1)

(a)If Reuven sells a field to Shimon without Acharayos, and someone claims that it is his, Shimon may retract, according to Abaye, as long as he has not made a Chazakah, which in this regard means if the purchaser has walked round the borders of the field.

(b)He can no longer retract, once he has made a Chazakah because the seller can say to him 'So you bought a sack full of knots. But you thought it over and accepted it!'

(c)But if Shimon purchased the field with Achrayus he may retract even after having made the Chazakah.

(d)Others disagree. They maintain that even then, he cannot retract because the seller can say to him 'When you show me the claimant's document of claim, I will reimburse you!'

2)

(a)When Rav Huna says 'O Kesef O Meitav', he is coming to resolve the above-mentioned discrepancy between the Pesukim 'Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav", and "Meitav Sadeihu".

(b)When Rav Nachman queried Rav Huna from the Beraisa "Yashiv" 'Lerabos Shaveh Kesef, Afilu Subin', he replied that applied only if the Mazik had no money and no Karka.

(c)If not for "Yashiv", we would have thought that he is obligated to sell the Subin and to pay with money.

3)

(a)Rav Asi says 'Kesafim, Harei Hein k'Karka'. We initially decline to explain this with regard to Meitav because then, the Gemara should have said 've'Chen Amar Rav Asi'.

(b)So we try to establish it by two brothers who divided their father's property (one, the Karka, the other, the Metaltelin), in which case Rav Asi will be coming to teach us that if their father's creditor claimed a field from the son with the Karka his brother is obligated to reimburse him for half his losses.

(c)There are two versions as to why we refute this explanation. One of them is because it is obvious since he is no less a son than his brother (and just as much obligated to pay his father's debts).

(d)The second version is that it is obviously wrong, since he can argue that he deliberately took Metaltelin on the understanding that if it is stolen, he will not be reimbursed, and that, by the same token, his brother took Karka on the understanding that if their father's creditor claims it, he will not be reimbursed either.

4)

(a)So we try to establish Rav Asi where the two brothers divided their father's Karka, and the creditor claimed from one of them (this will be explained shortly). We reject this interpretation of Rav Asi's statement because he has told us the same thing on another occasion.

(b)When Rav says in the same case, 'Batlah Machlokes', he means that the original division is annulled and we re-divide the property.

(c)Shmuel says 'Viter' (which means that he loses [and has no claim against his brother]).

(d)The reason that ...

1. ... Rav says 'Batlah Machlokes' is because he holds that brothers who divide their father's property, remain heirs (who are both obligated to pay their father's debt).

2. ... Shmuel say "Viter' is because he holds that they have the Din of purchasers (as if they had purchased the other one's rights in half the property but without Achrayus).

5)

(a)When Rav Asi says 'Notel Revi'a b'Karka u'Revi'a b'Ma'os', according to Rashi's ...

1. ... first explanation he means that he takes either a quarter in Karka or a quarter in Metaltelin (because he is uncertain whether they have the Din of Yorshin or of Lekuchos without Achrayus) See Tosfos DH 'Rav Asi'.

2. ... second explanation he means that he takes a quarter in Karka (like Yorshin) and a quarter in Metaltelin (like Lekuchos [because he is uncertain whether they have the Din of Yorshin or of Lekuchos, but with Achrayus]).

(b)The principle that governs Rav Asi's ruling is 'Mamon ha'Mutal b'Safek Cholkin' ('Money about which there is doubt, and on which neither has a Chazakah, is divided equally').

(c)We finally amend the text of Rav Asi's original statement ('Kesafim Harei Hein k'Karka') to read 've'Chen Amar Rav Asi' (like Rav Huna).

6)

(a)We refute the suggestion that, when Rav Asi Amar ... Amar Rav Huna says 'be'Mitzvah ad Sh'lish', he means that a person is obligated to spend as much as a third of his money to buy a Lulav, Tzitzis or a Sefer-Torah on the grounds that it is unlikely that the Torah would obligate a person to give away all his money to perform three Mitzvos (see Tosfos DH 'Ilu').

