We define 'stOneis that the field needs' as Avni de'Achpa - large stOneis that one places on top of the corn (after it has been spread out in the field to dry, to prevent it from being blown away by the wind).

Ula defines it as - stOneis that have been neatly arranged, ready to build a wall.

Ula amends the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya 'Avanim Tzevuros (piled up) le'Geder' (implying that the stOneis do not need to be neatly arranged) to read - 'Avanim he'Seduros le'Binyan'.

Rebbi Meir (in the next Perek) rules that - the accessories of a vineyard are sold together with the vineyard.

Bearing in mind that Rebbi Meir includes even those accessories that are not intrinsically part of the vineyard, and that the Rabanan disagree with him in that issue - Rebbi Meir will establish Avni de'Achpa by stOneis that have been smoothened, even though they are lying outside the field, whereas according to the Rabanan, they must be lying inside the field.

Whereas, according to Ula, who interprets Avanim as 'Avanim ha'Seduros le'Geder' this is specifically according to the Rabanan - because according to Rebbi Meir the stOneis do not need to be neatly stacked (as long as they have been cut to shape).

When earlier in the Perek, we established Rebbi Meir by things that are fixed, we meant (not fixed to the ground, which is not necessary, as we see here, but) - that they are permanently designated for that purpose, and do not stand to be lent out or rented to anybody else (as we explained there).

We learned in our Mishnah that the sale of the field includes the canes that support the vines. The Tana is talking about canes - that are forked on top, so that a vine-branch can be held aloft the fork (to prevent the clusters of grapes from dragging on the ground), and that have been sharpened to a point at the bottom, to stick into the ground.

Rebbi Meir will establish this even where the cane has not yet been stuck vertically into the ground, whereas - according to the Rabanan, it has.

We also learned that the produce that is still attached to the ground is sold too. We need to add that the produce is ready to harvest - because otherwise, it would be obvious that the purchaser never intended the seller to enter his field and tend to his corn in the middle of the harvest season.

And the Chidush is that - we do not apply here the principle that whatever is ready to harvest is considered as if it has already been harvested (in which case, it would not be sold).

Our Mishnah includes a bunch of growing canes in the sale provided it grows in an area of less that a Beis Rova - even if the canes are thick.

When the Tana inserts a hunter's hut that is not cemented in the list of things that are sold, his Chidush is that it is included - even though it is not attached to the ground ...

... because the fact that it is made with cement makes it Chashuv).

And when he includes Ch'ruv she'Eino Murkav and Besulas ha'Shikmah in the sale - he us referring even to trees that have thick trunks.

We establish 'stOneis that are not needed for the field', assuming them to be 'Avni de'Achpa', according to ...

... Rebbi Meir - where they have not even been smoothened.

... according to the Rabbanan - where they are not lying in the field (even though they have been smoothened).

And we establish 'stOneis that are not needed for the field', assuming that they are 'Avanim ha'Seduros le'Geder', according to ...

... Rebbi Meir - where they have not even been cut to shape.

... the Rabanan - where they have not been neatly stacked (even though they have been cut to shape).

We establish 'canes that are not needed for the vines', according to ...

... Rebbi Meir - where they have not even been sharpened to stick into the ground.

... the Rabanan - even where they have, only they have not yet been stuck into the ground.

And finally, we establish 've'Lo es ...

... ha'Tevu'ah ha'Telushah min ha'Karka' - where the sheaves still need the ground (to perfect their aroma and to dry completely). Otherwise, this Halachah would be obvious.

... Chitzas ha'Kanim she'Hi Beis Rova' - even by thin canes.

Rebbi Yochanan rules that a small row of spices 'that has its own name' - is Chashuv (like a bundle of canes that is growing in an area of a Beis Rova or more) and is therefore not sold together with the field.

Rav Papa interprets Rebbi Yochanan's qualification to mean that - the row is known as 'so-and-so's row of roses'.

've'Lo es ha'Shomirah ha'Asuyah be'Tit' - applies even if the hut is also attached to the ground (since that does not negate its Chashivus).

Rebbi Elazar asked - whether a door-frame is sold together with the house (see Tosfos) or not.

He restricted his She'eilah to a door-frame that is merely screwed to the wall - (because if it is cemented, it would be obvious that it is sold together with the house).

Rebbi Zeira asks the same She'eilah concerning window-frames - assuming that in the previous She'eilah, the frames are in fact sold. Perhaps, he thinks, window-frames are worse in this regard - because their function is only one of looks, rather than of practical use.

Like Rebbi Elazar - Rebbi Zeira takes for granted that a frame that is cemented is included in the sale, and restricts his She'eilah to one that is merely screwed).

Rebbi Yirmiyah poses the same She'eilah with regards to 'Milb'nos ha'Mitah' - blocks of wood that one places underneath the legs of a bed to prevent them from rotting in the ground.

Rebbi Yirmiyah assumes that, in the previous two She'eilos - both of the frames are included in the sale, because they are attached to the wall, and his She'eilah is whether the blocks of wood underneath the bed-posts are included too, even though they are not attached to the bed.

