1)

(a)In a second Machlokes Rebbi Yochanan obligates the purchaser of a field during the time that the Yovel functions to bring Bikurim and to read the Parshah, whereas Reish Lakish exempts him from reading the Parshah (following exactly the same reasoning as they did in the previous Machlokes, when the purchase was made at a time when the Yovel did not apply).

(b)They need to repeat the same Machlokes because had they only argued ...

1. ... in the latter case we would have thought that that is where Reish Lakish exempts him from reading, because knowing that Yovel does not allow a Kinyan ha'Guf on the field, the purchaser did not have in mind to buy more than the fruit, but in the former case, where he thinks that he has bought the field itself for ten years, perhaps he will agree with Rebbi Yochanan.

2. ... in the former case we would have thought that that is where Rebbi Yochanan obligates to read, because he thinks that he has purchased the field for ten years ... .

(c)Reish Lakish establishes the Beraisa which ...

1. ... obligates someone who purchases a tree together with the ground in which it is growing to read the Parshah, despite the fact that the ground returns to the owner in the Yovel, and the Beraisa which ...

2. ... exempts someone who purchases two trees in someone's field from reading the Parshah, implying that, had he purchased three he would have been obligated at a time when the Yovel is not functioning.

(d)Rav Chisda restricts the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish to Yovel Sheni, when people have already become used to returning purchased fields in the Yovel, but during the first Yovel, when people who purchased fields believed they were buying the actual land, even Reish Lakish will agree that the purchaser would read the Parshah. In that case, Reish Lakish will establish the above Beraisos by Yovel Rishon exclusively.

2)

(a)If someone declares a field Hekdesh, and the treasurer of Hekdesh then sells it to someone else, assuming that it is ...

1. ... a field of inheritance which original owner declared Hekdesh the field goes to the Kohanim in the Yovel.

2. ... a purchased field which the purchaser declared Hekdesh it reverts to the original owner.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon say in a Beraisa that a field which a son bought from his father and declared Hekdesh still in their father's lifetime, but failed to redeem has the Din of a Sedeh Achuzah and goes to the Kohanim in the Yovel.

(c)They extrapolate this from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Im Es Sedei Miknaso Asher Lo mi'S'dei Achuzaso ... bi'Shenas ha'Yovel Yashuv ha'Sadeh" (which is otherwise superfluous) implying that it only reverts to the owner (or to his heirs, if the purchasser was not eligible to inherit it, but not if he was).

3)

(a)In the same Beraisa Rebbi Meir disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon. According to him the Pasuk is speaking in a case where the son declares his father's field Hekdesh after his father's death ...

(b)... but in the case of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon (where the son declared the field Hekdesh during his father's life-time) Rebbi Meir will hold that it retains its status as a Sedeh Miknah and returns to the son in the Yovel.

(c)We initially think that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue with Rebbi Meir because in their opinion, there where the father died before the son declared the field Hekdesh it is obvious that it has the Din of Sedeh Achuzah, and does not require a Pasuk.

(d)Rebbi Meir disagrees with that in that he holds 'Kinyan Peiros k'Kinyan ha'Guf', in which case, when the father dies, the son has not inherited anything, and were it not for the Pasuk "Asher Lo mi'Sedei Achuzaso", it would not be called a Sedeh Achuzah; whereas, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon hold 'Kinyan Peiros Lav k'Kinyan ha'Guf', and once the father dies, the field becomes a Sedeh Achuzah (in which case, no Pasuk is necessary).

4)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak however, refute this explanation. In his opinion, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon may well agree that 'Kinyan Peiros k'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami', and they then Darshen "Asher Lo mi'Sedei Achuzaso" like Rebbi Meir.

(b)And it is from the extra 'Mem' in the Pasuk there "Im mi'S'dei Miknaso Asher Lo S'dei Achuzaso Hu" that they extrapolate that the Torah is also coming to preclude a case where the son sold the field in his father's life-time. Otherwise, the Torah should have written "Im S'dei Miknaso" (implying that it is only a field that is not even eligible to be a Sedeh Achuzah that reverts to the owner in theYovel, but not one that is).

5)

(a)Rav Asi said in Rebbi Yochanan's name that brothers who divided their father's inheritance are considered purchasers (because he holds 'Ein Bereirah'), and when Yovel arrives, they must return their respective portions to the kitty for redistribution.

(b)Consequently, if Rebbi Yochanan did not hold 'Kinyan Peiros k'Kinyan ha'Guf', then based on the previous statement, it would emerge that only a single son, who is in turn, the child of a single son (going back to Yehoshua bin Hun), would be obligated to bring Bikurim and read the Parshah.

(c)Rava proves from ...

