Explanation: Beis Hillel hold that since [the creditor] is lacking collection, even if the father died first, the heirs are Muchzak [in the property];

Beis Shamai hold like they taught elsewhere. They hold that anything destined to be collected, it is as if it was collected. Therefore, it is as if [also the creditor] is Muchzak in it (so they divide).

Implied question: Why didn't he bring a proof from Rav Nachman, who taught above (125a) that if orphans collected land for their father's debt, a creditor can collect it from them?

Answer #1: The reason [there] is due to [Shibud of] R. Nasan. (There is a lien on a borrower's property to pay the creditor of his creditor.)

Answer #2: Even if he could bring a proof [from Rav Nachman], he prefers to bring a proof from our Mishnah.

Explanation: He does not ask according to R. Meir, who says that one can be Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, like it explains below.

Question: R. Meir said [so] in a case like fruits of a date tree, which normally come. This is not common, that he will acquire property and sell!

Answer: R. Meir agrees here, that the lien takes effect automatically, even though regarding Kinyan [Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam] would not work (in such a case when there is a double doubt - perhaps he will not buy, and even if he buys, perhaps he will not sell);

Source: Also regarding "what I will acquire", we said above that it helps even according to Rabanan of R. Meir, even though they hold that Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam, because the lien is strong;

Similarly, according to R. Meir [the lien] is strong so that it helps, even though it is not common to come.

Question (Rashbam): [Shmuel] should resolve this from his own teaching! Shmuel taught in Bava Metzi'a (14b) that a creditor collects Shevach, i.e. what a buyer improved.

Implied suggestion: We can say like [the Rashbam, Sof 157b] explained, that [Shmuel said so] according to R. Meir [and here he asks according to Rabanan].

Rejection: Shmuel does not hold like R. Meir, for he ruled in Kesuvos (59a) like R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar, who says that Ein Adam Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam!

Answer: Shmuel holds like R. Meir here, that Shibud is strong, that it helps even though Lo Ba l'Olam;

Even though regarding Kinyan, [Shmuel] does not hold like [R. Meir], for the reason I explained above, here he asks according to Rabanan.

Explanation: [Since it is a Mitzvah for orphans to pay their father's debt], we force them, like is proven here.

Limitation: However, we do not force when [their father] did not leave (bequeath) for them property with Achrayus (land), but when he left, we force them, for we make orphans pay a loan with a document.

Support: It connotes like this below, like I explained, since it says "a Milveh Al Peh (a loan without a document) is not collected from heirs." This connotes that according to the opinion that it is collected from heirs, [they] must pay, and it is a Mitzvah for orphans to pay their father's debt.

Implied question: Why is this unlike the case in Kesuvos (91b) regarding the patch of land [that orphans gave towards their father's debt, and bought it back, and it was collected again for the debt]?

Answer: There it is a mere Mitzvah without forcing. It discusses when their father did not leave to them land [worth the entire debt];

Here, according to letter of the law we want to say that even though there is no lien, since it is paid from [the borrower's] property, we force the orphans, according to the opinion that a Milveh Al Peh is collected from orphans. (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

However, according to the opinion that it is not collected, even though it is a Mitzvah to pay from their property, we do not force, like is proven in Kesuvos (91b).

Distinction: However, when their father left to them land, even though paying a creditor is a Mitzvah, we force, like is proven everywhere, that we collect from adult orphans.

Source: We say in Kesuvos (86a, that if one says) "I do not want to do a Mitzvah", we lash him until he dies, just like for a Mitzvas Aseh, e.g. to make a Sukah or Lulav.

Explanation (Ri): They are totally Pasul. They cannot be used to collect even from Bnei Chorin (property that the borrower still owns), even if the borrower admits.

Proof: Reish Lakish said in Bava Metzi'a (72a) that this Mishnah is established like R. Meir, who says that a document with Ribis, we fine him, and he does not collect the principal and not the Ribis, i.e. even if the borrower admits;

He does not collect even from Bnei Chorin, for a Tosefta (Bava Metzi'a 5:23) teaches that if one finds a document with Ribis, he tears it. If it came to Beis Din, they tear it. [This is] taught after teaching [Tosefta 5:22, which teaches the law of] the Mishnah here. This connotes that they are totally Pasul!

Rebuttal: One could say that there is different, for from the time it was written he does Suma (assessment of Ribis). We reject like this in Bava Kama (30b).

Support (of Explanation): The expression "Pesulim" connotes totally Pasul, that it cannot be used to collect [even] from Bnei Chorin.

Question: Since the borrower (who sold) has property that the buyer collects from, why doesn't the creditor collect from [the borrower]? [The buyer] can tell [the creditor] "I left you [property of the borrower] to collect from!" (Bava Kama 8a)

Answer #1: The seller has only Meshubadim. Therefore, the creditor takes Meshubadim, and when [the seller] buys Bnei Chorin, this buyer (whose property was taken) takes the Bnei Chorin;

Even if he said "[you may collect from] what I will acquire", and he acquired and sold, and there is a lien on it, the creditor already took everything owed to him.

Answer #2: The case is, the borrower made this land an Apotiki for the lender. Now, [the buyer] cannot say "I left you [property] to collect from."

Implied question: Even if you will say that if he said "[you may collect from] what I will acquire", and he acquired and sold, there is no lien on it, [the Gemara] could have asked if he borrowed, and borrowed [from a second lender] and then bought and did not sell or bequeath [whether or not the second lender collects with the first lender]!

Answer: [The Gemara] asks about the last matter discussed. (It established the Beraisa like R. Meir, therefore there is a lien on what he bought and sold.)

Alternative text: After this, in all old Seforim the text says "they sent from [Eretz Yisrael] (in our text, this is on 158b)..." until the end of the Sugya (159b) "no, heirs of the father are brothers...";

And afterwards is the Mishnah (in our texts, 158a) about a house that fell on him and his wife, and the Gemara [on that Mishnah], and afterwards they asked Rav Sheshes whether a son inherits his mother in the grave.

Support: This is the text of R. Chananel and R. Tam, and it is proper, for the Gemara of "they sent from [Eretz Yisrael, if a son sold his father's property, and died...]" pertains to [our] Mishnah of a house that fell on him and his father; [the Gemara] brings this at the end of [its discussion of] that Mishnah. (In our text, it is in the discussion of the Mishnah of a house that fell on him and his mother);

The Gemara in which they asked Rav Sheshes [whether a son inherits his mother in the grave] pertains to the Mishnah of a house that fell on him and his mother, and (according to the text that Tosfos prefers, this question) is brought on that Mishnah.

Observation: In our Seforim, the text says "they sent from [Eretz Yisrael]" in the discussion of the Mishnah of a house that fell on him and his mother, like is explicit in the text of the Rashbam. He explained that R. Chananel's text is preferable, and this is R. Tam's text.