Explanation: We are unsure whether he means half, or Mashehu.

Question: What kind of gift is Mashehu? (Surely, he did not intend to give Mashehu!)

Answer: He gives a quarter of a Log or more. The Gemara was not concerned to mention this.

Note: He gives an eight of a Log above the Shi'urim given, for if he did not mean half, rather, Mashehu, the Mashehu is at least a quarter of a Log.

Pesak: In the Sugya of Kol d'Alim Gavar (whoever overpowers the other keeps it. Beis Din does not rule about it), the Rashbam ruled like Sumchus.

Rebuttal: The Halachah does not follow Sumchus, like I explained above (35a).

Implied question: This is like a Kohen helping in the granary [in order to receive Terumah. It is forbidden, for Matanos must be given totally for free - Kidushin 6b!]

Answer: We say that he retained the place of the Ma'aser. The Ma'aser is totally his. Rather, he sold to him this power that he may tithe on his portion.

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that this is like R. Meir [who says that Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam]?

Answer #1: R. Meir said so only regarding matters like fruits of a date tree, which normally come, for the date tree is in the world, and the fruits grow by themselves;

However, here, who says that he will plow and seed it? And even if he plows and seeds, perhaps the grain will not grow! We say like this in Kidushin (62b);

Citation (62b): Rabah says that R. Eliezer ben Yakov said [that Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam] only regarding Shachas (the grain already grew enough to be used for fodder), but not if it is Agam (soft sproutings), which are still small. Rav Yosef says that it is even if it is Agam.

In any case, both of them agree that if the grain is not recognized at all, and did not emerge from the ground, he does not acquire.

Answer #2 (Rabbeinu Yitzchak): We could not establish it like R. Meir, because even R. Meir agrees that [one who is Makneh] to anything that is not in the world, he does not acquire, like we say in Gitin (13b);

Note: Normally, when Tosfos cites Rabbeinu Yitzchak, this is the Ri. Here it must be the Rivam, for the Ri disagrees with this below.

Here it taught that if he said "to me and my sons", and he died, he gives to his sons.

Rebuttal (Ri): Perhaps he discusses sons who are already in the world!

Note: Presumably, Rivam holds that since the Gemara did not distinguish, this implies that the same applies to all sons, even those not yet born.

Explanation #1: If he wants to extend ledges, he may extend. The Rashbam explained that he extends ledges to the Chatzer.

Objection (R. Tam): Here we do not discuss selling the Chatzer, rather, selling a house. One who sells a house did not sell the Chatzer!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): [He keeps the right] to extend ledges, if he will build a building in the Chatzer. If he wants to rest ledges on the roof, he may, even though it weighs on the wall.

Explanation: He does not discuss truly building on it. Rather, if it falls, he may rebuild it, like we conclude below;

However, if he did not say "on condition that", he may not build it.

Implied question - Citation (Bava Metzi'a 117a - Mishnah): If a house and its Aliyah belonged to two people, and it fell, and the owner of the Aliyah (Shimon) told the owner of the ground floor to rebuild [but he refuses, Shimon may build]!

Answer #1 (Rabbeinu Yitzchak): That is only regarding an Aliyah, which is better and more important than a roof;

A roof is not so important. [Its owner] does not have as many rights as [the owner of] an Aliyah.

Answer #2: The Rashbam needlessly gave a different, poor explanation (that there, the owner of the house was Meshabed his house to [support] the Aliyah).

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): "Until the sky" does not help at all. Once he wrote to him "the depth and height", he acquired until the sky, and even a roof with a wall 10 Tefachim tall around it.

Implied question: Our Mishnah (64a) says even if he wrote to him "the depth and height" [he did not acquire]!

Answer: It refers to [only what is written in that Mishnah, i.e.] Bor and Dus (a water cistern), but not to a roof (in the previous Mishnah 61a);

Explanation #1 (cont.): There was no need to say "until the sky." It merely finishes his expression, for he could not say "until the bottom of the house." (Since he said "the depth and height", and explains the extent of the depth, he must conclude with the extent of the height.)

Objection (Ri): He could have said "the height and depth until the depth of the ground below"! (Since he mentions the depth last, it suffices to explain the extent of the depth, without specifying the extent of the height.)

Explanation #2 (Ri): This refers also to the roof. Even though he wrote to him "the depth and height", he did not acquire a roof with a wall 10 Tefachim tall.

Implied question: [Rav Dimi] could have said that "until the sky" helps to acquire a roof with a wall 10 Tefachim tall around it! (Why did he explain only what we include due to "until the depth of the ground"?)

Answer: He was concerned to teach only about Bor and Dus. Likewise, ["until the sky" helps for] a roof [with a 10 Tefachim wall. In fact,] all the more so it helps for it!

Weak defense (of Explanation #1 - Ri): Since he wrote "the depth and height", he acquired the roof. "Until the sky" helps to acquire a Bor and Dus on the roof;

They used to make Mikva'os on the roof, like we find in Yoma (19a) on the roof of [Beis] ha'Parvah and the roof of Sha'ar ha'Mayim.

Explanation (Rashbam): The Reisha discusses when he did not write to him the depth and height, for it does not teach "even though he wrote the depth and height." (This is taught only regarding Bor and Dus.)

Objection: There was no need to say so. Even if [the depth and height] refers to the Reisha, we concluded above that if we want to say that Stam he acquired, [the Mishnah] means that even if he did not write [it], it is as if he wrote it, to acquire the depth and height.