Explanation (Rashi): It was a city of Rabim, and became an individual's.

Explanation: Rashi does not come to exclude if it is still of Rabim. (The law is the same.) Rather, he excludes an individual's city that became of Rabim. (Then, no Shiyur is needed.)

Explanation: [The storage area was] with the Shiyur of three Chatzeros, each of which has two houses. The Halachah follows R. Shimon. (Ohr Zaru'a says that the storage area counted like one of the houses. It had a residence (Talmid ha'Rashba).

Explanation: Had he obligated them to make windows, they would have destroyed (i.e. weakened) their houses needlessly.

Reference: [The city Chadashah] is written in Sefer Yehoshua, in the inheritance of Yehudah.

Explanation: [Abaye asked] whether it was a tradition from a Tana...

Or, he said so from his own reasoning, that it seems so, even though no Tana holds like this. He did not come to give a ruling, just [said that] it seems so.

[Rav Yosef responded] what difference does it make? I.e. above we rule like R. Shimon. (In any case the Halachah does not follow R. Yitzchak!)

[Abaye] answered "do we learn teachings [like a song, without concern for understanding them]?!" In any case we should investigate to know if it was a tradition, or reasoning!

Question: According to Rabanan, who say above (45a) that if one slept on the road, he has eight Amos by eight Amos, and presumably, the same applies to one who places an Eruv, since we hold that one who places an Eruv has four Amos [in addition to 2000 Amos], like one who was Shoves, he gains four Amos!

If he put his Eruv to the east of the city four Amos outside the Ibur of the city, he may go to the east 2008 Amos [from the city] and to the west 2000, less four Amos, which the city is considered for him. (In all, he gets 4004 Amos outside the city in the two directions. Without an Eruv, the city is considered his four Amos, so he has 2000 in every direction.)

Answer: According to R. Eliezer, who says that he is in the middle [of his four Amos], or according to R. Yehudah, who says that he selects four Amos in any direction he wants, what he gains he loses;

He gains four Amos in the place of the Eruv, and loses four Amos of the city. We count the city like four Amos for him.

Question: According to Rami bar Chama, who was unsure above (52a) whether one who places an Eruv has four Amos, he should resolve from here [that he does], for if not, he loses more than he gains!

If he puts his Eruv four Amos outside the Ibur of the city on the east, he gains four Amos to the east and loses eight Amos to the west, for we count for him [towards what he may go to the west] four Amos outside the Ibur of the city, and the city counts like four Amos!

Answer (Ri): According to Rami bar Chama, if one who puts an Eruv does not have four Amos, also the city, if it is swallowed within the Techum of the Eruv, it is considered like Mashehu, and he does not lose anything in the extent of the city;

We say below (61a) that one who puts his Eruv in the city or in a cave with residents, he has 2000 outside it;

Question: Why does he have a full 2000, since [the city or cave] is considered like four Amos, and we will say that one who puts an Eruv does not have four Amos? (Rami should have inferred that one who puts an Eruv has four Amos!)

Answer: Rather, surely he holds that if he does not have four Amos, the city is considered like Mashehu.

Question: According to R. Eliezer, who says that he is in the middle, when he put his Eruv in the last Amah of the Ibur of the city to the east, he should have to the east 2002 Amos, and to the west 2000 less two Amos, and the city counts for him like four Amos!

For the Eruv he gives two Amos. The second two Amos of the city count towards the count of 2000. Why did the Mishnah say that one who places an Eruv in the Ibur of the city did not do anything?

Answer: When he stands within Mechitzos or in a place that is considered like four Amos, there is no difference between standing in the middle and standing at the end. Even if he stands at the end, it is as if he stands in the middle, and we do not give to him [for his four Amos] anything outside.

Source: If one was taken outside the Techum and put in a Dir or Sahar, he may walk in all of it, but not outside, even if he stands (was put) at the end.

Explanation (Ri): Wherever it says "these are only words of prophecy", it is a praise. I.e. there is no Chachmah like this, who understands to distinguish so much through a small reasoning, and he said it with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

Source: It connotes like this in Bava Basra (12a) regarding "I sell to you a portion in a vineyard. Sumchus says, he may not give less than [the area to sow] three Kavim. R. Yosi says, these are only words of prophecy."

[The Gemara] brings regarding this that from the day of Churban Beis ha'Mikdash, prophecy was taken from Nevi'im and given to Chachamim. This connotes that [R. Yosi] said so to praise [Sumchus].

Support: In Bechoros (45a), we find that [a teaching] is called prophetic in a non-praiseworthy way, it does not say like this, rather, "they made their words like words of prophecy", i.e. to say them without a reason;

[Rav taught that if an extra finger has a bone but not a nail, it has Tum'as Maga and Masa, but not Ohel. R. Yochanan] asked if it is an Ever, it should be Metamei also b'Ohel! (If it is not an Ever, it should not have Tum'as Masa or Maga!)