1. ... the Pasuk in Behar "b'Mispar Shnei Tevu'os Yimkor Lach" that in the time when the Yovel applies, someone who purchases a field, only acquires a Kinyan Peiros (like Reish Lakish), and not a Kinyan ha'Guf

2. ... the Beraisa 'Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim b'Sadeh ha'Chozeres l'Aviv ba'Yovel' that a field which the owner sells in the time of Yovel, does not leave his possession, because 'Kinyan Peiros Lav k'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami', since otherwise, a Bechor, who only receives double possessions that are actually in the domain of his father (not of what is owed to him), would not receive double.

(d)The field in the Beraisa is actually returned to the brothers. This is because the Tana must be speaking when the father had already died. Otherwise, it would be obvious that the Bechor inherits a double portion of what was returned to his father.

6)

(a)When Abaye says 'Ba'al b'Nichsei Ishto Tzarich Harsha'ah', he means that if someone claims a field of Nichsei mi'Lug from the husband, he will be accepted as a litigant (whom the claimant cannot veto) only if his wife gives him the power of attorney to counter-claim on her behalf.

(b)This will not however, be necessary if the claimant claims only the Peiros (which belong intrinsically to the husband). In that case, we will even apply a 'Migo' (in that the authority that he has to counter the claimant's claims on the Peiros will extend to the field itself).

7)

(a)Our Mishnah teaches us that one may claim damages from the damager's Idis (best-quality fields). One pays ...

1. ... a creditor from Beinonis (average-quality fields).

2. ... a woman's Kesuvah from Ziburis (inferior-quality fields).

(b)One may only claim from Meshu'abadim (from the purchaser) as long as there are no Bnei-Chorin still with the debtor. In fact the Nizak may not claim from Meshu'abadim even if they are Idis and the Bnei-Chorin that remain are Ziburis.

(c)One may only claim from Ziburis, even damages from Yesomim.

8)

(a)The Tana now discusses Achilas Peiros and Shevach Karka'os. The case of ...

1. ... 'Achilas Peiros' is where someone purchased a field from a thief (with a Shtar), and after the annual crop grew, the real owner reclaimed it together with the crops, and the purchaser now claims compensation from the thief.

2. ... Shevach Karka'os' is where, after purchasing the field, the same purchaser had also invested in it and improved it, and he now claims compensation from the improvement (the Shevach).

(b)What they both have in common is that they may claim payment for both the fruit and the improvement only from the thief's Bnei-Chorin, even though he may claim compensation for the field itself from Meshu'abadim. What the following have in common as regards claiming is that one cannot claim from Meshu'abadim (even with a Shtar): 'Achilas Peiros, Shevach Karka'os and Mazon ha'Ishah v'ha'Banos'.

(c)The third case that the Tana adds to the above two is Mazon ha'Ishah v'ha'Banos'.

9)

(a)The Torah obligates a damager to pay from Idis, as the Pasuk in Mishpatim writes "Meitav Sadeihu u'Meitav Karmo Yeshalem".

(b)To reconcile this with our Mishnah, which gives the source as 'Tikun ha'Olam', we establish the author as Rebbi Yishmael who says that the Torah is referring to the Idis of the Nizak (the claimant), whereas the Takanas Chachamim is that the Mazik must pay from his own Idis (this will be explained shortly).

(c)The reason for the Tikun ha'Olam is to make people guard their animals more carefully.

(d)Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael. According to him "Meitav Sadeihu ... " is referring to the best of the Mazik's fields, and there is no need for a Takanas Chachamim.

10)

(a)The Tana adds that someone who finds something does not need to make a Shevu'ah, because of Tikun ha'Olam. Otherwise, based on the principle 'Modeh b'Miktzas ha'Ta'anah, Yishava' he would need to make a Shevu'ah there where the owner claimed that he had only returned part of what he found.

11)

(a)The problem that we initially have with Rebbi Yishmael, who says that the damager pays from the best of his fields is that if the damager damaged Ziburis, why should he pay for Idis (which is how we initially interpret Rebbi Yishmael).

(b)Rav Idi bar Avin explains that what Rebbi Yishmael means that if the man's animal ate a row among rows of varying quality crops, and we do not know which quality it ate, we make him pay the best. Rava refutes this explanation however, on the grounds that if there is a Safek as to how much one person owes another, we apply the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah' (and he pays the least amount).

(c)Rav Acha bar Yakov therefore explains Rebbi Yishmael to mean that assuming the Mazik's Ziburis to be equivalent to the Nizak's Idis, min ha'Torah it would suffice for the Mazik to pay with his own Ziburis. After the Takanas Chachamim however, he is obligated to pay with his own Idis.