(Mishnah in Maseches Terumos): If a person was eating a cluster of grapes and he entered from the garden into the courtyard - R. Eliezer says that he may finish eating it and R. Yehoshua prohibits it.

(R. Zeira/ R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan): (Our Mishnah taught that R. Tarfon says that if a vine is planted in a courtyard, he may take an entire cluster.) Either R. Tarfon follows R. Eliezer's view or he said that the beginning of picking the cluster is like the beginning of the eating of the entire cluster.

(R. Ila/ R. Isi citing R. Yochanan): Either R. Tarfon follows R. Eliezer's view or he said that eating two or three times is like one eating.

What's R. Eliezer's reasoning? Since he began to eat in a permitted way.

(R. Nosson): R. Eliezer does not say that since he began in a permitted way, he may continue. Rather, he says that he must wait until after Shabbos ends or he can go outside the courtyard and eat in the garden.

(Baraisa citing R. Nechemia): When he hoed and planted, it's like a garden (rather than a courtyard) and he may snack inside it.

(R. Simlai): The Halacha follows R. Nechemia.

(Baraisa): If he planted in most of the courtyard, it is now exempt (as it can no longer be considered his living space). If he planted trees in most of it, it is still obligated (as people shade themselves there).

(Rav Chisda): That's when he planted the trees (in an organized manner) to improve the appearance of the courtyard (but if they were randomly planted, it is exempt).

Those two Baraisos (in (f) citing R. Nechemia & in (h)) can learn from each other...

The 2nd Baraisa, that planting most of it makes it exempt, applies only when he hoed (before planting).

The 1st Baraisa, that taught that he is exempt when he hoed, applies only when he hoed most of it.

(The Mishnah taught (Bechoros 4(d)) that if a fig tree was standing in a courtyard and leaning into a garden, a person may eat in the usual way and is exempt.) This is referring to when he eats in the garden.

(And when the Mishnah taught that if it was standing in a garden and leaning into a courtyard, he may eat them one at a time; but if he combined them, he is obligated) - it's referring to when he eats in the courtyard.

Question (R. Yirmiyah to R. Zeira): (If it was standing in the garden and the branches were leaning into the courtyard) and he was standing (in the garden) and picking with a long stick, what's the law? (Do we follow the location of the picker or of the fruits? The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.)

Once, R. Zeira, R. Abba bar Kahana and R. Levi were sitting and R. Zeira was speaking against those who expound Aggadata and he called them Magician Chachamim (as they invent their own explanations that veer away from the meaning of the Pasuk).

(R. Ba bar Kahana to R. Zeira): Why are you rebuking them? Ask them to explain a pasuk and they will answer you!

(R. Zeira): What's the meaning of the pasuk (Tehillim 76:11), "For man's rage will acknowledge You; it will prevent the residue of anger''?

(R. Ba to R. Zeira): "For man's rage will acknowledge You'' in this world; "it will prevent the residue of anger'' in the world to come.

(R. Zeira to R. Ba): Or perhaps we could say (the opposite) - "For man's rage will acknowledge You'' in the world to come; "it will prevent the residue of anger'' in this world?

(R. Levi): When You awaken Your rage against the evildoers, the righteous see what You are doing to them and they acknowledge Your Name.

(R. Zeira): Both of you have overturned the meaning of the pasuk (and we have not yet heard the true explanation). Yirmiyah, my son, strengthen yourself with the question that you asked (in Halacha) about picking with a long stick (see earlier (l)), which is better than any question in Aggada.

(Mishnah in Maseches Arachin): Whatever is within the walls of a walled city is considered part of the walled city except for fields. R. Meir includes fields.

Why did Rabbanan exclude fields? The pasuk states (Vayikra 25:30), "(But if it is not redeemed by the end of a complete year,) then that house (which is in the city that has a wall), shall remain permanently (the property of the one who purchased it throughout his generations. It will not leave his possession in Yovel.'') This only refers to a house. How do we also include olives presses, water pits, trenches, man-made caves, bathhouses, dovecotes and fixed cupboards? The pasuk states, "which is in the city''. I might think that even fields are included? The pasuk uses the word house. Just as a house is a place of dwelling, so too anywhere that is for dwelling - this excludes a field.

What is R. Meir's reasoning (to include fields)? The pasuk states, "then that house...shall remain permanently'' - this only refers to a house. How do we also include olives presses, water pits, trenches, man-made caves, bathhouses, dovecotes, fixed cupboards and fields? The pasuk states, "which is in the city''. "...That has a wall'' - R. Yehuda says that this excludes a house built into the wall. R. Shimon says the outer house wall is the city wall (and it fulfills the pasuk's phrase 'that has a wall').

R. Yehuda expounds the phrase as 'that has a wall'. R. Shimon expounds it as 'that does not have a wall'. (The pasuk is written as 'does not' (with the letter Alef) but the tradition is to read it as 'it has' (with the letter Vav).

(R. Chinana): (The Mishnah taught (Bechoros 4(e)2.) that concerning Cities of Refuge, everything follows the foliage. If the trunk is within the borders of the city and its foliage leans outside, one may not kill an inadvertent murderer.

(The Mishnah taught (Bechoros 4(e)3.) that concerning the limits of Yerushalayim, for the laws of Ma'aser Sheni, everything follows the foliage.) The Mishnah follows Beis Shammai, who say (in the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni (3:7) that if the opening of an olive press is outside Yerushalayim but its inner space is inside), everything is considered inside.

(Baraisa): If a person pulled the foliage into the limits of Yerushalayim, everything is viewed as inside (and Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten there etc. This follows the opinion of Beis Hillel.)

However, in the Baraisa, there is also another Tanna who preceded this statement who taught like Beis Shammai.