Question: He should learn [the Gezeirah Shavah] from R. Akiva, for it was a tradition from [R. Akiva's] Rebbi!

Answer (R. Tam): They had a tradition for the number of Gezeirah Shavos in the entire Torah. This was over the number (R. Yehudah already had traditions for the entire number). Therefore, he did not accept it.

Question (R. Pores): What is the source that [Rebbi] obligates for a Toldah bi'Mkom Av? Perhaps he obligates twice when he found out (about one), and later found out, according to the argument of R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish? (71a. R. Yochanan holds that Yedi'os divide. Reish Lakish holds that Kaparah divides, i.e. after he atoned, he found out about the other.) He is liable [twice] even if he was Motzi and Motzi in one Helam!

Answer (Ri): If so, Rav Yehudah would not teach us any Chidush that he is liable twice. You are forced to say that he teaches that Rebbi obligates for a Toldah bi'Mkom Av.

Question: According to the Havah Amina that R. Yehudah's reason is because he obligates for a Toldah bi'Mkom Av, why did he mention Shovet (evening the warp threads) and Medakdek (hitting the woof so it will not be too taut) more [than other Toldos]?

Answer #1: We can say that he thought that also Rabanan obligate for a Toldah bi'Mkom Av. [Rabanan] argue only about Shovet and Medakdek, and say that these are not Toldos, rather, these are literally Meisach and weaving.

Answer #2: Rabanan do not obligate for a Toldah bi'Mkom Av. They address R. Yehudah according to his reasoning. (Granted, you argue with us about Toldah bi'Mkom Av. You should agree that Shovet and Medakdek are not Toldos!)

Question: The wording is unclear. It connotes that this is not the conclusion, but this is not true. Also in the conclusion, which explains that R. Yehudah considers them Avos, we discuss that he did them together;

If he did each by itself, like the text in many Seforim says, Rabanan would not argue with him. They would obligate due to a Toldah!

Answer (Ri): We need not change the text in Seforim. The text properly says so. It means as follows. Really, he did each by itself. They argue about Mezid, and regarding warning. According to R. Yehudah, one must warn him for Shovet and Medakdek, and according to Rabanan, for Meisach and weaving.

Implied question: We could have rejected and said that he did both together, and R. Yehudah holds that these are Avos!

Answer: [The Tartzan] prefers to reject that he did each by itself, for now you are forced to say that R. Yehudah's reason is not because he is Mechayev for Toldah bi'Mkom Av, rather, because they are Avos.

Observation: This obvious assertion is not upheld, like we conclude (one cannot write Shimon without writing Shem, but one can throw eight Amos without Hanachah after four Amos).

Also Ravina, who asked Rav Ashi about Rav Yehudah's words, that if he wants the object [to rest] 'here' (where it actually rested) he does not need it 'there' (where it first entered Reshus ha'Rabim), holds that it is unlike writing Shem from Shimon;

If it were similar, he did not ask anything, for if he wants it to rest at the end of four Amos, when it rests at the beginning of Reshus ha'Rabim through Kelutah [k'Mi she'Hunchah], this is like writing Shem from Shimon. When it goes another four Amos, he should be liable for them, for his initial intent was done!

Support: This is why the Gemara says "this is like Ravina said to Rav Ashi." It should not have brought Ravina's words (rather, only Rav Ashi's answer);

Rather, [it brought Ravina's words] because it wants to refute what was initially obvious [to the Stam Gemara, that if he wanted to throw eight and it went four, he is liable, for it is as if] he wrote Shem from Shimon.

Alternative text: Also if the text says "what is the reason? He wrote Shem from Shimon!", this is fine, just [according to that text] it is a question.

Alternative text: According to texts that say "it was taught...", [the Gemara] asks according to what it initially thought.