If someone sells a field, then the pit, the wine-press - and the dove-cotes, are not included in the sale, whether they (the dove-cotes) are functional or not ...

... even if the seller stipulates 'Hi ve'Chol Mah she'be'Tochah'.

According to Rebbi Akiva, the owner will have to purchase a path to all of these. The Rabbanan say - that this is not necessary.

They are arguing over whether 'Mocher be'Ayin Ra hu Mochrer' (Rebbi Akiva) or 'Mocher, be'Ayin Ra'ah Hu Mocher' (the Rabbanan).

Rebbi Akiva concedes however that - where the seller said 'Chutz me'Eilu', he does not need to purchase a path.

In a case where the seller sells the above accessories and retains the field - Rebbi Akiva does not require the buyer to purchase a path to get to his purchase, whereas the Rabbanan do.

Despite the fact that Rebbi Akiva holds 'Mocher be'Ayin Yafah Mocher', he may well agree with the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Lo es ha'Bor, ve'Lo es ha'Gas ve'Lo es ha'Shovach' - since, unlike a path running through the purchaser's field, these are not intrinsic parts of the field (that are automatically included in the purchase of the field).

There where the owner (did not sell the field, but) gave it as a gift, then all the cases listed in our Mishnah (Ch'ruv ha'Murkav, Sadan ha'Shikmah, Bor, Gas and Shovach) as not being sold together with the field - are included.

This ruling will not extend to money or detached produce (that no longer needs the field) - since these are totally unconnected with the field (and it is obvious that they are not sold or donated together with it unless they are specifically included).

Brothers who divide their deceased father's field also acquire completely (like we just learned by Matanah), since the purpose of the division is in order to clarify each one's portion and to separate. This S'vara might not however, extend to the brother who receives the inner field needing to purchase a path to get to his field - because he can claim that he wants to use the field in the same way as his father used it (as we have learned before).

This ruling also pertains - to someone who acquires a field of Nechsei ha'Ger.

By Hekdesh too, the Tana says 'Hikdish es Kulah' (even the Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah). We query this however, from the Gemara in Chezkas ha'Batim, which rules in a case of two fields with a border in between, that if someone made a Kinyan on one of them with the intention of acquiring them both - he only acquires the field on which he actually made the Kinyan.

Even though Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah are considered separate fields, he will nevertheless acquire them together with the field (despite the ruling in Chezkas ha'Batim) - because in this case, there is no border that divides between the field and them.

Even assuming that someone who gives a gift gives generously, more so than someone who sells, the problem with the Tana's distinction between a sale and a gift is that - even in the case of a gift, how can we take for granted that the donor means to give the recipient all the accessories, when he did not specifically say so?

The answer that Rebbi Yehudah ben Nekusa initially gave in front of Rebbi ('Zeh Piresh, ve'Zeh Lo Piresh') makes no sense - because the truth of the matter is that neither specified.

What he really said was - that whereas it is up to the donor to specify what he wants to exclude from the sale (since he generally gives generously), the seller does not need to do so (since he automatically sells begrudgingly).

When Reuven promised Shimon a room that held a hundred barrels they discovered that - the room that he gave him held a hundred and twenty barrels.

Mar Zutra held that, seeing as Reuven did not have a room that could hold a hundred barrels, Shimon should only receive five sixths of the room. Rav Ashi refuted Mar Zutra's ruling on the basis - of our Mishnah, which rules that even the Rabbanan agree that 'ha'Nosen Matanah, be'Ayin Yafah Hu Nosen'. Consequently, he was entitled to receive the entire room.

We already learned that, according to Rebbi Akiva, a seller sells generously. The Rabbanan, who argue with Rebbi Akiva, rule that someone who purchases two trees in a field - does not acquire the land, implying that, once his trees die, he is not permitted to plant new ones.

Rav Huna rules that someone who sells a field retaining two trees for himself - retains the land that goes with it (because he sold the field begrudgingly).

Even Rebbi Akiva will agree with this ruling - because (unlike a pit, to which Rebbi Akiva's ruling pertains), his trees weaken the purchaser's land. Consequently, unless he retains the land in which the trees are growing, it stands to reason that the purchaser will not allow him to plant new trees, once the old ones die (and we assume that, when the owner retains the trees, he does so on a permanent basis).

Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah disagrees with the Tana Kama regarding the Din of Hekdesh. According to him, in the event that the owner declares his field Hekdesh, the only two things that are not included are - Ch'ruv ha'Murkav and Sadan ha'Shikmah.

Rebbi Shimon himself attributes this in a Beraisa to the fact - they nurture from a field belonging to Hekdesh.

We reconcile this with Rav Huna, who just ruled that the owner keeps the land together with the trees that he retains (in which case the land from which the tree nurtures is not Hekdesh) - by establishing Rebbi Shimon like Rebbi Akiva, who holds 'Mocher [O Makdish], be'Ayin Yafah hu Mocher) and Rav Huna like the Rabbanan (Mocher, be'Ayin Ra'ah hu Mocher').

True, we just established Rav Huna even according to Rebbi Akiva - but we have now been forced to retract.

We do not answer the Kashya by explaining that, according to Rebbi Shimon, one is Makdish even more generously than one gives a Matanah (in which case Rav Huna could still hold like Rebbi Akiva) - because then Rebbi Shimon would be comparing Makdish only partially to Mocher (inasmuch as he only declares Hekdesh what is included in 'Sadeh') and partially to Matanah (that he leaves himself nothing with regard to what he specified). And logically speaking, one either compares Makdish completely to one or to the other.

If Rav Huna holds like the Rabbanan, the Chidush is that - he retains the land for the trees even with regard to re-planting the trees after they die, as we explained earlier. (Otherwise we would have thought that he only retains the land with regard to bringing Bikurim), but not for the trees ...

... like in the equivalent case where the owner retains a pit (which includes a path, according to the Rabbanan), and the pit caves in - and where he no longer has any rights to the path, once he rebuilds his pit.