Explanation (Rashi): These Pasei Bira'os, since their water is proper for people to drink, they are a proper need of residence.

Implied question: If so, why does it say in the Gemara that our Mishnah is unlike R. Akiva, since it did not teach pits [of collected water]? Perhaps it mentioned wells to teach that even 10 [Beis] Korim are permitted!

Answer: Our Mishnah (i.e. the first Tana, who chose to discuss wells,) is R. Yehudah, who permits even for a well only Beis Sa'atayim.

Question: Why is a caravan different? Rabanan required that there not be Beis Sa'atayim empty;

Here, regarding Pasim, which are inferior to ropes, like it says in the Gemara, they did not obligate that there cannot be Beis Sa'atayim free!

Answer #1: Regarding a caravan, since it was made for a temporary need, it is not considered Mukaf l'Dirah (surrounded for residential needs) as much as Pasim are.

Answer #2: For Olei Regalim [Chachamim] were lenient and considered Pasim like a full wall, just like they were lenient about Parutz Merubah Al ha'Omed.

Observation: Even so, we must explain like Rashi, that Pasim are considered Mukaf l'Dirah, even though a person does not live there;

If not, our Mishnah would be difficult for Rav Huna b'Ribi Chanina, who wanted to say below (67b) that a Mechitzah that does not surround for the sake of residence is not considered a Mechitzah;

He challenged R. Yochanan, who said that it is considered a Mechitzah, just residents are lacking.

Explanation: Also the Makshan knew there is a difference between a pit and a well, for our Mishnah (22b) distinguishes them;

However, he was meticulous to explain that since [the Tana] did not explicitly teach "Pasim for a well", this connotes that he does not distinguish, like he infers below.

Observation: Likewise, he could have said that our Mishnah is unlike the first Tana [of Chananyah], for our Mishnah teaches specifically a well, and not a pit.

Explanation (Rashi): A pit is gathered water. It is prone to run out.

Implied question: Below (21a), it says that we require flowing water, for we require something proper for man to drink!

Answer: That reason applies only according to R. Yehudah ben Bava (22b), who says that we make Pasim only for a well of the Rabim;

The reason is because he requires something proper for man. If it were because it does not run out, even a pit of the Rabim, there is no concern lest it run out.

Distinction: The other Tana'im, their reason is because it does not run out. If they required something proper for man, also a pit of the Rabim would not [be permitted].

Question #1 (Rivam): Rashi explained in Kesuvos (8a) that [Rav Asi holds that] there were two Yetziros. Therefore, be blessed two Brachos [of Yetzirah, in Sheva Brachos] - Yotzer ha'Adam and Asher Yatzar. This is like the opinion that [Chavah was made from] a tail. (Our Gemara understood according to the opinion that says a face, that the two Yud's in va'Yitzer allude to two Yetziros!)

Question #2: After this, it says there that according to everyone, there was one Yetzirah. One opinion holds that we follow intent [to create two], and one holds that we follow deed. This is like the one who says a tail;

[Here,] according to him (the one who says a tail), we expound these verses like R. Avahu [to teach that initially Hash-m intended to create two, but in the end He created one]!

Conclusion: There were two Yetziros according to the opinion that says a face.

Explanation: This is not the verse in Sotah (4b) regarding haughtiness;

There, it expounds the verse "To'avas Hash-m Kol Gavah Lev Yad l'Yad...", and here we expound "Yad l'Yad Lo Yenakeh Ra v'Zera Tzadikim Nimlat."

Inference: This implies that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak is not Stam Rav Nachman. (Below (43b DH Yasiv), Tosfos says that Stam Rav Nachman is Rav Nachman bar Yakov.)

Citation (Tosefta Megilah 3:22): We open a Beis ha'Keneses only to the east, for we find in the Mishkan "veha'Chonim Lifnei ha'Mishkan Kedmah... Mizrachah..."

Inference: This Tana holds that the Shechinah is in the west, and they used to bow to the west, or Eretz Yisrael and the Beis ha'Mikdash were to their west [of the Tana's locale], for it is written "v'Hispalelu Derech Artzam", and it is written "v'Kavin Pesichan Lei b'Ilisei Neged Yerushlem."

Inference: It seems that "in back of a Beis ha'Keneses" is on the side of the Aron.

Rebuttal #1: In Brachos (6b) we say that a person prayed in back of a Beis ha'Keneses, and Eliyahu said to him "is this how you stand in front of your Master?!" I.e. [you pray to the opposite direction from the congregation, and make it seem] as if there are two Masters!

It says there that this is only if he does not turn to the Beis ha'Keneses. If he faces the Beis ha'Keneses, it is fine.

If he was standing on the side of the Aron, all the more so if he turns to face the Beis ha'Keneses, it looks like there are two powers, for the congregation bows to the east, and he bows to the west!

Rebuttal #2: It says (Brachos 61a) that one may not pass in back of a Beis ha'Keneses at the time that the congregation prays. This is only if it does not have another opening. If it has another opening, this is not a problem.

Inference: He passes in front of the opening, and does not enter!

Explanation: It seems that "in back of a Beis ha'Keneses" is on the side of the opening, and he calls it "in back" because he is in back of the people.

Explanation: This means like an olive tree, which is bitter. Also the tree is called olive - we expound "va'Yorehu Hash-m Etz" to be olive, for there is no tree as bitter as an olive tree.

Explanation (R. Chananel): We read this ha'Neshamah with a Dagesh (on the Mem. It is an expression of desolation, like in Yechezkel 36:35.)

Implied question: It says in Toras Kohanim "v'Shamemu Aleha Oyveichem" - this is a good Midah, that [Eretz Yisrael] does not bear fruits when [Bnei Yisrael] are not on it! (Here we say that when Shomron was cursed, its neighbors were blessed, for they were able to use it for vineyards.)

Answer #1: Here, Bnei Yehudah were the neighbors [of Shomron. It was good that they be blessed when Shomron was cursed].

Answer #2: [Toras Kohanim teaches that Eretz Yisrael] does not produce as much as when [Bnei Yisrael] are on it. (Even so, it was beneficial for its neighbors.)