Question: How can he take the entire portion of one of them? All of them are obligated to pay their father's debt. [The creditor] should take from each the portion proper for him, like a Beraisa teaches below (124a), that if a document was brought [against the borrower's orphans], the Bechor gives twice as much [as other brothers].

Answer: Here we discuss when [the father] made the field [that the creditor took] an Apotiki (the loan will be paid only from it).

Assertion: This is not like the Apotiki in Bava Metzi'a (110b). It says there that [the borrower] cannot dispel [the creditor] with coins [if he demands the land].

Proof: If [it were like there], according to Rav Asi, why does he receive a quarter in coins? This connotes that he can dispel the creditor with coins!

Inference: If [Reuven, the brother whose portion was not taken] wanted to dispel [Shimon, whose share was taken] with coins, he cannot.

Support: This is why he explains Rav's reason that they are like heirs with Achrayus, for if they were like buyers with Achrayus, why is the division Batel? [Reuven] can dispel [Shimon] with coins!

Question: Why is this different than Rav Asi's law? The quarter that [Shimon] receives due to inheritance, Rav Asi says that [Reuven] can dispel him with coins!

Answer: Perhaps Rav and Rav Asi argue about this reason. Even if they were like heirs, [Reuven] could dispel him with coins according to Rav Asi, because [Reuven] says to him "I would have dispelled also the creditor with coins!" Rav is not concerned for this reason.

Question: In any case, he should give to him coins, and he will redeem the land from the creditor, for we hold (Bava Metzi'a 35a) that an appraisal (for a creditor to take the borrower's land) always returns [whenever the borrower gets the money]!

Answer: This affects when he sold it or bequeathed it. It says there that it does not return (the borrower cannot redeem it, unless the buyer or heir consents).

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): [Perhaps they are like buyers] without Achrayus.

Objection (Rashba): What is his source for this? Perhaps surely they are unlike heirs, but he is unsure whether they are like buyers with Achrayus or without Achrayus!

Explanation #2: The Rashbam's second Perush (in the name of Rashi) is primary. (He gets a quarter in land and a quarter in coins, for he is unsure if they are like heirs, or like buyers with Achrayus.)

Answer: Here it connotes that we hold that Yesh Bereirah, since we rule like Rav. I explained in Gitin (48a).

Implied question: We should follow the latter [estimations], and say that it is not less than 100!

Answer: We should adopt the smaller amount, like the Rashbam explained.

Explanation: This is the order. The two who give the lower amount speak first.

Question (Ri): If there were only two, i.e. the one who said 100 and the one who said 30 [Sela'im, i.e. 120 Zuz], I would have said that it is worth 110. It seems that this is correct according to everyone (i.e. we would assume that each erred by 10);

Now that there is this one who says less than all of them (80), we say that it is [110 and] another three and a third. This is more! (Ramban - we require three for appraisal. If there were only two, we would not take the average. We would say ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah! Toras Chayim - the lower appraisals were said first. The latter two wanted to say 110 and 130, but they did not want to say so much more the one(s) before them.)