נרה שנה וזרע שתים כולי—He plowed a year and seeded two years, etc.

OVERVIEW The ברייתא cites a מחלוקת between the חכמים, who maintain that whether נרה שנה וזרע שתים or נרה שתים וזרעה שנה that it is not a חזקה, and ר' אחא who maintains that in both cases it is a חזקה. Our תוספות clarifies this מחלוקת.

נרה שתים וזרע שנה אחת לא נקט¹ אלא משום רבותא דרבי אחא דאפילו הכי הויא חזקה – The ברייתא does not mention נרה שתים וזרע שנה אחת for the purpose of letting us know that the חכמים maintain that it is not a חזקה, but rather the ברייתא teaches it to us because of the novelty of sר' אחא' position that even though he was נרה ב', nevertheless it is a חזקה. תוספות clarifies the view of ר' אחא: ואומר רבינו יצחק דנראה² דוקא כגון שנרה וזרע ונרה – And the ר"י maintains that regarding the חזקה of plowing, it is only for instance where he plowed one year and planted the second year and plowed the third year, then it is a חזקה according to ר"א – אבל נרה בזה אחר זה אפילו רבי אחא מודה דאינה חזקה – However if he plowed two consecutive years, even ר"א admits that it is not a חזקה – דמה מועיל חרישה כל כך שחורשה ב' שנים בלא זריעה: For what benefit is there from plowing so much, that he plows it for two consecutive years without planting.

SUMMARY ר"א maintains נרה ב' וזרע א' is a חזקה only if it was נרה וזרע ונרה.

THINKING IT OVER The גמרא states shortly that ניר is a חזקה (according to ר"א), because a person will not stand by and be quiet when someone plows his land. Why then does תוספות assume that two consecutive years of plowing is not a חזקה; seemingly the same reason applies that לא עביד איניש דכריבו ליה לארעא ושתיק (and what about three years of [only] ניר)?!

footnotes: ¹ The חכמים maintain that (even) if he was נרה א' וזרע ב' it is not a חזקה, so why mention (in the position of the חכמים) that נרה ב' וזרע א' is not a חזקה; it is so obvious! ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, יצחק דנרה דוקא (but not דנראה).

למעוטי מאי—To exclude, what

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that the opinion of רב is that ניר is not a חזקה. The גמרא derives this from the fact that רב stated (regarding the מחלוקת between ר"י ור"ע in our משנה) that those are the views of ר"י ור"ע, however the חכמים maintain that the חזקה [for a שדה האילן] is three years מיום ליום; indicating that presumably רב maintains that ניר is not a חזקה (for if ניר is a חזקה why is there a requirement of ג' שנים מיום ליום).¹ Our תוספות challenges this proof.

תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דהיכי מוכח מהכא דלמעוטי נירא קאתי – The רשב"א is astounded; from where is it evident that רב is coming to exclude ניר that it is not a חזקה, for – דלמא קסברי רבנן נירא הוי חזקה – Perhaps the רבנן maintain that ניר is a חזקה – והא דצריך ג' שנים מיום ליום – And the reason there is a requirement of ג' שנים מיום ליום by a שדה אילן is not because ניר is not a חזקה, but rather – משום דעד תלת שנין מיזדהר איניש בשטרא² כדמפרש בריש פירקין³ – Because up to three years a person is careful to keep his שטר, as רבא explained in the beginning of our פרק – ואפילו לא עשה באותן שלש⁴ אלא ניר הוי חזקה דלא עביד איניש דכרבי לארעיה ושתיק: And even if the מחזיק did nothing during those three years except for ניר, it will be a חזקה, since it is not in the nature of a person that his land is plowed by others and he remains silent. תוספות does not answer this question.⁵

SUMMARY The חכמים who require a חזקה to be ג"ש מיום ליום can seemingly nevertheless maintain that ניר is a חזקה (not as the גמרא surmises).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that even if he only did ניר in these three years, the חכמים can maintain that it is a חזקה.⁶ However in the previous תוס' ד"ה נרה,⁷ the ר"י maintains that even according to ר' אחא, who maintains that ניר is a חזקה, nevertheless it is a חזקה only if נרה וזרעה ונרה; so how does תוספות here claim that even if there was only ניר, it is a חזקה?!⁸

footnotes: ¹ See רשב"ם ד"ה לאו who writes that if ניר is a חזקה all that would be required is a year and two days (in which to do ניר one day before the year and one day after the year). ² Therefore even though ניר is as good a חזקה as זריעה ואכילת פירות, nevertheless if it was not ג"ש מיום ליום, there is a ריעותא in his חזקה, for where is the שטר מכירה. ³ כט,א. ⁴ Others insert here the word 'שנים'. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See פורת יוסף and כוס הישועות. ⁶ See footnote # 4. ⁷ See TIE there (by) footnote # 2. ⁸ See בל"י אות רעו.

