Explanation #1 (Rashi): [They must distance if when a covered flask is placed on the wall of the house, the lid moves.]

Question (Ri): This is difficult. How can the house shake so much that the lid moves? If so, the house is prone to fall!

The Gemara connotes that it was a strong building, for he built it amidst wealth.

Strengthening of question: In Shabbos (77b), we say 'what is Apanda? "A'Pischa Din" (at this opening is judgment)', for people gather there for judgment. This connotes that it is a big building!

Explanation #2 (Ri): The lid moves when a person holds the flask in his hand. This is a very small [vibration]. If so moves the house, he must distance.

Defense (of Explanation #1 - Ritzva): Rashi's Perush is not difficult. Through a small [vibration], the lid moves, for it is light, even though the house does not shake so much.

Question (Ri): He should be liable for fire, just like his rock, knife and load that he left on top of his roof, and they fell in a common wind, and damaged;

He is liable due to [the Av Nezek of] fire, like it says in Bava Kama (6a)!

Here we discuss when a common wind brings it, since we ask from winnowing and the wind helps him, which discusses a common wind, like it connotes in Bava Kama (60a) regarding one who fanned [a fire], and also the wind fanned it!

Also, we ask from a spark that exudes from a hammer, which discusses a common wind, for which he is liable due to fire, for this was taught regarding fire in Bava Kama.

Answer (Ri): This is unlike fire. One is liable for fire only when the person made the fire himself, like it says "ha'Mav'ir Es ha'Be'erah", without help from the wind, and afterwards [the fire] spread via a common wind;

However, here he does not do anything by himself, only with the wind. If not for the wind, the chaff [of the flax] would not go at all! This is like one who fanned [a fire], and also the wind fanned it. He is exempt.

Support: This is what we answer, when we ask below from a spark. We thought that this is just like a spark;

We answered that there, he wants the spark to go, and he intends to hit with force to the point that a spark comes out, and it goes without any wind. He is liable due to fire for what it continues to go via a common wind;

However, here he does not want [the chaff] to go. I.e. he does not bang with force. If not for the wind, the chaff would not go at all.

Question: In any case, he should be obligated to distance, just like a granary in our Mishnah. He must distance, even though the wind brings it!

Answer: Our Mishnah is like Rabanan. Here we discuss according to R. Yosi, who obligates [distancing] only in a case of Giri Dilei.

Implied question: We ask from a spark. Why can't we establish it like Rabanan?

Answer: This is because R. Yosi and Rabanan do not argue about obligation to pay, only about obligation to distance.

Question: Why is this different than a marten? Even R. Yosi holds that one must distance [a ladder from a dovecote - 22b], even though it (the marten) brings itself!

Answer: There, it is because sometimes when he places the ladder (the marten jumps from it), like it says above (22b).

Question: Above, regarding ravens (23a), Rav Yosef said "remove the ravens from here"!

Answer #1: The Gemara holds unlike Ravina (who says here that R. Yosi agrees about Giri Dilei only when it is from his impetus), for R. Tam rules like Mar bar Rav Ashi and Ameimar.

Answer #2 (Ri): Living beings are different. They are more stringent than wind, for another power is mixed with them, like it says in Bava Kama (6a).

Explanation: Ravina does not consider this to be a question. He holds that just like we do not learn from Shabbos regarding payment....

This is like Rav Ashi explains in Bava Kama (60a), for regarding Shabbos, the Torah obligates intended Melachah, but here it is Gerama, and Gerama is exempt regarding damages;

Similarly, we do not learn from there that one is obligated to distance.

Mar bar Rav Ashi holds that granted, we do not learn [from Shabbos] regarding payment, but regarding distance, that it is considered Giri Dilei, we learn properly, since Gerama in Nezakin is forbidden.

Question: Why does it say "according to Ravina"? This is difficult also according to Ameimar, regarding obligation to pay. Why is it different than a spark?

Answer: It mentioned Ravina, because Ameimar could dispel the question and say that indeed, he must pay, for he totally equates this to winnowing and the wind helps him.

