Clarification: This means someone who claims that the field belongs to him.

Refuted explanation: It cannot mean someone who is taking the land by force ...

Refutation: ... because if it did, then even if he sold the field with Achrayus, once he made a Kinyan on it, on what grounds could he (the purchaser) then retract? Why can the owner not say to him 'Your Mazel caused it'.

Explanation #1: In the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a, Rashi explains that it speaks even where he did not give money, since Karka is acquired with a Chazakah.

Question #1: The question then arises why the Gemara mentions Chazakah more than Kesef and Sh'tar?

Question #2: Moreover, why does the Gemara ask from when the Chazakah begins, seeing as we have learned in the Mishnah in Perek Chezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, Daf 42.) 'Na'al (if he made a lock), Gadar (he walled the property or Paratz (he breached it)?

Question #3: Furthermore, why does the Gemara ask this question here more than anywhere else?

Question #4: And finally, 'Dayash a'Metzri' implies that he merely trod on the field - that he walked round its borders?

Explanation #2: It must therefore be speaking where he acquired it with a proper Kinyan, with Chalipin, or a Sh'tar or Chazakah, or he dug a little in the field ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Only one tends to have in mind that, even though he has acquired it with a proper Kinyan, if a claimant comes and protests, he will retract (See Hagahos ha'G'ra) ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... as long, that is, as he has not yet walked along the length and breadth of the field to check it out - and that is what 'Dayash a'Metzri' means.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It also speaks where he has not yet paid for the field (See Hagahos ha'G'ra), because if he has, then even with Achrayus, why is he allowed to retract once he has made a Kinyan on the field? Is there no limit as to how long one can retract?

Question: Why can he not say to the seller 'Take the field instead of the money (See Hagahos ha'G'ra)?

Answer #1: Because it speaks where the field depreciated.

Answer #2: Or because, since people are claiming that the field is theirs, it is no longer worth what it was when he purchased it.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Rav Huna is coming to reconcile the Pesukim mentioned earlier (on Daf 7.).

Explanation #1 (cont.): One then needs to explain that Rav Nachman queried Rav Huna before he had a chance to clarify his statement.

Explanation (Text) #2: There is a text that reads 'Amar Rav Huna' - and it refers to the Mishnah on Daf 2. which states 'beMeitav ha'Aretz', on which Rav Huna comments that Meitav is not exclusive, but that one can also pay with money.

Explanation #1: The Rif explains that Rav Papa and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua on Daf 7:) disagree with Rav Huna ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... since they hold that everything is considered Meitav, even oats, whereas Rav Huna holds that only money or Karka constitute Meitav ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the Halachah is like Rav Papa and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, since they lived after Rav Huna.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam however, disagrees in that he presents three Dinim:

Nezikin: Damages pay either money or Meitav, and if the damager does not possess either, he may pay even with oats.

A Ba'al-Chov: If a debtor possesses money, then he must pay with money, as is evident in 'ha'Koseiv' (Kesuvos, Daf 86.) in the case of the person who claimed that his money was that of a Nochri'; And if he does not possess money, the creditor cannot tell him to trouble himself and find money, as the Gemara explains there.

A Loke'ach: And the same Din will apply to a purchaser in the event that it is found to be a false sale, as we will see later, in Perek ha'Parah (Daf 46: & 47.).

A Po'el: In the case of an employee however, where the employer does not have money, we tell him to take the trouble of selling what he has and to bring money ...

Source: ... as is evident in 'ha'Bayis ve'ha'Aliyah' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 118.) - that he cannot say to the employee 'Take what you did as remuneration for your work'.

Question: Why is it so obvious, bearing in mind that Shmuel will shortly say, that if the creditor comes and takes the portion of one of them, he foregoes the debt?

Answer: Shmuel only says 'Viter' if they divided land

Reason: Because both of them are subject to the same Safek, and it is on the understanding that they divided it, that whoever loses, loses ...

Reason (cont.): ... whereas here, where the one who received the land is subject to a Safek, but not the one who received the money (since the Metalt'lin of Yesomim is not Meshubad to the creditor) it is obvious that they divided it on the understanding that should the former lose the land, he will be able to claim from the latter.

Question: How can the creditor take the portion of just one of them, seeing as each one is Chayav to pay their father's debt ...

Source: ... as we learned in Perek Yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra, Daf 14.) 'If a Sh'tar-Chov went out against them, the B'chor is obligated to pay double'?

Answer: It speaks here when their father declared the field an Apotiki (he mortgaged it).

Implication: This implies that he cannot push him off with money, since he said 'Batlah Machlokes'.

Question: What is the difference between and Rav Asi, who holds that one can push off the creditor with money, against the quarter that he claims on account of inheritance?

Answer: Rav Asi holds that even if he was an heir, he would be able to push him off with money ...

Reason: ... since he could say to him 'I would also push off my creditor with money, whereas Rav does not hold of that S'vara.

Implied Question: And even though it speaks where he made the field an Apotiki ...

Answer: It is not speaking about the same sort of Apotiki as that of 'ha'Mekabel' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 110:), where it implies that he is not able to push him off with money.

Question: Why can he nevertheless pay money and redeem the field from the creditor ...

Source: ... seeing as we rule in Perek ha'Mafkid (Ibid. Daf 35:) that 'Shuma (an assessed filed) can be redeemed at any time'.

