Previous daf

1)

(a) What did Rav Z'vid say in a case where Reuven established a Chazakah on the trees in Levi's field, and Shimon on the land itself?

(b) Why might we have thought that this ruling will not apply to a case involving three trees?

(c) Why in fact, does it apply there too?

(a) On what grounds did Rav Papa object to Rav Z'vid's ruling?

(b) Did he mean by that, that Reuven would have to uproot his trees immediately?

(c) So how did *Rav Papa* rule? What are the two possible ways of explaining Rav Papa's ruling?

(d) Why will this ruling apply even if Reuven bought only two trees (even assuming that he acquires literally half the land), even though someone who purchases two trees does not normally acquire the land (as he would if there were three)?

(a) It is obvious, we say, that someone who sells his field leaving himself only his trees, also retains the Shiur of land that he needs to tend to them (and to replant new trees after the original ones have died).
How many trees are we talking about?

(b) What does Rebbi Akiva mean when he says, with reference to someone who sells his field with the exception of the pit, that the seller sells generously?

(c) How do we reconcile the previous ruling (regarding the trees) with that of Rebbi Akiva? What is the difference between someone who sells a field whether he holds back the trees or the pit?

4)

(a) If someone sells three trees in his field, stipulating that that he leaves himself the land, everyone agrees that the purchaser is entitled to the necessary land to tend to the trees.
What would be the Din in the same case, if he were to sells him two trees instead of three?

(b) Bearing in mind that both Rav Z'vid and Rav Papa on the previous Amud (with regard to the case of two purchasers) expressed their opinions unanimously, on what grounds will even Rav ...

1. ... Z'vid agree here that, according to Rebbi Akiva, the purchaser is entitled to land?
2. ... Papa agree here, that according to the Rabbanan, the purchaser is not entitled to land?

(a) What do the Neherda'i mean when they say (with regard to the thirty trees in three Beis-Sa'ah) 'Achlan Retzufin, Ein Lo Chazakah'?

(b) What problem does Rava have with this from a row of Aspasta (crops that are planted as animal fodder)? In what way does he compare Aspasta to our case?

(c) What is the alternative way (besides the mere fact that in both cases, they are too compact) of explaining the connection between Aspasta and fifteen trees in a Beis-Sa'ah? Why else would neither constitute a Chazakah according to Rava?

(d) How would the Neherda'i counter Rava's Kashya?

(a) How does Rava therefore amend the Neherda'i's statement?

(b) Rebbi Zeira points out that Rava's interpretation of the statement is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im. In a Mishnah in Kil'ayim, Rebbi Shimon says that if the rows of trees in a vineyard are planted less than four Amos from each other, it is not a vineyard.
What are the ramifications of that statement?

(c) What do the Rabbanan say?

(d) What would the Rabbanan therefore hold in Rava's case (where Reuven sold Shimon fifteen trees in a Beis-Sa'ah?

Next daf