Explanation #1: Rashi above (18a) connotes that it mentioned that the same applies to vines, because Kil'ai [ha'Kerem] applies to them;

He brought a proof from here that when there is a fence in between, there is no Isur Kil'ayim. One may [plant] close to the fence on this side, and [the other] may [plant] close on the other side.

Rebuttal: You are forced to say that here, his friend's field is not Zera'im, for the Gemara establishes our Mishnah to discusses vines opposite vines, and trees opposite trees;

However, if there are trees opposite vines, we require more distance, due to birds [that come to the trees and descend to the vines];

For this very reason, vines opposite Zera'im require more distance!

Explanation #2: Rather, it mentioned that the same applies to vines and all trees, lest one think that the Shi'ur of four Amos in our Mishnah is only for vines, since we find this Shi'ur for them elsewhere regarding Kil'ayim.

Question: Below (82b), regarding "one who acquired three trees, he acquired land", Rav Yosef said that a case occurred in a village of shepherds...

It connotes there that also in Bavel we require four Amos, for the episode was in Bavel!

Answer: We must say that in that village of shepherds, they had a big plow, like in Eretz Yisrael.

Explanation: This is when he planted date trees when they were tall. However, if he planted a seed, he need not [distance]. They grow automatically, and it is not Giri Dilei.

Question: Our Mishnah says that one cuts and pays money!

Answer: We can say that it refers to a barren tree.

Question: In Bava Kama (92a), regarding the date trees that were damaging the vines, [Shmuel] said [to his sharecropper] "tomorrow, bring to me their roots" (uproot them)!

Inference: Due to damage to vines, one may cut date trees.

Answer: We can say that there is different, for they were weakening the vines exceedingly, to the point that the taste of wine could be tasted in them (the dates).

Question: What proof did he bring from Rav Yehudah? A Rabim is different!

If you will not say so (that a Rabim is different), the Mishnah is difficult! It says that one cuts and descends!

Answer (R. Chananel and Rivam): A Rabim became Muchzak in the borders of Rav Huna. They did so with his permission. If not, their Chazakah would not help, like it connotes in Bava Kama (28a);

Rav Huna was digging in Reshus ha'Rabim, and cutting the roots of Rav Papa. Therefore [Rav Papa] asked from Rav Yehudah. Since a Rabim was Muchzak, he is not permitted to dig.

Implied question: Why did [Rav Huna] say "why didn't I say to him 'this is [only] within 16 Amos!'...?"

Answer: It means as follows. Rav Yehudah taught that a path in which the Rabim are Muchzak, one may not ruin it; this is only within 16 Amos. Outside of 16 Amos, one may ruin it, since he leaves 16 Amos, which is the proper amount for Reshus ha'Rabim.

Implied question: Below (60a), a man had recessed into his property, and R. Yochanan forbade him to return the walls to their [initial] place, even though there was room [for the Rabim even if he would return them]!

It answers like this according to Reish Lakish [who said] "here, there is room"!

Answer: There, "room" means that he does not close up the entire Reshus ha'Rabim. However, there would not [remain] a width of 16 Amos;

If there would [remain] a width of 16 Amos, R. Yochanan would agree that one may ruin it and return the walls to their place, like [Rav Huna] said here.

Question: What does it mean "Rav Papa asked him from all of them"? What are "all of them"?

Answer (R. Menachem): "All of them" are all these that are taught, and the Mishnah "if the tree was first, he may not cut it. If it is a Safek..." (Rashash was unsure what are "all of these that were taught", and also below in R. Tam's Perush.)

He was unable to persuade him, because [Rav Huna] said that these refer to the tree itself, but he may cut the roots.

Alternate explanation (R. Tam): Rav Huna cut the roots and kept them for himself. Rav Papa asked "what are you doing?", i.e. why do you keep them for yourself?;

Rav Huna answered "the Mishnah says that he cuts. Since I cut according to the law, it is proper that the wood is mine!"

Rav Papa asked him from all of them, i.e. those brought here, and also the one brought below (26b) of a commoner's roots [that enter a Hekdesh field], from which we prove below that "the roots are his" in our Mishnah means "of the owner of the tree".

He was unable to persuade him, because [Rav Huna] rejected them like we reject below, until he said to him Rav Yehudah's teaching...

