Previous daf

1)

(a) We interpret 'stones that the field needs' as Avni de'Achpa - which are stones that they would place on top of the corn (after it was spread out in the field to dry, to prevent it from being blown away by the wind.

(b) Ula interprets it to mean - stones that have been neatly arranged, ready to build a wall.

(c) Ula amends the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya 'Avanim Tzevuros le'Geder' (implying that the stones do not need to be neatly arranged) - to read 'Avanim he'Seduros le'Binyan'.

(a) Rebbi Meir (in the next Perek) rules that the accessories of a vineyard are sold together with the vineyard.

(b) Based on the fact that Rebbi Meir includes even those accessories that are not an intrinsically part of the vineyard, and that the Rabbanan disagree with him in this issue - Rebbi Meir will establish Avni de'Achpi by stones that have been smoothened, even though they are lying outside the field, whereas according to the Rabbanan, they must be lying in the field too.

(c) Ula, who interprets Avanim as 'Avanim ha'Seduros le'Geder' - says this according to the Rabbanan; according to Rebbi Meir, the stones to not need to be neatly stacked (but it will suffice for them to have been cut to shape).

(d) When earlier in the Perek, we established Rebbi Meir by things that are fixed, we meant (not fixed to the ground, which is not necessary, as we see here, but) - that they are permanently designated for that purpose, and do not stand to be lent out or rented to anybody else.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the sale of the field includes the canes that support the vines. The Tana is talking about canes that are forked on top, so that a vine- branch can be held aloft the fork (to prevent the clusters of grapes from dragging on the ground), and that have been sharpened to a point at the other hand, to stick into the ground.

(b) Rebbi Meir will establish this - even when the cane has not yet been stuck vertically into the ground, whereas the Rabbanan speak - when it has.

(c) We also learned that the produce that is still attached to the ground is sold too. We need to add that the produce is ready to harvest - because otherwise, it is obvious that the purchaser never intended the seller to enter his field and tend to his corn in the middle of harvest season.

(d) And the Chidush is - that we do not apply here the principle that whatever is ready to harvest is considered as if it had already been harvested (in which case, it would not be sold).

(a) Our Mishnah includes a bunch of growing canes in the sale provided it grows in an area of less that a Beis Rova - even if the canes are thick.

(b) When the Tana inserts a hunter's hut that is not made with cement with the things that are sold, his Chidush is - that it is included even though it is not attached to the ground (because the fact that it is made with cement makes it Chashuv).

(c) And when he includes Ch'ruv she'Eino Murkav and Besulas ha'Shikmah in the sale, he us referring - even to thick ones.

(a) We establish 'stones that are not needed for the field' ...

1. ... assuming them to be 'Avni de'Achpa' - when they have have not even been smoothened according to Rebbi Meir, and when they are not lying in the field (even though they have been smoothened), according to the Rabbanan.
2. ... asuming them to be 'Avanim ha'Duros le'Geder' - when they have not even been cut to shape, according to Rebbi Meir, and when they have not been neatly stacked according to the Rabbanan (even though they have been cut to shape).

(b) We establish 'canes that are not needed for the vines', according to Rebbi Meir - when they have not even been sharpened to stick into the ground, and according to the Rabbanan even if they have - only they have not yet been stuck into the ground.

(c) And we establish 've'Lo es ...

1. ... ha'Tevu'ah ha'Telushah min ha'Karka' - when the sheaves still need the ground (to perfect their aroma and to dry completely). Otherwise, this Halachah would be obvious.
2. ... Chitzas ha'Kanim she'Hi Beis Rova' - even by thin canes.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules that a small row of spices 'that has a name by itself' - has the same Din as a bundle of canes that is growing in an area of a Beis Rova or more (and is therefore not sold together with the field).

(b) Rav Papa interprets Rebbi Yochanan's qualification to mean - that the row is known as 'so-and-so's row of roses'.

(c) 've'Lo es ha'Shomirah ha'Asuyah be'Tit' applies - even if the hut is also fixed to the ground (since that does not negate its Chashivus).

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked - whether a door-frame is sold together with the house (see Tosfos).

(b) His She'eilah was restricted - to a door-frame that is merely screwed to the wall (because if it was cemented, it would be obvious that it is).

(c) Rebbi Zeira asked the same She'eilah concerning window-frames - assuming that in the previous She'eilah the frames *are* in fact sold. Perhaps, he thought, window-frames are worse in this regard - because their function is only one of looks, rather than of practical use.

(d) Rebbi Zeira, like Rebbi Elazar - qualified his She'eilah. He too, took for granted that a frame that is cemented is included in the sale, and restricted his She'eilah to one that is merely screwed).

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah posed the same She'eilah with regards to 'Milbenos ha'Mitah' - which are blocks of wood that they would place underneath the legs of the bed to prevent them from rotting in the ground.

(b) In the previous two She'eilos, Rebbi Yirmiyah assumed - that both of the frames are included in the sale, because they are fixed to the wall, and his She'eilah was - whether the blocks of wood underneath the bed-posts are included too, even though they are not fixed to the bed.

