Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We ask that] 100 is included in 200! (If we allow up to the larger Techum, this includes the smaller Techum.)

Question #1: What was the question? Surely we do not heed the smaller measure, rather, we go until the big measure!

Question #2: The answer "even to the place of the big measure" is awkward. We go specifically to the place of the big measure, and not even to the place of the big measure! (We do not heed the smaller measure at all.)

Explanation #2: "We go to the place of the big measure" connotes to [the Makshan] even if the place he [measured] small is on the other side of the same direction [as the big measure]. We extend the measure until it is even with the place of the big measure;

[The Makshan] is astounded. Granted, we go to the place of the big measure until where he marked [the end of the Techum], and we say that he properly marked it;

Also to the place of the small measure, we should say that he properly marked it. We should attribute [the difference] to swallowing, being Mekader and measuring well on a mountain that it slopes 10 amidst five. We should not attribute to error!

[The Gemara] answers [that we go] even to the place of the big measure, and all the more so we follow also the place of the small measure to be stringent.

Explanation #3: R. Chananel's text says "as long as it does not exceed the measure of the city and its diagonal." It does not say "on the diagonal", rather, "and its diagonal." The case is, he measured both from one side. It is unlike the Reisha.

Explanation: If the latter distanced the marker [of the Techum] more than the first [and it exceeded it] by the measure of the city and its diagonal, we should not say that he erred;

Rather, we say that the first made his marker short in the southwest corner, for at that time [it was a tiny city]. There were only two or three houses in the northeast corner, and he measured from there. This one measured [now] after the city was settled. (Obviously, we do not say so if we know that also the first marker was placed after the city was settled.)

Question: Even one witness is not believed, like a Beraisa teaches in Kesuvos (28a) "the following are believed to testify in adulthood about what they saw when they were minors - this is my father's handwriting, and until here we used to go on Shabbos";

The Gemara establishes this when there is [one who saw the testimony when he was] an adult with him. This implies that the adult by himself is not believed!

Answer #1: Also here we discuss when there is an adult [with the slave or Shifchah. The Gemara] was not particular to explain this here, since it already explained there.

Answer #2: "There is an adult with him" that it says there does not apply all [of the cases in the Beraisa].

Support: You are forced to say that it does not apply to "Ploni used to leave school to eat Terumah." We establish it to discuss Terumah mid'Rabanan, and an adult alone suffices, for we do not establish lineage based on [eating] Terumah mid'Rabanan. (If we established lineage based on Terumah mid'Rabanan, we would require proper testimony.)

Inference: If it were mid'Oraisa, they would not be believed.

Implied question: In practice, every day we believe women about Shechitah, Nikur (removing Chelev and the Gid ha'Nasheh from animals) and separating Chalah (which are mid'Oraisa)!

Answer: That is because it was b'Yadah (in her ability). Before Shechitah was done, it was b'Yadah to slaughter (so there is no reason for her to lie). Techumim is not b'Yadah at all.

Support: This is why a minor is believed more about Bedikas Chametz than about Techumim. He is not believed while he is a minor to say "we used to go until here [on Shabbos]." This is because [Techumim is not b'Yado, but] Bedikas Chametz is b'Yado.

Implied question: It says about Bedikas Chametz that Rabanan believed women and slaves about a mid'Rabanan law. (If one is Mevatel Chametz, Bedikah is only mid'Rabanan.) This implies that if it were mid'Oraisa, [Rabanan] would not believe them, even though it is b'Yado!

Answer: That is because Bedikas Chametz requires precision and great toil. Therefore, there is concern for laziness of women more than elsewhere.

Support: The Yerushalmi connotes like this. There is an opinion that women are not believed about Bedikas Chametz because they are lazy, and check only a drop.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): There do not enter there 600,000 every day. It is not considered Reshus ha'Rabim, for it is unlike the encampment in the Midbar.

It became of Rabim, i.e. residents were added, or they fixed markets. Then we are Me'arev all of it like initially. The Mavo'os do not need a Tikun, for they are like one Chatzer, e.g. there is no total Reshus ha'Rabim of 16 Amos;

If there is [a total Reshus ha'Rabim] in it, the Gemara explains the Tikun for it.

Support: All of this is from Rashi. He is correct. Surely our Mishnah does not discuss a total Reshus ha'Rabim, since it did not teach "Reshus ha'Rabim passes through it", like the Beraisa in the Gemara taught;

Our Mishnah is even like Rabanan, who argue with R. Yehudah's Tikun to be Me'arev Reshus ha'Rabim.

