Explanation: It was their (the bloodletters') land, and not Rav Yosef's land, since we ask below "it is Gerama!"

Explanation (Rivam): Since he did not come to make a Chazakah in his friend's land, and say that it is his, rather, for a mere use from which he benefits, Chazakah without a claim helps;

Presumably, they did not say that Rav Yosef sold to them this usage.

Support: This is like those above (6a) who had a Chazakah to rest light beams (on a neighbor's wall). The Chazakah helps without a claim. Since he did not protest for three years, he pardoned this to him.

Rebuttal: If he was not Makneh to him (authorize him to acquire rights), why is a Chazakah for light beams a Chazakah for heavy beams?!

Rather, you are forced to say that there, he claims that he was Makneh to him. Therefore, he has a Chazakah [even] for heavy beams, for one does not make a partial Kinyan.

Explanation (R. Tam): Even if he was Makneh to him, he can retract, for it was a mistaken Kinyan. He thought that he could bear, and now he cannot bear.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. Since it says "there is no Chazakah for Nezakin", we can infer that a proof helps;

We infer like this below (49a) regarding the Mishnah "and a man has no Chazakah in his wife's property."

Explanation (Ri): Only regarding smoke of a furnace, which is great and damages more, it has no Chazakah;

This is like it says in Bava Kama (82b) "we do not make furnaces in Yerushalayim. What is the reason? It is due to smoke."

Similarly, only regarding their privies, which were above the ground and stank exceedingly (there is no Chazakah), but ours, which are covered, have Chazakah.

Explanation: He was an Istnis (overly sensitive);

Source -Citation (Pesachim 113b): Three, their lives are not lives (they are always unhappy) -those who are merciful, irritable and overly sensitive. Rav Yosef said, all of these apply to me.

Implied question: He said "remove the ravens from here", which implies that he said so due to the ravens!

Answer #1: Surely, if there were not ravens, he would bear it, even though he was an Istnis.

Answer #2: The ravens were eating the blood and flying and cleaning themselves on the Peros.

Explanation: This is due to grain spread on roofs of the city to dry.

Implied question: We should be concerned for grain in the fields near the city!

Answer: The fields were 1000 Amos away from the city, like the Mishnah says (Erchin 33b) we may not make a Migrash (vacant area) a field, nor a field Migrash.

Explanation: [This refers to] far from the city, amidst the fields.

It needed to teach both of these. Had it taught [only] the Reisha, to distance from the city, one might have thought that only there he must distance, because grain of the city is exposed, both in the Chatzer and on the roof;

However, grain planted in the field is covered, so one need not distance.

Had it taught [only] the Seifa, one might have thought that this is because grain is common in the fields, but in the city it is not so common, I would say not (he need not distance).

Explanation: R. Yehudah and Rabanan do not argue about how much is Sheger haYonah (how far it flies at once). Rabanan agree that four Korin is Sheger haYonah;

However, Rabanan hold that since they fill their stomachs in 50 Amos, like we say in the Gemara, they do not damage past this;

R. Yehudah holds that they damage the full amount of Sheger haYonah.

Explanation: This equals four Mil, for a Mil is seven and a half Ris. (A Mil is 2000 Amos, about a kilometer.)

Sometimes the Gemara gives the Shi'ur in Ris, sometimes in Mil, and sometimes in Parsah (a Parsah is four Mil).

Question: What did we think "Yishuv" (a settled area) means?

If the city is called Yishuv, if so "even 100 Mil" is not precise, like it connotes, rather, even 1000 Mil or more [is forbidden];

If so, one may not spread anywhere, even in a Midbar, distant without bound from the city!

Suggestion: Perhaps 100 Mil is precise.

Question: In any case, how will [the Makshan] explain the Beraisa? (The two Beraisos brought in our Gemara are actually the Reisha and Seifa of the following Tosefta.)

Citation (Tosefta, Bava Kama 8:9): One may spread traps for doves only if he distanced 30 Ris from the Yishuv. What is the case? This is in a Midbar, but in a Yishuv, one may not spread even for 100 Mil.

Summation of Question (a): Since [the Makshan thinks that] the city is called Yishuv [how will he explain the Reisha, which forbids only 30 Ris]?

Suggestion: He thought that it means as follows. What is the case? This is in a Midbar, i.e. where there are no crops, but in a Yishuv, i.e. a place settled with crops, one may not spread even for 100 Mil.

Rejection: If so, what was difficult to him?! (We can say that the Yishuv of the Reisha discusses when there are no crops nearby!)

Answer (Ritzva): Surely, he thought that it discusses Yishuv of crops. Therefore, he asks "does it fly only 30 Ris and no more, even amidst Yishuv of crops?!"

It is proven [from the Seifa] that amidst Yishuv of crops it flies further (100 Mil). This (added flying distance amidst Yishuv of crops) is due only to eating (during its journey). This shows that they do not fill their stomachs in 50 Amos [rather, even past 30 Ris]!