(c) Consequently, he would agree that, assuming that the blocks of wood are fixed to the legs of the bed - they too, will be sold.

(d) The outcome of all three She'eilos is - Teiku'.

9)

(a) When the Tana says 've'Lo es Ch'ruv ha'Murkav ve'Lo Sadan ha'Shikmah' - the trunk does not need to be a thick one.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "va'Yakam S'dei Efron Asher ba'Machpeilah, ha'Sadeh ve'ha'Me'arah ... ve'Chol ha'Eitz Asher ba'Sadeh - that someone who sells a field, automatically sells all the trees in the field, too.
2. ... "Asher be'Chol Gevulo" - that only things whose borders need to be defined are sold, but not things whose ownership are well-known to all (such as 'Ch'ruv ha'Murkav ve'Sadan ha'Shikmah'), which are precluded from the sale even if the seller specifically declares 'Kol Mah she'be'Tochah'.

(c) This latter Halachah can be compared - to someone who sells two fields, who has not sold the field in the middle, even if he adds 'Kol Mah she'be'Tochan'.

(d) Rav Mesharshaya learns from the word "Saviv" - that the purchaser automatically acquires the borders of the field together with the field.

(a) Rav Yehudah requires someone who sells a field to insert in the Sh'tar that he is selling 'Diklin, Ta'alin, Hutzin ve'Tzinin'. Diklin are tall date-palms (see Mesores ha'Shas) ...

1. ... 'Ta'alin' - are other tall trees.
2. ... 'Hutzin' - are other young trees
3. ... 'Tzinin' - are young date-palms.

(b) Despite the fact that the sale is valid whether the seller complies with this ruling or not, the point of inserting all this in the Sh'tar is - to reinforce his rights, should the purchaser land in a Beis-Din who are not fully conversant with the Halachah, and rquire everything to be spelt out in blach on white.

(a) If Reuven wrote in the Sh'tar of sale 'Ar'a ve'Dikli', then he is obligated to give him the field plus two date-palms. In the event that ...

1. ... he does not own any date-palms - he is obligated to purchase them.
2. ... the date-palms that he owns are Meshubad to his creditor - he should redeem them (by paying his debt in cash).

(b) If Reuven stipulated that he would sell Shimon 'Ar'a be'Dikli', then he must give him the field with the date-palms that grow in it. Should the field that he agreed to sell him does not contain any date-palms - then the sale is invalid.

(c) If he says 'Ar'a bei Dike' - he means a field that is fit to grow date-palms.

(d) If the field that he sells him ...

1. ... does not contain date-palms - he gives it to him as is.
2. ... contains date-palms - then he must give him the palms as well.

(a) If Reuven specifically precludes a specific date-palm from the sale, which turns out to be ...

1. ... a good-quality tree - then he obviously meant to retain at least one good tree for himself (even if it is not the best tree in he field).
2. ... a bad tree (one that does not produce a crop of at least a Kav of dates) - then he certainly meant to hold back other bad-quality trees too ...

(b) ... though not worse-quality palms than the one that he designated.

(c) If Reuven stipulated 'le'Bar me'Ilni', then he precludes all trees that are called 'Ilni' - but not date-palms and vines, which are not generally called 'Ilni'.

(d) But if he owns ...

1. ... only date-palms or vines - then it is obvious that he meant to preclude them (since they are sometimes referred to as 'Ilni', too).
2. ... other trees and vines - then he precludes the other trees, and not the vines (which are not called 'Ilni' when there are other trees in the vicinity).

(a) If Reuven, who owns date-palms and vines, says 'le'Bar me'Ilni', he precludes the vines but not the date-palms - because vines are called 'Ilni' more frequently that date-palms (which are only referred to as such when there are no other trees in the vicinity at all.

(b) We refute the suggestion that really neither of them falls under the category of 'Ilni', and the reason that Reuven retains the vines is because they are more valuable than the date-palms (and that is probably what he had in mind to preclude) -because, if neither tree is referred to as a vine, then both would be precluded from the sale.

(c) Rav makes a distinction between trees that one needs a rope to climb and those that one doesn't. What he means is - that any date-palm that requires a rope to climb, is included in the Shiyur (in the Din of 'le'Bar me'Ilni' that we just discussed) and is therefore precluded from the sale, but not one that is as yet, too small for that.

(d) The Daynei Golah (Shmuel and Karna) make a similar distinction, between a tree that buckles when it is knocked by the yoke around the ox's neck (a sign of weakness) and one that does not.

(a) Rav and Daynei Golah do not argue - because whereas the former is speaking about date-palms, the latter is speaking about other trees.

(b) Rav cannot be referring to other trees - because they do not generally require a rope to climb (since they have ample branches via which to ascend them.

(c) Neither do Daynei Golah refer to date palms - whose importance is gauged by their height (irrespective of whether they bend before the ox's yoke or not).