Granted, my Chazakah does not help like the Chazakah of Rabim, to stop you from cutting, but it should help for this, that the wood is mine!

He concludes, why didn't I say that outside of 16 Amos the wood should be mine, like Ravina says below, "here is within 16 Amos..."?

Version #2: Some texts say "this is no proof. Here we discuss Gidulin." All this is from the Makshan;

Explanation: You are forced to say that you cannot resolve from here, for here we discuss Gidulin that came afterwards;

If it depends on the tree, the Reisha teaches that one may not benefit, and the Seifa teaches that there is no Me'ilah;

If it depends on the land, the Reisha teaches that there is no Me'ilah, and the Seifa teaches that one may not benefit from Gidulin.

Question: The clause that teaches that there is no Me'ilah in Gidulin, it should teach about a Hekdesh [tree] in a Hekdesh field, which is a bigger Chidush!

Answer: It taught this way (one of them is Chulin) due to the other clause, to teach that one may not benefit, which is a bigger Chidush [now] that not everything is Hekdesh (the tree or field is not).

Version #3: R. Chananel's text does not say "Ela" (there is no retraction). The Tartzan says so. He establishes the Seifa, which teaches that there is no Me'ilah, to discuss Gidulin.

Implied question: It should teach about a Hekdesh [tree] in a Hekdesh field!

Answer: It wanted to teach similar to the Reisha, in which not everything is Hekdesh. Only one is Hekdesh, and one is of a person;

However, if it depended on the land, and the Reisha teaches that there is no Me'ilah in Gidulin, the Reisha should teach about a Hekdesh [tree] in a Hekdesh field!

It is not such a good answer to say that we taught the Reisha similar to the Seifa, like saying that we taught the Seifa similar to the Reisha. (Only the latter is fine.)

Explanation: The Reisha is within 16 Amos. They are like the tree. The Seifa is outside 16 Amos. They are like the land.

Question: It should teach both within 16. The Seifa should teach that there is Me'ilah!

Alternatively, both should teach outside of 16. The Reisha should teach that there is Me'ilah!

Answer: The Tana taught it this way to teach that in both of them, both within 16 and outside of 16, one may not benefit, and there is no Me'ilah.

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): This is because one may not bring theft on the Mizbe'ach;

We learn from "Ani Hash-m Sonei Gezel b'Olah" and "v'Heveisem Gazul..."

Pesak: The Halachah does not follow Ula, for we explicitly rule like R. Yosi, who says "he plants in his property, and he plants in his property."

Question: According to his Perush, like whom does Ula hold?

His law is also unlike Rabanan, for Rabanan require only four Amos distance, and Ula obligates 16 Amos!

Answer: Ula establishes our Mishnah to discuss rocky land, like we established it above (18a). Therefore, it requires only four Amos distance.

Question (R. Yitzchak): Below (27a), we challenge Ula from "one who buys a tree and land, brings [Bikurim] and recites [the Viduy]." [We suggest] doesn't this refer to any amount of land?!

What was difficult? There is different, for he bought it. He is not a thief!

Answer (and Explanation #2 - Rashi): Even though it is permitted to be Somech, one may not bring Bikurim, because we require "Asher Tavi me'Artzecha."

Below, it says that a tree near the border, one brings and recites, for R. Yehoshua made this a stipulation for inheritance of Eretz Yisrael;

It does not say that he made inheritance contingent on a Heter to be Somech, because this is permitted even without [a stipulation];

Rather, he made inheritance contingent on being considered like "from your land", and he can say "that You gave to me."

Citation (Sukah 34a): The following are traditions from Moshe from Sinai - 10 saplings (one may plow an entire Beis Se'ah for them in Erev Shemitah, until Rosh Hashanah), taking the willow (in the Mikdash during Sukos) and Nisuch ha'Mayim (pouring water on the Mizbe'ach during Sukos).

Qualification: This is only when there are 10 in a Beis Se'ah. If there are less, one may not plow so much;

Similarly, if there were more than 10 in a Beis Se'ah, one may not plow [so much], for [the extra ones] are destined to be uprooted.