Question: How about Reuven, who pays off Shimon's debt, which th Gemara at the beginning of 'Ein bein ha'Mudar; (in Nedarim, Daf 33a) considers 'Mavri'ach Ari', even though he incurs a loss?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that Mavri'ach Ari from his friend's property is with his knowledge, in which case it applies even if there is a loss, whereas the current case speaks without his knowledge ...

Answer (cont.): Or else Mavri'ach Ari from his friend's property, even without his knowledge, only where his friend forces him to chase away a lion from his flock, which does not entail a loss, whereas in the current case there is a loss

Answer (cont.): And since here there are two points, in that it is without his knowledge and it involves a loss, it is not considered Mavri'ach Ari.

Answer (concl.): Whereas where it is with his knowledge, even if there is a loss, or where it is without his knowledge, even if there is not, it is considered Mavri'ach Ari, and he is not even obligated to give him his wages.

Question #1: At the end of 'ha'Socher es ha'Po''alim' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 93b) the Gemara says that 'A Shomer Chinam who should have protected the flock with shepherds and sticks, and failed to do so, is Chayav'.

Question #1 (cont.): And the Gemara explains there that a Shomer Chinam must do so free of charge, and a Shomer Sachar, for payment. And the Gemara concludes that he can claim compensation from the owner.

Question #1 (cont.): This implies that a Shomer Chinam is not obligated to pay for help, but that even if he does, he has acted correctly and can claim what he spent.

Question #1 (cont.): And logic dictates that the same will apply to a person who is not a Shomer, who will also receive remuneration.

Question #1 (concl.): And there is no logic in drawing a distinction between the shepherd, whose job it is to busy himself with guarding, and someone from outside?

Question #2: Furthermore, the Gemara says in 'ha'Gozel Basra' (later, on Daf 115b), in a case where the river carried away the donkeys belonging to Reuven and Shimon, where Reuven left his own donkey and saved that of Shimon, that 'He can only claim remuneration'. His remuneration he does receive, and we do not say that he is merely Mavri'ach Ari?

Question #3: And similarly, Someone who returns a lost article, who, the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 31b & 32a) says 'Receives remuneration like a Po'el Bateil'; and there too, we do not consider him Mavri'ach Ari, in which case he would not receive anything?

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer that in all the above cases, even though strictly speaking, the owner ought to be Patur, the Chachamim nevertheless instituted that he should pay him, in order to encourage him to return his friend's lost article, whereas no such Takanah is applicable with regard to someone who pays his friend's debt.

Refutation: Since in our Sugya it implies that if it had been with his knowledge, it would have been considered Mavri'ach Ari, and he would not have received anything

Refutation (cont.): So we see that they did not make a Takanah. even when he saves his friend from a loss.

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that Mavri'ach Ari does not receive remuneration when it is not at all certain that it will come to a loss, such as where the lion is far away, and one does not know whether it will arrive here or not.

Answer (cont.): In which case he is only saving the owner from the worry and the fear that maybe it will come.

Answer (cont.): But if it is certain that it will come to a loss, and to the lion killing a sheep, or where he snatches it from the lion's mouth, then he will take payment just like where the river carried away his friend's donkey.

Answer (concl.): And the case in our Sugya speaks where the vegetables only saved the from the animal from pain, since its owner does not want it to bang itself on the ground and hurt itself, even though its value would not have dropped anyway, which is why it would have been a case of Mavri'ach Ari, had it been with the owner of the field's knowledge.

Paying a Debt, Explanation #1: Whilst in the case of 'Pore'a Chovo', he is not saving him from a loss, because what the borrower is obligated to pay is not considered a loss, since he is Chayav to pay the creditor, and he only saves him from the Tza'ar, in which case it is Mavri'ach Ari.

Paying a Debt, Explanation #2: Alternatively, it is like the Yerushalmi explains in Kesuvos (Perek 13, Halachah 20) and in Nedarim (Perek 4, Halachah 20) 'I would have appeased him and he would have let me off' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And even where there is a Mashkon - 'I would have appeased him and he would have returned my Mashkon' - even where the creditor is pushing him, as the Yerushalmi concludes.

Reason: The reason, it would seem, is because he can say that he would have found plenty of people to pay off the debt on his behalf, since it is the way of good friends to have pity on their friends to save then from this bad situation - which is similar to the initial reason.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in Chezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, Daf 53a) refers to someone who places a clod of earth and it is effective, or who removes a clod of earth and it is effective, as 'Mavri'ach Ari', even though he saves him from a loss, as the river would otherwise have swamped his field?

Answer: It is not calling it 'Mavri'ach Ari' with regard to rendering the owner from paying, but with regard to not considering it a Chazakah, in that it is not a Tikun (to the field) in the way that 'digging a little' or 'locking it, building a wall or breaching a wall' is, Since all that he is doing is protecting it a little, so that it should not get spoilt.

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Gershom Paskened in a Teshuvah in a Teshuvah regarding a case where a Nochri took Reuven's house by force, and Shimon came and purchased it from him, that Shimon is not obligated to return Shimon's house free of charge.

