(Continuation of Mishnah): If Levi hired Yehudah to work with him collecting straw, he cannot insist that Yehudah take straw for wages;

If Yehudah agreed, Levi cannot retract and give his wages and keep all his straw.

(Gemara) Question: How much of the garden must sink (for the law of the Mishnah to apply)?

Answer #1 (Rav): The majority must sink.

Answer #2 (Shmuel): Four Tefachim must sink.

Rav requires the majority, but not just four Tefachim, for one can plant part of his garden at a lower level;

Shmuel holds that four Tefachim suffice, for one cannot plant part of his garden at a lower level.

They needed to argue here and above (regarding an Aliyah that sunk).

Had they argued only above, one might have thought that only regarding a dwelling Shmuel says that one cannot live at two levels, but one can manage with such a garden;

Had they argued only here, one might have thought that Rav admits that one cannot live in a dwelling at two levels.

(Mishnah): If they gave him time...

Question: How much time do we give him?

Answer (R. Yochanan): We give 30 days.

(Mishnah): Reuven's wall...

Question: Later the Mishnah mentions Shimon's expenditures, implying that he cleared the rocks away.

Inference: Had he not cleared them away, he did not acquire them.

Why doesn't his field acquire for him?

(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): One's Chatzer acquires for him without his knowledge.

Answer: That is only when the person wants to acquire. Here, Shimon did not want the rocks.

(Mishnah): If Levi hired Yehudah to work with him collecting straw...

We needed to teach this and the previous cases.

Had we taught only about a wall, one might have thought that there Shimon need not take the rocks, because Reuven does not owe him, but an employer can pay his worker with anything he wants.

Had we taught only about wages, one might have thought that there Levi cannot retract after Yehudah agrees, for Levi owes him, but regarding rocks, Reuven can retract even after Shimon agrees.

(Mishnah): Levi cannot insist that Yehudah take straw for wages.

Contradiction (Beraisa): Levi can insist.

Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): If Yehudah worked for Levi, Levi cannot insist. If Levi asked Yehudah to work for Shimon, Levi can insist.

Objection (Rabah): When Yehudah worked for Levi, Levi cannot insist, because he must pay him;

Also when Levi asked Yehudah to work for Shimon, Levi must pay him!

(Beraisa): If Yosef hired David to work on Yosef's property, and set him to work on what is really Moshe's property, Yosef pays David, and can demand that Moshe pay him the benefit he received.

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): Rather, if Yehudah worked for Levi, Levi cannot insist. If Yehudah worked with Hefker property, Levi can insist.

Objection (Rava - Beraisa): A worker keeps what he finds. This is only if the employer said 'weed (or another particular task) with me today';

If he said 'work for me today', the employer gets it. (Therefore, even if Yehudah worked with Hefker, Levi acquired it.)

Answer #3 (Rav Nachman): In both cases, Yehudah worked with Hefker;

If Yehudah picked it up, Levi acquired it, he cannot insist;

If Yehudah only watched it, it is still Hefker, Levi can insist.

(Rabah): Tana'im argue about whether or not or not looking at Hefker acquires it.

(Mishnah): People guarding Sefichim (produce that grows by itself) in Shemitah (needed for communal Korbanos) are paid from Terumas ha'Lishkah (half-Shekalim used to buy the Korbanos);

R. Yosi says, one who wants to guard for free volunteers his time.

Chachamim: According to you, the Korban does not come from the Tzibur (rather from the individual who guarded it)!

Suggestion: Chachamim hold that looking at Hefker acquires it. If the Shomer is not paid, the produce is his;

R. Yosi holds that looking at Hefker does not acquire it. It is not acquired until (a Shali'ach of) the Tzibur takes it.

Chachamim told R. Yosi, if we do like you say, we hold that the Korban would belong to the watcher!

Version #1 - Rejection (Rava): No, all hold that looking at Hefker acquires it;

They argue about whether or not or not we rely on the Shomer to properly give the produce to the Tzibur (perhaps he wants to retain ownership so the Korban will be his);

Chachamim say that the Shomer watcher must be paid, we are concerned lest he not give it properly;

R. Yosi says that the Shomer is not paid, we rely on him to give it properly.

Chachamim told R. Yosi, if done as you say, we are concerned that the Korban would belong to the Shomer.

