1)

(a)When Rav Chisda says 'Shali'ach she'As'o be'Eidim, Havi Shali'ach' he means - that the creditor appointed a Shali'ach in front of witnesses to claim the money from the debtor.

(b)The ramifications of Rav Chisda's statement are - that the Shali'ach is his Shali'ach, and the debtor will no longer be held responsible, should anything happen to the money on the way.

(c)Rabah says - 'Shali'ach she'As'o be'Eidim, Lo Havi Shali'ach' (and the debtor remains responsible).

(d)Rav Chisda's reason is - because the fact that the creditor appointed the Shali'ach in front of witnesses is proof that he intended to appoint him his official Shali'ach.

(e)Rabah however argues - that the witnesses were only meant to assure the debtor that he was a good man, and that he (the debtor) could rely on him to bring him the money.

2)

(a)The Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el' states that if Reuven asks to borrow a cow from Shimon, who sends it to him through a son, an Eved, or a Shali'ach belonging to either of them, and the cow dies on the way - the borrower is Patur ...

(b)... a proof that 'Shali'ach she'As'o be'Eidim Lo Havi Shali'ach' (and a Kashya on Rav Chisda).

(c)The Shali'ach must have been appointed in front of witnesses - because otherwise, how would the owner know that he was in fact, a Shali'ach?

(d)We learned in our Mishnah that the Ganav may not send the stolen article on which he swore via the owner's son or Shali'ach, from which we can extrapolate the same as we extrapolated from the Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el'. In order to reconcile his opinion with this Mishnah - Rav Chisda therefore establishes it by 'Sechiro u'Lekito' (where the Shali'ach worked regularly for the owner for long periods of time, and whom the Ganav would therefore recognize as the owner;s Shali'ach even without witnesses).

(e)The meaning of ...

1. ... 'Sechiro' is - a paid worker.

2. ... 'Lekito' (besides a man who gathers in the crops) is - a man who came to live with him to keep him company.

3)

(a)We reconcile the Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el' with Rav Chisda - in exactly the same way as we just reconciled our Mishnah (by 'Sechiro u'Lekito').

(b)According to what we just explained, Rav Chisda concedes that had the owner appointed the Shali'ach with witnesses, the Ganav would be permitted to send the stolen article with him. The Seifa of the Mishnah nevertheless prefers to refer to a Shali'ach Beis-Din (rather than present the case of a Shali'ach who was appointed with witnesses) - because he has the advantage of being a valid Shali'ach, irrespective of who instigated his appointment, the Ganav or the owner; whereas a private Shali'ach who was appointed with witnesses, is only valid if he was appointed at the instigation of the owner, but not, of the Ganav.

(c)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in a Beraisa rules that if a Shali'ach Beis-Din is appointed at the instigation of either the Ganav or the owner only - he is not a Shali'ach (and the Ganav gives him the article at his own risk), until he is appointed by both of them.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar rule like Rav Chisda.

(b)Aside from Rav Chisda's answer ('bi'Sechiro u'Lekito'), they establish our Mishnah - where the owner sent a Shali'ach to present himself to the Gazlan and offer to be his Shali'ach (in which case witnesses are not required to identify the Shali'ach).

5)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, 'Ein Meshalchin Ma'os bi'Deyukni', meaning - that if the creditor signed a letter requesting the debtor, who lived in a different town, to hand the money that he owed to his Shali'ach, the debtor should not comply ...

(b)... even if witnesses signed on the letter to back the request.

(c)According to Rebbi Yochanan - if witnesses signed on the letter, the debtor is obligated to comply.

(d)Were he to hand the Shali'ach the money, the problem would be - that if anything happened to the money, he would have to pay again.

6)

(a)To get round the problem of claiming a debt from someone who lives in another town, according to Shmuel, we cite the incident of Rebbi Aba who was owed money by Rav Yosef bar Chama, who lived in a different town, and who asked Rav Safra to collect the money and bring it back, when he had occasion to visit there.

(b)Before handing Rav Safra the money, Rav Yosef's son Rava, advised his father - to get Rebbi Aba to sign a receipt containing the word 'Hiskabalti' ('I have received the debt').

(c)Rava b'rei de'Rav Yosef retracted from his previous ruling however and advised his father not to hand over the money to Rav Safra under any circumstances - due to Rebbi Aba's advanced age. He was afraid that by the time the Shali'ach arrived with the money, he may no longer have been alive, in which case, his heirs would be able to claim the debt again, since the receipt that was signed by their father, does not cover them.

(d)So he advised Rav Safra to tell Rebbi Aba to do what Rav Papa would do at a later date. Rav Papa ...

