Refuted Explanation: The Gemara says 'that both cases speak where 'he did not have Idis and sell it', and declined to establish them where he had no Idis at all ...

Refutation: ... because then in the case where 'his Beinonis is equal to the world's Idis', why does the Beraisa refer to it as Beinonis?

Explanation: ... and what 'Both cases speak where he did not have Idis and sell it' means is that he did not have Idis and sell it, only one speaks where he never had Idis, and the other, where he had it and still has it.

Explanation (cont.): ... And it is not necessary to establish either case where he sold any field at all.

Conclusion: And both cases hold 'be'shel Olam hein Shamin'.

Refuted Text: He does not have the text 'ke'Idis de'Alma' ...

Refutation #1: ... because since it refers to where he did not have Idis, why would the Gemara refer to it as Beinonis, seeing as his Idis is equivalent to that of the world?

Refutation #2: Moreover, if he did, how would he explain the insertion of 'Nizakin u'Ba'al-Chov' in the Beraisa, according to both the opinion that 'be'she'Lo hein Shamin' and 'be'shel Olam hein Shamin'?

Clarification: This speaks specifically where he does not own Idis, in which case his Beinonis is his Idis.

Inference: The fact that the Gemara specifically mentions 'Beinonis and Ziburis' suggests that if he had Idis, the creditor would claim from Beinonis, and he holds that it is because he owns only Beinonis and Ziburis (that the Nizak claims Ziburis).

Reason: Due to the reason that the Gemara gives in 'ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 49:) 'Why can a creditor not claim from Idis? In order that he should spot someone's nice field and say "I will quickly lend him money, so that I will be able to claim it for my debt!" '

Implied Question: Even though it is the Shali'ach Beis-Din who fetches the object? ...

Answer: ... he only takes out what the borrower gives him.

Question: Even the cheapest vessel is considered 'Meitav', as the Gemara learned earlier (Daf 4:) 'Everything is 'Meitav' '?

Answer: ... it is normal, for the owner to take out the least valuable K'li, and likewise, when he pays with Karka.

Halachah: The Halachah is 'be'she'Lo hein Shamin' ...

Reason: ... since that is how Rav Nachman rules in Kesuvos, Daf 110.

Question: But is Nezikin not an oral loan, and one cannot claim an oral loan from Meshubadim.

Answer #1: Once the judgement is passed, it adopts the Din of a Milveh bi'Sh'tar, as the Gemara says in ha'Gozel Basra (later on Daf 112) and in other places.

Answer #2\: Alternatively, a loan that is mentioned in the Torah is considered as if it was documented, and he is Chayav.

Observation: The Riva says that, in the event that they all come at the same time, the one who has the first-dated Sh'tar is the first to claim from the last purchaser ...

Observation (cont.): If the Nizak is dated first, then he claims from the last purchaser, even if he purchased Ziburis; and if the creditor claims next, he too, claims from the same purchaser, should some of the property still remain; if not, he claims from the previous purchaser, even if he purchased Idis. And the woman then claims from the first purchaser, even if he purchased Idis.

Source: Since one does not write the time in a Sh'tar outside Yerushalayim.

Observation: The Gemara is not yet aware of the argument of 'I Shaskas, Shaskas' ...

Reason: ... since, in fact, even if it is all written in one Sh'tar, he can hide the Sh'tar and return the Ziburis to the owner as if he had never acquired it.

Implied Question: Even though the woman anyway receives Ziburis, she is not able to counter 'So give it back!' ...

Answer: ... seeing as he is not detracting from her rights.

Answer (cont.): ... Regarding a creditor on the other hand, one cannot force him to accept Ziburis on account of 'I Shaskas', because, seeing as one is detracting from his rights, he can counter "So give it back!", since, in any event, you want to give me Ziburis'.

Conclusion: That explains why, the Gemara will shortly only asks from Nizakin and not from a Ba'al-Chov, as Rashi explains (See Tosfos, Yevamos, Daf 37. DH 'de'Amar').

Implied Question: Even though he gives them Karka?

Answer: It is like a case of 'Yesomim who purchased land after the death of their father', in which case the creditor cannot claim it from them.

Answer (cont.): Despite the ruling in 'Yesh Nochlin' (Bava Basra, Daf 125.) that the creditor may claim Karka which they claimed to pay their father's debt.

