1)
When in the household of bar Meryon, the son of Ravin, they used to shake flax, the shakings would cause people damage. On what grounds did Ravina exempt him from paying, despite the fact that it appeared to be 'Giri Dileih'?
Mereimar agreed with Mar bar Rav Ashi, who failed to see a difference between this case and someone who winnows on Shabbos, and who is Chayav, despite the fact that he is helped by the wind. How Ravina counter this argument?
And how will he reconcile his ruling with the Mishnah in Bava Kama, which obligates a blacksmith to pay damages for a spark that flies from his anvil as he strikes it, in spite of the fact that it is carried by the wind?
1)
When in the household of bar Meryon, the son of Ravin, they used to shake flax, the shakings would cause people damage. Ravina exempted him from paying, despite the fact that it appeared to be 'Giri Dileih' - because they did not drift by themselves, but had to be carried by the wind.
Mereimar agreed with Mar bar Rav Ashi, who failed to see a difference between this case and someone who winnows on Shabbos, and who is Chayav despite the fact that he is helped by the wind. Ravina will counter this argument however - by confining that particular ruling to the Dinim of Shabbos, which are governed by the principle 'Meleches Machsheves', which incorporate Melachos performed in conjunction with the wind (see also Tosfos DH 'Mai Sh'na').
Neither does he consider the Kashya from the Mishnah in Bava Kama, which obligates a blacksmith to pay damages for a spark that flies from his anvil as he strikes it, even though it is carried by the wind, relevant - because that case is different, inasmuch as the blacksmith is pleased with the wind's assistance (since it saves his smithy from catching alight), whereas in our case, Bar Meryon was indifferent to the shakings' whereabouts.
2)
We have already discussed our Mishnah, which forbids Reuven to plant a tree within four Amos of Shimon's field. Does the Tana differentiate between a vine and other trees?
In which case will the prohibition not apply?
On what grounds does Reuven have the authority to cut the roots of Shimon's tree to a depth of three Tefachim?
What should Reuven do if he is digging a pit or a trench ... , and he encounters roots from Shimon's tree at a depth of more than three Tefachim?
2)
We have already discussed our Mishnah, which forbids Reuven to plant a tree within four Amos of Shimon's field. The Tana - does not differentiate between a vine and any other tree.
The prohibition will not apply however - in a case where a wall divides between the two properties.
Reuven has the authority to cut the roots of Shimon's tree to a depth of three Tefachim, on the grounds - that they interfere with his plow.
If Reuven is digging a pit or a trench ... , and he encounters roots from Shimon's tree at a depth of more than three Tefachim - he is also entitled to sever them.
3)
We learned in our Mishnah that Reuven may not plant his tree within four Amos of Shimon's field. Shmuel restricts this ruling to Eretz Yisrael. What does he say about planting a tree in Bavel?
How do we substantiate Shmuel's ruling?
In the second Lashon, we query the Beraisa from our Mishnah. What does Shmuel answer?
3)
We learned in our Mishnah that Reuven may not plant his tree within four Amos of Shimon's field. Shmuel restricts this ruling to Eretz Yisrael. In Bavel, where the plows are narrower - he rules that a space of two Amos will suffice.
We substantiate Shmuel's ruling - by quoting a Beraisa, which gives the Shi'ur as two Amos. In order to reconcile this with our Mishnah, we establish it with regard to Bavel.
In the second Lashon, we query the Beraisa from our Mishnah, and Shmuel answers - that our Mishnah speaks in Eretz Yisrael and the Beraisa, in Bavel.
4)
On what grounds did Rav Yosef order Rava bar Rav Chanan to move his date-palms further away from his (Rav Yosef's) vineyard?
How is it that the latter had ignored the Din of not planting a tree too close to his neighbor's field?
What did Rav Yosef reply when Rava bar Rav Chanan cited our Mishnah, which requires a distance of four Amos for vines and other trees alike?
What was Rava bar Rav Chanan's final word?
Why did he refuse to do so himself?
4)
Rav Yosef ordered Rava bar Rav Chanan to move his date-palms further away from his (Rav Yosef's) vineyard - because birds that came to eat the latter's dates would hop from there onto his vines.
The latter had not ignored the Din of not planting a tree too close to his neighbor's field - he had planted them at a distance of four Amos from Rav Yosef's vines (as prescribed by the Tana).
When, in response, Rava bar Rav Chanan cited our Mishnah, which requires a distance of four Amos for vines and other trees alike - Rav Yosef replied that this was confined to a vine from a vineyard or a fruit-tree from an orchard (see Rabeinu Gershom), but that one from the other requires a greater distance than that.
Rava bar Rav Chanan's final word was - that he agreed, but on condition that Rav Yosef cut down the tree himself ...
... because, due to the danger (to one's life) involved in cutting down fruit-trees, he refused to do so.
5)
How much fruit does Rav require a date-palm to produce before it becomes subject to the prohibition of cutting it down?
What happened to Rebbi Chanina, when he cut down a fig-tree that was still producing fruit?
