Question: Why does he have Achrayus for them? [The seller] can say "they did not sprout because you did not seed them at the proper time!"

We say so in Bava Metzi'a (105b). The Mishnah says that one who was Mekabel a field from his friend, and locusts consumed it or it was blasted, if it is Makas Medinah (the entire region was stricken), he deducts from the rental;

Reish Lakish said about this in the Gemara that this is only if he seeded, and it sprouted, and locusts consumed it. However, if he seeded, and it did not sprout, [the owner of the land] can say "you should have seeded it the entire season of seeding...!"

Answer #1: There we discuss a Makas Medinah. All the valleys did not sprout. We should not say that all people of the valley sowed seed not proper to sprout.

Answer #2: Here we discuss when it was revealed retroactively that [the seeds] were not proper to sprout at all.

Support: The Gemara connotes like this. There is an opinion that obligates to pay even the expenditures;

There is no reason at all to obligate all the expenditures, unless the seeds were not proper to sprout at all, and the seller knew that they were not proper to sprout.

Explanation: Even according to Rabanan above (77b) who say that the price is not a proof [of what he bought], that refers only to there, that most call a yoke "Tzemed", so the majority and Chazakah support the seller (he is Muchzak in his money). Therefore, the price is not a proof to contradict the majority and Chazakah;

And even according to Seforim that say "some call a yoke "Tzemed", and the text does not say "most", even so, the price is not a proof to contradict the Chazakah;

However, here the majority buy for plowing, and there is a Chazakah against that majority, for the seller is Muchzak [in his money]. Even Rabanan agree that the price is a proof to support the majority or the Chazakah.

Support: Now the Gemara in Bava Kama (27a) is fine even according to Rav, regarding "a Kad and a Chavis (jug and barrel) are the same";

The Gemara says that we need to teach about when most call a Chavis "Chavis", and a Kad "Kad". One might have thought that we follow the majority. The Mishnah teaches that in monetary laws, we do not follow the majority;

Even Rav agrees there that we do not follow the majority, since the price supports the [original] owner of the Kad, who is Muchzak.

Implied question: We could have said oppositely there. One might have thought that we follow the Chazakah. The Mishnah teaches that we do not follow the Chazakah in monetary laws, rather, we follow the majority, if the price supports the majority!

Answer: This would not be any Chidush according to Rav.

Retraction of Support: Even without this (the price is a proof to support the Muchzak, the Mishnah there) is even like Rav, because the seller can tell the buyer "I know that I am from the minority who call a Kad "Chavis", and when he stipulated with him for a Chavis, he gives only a Kad;

However, here, one who sells an ox and it is found to be a gorer, he follow the majority who buy for plowing, and it is a Mekach Ta'os;

The seller cannot tell the buyer "you are from the minority who buy for Shechitah."

Implied question: Above (83b), regarding one who sold good [wheat], and it was found to be bad, even though it is for the proper price, we did not ask "what difference does it make?"

Answer: This is because we explicitly establish the Mishnah there when the price increased or decreased.

Question: Why don't we establish here that the Nafka Minah is when at the time of the sale meat was expensive, like the price for plowing, and afterwards it decreased, or when he overcharged him less than a sixth? (If it is not a Mekach Ta'os, it does not suffice to return the ox, for it is [now] worth less than the price.)

Assertion (Ri): The text properly says "if these coins are not around."

Question (Rashbam): In Bava Kama (9a, we say that if he has coins, he must give coins)!

Answer: This is not difficult. We can say that we hold like Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua, who hold there that everything (Metaltelim) is Meitav (Idis), and even if he has coins, he may give to him even bran.

Implied question: If a borrower has coins, he may not give others matters, like it says in Kesuvos (86a)!

Citation (86a): If one has land and coins, and he owes a Kesuvah and a loan, he dispels the creditor with coins and the woman with land...

Also, [Rav Papa] said there "surely, you say in the name of Rav Nachman that one who owes coins to his friend, and he has land and he does not have coins, he tells him "go toil and sell [the land], and bring [to me] coins!

(Rav Chama said no.) The case was, the borrower (falsely) claimed that the money in his possession belongs to a Nochri. Since he acted improperly, we treated him improperly [and forced him to sell his land].

Inference: When he has coins, he must give him coins!

Answer #1: We can distinguish between a buyer here, and a creditor there. He lends with intent that [the borrower] will pay coins;

However, here, the buyer bought mistakenly. [The seller] does not pay coins when those coins [that he received] are not around, even if he has other coins;

This is because when he spent the coins, he is like one who damaged his friend's coins. His law is like that of damages.

Answer #2 (R. Chaim Kohen Tzedek): Even a borrower, even if he has coins, pays only what he wants. Everything (Metaltelim) is Meitav. This (a creditor's collection rights) is no better than damages;

Mid'Oraisa, damages are collected from Idis, unlike a creditor (who gets Ziburis mid'Oraisa, and Beinonis mid'Rabanan).

Implied question: In Kesuvos (it connotes that if a borrower has coins, he must pay with coins)!