מאי בינייהו—What is the difference between them

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites רב (who states חזקתה ג' שנים מיום ליום) and שמואל (who states עד שיגדור ג' גדירות ויבצור ג' בצירות וימסוק ג' מסיקות). The גמרא then asks מאי בינייהו between רב ושמואל; it seems that both require [complete] ג' שנים. Our תוספות questions and clarifies this assumption.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר טובא איכא בינייהו דשלש בצירות יכולין להיות בשתי שנים – And if you will say; there is a major difference¹ between רב and שמואל**, since three grape harvests can be done in** (slightly more than) two years – שבסוף שנה בצר וב' בצירות אחרי כן בשתי שנים – For he harvests at the end of the (first) year, and two additional harvests (one each) in the following two years. This would be a valid חזקה according to שמואל, who requires ג' בצירות וכו', but not according to רב who requires ג' שנים מיום ליום.**** תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דמשמע ליה דג' בצירות שלמות² כל שנות הבצירות³ – And the ר"י answers that it seems to the גמרא that שמואל meant three complete harvests for all three years of harvesting. תוספות has an additional question: אבל תימה לרבינו יצחק אמאי לא משני דאיכא בינייהו חרפי ואפלי⁴ – However the ר"י is astounded; why did not the גמרא answer that the difference between רב ושמאול is in a case of either חרפי or אפלי – תוספות proves that this is a valid distinction: כדאמרינן בפרק בתרא דעבודה זרה⁵ (דף עה,ב) כמה מיישנן י"ב חדש – As the ברייתא states in the last פרק of מסכת ע"ז; for how long does he age them; twelve months, this is the view of the ת"ק – רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר מגת לגת מבד לבד – רשב"ג rules, that he should not use them (מיישנן) from one wine harvest to the next, or from one olive harvest to the next; the גמרא asks –

This ruling of רשב"ג is the same as the ת"ק; the גמרא answers the difference between them is by חרפי ואפלי; the גמרא should have given the same answer here. תוספות does not answer this question.

SUMMARY The ג' בצירות וכו' according to שמואל must be בצירות שלמות (of a full year’s work). Seemingly by חרפי ואפלי the חזקה may take less or more respectively according to שמואל than the ג"ש מיום ליום according to רב.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות mentions the איכא בינייהו of חרפי ואפלי both by גתין (which is stated in the גמרא there) and by חזקת ג"ש.⁸ Seemingly if מיישנן requires יב חודש (according to the ת"ק) how would רשב"ג explain that by חרפי it becomes טהור (dried out) quicker and by אפלי it becomes (dried out) טהור slower?! Similarly here where תוספות assumes that by חרפי it would be a חזקה in less than ג"ש and by אפלי it would not be a חזקה even after ג"ש; how would we reconcile this with ג"ש מזדהר איניש בשטרא, טפי לא מיזדהר, where is his שטר by חרפי (when it is less than ג"ש), and why should he lose out by אפלי (where it is more than ג"ש)?! 2. Why is תוספות proposed answer of חרפי ואפלי a preferred answer⁹ more than the sגמרא' answer of דקל נערה?

footnotes: ¹ This is in contrast with the next question of תוספות where the proposed difference would not be as significant. ² Others insert here the word היינו. ³ Just as the second and third harvests are accomplished after a complete year of work, similarly the first year harvest is after a complete year of work (see מהרש"א and סוכ"ד אות מט). ⁴ חרפי means that the harvest season (of the third year) began earlier (than usual) and אפלי means that it began later. Therefore it is possible that ג' בצירות can be less than ג"ש מיום ליום (by חרפי) or more than ג"ש מיום ליום (by אפלי). See ‘Thinking it over’ # (1&) 2. ⁵ The ברייתא is discussing how one can make טהור his wine press or olive press if they are טמא. For certain partsשל) שיפה ושל גמי) it is necessary that he not use them (מיישנן) for twelve months ⁶ There is a year between the harvests. ⁷ If it is חרפי it is less than י"ב חודש and if אפלי it is more than י"ב חודש. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁸ See footnote # (4&) 7. ⁹ See footnote # 4.

היו לו שלשים אילנות—He had thirty trees

OVERVIEW אביי stated that if there were thirty trees planted in three בית סאה (ten trees to a בית סאה)¹ and he ate the fruits of (only) ten different trees (spread throughout the three בית סאה) it is a חזקה. The usual way of planting is that ten saplings are planted within one בית סאה. As the trees mature and become bigger they are uprooted and replanted three to a בית סאה. Our תוספות explains why אביי did not use a different case.

ונראה² דדוקא שלשים אבל ט' אילנות גדולים ממטע שלשה לבית סאה – And it is the view of תוספות that this rule applies specifically if there were thirty saplings, however if there were nine mature trees planted three to a בית סאה – ואכל אחת בשנה זו ואחת בשנה זו³ לא הויא חזקה – And he ate the fruits of one tree (from each בית סאה) this year and one (of each בית סאה) in the next year, etc. it is not a חזקה – מידי דהוה אשלשים היכא דלא באזי בזויי⁴ – For it is like thirty saplings in a case where they were not spread out – והני⁵ אילנות לא בגדולים איירי דגדולים לא הוו אלא ג' לבית סאה – And these thirty trees are not mature trees (but rather saplings), for mature trees are planted only three to a בית סאה; not ten to a בית סאה –

As was stated in פרק לא יחפור.

