Rebuttal #2: [R. Yakov] explained that the Seifa does not discuss a case similar to the Reisha. This is totally unreasonable;

If so, the Reisha taught that if he left over any amount of land, his gift is valid. Even if he did not leave over [it is valid], since it is through a Kinyan!

The Seifa taught that if he did not leave over any land, his gift is invalid. Even if he left over [it is invalid], since there is no Kinyan!

Conclusion: What I explained is more reasonable.

Explanation #3: Also [it is difficult] what R. Chananel explained that according to Rav, our Mishnah discusses without a Kinyan. It seems that he wants to say that a Matanas Shechiv Mera in which a Kinyan is written, is even a Kinyan alone [without Yifuy Ko'ach];

He also explained that regarding this, we hold like Rav, since Shmuel said "I do not know how to judge it", even though normally we hold like Shmuel [against Rav] in monetary laws.

Question #1: [The Gemara] ruled above (151b) that a partial Matanas Shechiv Mera requires a Kinyan. [Rava challenged Rav Nachman from our Mishnah (146b),] and he answered that in our Mishnah, they acquired from him;

If so, why [does our Mishnah say that] he left over? Even if he did not leave over [he acquires due to the Kinyan]! It is totally unreasonable to say that Rav argues with what we ruled above (151b) that a partial Matanas Shechiv Mera requires a Kinyan!

Question #2 - Citation (Gitin 66a): This implies that Rav Huna holds that Matanas Shechiv Mera does not need a Kinyan. We hold that it needs a Kinyan!

What is difficult if Rav Huna argues with this ruling, and holds like Rav, his Rebbi, holds here?

In Shabbos (128a) we challenge Rav Huna from Rav, his Rebbi. It says "Rav Huna was the Talmid of Rav, and Rav does not hold [that there is an Isur] of Muktzah!"

Question #3: Here, it says "Bei Rav says", and this refers to Rav Huna, like R. Tam explained in Sanhedrin (17b). Also Rashi holds that [Bei Rav] is Rav Huna, unless it is proven that it is Rav Hamnuna.

Implied question: Likewise, it was not written in [the document] the expression of a healthy person "like he was walking on his feet in the market"! (Why does the Mishnah say only that it did not say that he was a Shechiv Mera?)

Answer: It says so because it teaches "he must bring a proof that he was a Shechiv Mera."

Explanation: The heirs claim that he recovered. Even though they do not claim that he retracted, surely, since he recovered, presumably, he retracted, even though he did not say so explicitly.

Support #1: It connotes like this in Gitin (72b). Rav Huna said there that [a Shechiv Mera's] Get is like his gift. Just like his gift, if he recovered, he retracts, also his Get he retracts;

[The Gemara] challenges him from the Mishnah "this is your Get from today if I die from this illness', and he went and stood in the market, and fell sick and died - if he died due to the first illness, it is a Get. If not, it is not a Get;

Citation (72b): If you say that if he recovered, he retracts, behold he recovered!

What was the question? Granted, he recovered, but he did not retract! Rather, this shows that even if he did not specify that he retracts, we should say that he retracts.

Support #2: Also, R. Elazar said there (73a) that if a Shechiv Mera was Nitak (went straight) from one illness to another illness, his gift is valid;

Inference: This is only if Nitak, but if he recovered, his gift is invalid, even though he did not retract.

Question (Rivam): Why didn't he challenge [Rabah] from the Mishnah in Gitin?

Citation (28a - Mishnah): If [a Shali'ach to give a Get] left [the husband] old or sick, he gives it to her based on the Chazakah that he is alive, and the wife [of an old or sick Kohen] may eat Terumah based on the Chazakah that he is alive. We do not say "perhaps he died"!

Answer #1: This is not difficult. There, he did not die in the end. Here, he died in the end. We should not say that he recovered, if not because we compare it to a ship capsizing at sea;

It is as if [the passengers] are destined to die in the water, and even so we consider them in the Chazakah that they are still alive.

Answer #2: From that Mishnah, he could prove only that [the husband] is in his Chazakah like [the Shali'ach] left him;

However, from this Mishnah one can prove that he was saved from his illness, just like the passengers on the boat capsizing in the sea, who were saved from the water.

Question: Why didn't he say [that Rabah holds] like R. Meir? Below (154a), Rabah himself establishes R. Nasan like R. Meir in our Mishnah!

Answer #1: It is because R. Nasan was a judge, and descended to the depth of the law.

Support: For this reason, the Rashbam rules like Rabah.

Answer #2: Our Mishnah does not explicitly prove he has the Chazakah of being healthy now, but R. Nasan's teaching explicitly connotes so.

Question: Obviously, since he can take from them without a proof, they cannot take from him without a proof!

Answer: The Chidush is that with a proof they can take from him, even though the document does not prove that he was healthy.

