Explanation: [Rav Nachman] means that [a partner] receives in Shevach ha'Magi'a l'Kesafim like a sharecropper. They do not remove him immediately like a Kablan, like one who plants without permission, that they remove him with this (he gets paid only for the planting), even from a field normally planted;

And in a field not normally planted... I.e., also in a field not normally planted, he receives like in a field normally planted. This is unlike one who plants without permission.

Question: In Gitin (43b), regarding one who sells his slave to a Nochri, it says "what is Ono? He wrote to him 'when you flee from him (your new master), Ein Li Esek Becha'."

Inference: Ein Li Esek Becha is a good expression!

Answer (Ri): Ein Li Esek Becha connotes "rather, you are to yourself." Regarding a slave, for whom "you are to yourself" helps [to free him], also Ein Li Esek Becha helps;

However, regarding a field, "you are to yourself" does not apply, also if he would say Ein Li Esek Becha, his words have no effect;

Since regarding a field we cannot explain "I have no involvement in you, rather, you are to yourself", like we explain regarding a slave, Ein Li Esek Bah means only removing himself from claims, like is proven in Kerisus (24b).

Question: Why is it only because he establishes it [for his creditor to collect]? We should know this because he does not want to have complaints against him!

We say like this in Bava Kama (8b). If Reuven sold a field to Shimon without Acharayus, and his creditor came and took it from him, the law is, Reuven can take his creditor to Din (to try to prove that he was not entitled to take it);

His creditor cannot say "you have no case against me" (I did not take from you, and you have no obligation to compensate Shimon for what I took), for Reuven can reply "I do not want Shimon to have complaints against me!"

Answer #1: He is not disqualified from testimony due to this (his desire to avoid complaints does not make him so partial).

Answer #2: Here we discuss even when [the buyer] knows that it does not belong to him (the one who claims that it is really his). There are no [possible] complaints [against the seller].

Question: We require that [the judges] were Kosher [to judge] at the beginning and at the end. Here, they were initially Pasul. This is like a relative [e.g. through marriage] who later became distanced [through death or divorce]!

Answer (Ri): Here, being initially Pasul does not apply, since the Pesul does not depend on the body, rather, on money.

Explanation: [Is it reasonable that] Aniyim receive, and the judges are disqualified?! Rather, also here we discuss a Sefer Torah.

[The Gemara asks] why are they called Aniyim?...

Explanation: If both of them began to guard together, each at the time he guards his friend's share, his friend also guards his share...

Even though he is not working with him at the time of Ones, since he was with him at the beginning of Shemirah we apply "Ba'alav Imo" (and he is exempt);

Citation (Bava Metzi'a 96a - Beraisa): If he was with him at the time of borrowing, he need not be with him at the time it is broken or dies [to be exempt. Even] if he was with him at the time it is broken or dies, he must be with him at the time of borrowing.

Even if both did not begin to guard together, in any case the latter is exempt, for the first was working with him at the time that the second began to guard.

Question: Still, this is Shemirah b'Ba'alim, for we say in Bava Metzi'a (94b) that [it is called Shemirah] b'Ba'alim through speech (agreeing to work for the Shomer)!

Answer: There is different, for through speech he obligated himself to work for them immediately. However, here he was not obligated until tomorrow.

Question: What is Shmuel's Chidush that they become Shomerei Sachar for each other? Our Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a (80b) teaches this! [If one said] "guard for me, and I will guard for you", he is a Shomer Sachar.

Answer: From there, one might have thought that this is because they are not partners. However, here that they are partners, when each guards his friend's share, he guards also for himself.

Observation: We could have answered that Shimon testified that it belonged to Levi's ancestors, and afterwards Shimon claimed that he bought it from Levi, and he has witnesses that Reuven stole it from him and sold it to Levi.

Question: It should have not said Kegon (e.g.), for also from the beginning, we knew that Shimon has witnesses that it is his, like it taught "Reuven stole a field from Shimon";

If Shimon does not have witnesses that Reuven stole it from him, how do we know that he stole it?

Also, what is the basis of Yehudah's protest? You are forced to say that [Shimon] has witnesses. If not, what is the basis of Yehudah's protest?

It should have said "since [Shimon] has witnesses..."! What was the Makshan's Havah Amina?

Suggestion: Initially, we thought that we discuss when Yehudah has witnesses that it was of his fathers, and Shimon, the Nigzal, has witnesses that he ate the years of Chazakah, and he claims that he bought it from Yehudah.

Rejection: If so, what was the question "with the same merit (proof) that he will take it from Levi, he should take it from Yehudah!"? The merit that he will take it from Levi cannot be used to take it from Yehudah!

The witnesses who testify that Reuven stole it from [Shimon] enable him to take from Levi, who comes due to the strength of Reuven. He can take it from Yehudah only through witnesses of Chazakah!

Answer (Rashba): Initially, [the Makshan] thought that Yehudah wants to take it from Levi because he has witnesses that Reuven sold to him (Yehudah), and Levi has no witnesses, and Shimon comes to testify for Levi that it is Levi's;

Therefore, we ask that once he testifies that this land is Levi's, how can he take it from him?

Implied question: We could have answered that he does not testify in these words "it is Levi's." Rather, he says "Reuven sold it to Levi"!

Answer: The Gemara gave a better answer.

Answer (cont.): Now, we ask properly. With the same merit that he will take it from Levi, he should take it from Yehudah, for both of them come due to the strength of Reuven;

If Shimon will bring witnesses that Reuven stole it from him, he can take it from either of them.