1. ... asked Rav Shmuel bar Aba to retrieve his debt from the bei Chuza'i - after being Makneh him the debt together with a piece of land. Rav Shmuel bar Aba then wrote 'Hiskabalti', thereby exempting the bei Chuza'i from having to pay again.

2. ... went to meet Rav Shmuel bar Aba upon his return - demonstrating his joy at receiving his debt.

7)

(a)From the fact that our Mishnah found it necessary to exempt the Ganav from taking the Chomesh to Madai together with the principle - we infer that the Chomesh is considered Mamon (and not a Kaparah), in which case, the heirs are obligated to pay it after their father's death.

(b)We prove this again from ...

1. ... the continuation of our Mishnah 'Nasan lo es ha'Keren ve'Nishba al ha'Chomesh - Harei Mosif Chomesh al Chomesh'.

2. ... the Beraisa, which rules that if someone steals and swears, and then dies - his heirs are obligated to pay the Keren and the Chomesh, but not to bring the Asham.

(c)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Asher Gazal va'asher Ashak" that a son does not need to pay a Chomesh for what his father stole if neither his father nor he swore. The Tana then adds - that the same will apply even if one of them (or even both of them), did swear.

(d)Rav Nachman reconciles the previous Beraisa (which obligates a son to pay Keren ve'Chomesh for the father's theft) with this Beraisa - by establishing the former where the father had admitted that he swore falsely before he died.

8)

(a)We can infer from the latter Beraisa, which only speaks about a Chomesh - that the son is liable to pay the Keren.

(b)This poses a Kashya on Rav Nachman - because if, as Rav Nachman just explained, this Beraisa speaks when the father did not admit to having sworn falsely, then there is no reason for the son to pay the Keren.

9)

(a)Another Beraisa states - that a son is obligated to pay Keren for his father's theft, irrespective of whether either of them swore or not.

(b)The Beraisa concludes 'Talmud Lomar Gezeilah, ve'Oshek, Aveidah u'Pikadon; Yesh Talmud'. Rabah bar Rav Huna asked his father - whether the correct text ought not to be 'Yishtalmu'.

(c)The difference between the two texts is - that whereas 'Yesh Talmud' implies that we learn the son's obligation to pay the Keren from the fact that the Torah inserts all these cases, 'Yishtalmu' implies that it is a S'vara which is not based on the Pasuk.

(d)Rav Huna replied - that the correct version is the one that appears in the Beraisa.

10)

(a)The latter Beraisa, which is a continuation of the previous one, is a further proof that this Tana does obligate the sons to pay the Keren, which makes no sense if there was no admission. So we qualify the 'Lo Hodeh' of Rav Nachman to mean - that the father did not admit, but the son did.

(b)Even though the son swore and then admitted, he does not pay a Chomesh on his own admission - because the Tana speaks where the stolen object is no longer available (and the heirs are only obligated to pay their father's theft, if it is available).

(c)He nevertheless pays the Keren - because the Tana speaks where their father left other property, in which case, the Chachamim obligated the heirs to pay out of respect for their father.

(d)Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explains that he is nevertheless exempt from paying the Chomesh, because one never pays Chomesh for any denial that involves Karka. The reason for this - because one does not swear on a denial involving Karka.

11)

(a)According to some texts, we ask that even if the father did leave Karka, it is no better than an oral loan - because one cannot claim an oral loan from either the heirs or the buyers. Consequently, the son ought not to have to pay even the Keren.

(b)We answer - that the Tana speaks where the father had been to Beis-Din and his case had been concluded (in which case, the heirs become Chayav to pay.

(c)We reject this text however, in view of ...

1. ... the Kashya. Because the Sugya says later says that if the father left Karka - the heirs are obligated to pay even an oral loan out of respect for their father (in which case the Kashya is meaningless).

2. ... the answer - because what is the point of establishing the case where the father had been to Beis-Din, seeing as he did not admit? (See Tosfos DH 'Milveh al Peh', who defends this text against Rashi's Kashyos).

(d)The other problem with the answer 'be'she'Amad ba'Din' is - that this implies that, until now, the Sugya has been speaking in a case where the father had not been to Beis-Din. But that cannot be, since the Tana specifically stated 'Nishba Hu ve'Aviv'.

12)

(a)Rava has another way of explaining why the Beraisa obligates the son to pay the Keren but not the Chomesh. He establishes the case 'K'gon she'Haysah Diskaya shel Aviv Mufkedes be'Yad Acheirim', meaning - that a saddle-bag containing the father's money had been deposited by a third person (a fact of which the son was unaware).

(b)The son ...

1. ... therefore pays the Keren - because the money that the father had stolen is available ...

2. ... but not the Chomesh - because he swore in complete innocence, believing his statement to be true.