Our Mishnah now discusses a case where a house fell on Reuven and his father Ya'akov, or on Reuven and his Morishin, his next of kin other than his father (e.g. his paternal uncle, or his brothers).

The bone of contention between Ya'akov's heirs and Reuven's wife or creditor (based on the fact that Reuven left nothing of his own) is who died first; Reuven (in which case, the father's heirs inherit everything, and Reuven's creditors have no claim); or Ya'akov (in which case, the deceased Reuven too, inherits part of Ya'akov's property, to which they now have rights).

When Beis Hillel say 'Nechasim be'Chezkasan' they mean - in the Chazakah of the father's heirs, who are considered heirs either way (and not to Reuven's creditors, who only inherit in the event that Ya'akov died first (and we have a principle 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vadai').

Beis Shamai rule 'Yachloku') on the basis of the principle that - 'If someone has a Kosher Sh'tar, it is as if he has already claimed it in Beis-Din', in which case, the property is as much in the Chazakah of the creditors as of the heirs.

The Mishnah in 'Get Pashut' teaches that - a creditor may claim a Milveh bi'Sh'tar from Meshubadim (from the purchaser), but not a Milveh al Peh.

The reason for this distinction lies in the fact that - where there is a Sh'tar, there is a Kol (a rumor - which means that people know about it), basd on which would-be purchasers are able to make the necessary inquiries and spare themselves a loss. In the case of a Milveh al Peh on the other hand, where there is no Kol - the purchaser is helpless to save himself from losing the field when the creditor claims it from him.

In the case of a Milveh bi'Sh'tar, the creditor may claim from the Lekuchos, even if Achrayus was not inserted in the Sh'tar, because 'Achrayus Ta'us Sofer Hu' (creditors expect this form of insurance against loss, and the omission is therefore an error on the part of the Sofer).

The creditor may not however, claim from Meshubadim - if there are b'nei Chorin available (or that were still available at the time of purchase).

Shmuel asks whether 'de'Ikni ve'Kanah' is included in the Shibud, by which he means to ask - whether property that the debtor subsequently purchases and then sells is included in the Shibud, should the debtor stipulate it.

Shmuel's She'eilah is not relevant according to Rebbi Meir - who holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam', in which case one can certainly place a Shibud on it.

His She'eilah, according to the Rabbanan, is whether, even though one cannot sell something that is not yet in the world, one can at least place a Shibud on it.

A Shibud might be better than a Kinyan in this regard either because the land was already in the world, even though he did not yet own it, or - because the Rabbanan strengthened the Shibud of the creditor, so that people should be assured of retrieving their loans and therefore be willing to lend money to the poor (a Takanah known as 'Ne'ilas Deles' (describing what it prevents [closing the door on debtors]).

The Mishnah in Kesuvos discusses a case where Reuven produces a Sh'tar-Chov against Shimon, and Shimon counters this by producing a Sh'tar that Reuven sold him a field claiming that - if as Reuven claims, he (Shimon) still owes him money, why did he sell him a field, instead of claiming the money directly to pay his debt?

Admon accepts Shimon's argument. The Chachamim counter that - on the contrary, Reuven was smart in landing Shimon with a field which he is now able to claim in lieu of his debt.

Rav Yosef tries to prove from the Chachamim that 'de'Ikni' is Meshubad (seeing as Shimon purchased the field after the loan took place). Rava however, refutes this proof on the grounds that - it is obvious that the creditor can claim from the debtor himself (just like he can claim even 'the shirt on his back', which is Metalt'lin). Our She'eilah concerns claiming from the purchaser, which remains unresolved.

Besides claiming a later field from the Lekuchos, the She'eilah also incorporates - claiming a later field from the heirs.

Rav Chana tries to resolve our She'eilah from the case of 'Naflah ha'Bayis Alav v'Al Aviv' in our Mishnah, where the father died first - and where the creditor now claims from the son, property which he inherited from his father (which he did not own at the time of the loan), a clear proof that 'de'Ikni ve'Kanah, Mishtabed'.

Rav Nachman refutes the proof however, quoting Ze'ira Chavrin (Ze'ira our colleague), who points out that - our Mishnah is referring specifically to Yorshin, on whom there lies a Mitzvah to pay their father's debts (even without having written 'de'Ikni' in the Sh'tar). By Lekuchos, on the other hand, it is still possible to hold that what the debtor purchases later is not Meshubad.

Rav Ashi refutes this however, by quoting a statement of Rav and Shmuel, who rule that - the creditor can claim a Milveh al Peh neither from the Yorshin nor from the Lekuchos.

