava] is unlike R. Nasan.

Implied question: Seemingly, Rava is like R. Nasan, for he used the same words as R. Nasan!

Answer: Even so, Rava is like R. Yehudah ha'Nasi. Rava uses the expression "he acquired" unlike R. Nasan uses it. Rava means that if he wants, he acquired. R. Nasan means that against his will, he acquired.

Implied question: There, it says afterwards "our Mishnah is unlike R. Nasan, and unlike R. Yehudah ha'Nasi!...", and Rabah said that really, it is like R. Nasan, and also the Beraisa says "if he wants." Rava said that really, it is like R. Yehudah ha'Nasi;

Why didn't Rava want to establish the Mishnah like R. Nasan, and say that the Beraisa says "if he wants"? Rava himself said "he acquired", and he means "if he wants"!

Answer: This is because Rava discusses the Mishnah [which teaches "he has the upper hand"]. However, R. Nasan does not discuss the Mishnah. [If R. Nasan means "if he wants",] he should have specified.