Opinion #2: But Rashi in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 58b) where the Gemara states that 'A Nochri takes someone's field on account of a debt or a forced agreement, it does not fall under the heading of 'Sikrikun' (propert confiscated by the government), writes ...

Opinion #2 (cont.): That if a Nochri takes Karka belonging to a Yisrael on account of a debt or a forced agreement (as theft), assuming that the owner is not in his hands to kill him, does not fall under the heading of 'Sikrikun' ...

Opinion #2 (cont.): Even if he (the Nochri) had the property for twelve months, to pay a quarter of the value to the owner, in accordance with the Takanas Chachamim, only he (the Yisrael who purchased it from him) is obligated to return it to the owner free of charge ...

Reason: Because, since it is not considered 'Sikrikun, he (the owner) is not Makneh him (the Nochri) the field).

Opinion #2 (concl.): And even though he had it for twelve months, the opportunity did not arise to force him (to be Maknedh it to him). Consequently, the sale of the Nochri is not valid at all.

Opinion #3: Whereas the Ri (who concurs with Rabeinu Gershom) holds that, no need to mention where, had the Yisrael not purchased it, the Nochri would never have returned the field to the owner, but would have sold it to another Nochri, in which case the owner would have lost it completely, it is not considered Mavri'ach Ari, seeing as he (the purchaser) has saved him from a loss ...

Opinion #3 (cont.): And even if he bought it at full price, he has saved him from a loss, like the Shomer pays to fight off the lion with sticks and shepherds, where we say that 'He (the owner) must pay up to the value of the saved animals - and the difference (i.e. what he gains) lies in the fact that he retains his own animals and is saved the bother (of buying new ones).

Opinion #3 (concl.): But even where he knows for sure that if the purchaser had not hurried to buy it, he (the Nochri) would have returned it to the owner for the same price, whenever he would have wanted to, it can nevertheless not be compared at all to Mavri'ach Ari

Reason: Because, since the house left the realm of the Yisrael, and entered that of the Nochri, and the purchaser takes it out from the realm of the Nochri and returns it to the Yisrael, it is not comparable to Mavri'ach Ari, and he can claim what he benefited him.

Opinion #3 (cont.): And those Jews who flee from their towns, and the governor seizes their fields (on which there is no tax), or even if there is a tax, only they left their property in the hands of others to pay the tax on their behalf ...

Opinion #3 (cont.): The Ri maintains that if a Yisrael comes and purchases the land from the governor, they must return it to the owner, and may claim whatever they benefited him.

Proof: Since we have seen in the surrounding areas how the Jews have appointed riders wherever they chose to do so, and with the consent of the ruling power they prevent the local rulers from seizing the lands belonging to their fellow- Jews who left town. And this was the prevalent custom throughout the land of Bourgonya (Bergundy?)

Opinion #3 (cont.): Consequently, if a governor comes to change the law and to abide by his own whim, it is not 'Diyna de'Malchusa', since it is not a lawful ruling.

Precedent: And it is similar to a tax-collector which is not fixed (Later, on Daf 113a).

Halachah: And there where Reuven improves Shimon's property, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to Mavri'ach Ari.

Example #1 # 2: It is like Reuven who goes down to Shimon's field and plants there without permission (Bava Metzi'a 101a), and like where he surrounds his property on three sides (above 20b).

Example #3: And it is like the case in 'ha'Umnin (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 76a) 'of 'Reuven who hires a laborer to work for him, and he shows him his Shimon's property.

Halachah (cont): In all of these cases, he takes from Shimon what he benefited him.

Question: And one cannot ask why, in the case where a river sweeps away Shimon's donkey ... ', he receives only his remuneration and not his full loss?

Answer #1: Bccause, since Shimon is standing there, why should we make a Takanah on his behalf without his knowledge? If Reuven wants, he can stipulate himself that he (Shimon) must replace his donkey.

Answer #2: Moreover, it must be speaking where Shimon himself is able to save his donkey, albeit with difficulty, because otherwise, Reuven can claim that he acquired it from Hefker ...

Source: As the Gemara says there in connection with the barrel of honey.

Implied Question: Yet he (Shimon) is nevertheless obligated to remunerate him ...

Answer: Since, provided he does not object, we can assume that, since he is only able to save it with difficulty, he is happy for someone to rescue his donkey for payment.

Clarification: And since when it initially fell on to that row, it was an Oneis, he is not Chayav to bring the animal up as long as it remains in the same row ...

Clarification (cont.): But if it moves on to another row, it is like another field.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains (in the Mishnah) that if the animal ate one row, we assess it as part of a Beis Sa'ah, how much it (the Beis Sa'ah) was worth before it ate from it and how much it is worth now.

Question #1: If it refers to the Beis Sa'ah, asks the Ri, it ought to have said 'Kamah Hayah Yafeh ve'Kamah Hu Yafeh', in the masculine (and not 'Haysah Yafah' and 'Hi Yafah')?

Question #2: Furthermore, why does the Gemara ask 'how we assess it', when the Mishnah has clearly taught us that we assess a row in a Beis Sa'ah?

Question #3: And when Rashi comments on the Kashya 'How do we assess it' - Because we cannot assess a Beis Sa'ah on its own, since that would be hard on the Mazik, seeing as a bald patch of a row that contained one or two Kabin is reckoned according to its full value.