SUMMARY The rule of אביי is by saplings but by mature trees it would not be a חזקה (in a case of ט' אילנות ממטע ג' לבית סאה [or ג' אילנות ממטע י' לבית סאה]).

THINKING IT OVER

1. What would be the ruling if it is more than עשרה לבית סאה (by the שלשים אילנות), or if it was more than ג' לבית סאה (by the ט' אילנות); would it be a valid חזקה?⁶
2. Why does the הגהות הב"ח change the גירסא and reverses the order in תוספות?⁷ Appendix According to the מהרש"א whose גירסא is אבל ג' אילנות ממטע י' לבית סאה; the explanation of תוספות is as follows. In order to acquire the קרקע when one purchases trees he must purchase at least three trees.⁸ תוספות is explaining why אביי does not offer his ruling by three trees (the amount required to acquire the קרקע and thus there is the issue of חזקה). תוספות explains that if one acquires three trees in the ratio of ממטע י' לבית סאה (which equals to seven hundred fifty square אמות), he cannot make a חזקה by eating a different tree every year for it is not באזי בזויי; the אכילה is not spread out over the שדה.⁹

footnotes: ¹ A בית סאה is an area in which a סאה of wheat is planted. It is an area of fifty by fifty אמות (or twenty-five hundred square אמות; two hundred fifty square אמות per tree). ² The הגהות הב"ח inserts at the very beginning of תוספות, the end of תוספות, beginning with the words והני אילנות, etc. so that תוספות begins והני אילנות and ends with באזי בזויי. See footnote # 5. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. See (however) מהרש"א (who keeps the order in תוספות as we have it), who is גורס here אבל שלשה אילנות ממטע עשרה לבית סאה (deleting גדולים). See ‘Appendix’. ³ Each year he is consuming the פירות of three trees; one in each בית סאה. [However according to the מהרש"א (see previous footnote # 2) it means literally one tree a year only.] ⁴ The חזקה by שלושים אילנות is only if the ten trees that he consumed each year were spread evenly throughout the entire three בית סאה, however if he ate ten trees (yearly) in which some were confined to one area [even] in each בית סאה, it would not be a חזקה (this is seemingly not in accordance with the רשב"ם on לז,א ד"ה והוא); similarly here since he is only eating one tree in each בית סאה it is not באזי בזויי. See בל"י אות רפא. See footnote # 9. ⁵ See footnote # 2. ⁶ See בל"י אות רפב. ⁷ See מהרש"א. ⁸ See later פא,א in the משנה. ⁹ The advantage of this פשט is that it seemingly avoids the complication mentioned in footnote # 4. It would therefore seem that according to the מהרש"א in the case of ט' אילנות as explained in footnote # 4 it can be a חזקה, since he ate three trees in three בית סאה; however from the מהרש"א it seems that he agrees with footnote # 4.

ממטע י' לבית סאה—In which they were planted ten in a בית סאה

OVERVIEW אביי stated that if there were thirty trees planted in three בית סאה (ten trees to a בית סאה)¹ and he ate the fruits of (only) ten different trees (spread out evenly throughout the three בית סאה) it is a חזקה. Our תוספות discusses what would be if the trees were planted more densely (ten in less than a בית סאה), or more sparsely (ten in more than a בית סאה).