What did Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua reply when Rav Papa took him to task for severing ...
... the roots of his (Rav Papa's) tree that had spread into his field?
... them to a depth of more than three Tefachim?
5)
Rav requires a date-palm to produce - one Kav of dates per annum, before it becomes subject to the prohibition of cutting it down.
When Rebbi Chanina cut down a fig-tree that was still producing fruit - Shivchas his son died.
When Rav Papa took Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua to task for severing ...
... the roots of his(Rav Papa's) tree that had spread into his field - the latter cited our Mishnah which permits severing roots up to a depth of three Tefachim.
... them to a depth of more than three Tefachim - he replied that he was digging pits, and cited him the Seifa.
6)
After much effort, Rav Papa managed to convince Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua to stop severing the roots of his tree, by quoting Rav Yehudah. What does Rav Yehudah say about 'Meitzar she'Hichziku bo Rabim'? What does that have to do with our case?
After Rav Papa left, Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua 'kicked himself' for not countering Rav Papa's argument, bearing in mind that he had been cutting roots beyond sixteen Amos?
6)
After much effort, Rav Papa managed to convince Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua to stop severing the roots of his tree by quoting Rav Yehudah, who says 'Meitzar she'Hichziku bo Rabim - Asur Le'kalkelo', because he too, had a Chazakah for the continued existence of his tree (and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua had not protested until now [see also Rabeinu Gershom]).
After Rav Papa left, Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua 'kicked himself' for not countering Rav Papa's argument - by pointing out that he had been severing roots beyond sixteen Amos, at which point the Chazakah is ineffective, since from sixteen Amos to twenty-five Amos (the maximum distance that the roots of a tree spread) the roots no longer feed from the ground.
26b----------------------------------------26b
7)
How does our Mishnah conclude the Seifa (regarding the Din of 'Chofer Bor, Si'ach u'Me'arah Kotzetz ve'Yored')?
Rav Chisda cites a Mishnah in Me'ilah. What does the Mishynah say there about 'Sharashei Ilan shel Hedyot ha'Ba'in be'shel Hekdesh'?
If there is no Me'ilah, what does the Tana mean by 'Lo Nehenin'?
What is Rav Chisda trying to prove from there?
7)
Our Mishnah concludes the Seifa (regarding the Din of Chofer Bor, Si'ach u'Me'arah, Kotzetz ve'Yored) - 've'ha'Eitzim Shelo'.
Rav Chisda cites a Mishnah in Me'ilah 'Sharashei Ilan shel Hedyot ha'Ba'in be'shel Hekdesh - Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin'.
'Ein Mo'alin' mi'd'Oraysa - 'Lo Nehenin' mi'de'Rabbanan.
Rav Chisda is trying to prove from there - that the roots belong to the tree, and therefore 've'ha'Eitzim she'Lo' refers to Reuven (the owner of the tree).
8)
What does the Seifa of the Mishnah in Me'ilah rule in the reverse case ' ... shel Hekdesh ha'Ba'in be'shel Hedyot'?
How do we initially reconcile the two statements, which appear to contradict each other?
What is then the Chidush in the Reisha?
Ravina disagrees. How does he interpret the Mishnah?
8)
The Seifa of the Mishnah in Me'ilah rules in the reverse case ... shel Hekdesh ha'Ba'in be'shel Hedyot - 'Lo Nehenin ve'Lo Mo'alin'.
Initially, we reconcile the two statements - by establishing both the Reisha and the Seifa by roots that grew after the declaration of Hekdesh, and ascribing the Tana's reasoning to 'Ein Mo'alin be'Gidulin'.
The Chidush in the Reisha is - 'Lo Nehenin'.
Ravina disagrees. He interprets the Mishnah like Rav Chisda did originally, and he establishes the Seifa - by roots that extend beyond sixteen Amos from the tree, which are not considered part of the tree, because they no longer feed from it (as we learned above).
9)
What does Ula say about Reuven's tree which grows within sixteen Amos of Shimon's field?
What does the Mishnah in Shevi'is say about ten saplings that are scattered in the space of a Beis Sa'ah (fifty by fifty Amos)?
What area of land will each of the ten trees take up?
Why can that Mishnah not be Ula's source?
What is then the reasoning behind that ruling?
9)
Ula refers to Reuven's tree which grows within sixteen Amos of Shimon's field - as 'a thieving tree' which is exempt from Bikurim (because "asher Tavi me'Artzecha" is not applicable to it).
The Mishnah in Shevi'is rules that if ten saplings are scattered in the space of a Beis Sa'ah (fifty by fifty Amos) - one is permitted to plow the entire area on Erev Shevi'is right up to the Sh'mitah year (not like individual trees which are forbidden already from Shavu'os).
Each of the ten trees will take up - two hundred and fifty square Amos.
That Mishnah cannot be Ula's source - because according to Ula, each tree feeds up to a distance of thirty-two Amos, an area of one thousand and twenty-four square Amos (and not just two hundred and fifty).
The reasoning behind that Mishnah is - 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.