Question: According to Rav, who said above (65a) that [brothers who divided] have rights to a path [one may walk through his brother's share to get to his own share], because people sell stingily, how does he say here that they acquired everything, like regarding a gift (which people give generously)?

Answer: Here [they acquired everything] not due to generosity, rather, because they want to leave each other, and they leave everyone only what is needed for his portion, e.g. a path.

Question: According to the Rashbam's Perush, that according to R. Akiva, who says that one sells generously, one who bought one tree gets land...

Why did Rav Huna say "even though Rabanan said that one who bought two trees has no land..."?

Inference: If they would say that he gets land, it would not be a Chidush that one who left two trees [for himself] has land.

Summation of question: If so, why did he say "even according to R. Akiva...?" Why did he say "even"? According to [R. Akiva], one who bought one tree has land!

Answer: He means as follows. Even though Rabanan said that one who bought two trees did not acquire land, and [if he bought] three, he acquired;

This is because the land follows the trees only when there are three, but not when there are two. This is not due to generosity.

Note: These are the only possible explanations to acquire land. It seems that the Gemara said "even according to R. Akiva" to show that it is not due to selling generously. Generosity is not a reason to keep land!

Even so, when he left over, the land follows two [trees]. Now surely, if it is not due to generosity, one might have thought that with two he acquired land, all the more so when he kept two trees, he has land!

Note: Perhaps Tosfos means that if it is not due to generosity, we must say that it is because land follows the trees, both regarding selling and keeping. If so, the law should be the same (also with two he acquired land)! The Gemara teaches that this is not so. Normally, land is not acquired with two trees. Keeping is different, for if he does not keep land, the buyer will tell him to uproot his trees.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): [The buyer could say] "uproot your tree when it dries."

Question #1: What proof is this [that the seller kept land]? How does [Rav Huna] know that [the seller] never wants to leave the land? [Perhaps] indeed, [the buyer] can tell him "uproot your tree when it dries"!

Question #2: We conclude after this that if they fell, he replants them;

Inference: Until now, this that we said "he has land" means to plant under the tree. No reason is given to explain this. (Tosfos ha'Rosh - since the Gemara answered that he may replant, this implies that rights to replant is a bigger Chidush. If so, we cannot say that since he may plant under the tree, surely he may replant.\omit if not understand )

Question #3: Now it connotes that one has more [rights] in the land when he keeps two trees than [one's rights to] a path when he keeps a pit or cistern according to R. Akiva;

Regarding a buyer, it is opposite! One who bought two trees did not acquire land, based on what I explained above (37a), and one who bought a pit or cistern has a path according to R. Akiva!

Explanation #2 (Ri): If he did not keep land at all, [the buyer] could tell him immediately "uproot your tree"! Therefore, he needs to keep land for the tree to nurture;

Since he must keep, he keeps also land to plant around the tree and to plant another in its place when it dries, like we conclude.

Distinction: However, regarding a buyer, one cannot say so, that since he bought land for the tree to nurture, he bought also to plant around it and to plant another in its place;

This is because a seller sells what he wants and keeps what he wants, but a buyer does not buy what he wants, rather, what the seller wants to sell to him.

Question: Now it connotes that one keeps land with a tree more than one keeps a path to a pit or cistern;

Above it connotes that if not for Rav Huna, one might have thought that if one sold land and kept two trees, even according to Rabanan, he has no land, like we conclude [that Rav Huna's Chidush is] that if they fall, he may plant new trees.

What is the reason? According to Rabanan, when he kept a pit or cistern, he has a path. If so, all the more so he has land with trees that he kept, like I explained!

Answer: Only initially, before we knew the reason "once he is retaining", he keeps more a path to pit or cistern, because he needs more a path to pit or cistern than he needs land for the tree;

However, now that Rav Huna taught the reason "once he is retaining", he keeps more land for the tree than he keeps a path with pit or cistern;

Surely, for nurturing of the tree he keeps more than a path [with pit or cistern] according to everyone, for he does not want to uproot it immediately.

Question (Ri and R. Tam): [What was the question? Even if one keeps land for his trees,] in any case, they do not nurture from their own [land], for he kept around the tree only enough for a harvester and his basket, like it says below (82a). A tree nurtures 16 Amos [around itself]! (R. Akiva Eiger points out that Tosfos (27a DH Lo) says that according to Ula, he gets 16 Amos or enough for a harvester and his basket, whichever is more. The Gemara challenged Ula, and answered for him. No Amora argued with him.)