פירוש הקונטרס דפחות מבית סאה לעשרה אילנות הוו סמיכי ביותר והוו כיער ולא הוי חזקה – The רשב"ם explained² that less than a ב"ס for ten trees is too crowded and it is like a forest (and not like a fruit orchard) and therefore it is not a חזקה³ – תוספות disagrees: ואין נראה דהא מוכח בשמעתין⁴ דאכלן רצופין⁵ הויא חזקה – And this is not the view of תוספות; for it is evident in our סוגיא that אכלן רצופין is a valid חזקה – דפריך רבא אנהרדעי⁶ אלא מעתה האי אספסתא⁷ במאי קני ליה⁸ – For רבא challenged the נהרדעי (who maintain אכלה רצופין לא הוי חזקה), but now how will one acquire a row in an אספסתא field – תוספות justifies the פי' הרשב"ם: ולרבינו שמשון בן אברהם נראה ליישב פירוש הקונטרס – And the רשב"א reconciles the פי' הרשב"ם with the abovementioned גמרא – דלקמן איירי שאוכל כל האילנות⁹ אף על פי¹⁰ שהן רצופים הויא חזקה – For later, the גמרא discusses a case where he ‘ate’ all the trees; [therefore] even though they are רצופין, nevertheless it is a חזקה – שהרי אכל העומדים ליעקר ואותן¹¹ העומדים להתקיים – For he ate the trees which will be uprooted and those that will remain – אבל הכא שאינו אוכל כל אילנות אלא ג'¹² בכל שנה – However here where he does not ‘eat’ all the trees but rather only (three) [a third of all the] trees each year, so for instance – אם היו ל"ג אילנות בג' סאין הרי יש בהן ג' אילנות העומדין ליעקר¹³ – If there were thirty-three trees in three ב"ס, so there are amongst these thirty-three trees, three trees to be uprooted – וכשהוא אוכל י"א אילנות בכל שנה שמא באותן י"א שאוכל אותן בשנה זו – And so when he ‘eats’ eleven trees each year, perhaps among those eleven which he ‘ate’’ this year – יש בהן ב' או ג' שעומדין ליעקר¹⁴ – There are two or three which are to be uprooted – ובעינן בכל שנה שיאכל ג'¹⁵ מאותן העומדין להתקיים¹⁶ – And it is necessary that he ‘eat’ each year a third of those trees that will remain, and he did not, therefore here it is not a חזקה if אכלן רצופין. תוספות explores the case where it is sparse: וביותר מבית סאה לעשרה נראה דלא קנה קרקע כל עיקר – And if it is more than a ב"ס for ten trees; it is the view of תוספות that he does not acquire any קרקע at all – ולא כפירוש הקונטרס דפירש¹⁷ דדוקא בכל הקרקע הוא דלא הוי חזקה – And not like the interpretation of the רשב"ם who maintains that if it is more than a ב"ס for ten trees, he does not acquire the entire קרקע (meaning the excess) –

However it is a חזקה for the amount of קרקע which is needed for the trees; this is the view of the רשב"ם.**** תוספות however disagrees and maintains that he receives no קרקע at all even במה שצריך לאילנות.¹⁹

SUMMARY The רשב"ם maintains that if there are more than ten trees per ב"ס it is not a חזקה; תוספות maintains it is. The רשב"א differentiates whether he ate all the trees (it is a חזקה) or whether he ate some of them (it is not a חזקה). If there were less that ten trees per ב"ס the רשב"ם maintains he is קונה as per the need of the trees, while תוספות maintains he is not קונה any קרקע at all.

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to the רשב"א why is it that it is necessary to consume (exactly) one third of the trees each year;²⁰ why would in not be a חזקה if (for instance) one year nine trees are consumed and the next year eleven are consumed?
2. Why is it that when the trees are dense, תוספות maintains it is a חזקה and the רשב"ם maintains it is not; and when the trees are sparse תוספות maintains there is no חזקה at all, while the רשב"ם grants him a partial חזקה?

footnotes: ¹ A בית סאה is an area in which a סאה of wheat is planted. It is an area of fifty by fifty אמות (or twenty-five hundred square אמות; two hundred fifty square אמות per tree). ² רשב"ם ד"ה ממטע. ³ He did not make a חזקה in a normal manner כדמחזקי אינישי. Therefore even if he ate the fruits of the trees for three years he cannot keep the property (without a שטר). ⁴ דף לז,ב. ⁵ See the רשב"ם there ד"ה אכלן that it is a case where there were more than ten אילנות per ב"ס and he ate all the (thirty) אילנות for three consecutive years. ⁶ The נהרדעי maintained that אכלן רצופין אינה חזקה. ⁷ See רשב"ם there ד"ה האי that אספסתא is considered רצופה, and nevertheless we learnt previously (on כח,ב) that one can make a חזקה in a אספתסא field, proving that אכלה רצופין is a חזקה. ⁸ sרבא' challenge was not answered; indicating that נהרדעי were refuted and אכלה רצופין is a חזקה, this contradicts the view of the רשב"ם that more than ten trees per ב"ס is not a חזקה; since רצופין is a חזקה. ⁹ See footnote # 5. ¹⁰ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read דאע"פ instead of אע"פ. ¹¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read ליעקר והעומדים להתקיים deleting the word ואותן. ¹² Others amend this to read 'שליש' (a third) instead of ג' (three). ¹³ A ב"ס can only handle ten trees; the extra trees will have to be uprooted in order not to stunt the growth of the remaining ten trees. ¹⁴ תוספות (seemingly) maintains that eating the fruits of trees העומדים ליעקר is not a proper חזקה (for the owner does not care about those trees since they will be uprooted anyway). The רשב"ם however maintains that it is not a חזקה because דלא אחזיק כדמחזקי אינשי. ¹⁵ Same amendment as in previous footnote # 12. ¹⁶ אביי ruled that he must eat all the thirty trees in the three חזקה years; ten trees every year. In this case where (there are thirty-three trees and) he eats eleven trees each year, there is the possibility that in one of these years two or three (from the eleven) trees which he ate, are those that will be uprooted, so he actually ate eight or nine (permanent) tress; which is insufficient to make a valid חזקה. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁷ See רשב"ם ד"ה ממטע. ¹⁸ See footnote # 1, that each tree requires two-hundred-fifty square אמות. ¹⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ²⁰ See footnote # 16.

