Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Rav Huna Amar Rav, Halachah ke'Divrei Chachamim'.
What does Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba Amar Shmuel say?

(b) How is it then, that Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba said in front of Rav many times 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Akiva', yet he remained silent?

(c) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules that if brothers distribute their father's property, one does not have a path on the other.
What does he mean by that?

(d) Why does he not say that the brother who receives the outer field purchased with an Ayin Ra'ah?

(a) And what does Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel mean when he adds that one brother does not have on the other ...

1. ... windows?
2. ... ladders?
3. ... a stream of water?

(b) What does Rav say?

(c) Ravina suggested that Rav and Shmuel followed their reasoning in the previous ruling (regarding a sale), and that we would know one ruling from the other.
Why is that? What is the connection between this case and that of a sale?

(d) What did Rav Ashi counter? Why would we not know ...

1. ... Rav's first ruling from the second one?
2. ... Shmuel's second ruling from the first one?

(a) In what connection do we quote the Pasuk in Tehilim "Tachas Avosecha Yih'yu Banecha"?

(b) What did Rav Huna reply, when Rav Nachman asked him like whom the Halachah was (like Rav Huna Amar Rav or Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel)?

(a) What will be the Din if Reuven who has two fields, gives the outer field as a gift to Shimon, and the inner one ...

1. ... he sells to Levi? Does Levi have right of way through Shimon's field to get to his?
2. ... he gives to Levi, or he sells them both to the same two people, according to the Rabbanan?

(b) They thought that in a case where Reuven sells the outer field to Shimon, and gives the inner one to Levi, Levi does not have right of way, like in the previous cases.
What is the correct ruling in this case?

(c) This ruling is based on a Mishnah later in the Perek.
What does the Tana say there about someone who gives his friend a field as a gift?

(d) What is the reason for this?

(a) The Mishnah states that someone who sells a room, has automatically sold the door, the fixed mortar and the wooden frame that surrounds it.
How about the key, the moveable millstone and the millhopper (a large funnel through which the grain is channeled)?

(b) Neither does the purchaser automatically acquire the stove or oven.
Why is that? What principle governs these rulings, creating this distinction?

(a) What will be the Din if the seller adds 'Hu ve'Chol Asher be'Socho'?
What will this Lashon not incorporate?

(b) What distinction will the Tana make between this case and someone who sells a Chatzer?

(c) Would this distinction also apply even where the seller was moving house to another area?

(d) And how will the Din differ again regarding someone who sells a town?

7)

(a) We suggest that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Meir, who holds that the accessories of a vineyard are included in the sale of the vineyard.
In what way does Rebbi Meir's ruling seemingly clash with our Mishnah? What kind of accessories do we assume he is referring to?

(b) What is the problem? So what if the author of our Mishnah is not Rebbi Meir?

(c) How do we establish Rebbi Meir in order to try and reconcile him with our Mishnah?

(d) We refute this explanation however, in view of a key, which (although it is moveable) is a permanent fixture, and which our Tana precludes from the sale.
How do we know that a key is a permanent fixture?

(a) The Beraisa, listing what is, and what isn't sold together with the house, adds a Nagar and a Man'ol to the door in our Mishnah (which is not sold).
What is the difference between a 'Nagar' and a 'Man'ol'?

(b) A carved mortar is sold with the house, but not one that is fixed. What is the difference between a carved mortar and a fixed one?

(c) If the seller stipulated 'Hu ve'Chol Asher be'Socho', all of the above are included.
Why does it not also include the Bor, the Dus and the Yatzi'a (refer to opening Sugya of the Perek), which after all, are attached to the ground?

(a) Rebbi Eliezer states that whatever is fixed to the ground is like the ground (and is sold with the house).
In which point does he disagree with the Tana Kama?

(b) Who is then the author of our Mishnah?

(a) What is the problem with a manufactured pipe that feeds rain-water into a Mikveh?

(b) Will the problem exist if the water flows into the Mikveh via a natural ditch?

(a) What distinction does the Beraisa make between a pipe that is manufactured first and then fixed to the Mikveh, and vice-versa?

(b) How do we reconcile Rebbi Eliezer (of the Beraisa of the mortar, who does not differentiate between the two kinds of mortar) with the Beraisa of Mikveh (which does)?

(c) Could the author of the Beraisa of Mikveh be the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer?

(d) Then why do we say 'Lo Rebbi Eliezer ve'Lo Rabbanan'?

(a) Why do we not ask 'Which Rabbanan', like we ask 'Which Rebbi Eliezer'?

(b) What is the significance of the statement 've'Rabbanan Savri Mocher be'Ayin Ra'ah Mocher'? Does this mean that the author of the Beraisa cannot be the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer?

Next daf