Implied Question: In spite of the principle that 'One cannot claim from Nechasim Meshubadim there where B'nei Chorin are available, even from Ziburis!' (Gitin, Daf 48:).

Answer: ... It is different here, since all the fields are Meshubadim.

Clarification: It would appear that even if it speaks where he left over Beinonis ...

Clarification (cont.): ... we still need to come on to the reason of 'That is why I bothered to buy land that is not fit for you'; and he cannot apply the argument that he left him a place to claim from, as the Gemara says later 'He left over Beinonis like it'.

Clarification (concl.): ... since the creditor can claim that he prefers Ziburis more than Beinonis, in which case he is able to claim a little more (Ziburis), against the wishes of Shimon (the debtor [See Hagahos ha'G'ra]) ...

Support: ... as we learned earlier (on Daf 7:), when the Gemara says 'If so, you have closed the door on borrowers'.

Clarification: And we only need to come on to the reason 'That is why I bothered to buy land that is not fit for you' where he purchased Ziburis, but where he purchased Idis and left over Ziburis and Beinonis, we do not need it ...

Reason: ... because just as Shimon could have pushed him away to Beinonis and Ziburis, so too can Levi ...

Basic Principle: ... based on the principle that the first purchaser sold to the second one all the rights that he obtained.

Refuted Reason: Although the Gemara uses this Lashon, it is La'av Davka, since it is only applicable by the owner but not in connection with the first purchaser.

Authentic Source: And the real reason for the ruling is due to the principle 'What did the first purchaser sell to the second one, all the rights that he obtained', and he could have pushed the creditor on to the latter Beinonis.

Authentic Source (cont.): But if he had not left behind Beinonis like it, he could not push him on to the Ziburis ...

Reason: ... since that is something that the first purchaser could also not have done.

Reason (cont.): And as for the argument 'I Shaskas', he can say to him 'So go and give it back!'

Question: What difference does it make, seeing as whatever Reuven could have claimed, Beis-Din claim on behalf of Shimon.

Question (cont.): Because Beis-Din argue that the Sh'tar is paid ('Paru'a') or that it is forged ('Mezuyaf'), on behalf of the purchaser, as they do on behalf of orphans,

Question (concl.): ... in which case the creditor will require witnesses that substantiate the Sh'tar

Reason: Otherwise, one would not allow anyone to live in peace.

Proof: And this is also evident in Perek Get Pashut (Bava Basra, Daf 174:), where it says that if a Sh'chiv-M'ra who says that he has a Manah belonging to so-and-so says 'Give it to him!', then we give it to him, but not if he doesn't ...

Proof (cont.): ... and we establish it where he is holding a Sh'tar; 'If he says 'Give it to him', he has substantiated the Sh'tar, if not, then not.

Proof (concl.): Clearly, we claim 'Mezuyaf' on behalf of Yesomim. Tosfos elaborated in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 14. DH 'Dina').

Refuted Answer: Neither can one attribute the difference between them to where the witnesses are relatives of Reuven but not of Shimon ...

Refutation: ... because they cannot testify on behalf of Shimon either, seeing as in the event that he takes the field from Shimon, Shimon will claim compensation from Reuven ...

Refutation (cont.): And similarly, if Shimon has witnesses who proclaim his righteousness, and who are his relatives, they are even disqualified from testifying on behalf of Reuven, seeing as Shimon will benefit should the Beis-Din place the field in Reuven's domain ...

Refutation (concl.): .. as is evident at the end of the first Perek of Makos (Daf 7.), in the case of Ila'a and Tuvya, who were relatives of the guarantor, and whom they disqualified from testifying on behalf of the borrower or the creditor, because 'If the debtor has no money, the creditor claims from the debtor.

Conclusion: That being the case, the question remains 'What difference does it make?'

Answer #1: The difference is in the realm of 'the final proof' - where Shimon claimed that he had no more witnesses and no further proofs', and where he subsequently finds a proof or witnesses ...

Answer #1 (cont.): ... in which case, although Shimon is not able to bring them, Reuven, who did not declare that he has no other witnesses, may bring them.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it speaks where Reuven states that he will go to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, and where Shimon is not able to go there like Reuven (See Tosfos, Bava Metzi'a, Daf 14. DH 'Dina' and Kesuvos Daf 92:, DH 'Dina').