Implied question: (We could have taught a bigger Chidush!) The same applies if he says "I bought it from Ploni, who bought it from you." It is not a Chazakah unless he says "you sold it to me", like the Seifa teaches!

Answer: It is better to teach "no one ever said anything to me", to teach that we do not "open the mouth of the mute" (suggest that he had a document and lost it).

Explanation: [The Machazik thinks] when I will not be able to show my document, because I lost it, they will say that I stole it;

However, when I say "no one ever said anything to me", they will not say that I stole it. Rather, [they will think that] I saw that they did not protest against me, and I made Chazakah in it, and it turns out that he pardoned me.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): I built the wall according to him (with his consent), and he helped me. Since he acted based on the other's command, this is a Chazakah with a claim.

Question #1: Since it says afterwards "but he pardoned", this connotes that until now, the Machazik's claim was not pardon!

Question #2: Immediately, Rav Nachman should have said that this was mistaken pardon!

Answer (and Explanation #2): Rav Anan claimed that he bought from him, but he did not have witnesses that he bought. He wanted to be believed due to the Chazakah;

When Rav Nachman told him that it is not a Chazakah, Rav Anan answered him that he pardoned;

Even though he is not believed to say "I bought it", it should be mine due to pardon, for he helped me with the wall, and I have witnesses, or he admits that he helped.

Disclaimer: The Sugya is not like this.

Question (Maharam): Why do we ask that this is obvious? Above (28b), the Gemara asked that if so, a Chazakah without a claim [should be valid]!

There, in the first Perush, Tosfos explained that even if he did not say "no one ever said anything to me" (rather, he was silent), we ask [that it should be a Chazakah]!

Answer #1: It seems that based on the Seifa, which connotes that even if he says "I bought it from Ploni, who bought it from you", it is not a Chazakah, we ask that this is obvious.

Rebuttal: This is difficult. What is his source to challenge the Reisha more than the Seifa? We can infer oppositely from the Reisha, and ask better from the Reisha to the Seifa!

Answer #2: The Makshan did not think that we claim for him. Therefore, he asked that it is obvious that Chazakah alone does not help without a claim;

We answer that one might have thought that we claim for him. Above, we asked that Chazakah without a claim should be a Chazakah, i.e. we should claim for him. Since he did not protest in three years, surely he sold to him or pardoned.

Answer #3: According to Rabanan who argue with R. Yishmael, and do not learn [Chazakah] from Shor [ha'Mu'ad], we ask that it is obvious. (Only according to R. Yishmael there is a Havah Amina to learn from Shor ha'Mu'ad that Chazakah does not need a claim.)

Objection: Our Mishnah did not mention Rabanan. Our Mishnah is like R. Yishmael!

Answer #4: It seems that we question the Chazakah of one day (e.g. to rest things on his neighbor's wall), which our Mishnah also discusses, since it says "any Chazakah", like the Rashbam explained.

Question (Rashba): Rav Anan said above (38b) "Shmuel explained to me that Mach'ah in front of witnesses who cannot say to [the original owner, is a Mach'ah];

Inference: Mach'ah need not be in front of him. This is unlike R. Yehudah!

Answer: Perhaps he holds like [R. Yehudah] in one way, and argues with him in one way.

Question - Citation (Bava Metzi'a 66b - Rav Nachman): Now that Rabanan said that Asmachta (exaggerated stipulations that one did not intend to fulfill) does not acquire, [if one said 'if I don't pay my loan in time, you can collect my land',] the land returns and the Peros return.

Citation (cont.) Question: This implies that Rav Nachman holds that mistaken pardon is not pardon;

Citation (cont.) However, it was said that if one sold to his friend the fruits [that will grow] on a date tree... and Rav Nachman said [he can retract even after they grow, but] I admit that if the buyer ate them, we do not take from him [even though the seller pardoned mistakenly. He did not know that he could retract!]

Citation (cont.) Answer: A sale is unlike a loan.

Rashi explained that regarding a loan, it looks like Ribis. Initially he received [the land] due to a loan, and it is like Ribis Ketzutzah (contracted interest);

Avak Ribis (mid'Rabanan) is only through a sale, e.g. he bought Peros [that will grow], in the Reisha of the Mishnah there.

Inference: Rav Nachman holds that mistaken pardon is always valid, except for there regarding a loan, because it looks like Ribis.