This case is considered a Milveh al Peh - since the property was only acquired later, and was therefore not included in the Sh'tar.

We cannot answer that we do not hold like Rav and Shmuel - since it was Shmuel who posed the She'eilah in the first place, and if 'de'Ikni' is not Meshubad, he will be faced with a Kashya on his own statement.

We reconcile Shmuel's She'eilah with our Mishnah - by establishing the author of the Mishnah as Rebbi Meir (who holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam'), whilst Shmuel asked his She'eilah according to the Rabbanan, as we explained earlier.

We learned in the Mishnah in Shevi'is 'Sh'tarei-Chov ha'Mukdamin, Pesulin, ve'ha'Me'ucharin Kesheirin'. A Sh'tar-Chov ...

... Mukdam' is a Sh'tar-Chov that is pre-dated, either retroactively at the time of the loan, or because it was written before the loan took place.

... Me'uchar' is a Sh'tar-Chov that is post-dated, either at the time of the loan, or because it was only written later.

The former is Pasul because the Lekuchos, who will purchase land from the debtor without being aware of the as yet undocumented loan, have no way of safeguarding themselves against the creditor.

Rav Ya'akov from Nahar Pakud in the name of Ravina tries to prove from the fact that a Sh'tar-Chov Me'uchar is Kasher that - de'Ikni Kanah u'Machar, de'Ikni Kanah u'Morish, Mishtabed'.

Once again, we refute Ravina's proof - by establishing the author of the Mishnah in Shevi'is as Rebbi Meir.

According to Rebbi Meir, if they did not insert ...

... Achrayus in the Sh'tar at all - the creditor cannot claim from Meshubadim.

... 'de'Ikni' in a Sh'tar-Chov Me'uchar - the Sh'tar is Pasul (like our Kashya).

We did not ask from this case on Shmuel - because it is uncommon to insert Achrayus in a Sh'tar in halves (i.e. general Shibud, yes, but not 'de'Ikni').

The Mishnah in Gitin discusses Sh'vach Karka'os - the improvements that a purchaser makes in a field before the seller's creditor claims it, and which the purchaser then reclaims from the seller.

The Tana permits him to claim ...

... the Keren from Meshubadim, but ...

... the Sh'vach only from b'nei-Chorin.

Rav Mesharshiya in the name of Rava tries to prove from there that - de'Ikni Lo Mishtabed', because if it was, what right would the creditor have to claim the Sh'vach from the purchaser in the first place?

We refute this proof, too however - by establishing the author as Rebbi Meir.

On the assumption that 'de'Ikni ... Mishtabed', we ask what the Din will be - in a case where the borrower borrowed twice and then acquired property; which of the two creditors has the rights to it.

According to Rav Nachman, this She'eilah was asked of the b'nei Eretz Yisrael, who replied that the first creditor has the right to the newly-acquired property. Rav Huna and - Rabah bar Avuha both say 'Yachloku'.

By 'Yachloku', they mean that - they divide it in proportion to the loan.

Ravina quotes the Mahadura Kama of Rav Ashi and the Mahadura Basra. The significance of ...

... Mahadura Kama with regard to Rav Ashi (who lived sixty years) is that it comprised the first thirty years of his life, when he finished all his learning the first time round, and Mahadura Basra, the second thirty years when he finished it the second time round.

... Chodshei ha'Kalah is that each Nisan and Tishri, he would review all his current learning.

Rav Ashi ruled in ...

... the Mahadura Kama that the first creditor had the rights to the property, but ...

... in the Mahadura Basra 'Yachlohu'.

The Halachah is - 'Yachloku'.

Quoting once again from the Beraisa 'li'Shevach Karka'os Keitzad ... ', we query the previous ruling from the conclusion of the Beraisa 've'es ha'Shevach mi'Nechasim Bnei-Chorin' - which the purchaser only did after the loan, and which implies that the latter borrower (the purchaser, in this case) has the rights, and not 'Yachloku', as we just ruled.

We refute this Kashya however - by interpreting the Beraisa to mean half the Sh'vach.

When Shmuel rules in Bava Metzia 'Ba'al-Chov Govah es ha'Shevach' - he too means half the Sh'vach.

And when in Bava Metzia, he rules 'Govin es ha'Shevach', even though here he remains undecided, he is either that, there, he is referring to the opinion of Rebbi Meir, or - that he has resolved his own She'eilah (even according to the Rabbanan) ...

... based on the principle 'Divrei Torah Aniyim be'Makom Echad va'Ashirim be'Makom Acher' (the Gemara sometimes omits something in one place, and explains it somewhere else).