Question: This is a Stam Mishnah followed by an argument, and it says in Yevamos (42b) that [in such a case] the Halachah does not [necessarily] follow the Stam!

Suggestion: At least the Stam is considered like a Rabim against an individual (so R. Yochanan should follow it).

Rejection: Here this does not affect anything, for even without this, Rabanan argue with [R. Shimon].

Answer (R. A. Kohen): The primary question against R. Yochanan is only that he did not decree, and in this matter it is an argument followed by a Stam;

The argument is about three Chatzeros (above, 45b), and the Stam is above (76b). However, here they do not argue about a decree.

Explanation: Because we discuss when one was Me'arev and one was not Me'arev, it used this expression;

Likewise, [the Gemara] could have said "why don't we give a Chatzer that was Me'arev to one that was Me'arev?"

Rashi explained well. (We ask that the one that was Me'arev should be allowed to use the one that was not Me'arev.)

Question: According to this version, it is difficult what it says above (74a) that R. Yochanan said even to the ruin, and R. Yochanan teaches like he taught elsewhere;

He does not decree lest one take Kelim of the house to the Chatzer. Also here, he does not decree lest one take Kelim of the house to the ruin.

Why is this called "like he taught elsewhere"? Even Rav, who decrees [lest one take Kelim of the house to the Chatzer], does not decree here about a ruin!

Explanation: This is like the first version of Rav Yosef above (89b. When there are Diyurin on both roofs, we do not say Gud Asik, for the Rabim trample over the [projected] Mechitzah.)

Assertion: According to the opinion that Nir'eh miba'Chutz v'Shavah mibi'Fnim is considered a Lechi (9b) and an opening, we discuss when the walls of the small [field] enter the big. (If not, it is as if there is a wall between them, and one may seed the small. Maharshal - the Gemara did not explicitly say that it is considered also an opening, but this is proven from the Gemara there.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): When the Zera'im grow, even though the residents of the big are [considered to be] in the small, they do not forbid the vines;

Source (Menachos 15a): An episode occurred in which one seeded another's vineyard, and Chachamim forbade the Zera'im and permitted the vines. What is the reason? The Torah forbids [Kilai ha'Kerem] only with hemp and Luf (legumes whose seeds do not degenerate. Alternatively, they grow on clusters, like grapes.) Other species are mid'Rabanan. They fined only the one who transgressed;

Also here, since when he seeded the big, this was permitted, even if both [fields] are his, we should not fine him.

Consequence: According to this, here we discuss other species (not hemp and Luf).

Objection: Why may one leave the Zera'im when they grow, since residents of the big are in the small (it is as if they grow amidst the vines)? Even if [other species] grew by themselves [amidst the vines], a Mishnah (Kil'ayim 5:6) teaches that if one was passing through a vineyard and saw Yerek in his vineyard, and said "when I return, I will uproot it", if they grew one part in 200 [of their volume from when he saw this until he uprooted them], it is forbidden, since he diverted his mind from uprooting them;

You are forced to say that the Gemara in Menachos discusses when the owner of the vineyard did not know that the Zera'im are in his vineyard!

Explanation #2 (Ri): The reason in our Sugya is because the name of the big is on the small, but the name of the small is not on the big;

Therefore, when vines are in the big, [also] the small is called a vineyard, and even though there are no vines in the small, one may not seed it, for the Torah was adamant about what is called a vineyard - "Lo Sizra Karmecha Kil'ayim";

However, when vines are in the small, one may seed the big, even though when he seeds it the small will be called a field, we are not concerned, for the Torah was not adamant about what is called a field, for it did not write "Sadcha Lo Sita Kerem", which would connote that it is adamant about what is called a field.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): She owns both of them. [She is divorced only if she was standing in the big], for there is an opinion in Gitin (77b) that the Mishnah of one who threw a Get to his wife, and she is in her house or in her Chatzer, she is divorced, is only if she is standing in it at that time, but not if she is not standing in it, even though it is hers.

Consequence: It says there in the Gemara that this is when she stands at the side of her house, it does not mean next to her house, rather, truly in her house, like the Mishnah teaches "in her house";

Source: Here we say that if she is in the small and the Get is in the big, she is not divorced, even though she stands next to the big!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Here we discuss when [others] lent to the woman one Chatzer, and we say that when they lent to her the big, her name is also on the small;

If she is in the small, i.e. they lent to her the small, her name is not on the big due to this.

Explanation: This is only if an individual is in the small, but if five are in the small and five are in the big, they do not join;

The Seifa taught when nine are in the small. The same applies when five are in the small. It said so for parallel structure with the Reisha.