Explanation (cont.): Also here it is a praise, like in Bava Basra. Rava says that Mishnayos teach both of these. What is the Chidush of R. Yehoshua ben Levi?

We conclude that R. Yehoshua ben Levi needed to teach about the end of the city. The Mishnah did not teach about this.

Suggestion: Perhaps Rav Idi called them words of prophecy to say that it is unreasonable to distinguish like this, and Rava said that Mishnayos teach both of them, and R. Yehoshua ben Levi properly distinguishes.

Implied question: In Chulin (71b), regarding Rabah's teaching "just like enveloped Tum'ah [is not Metamei, enveloped Taharah does not become Tamei", Rava] said "Mishnayos teach both of them." There, it means "what is Rabah's Chidush?", for he answers "Rabah discusses when he swallowed two rings"!

Answer: In any case, we find also in Avodah Zarah (34b) "Mishnayos teach both of these" which is not a question "what is the Chidush?", rather, it is a support for Rav's teaching that if one was Mekadesh with Peresh (internal excrement) of a Shor ha'Niskal (an ox sentenced to be stoned, which is Asur b'Hana'ah, she is Mekudeshes).

Rejection: In any case, here it connotes that Rava comes to ask "what is R. Yehoshua ben Levi's Chidush?", since we conclude that he needed to teach about the end of the city. The Mishnah did not teach about this.

Defense #1 (of suggestion): The Rashbam's text does not say "he needed to teach", rather, "the end of the city was not taught." (The Mishnah does not defend R. Yehoshua ben Levi from Rav Idi's question.)

Rebuttal #1 (of Defense #1): It is difficult to erase [the text in] Seforim.

Rebuttal #2: We cannot say that Rav Idi does not hold like R. Yehoshua ben Levi, for we can resolve our Mishnah and the Beraisa only like R. Yehoshua, like we said above.

Rebuttal (of Rejection #2 - Mahari): Our Mishnah and Beraisa discuss one who lodged in the city. Therefore, when his measure (2000 Amos) finishes at the end of the city, the entire city is considered for him like four Amos towards the count of 2000;

Source: Even if his measure finished in the middle of the city, when he lodged in it, it is considered for him like four Amos to walk in all of it, like it connotes below (73a);

It says that one who puts his Eruv at the end of 2000, and came and lodged in his house [we measure from the Eruv]. This shows that when he lodged in it, even if his 2000 finish at the beginning of the city, the entire city becomes like four Amos.

Also above (38b), it says "do you think that he put it at the end of 2000 [from the city] in this direction [and in this]?" Rashi explained that the entire city becomes like four Amos for him, since he lodged in it;

Rebuttal (cont.): Rav Idi was astounded only at R. Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that even if one measures [his 2000 Amos], when his measure finishes at the end of the city, the entire city becomes like four Amos for him;

This is why he was astounded, for when his measure finishes in the middle of the city, he has only half the city. It does not become like four Amos for him, even to walk in the entire city;

Also when [his measure] finishes at the end of the city, the entire city should not become like four Amos, to complete [his 2000 Amos outside it].

Support: Now it is fine what [the Gemara] asked above "[does he lose only] what he gained, and no more? A Beraisa says...", and it did not ask from our Mishnah (61a), which taught "for one who measures, they said [that he gets 2000 Amos, even if his measure finishes at the end of the city]";

Regarding one who measures, it knew that we can distinguish between when his measure finishes in the middle of the city, and when it finishes at the end of the city. Therefore it asks from [the Beraisa of] one who put [his Eruv], for he lodged in [the city];

It answers that also when he lodged in it, we can distinguish. When his measure finished in the middle of the city, granted, it becomes for him like four Amos, that he may walk in all of the city, [but] to be able to leave to the other side of the city, it does not become like four Amos.

Rebuttal (of Rejection (f), and Defense #2 of Suggestion (e)): Also according to texts that say "he (R. Yehoshua ben Levi) needed to teach about the end of the city, which the Mishnah did not teach", it is fine. (We can say that Rav Idi challenged R. Yehoshua ben Levi);

Even though the Mishnah teaches also the end of the city - if not, the Mishnah contradicts the Beraisa, like we asked above - in any case, we needed [R. Yehoshua to teach about] one who measures, for we do not learn this from our Mishnah, like I explained. (It seems that Tosfos explains like the Ritva (61a). Rav Idi challenged R. Yehoshua, and Rava said that the Mishnah proves like R. Yehoshua. Just the contrary, it is difficult what is R. Yehoshua's Chidush! The Gemara answers the need for his teaching. Alternatively, Rav Idi asked that R. Yehoshua has no source to distinguish. Rava said that the Mishnah distinguishes like this. Rav Idi answers that it distinguishes for one who lodged in the city. R. Yehoshua needs a source to distinguish for one who lodged outside the city, which the Mishnah did not teach.)