Suggestion: [The Makshan asks because] if a slave is like land, this is fine.

Rejection: In any case, we can ask "why does it say 'even'?"!

Explanation: Rather, [he asks because Rav Acha] does not distinguish between Metaltelim that move [by themselves] and Metaltelim that do not move.

Observation: Likewise, he could ask that if they are like Metaltelim, they should be sold even regarding a Chatzer.

Question: In the entire Gemara, Beis ha'Shelachin are Bagi, i.e. irrigated fields. Here, why do we change [the meaning of] Beis ha'Shelachin from every Beis ha'Shelachin in the Gemara?

Answer: It is obvious to the Gemara that there is no difference between Beis ha'Shelachin fields and Beis ha'Ba'al fields [which need not be irrigated] regarding a sale, but there is a difference between fields and gardens;

Therefore, [the Gemara] does not want to explain Beis ha'Shelachin like elsewhere, which connotes that it comes to exclude Beis ha'Ba'al fields.

Explanation: This is because the tree, which makes thick branches and sends thin branches, like it says "va'Ta'as Badim va'Teshalach Poros."

Implied question: We learn this from a Kal v'Chomer that fields are sold!

Answer: Since the first Tana holds that even fields are not sold, R. Shimon ben Gamliel should have specified well, and said that fields and the Bar Machavnisa (the guard of the city, or the mayor's slave who records property boundaries) are sold.

Support: Also the Tosefta (3:5) says so [like R. Chananel's text, that] R. Yehudah says that the Santar is sold, but Ankulmus is not sold.

R. Chananel's text (cont.): Is it not true that just like Ankulmus is a person (the scribe who records who paid the tax), also Santar is a person? No, they are different;

R. Chananel's text (cont.): Presumably, they are different, for the Seifa teaches [he did not sell Sheireha, i.e. Bizli. What are Bizli? They are pieces of fields (separated from the city). Pieces are not sold, but fields themselves are sold!

Explanation: Since he said but Sheireha are not sold, i.e. pieces of fields, this implies that above (the Reisha of the Beraisa) discusses fields;

[The Gemara] says do you think that R. Yehudah holds like R. Shimon [ben Gamliel] and teaches like him? You cannot say so, for R. Yehudah argues with him about the surrounding villages, and likewise he argues about the Santar!

Inference: The Santar that R. Shimon ben Gamliel discusses is the Shomer. This is difficult for the one who says that it is fields.

Note: In R. Chananel's text, R. Yehudah says that the Santar is sold. This refers to fields. R. Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that fields are sold! R. Shimon ben Gamliel must hold that Santar is the Shomer. The two opinions argued about the meaning of Santar in our Mishnah, i.e. in R. Shimon ben Gamliel's words.

Implied question: We can challenge the one who says that [Santar] is the Shomer. If so, there are two kinds of Santar. R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that it is a person, and R. Yehudah holds that it is fields!

Answer: [This is not difficult, for] in any case we must say that there are two kinds of Santar, like it says in Gitin (80b) "even if he wrote [the date in the Get] according to the Santar of the city, she is divorced;

In Bereishis Rabah (16) it says "she married the Santar of the city", and in the Tosefta of Bava Metzi'a it says "if a Nochri made a Yisrael an overseer or Santar" (one may borrow from him with Ribis, for it is known that it is the Nochri's money).

Conclusion: All of these connote that Santar is a person, and according to R. Yehudah [we proved above] that it is fields!