Summation of question: Here, Rav Nachman holds that it is not pardon!

Observation: Even without this, Rashi's Perush is difficult, for Ravina said there (62a) that Mashkanta without deducting, in our (Yisrael's) laws, we do not return from the lender to the borrower, for it is not considered Ribis Ketzutzah;

Presumably, Rav Nachman does not argue with him!

Answer (R. Tam): Everywhere, Rav Nachman holds that mistaken pardon is invalid, like it says here;

Also in Bava Metzi'a (35a), Rav Nachman says that it is a mistaken estimation [and it is retracted].

Also in Gitin (14a), he said that a mistaken Kinyan is retracted.

Explanation: Rav Nachman's reason (in Bava Metzi'a 66b) for a sale is because it is not mistaken pardon. Even if the seller knew that he can retract, he would not retract. He prefers to remain in his integrity, and resolved to be Makneh;

However, here it is a loan. The borrower was Makneh only through a sale, and the sale has no effect, for it is Asmachta. He did not resolve to be Makneh;

Since the land returns, also the Peros that he consumed return.

However, had he given due to Ribis, [the lender] would have acquired, for Beis Din does not force one to return Avak Ribis.

Rava, who wanted to refute him from Ona'ah (if one overpaid a sixth, it is mistaken pardon, and it is not pardoned), did not know this Perush. Had he known it, his question from Ona'ah is not difficult at all, for here it is not mistaken pardon, like I explained, that he resolved to be Makneh.

Rav Nachman answered from Ailonis (a girl who does not develop like a normal female), according to Rava's reasoning. (When it is found that she is an Ailonis, it is revealed that they were her never married. Her husband does not return Peros of her property that he consumed, even though he had no right to eat. She pardoned mistakenly!)

I.e. rather than challenge me from Ona'ah, support me from Ailonis! Rather, you must distinguish like I distinguished [a loan from a sale].

Explanation: We conclude that Rav Yehudah holds like R. Shimon ben Elazar.

Question: In Sanhedrin (30b), Rav Yehudah said that witnesses who contradict each other in Bedikos (questions not essential to the testimony), the testimony is Kosher for monetary cases;

We establish this when one said that the wallet was white, and one says that the wallet was black. However, if one says that the coins were black, and one says that the coins were white, they do not join;

Neharde'ei say, even if one says that the coins were white, and one says that the coins were black [they join]. We conclude that they hold like R. Shimon ben Elazar here.

Inference: Rav Yehudah, who argues with Neharde'ei, argues with R. Shimon ben Elazar here.

Answer: Also Rav Yehudah holds like R. Shimon ben Elazar. They argue about the following. Neharde'ei hold that if one says that the coins were black, and one says that the coins were white, this is the teaching of R. Shimon ben Elazar, because witnesses are not meticulous about this. This is like [disagreement about the color of] the wallet;

Rav Yehudah holds that this is totally unlike the wallet. There, it is not connected to the episode itself (the loan). It was not incumbent on them to check [its color]. However, the coins, this is the episode itself that they testify about. They are meticulous about this.

He holds that R. Shimon ben Elazar agrees about [disagreement about whether they were] black coins [or white], that the testimony is Batel, even according to Beis Hillel;

This is unlike [witnesses who argue about whether he lent] 100 or 200. People are more prone to err about this.

He compares black coins and white coins to one who says "a barrel of wine", and one says that it was of oil. All agree about this, that the testimony is divided [and cannot be joined], like it says there.

Question (Riva): According to Beis Shamai, who say that when there is one set of witnesses [who argue about the amount of the loan], the testimony is divided, for they consider this contradictory testimony...

Even when there are two pairs of witnesses, their testimony is Batel, for this is [like] when one of the witnesses was found to be a relative or invalid witness. The testimony is Batel, even if there are 100 witnesses, like it says in Makos (5b)!

Answer (Ri): This is not difficult. We can say that Beis Shamai hold like R. Yosi, who said there "what do we discuss? We discuss capital cases, but in monetary cases, the testimony is fulfilled through the other [Kosher witnesses];

This is the Halachah, for Rav Nachman rules like him.

And even according to Rebbi, we can say that here we discuss when [the witnesses] came to look (without intent to testify);

And even if they came to testify, only when they support each other, he says that if one of the witnesses was found to be a relative or invalid witness, the testimony is Batel;

However, here that they contradict each other, he does not.