Answer: The difference will be where he sold it or bequeathed it, in which case the Gemara says there that it does not go back (it cannot be redeemed).

Reason: Because if they were like purchasers, why would he say 'Batlah Machlokes'? Why can he not pay with money?

Explanation #1: In the first Lashon, Rashi explains that he takes his portion either in land or in money, because he (Rav Asi) has a Safek as to whether they are like Yorshin or like Lekuchos without Achrayus.

Question: How does the Gemara know that Rav Asi contends with 'Yorshim' at all ...

Explanation #2: ... perhaps he takes for granted that they are not Yorshim, and his Safek is whether they are like Lekuchos with Achrayus or like Lekuchos without Achrayus?

Conclusion: Therefore his second Lashon is the correct one.

Reason: Since 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero alav ha'Re'ayah' is not applicable here'.

Inference: This implies that one does not need to give away all one's money in order to acquire an Esrog, even if one cannot find one for less, although it is a passing Mitzvah. In fact, it implies that one is not even obligated to pay as much as a third of what one owns.

Source #2: Similarly, we say in Kesuvos (Daf 50.) that 'Someone who spends (on a Mitzvah) should not spend more than a fifth'.

Source #3: And in Sukah too (on Daf 41.) the Gemara considers it a Chidush that Rebbi purchased an Esrog for a thousand Zuz.

Implied Question: Even if it is speaking with reference to 'Isuraisa de'Rebbi (where each one costs a tenth of what is left, as we find in Perek Metzi'as ha'Ishah (Kesuvos, Daf 68.),

Answer: ... nevertheless, the Gemara knew that one would not be Chayav to spend so much.

Clarification: This means that if one finds an Esrog the size of a wall-nut, as the Chachamim assessed (in Sukah 34:), and one that is up to a third larger than it, one should purchase it.

Clarification: One eats the fruits in this world, whereas the principle is put on hold for the World to Come.

Clarification: Properly ...

Proof #1: ... since otherwise, it is meaningless.

Proof #2: Moreover since the Gemara asks 'What is the difference in this case' - it means that one should be Patur in both cases ...

Proof #2 (cont.): ... since the Gemara asks 'What is the difference in this case' - it means that one should be Patur in both cases, since it then establishes it by an ox which is loose and a pit which is uncovered.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - 'even without the Cheresh, its way is to break loose by itself, and similarly a pit tends to become uncovered by itself'.

Question: It must be speaking where it is properly guarded, as Tosfos just explained, and later (on daf 52.), the Mishnah rules that if the owner covers it properly, he is Patur'?

Explanation #2: The explanation therefore is that 'It tends to break loose via the Cheresh', since it is worse now that he handed it to a Cheresh ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... whereas by a coal this is not the case, because he does not tend to fan the coal, like he unties the ox and uncovers the pit ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): ... because as long as the Cheresh leaves it alone, it gradually becomes extinguished.

Question: What is the problem, seeing as a flame according to Rebbi Yochanan is equivalent to a coal according to Resh Lakish ...

Question (cont.): It is therefore possible to establish it by a tied ox and a covered pit, and because a Cheresh tends to untie the animal and to uncover the pit, just as the Gemara said according to Resh Lakish?

Answer: The Gemara understands that Rebbi Yochanan exempts him because it is being guarded by a Katan, and not only does a Katan not cause damage, he actually guards.

Question: Now we can understand why the Gemara does not query Rebbi Yochanan, who establishes it by an untied ox and by an uncovered pit, why he then mentions that he handed it to a 'Chashu', seeing as he would be Chayav even if he hadn't?

Answer: He mentions it as a Chidush, to teach us that he is Chayav even though the 'Chashu' guarded it a little.

Conclusion: And it is in this point that he disagrees with Resh Lakish.

Clarification: 'Shor' here refers to Keren, as is evident throughout the Sugya.

Implied Question: The reason that it does mention that it is a living creature, which a pit is not ...

Answer: ... is because it is included in 'Darko Leilech u'Lehazik'.

Implied Question: And as for 'Kavanaso Lehazik', it is not possible to list in contrast to Bor ...

Answer: ... which is not a living creature.

Clarification: Which does not pay Kofer, and likewise Eish, where we will shortly learn 'Mah she'Ein-kein ba'Eish'.

Question: Why do we not earn from Shor that they are Chayav Kofer?

Refuted Answer: ... even though one could argue 'that it is different because it is Ba'alei-Chayim'?

Refutation: We conclude later in Perek Keitzad (Daf 26.) that there is Kofer by Regel, from which we see that we learn Regel from Keren, and do not ask that Keren is different, since it damages with intent and is Chayav in the R'shus ha'Rabim?

Answer: Eish and Bor are Patur (from Kofer) because we Darshen "Alav", 've'Lo al Bor', "Alav", 've'Lo al ha'Eish' ...

Source: ... in the same way as we Darshen later at the end of 'Keitzad' (Ibid.) "Alav", 've'Lo al ha'Adam'.

Question: Why do we then need to Darshen "Shor", 've'Lo Adam', which is written by Bor? Why can we not learn it from "Alav"?

Answer: We need "Shor", 've'Lo Adam' to exempt Bor if an Eved or a Nochri who belongs to a Yisrael falls into it.