Previous daf

1)

(a) In a case where Reuven established a Chazakah on the trees in Levi's field and Shimon on the land itself, Rav Z'vid ruled - that Reuven acquires the trees and Shimon, the field.

(b) We might have thought that this ruling will not apply to a case where three trees are involved - because, as we will learn in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah', someone who acquires three trees, generally acquires the land that is required to tend to them.

(c) In fact however, it does apply - because the ruling in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah' is confined to where Reuven alone purchases the trees from the owner, but not to where the latter sells the land to Shimon at the same time (since Shimon can claim, that just as he has no part in Reuven's trees, so too, does Reuven have no part in his field.

(a) Rav Papa objected to Rav Z'vid's ruling on the grounds - that, if that were so, and Reuven had no rights in the ground at all, then Shimon would be able to force him to cut down his tree and leave (and not plant another tree in its place).

(b) By that, he did not mean that Reuven would have to uproot the trees immediately, because, as we will learn later, as long as the tree is producing fruit, it will be permitted to remain, and Rav Papa's objection is pertained to the moment the tree died.

(c) *Rav Papa* therefore ruled - that Reuven was entitled to half the field (which means either half literally, or as much as the trees required to be tended to), besides the trees.

(d) And this ruling will apply even if Reuven bought only two trees (even assuming that he acquires literally half the land), even though someone who purchases two trees does not normally acquire the land (as he would if there were three) - because since Levi sold both the field and the trees, Reuven can claim that just as he sold Shimon the field liberally, so too, did he sell *him* the trees liberally.

(a) When we say that it is obvious that someone who sells his field leaving himself only his trees, that he also retains the Shiur of land that he needs to tend to them (and to replant new trees after the original ones have died) - we are talking even about two trees (because if it was three, then it would be obvious that he acquires the land too, no less than if he had sold three trees to someone else).

(b) When Rebbi Akiva says, with reference to someone who sells a pit in his field, that the seller sells generously, he means - that he does not even retain for himself a path to get to his pit.

(c) The difference between someone who sells a field, whether he holds back the trees or the pit is - that with regard to the former, due to the fact that trees weaken the ground, unless the seller safeguards himself by retaining some land together with the trees, the purchaser will eventually order him to cut down the trees (as we explained earlier); whereas in the latter case, where his pit does not pose a threat to the purchaser, Rebbi Akiva holds that he sells the land completely.

4)

(a) If someone sells three trees in his field, stipulating that that he leaves himself the land, everyone agrees that the purchaser is entitled to the necessary land to tend to the trees. If he sold him two trees instead of three - he would still be entitled to land according to Rebbi Akiva, but not according to the Rabbanan.

(b) Despite the fact that both Rav Z'vid and Rav Papa on the previous Amud (with regard to the case of two purchasers) expressed their opinions unanimously, in this case even Rav ...

1. ... Z'vid agree that, according to Rebbi Akiva, the purchaser is entitled to land - because when it comes to a single purchaser, he holds 'Mocher be'Ayin Yafah Mocher'.
2. ... Papa agree here, that according to the Rabbanan, the purchaser is not entitled to land - because in the case of a single purchaser, they hold 'Mocher be'Ayin Ra'ah Mocher'.

(a) When the Neherda'i say (with regard to the thirty trees in three Beis-Sa'ah) 'Achlan Retzufin, Ein Lo Chazakah', they mean - that, in the case of thirty trees in three Beis-Sa'ah that we discussed earlier, if for example, fifteen (more than ten) of those trees are growing in one of Beis-Sa'ah, then Reuven's Chazakah is not effective, because the trees are too squashed.

(b) Rava's problem with that from Aspasta (crops that are planted as animal fodder) which, like fifteen trees in a Beis-Sa'ah, grow tightly-packed together, is - that, according to the Neherda'i, one should not be able to establish a Chazakah on Aspasta either, yet we learned at the beginning of the Perek, that one can?

(c) Alternatively, neither would constitute a Chazakah according to Rava - since in both cases, precisely because they were growing so compactly together, they would eventually uproot the excess and replant it.

(d) The Neherda'i would counter Rava's Kashya - by differentiating between fifteen trees in a Beis-Sa'ah, which is not the normal way of planting trees, and Aspasta, which is normally planted that way.

(a) Rava therefore amends the Neherda'i's statement to read - that if Reuven sold Shimon fifteen trees in a Beis-Sa'ah, Shimon is not entitled to land.

(b) Rebbi Zeira points out that Rava's version of the statement is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im. In a Mishnah in Kil'ayim, Rebbi Shimon says that if the rows of trees in a vineyard are planted less than four Amos from each other, it is not a vineyard, meaning - that it is not subject to Kil'ayim, and that if the owner then plants seeds in between the rows, he neither receives Malkos for having contravened the La'av of "Lo Sizra Karmecha Kil'ayim", nor are they forbidden to eat.

(c) The Rabbanan - consider each alternate row as if it had been removed, in which case sowing seeds there would be considered Kil'ayim.

(d) Consequently, Rava's statement follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon. According to the Rabbanan - if Reuven sold Shimon fifteen trees in a Beis-Sa'ah, Shimon would indeed be entitled to land.