Version #2 - Rejection (Rava): All hold that looking at Hefker does not acquire it;

They argue about whether or not or not we are concerned that if we do not pay the Shomer (to publicize that he is guarding for Hekdesh), others will forcibly take the produce themselves.

Chachamim hold that it was enacted to pay the Shomer four Zuz in order that others will not forcibly take the produce;

R. Yosi holds that no such enactment was made.

Chachamim told R. Yosi, if we do like you say, four Zuz of Terumas ha'Lishkah really belongs to the Shomer (he waived his right to take it). Korbanos bought with those four Zuz belong to the Shomer, not to the Tzibur!

(Ravin): R. Yochanan holds like Version #2.

(Mishnah): One who takes dung (for fertilizer) to the Reshus ha'Rabim may not leave it there (he must immediately take it to his field or garden).

One may not soak mud or form bricks and leave them to dry in the Reshus ha'Rabim;

One may knead mud to immediately put it in the building, but not to make bricks.

If one builds in the Reshus ha'Rabim, one person brings the rocks, and they must immediately be built into the building;

If someone is hurt, the builder must pay.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, one may prepare what he will need 30 days before he builds, and he is exempt for resulting damage.

(Gemara) Suggestion: Our Mishnah is not like R. Yehudah.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): When people normally put out dung, one may put dung in the Reshus ha'Rabim for 30 days so that people and animals will trample on it. Yehoshua made this a condition for inheriting Eretz Yisrael.

Rejection: It is even like R. Yehudah. R. Yehudah admits that he is liable if it damages.

Question (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): (If a grocer left Ner Chanukah burning outside his shop, and this set fire to a load of flax on a passing camel, and the camel walked around, and set the whole building on fire,) the grocer is exempt, because he had permission to leave the lights burning.

Suggestion: Because he had permission of Beis Din, he is exempt!

Answer: No, because it is a Mitzvah he is exempt.

The following Beraisa shows that our Mishnah is not R. Yehudah.

(Beraisa): Everyone who may ruin the Reshus ha'Rabim, if he damages, he is liable;

R. Yehudah exempts.

Conclusion: Indeed, our Mishnah is not R. Yehudah.

(Abaye): All the following hold that if one acted with permission, and he damaged, he is exempt: R. Yehudah (above), R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Shimon.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): One may prepare what he will need 30 days before he builds, and he is exempt for resulting damage.

(Mishnah): One may not set up a Tanur (oven) in his house unless there are four Amos above it. One may not set up a Tanur in an Aliyah unless there are three Tefachim of plaster below it;

For a Kirah (an oven that does not get as hot), one Tefach suffices.

If the oven caused damage, he must pay for it;

R. Shimon says, if he kept the proper distance, he is exempt.

(Beraisa): If a rock quarrier gave over the rocks to one who smoothes them, the smoother is liable (for any damage that results);

If the rocks were passed on to a donkey-driver (to transport them), to one who carries them himself, to the builder, to the Adrichal (one who straightens out the rocks in the building), at any time, the last one who received them is liable.

If a rock fell off the row being built - since its momentum did not come from the Adrichal, all share the liability.

Contradiction (Beraisa): The last one is liable, and all previous ones are exempt.

Answer: If they are paid wages (based on how long they work for), only the last is liable;

If they are Kablanim (they are hired to complete the job), all are responsible.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If Reuven owns a garden, and Shimon owns an adjacent garden on a mound, and plants growing on the side of the mound are over Reuven's garden, these plants belong to Shimon;

R. Yehudah says, they belong to Reuven.

R. Meir: If Shimon would take his dirt, they would not grow!

R. Yehudah: If Reuven would fill his airspace with dirt, they would not grow!

R. Meir: Since either could stop them from growing, they belong to the one from whose property they grow.

R. Shimon says, whatever Shimon can reach (from his property), he takes. The rest belongs to Reuven.

(Gemara - Rava): All agree that the roots belong to Shimon. They argue only about the foliage;

R. Meir treats the foliage the same as the roots;

R. Yehudah does not treat the foliage the same as the roots.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If Levi owned a tree in Yehudah's land, what grows out of the stump or roots belongs to Yehudah;

R. Yehudah says, what grows out of the stump belongs to Levi. What grows out of the roots belongs to Yehudah.