1)
'Rav Huna Amar Rav, Halachah k'Divrei Chachamim'. What does Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba Amar Shmuel say?
How is it then, that Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba said in front of Rav many times 'Halachah k'Rebbi Akiva', yet he (Rav) remained silent?
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?
Why does he not say that the brother who receives the outer field purchased with an Ayin Ra'ah?
1)
'Rav Huna Amar Rav, Halachah k'Divrei Chachamim. Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba Amar Shmuel Halachah k'Divrei Rebbi Akiva'.
Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba said in front of Rav many times 'Halachah k'Rebbi Akiva', yet he (Rav) remained silent because he (Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba) had switched the opinion of Rebbi Akiva and the Chachamim, quoting Rebbi Akiva as saying that a seller sells begrudgingly (see Rashash).
Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules that if brothers distribute their father's property, one does not have a path on the other by which he means that the brother who receives the inner field does not have right of way through his brother's field to get to his own (even using the path that his father used to use).
He does not say that the brother who receives the outer field purchased with an Ayin Ra'ah because the question whether one sells generously or begrudgingly is confined to the seller, and has nothing to do with the purchaser.
2)
And what does Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel mean when he adds that one brother does not have on the other ...
... windows?
... ladders?
... a stream of water?
What does Rav say?
Ravina suggested that Rav and Shmuel follow 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?
What did Rav Ashi counter? Why would we not know ...
... Rav's first ruling from the second one?
... Shmuel's second ruling from the first one?
2)
When Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel adds that one brother does not have on the other ...
... windows, he means that the brother who received a house cannot prevent the one who received the Chatzer from building a wall in the Chatzer, even though it blocks out the light from his windows of his house.
... ladders, he means that the brother who received an attic does not have the right to place his ladder in the Chatzer of the brother who received the house and the Chatzer, in order to climb up to his attic.
... a stream of water, he means that one brother does not have the right to carry the water that he draws from the stream through his brother's field to get to his own.
According to Rav in all of these cases, the brother does have the right.
Ravina suggested that Rav and Shmuel follow their reasoning in the previous ruling (regarding a sale), and that we would know one ruling from the other because brothers dividing their father's property is comparable to a sale.
Rav Ashi countered that we would not know ...
... Rav's first ruling from the second one inasmuch as in the latter case, the brother can claim that he expects to use the property in the same way as his father did (an argument that will not hold water by an ordinary sale).
... Shmuel's second ruling from the first one because, by the same token, in the case of brothers, Shmuel might well concede to Rav that the brother reserves the right to use the property in the same way as his father did.
3)
In what connection do we quote the Pasuk in Tehilim "Tachas Avosecha Yiheyu Banecha"?
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)?
3)
We quote the Pasuk "Tachas Avosecha Yiheyu Banecha" in support of the Sevara that we just gave to explain the need to issue the first ruling according to Rav.
When Rav Nachman asked Rav Huna like whom the Halachah was (like Rav Huna Amar Rav or Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel), he replied like Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel, because Rav Nachman was close with the Reish Galusa (he was actually his son-in-law), and therefore came into contact with many Dayanim (or Dinim Rabeinu Chananel), making him Halachah-oriented.
4)
What will be the Din if Reuven who has two fields, gives the outer field as a gift to Shimon, and the inner one ...
... he sells to Levi? Does Levi have right of way through Shimon's field to get to his?
... he gives to Levi, or he sells them both to the same two people, according to the Rabanan?
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?
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?
What is the reason for this?
4)
If Reuven who has two fields, gives the outer field as a gift to Shimon, and the inner one ...
... he sells to Levi. Levi certainly has no right of way through Shimon's field to get to his, because it is obvious that a gift is given with more goodwill than something that is sold.
... he gives to Levi, or he sells them both to the same two people Levi does not have right of way through Shimon's field, even according to the Rabanan, because it is only with regard to what the seller retains for himself that they hold that he sells begrudgingly, but not vis-a-vis what he sells to somebody else.
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. The correct ruling however is that he has ...
... based on a Mishnah later in the Perek, where the Tana rules that someone who gives his friend a field as a gift and retains the water-pit, say for himself must purchase a path to his water-pit, even according to the Rabanan ...
... because even they agree that when someone gives a gift, he does so generously.
5)
The Mishnah rules 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 mill-hopper (a large funnel through which the grain is channeled)?
Neither does the purchaser automatically acquire the stove or oven. Why is that? What principle governs these rulings, creating this distinction?
5)
The Mishnah rules that someone who sells a room, has automatically sold the door, the fixed mortar and the wooden frame that surrounds it but not the key, the moveable millstone or the mill-hopper (a large funnel through which the grain is channeled).
Neither does the purchaser automatically acquire the stove or oven because they are moveable. The principle that governs these rulings is that whatever is attached to the ground is automatically included in the sale, whereas whatever is detached is not.
6)
What will be the Din if the seller adds 'Hu ve'Chol asher be'Socho'? What will this Lashon not incorporate?
What distinction will the Tana draw between this case and someone who sells a Chatzer?
And how will the Din differ again regarding someone who sells a town?
Why is that?
