(Mishnah): If one promised a number of coins to his son-in-law, and [before the Nisu'in] retracted, [the son-in-law can say that his Arusah] will sit until her head (hair) turns white. (I will not make Nisu'in until I get the money);

Admon says, [she can say] 'had I promised myself, [it would be proper that] I sit until my head turns white. However, my father promised for me. What can I do? Either enter (have Nisu'in with me), or divorce!'

R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah discusses when he promised in her presence, but if he did not promise in her presence, even Rabanan agree.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi bei Rebbi Yehudah): Admon and Chachamim did not argue about one who promised coins to his son-in-law, and retracted. She does not sit until her head turns white. What did they argue about? It is one who promised for herself;

Admon says, she can say 'I thought that father wants to give. Now, father does not want to give. What can I do? Either enter [me], or divorce!'

R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

(Mishnah - Admon): If one contests a field (claims that it was stolen from him), and he signed for a witness on the document (the Gazlan sold it to someone else), he did not forfeit his claim. [He can say] 'I signed, for the second (the buyer) is easy for me (to go to judgment with him), and the first (the seller) is harsher than him.'

Chachamim say, he forfeited his rights [to contest it].

If [Reuven contests a field, and] he made it a Siman for another [field, e.g. he said that in the south it borders on Shimon's field, and he claims that the field to the south is really his, and not Shimon's], he forfeited his rights.

(Gemara): This is not only when [Reuven] made it a Siman for another [field]. Rather, even if someone else [made it a Siman] for another, since Reuven signed on [the document,] he forfeited his rights.

(Mishnah - Admon): If one went overseas, and the path to his field was lost (it was annexed to an adjacent field, he does not know where), he takes a short path to his field;

Chachamim say, he buys a path for 100 Maneh (a fortune, i.e. whatever his neighbor demands), or he must fly (he may not walk to his field).

(Gemara - R. Yosi ben Chaninah): The case is, he can prove his claim [that he had a path, just he cannot prove where it was].

Inference: He holds that four [different neighbors] surround him.

Note: Really, we infer only that at least two surround him. If only one surrounded him, Chachamim would agree that he receives a short path! (PF)

(Shmuel): It is even if one surrounds him on every side. (The case is, he cannot prove that he had a path. The neighbor can say, I used to let you pass through my property to get to your field.)

Question (Beraisa): Yehoshua enacted that if one was lost in vineyards or fields, he cuts through and leaves until he gets to a road, or to his house, even if the field is full of vineyards. Yehoshua made this a stipulation for Yisrael's inheritance of Eretz Yisrael. (Also here, one should be allowed to make a path for himself!)

Answer #1: Yehoshua enacted [to enable one] to leave (if not, he could die there)! Did he enact to enter?!

Answer #2: Yehoshua enacted for the person himself. Did he enact [to make a path for all his needs, e.g. to plow] with his cow?!

Note: There is an implied question. It was taught that Yehoshua enacted that if one's bees are on another's branch, he may cut the branch to take them, and pay for the branch. Why is there no Heter to cut for his cow?

Answer (R. Yosi): A cow normally returns [by itself, so we do not enact for it]. A swarm of bees, since it does not return by itself, they made it like his body.

(R. Yirmeyah): Admon and R. Akiva - both of them said the same matter;

(Mishnah): If one sold a pit or cistern [in his field] to someone else, R. Akiva says, [the buyer] need not buy a path for himself [to get to it. It is included in the sale.] Chachamim say, he must buy a path for himself.

Rebuttal: Did he not hear what R. Heila citing R. Yosa citing R. Yochanan said, that [R. Akiva and Chachamim] argue about a Stam sale?!

Question: What is the case?

If it is clear that he has (bought) a path, all agree that he need not buy a path!

If it is clear that he does not have a path, all agree that he must buy a path!

Answer: Rather, we discuss a Stam sale. R. Akiva says, he need not buy a path for himself. Chachamim say, he must buy a path for himself.

And here, even if it is clear that he had a path, Chachamim argue, and say that he must buy a path!