Previous daf

1)

(a) We already cited the Machlokes between Rav Z'vid and Rav Papa, whether, according to Resh Lakish, 'al-M'nas she'ha'Deyuta ha'Elyonah she'Li' comes to permit the owner to fix ledges, or to build another floor.
Which of these two opinions appears to clash with Rav Dimi from Neherda'a (who maintains that S'tama, a purchaser does not acquire Umka ve'Ruma)?

(b) How do we in fact establish Rav Papa, in order to reconcile him with Rav Dimi?

(a) We have already dealt with our Mishnah 've'Lo es ha'Bor ve'Lo es ha'Dus, Af-al-Pi she'Kasav Lo Umka ve'Ruma'. The Mishnah then cites Rebbi Akiva, who requires the seller to purchase a path to his Bor va'Dus.
Why is that?

(b) What do the Rabbanan say?

(c) What does Rebbi Akiva say in case where the seller specifically precludes the Bor and the Dus from the sale?

1. ... Rebbi Akiva?
2. ... the Rabbanan?

(a) What distinguishes a Dus from a Bor?

(b) This is what Rabah Tosfa'ah told Ravina, and what Mar Keshisha B'rei de'Rav Chisda told Rav Ashi.
What source did they both quote for this distinction?

(c) Then why does the Tana need to mention them both? Had he only mentioned that the sale does not include ...

1. ... a Bor, why would we not have known a Dus?
2. ... a Dus, why would we not have known a Bor?

5)

(a) In Chezkas ha'Batim, in a case where someone sells trees that are growing in his field, but retains the field itself, we assumed that, according to the Rabbanan, the purchaser does not even acquire the land underneath the trees.
What do we assume, according to Rebbi Akiva?

(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes and its ramifications?

(c) Why can the source for their opinions not be our Mishnah? What alternative bone of contention might there be here other than whether a seller sells generously or begrudgingly?

(a) On what grounds do we then suggest that the source of their Machlokes must then be the Seifa of our Mishnah (whether or not, the purchaser of the pit needs to buy a path)?

(b) How do we refute this suggestion too.
What might be the basis of their Machlokes in the Reisha and the Seifa?

(c) In that case, what will they hold in the case of Chezkas ha'Batim (when Reuven purchases trees in Shimon's field)?

(a) So we cite the Mishnah later, where the Tana rules, with regard to someone who sells a field 'Lo es ha'Bor ve'Lo es ha'Gas ve'Lo es ha'Shovach ... '.
What sort of Bor is the Tana taking about there?

(b) Rebbi Akiva rules there that the owner must nevertheless purchase a path to get to his pit and to his wine-press. It is obvious that the basis of their Machlokes there cannot be exactly the same as that of the house. Then how do we initially establish it?

(c) We conclude however, that maybe the basis of their Machlokes is indeed the same as in our Mishnah (like we just explained), but that the Tana finds it necessary to present it both in the case of a house and in that of a field.
Why, if he had presented Rebbi Akiva's ruling in the case of ...

1. ... a house, would we not have applied it to a field? What do we mean by 'Mishum Tzeni'usa'?
2. ... a field, would we not have applied it to a house? What do we mean by 'de'Kashi Lei Davsha'?

(d) Both of these Chidushim go according to Rebbi Akiva.
Could we have stated the Chidush even according to the Rabbanan?

(a) In the Seifa there, Rebbi Akiva concludes that if the owner of the field sold the pit or the wine-press ... to someone else, the purchaser does not need to acquire a path either.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(c) Why do we not refute this proof too, and establish that both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan hold of both S'varos even in the case of a field, and that Rebbi Akiva always goes after the purchaser, whereas the Rabbanan go after the seller?

(d) And why can we not counter that the Seifa is needed to teach us that the Rabbanan contend with the seller's argument of 'de'Kashi Lei Davsha' (like Rebbi Akiva holds in the Reisha)?

Next daf