6)
If the seller adds 'Hu ve'Chal asher be'Socho' then the sale will also incorporate all the Metaltelin listed above, which are generally designated for that house exclusively, but not other Metaltelin, because we are assuming that he is not moving far from the Shechunah and still has a need for them.
Whereas if he sells a Chatzer, the Tana later will rule that if he says 'Hu ve'Chal asher be'Socho' his sale incorporates all Metaltelin, with the exception of wheat and barley (stocks of food) either because, since he is moving from the area, it is too much trouble to remove all his vessels, or because, due to the size of the Chatzer, all the Metaltelin are Batel to it.
Whereas someone who sells a town sells everything in it, even animals and Avadim, and certainly wheat and barley ...
... either because of the excessive trouble in moving them, or because the bigger the sale, the more its accessories are Batel to the main object being sold.
65b----------------------------------------65b
7)
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?
What is the problem with this suggestion?
How do we establish Rebbi Meir in order to try and reconcile him with our Mishnah?
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?
7)
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. Rebbi Meir's ruling seemingly clashes with our Mishnah which precludes a moveable mortar from the sale of a house, whereas Rebbi Meir includes moveable items, such as canes to support the vines, in the sale of a vineyard.
The problem with this suggestion is that it is a Stam Mishnah, and we have a principle 'Stam Mishnah Rebbi Meir'.
In order to try and reconcile Rebbi Meir with our Mishnah, we establish his ruling by permanent accessories, which are not moved under any circumstances, whereas the mortar in our Mishnah is not a permanent fixture.
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. And we know that a key is a permanent fixture because the Mishnah contrasts it with a door, which is definitely a permanent fixture (when it might just as well have differentiated between two kinds of keys, one that is permanent and one that is not).
8)
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' (both kinds of bolts)?
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?
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 are also attached to the ground?
8)
The Beraisa, listing what is, and what isn't sold together with the house, adds a Nagar and a Man'ol (both kinds of bolts) to the door in our Mishnah (which is not sold). A 'Nagar' is fixed to the wall, and a 'Man'ol' to the door.
A carved mortar is sold with the house, but not one that is fixed. The former is actually carved out of a rock which juts out of the wall of the house, whereas the latter is carved when it is detached and then fixed to the wall.
If the seller stipulated 'Hu ve'Chol asher be'Socho', all of the above are included. It does not however, include a Bor, Dus or Yatzi'a (refer to opening Sugya of the Perek) despite the fact that they are attached to the ground because they are not built as part of the house.
9)
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?
Who is then the author of our Mishnah?
9)
Rebbi Eliezer states that whatever is fixed to the ground is like the ground (and is sold with the house). He disagrees with the Tana Kama who draws a distinction between a mortar that was built into the wall and one that was attached only later. According to him, both are automatically sold with the house.
The author of our Mishnah (which does not draw a distinction between one mortar and the other, must therefore be Rebbi Eliezer.
10)
What is the problem with a manufactured pipe that feeds rain-water into a Mikvah?
Will the problem exist if the water flows into the Mikvah via a natural ditch?
10)
The problem with a manufactured pipe that feeds rain-water into a Mikvah is the fact that the water becomes 'Mayim She'uvim' (which invalidates the Mikvah).
If the water flows into the Mikvah via a natural ditch the Mikvah is Kosher (because 'Mayim She'uvim' by definition pertains to a man-made vessel exclusively).
11)
What distinction does the Beraisa draw between a pipe that is manufactured first and then fixed to the Mikvah, and vice-versa?
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 Mikvah (which does)?
Why does the Gemara not ask 'Which Rabanan?', like it asks 'Which Rebbi Eliezer'?
11)
The Beraisa renders a pipe that is manufactured first and then fixed to the Mikvah Pasul (because it is considered She'uvim), whereas vice-versa it is Kosher (because it is no worse than a Mikvah that is carved out of the ground).
We reconcile Rebbi Eliezer with the Beraisa of Mikvah (which differentiates between the two kinds of pipe), even though in the Beraisa of mortar, he does not distinguish between the two, in that maybe his reason there is based on the Sevara that a seller sells generously (like Rebbi Akiva his Talmid), and has no bearing on the Din of Mikvah.
The reason the Gemara does not ask 'Which Rabanan', like it asks 'Which Rebbi Eliezer' is because it is not the way of the Gemara to become so involved.
12)
What is the significance of the statement 'v'Rabanan Savri Mocher be'Ayin Ra'ah Mocher'? Does this mean that the author of the Beraisa cannot be the Rabanan of Rebbi Eliezer?
How do we then reconcile this with the earlier Kashya 'which asks that the author of the original Beraisa can neither be Rebbi Eliezer nor the Rabanan.
12)
We only make the statement 've'Rabbanan Savri Mocher be'Ayin Ra'ah Mocher' in order to balance Rebbi Eliezer. In fact, the author of the Beraisa can certainly be the Rabanan.
To reconcile this with the Gemara initial statement 'Lo Rebbi Eliezer ve'Lo Rabanan', we have to say that it is not referring to the Rabanan of Rebbi Eliezer, but to the Rabanan in general.