Answer #1: R. Shimon does not distinguish. He says that even carob and sycamore, whose branches go out more than 16 Amos, he was Makdish;

[According to Rav Huna,] what is the reason? They do not nurture from a Hekdesh field, for he acquired (i.e. kept) all the land under the branches and outside them enough for a harvester and his basket!

Answer #2: When he sells to others, the buyer acquires only [under the branches and] outside them enough for a harvester and his basket. When one keeps for himself, he keeps all that is needed for the tree to nurture.

Question: What was the question? Granted, regarding a sale, [Rav Huna] says that since he kept land with the tree, regarding Hekdesh he did not keep, for one is Makdish more generously than he sells!

The Gemara asks like this below (72a), according to whom did R. Shimon say that one who is Makdish one tree was not Makdish land?

Citation: If it is according to R. Akiva, he says that one sells generously regarding a path. All the more so one is Makdish more generously, so the land gets Kedushah due to the tree...

Even though regarding a sale, land is not sold with the tree [he is Makdish even more generously than he sells]. So we must explain, like I explained above (36b).

Answer #1 (Ri): Here, we do not want to answer so, for we should equate Hekdesh to a sale or a gift. If so (he was not Makdish land with one tree), it is not like either of them!

Regarding a sale, he keeps land with the tree.

Also, it is unlike a gift. Regarding a gift, he gave all of [the matters in our Mishnah - 71b]!

Answer #1 (cont.): However, below it is a proper question. Since R. Akiva holds that one sells generously, if so one is Makdish generously, just like a gift;

Also regarding a gift, the law is that if one gave three trees one after the other, he gave also land.

Retraction (Ri): This is wrong. If so, we should resolve from the Mishnah itself that R. Shimon holds unlike R. Akiva, for regarding a gift, all (Chachamim and R. Akiva) agree that he gave all of them, and regarding Hekdesh, R. Shimon says that he was not Makdish all of them!

Also in the conclusion, we say that R. Shimon addressed Chachamim according to their reasoning. I.e. it suffices for you to make the generosity of [one who makes] Hekdesh a little more than a sale, and he was Makdish all the land;

You should not say that [one who makes] Hekdesh is as generous as one gives.

Answer #2 (Ri): According to R. Shimon, who surely does not make Hekdesh like a gift, the Gemara holds that the generosity of Hekdesh should be only a little more than a sale;

I.e. if he was Makdish a tree, he was Makdish also land, even though regarding a sale he was not Makdish land with the tree;

However, to be so generous that the land of the carob tree is Kadosh with the field, we should not say that it is so generous according to R. Shimon.

Consequence: According to this, it connotes that we should say more when one sells a tree that the land needed for the tree is sold with the tree, than we should say when one sells a field that the land needed for the tree kept is sold with the field. (Maharshal - "sells a tree" refers to Hekdesh, which is like a sale.)

Question: It connotes that if not for Rav Huna's teaching, one might have thought that if one sold land and kept trees, he does not have land;

Rather, he sold the land needed for the tree with the field, even though when he sold a tree, he did not sell the land needed for the tree!

Answer: This is because if not for Rav Huna, one might have thought that when one sold a field and kept a tree, he sold the entire field, even what is needed for the tree;

This is because the land is called "Sadeh" more than the land needed for the tree is called "Ilan".

However, now that Rav Huna taught that the name "Sadeh" does not help to be sold with the field, because he made a remnant (exclusion from the sale), it is logical to cast [what is needed for the tree] to follow the tree kept, since it is needed for the tree, more than [when he sold a tree and kept a field] to cast [what is needed for the tree] to follow the field kept.

Question: Still, in the conclusion of our Sugya (72b), it says that [R. Shimon] addressed Rabanan according to their words - admit to me that Hekdesh is not like a gift;

At the most, he was Makdish carob and sycamore. In this way, Hekdesh is more generous than a sale;

Even though in a sale, he did not sell a carob tree and not the land needed for it, when he was Makdish, he was Makdish all the land. Therefore, he was Makdish also the carob.

Just like R. Shimon said to Rabanan, we should say now according to R. Shimon, as long as we did not know the Beraisa from which we bring that he was not Makdish more than [in such a case] he sold!

Answer (Ri): Even though R. Shimon said so to Rabanan in the conclusion, in any case it seems difficult to the Gemara that R. Shimon would say that Hekdesh is so much more generous than a sale.

Question (Rashba): Why is this obvious to [the Makshan]?

You are forced to say that it is because according to Rabanan, he has a path when he keeps a pit or cistern, and all the more so when he keeps a tree. Therefore, this is obvious to him;