1)

(a)One acquires ...

1. ... a flower-pot by means of Meshichah.

2. ... seeds growing in a holed flower-pot by means of Kesef, Shtar or Chazakah, the former ...

(b)... because the former is considered Metaltelin, whereas the latter are considered Karka)

(c)Weeding or digging constitutes a Chazakah with regard to seeds.

2)

(a)If the seeds belong to one person and the holed pot to another, the owner of ...

1. ... the seeds will acquire the pot by means of Meshichah, whereas ...

2. ... the owner the pot will acquire the seeds through Chazakah.

(b)If the seeds and the pot belong to Reuven, the easiest way for Shimon to acquire them both is by making a Chazakah on the seeds alone (having in mind to acquire rhe pot simultaneously) ...

(c)... because, as we learned in a Mishnah in Kidushin, Metaltelin can be acquired together with Karka through Kesef, Shtar and Chazakah.

(d)Should he make a Chazakah on the pot alone (by using it for a specific purpose) he will acquire neither the seeds nor even the pot.

3)

(a)According to Abaye, if the hole in the pot is in Eretz Yisrael and the branch of a tree (which is growing on the other side of the pot, is in Chutz la'Aretz, we go after the hole in which case, the fruit that subsequently grows on the tree is subject to Ma'asros min ha'Torah.

(b)According to Rava we go after the branch, and the fruit is Patur from Ma'asros.

(c)Even Rava will concede that we go after the hole once the tree has taken root in the ground via the hole.

4)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir, if two gardens exist side by side in two tiers, whatever grows from the wall (of earth) that divides them belongs to the owner of the upper-tier garden. According to Rebbi Yehudah it belongs to the owner of the lower-tier garden.

(b)This appears to clash with what we just learned inasmuch as in what seems to be the same case, Tana'im argue as to whether over there where the roots are growing in someone else's property, we nevertheless go after the branch, whereas we just learned that even Rava concedes that we do not.

(c)In reply, we cite the reasons that Rebbi Mes and Rebbi Yehudah give for their respective rulings. The reason given by ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah is the fact that the owner of the lower-tier garden has the right to fill in his garden with earth, depriving his neighbor of the possibility of planting anything on the wall of his garden.

2. ... Rebbi Meir is because the owner of the upper-tier garden has the right to excavate his garden and remove it completely, thereby depriving his neighbor of the wall.

(d)All this has nothing to do will the case under discussion, where both Tana'im may well agree with Rava's latter ruling.

5)

(a)Rebbi says that the fruit of a tree that is growing partially in Eretz Yisrael and partly in Chutz la'Aretz is all partially Tevel and partially Chulin.

(b)The ramifications of this ruling are that one can only separate Ma'asros from the fruit itself, and not from another source that is Vadai Tevel.

(c)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says 'ha'Gadeil b'Chiyuv, Chayav; ha'Gadeil b'Petur, Patur'.

(d)Based on the assumption that it is the branch that is growing partially in Eretz Yisrael and partially in Chutz la'Aretz, whilst the roots are growing entirely in Eretz Yisrael we attempt to prove from here that we go after the branch even though the roots are growing elsewhere.

6)

(a)If, as we conclude, the Tana is speaking when it is the roots that are divided, and not the branches, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel divides the sap and the Kedushah into two because the Beraisa is speaking when a rock divides them, enabling the sap and the Kedushah in the tree to remain divided, too.

(b)Rebbi maintains however, that even though the sap initially enters the tree in two separate lots once it reaches ground level, where the two parts of the tree merge into one, the sap does likewise.

(c)In a case where the roots of a tree grow in Eretz Yisrael, and its branch grows in Chutz la'Aretz both Tana'im will agree that we go after the roots (like Abaye and Rava).

7)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Asi Amar Ula lists three kinds of skin (parchment); Matzah, Cheifah and Diftera.

(b)'Matzah' has not been treated at all, neither with salt, nor with flour nor with gall-nuts (like regular Matzah, which comprises nothing more than flour and water, in order to minimize the chances of its becoming Chametz.

(c)We need to know this for the Shi'ur of carrying on Shabbos, which Abaye describes as 'Riv'a d'Riv'a d'Pumbedisa' which in turn, is the smallest weight in Pumbedisa, which they would cover with 'Matzah'.