[Rav Yosef and Rava] answer that [the Seifa] does not discuss amidst Yishuv of crops, rather, amidst Yishuv of dovecotes or Yishuv of vineyards;

[The Reisha] calls "Midbar" a place without Yishuv of dovecotes or vineyards.

Explanation: The Makshan thought that the [other] Mishnah teaches about an heir, and the same applies to a buyer;

However, Rav Zevid, who mentioned also an heir, relies on the Mishnah below. (Our Mishnah teaches about a buyer);

However, we do not learn an heir from our Mishnah here, since we need the Mishnah below.

Question: Also regarding an heir, [the Mishnah] should teach both of them (Reshus ha'Rabim and a Chatzer)!

Answer: [The Mishnah] taught regarding a buyer, and the same applies to an heir.

Explanation: The seven governors of the city, in the assembly of people of the city [pardoned him], for they have authority [to do whatever they want with city property], like it says in Megilah (26a);

Since each owns in the road only a small amount, they pardon more than an individual does.

Explanation: We follow the majority of the world;

Even according to the opinion that we do not follow the majority in monetary laws, that is when he (the one whom the minority supports) is Muchzak. Here that there is no Chezkas Mamon, we follow the majority!

Question: In Bava Metzi'a (24a), according to Rabanan of R. Shimon ben Elazar, who say that even in a city that is mostly Nochrim, one must announce [a found object] with a Siman [lest a Yisrael lost it]...

Why don't we follow the majority of the world, since there is no Chezkas Mamon?

Answer: That is an enactment mid'Rabanan, in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah, since it can be clarified, through announcing, whether it is of a Yisrael;

Also the Yisrael [who lost it] does not despair, for it crosses his mind that perhaps a Yisrael will find it and announce. (If he would despair, returning it to him would not be the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah. It would be like a mere gift.)

Question: What is the Chidush? A Beraisa teaches this!

Citation (Kesuvos 15a - Beraisa): If there are nine stores [in a city], all of which sell slaughtered meat, and one sells Neveilah... if meat was found [in the street], we follow the majority.

This connotes even if it was found near the store that sells Neveilah!

Answer #1 (Rivam): If we learned [only] from that Mishnah, one might have thought that this is when the doors of the city are not locked at night, and there are two majorities [also most of the traffic around the city are Yisre'elim, so even if the meat is from them, we may assume that it is Kosher];

R. Chanina teaches that this is not so. Even when the doors of the city are locked, and there is only one majority [we rely on it].

Implied question: Why did R. Zeira challenge R. Chanina below? Also R. Zeira holds below (24a) that [we follow even a single majority, e.g.] even if the city doors are locked!

Answer: [R. Zeira said so below] after R. Chanina answered him, and he accepted from him [that this is the Halachah].

Question (Ritzva): If so, why did he (R. Zeira) challenge him from a verse? [If he holds that the verse teaches that we follow the Karov], the Beraisa of nine stores is difficult for him (R. Zeira)!

Even if you will establish it when the city doors are not locked [so there are two majorities], the reason we require two majorities is only mid'Rabanan, due to a decree, like it says in Kesuvos (15a)! (Mid'Oraisa, we follow even one majority.)

Answer (Ri): The Mishnah is not difficult. We could say that the meat was found in the middle [it is not closer to either store].

Answer #2 (to Question (a) - Ri): R. Chanina comes to teach that even when the closeness is Muchach (it is so close that this is like a proof that it came from there), we follow the majority.

Support: Below, regarding a barrel [of wine] floating the river, we wanted to say that Rav, who permits if it is near a city that is mostly Yisre'elim, holds unlike R. Chanina;

Question: How can he establish it? It connotes that it is permitted even if it is found near a Nochri's house, from the reason that we follow the majority of the city, i.e. Yisrael, like R. Chanina!

Answer: Rather, surely the closeness to the Nochri's house is not Muchach, since mostly Yisre'elim live in that city, and Rav follows the majority when the closeness is not Muchach;

However, the city opposite the Dekira is a closeness that is Muchach. Therefore, he follows it, unlike R. Chanina.

Explanation: The entire Halachah is resolved like I will explain. Therefore, in the entire Gemara we do not bring [this teaching of] R. Chanina, only below, regarding the barrel found in an orchard of Orlah;

This is a closeness that is Muchach, that it was found in an orchard of Orlah itself.

Support: Also in Beitzah (10b), we bring it regarding the Mishnah of one who designated black birds from before Yom Tov, [to eat on Yom Tov], and he found white birds, or [he designated] white and he found black, they are forbidden (Muktzeh, for he did not designate them);

The Gemara explains that the case is, he designated black and white, and he found black in the place of the white, and white in the place the black;

One might have thought that they are the same birds, and they switched. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so, that these (the ones he designated) went away, and these [here now] are others, and they came from elsewhere.

The Gemara concludes "let us say that this supports R. Chanina..." There, it is closeness that is Muchach, for there were black and white, and it is Muchach that these are they.

Implied question: He should have asked also against the Beraisa of nine stores!