ממטע עשרה לבית סאה—In which they were planted ten in a בית סאה

OVERVIEW אביי rules in order for a חזקה in a שדה אילן to be valid so the מחזיק retains the קרקע, the trees must be spread in a ratio of ten trees per בית סאה.¹ Our תוספות attempts to reconcile this ruling with other cases concerning selling trees and being מקדיש trees where we find different requirements regarding the spacing of trees in order to acquire the land.

תוספות asks: קשה לרבינו יצחק דמאי שנא חזקה ממכר² דגבי קנה ג' קנה קרקע³ – The ר"י has a difficulty; for why is חזקה different from a sale, for where someone bought three trees he acquires the land associated with these three trees – ועשרה לבית סאה הוו מפוזרים ולא קנה קרקע – However ten trees in a בית סאה are considered spread out and he does not acquire land; if he purchases ten trees spread over a ב"ס; he merely acquires the trees, but not the land. תוספות proves that one is not קונה קרקע where he bought עשרה לבית סאה: דבעשר לבית סאה יש מאתן וחמשין לכל אילן⁴ – For by עשר לב"ס there is a total of two hundred-fifty square אמות of land for each tree – ובהמוכר את הספינה (לקמן דף פב,ב) גבי קנה ג' כולי – And in פרק המוכר את הספינה regarding one who buys three trees, etc. (that he also acquires the land between them) – אמר כמה יהא ביניהן משמנה⁵ ועד שש עשרה⁶ אבל יותר מי"ו הוו מפוזרין – The גמרא states how much space can there be between the trees and he still acquires the land between them; from (no less than) eight אמות and up to sixteen אמות; however more that sixteen אמות between the trees is considered spread out, and the buyer does not acquire the land; only the trees – וכשיש ביניהן י"ו הוי לכל אילן ח'⁷ מכל צד סביבותיו – And when there is sixteen אמות between the trees it comes out to eight [אמות] (radius) per tree in all directions around the tree.** דהיינו טבלא של י"ו על י"ו עגולה שהאילן יונק סביבותיו בשוה –** This is an area of a circle of sixteen by sixteen אמות in diameter from which the tree nourishes equally in all directions; a circle with a diameter of sixteen (or a radius of eight) with the tree at its center. תוספות discusses now the area of this circle to compare it to the area of עשר לב"ס (which was two-hundred-fifty square אמות). וי"ו על י"ו מרובעים הוו מאתן וחמשין ושית – And a square of sixteen by sixteen אמות equals two hundred-fifty-six square אמות – דל רביע מינייהו דמרובע יתר על העיגול רביע⁸ לא ישאר אפילו מאתים⁹ – Subtract a fourth from this area since a square has one fourth more area than a circle, there will not remain even two hundred square אמות per tree – אלמא לא הוי כשיעור י' לבית סאה¹⁰ – It is evident that this amount of sixteen אמות between trees is not the amount of ten trees per ב"ס; it is less**.** תוספות offers a (tentative) answer: ושמא יש לחלק בין מכר לחזקה – And perhaps one can differentiate between a sale and a חזקה – דגבי מכר ודאי לא אמר דקנה קרקע אם אינן רצופין כדרך שבני אדם רגילין ליטע – For regarding a sale we certainly assume that he does not acquire the land surrounding the trees if they are not planted as densely in the manner that people are accustomed to plant – ודרך בני אדם אין להרחיק יותר מי"ו אמה אילן מאילן – And the custom of people is not to distance one tree from another tree more than sixteen אמות; meaning an eight אמה radius per tree – אף על פי שנכנסת יניקה של זה בתוך יניקה של זה – Even though the nurturing area of one tree enters into the nurturing area of the other tree – שאילנות גדולים יונקין י"ו אמה מכל צד¹¹ – For mature trees nurture in a radius of sixteen אמות from all sides – ולכך אין דרך להרחיק אילן מאילן כל שיעור יניקתם דהיינו ל"ב – And therefore it is not customary to distance one tree from another their entire nurturing area which would be thirty two אמות; sixteen אמות per tree – דאם כן לא יטע איש בשדה גדולה אלא ב' אילנות או ג'¹² – For if indeed it were so a person would not be able to plant in a large field only two or three trees, therefore the