1)IS LAND INCLUDED WITH TREES?
(a)Objection: R. Shimon does not hold like R. Akiva!
1.(Beraisa): If one was Makdish three trees spaced out like 10 trees spread over a Beis Kor (an area in which 30 Sa'im of seed are sown, i.e. 75,000 square Amos), he includes the land and trees between them;
i.Therefore, he redeems them (with the land) according to the fixed rate for redemption of land, 50 silver Shekalim for a Beis Kor.
2.If they are spread out more or less densely, or if he did not Makdish all three at once, he did not Makdish the land and trees between them. Therefore, he redeems them according to their value.
i.Even if he later was Makdish the land and trees between them, he redeems the (first) trees according to their value, and the land according to 50 Shekalim for a Beis Kor.
3.Question: Who is the Tana of this Beraisa?
i.It is not R. Akiva. He says that one sells generously, and all the more so he is Makdish generously (the land would be Hekdesh even if he did not Makdish all three at once)!
ii.It is not Chachamim. They say that one sells stingily, but they admit (in the Mishnah) that he is Makdish generously!
4.Answer: It must be like R. Shimon.
5.Question: What is R. Shimon's opinion about selling?
i.It is not like R. Akiva, for if so, all the more so he is Makdish generously!
6.Answer: He must hold like Chachamim, that one sells stingily;
i.R. Shimon says that also he is Makdish stingily, and keeps land for himself.
7.Summation of question: R. Shimon said that the trees nurture from Hekdesh; we cannot answer (for Rav Huna, end of 71b) that R. Shimon holds like R. Akiva!
(b)Answer #2 (to Question 3:e, 71b): (Indeed, Rav Huna's law is even like R. Akiva.) R. Shimon addresses Chachamim according to their reasoning. I (R. Shimon) say that just like one sells stingily, he is Makdish stingily, and keeps land for himself;
1.Granted, you say that he is Makdish more generously than he sells, but you should admit that he (is not as is generous as one who gives. He) is Makdish only grafted carob and sycamore stumps (for they will nurture from Hekdesh, but not pits,...)
2.Chachamim disagree. They say that he is Makdish as generously as he gives.
2)REDEMPTION OF AN INHERITED FIELD
(a)Question: The Seifa is not like R. Shimon!
1.(Beraisa): Even if he was Makdish the trees, and afterwards the land, he redeems the trees according to their value, and the land according to 50 Shekalim for a Beis Kor.
2.According to R. Shimon, the law should depend on the time of redemption (when it is all Kodesh), and the trees should be redeemed along with the land!
i.(Beraisa - R. Yehudah and R. Shimon): If Reuven bought a field from his father Yakov, and was Makdish it, and Yakov died, it is now considered an inherited field. (Its redemption is fixed. It is 50 Shekalim for a Beis Kor);
ii.We learn from "Asher Lo mi'Sede Achuzaso" - redemption (according to the value) applies only to fields that were not destined to be inherited (but he would have inherited this field even if he did not buy it)!
iii.R. Meir says, if Reuven bought a field from his father Yakov, and Yakov died, and then Reuven was Makdish it, it is considered an inherited field;
iv.We learn from "Asher Lo mi'Sede Achuzaso" - a field that was not inherited when he was Makdish it. (He inherited this field. Before his father died, the field was due to return in Yovel). (End of Beraisa)
v.R. Yehudah and R. Shimon did not need a verse for R. Meir's case. They expounded it to teach their case.
vi.Question: What is their source (when Yakov died before Reuven was Makdish it)?
vii.Answer: They hold (from reasoning) that it depends on the redemption. (At the first time it could be redeemed, it was inherited, so it is like an inherited field).
(b)Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Really, they hold that it does not depend on the redemption;
1.They expounded the verse to teach their Chidush. Had it come only to teach like R. Meir, it should have said 'Lo Achuzaso' or 'Lo Sede Achuzaso';
i.Rather, it says "mi'Sede Achuzaso" to teach that it was not even fit to be inherited.
(c)(Rav Huna): Grafted carob trees and sycamore stumps are considered trees, and are also considered land;
1.They are considered trees, i.e. if one was Makdish or sold two (regular) trees and one of these, the land between them is included;
2.They are considered land, i.e. they are not sold along with the land.
(d)(Rav Huna): A sheaf the size of two Sa'im is considered a sheaf, and also a stack.
1.It is considered a sheaf, i.e. two sheaves are Shichchah (if one forgot to harvest them, one may not return to take them), if this big sheaf was forgotten with them, they are not Shichchah;
2.It is considered a stack, i.e. it itself is never Shichchah.
i.(Mishnah): If one forgot a sheaf that is Sa'atayim, it is not Shichchah.
(e)(Rabah bar bar Chanah): If one was Makdish a field, R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi and Chachamim argue about whether or not grafted carob and sycamore stumps are included.
(f)Question: Why didn't he say that R. Shimon and Chachamim argue about this?
(g)Answer: He teaches that R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi holds like R. Shimon.