(Rav Huna citing Rav): The Halachah follows Chachamim.

(R. Yirmeyah bar Aba citing Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Akiva.

R. Yirmeyah bar Aba: Many times I said in front of Rav that the Halachah follows R. Akiva, and he did not respond!

Rav Huna: How do you learn the argument?

R. Yirmeyah: R. Akiva says that one sells stingily, and Chachamim say that one sells generously.

Rav Huna: He did not respond, for the Halachah is that one sells stingily. According to your version of the argument, the Halachah follows R. Akiva.

Suggestion (Ravina): Rav and Shmuel hold like they taught elsewhere. (It seems that Ravina and Rav Nachman hold that Rav and Shmuel argue, i.e. also Shmuel had our text of the Mishnah.)

(Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): Brothers who divide an inheritance (are like buyers and sellers; they) do not have rights to walk over each other's property (even if one can only get to his property through his brother's, for they sell generously), and they have no rights to set up ladders or have windows (to prevent the other from building near it) or run an irrigation ditch through the other's property;

(Rav): They have all these rights against each other.

They must argue in both cases.

Had they argued only about brothers, one might have thought that Rav's reason is that the heirs are entitled to live like their father did - "Tachas Avosecha Yihyu Vanecha", but normally, Rav holds that one sells generously;

Had they argued only about a regular sale, one might have thought that Shmuel would agree about brothers ("Tachas Avosecha...")

Question (Rav Nachman, to Rav Huna): Is the Halachah like us (Shmuel and his Talmidim), or like you (and Rav)?

Answer (Rav Huna): It is like you, for you are close to the Reish Galusa and see how the judges rule. (According to Rav Huna, Rav and Shmuel argue only about brothers. Alternatively, Rav Huna answered 'if you are right (and R. Yirmeyah is wrong), and Shmuel rules that people sell generously, the Halachah follows him in both cases.)

Reuven owned an inner house and an outer house. If he sold or gave (at the same time) the inner house to Shimon and the outer house to Levi, neither has rights to walk through the other, and all the more so if he gave the outer house and sold the inner house (since he gave the gift to Levi, this shows that he favors him).

Suggestion: Also if he gave the inner house and sold the outer house, neither has rights to walk through the other.

Rejection: That is wrong.

(Mishnah): This applies to a sale, but one who gives (a gift) gives everything.

Inference: One gives generously.

Also regarding the houses, Reuven gives generously to Shimon, and included a path.

(Mishnah): If one sells a house, he sells the door, but not the key. He sells a mortar attached to the floor, but not an unattached mortar. He sells the fixed frame around a millstone, but not the funnel, nor Tanur or Kirayim (types of ovens);

If he said 'the house and everything inside', they are all included.

Suggestion: Our Mishnah is not like R. Meir, for he says that one who sells a vineyard includes everything needed for the vineyard.

Rejection: Our Mishnah is even like R. Meir. R. Meir includes only things that are stationary. Our Mishnah excludes only things that are moved.

Objection: The key is not sold, and presumably, it is like the door (with which it is taught), i.e. it is fixed!

Conclusion: Indeed, the Mishnah is not like R. Meir.

(Beraisa): If one sells a house, he sells the door, the latch (fixed in the wall), and the lock (fixed in the door), but not the key;

He sells a mortar that is carved into the wall, but not one that was affixed. He sells the frame around a millstone, but not the funnel, Tanur, Kirayim or millstone;

R. Eliezer says, anything attached to the ground is like the ground.

If he said 'the house and everything inside', all these are included;

In any case, he did not include a pit, cistern or Yatzi'a.

(Beraisa): If a pipe was hollowed out and then attached (it is considered a Keli), it disqualifies a Mikveh. (If three Lugim of water from it fall into an incomplete Mikveh, the Mikveh is disqualified, even when it will have enough water);

If it was attached and then hollowed out, it does not disqualify a Mikveh (for it is not considered a Keli).

Question: The Beraisa is not like R. Eliezer, nor like Chachamim!

Question: What did R. Eliezer say that is unlike this Beraisa?

Suggestion: His opinion about the house (anything attached to the ground is like the ground) is unlike the Beraisa.

Rejection: Perhaps he holds that one sells generously (but not everything attached is considered like the ground), and Chachamim hold that he sells stingily!

Answer #1: R. Eliezer's opinion about a beehive (coming up) is unlike the Beraisa.