Answer: For the Beraisa, we could answer there is no [bigger city in the area];

Then, we could not ask that we should follow the majority of the world, for regarding the majority of the world, the closeness of this city is a closeness that is Muchach.

However, according to R. Chanina, who follows the majority even regarding a closeness that is Muchach, we ask properly;

Even after we answer that there is no [bigger city in the area], still it is difficult. We should follow the majority of the world!

Question: Here it connotes that the reason that the closest city brings Eglah Arufah is because from the closeness, it is Muchach that the murderer came from there;

In Sotah (45b), a Beraisa says "what is the source that if he is found near a city without a Beis Din, that we abandon the city without a Beis Din, and go to another city with a Beis Din?

What is the reason? From the closeness, it is Muchach that [the murderer] was from the city without a Beis Din (since it is closest)!

Note: Gidulei Shmuel says that we do not follow closeness if this will result in Bitul of the Mitzvah.

Question: Why do we need a verse in Bava Kama (82b) to teach that Yerushalayim does not bring Eglah Arufah?

Implied question: It says "Yerushalayim Harim Saviv Lah"! (If not for the verse, we would say that Yerushalayim brings Eglah Arufah when a Mes is found between Yerushalayim and the mountains.)

Answer: In any case, all of Yisrael used to go there during the festival, and also the rest of the year, to bring Nedarim and Nedavos, and also Nochrim used to go come to there for business. It was called "peddler of the nations." (Therefore, we would not assume that the murderer was from Yerushalayim.)

Answer #1: There were places where only people (residents) of Yerushalayim used to go.

Answer #2: [The verse is needed] for the days of Chizkiyah (when Sancheriv conquered the rest of Eretz Yisrael, and all of Bnei Yisrael were there, and [Nochrim] did not come for business.

Implied question: He could have asked also against the Beraisa of nine stores!

Answer: He could not, for here it is closeness that is Muchach that it is from this dovecote, for it is within 50 Amos, and those that are bigger are outside of 50 Amos;

Above (23a), we said that they fill their stomachs in 50 Amos.

Note: Perhaps Tosfos means that therefore, there is no reason for it to go more than 50 Amos from its home.

Implied question: Why don't we ask that we should follow the majority of the world?

Answer: We discuss when there is no others dovecote within 30 Ris, and we said above that they fly only 30 Ris, and no further.

Explanation: Granted, if there is one with more, we understand why it belongs to the finder, e.g. the bigger one is Hefker or of Nochrim;

However, now that there is none [with more], surely it fell from that one.

Implied question: Why can't we answer that there is none with more, rather, they are equal?

Answer: In any case, why would it belong to the finder, since it is closer to this one (that a Yisrael owns)?

It connotes that outside of 50 Amos it belongs to the finder, even if it is closer to this one (that a Yisrael owns) than to this one (that is Hefker, or of a Nochri).

Source: The Mishnah says "if it was found between two dovecotes, if it is closer to this, it is from it." I.e. when they are equal, we follow what is closer!

Question: Perhaps it fell from travelers, like we say below (24b) regarding jugs of wine found among vines!

Answer: When they surely fell, and we do not know from whom, we attribute them to travelers;

However, here we can say that they came from a dovecote. We should not attribute and establish them that they fell [from people], since people are careful that doves not fall from them.

Suggestion: [They expelled him] for asking a matter that is not common at all. How will it occur that one leg is within 50 Amos, and one is outside, precisely?

Rejection: We find that also the Mishnah discusses matters that are not common, e.g. if it is in the middle, they divide!

Answer (R. Tam): They expelled him because a chick that walks does not walk at all more than 50 Amos, even one foot. All Midos of Chachamim are like this. (R. Yirmeyah knew this. He should have accepted that if one foot is outside 50, surely it is not from the nest.)

Explanation: This is even if one of them has more.

Implied question (Ri): [The Makshan] could have asked this question against the Beraisa of nine stores, for this closeness (regarding the found bird) is not Muchach;

If it is within 50 of this one, it is also within 50 of this one. If it is outside 50 of this one, it is also outside 50 of this one. Even so, we follow the closer one!

Answer: However, we can say that he asked only because he wanted to ask that we should follow the majority of the world.

Question (Rashba): How could [the Makshan] say that [the Mishnah is] even when one of them has more? It says when it is in the middle, they divide. If one of them has more, we should follow the majority!

Answer (Ri): We could have said "also according to you (the Makshan, this is difficult)."

Implied question: We could have answered that there are only two dovecotes within 30 Ris!

Answer: We wanted to answer like the Reisha, in which there are many dovecotes.

Implied question: Now that we establish it to discuss a path in a vineyard it is unlike the Reisha, for the Reisha does not discuss a path in a vineyard!

Answer: Regarding this, he is not particular that it be like the Reisha, since our Mishnah does not mention a path in a vineyard anywhere;

Observation: Also, we could have answered that "when it is closer to this one, it is his" is within 50 Amos, regarding a chick that walks.