custom is to plant trees together even though their respective nurturing areas overlap – אבל גבי חזקה הויא חזקה¹³ כשיעור יניקה אף על פי שהן מרוחקין כשיעור יניקה¹⁴ – However regarding חזקה there is a חזקה in the land according to the amount of nurturing required, even though they are distanced the amount of nurturing which is sparser than people usually plant their fields. תוספות asks: אבל קשה לרבינו יצחק דיפה כח הדיוט מכח הקדש – However the ר"י has another difficulty, for the power of the laymen is stronger than the power of הקדש – דגבי הדיוט קנה שלשה קנה קרקע משמנה ועד י"ו – For regarding הדיוט the rule as mentioned is that if he bought three trees he acquires the land provided that the distance between the trees is from eight to sixteen אמות; meaning an area of (a minimum of fifty to a maximum of) about two hundred square אמות per tree – וגבי הקדש תניא בסוף המוכר את הבית (לקמן דף עב,א) – However regarding הקדש we learnt in a ברייתא in the end of פרק המוכר את הבית – הקדיש שלשה אילנות ממטע עשרה לבית סאה הרי זה הקדיש את הקרקע – If he was מקדיש three trees in a distance equal to the ratio of planting ten to a ב"ס (meaning two hundred fifty אמות per tree) he was also מקדיש the קרקע, however – פחות מכאן או יותר על כן¹⁵ לא הקדיש את הקרקע – If it was less than this amount or more than this amount, he was not מקדיש the קרקע; meaning if there was only two hundred אמות per tree (where he acquires the land by מכר), הקדש will not acquire the land, the question is – מאי שנא הקדש ממכר – Why is הקדש different from מכר; הקדש is not קונה the קרקע and by מכר he is. Seemingly the power of הקדש should not be weaker than the power of הדיוט, if by a הדיוט he acquires the קרקע the same should (at least) apply be הקדש?! תוספות offers the פירוש הקונטרס on this matter: ופירש הקונטרס בסוף המוכר את הבית (שם דיבור המתחיל ממטע) דהתם בדעת מוכר תליא מילתא – And the רשב"ם explained in the end of פרק המוכר את הבית, that there (by מכר), it depends on the mind of the seller; he is capable of granting the land even if it denser than ממטע י' לב"ס – אבל גבי הקדש ביניקה תליא מילתא – However regarding הקדש it depends on the nourishment (and if it is denser [or sparser] than י' לב"ס, it is not הקדש). תוספות continues with a different פ"ה – ובהמוכר את הספינה (שם דף פג,א דיבור המתחיל כמה) פירש – And in פרק המוכר את הספינה the רשב"ם explained – גבי מכר והוא הדין למקדיש אילנות דהוי נמי האי שיעורא – Regarding the distance of the trees concerning מכר, that regarding מקדיש trees it also has the same rule as מכר (up to sixteen אמות between trees, and not י' לב"ס) – וברייתא דהמוכר את הבית (שם דף עב,א) דקתני בהקדיש עשרה לבית סאה פליגא – And the ברייתא in פרק המוכר את הבית which states regarding הקדיש that it need be the ratio of י' לב"ס argues on the ברייתא of המוכר את הספינה. However both ברייתות equate מכר and הקדש. One ברייתא (in הבית) requires י' לב"ס (for both הקדש and מכר) and the other ברייתא (in הספינה) requires מח' ועד י"ו (for both הקדש and מכר). The רשב"ם there continues – וראיה מתוספתא דמכילתין¹⁶ דקתני¹⁷ כי קנה ג' קנה קרקע – And there is proof (that הקדש and מכר have the same שיעור, and that the two ברייתות argue) from the תוספתא of our מסכתא which teaches regarding the rule that if he bought three trees he acquires the קרקע; the תוספתא states – וכמה יהו קרובים זה לזה כדי שיהא הבקר עובר בכליו – And what is the closest that the trees can be to each other that he acquires קרקע**; sufficient** space that an ox and its utensils can pass between the trees – וכמה יהו¹⁸ רחוקים ממטע עשרה לבית סאה – And how far can the trees be from each other, in the ratio of planting ten in a ב"ס – פחות מכאן או יותר על כן או שקנה בזה אחר זה לא קנה את הקרקע ולא את האילן שביניהם – Less than that or more than that or if he bought the trees one after the other (not together) he does not acquire the land or the tree(s) that are between the trees he bought – ובתר הכי¹⁹ קתני במקדיש ההיא דמייתי בהמוכר