Question: If he said to him "I rent to you the Aliyah under this Aliyah", obviously he lives in the top one, for he put a lien on it for him;

If he said "I rent to you [the Aliyah] on this house", obviously he cannot remove him [from the house to force him] to go to the top one!

Answer: Really, he said "I rent to you [the Aliyah] on this house." [R. Aba bar Mamal] is unsure. Perhaps the top Aliyah is included in "house".

Implied question: [If so,] why did he say "on this house"?

Answer: It is because the primary house is below.

Implied question: One who sells a house did not sell the Aliyah! (This shows that it is not included in "house"!)

Answer: Regarding putting a lien, it is included in "house".

Explanation #1 (Rashi): If he does not pay rent, it looks like Ribis.

Objection #1 (Ri): Ribis does not apply here. He did not lend to him at all, for if the house would burn, he would not give to him his expenditures!

Objection #2 (and Explanation #2): We do not need the reason of Ribis, for the reason is because this one benefits, and this one loses, like the Gemara explains.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because now, he does not benefit, for the Aliyah is prepared for him.

Question: He benefits, for he does not need to ascend!

Version #2: The text says "he puts a roof on the Aliyah and dwells in it." I.e. he dwells in the Aliyah, and does not let the Ba'al ha'Bayis enter his house until he pays his expenditures.

Explanation: [He taught in three places that one may not benefit,] even though according to letter of the law, it seems that he should be allowed to benefit!

Explanation (cont.): One case is here. Even though this one benefits, and this one does not lose, even so Chachamim enacted that he is liable, for he should not benefit from his friend's property without his Da'as (consent).

Explanation (cont.): The other (second) case is R. Yehudah's teaching that if the Shevach... (he pays the lesser of the Shevach and the expenditures);

Even though a Gazlan acquires through Shinuy, here they enacted that he does not acquire, for he did not intend to steal and acquire, for he should not benefit from his friend's property, since his friend brought from the market and toiled for it, like Rashi explained.

Question: Based on what we are thinking now that the reason is because one may not benefit from his friend's property, and not because whoever deviates has the lower hand, granted, he did not acquire through Shinuy, because the owner toiled to bring from the market...

In any case, we should not say that he has the lower hand!

Answer #1 (Ri): He could have said "also according to you (the Makshan, this is difficult)"!

Answer #2: According to letter of the law, he did not acquire through Shinuy, because he does not intend to acquire. However, in any case we should give to him wages according to what he improved it through dying it black;

Rabanan enacted that he not benefit from his friend's property without his Da'as, i.e. through dying it black, for he did unlike his intent. Therefore, he has the lower hand.

Explanation (cont.): Also in the case of one who gave his document to a third party, even though Asmachta acquires...

Here, since it is not an absolute gift, for he does not totally resolve to give it, Chachamim enacted that the lender may not benefit from it (collect again).

Reference: I explained this in the name of the Yerushalmi, in Bava Kama (100b DH Im).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We discuss a Ba'al ha'Bayis who wants to sell the land.

Rebuttal (Ri): He would not ask about this. Obviously he cannot sell it, for there is a lien on it to build an Aliyah when he wants;

If he wants to sell the land to make a house, and he sells only the rights he has in it, also this is obvious, that he can sell like this. Why shouldn't he be able to sell rights he has in it?!

Explanation #2 (Ri): We discuss a Ba'al ha'Bayis who wants to seed the land, and the owner of the Aliyah says "also I will seed it, for also I have a lien on the land";

Or, perhaps [the Ba'al ha'Bayis] can tell him "you own nothing in the land. [You have rights] only in the Aliyah."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We discuss brothers who divided, like the argument of R. Yehudah and Rabanan. We do not discuss a tenant and landlord.

Question #1 (and Explanation #2): Since Rav and Shmuel argue here in the Gemara, this connotes that we discuss a tenant and landlord, similar to the argument above!

Question #2: If when brothers divide it is obligatory on the bottom one to build the ceiling, why must we establish the case above when the Aliyah collapsed (116b) to discuss a tenant and landlord? We could establish it to discuss brothers who divided!

If this "and similarly [an olivepress...]" refers to the case above, when the Aliyah collapsed", why did it interrupt in between (with the Mishnah 117a, when the building fell), and not put them next to each other?