Why not just like that?

On Shabbat 123: On the first day, they would say, “Three utensils are used on Shabbat: a craft of a dabla and a filth for the stern of a pot and a small knife on the table.” They allowed and repeated and allowed and repeated until they said, “All utensils are used on Shabbat except for the large spreader and the plowshare.” Why did they allow and repeated and allowed and repeated and allowed? Abaye said, “They allowed something whose use is permissible for the sake of his body.” And they allowed something whose use is permissible for the sake of his place. And they allowed something whose use is forbidden for the sake of his body. No, not yet in one hand. No, not in both hands. No. Until they said, “All utensils are used on Shabbat.” And even with two hands, Rava said to him, “What do I have for the sake of his body? What do I have for the sake of his place?” Rather, Rava said, “They allowed something whose use is permissible for either the sake of his body or the sake of his place.” And they allowed from a fire to a shadow. And they allowed something whose use is forbidden for the sake of his body and the sake of his place. No, not yet in one person. No, not in two people. No. Until they said all the utensils are used on Shabbat, even by two people. For some reason, it seems that both Abaye and Rava are reluctant to understand the intention of the baraita, they permitted and repeated and permitted as simple, meaning that they permitted additional utensils (according to the people’s firmness in the laws of Shabbat) and even more utensils until they permitted all of them except for the great and mighty message of a plow, since the baraita begins with types of utensils that were not prohibited from the beginning and ends with those that were not permitted in the end. It is therefore clear that even among them, additional utensils were listed for the public until they were all permitted. Although it is not clear that they listed all the types of utensils in this way, it is possible that they listed groups with identical characteristics, as Abaye and Rava suggested, but where did they get the understanding that they repeated and permitted, meaning a situation of a fire for a shadow, and not types of utensils as simple? In addition, I did not understand from Rava’s words that it seems that the reason he does not agree with Abaye is because from my side they permitted what is necessary for his body, what is necessary for his place. So why did he also disagree with him in explaining the end of the baraita, which according to Abaye, was permitted at the end of Also speak with both hands, but in Rava’s opinion, they allowed two people, which is not part of the aforementioned argument, and why did he refuse to accept his opinion on this?… I would be happy to answer.