1)

(a)Rav Chisda too, establishes the middle case of the Beraisa ('Beinonis v'Ziburis, Nizakin u'Ba'al Chov b'Beinonis') when the borrower had Idis at the time of the debt. We attempt to prove this from a second Beraisa 'Beinonis v'Ziburis, Nizakin b'Beinonis, Ba'al Chov u'Kesuvas Ishah b'Ziburis' which clearly speaks when he did not have Idis at the time of the debt (thereby resolving the discrepancy between the two Beraisos). Both Beraisos however, agree that 'be'she'Lo Hein Shamin'.

(b)Alternatively, we establish both Beraisos ...

1. ... when the borrower did not have Idis. In that case both Beraisos hold 'be'Shel Olam Hein Shamin', and the first Beraisa speaks when the borrower's Beinonis was not on a par with the world's Idis, whereas the second Beraisa speaks when it was.

2. ... the borrower did not have Idis at the time of the debt, and in addition, his Beinonis was on a par with that of world, in which case the Tana of the first Beraisa now holds 'be'Shel Olam Hein Shamin', and the Tana of the second Beraisa, 'be'she'Lo Hein Shamin'.

(c)And an alternative text to the latter suggestion is that both Beraisos speak when his Beinonis was on a par with the world's Idis and when he had Idis at the time of the debt, in which case the first Beraisa holds 'be'she'Lo Hein Shamin', whereas the second Beraisa holds b'Shel Olam Hein Shamin'.

2)

(a)According to Ravina, the two Beraisos argue over Ula, who learns from the Pasuk "ba'Chutz Ta'amod, v'ha'Ish Asher Atah Nosheh Bo Yotzi Eilecha Es he'Avot" that a debtor only needs to pay Ziburis (because that is what one would expect him to bring out to the bailiff).

(b)Ula then adds that the Rabanan changed the creditor's Din to Beinonis because of 'Ne'ilas Deles' (so as not to close the door on future debtors, as we explained earlier).

(c)Ravina now explains the Machlokes between the two Beraisos establishing the first Tana like Ula, who authorizes the creditor to claim Beinonis, whereas the second Tana does not hold of the Takanah of 'Ne'ilas Deles' (even there where the debtor had Idis, too.

3)

(a)The Beraisa rules that in the event that the debtor sold his fields to one person, or to three people simultaneously, and a Nizak, a divorced wife and a debtor are all claiming from him then each one claims his due (the Nizak from Idis, the divorced wife from Ziburis and the debtor from Beinonis).

(b)If he sold the three fields to three different people on three different occasions they all initially claim from the last purchaser, and if there is not sufficient property to pay them all, then they claim from the middle one ...

(c)... because each of the first two purchasers can say 'I left you property from which to claim'(This in turn, is based on the principle that one can never claim from Meshu'abadim when there are Bnei Chorin).

(d)The Reisha cannot be speaking when the debtor sold the purchaser the three fields in one Shtar because since the Tana then goes on to teach this same Din by three people, it would not have been necessary to insert the same Din by one person (which is obvious).

(e)What makes three people less obvious than one is the fact that it is possible that he sold them at different times of the day, in which case we might have said that all the claimants claim from the last one (yet they don't).

4)

(a)In the previous case, had he purchased the Ziburis last the first two purchasers could have forced all three claimants to claim from Ziburis (as we just explained).

(b)The Tana says 'Kulan Nichnesu Tachas ha'Be'alim' because the Beraisa speaks when he purchased Idis last ...

(c)... and the reason that they cannot all claim from Idis is because he can threaten that unless they are silent, he will return the Shtar Ziburis to the seller, and they will be forced to take Ziburis 'I shaskas Shaskas ... ') .

5)

(a)The same ruling would apply if the purchaser threatened the Nizak to take Beinonis using the argument of 'I Shaskas Shaskas ... ' ...

(b)... and the reason that the Tana authorizes the Nizak to take Idis is because he is speaking when the debtor is no longer alive. Consequently the purchaser can no longer threaten the Nizak with 'I Shaskas Shaskas ... ', because Yesomim who purchase land after their father's demise, are not obligated to pay their father's debts'. Consequently, the Shibud remains on the purchaser.

6)

(a)Rav Sheshes merely substantiates the previous explanation.

(b)And to answer the Kashya that we asked earlier (why all three claimants can not claim from Idis, seeing as that was the last field that he purchased) we apply the principle which permits the beneficiary of a Takanas Chachamim to reject a Takanah that does not suit him. Here too, since this Takanah was instituted for the benefit of the subsequent purchasers, the current purchaser can argue that, as the subsequent purchaser, he does not want the Takanah.

(c)The right to forgo a Takanas Chachamim that as instituted for one's benefit, is taught by Rava, with reference to the case stated by Rav Huna who said that (bearing in mind that Chazal instituted this Takanah on the woman's behalf) she has the right to decline being sustained by her husband so that she will not be obligated to give him the work that she produces.

7)

(a)If the man who bought all three fields (and the Idis last) subsequently sold the Beinonis and the Ziburis all three claimants receive Idis.

(b)Abaye thought that, in the event that he sold Idis, leaving himself with Beinonis and Ziburis, they would all claim from Idis. Rava objected to this however on the grounds that the seller always sells all the rights that he has in the object to the purchaser together with the object. In our case, one of those rights was the right to give the claimants the Beinonis and the Ziburis (even though he purchased the Idis last). Consequently, the second purchaser receives that right too.

8)

(a)In a case where Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon, and Shimon then sold one field to Levi Rava ruled that Reuven's creditor is permitted to claim from whichever of the two he chooses ...

(b)... provided that is, that Levi bought Beinonis, but in the event that he bought Idis and Ziburis, he can say to Reuven's creditor 'That's why I made a point of buying Idis and Ziburis (fields to which you have no claim), so that you should not claim from me'.

(c)The same ruling will apply even if he purchased Beinonis provided he left some Beinonis with Shimon, because then he can say to him 'I specially left some Beinonis with Shimon for you to claim'.

9)

(a)If Reuven sells Shimon a field with Achrayus (the undertaking to reimburse him should his creditor claim it from him), we might have thought that Reuven is forbidden to appear in Beis-Din to assist Shimon to ward off his creditors because the creditor can argue 'You are not my disputant! It's none of your business!'

(b)Abaye nevertheless permits to do so because he can counter that, seeing as should Shimon lose the field, he will have to reimburse him, it is very much his business.

(c)Others permit it even if he sold him the field without Achrayus because he can say that he does not want Shimon to hold it against him.