Implied question: A Mishnah in Pesachim (85b) says that from the Agaf (where the door rests when it is closed) and inside is considered inside. From the Agaf and outside is considered outside. In the Gemara there, Rav taught that the same applies to prayer. R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught that even an iron wall cannot separate between Yisrael and Hash-m. (The Gemara says that they argue);

Inference: They argue about joining, for to be Yotzei [through a Shali'ach Tzibur], Rav agrees that he is Yotzei even outside the Beis ha'Keneses, like a Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah (27b) "if one was passing outside a Beis ha'Keneses and heard a Shofar or Megilah, if he had intent, he was Yotzei."

If so, the Sugya here is like Rav, and in Sotah (38b) it connotes that we hold like R. Yehoshua ben Levi regarding people in back of the Kohanim (when they give Birkas Kohanim). The Stam Gemara brings R. Yehoshua ben Levi's teaching!

Answer: Regarding joining, R. Yehoshua ben Levi agrees that they do not join, like we say here. They argue about answering to Kedushah or Borchu. We hold in Megilah that no Davar shebi'Kedushah may be said with less than 10 [men];

Rav holds that from the Agaf and outside, he cannot answer. He is not included in the Tzibur inside;

R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds that even an iron wall cannot separate. He is included in the Tzibur inside for answering to Birkas Kohanim.

Explanation #1: We ask from the Gifufim (walls to the sides of the opening) of the big one, like Rashi explained;

If there were not Gifufim to the side of the small, rather, he evened the Gifufim (to make the big Chatzer as narrow as the small, like the picture in Rashi), both would be one Chatzer. He distances four Amos, and seeds, if there are 12 Amos between the vineyard and the wall, like the law of Mechul (a fallow area between a wall and) ha'Kerem;

Now that there are Gifufim, and it is more proper to divide through them, it is worse, and it is forbidden to seed the small, even if it is 100 Amos, like the words connote "because it is like an opening of the big." It is as if it is in the opening.

Implied question: Why does he ask only from the wall of the big, but he does not want to ask from the wall of the small?

[He could have asked that] if there are no walls at all of the small, there is no need to distance, rather, he sows next to the big, for the opening is like a Mechitzah. Now [that there are walls of the small], it is forbidden through walls of the small!

Answer: This is not astounding, for when there are no walls of the small, the Gifufim are seen. Due to the walls of the small, the Gifufim of the big are not evident. This is removal of Mechitzos.

Question (Ri): Seemingly, it is logical not to forbid in the small, which is breached to the big, more than if it were within the wall of the big. He would distance four Amos and sow, like the law of Mechul ha'Kerem, when there are 12 Amos between the vineyard and the wall;

This that we equate it to an opening of the big, this is to make the small as if it is within the walls of the big, so he may not sow there unless he distances four Amos;

However, to be more stringent than the law would be within the walls of the big, seemingly, it is not logical!

Explanation #2: We find that a Mechitzah forbids. If there were no wall of the big at all, he would distance four Amos in the small and sow, even if there are not 12 Amos from the vineyard on the outside to the side of the wall outside the small;

This is unlike Mechul ha'Kerem, for there also the vineyard is surrounded by Mechitzos. Therefore, 12 Amos are needed;

However, here there is no wall around the vineyard. The wall of the small does not pertain to the vineyard, so 12 Amos are not needed;

Now that there are walls of the big, 12 Amos are needed, like the law of Mechul ha'Kerem.

Rejection (Ri): It is impossible to explain so, for if so, why does he ask below from Mechul ha'Kerem? We are discussing Mechul ha'Kerem now, for if there is no wall, there is no law of Mechul ha'Kerem, and if there is a wall, the law of Mechul ha'Kerem applies!

Conclusion: Rashi's explanation is primary.

Correction: R. Tam changed the text to say Rabah, for Rabah, R. Zeira and Rabah bar Rav Nasan were sitting, and all three deduced from our Mishnah "this teaches that residents...", and Abaye questioned their inference, and each one came to defend his words, that we find a Mechitzah to be stringent.

Disclaimer: It seems a little that the text should say Rava, since he said afterwards "according to me, it is Kosher. According to you, it is removal of Mechitzos", and Rava and Abaye argue about this in Sukah (18a), for it mentions him after Abaye. (This shows that the text there is Rava, and not Rabah. Normally, the Gemara cites Rabah before Abaye, and Abaye before Rava, like the order in which they became Rosh Yeshivah.) Also below (95a) this is brought.

Conclusion Still, it seems that R. Tam's change of text is correct. (Tosfos ha'Rosh - we must say that Abaye heard that Rabah holds Rava, therefore he asked him.)