(b)What he must therefore mean is that in order to perform a Mitzvah more beautifully (Hidur Mitzvah), one is obligated to pay an extra third over and above the cost of an average one.

(c)Rav Ashi asked whether 'Sh'lish mi'Legav' meaning a third of the value of the object (conforming with our interpretation of a third) or 'Sh'lish mi'Lebar" meaning a third part (added on to the two current halves [which we would call a half]).

(d)In Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rebbi Zeira, they added that up to one third is an obligation, for which one receives no reward in this world (as the Torah writes in Va'eschanan "Ha'yom La'asosam", 've'Lo Ha'yom Litol Secharam'). Whereas for adding more than a third, one will be rewarded in this world too (see Tosfos DH 'Mishel').

7)

(a)When our Mishnah states ...

1. ... 'Kol she'Chavti bi'Shemiraso, Hechsharti Es Nizko' it means that someone who is guilty of not guarding an article responsibly, has prepared the resulting damage (or that he must put it right) by paying).

2. ... 'Hechsharti b'Miktzas Nizko, Chavti b'Tashlumei Nizko k'Hechsher Kol Nizko' he means that if he prepared part of the damage (even according to the second interpretation of 'Hechsharti' in the previous piece), he is Chayav to pay as if he had prepared the entire damage (as we will explain later).

(b)The Tana confines the obligation to pay for damages to 'Nechasim she'Ein ba'Hem Me'ilah', 'Nechasim she'Hein shel Bnei Bris' and 'Nechasim ha'Meyuchadim' to preclude property belonging to Hekdesh, property belonging to Nochrim and property that has no owner (i.e. of Hefker), respectively.

(c)The Mishnah exempts the Mazik from paying if the damage occurred in his own domain because he can say to the Nizak 'What is your ox doing in my domain?'

8)

(a)According to Shmuel (who learns 'Shor l'Raglo u'Mav'eh l'Shino'), the Seifa of our Mishnah 'u'che'Shehizik, Chav ha'Mazik Leshalem Tashlumei Nezek b'Meitav ha'Aretz' comes to include the Av of Keren (which is omitted from the first Mishnah, as we learned earlier.

(b)'Kol she'Chavti bi'Shemiraso ... ' comes to include the case of Shor and Bor that one handed to a 'Chashu' (a Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan) to look after but not Esh, which the Tana exempts after handing it to a 'Chashu' to look after.

(c)We are reluctant to establish the Reisha of this Beraisa by ...

1. ... a tied ox and a covered pit because the equivalent by Esh would be an un-fanned coal, and there seems to be no reason to differentiate between them.

2. ... an untied ox and an uncovered pit because the equivalent by fire would be a burning flame, and Reish Lakish in the name of Chizkiyah say that someone who hands a 'Chashu' a burning flame is Chayav (so why does the Beraisa say Patur?).

(d)According to Reish Lakish therefore, we have to establish the Beraisa by a tied ox and a covered pit, and the difference between them and an un-fanned coal is that whereas both of the former stand to automatically come loose with the passing of time, the latter will gradually fizzle out.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan exempts someone who hands a 'Chashu' a burning flame from having to pay.

(b)The difference between it and an untied ox or an uncovered pit is the fact that whereas the latter will sooner or later, damage unaided, the flame will only damage if the 'Chashu' wields it (and the owner is not Chayav for the Chashu's actions).

(c)'Tzavsa d'Cheresh ka'Garim' means either the holding of the 'Chashu' or his being alone with it causes the flame to damage,.

10)

(a)Shor has four Chumros over Bor. The first two are if it killed a man it becomes Asur b'Hana'ah (once the Beis-Din have sentenced it to death) and its way is to damage whilst it is moving. The other two (Halachic) Chumros are that the owner must pay Kofer if it killed a person and thirty Shekalim if it killed an Eved.

(b)The two Chumros of Bor over Shor are that it initially stands to damage and that it is Mu'ad right from the start.