(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): Reuven pays the increased value or Shimon's expenses, whichever is smaller.

(Rav Huna): The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua ben Korchah and R. Yehudah.

Rav Yosef: I understand why you must rule like R. Yehoshua ben Korchah. One might have thought that the Halachah follows the majority (Chachamim);

Question: To which teaching of R. Yehoshua ben Korchah do they refer?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): If Reuven lent money to a Nochri without a document, he is in danger of losing the loan, so he may collect the loan within three days before the Nochri festival;

If Reuven has a document, he may not collect it during those three days (lest the Nochri thank his idol for helping him to pay his debts).

Question (Rav Yosef): Why did you need to rule like R. Yehudah? The general rule is, when a Stam (anonymous) Mishnah follows a Machlokes (a Mishnah in which Tana'im argue), the Halachah follows the Stam Mishnah!

(Our Mishnah - R. Meir): If he was told to dye it red, and he died it black, or vice-versa, Shimon pays the value of the wool he received;

R. Yehudah says, Reuven pays the increased value or Shimon's expenses, whichever is smaller.

(Stam Mishnah (Bava Metzia 76a)): Anyone who deviates or retracts has the lower hand (to pay or receive the change in value or the expenditures).

Answer (Rav Huna): One might have thought that we do not know the order of the Mishnayos, and perhaps the Stam Mishnah came first.

Question (Rav Yosef): If so, we can never apply the rule of a Stam Mishnah after a Machlokes!

Answer (Rav Huna): We can apply it within one tractate (surely, it is in order).

Version #1 - Question (Rav Yosef): All three Bavas (Kama, Metzia and Basra) are one tractate (so we know the order)!

Version #2 - Objection (Rav Yosef): Clearly, the Halachah follows the anonymous Mishnah, for it gives general rules (anyone who deviates... or retracts, he has the lower hand).

If Reuven gave money to a Shali'ach (Shimon) to buy wheat, and he bought barley with it (or vice-versa):

Beraisa #1: If the grain went up or down in value, Shimon takes the gain or loss.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): If the grain went down in value, Shimon suffers the loss. If it went up in value, they share the gain.

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): Beraisa #1 is like R. Meir, who holds that one acquires through change. Beraisa #2 is like R. Yehudah, who holds that one does not acquire through change.

Objection (R. Elazar): Perhaps R. Meir holds that Shinuy Koneh only when Reuven wanted something for his own use, for then he has use only for what he requested;

But when Reuven wanted something to resell at a profit, he is happy with anything that goes up in price!

Answer #2 (R. Elazar): Both Beraisos are like R. Meir. Beraisa #1 discusses when Reuven wanted grain to eat. In Beraisa #2, Reuven wanted something to resell at a profit.

In Eretz Yisrael people derided R. Yochanan's answer. According to R. Yehudah, how does Reuven acquire half the grain (to share the profit)? The seller did not know (that Shimon deviated) to intend that Reuven should acquire!

Question (R. Shmuel bar Sasarti): If so, even when he bought like Reuven requested, how does Reuven acquire?

Answer (R. Avahu): When Shimon acts like a Shali'ach of Reuven, it is as if Reuven bought it.

(Mishnah): If Levi made (all) his property Hekdesh, or pledged his Erech value to Hekdesh, the Gizbar has no rights to take (to be Hekdesh or for collateral) the clothing of Levi's wife and children, nor dye or shoes that Levi bought for them.

Question: Why don't we say that the seller of dye (or shoes) did not know to intend that the wife (or children) should acquire!

Answer #1: Rather, Levi acts like a Shali'ach of his wife and children. It is as if they bought them;

Also regarding the grain, Shimon acts like a Shali'ach of Reuven. It is as if Reuven bought it.

Rejection #1 (and Answer #2 to question i:2 - R. Aba): We need not say that Levi was their Shali'ach (and they own the dye and shoes). Rather, one who makes Hekdesh does not intend for the clothing of his wife and children.

Question (R. Zeira): Does one who makes property Hekdesh intend for his Tefilin?!

(Mishnah): If Yehudah made all his property Hekdesh, we evaluate his Tefilin. He borrows their value and gives it to Hekdesh so he can keep his Tefilin.

Answer (Abaye): Yes, one who makes property Hekdesh intends for his Tefilin. He reasons, I am doing a Mitzvah;

He does not intend for the clothing of his wife and children, lest this cause animosity.

Question (R. Oshiya): The Mishnah also discusses Erchin!

(Mishnah): If one is obligated to pay Erchin, we take securities from him (against his will).

Does one intend that we take securities from him against his will?!

Rejection #2 (and Answer #3 to question i:2 - R. Aba): (We need not say that they own the dye and shoes because Levi was their Shali'ach.) Rather, when one makes his property Hekdesh, it is as if he gave his wife and children ownership of their clothing beforehand

(Beraisa): If Reuven bought a field for the sake of Shimon, we do not force him to sell it to Shimon;

If he told the seller that he is buying it for Shimon, we force him.

Question: What does this mean?

Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): If Moshe bought a field, and told the seller that he buys it for the Reish Galusa (he intended so that people will not contest the sale, and they wrote the document of sale in the Reish Galusa's name), we do not force the Reish Galusa to sell the property to Moshe;

If he told the seller that he only intends to prevent controversy, we force the Reish Galusa to sell it to Moshe.

Inference: Rav Sheshes said that if he bought in the Reish Galusa's name, we do not force the Reish Galusa to sell it to Moshe. This implies that he (the buyer) acquired it. ('Sell it' means to write a document acknowledging that the buyer really bought it.)

Suggestion: This argues with the people of Eretz Yisrael, who said (2:g) 'The seller did not know to intend that Reuven (whose money was given) should acquire'. (They would say that no one acquired it!)

Rejection: No. Here, Moshe told the seller and witnesses (that he really buys it for himself)..

Objection: Rav Sheshes continued 'if he told the seller that he only intends to prevent controversy, we force the Reish Galusa to sell it to Moshe.' What is the reason?

The Reish Galusa can say 'I do not desire such honor, if it entails disgrace (of selling property)'!

Answer #2 (Abaye): If Reuven bought a field in the name of the Reish Galusa (the Rosh explains - in the name of a commoner), we do not force the seller to write another document in Reuven's name.

If he told the seller from the beginning, we force him.