Question: If so, he should have said a public pit, and you would be forced to say that an individual's well is not [permitted], for if it were, this is just like R. Akiva!

Answer #1: It is the [Tana's] style to teach something resembling what he excludes, i.e. [a public well, which resembles] an individual's well.

Answer #2: "[We would have thought that he permits what is] public, and even contained water (a pit)" does not refer to R. Yehudah ben Bava, rather, to Shmuel.

Observation: This can be like R. Yehudah ben Bava.

Implied question: If so, why did R. Yehudah ben Bava mention a public well (since he permits even an individual's)?

Answer: He did so to exclude a public pit.

Question: We should learn from Har ha'Bayis (which was 500 Amos on each side), and Ezras Nashim, which was 135 Amos [on each side] and Ezras Yisrael, which was 187 by 135 Amos]!

Answer #1: We learn from all matters of Shabbos from the Mishkan.

Answer #2: The Azaros are considered Mukafim l'Dirah, for there were guards in it the entire night. (Gilyon Kehilas Yakov - they guarded also in the Mishkan, but there were no chambers for this in the Mishkan.)

Explanation #1: Also if it is less than 70 Amos, we require a watchman's shack or house for dwelling;

Note: Both R. Yehudah ben Bava and R. Akiva mention 70 Amos and a remainder, i.e. two thirds of an Amah. For brevity, often Tosfos says 70 Amos, but he really includes a remainder. When he discusses "a small amount", this is above 70 Amos and a remainder, so that the square will be a full Beis Sa'atayim. The small amount is an irrational number, approximately .03 Amos.

If it is more than Beis Sa'atayim, a watchman's shack or house for dwelling does not suffice. Rather, it must be opened and later Hukaf l'Dirah for the sake of the house.

Suggestion: Perhaps only when it is 70 Amos we require a watchman's shack, but if it is less, nothing is needed, and when it is more, a watchman's shack does not suffice!

Rejection: It is unreasonable that there are three different laws for three amounts that differ by Mashehu.

Suggestion: Perhaps also when it is more than 70 Amos, a watchman's shack suffices. [R. Yehudah ben Bava] comes to teach only that less than 70 Amos and a remainder, nothing is needed.

Rejection #1 - part 1: If so, why does R. Akiva argue, according to R. Chananel, who explained that R. Yehudah ben Bava discusses a small amount, and R. Akiva does not?

According to both of them, when it is 70 Amos and a remainder and a small amount, a watchman's shack is needed, and it is not needed for less than this! (We cannot say that R. Akiva requires it even for 70 Amos and a remainder without the small amount, for his words show that he comes to be lenient.)

Rejection #1 - part 2: Rashi explained (23b) "[R. Akiva] is just like the first Tana" refers to those who said to R. Yehudah [that Beis Sa'atayim was said only for a garden or Karfef - 18a]...

It seems that also according to Rashi, R. Yehudah ben Bava [includes] a small amount [in the measure that he discusses], just like the first Tana (18a), for this is why R. Akiva needed to teach "as long as there are 70 Amos [and a remainder", i.e. to exclude the small amount].

Rejection #2: If R. Yehudah ben Bava discusses also more than Beis Sa'atayim [and teaches that a watchman's shack suffices], why did R. Yehudah say "even if it has only a pit, long pit or cave"? This implies that also R. Yehudah does not distinguish between Sa'atayim and more than this;

R. Yehudah himself said above (18a) regarding Pasim "until Beis Sa'atayim"!

Rejection #3: According to R. Chananel, who explained that "[R. Akiva] is just like the first Tana" refers to R. Yehudah ben Bava, i.e. [the Gemara asks] why did [R. Akiva] need to teach "as long as" [it is at most 70 Amos and a remainder], since he refers to R. Yehudah ben Bava?

He needs to teach that we should not say that it is permitted even more than Beis Sa'atayim, since R. Yehudah ben Bava discusses more than Beis Sa'atayim!

Conclusion: Therefore, it seems that it is like I explained (Explanation #1).

Explanation #2 (Rashi): Even if it was Hukaf l'Dirah, R. Yehudah ben Bava does not permit more than Beis Sa'atayim.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. Rather, if it was opened and later Hukaf l'Dirah, this helps even for more than Beis Sa'atayim, for above Rabanan permit a Dir or Sahar (places where animals graze) or Muktzah (a place in back of the house to dry Peros or store wood) even if it is 10 [Beis] Korim!

There were several Chatzeros and Mavo'os in Yerushalayim more than Beis Sa'atayim. Will R. Yehudah ben Bava forbid all of them from carrying?!

Only regarding a watchman's shack, he said that it does not help for >2, but if it was o7s, this helps even for >2.

Defense: Perhaps Rashi can distinguish. A Dir, Sahar, Muktzah or Chatzer, since they are used greatly, even 10 [Beis] Korim [are permitted]. However, a Karfef, even if iwo7, this does not help for >2.

Explanation: [Because he taught one stringency, and also now,] it is appropriate to teach "and further", even if both are not about the same matter, and all the more so when both are about the same matter, even if both of them are not stringencies, like in Sukah (27a) and Megilah (28a), like Rashi explained.

Question: In Beitzah (34a) it teaches "and further", even though it interrupted with another matter!

R. Eliezer taught that one may take a splint from in front of him to clean his teeth, or gather from the Chatzer and burn [them], and Chachamim say that one may gather front of him and burn;

It teaches after this "one may not make a new fire from wood..." and interrupts with an entire clause, and teaches afterwards "and further, R. Eliezer said that one may stand by Muktzah..."