(d)'Cheifah' has been salted but not treated with flour, and also concerns the Shi'ur of carrying on Shabbos. The minimum Shi'ur for carrying Cheifah on Shabbos is when it is large enough to cover a Kamei'ah with it (which is why it is called 'Cheifah' [from the word 'Chofeh', to cover]).

8)

(a)'Diftera' is skin that has been treated with salt and flour.

(b)We need to know this in connection with the Shi'ur for carrying out on Shabbos (like by Matzah and Cheifah) which is large enough to write a Get on it.

(c)Rebbi Chiya bar Asi Amar Ula holds like the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira in our Mishnah, who validate a Get that is written on Diftera.

9)

(a)'Klaf' is parchment that has been treated with salt, flour and gall-nuts.

(b)Rebbi Chiya bar Asi Amar Ula does not include it in his list because 'Klaf' no longer falls under the category of skin.

10)

(a)According to Elazar ben Pedas, the Chachamim in our Mishnah who validate a Get that is written on paper even though it is possible to erase and change its contents are Rebbi Elazar (ben Shamua) who holds 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi'.

(b)In spite of the fact that, according to Rebbi Elazar, "v'Kasav Lah" refers to the Kesivah and not to the Chasimah, he will concede that witnesses are required min ha'Torah because of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Davar" "Davar" from Mamon which teaches us that 'Ein Davar shebe'Ervah Pachos mi'Shenayim'.

(c)R. Elazar permits writing the Get on paper that can be forged since when the Eidei Mesirah witnessed the handing over of the Get, they were obligated to read its contents, and they will know of any change that subsequently took place.

(d)R. Meir on the other hand, disqualifies it because he does not require the actual witnesses who signed to testify, since any witnesses who recognize the signatures will suffice. And they did not read the contents of the Get and do not know what was written on it.

11)

(a)Rebbi Elazar (ben Pedas) maintains that the Chachamim only validate the Get which had already been written on and erased, 'immediately' meaning on that day.

(b)The reason for this is because we suspect that, once the first day has passed, the witnesses themselves may have forgotten the details that were written on the Shtar, and will no longer be reliable (though we are not afraid of this by a regular Shtar).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan permits even up to ten days.

12)

(a)Rebbi Elazar also restricts the ruling of Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah to Gitin, but not to other Shtaros because by Gitin (which are not intended to claim with), the woman can be expected to take the Shtar to Beis-Din immediately to have it substantiated, and to receive permission to remarry. This creates a Kol, which will later suffice to enable her to marry when the time comes. But regarding monetary issues (where the purpose of the Shtar is to claim with), the claimant will not normally produce the Shtar until it falls due for payment, by which time we are afraid that the witnesses may have forgotten the details ...

(b)... and he supports this by quoting the Pasuk in Yirmiyahu "u'Nesatem bi'Ch'li Cheres ... ", from which we learn that Shtaros are expected to last a long time.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. According to him, the Pasuk in Yirmiyahu is merely giving good advice (but not teaching us Halachos).

13)

(a)Our Mishnah states that a 'Chashu' (Cheresh, Shoteh v'Katan) may write a Get.

(b)The problem with this is that a Get needs to be written Lishmah (something that a Chashu, who does not have Da'as, is incapable of doing).

(c)Rav Huna resolves the problem by establishing our Mishnah when a Gadol was supervising them, instructing them to write the Get Lishmah.

(d)According to Rav Huna the author of our Mishnah must be Rebbi Elazar, who requires the Kesivah to be Lishmah.

14)

(a)According to Rav Huna's interpretation of our Mishnah, the Seifa 'she'Ein Kiyum ha'Get Ela b'Chosamav' comes to give a reason for the middle case (why the woman may write the Get and her husband the receipt).

(b)It cannot be referring to the Reisha because if it did, it would be validating a Get that was written by a Cheresh, Shoteh v'Katan, obviating the need for a Gadol to supervise them (and this is not what Rav Huna says).

(c)The Tana refers to the Eidei Mesirah as 'Chosamav' because it is generally the Eidei Chasimah who also double as the Eidei Mesirah.