Consequently, he will agree that - since the blocks of wood are fixed to the legs of the bed, they too, are included in the sale.

The outcome of all three She'eilos is - 'Teiku'.

The Tana's ruling 've'Lo es Ch'ruv ha'Murkav ve'Lo Sadan ha'Shikmah' - applies even if the trunk is thin.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk in Chayei Sarah ...

... "va'Yakam S'dei Efron asher ba'Machpeilah, ha'Sadeh ve'ha'Me'arah ... ve'Chol ha'Eitz asher ba'Sadeh" that - someone who sells a field, automatically sells all the trees in the field, too.

... "asher be'Chol Gevulo" that - only things whose borders need to be defined are sold, but not things whose ownership are well-known to all (such as 'Ch'ruv ha'Murkav ve'Sadan ha'Shikmah'), which are precluded from the sale even if the seller specifically declares 'Kol Mah she'be'Tochah' (as we learned above).

This latter Halachah can be compared to - someone who sells two fields, who has not sold the field that they flank, even if he adds 'Kol Mah she'be'Tochan'.

Rav Mesharshaya learns from the word "Saviv" that - the purchaser automatically acquires the borders of the field together with the field.

Rav Yehudah requires someone who sells a field to insert in the Sh'tar that he is selling 'Diklin, Ta'alin, Hutzin ve'Tzinin'. Diklin are tall date-palms (see Mesores ha'Shas) ...

... 'Ta'alin' are - other tall trees.

... 'Hutzin' are - other young trees

... 'Tzinin' are - young date-palms.

According to the Rashbam, all three are different types date-palms. According to some commentaries - whereas 'Diklin' produce dates, the latter three do not.

Despite the fact that the sale is valid whether the seller complies with this ruling or not, the point of inserting all this in the Sh'tar is - to reinforce his rights, should the purchaser land up in a Beis-Din who are not fully conversant with the Halachah, and require everything to be spelt out in black on white.

If Reuven writes in the Sh'tar of sale 'Ar'a ve'Dikli', then he is obligated to give him the field plus two date-palms. In the event that ...

... he does not own any date-palms - he is obligated to purchase them.

... the date-palms that he owns are Meshubad to his creditor - he must redeem them (by paying off his debt in cash).

If Reuven stipulates that he is selling Shimon 'Ar'a be'Dikli', then he must give him the field with the date-palms that grow in it. Should the field not contain any date-palms - then the sale is invalid.

If he says 'Ar'a bei Dikli' he means - a field that is fit to grow date-palms.

If (in the latter case) the field that he sells him ...

... does not contain date-palms he gives it to him as it is.

... contains date-palms - he must give them to him as well.

If Reuven specifically precludes a specific date-palm from the sale, which turns out to be ...

... a good-quality tree then he obviously meant to retain that tree for himself (even though it is not the best tree in the field), and no more.

... a bad tree (one that does not produce a crop of at least a Kav of dates) then it is obvious that he meant to hold back other bad-quality trees too ...

... though not worse-quality palms than the one that he designated.

If Reuven stipulated 'le'Bar me'Ilni', he precludes all trees that are called 'Ilni' - but not date-palms and vines, which are not generally called 'Ilni'.

But if he owns ...

... only date-palms or vines then - it is obvious that he meant to preclude them (since they are sometimes referred to as 'Ilni', too).

... other trees and vines - then he precludes the other trees, but not the vines (which are not called 'Ilni' when there are other trees in the vicinity).

If Reuven, who owns date-palms and vines, says 'le'Bar me'Ilni', he precludes the vines but not the date-palms - because vines are called 'Ilni' more frequently that date-palms (which are only referred to as such when there are no other trees in the vicinity at all).

We refute the suggestion that really neither of them falls under the category of 'Ilni', and the reason that Reuven retains the vines is because they are more valuable than the date-palms (and that is probably what he had in mind to preclude) - because, if neither tree would be referred to as a 'Ilni', then both would be precluded from the sale.

When Rav draws a distinction between trees that one needs a rope to climb he is referring to date-palms, which are particularly tall, but not any other tree.

He is coming to explain - the distinction between trees that are called 'Ilni' and those that are not (with regard to the Din of 'le'Bar me'Ilni' that we just discussed).

What he is therefore saying is that - date-palms that are tall are included in the Shiyur, whereas those that have not yet reached that height, are called included in the sale.

This does not in fact conform to the previous distinction between other trees on the one hand, and date-palms and vines on the other, and which Rav did not have in his text.

Dayanei Golah - (Shmuel and Karna) make a similar distinction.

They define 'Ilni' as - trees that do not buckle when they are knocked by the yoke around the ox's neck, but not those that do (as this is a sign of weakness).

To reconcile Rav with Dayanei Golah - we establish the former by date-palms (as we explained earlier), and the latter, by other trees.

On the one hand ...

... Rav cannot be referring to other trees - because they do not generally require a rope to climb (since they have ample branches via which to ascend them; whereas the other ...

... Dayanei Golah cannot be referring to date palms - whose importance is gauged by their height (irrespective of whether they bend before the ox's yoke or not).