Disclaimer: There, Rashi switches [the order of] the Mishnah and the Gemara. (According to his text, it is not difficult.)

Question: However, according to R. Tam, who says that there is no need to switch, for [once it mentioned burning,] it finishes the laws pertaining to fire, this is difficult!

Answer: There, they are two leniencies, so it is proper to teach "and further", even if another matter interrupted in between, for there is precedence to teach the extremity of the lenient opinion.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "[R. Akiva] is just like the first Tana" refers to Amru Lo (those who told R. Yehudah that Beis Sa'atayim was said only for a garden or Karfef - 18a).

Note: Presumably, Rashi did not explain simply that it refers to the first Tana of our Mishnah, for the Gemara asks that they do not argue. R. Akiva clearly argues, and does not require a watchman's shack or dwelling! Below, Tosfos explains that the question was why R. Akiva repeats the size, for they do not argue about this.

Question #1: If so, [the Gemara] could have said that they argue about if it is long and narrow. R. Akiva said explicitly 70 Amos by 70 Amos, and Amru Lo did not say [the shape];

Presumably, they do not argue with R. Yehudah, who says here above, even if it is long and narrow.

Question #2: Perhaps [Amru Lo] require a pit, long pit or cave (and R. Akiva does not)!

Answer: We can say that the Gemara answered properly. (Indeed, it could have given one of the other answers if it wanted.)

Explanation #2: In any case, it seems that R. Chananel's Perush is correct. "[R. Akiva] is just like the first Tana" refers to R. Yehudah ben Bava. I.e. since R. Yehudah ben Bava discusses 70 Amos and a remainder by 70 Amos and..., why did R. Akiva need to repeat "as long as it is [at most 70 Amos and a remainder]"?

It answers that they argue about a small amount. R. Akiva does not [permit 70 Amos and a remainder and the small amount], and R. Yehudah [ben Bava] holds [that it is permitted even with the small amount].

Implied question: Why does R. Yehudah say below "there is a small amount, and Chachamim did not give it a Shi'ur?

Answer: This means that they were not concerned to be precise. Really, [R. Yehudah] holds that all the Tana'im mentioned before R. Akiva hold [that the Heter is for 70 Amos and a remainder and] the small amount.

Implied question: Why isn't this [small amount] mentioned below (57a) regarding three villages - if the outer ones are separated by at most 141 and a third Amos...?

Answer #1: [The Tana] was not concerned to be exact.

Answer #2: [The Mishnah] is like R. Akiva, who does not hold [that we permit even with] the small amount].

Inference: "Take 50 and surround 50" is a mere Asmachta. (Therefore, we ask what is the simple meaning.)

Question: However, below (58a) it asks "we need the verse to teach that you take 50..."! (This implies that it is a proper Drashah! Keren Orah says that surely it is an Asmachta. The Torah did not limit the size of Reshus ha'Yachid! Also the other Drashah is an Asmachta, so we properly asked that we already expounded an Asmachta from this verse.)

Implied question: We could have asked also "if so, this is just like R. Akiva"!

Answer: [The Makshan] prefers to ask a contradiction in R. Eliezer.

Implied question: Also initially, we could have asked "this is just like R. Akiva"!

Answer: In any case, we could not have asked "this is just like R. Yosi" [until Rav Bivi bar Abaye changed the text of Mishnah to say like the Beraisa].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): R. Eliezer requires l'Chatchilah that the length is twice the width, and R. Yosi requires l'Chatchilah that it is square.

Question: L'Chatchilah and b'Di'eved do not apply here. If it was already surrounded [for the sake of residence], all agree that it is permitted l'Chatchilah. If he comes to surround, will each [Tana] tell him to surround it only if it is like he holds (R. Eliezer only if the length is twice the width, and R. Yosi only if it is square)?!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): "What Rabanan made square" is the argument below (49b) of R. Chanina ben Antigonus and Rabanan, regarding one who said "my Shevisah is in my place";

R. Chanina ben Antigonus says that he gets 2000 Amos in every direction, i.e. a circle [of radius 2000]. Chachamim say, he gets a square [of side 4000], he gains the corners.

Consequence: According to R. Eliezer, if it is longer than twice the width [anywhere], even on the diagonal (it exceeds twice the width), one may not carry, like R. Chanina [who holds that the diagonal may not exceed the Shi'ur]. R. Yosi comes to include, and says that one may carry.

Assertion (R. Chananel): This is only for land more than Beis Sa'atayim, but if it is [precisely] Beis Sa'atayim, even if it is totally seeded, the residence is not Batel;

Source: R. Yehudah ben Bava, who is stringent when it is totally seeded, he agrees that a watchman's shack helps for a garden, even though a Stam garden is totally seeded.

Explanation: However, [R. Chananel] asks when it is more than Beis Sa'atayim, whether he was Mevatel his residence, even with a Dir, Sahar, Muktzah.

Perhaps because it is used greatly, it is not Batel due to seeding, for also according to Rashi we must distinguish between a Dir, Sahar, or Muktzah, and a Chatzer or Karfef.

Explanation: He asks based on a Kal v'Chomer, regarding the majority. Since he said that if the majority was seeded, i.e. more than Beis Sa'atayim, this implies that the minority is permitted even more than Beis Sa'atayim, i.e. because it is Batel to the majority, even to be lenient;

All the more so when the majority was seeded, even Beis Sa'atayim, we should say that [the minority] is Batel to the majority to be stringent!