Remark: However, also [the Beraisa] in the Gemara does not discuss when it is 16 Amos wide, for R. Yehudah would not permit more than 13 and a third Amos through a Lechi or Korah [on each side], like we explained above (6b). Rather, we can say that a Reshus ha'Rabim that is not 16 Amos wide passes through it;

Rather, there is Reshus ha'Rabim 16 Amos wide on each side, and people go through the city from this [Reshus ha'Rabim] to the other, and even inside [the city] is Reshus ha'Rabim, where there are not 16 Amos, like between the pillars in Shabbos (7a), like I explained above (6b).

Question: According to Rabanan, they can be Me'arev also lengthwise half-way! They are Me'arev on one side each Mavuy by itself, and give all of Reshus ha'Rabim to the other side;

Now, the people of every Mavuy are permitted, each one in its place, and they do not forbid out of their place.

Answer: This is unlike two Chatzeros, one further inside than the other. The Regel (rights to walk through the outer Chatzer) of the inner Chatzer, which is permitted in its place, does not forbid out of its place, i.e. in the outer;

This is because they can close the door [between the Chatzeros] and carry [in its place] and abstain from using the outer. The primary use of the outer Chatzer was for the outer people;

However, here, even though each Mavuy is permitted in its place, Rabanan agree that they forbid Reshus ha'Rabim on the other side, for it is their place. Reshus ha'Rabim is for these, just like for these.

They may be Me'arev widthwise. Now we compare this to two Chatzeros, because these have Reshus ha'Rabim and an opening [to it], and also these have. The people who have this opening do not need to use the side of the other opening.

In the latter version, it says that they may not be Me'arev even widthwise, for they cannot abstain from Reshus ha'Rabim at all, even though they have a Reshus ha'Rabim corresponding to them.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [It will close the door and use its own area] and it will not have Drisas ha'Regel on (rights to walk through) the outer.

Observation: This is not precise. We are not concerned for Drisas ha'Regel. If we were, it would totally abstain from Reshus ha'Rabim, for it gets to Reshus ha'Rabim through the outer. We should not remove it from Reshus ha'Rabim, like we say here "can they remove Reshus ha'Rabim from here?!"

Explanation #2: [The Gemara means that] it will close to the door and not use the outer, and similarly making a small door below in our Sugya, refers to usage, but not to walking.

Explanation: Only the inner [Chatzer] closes the door to refrain from the outer, which is not its place. The outer is primarily for the people of the outer! However, Reshus ha'Rabim is for these, just like for these.

Remark: There was no need for Rashi to explain that Reshus ha'Rabim has no wall in the middle of its length, and not [even] a hint of a wall, to say "close the door and use [in its place]."

Explanation (Rashi): Since initially it was an individual's, and they were Me'arev all of it, and they were used to being one, they forbid on each other. Even if there is a Lechi or Korah for the Mavuy, it does not help.

Question (Ri): It says above (14b) that if one makes a Lechi for half a Mavuy, he has half a Mavuy. This shows that half a Mavuy is permitted by itself, even though they were used to being Me'arev the entire Mavuy together!

Answer: We can establish it when there are not Chatzeros open to the Mavuy from the Lechi and further [out].

Explanation #1: This is a Mechitzah four (some texts - 10) Tefachim [tall], like a ledge in front of the Mavuy.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): It is a low opening at the head of every Mavuy.

Support: It says below (89b) that if one built an Aliyah on his house and made a small Dakah in front of it, all the roofs are permitted. There, one can explain only that it is an expression of an opening.

Remark: However, below (61a) Rashi explained that Dakah is a Mechitzah.

Inference: Had he left a Shiyur for it, he would have done properly, and Abaye would not have asked anything.

Observation: This connotes like Rashi explained (59a DH Shel) in our Mishnah that [a city] of Rabim, and it is of Rabim, a Shiyur helps for it.

Support: It connotes like this also below (60a) regarding Mechuza. A Shiyur helps for it, even though it is of Rabim, like it connotes above (6b);

Also initially it was of Rabim. If it was an individual's, it would not need a Shiyur!

Implied question: Why did our Mishnah teach of Rabim, and it became of an individual (that one leaves a Shiyur? The same applies if it is still of Rabim!)

Answer: It teaches that even though it became of a Yachid, it requires a Shiyur.

Assertion: The text does not say Rabah bar Avuha, for Rav Nachman would not say about him "do not heed him", for he was [Rav Nachman's] Rebbi.

Observation: We could find that it has the law of a Mechitzah to be lenient also regarding a ladder between two Chatzeros, e.g. a ladder between two Chatzeros, e.g. he filled the opening between them with ladders. (Tosfos connotes that the ladders themselves get the law of a Mechitzah. Below (60a), we discuss ladders on a wall, and say only that they are not Mevatel the wall.)