את הבית (לקמן דף עב,א) – And afterwards the תוספתא teaches regarding מקדיש, this is the same ברייתא which is brought in פרק המוכר את הבית that הקדש also requires ממטע י' לב"ס (just like מכר). This תוספותא equates הקדש and מכר; both require י' לב"ס. It is evident that there are two opinions regarding מכר (whether we require י' לב"ס or denser) and similarly regarding הקדש. According to the רשב"ם there is no difference between הקדש and מכר, just two differing opinions. In summation the פ"ה offers two solutions, either that הקדש is different than מכר (because ביניקה תליא מילתא) or that הקדש and מכר are the same; it is a מחלוקת between two ברייתות regarding the requirement of י' לב"ס (both by מכר and הקדש). תוספות responds to an anticipated question:²⁰ ונראה דפחות מכאן דקתני גבי הקדש קאי נמי אכדי שיעבור בקר וכליו²¹ – And it is the view of תוספות that the term פחות מכאן which was taught by הקדש also refers to the limiting factor of, ‘in order an ox and its utensils can pass’ between the trees, but not to a ב"ס – ויותר מכאן קאי²² אלבית סאה כמו גבי מכר – And the term יותר מכאן refers to [ten trees] per ב"ס just like by מכר; it cannot be denser that כדי שיעבר בקר וכליו and it cannot be sparser that י' לב"ס. תוספות is now referring to the original question; why the difference between חזקה and מכר:²³ ולפי זה נמי ליכא למימר דאין חילוק בין חזקה למכר וסבר אביי כההיא ברייתא דתוספתא – And even according to this (that there is a מחלוקת regarding מכר whether it needs to be י' לב"ס or not) one cannot say that there is no difference between חזקה and מכר, and אביי (here who maintains that חזקה requires י' לב"ס) will maintain like that ברייתא of the תוספתא (which maintains that by מכר there is [also] the requirement of י' לב"ס), so there is seemingly no contradiction;²⁴ תוספות rejects this solution – דהא אביי גופיה סבר כרב נחמן דאמר מח' ועד ששה עשר – For אביי himself agrees with ר"נ who requires from eight to sixteen אמות maximum**** regarding מכר (and not [as sparse as] י' לב"ס) – דאמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף²⁵ לא תפלוג עליה דרב נחמן – For אביי said to ר"י, ‘do not argue with ר"נ’. Therefore we must make the distinction of the ושמא יש לחלק mentioned previously in this תוספות. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ואי מדמינן מכר להקדש אם כן קשיא דרבי שמעון אדרבי שמעון – And if you will say; and if we compare מכר to הקדש (as the רשב"ם explained), there will therefore be a contradiction from ר"ש to ר"ש – דההיא דהמוכר את הבית מוקמינן לה כרבי שמעון²⁶ – For we establish that ברייתא in פרק המוכר את הבית (regarding הקדש, which requires ממטע י' לב"ס) according to ר"ש – ובהמוכר את הספינה (לקמן דף פג,א) אמר רבי מאיר ורבי שמעון אומרים – And the גמרא in פרק המוכר את הספינה cites a משנה where ר"מ ור"ש maintain – הנוטע את כרמו ח' על ח'²⁷ מותר להביא זרע לשם – One who plants his vineyard, eight אמות by eight אמות he is permitted to plant seeds there²⁸ – אלמא חשיב רבי שמעון בח' אמות מפוזרים ומייתי התם ראיה מינה למכר אילנות – It is evident that ר"ש considered eight אמות to be spread out, and the גמרא there brings a proof from this ruling of ר"ש regarding selling trees, indicating that a spread of ח' אמות, which is denser than ממטע י' לב"ס is too sparse and we require less than ח' אמות, for him to be קונה, which is much denser than ממטע י' לב"ס.²⁹ תוספות answers:** ונראה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דלא מוקי לה³⁰ בהמוכר את הבית (לקמן דף עב,א.) כרבי שמעון –** And it is the view of the רשב"א that the גמרא does not establish that ברייתא in פרק המוכר את הבית [entirely] like ר"ש – אלא במאי דקא סבר מקדיש בעין רעה הוא מקדיש³¹ – But rather only in regards to what ר"ש maintains that מקדיש בעין רעה הוא מקדיש – אבל במאי דחשיב בח' אמות מפוזרים לא קיימא כוותיה: However regarding that which ר"ש considers ח' אמות to be מפוזרים; in that the ברייתא does not agree with him, but rather he is קונה קרקע only ממטע י' לב"ס**.**