Answer: It means as follows. That [borrower falsely] attributed his coins to a Nochri. I.e. initially, when they asked him, he said that all his property is of a Nochri, both his land and other matters;

Now he says that this land is his. Therefore, since he acted improperly, we tell him to sell it. Perhaps it is not his, rather, it is another's, and he wants to exempt himself through another's property;

Therefore, we tell him "since you say that it is your's, sell it and bring coins."

Implied question: Why does it say there that he dispels a creditor with coins?

Answer: There, surely since he has coins, it is best that he give the coins to the creditor than to the woman [he divorced], like we conclude there, for more than a man wants to marry [she wants to marry, and she will not refrain even if her collection rights are weak];

Here, if those coins [paid] are around, he must return them, since it is a Mekach Ta'os. This is unlike a loan, for a loan is given to be spent [and return different coins].

Summation (R. Tam): There are three laws of a creditor. If he has coins, he must pay only with coins;

If he does not have coins, we do not tell him to toil [and sell] and bring coins;

However, regarding damages, even if he has [coins], he can dispel [the victim] with whatever [Metaltelim] he wants, for everything is Meitav, like Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua.

Distinction: Regarding a worker, even if he does not have coins, we tell him to toil [and sell] and bring coins;

Source (Bava Metzi'a 118a - Mishnah): If one hired a worker to work with him with straw, and he says "take what you did for your wages", we do not heed him;

This is even if he does not have coins, for it says in the Gemara that we needed to teach this, lest we say "from the one who owes you, take even bran!"

This is when he does not have coins, for if he has coins, he cannot dispel [his creditor] with other matters, like it says in Kesuvos. This is from R. Tam.

Question: We should say that [her husband] is believed through a Migo, for if he wanted, he could have said "I paid"!

You are forced to say that we discuss when there is no Kesuvah [document], for if there is a Kesuvah, we should see what is written in it!

Answer: We are holding like Rav, who said in Kesuvos (89a) that [if she shows] a Get, she collects the primary Kesuvah (100 for a Be'ulah, or 200 for a Besulah. If she shows) a Kesuvah, she collects the Tosefes.

Question: A Mishnah (Kesuvos 28a) says that [the following] are believed to testify when they are adults about what they saw when they were minors - "I remember that Plonis went out with Hinuma (a canopy of myrtle, or a veil) and her hair uncovered..."

Citation (28a): What is the reason [why we rely on what they saw when they were minors for this]? Since most women marry when they are Besulos, this is a mere Giluy Milsa (reveals a matter);

Now, according to Rav, what is the case [there]? If she has a Kol (rumors that she was a Besulah when she married), why do we need witnesses, like we ask here?

If she does not have a Kol, why is this a mere Giluy Milsa? The majority was weakened for her, like it says here! How can we take money [force her husband to pay 200] based on [what one witness saw when he was] a minor with [a witness who saw when he was] an adult?

Suggestion: Through these witnesses, i.e. [what one saw when he was] a minor with [one who saw when he was] an adult, this is a Kol.

Rejection: Here we ask "since there is no Kol, these witnesses are liars!" We do not say that these witnesses are the Kol!

Observation: According to Shmuel, who does not follow the majority, this is fine. Even though there is an absolute majority, still a Giluy Milsa is needed.

Answer: Even though the majority was weakened for her, still, the Rov that most women marry when they are Besulos is stronger than the Rov that most women who marry when they are Besulos, they have a Kol, so a Giluy Milsa suffices.

Explanation #1: Everywhere, Rashi explained that this is a kidnapper.

Objection: Here it connotes unlike this, for we say that all [slaves] are so. Are they all kidnappers!?

Observation: Bechoros 5a is not difficult for Rashi. We say regarding the Shekalim [collected in the Midbar] that a Nochri officer asked R. Yochanan ben Zakai "your Rebbi Moshe was a thief or Kubyustus, or could not do arithmetic!"

Since the Shekalim corresponded to Yisrael, he calls him as if he steals people.

Explanation #2: It seems that R. Chananel's Perush is correct. He explains that Kubyustus is a dice player. (The officer suggested that Moshe kept Shekalim to pay gambling debts.)

Question: It says in Chulin (91b) that Yakov said to the angel [with whom he fought] "are you a thief, or Kubyustus, that you are afraid of morning?"

Answer: We can resolve this also with R. Chananel's Perush. Because he owes several people, and he lacks money to pay, he fears lest they claim from him.

Question: This is difficult for Rashi, who explained in Kesuvos (58a) regarding the question "according to this, a slave that a Kohen bought from a Yisrael should not eat Terumah due to Simpon (a blemish that can invalidate a sale)";

Citation (58a) Answer: Simpon does not apply to slaves. If it is external, [the buyer] sees it [and accepted the blemish]. If it is internal, why does [the buyer] care? He needs him for work!...

Citation (cont.): Will you say that he is an armed robber, or the kingdom sentenced him to death? These have a Kol!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The buyer] knew, and accepted.

Rebuttal: One cannot explain like this. It explicitly says here that it is a Mekach Ta'os!

Answer (and Explanation #2 - R. Tam): These have a Kol. Since there was no Kol, it is unusual, and we are not concerned for it.