Explanation: Make Chazakah in the land through improving it. This is like locking or fencing any amount, and then it is lent to you to be like your Chatzer regarding this, that you acquire what is on it.

Explanation: This is not only in a case that the price increased or decreased. [It says so] because it is not normal to retract without a reason.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): This is because the middleman bought it for himself and returns to sell to the Ba'al ha'Bayis.

Question: If so, why does it say that it broke, and he omits increase or decrease in price, which the Reisha discusses?

It should have said that if there was a middleman between them, and it increased or decreased in price...!

Explanation #2 (Rivam): If there was a middleman between them, and he measured for them like the way middlemen measure, i.e. for wages that they give to them, and the barrel broke through the measuring, the middleman pays;

The case is, it did not break due to Ones, rather, he did not measure very carefully.

Alternative text: The Rashbam changed the text to read "d'Asnayei Rav", i.e. Rav taught to him Midos, for it was difficult to [the Rashbam], how could [R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi] be Rav's Rebbi? [R. Yitzchak] was in the days of Rava!

Citation (Yevamos 3a): Rava said, R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi told me...

Question (R. Tam) Citation (Chulin 110a): [R. Elazar asked] did anyone teach Rav [that we forbid] an udder (that was cooked without tearing it)? They showed to him Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi. [Rav Yitzchak] said "I did not teach that to him at all [about udder]!

According to the Rashbam, (he must change the text also there, from "teach" to "learn"), he should have said "[I did not learn] from him"!

Defense (of our text - R. Tam): There were two Chachamim named Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi. One was in the days of Rebbi, and one was in the days of Rava;

Source: In Shabbos (40b), Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi said "once, I entered the bathhouse in back of Rebbi..." That Rav Yitzchak was the Rebbi of Rav.

Support (for Rashbam - Rashba): Here, you must say that Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi was Rav's Talmid;

If you would think that he was Rav's Rebbi, how could he say to R. Elazar "it was said regarding this, R. Avahu said..."?

Even R. Yochanan, who was R. Avahu's Rebbi, used to call Rav "Rebbeinu", like it says in Chulin (95b), and Rav (if we do not change our text) was the Talmid of Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi! (Rav Yitzchak would not cite a teaching in the name of the Talmid (R. Avahu) of someone (R. Yochanan) who called himself the Talmid of [Rav,] the Talmid of Rav Yitzchak himself!)

Question: Why is it Terumah? One is obligated to take Terumah only one part in 50 (for an average person. For a stingy person, one part in 60 suffices);

If so, Terumah measures should be just like Chulin measures, and Chulin measures were without the Mitzuy (what collects on the bottom of the Kli) through tilting! (I.e. if one had 50 bottles of Tevel, and designated one to be Terumah, just like one who bought the 49 Chulin bottles receives only what pours out until and including the three drops, but not Mitzuy, the same should apply to Terumah!)

Answer: When he called the measure "Terumah", he resolved that it will be totally Terumah, with Mitzuy.

Limitation: Only regarding Terumah, we say that the Mitzuy through tilting is Terumah, but not regarding Ma'aseros, for one who separates extra Ma'aser, his Ma'aser is messed up. (The excess above a 10th is really Chulin. If a Levi thinks that it is all Ma'aser, he might declare it Terumas Ma'aser to exempt other Ma'aser, and the Chulin cannot become Terumas Ma'aser!)

Observation: We could have answered that it is Terumah because [the Tana holds that] Ein Bereirah (future events cannot clarify retroactively what takes effect now). When he called it Terumah, it is not known which [wine] will be [Mitzuy] at the bottom [afterwards. Therefore, we must be stringent to consider all of it Terumah].

Implied question: Also the Pundiyon (coin) is an Aveidah mi'Da'as, for he sent it with a child!

Answer: Since the Ba'al ha'Bayis' coin remained with the grocer, [the Ba'al ha'Bayis] does not exempt him until he brings to the Ba'al ha'Bayis the value of a Pundiyon (in all) of oil and an Isar (the remainder);

If he would return the Pundiyon itself to the child, indeed, he would be exempt!

Implied question: The Seifa teaches that Chachamim admit to R. Yehudah when the flask is in the child's hand that he is exempt! (This implies that whenever he took it, Chachamim obligate him.)

Answer: It does not literally means that it is in the child's hand. Rather, the same applies even if he took it without intent to examine [if he wants to buy] it.

Explanation #1: It seems that he is liable because he is considered like a borrower;

In Nedarim (31a) it explains Shmuel's reason. He holds that [a sale is] the buyer's Hana'ah, [so he is liable for all Onesim] like a borrower, who gets all the Hana'ah.

Support: Also in Bava Metzi'a (80b), regarding [the Mishnah of one who said] "send your animal (for me to borrow)" and it died [on the way, or if he sent it back and it died on the way back, the borrower] is liable, Rav Chisda taught that this is only if he returned it within the time he borrowed it for, but after this, he is exempt;

Ameimar concludes that presumably, he is exempt from liability of a borrower, and liable like a renter, since he benefited;

A Beraisa supports Ameimar. One who takes a Kli from the craftsman's house... if Ones occurred on the way [to the prospective buyer], he is liable. On the way back, he is exempt, for he is liable like a Shomer Sachar;

Explanation: Therefore on the way back he is exempt if Ones occurred, for he is only a Shomer Sachar;

Inference: Since we bring from this regarding returning after the days of borrowing, this connotes that [the Mishnah] teaches "if Ones occurred on the way, he is liable" is due to [liability of] a borrower;

If so, also Shmuel's teaching is due to [liability of] a borrower, for from that Beraisa we bring a support to Shmuel, in Nedarim (31a).

Explanation #2: However, Rashi explained in Bava Metzi'a (80b) that if Ones occurred on the way he is liable, like a buyer.

Implied question: If so, how do we bring it regarding Ameimar's teaching?

Answer: Just like the Beraisa considers him a Shomer Sachar on the way back, even though the sale is Batel, because until now he was like a buyer...

Similarly, a borrower after the days of borrowing ended, he is [liable like] a Shomer Sachar, since he benefited from the loan until now.

Support: Also the Ri says that he is considered a buyer. He brings a proof from the case below of one who brought gourds to Fum Nahara (88a). Rav Kahana said that one cannot be Makdish what is not his;

If [one who took something to buy it] is a borrower, why can't he be Makdish what he lent to others, just like a landlord can be Makdish what he rented to others, like it says in Erchin (21a)?

Objection (Rashba): There, they did not take [the gourds] in order to inspect them, rather, in order to buy them immediately. Therefore, the seller cannot be Makdish it!

Answer (Ri): It connotes that they took them in order to inspect them, for it brings [this episode] regarding Shmuel's law.

Question: If he is a borrower, why isn't the grocer exempt when he took [the flask] in order to inspect it and returned it to the child? His borrowing ceased, since he returned it to the place he took it from!

It says below according to R. Yehudah that Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as is a borrower, so if he returned it to the child, he is exempt!

Answer: There, surely since he is a Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as, it suffices to return it to the place he took it from;

However, here he is a Sho'el mi'Da'as (a regular borrower). He must return it to the owner.

Explanation: Rabah and Rav Yosef hold [that we discuss a grocer who sells flasks, and] "when the flask is in the child's hand" means that he brought it from his father's house.