SUMMARY חזקה can be even י' לב"ס (which is sparse) since this is שיעור יניקה, however מכר must be denser (י"ו בין אילן לאילן) according to אביי for this is the דרך. We may either assume that מכר (י"ו) and הקדש (י' לב"ס) are different, or that both are the same and there is an argument whether both require י"ו or י' לב"ס.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות contradicts ר"ש of הקדש (י' לב"ס) with ר"ש of מכר (less than ח').³² However previously תוספות stated that [in the תוספותא] פחות מכאן means only less than הבקר וכליו,³³ which is denser that פחות מח', so what is the contradiction?!

footnotes: ¹ Concerning saplings (נטיעות) they are planted ten per ב"ס (which is 2500 square אמות), giving each tree 250 square אמות. Regarding mature trees it appears (see previously כו,ב) that given their proper nourishment, would require three trees per ב"ס which is the equivalent of a circle containing 833.33 sq. אמות per tree. Using pi equals 3.14 (pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter) that would give the circle of each tree a radius of close to 16.3 אמות (if pi equals 3 [as the גמרא calculates] the radius will be 16.666 אמות). [It should be noted however if we plant three trees giving each of them a circle of 833 sq. אמות (without any overlap), we would need an area larger than a ב"ס, because the three circles already occupy a ב"ס and there is in addition the empty space(s) between the circles.] ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, דמכר דהיכא דקנה ג'. ³ The rule is if someone buys three planted trees and they did not discuss the land surrounding the trees; if he purchased three trees within a prescribed proximity to each other, the buyer automatically acquires the land around and between the trees. ⁴ A ב"ס is fifty by fifty אמות; a total of twenty-five hundred square אמות; divide it by ten trees leaves you with two hundred-fifty square אמות per tree. ⁵ It can be no less than eight, for then the trees are too close and will be uprooted. ⁶ There is another view there (רב יוסף) that it is מד' ועד ח'; but תוספות question is valid even if we assume the larger שיעור. ⁷ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, ח' אמות מכל. ⁸ A square of one inch (for instance) on a side contains a total area of one square inch; however a circle with a diameter of one inch will have less than one square inch (for it is missing area in all four corners). The גמרא teaches us that the area of a square is one fourth more than the area of a circle (inscribed in this square), therefore if a square of sixteen (on a side) is two hundred fifty six square אמות; a fourth of that is sixty four אמות leaving the total area of a circle with a diameter of sixteen אמות to be one hundred ninety two square אמות. [Today we would say that the area of a circle with a diameter of sixteen אמות (or a radius of eight אמות) is about two hundred and one square אמות.] ⁹ See previous footnote. [When we say that a square is a fourth more than a circle, it does not follow that a circle is a fourth less than a square. Five is a fourth more than four; however four is a fifth less than five (not a fourth). A fifth less than two hundred fifty six is almost two hundred five.] ¹⁰ To summarize: When there are ten trees to a ב"ס each tree is surrounded by two hundred fifty square אמות and it is considered a proper distribution (regarding חזקה). When buying trees one acquires the land between them only if the distribution is no more than about two hundred אמות per tree, but no more. Why is it that by חזקה we allow a more sparse distribution to acquire the surrounding land and by מכר we require a more dense distribution?! ¹¹ See footnote # 1 (the number 16 may not be exact). ¹² If we were to give for each tree a radius of sixteen אמות (plus); the circle which nourishes this tree will be more than eight hundred square אמות. In a ב"ס of twenty five hundred square אמות, one could plant three trees at most (depending on the configuration of the property). See [bracketed portion at the end of] footnote # 1. ¹³ A חזקה is defined as utilizing the land. In this case the entire land is being utilized since all of the land is nurturing the trees. ¹⁴ תוספות answer may be summarized as follows; regarding buying trees the question is did the מוכר intend to sell him the קרקע between the trees as well as the trees. We therefore assume that since these trees are spread wider than the customary manner, we assume that the sale was only for the trees. However by חזקה, the מחזיק claims that he bought everything from the מערער; the land and the trees, and since he is מחזיק in a manner that there is a maximum יניקה for all the trees, (since there is no overlap) it is a proper חזקה (for he can claim I want to that my trees should have the maximum יניקה so they will bear the choicest fruits). ¹⁵ ‘Less or more’, can be referring either to the trees (nine or eleven per ב"ס), or to the area (more or less than a ב"ס (per ten trees). The result is the same. [However from later in תוס' it seems that פחות is referring to the area.] ¹⁶ פ"ד ה"ז. ¹⁷ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, דקתני גבי קנה; deleting the word כי. ¹⁸ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, יהיו מרוחקים ממטע. ¹⁹ שם ה"ח. ²⁰ The רשב"ם maintains that הקדש and מכר have the same ruling. However in the תוספתא which תוספות just cited it states regarding הקדש that it must be ממטע י' לב"ס and פחות מכאן (או יתר על כן) לא הקדיש, which presumably means that if there were ten trees in less than a ב"ס (it was more dense) it is not הקדש, however regarding מכר he is קונה קרקע even if it was so dense that there was only כדי שיעבר בקר וכליו, which is much denser than י' לב"ס. ²¹ פחות מכאן does not mean less than a ב"ס as we initially thought (see previous footnote # 20) but rather it is always הקדש unless it is so dense that there is no room for even הבקר וכליו, just like מכר. ²² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, קאי אעשר לבית. ²³ See footnote # 10. ²⁴ אביי follows the ruling of the תוספותא (that up to י' לב"ס is a חזקה), which argues on the ברייתא in פרק הספינה which allows a maximum of only י"ו אמות בין אילן לאילן (denser than י' לב"ס). ²⁵ לקמן פב,ב. There ר"י argued with ר"נ and ruled that they need to be מד' ועד ח'. See footnote # 6. ²⁶ See לקמן עב,א where the גמרא states אלא פשיטא ר"ש היא. ²⁷ This means that every row of grapevines was separated from the adjacent row of grapevines by eight אמות (see רשב"ם פב,ב ד"ה הנוטע). ²⁸ Since the rows are so far apart (eight אמות) it is מפוזרים and is not considered a כרם. ²⁹ The ברייתא of הקדש which is according to ר"ש requires י' לב"ס, however by מכר it must be less than ח' אמות (much denser than י' לב"ס). This is a question only if we agree with the רשב"ם that הקדש is כמכר. See ‘Thinking it over’. ³⁰ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, לה ההיא דהמוכר את הבית לגמרי כרבי שמעון. ³¹ The ברייתא there stated a rule how he is פודה the אילנות when he is not קונה the קרקע, which indicates that the ברייתא maintains מקדיש בעין רעה מקדיש. The תנא who maintains this is ר"ש. But it has no connection to the rule of י' לב"ס; that is not according to ר"ש. ³² See footnote # 29. ³³ See footnote # 21.