Implied question: It says above (20b) "we may be Oves a camel." (This implies that it need not be for the need of man!)

Answer #1: Also this refers to something proper for man.

Answer #2: It discusses in Reshus ha'Yachid, and not between the Pasim.

Answer #3: Since the initial Tikun [of Pasei Bira'os] was for something proper for man, it is permitted for every need of animals.

Question: Why do we require something proper for man, since it was permitted for the sake of animals?

Answer: If he drew for the sake of animals, and [water] was left over, it is permitted to man.

Implied question: It says below "if they were wide, it is permitted also for man.

Answer #1: That means that l'Chatchilah, one may draw for the need of man.

Answer #2: We say that they were permitted only for the need of animals, i.e. the initial Tikun. However, once it was enacted for the need of animals, it is permitted even for the need of man.

If the wells are wide (one cannot spread his limbs from one side to the other and climb down), it is permitted even for the need of people.

Support: It is fine that it says above that if the end of a Chatzer enters between the Pasim, one may move from it (the Chatzer) to between the Pasim, and from between the Pasim to it. Now, this is even for the need of man.

Question: It helps for when he holds the Kli and holds it (the animal). We said above that this is permitted. The Beraisa discusses when he does not hold it, like is proven above!

Answer #1: Rav Anan understands "one may not fill" even when he holds the Kli and holds it.

Answer #2: He holds that when he holds the Kli and holds it, we do not require Roshah v'Rubah.

Inference: Small villages are called Masvasa. Since they were not known, this connotes that they were small;

Observation: In Gitin (7a), it calls big cities Masvasa! We say "[the verse] lists Masvasa of Eretz Yisrael" regarding Kinah, Dimunah and Ad'adah"!

Consequence: Therefore, one need not object about writing in a Get "Masa (city) Ploni", whether it is a big city or a small city.

Disclaimer: However, Rashi explained here that Masvasa are ruined cities. According to this, there is no proof (that small cities are called Masvasa). Perhaps they were big, and because they were ruined, they were not known.

Implied question: In the Piyut "Az Ra'isa v'Safarta", R. Eliezer ha'Kalir wrote "it extends 2,400 [times as much as] the world"!

Answer: This is because he says that a Zeres is a third of an Amah, like he wrote "veha'Zeres Moteches Ad Shenayim b'Sit", and a Tefach is four fingers.

Observation: According to the calculation of our Sugya, a Zeres is a half Amah, and every [square] Amah, when you divide it in two lengthwise and widthwise, has four [square] Zeretos.

Question #1: According to his calculation, he should have divided a [square] Amah into nine parts, and then there will be a Zeres by a Zeres in each, for the world is a Zeres by a Zeres, and then [the size of the Torah] will be [60 by 120, i.e.] 7,200 [times bigger than the world]! He [R. Eliezer ha'Kalir] makes the world a Zeres by an Amah. What is his source?

Note: Tosfos (Chagigah 13a DH v'Raglei) says that R. Eliezer ha'Kalir was a Tana (the son of R. Shimon), and he often argues with the Bavli.

Question #2: He holds that "v'Chol ba'Shelish Afar ha'Aretz" (later in the verse "Mi Madad..." is a third of an Amah, and he himself wrote [in a Piyut] 'Gei v'Chol Afarah bi'Tzredah Hachilu.'

Inference: The third finger, i.e. the [middle] finger called Amah, he calls Tzredah, and he wanted to explain that "v'Chol ba'Shelish" refers to the third finger;

Summation of question: In Yoma (19b), it calls Tzredah the finger next to the thumb. [The word] Tzredah [stands for] Tzarah d'Da (the rival of this, i.e.), of the thumb!

Implied question: Why weren't they given as a tradition from Sinai?

Answer: This was lest they be forgotten. (R E.M. Horowitz - if they were traditions from Sinai, one would be punished for forgetting them. Ya'avetz - many Halachos were forgotten in the Aveilus over Moshe, and were not returned. What is expounded, even if it is forgotten, it can be returned through expounding - Mahartz Chayos.)

Implied question: In Bava Kama (17a) it says that an [army] encampment is exempt from four matters. Washing the hands is one of them. All the more so in a case of danger [one is exempt]!

Answer: R. Akiva was stringent on himself.

Implied question: He enacted also Sheniyos (Arayos mid'Rabanan), like it says in Yevamos (21a)!

Answer: It is not mentioned here because he did not enact them at the same time (as Eruvin and Netilas Yadayim). He enacted [Sheniyos] after the Bas Kol;

Since it says "Izen v'Chiker Tiken Meshalim Harbeh", also this connotes that he made many enactments [but here it lists only two].