Explanation (Ri): The Sugya here argues with the Sugya in Kidushin (79a). It says there that if [on the day that a girl will become a Bogeres, i.e. six months after she became a Na'arah] her father was Mekadesh her on the road, and she was Mekadesh herself in the city, and [now] she is a Bogeres...

Rav says "she is a Bogeres in front of us" (we assume that she was a Bogeres also before, so her Kidushin takes effect). Shmuel says, we are concerned for the Kidushin of both of them.

We suggested there that Tana'im argue like [Rav and Shmuel]. Who takes from whom? He takes from them without a proof... Let us say that Rav holds like R. Nasan, and Shmuel holds like R. Yakov!

Citation (79a) Rejection: Shmuel can hold even like R. Nasan. R. Nasan said only there, for everyone has the Chazakah of being healthy. One who wants to uproot himself from Chezkas Bari, he must bring a proof. Here, [she] does not uproot [herself] from Chazakah.

Consequence: If so, also here, what proof does he bring from R. Nasan to Rabah? There, the reason is because everyone has the Chazakah of being healthy;

However, here we cannot say that he had the Chazakah of a Shechiv Mera who did not recover, for perhaps he recovered!

Also from the Seifa, which teaches "if he is [now] a Shechiv Mera, they must bring a proof that he was healthy", there is no proof (that Rabah holds like R. Nasan.) There, the reason is because we establish money in its Chazakah. In Rabah's law here, the heirs have Chezkas Mamon.

Conclusion: This shows that the Sugya here argues with the reasoning there.

Explanation #1 (R. Chananel): In winter, people do not enter it due to the abundance of rain.

Rebuttal (and Explanation #2): It is not due to being full of water, rather, due to grain, like it says in the Tosefta that R. Chananel brought "summer is from when grain is uprooted from its place."

Implied question (Seifa): Winter is from when the second rainfall falls. (This shows that it depends on rain!)

Answer: It is not due to the abundance of rain. Rather, from then and onwards crops grow, and trampling on them harms them, like the Beraisa teaches in Bava Kama (81a) "we may walk in paths of Reshus (through others' fields - we assume that they permit) until the second rainfall falls", for from then and onwards, trampling harms Zera'im and grain. (The Beraisa did not say the reason. However, it shows that there is an Isur. R. Chananel connotes that people themselves choose to refrain.)

Reference: In Shabbos (6b), Amora'im argue about this. One establishes it to discuss a valley that was surrounded on [all] four sides;

It is Reshus ha'Rabim for Tum'ah, for even a Chatzer in which people enter from this side and leave from this side, we say in Eruvin (8a) that it is Reshus ha'Rabim for Tum'ah. All the more so a valley in which people go constantly (is Reshus ha'Rabim for Tum'ah)!

And one [opinion] establishes it without being surrounded, and it is a Karmelis. Why is it called Reshus ha'Yachid [for Shabbos]? It is because it is not Reshus ha'Rabim.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): Winter passed after the valley was fenced. Even so, in summer it is considered Reshus ha'Yachid.

Objection #1: This is totally unreasonable. What logic is there, that once it was fenced and winter passed, it is Reshus ha'Yachid even in summer, but before winter passed, it is not Reshus ha'Yachid?!

Objection #2: We can establish Rava's teaching here only like the opinion in Shabbos (6b) that it has a fence on [all] four sides!

Objection #3: Why did Rava teach his law here, more than in other places in the Gemara that it brings this Mishnah?

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): He refers to Tum'ah. He means as follows. We learned only when winter did not pass over this Tum'ah. Then, if one entered in summer, it is Reshus ha'Rabim;

However, if winter passed over this Tum'ah, even if one entered in summer and comes to ask in winter, it is Reshus ha'Yachid.

Question #1: Also this is astounding! Why should it be considered Reshus ha'Yachid, since he entered in summer and comes to ask in winter?

Poor answer: It is difficult to say that this is a stringency mid'Rabanan.

Question #2: Why did Rava teach his law here, more than in other places that bring this Mishnah?

Answer: Also this is not difficult, like R. Chananel explained, that Rava argues with R. Elazar. [R. Chananel] did not write more. (Mahaduras Oz v'Hadar brings from old texts that this is a comment on our Tosfos.)

Explanation: It seems that he distinguishes as follows. Since Rava said "if winter passed, it is Reshus ha'Yachid", even if he comes to ask in winter and he entered in summer, if so, he does not follow the time he asks;

Perhaps he wants to say like R. Yochanan, like it says in the Yerushalmi. R. Yochanan said, if he became Tamei in a Safek valley, whether in summer or in winter, R. Meir and Chachamim argue about this;

If he comes to ask in summer, we answer according to the law in summer (Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor). If he comes to ask in winter, we answer according to the law in winter (Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid is Tamei). R. Yochanan said, this is as long as it is close to the days of] rain. (Chazon Ish - if he is unsure whether he entered in summer or winter, we are lenient if the days of winter are just beginning.)

A Tosefta teaches that summer is from when grain is uprooted from [the valley]. Winter is from when the second rainfall falls. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)