Question #3 (cont.): So one assesses sixty Sa'ah, and then sees how much a Beis Sa'ah is worth, before then assessing how much it is now worth less on account of the row.

Question #3 (cont.): What is the source of these two assessments, bearing in mind that the Pasuk says only "bi'Sedei Acher" - that one assesses what it damages as against another field ...

Question #3 (concl.): Whereas in the Mishnah, nothing is mentioned at all?

Question #4: What's more, according to the opinion in the Gemara that 'One stalk in sixty stalks' - in other words one measure in sixty measures like it', why does the Mishnah mention a Beis Sa'ah?

Question #5: And when the Gemara asks on all the Amora'im from the Beraisa 'Achlah Kav O Kabayim, Ro'in osah ke'ilu Hi Arugah Ketanah, u'Mesha'arin osah'.

Question #5 (cont.): Does this not mean on its own?

Question #5 (concl.): This will pose a Kashya on the Mishnah, which says that we assess it as part of a Beis Sa'ah?

Explanation #2: We therefore need to explain that 'Shamin Beis Sa'ah in the Mishnah refers to the Beis Sa'ah that has been eaten, as we see in the Seifa, in the words of Rebbi Shimon - 'If it is a Sa'ah, then one reckons a Sa'ah, and if it is two, then one reckons two'.

Explanation #2: And because the Mishnah does not explain in how much to assess the damage, only that one assesses it in the same field, the Gemara explains how one assesses it.

Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina: Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina says 'One Sa'ah in sixty Sa'in' - irrespective of whether the animal ate less or whether it ate more, one always assesses one Sa'ah in sixty, and pays according to that scale.

Chizkiyah: Chizkiyah says 'One stalk in sixty stalks - in other words one in sixty times whatever it ate.

Rebbi Yanai: And Rebbi Yanai says 'One Tarkav in sixty Tarkabin (i.e. thirty Sa'in)' - irrespective of whether it ate less or whether it ate more.

Rebbi Yanai (cont.): According to Rebbi Yanai, it is more to the advantage of the Mazik than according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, since a row consisting of a Tarkav is not as noticeable in thirty Sa'in as a row of one Sa'ah in sixty Sa'in ...

Proof: As Rav Papa said 'One does not assess a Kur (thirty Sa'ah) in sixty Kurim, since it is to the disadvantage of the Mazik'.

Implied Question: And even though the Mishnah states 'a Beis Sa'ah in that field' ...

Answer: According to Rebbi Yanai it does not mention this for the Shi'ur, seeing as we do not measure according to a Sa'ah at all, only according to a Tarkav.

Clarification: The Ri explains that when one assesses by a Tarkav according to one and by a Sa'ah, according o the other, it is not referring to a Beis Sa'ah of seeds, which measures fifty by fifty Amos.

Reason: Because the Mishnah is unlikely to be speaking about that, since it is talking about one animal, and when will one animal have eaten all that?

Clarification (cont.): It is speaking about a Sa'ah of fruit, by which one assesses, as the Tana says 'If it ate a Sa'ah, then we assess by a Sa'ah'.

Refuted Question: One need not be perturbed by the Lashon 'Beis Sa'ah' used by the Mishnah ...

Refutation: Because, since the fruit is attached to the ground, it is acceptable to refer to a Sa'ah of frfuit that has been eaten a 'Beis Sa'ah'.

Implied Question: And the fact that the Gemara asks on the Beraisa that it ought to have said, not 'a Beis Kur', but a Kur'?

Answer: That is only because it changed from 'a Kav' in the Reisha, to 'a Beis Kur' in the Seifa.

Alternative Explanation: However, if we were to establish the Mishnah by a Beis Sa'ah of seeds - fifty by fifty Amos, it would fit even better ...

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara mentions all the Shi'urim without 'Beis', as it says 'Sa'ah, Tarkav, Kav and Kur' ...

Answer: It doesn't matter, since the Gemara sometimes refers to a Beis Kur of seeds as a Kur S'tam.

Precedent: Like we find in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 108b) 'He gives four Kabin per Kur', and, as the Gemara concludes, it means 'four Kabin per Kur of seeds'.

Explanation #1: Rashi translates it as 'a date-palm'.

Proof: And so it seems - since the Gemara says that the three Ta'alsa were next to one another', and 'Ta'ali' are date-palms, as is evident in 'ha'Chovel' (later, on Daf 92a), where it says 'He saw Ta'ali among the vines'. And it says there that 'With the proceeds of the wine one can acquire date-palms'.

Question: In the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 14b), the Mishnah mentions 'Dekel Tav, Chatzav and Nakl'ba', and the Gemara interprets 'Chatzav' as 'Kasba'.

Answer: Perhaps there are various species of date-palms, one of which is called 'Dekel' S'tam, and another, 'Chatzav', which is synonymous with 'Kasba'.

Explanation #2: The Aruch however, translates 'Kasba' as the 'Persian date-palm' (mentioned on 59a).

Explanation: Some commentaries define it as 'he Din of a Persian Dekel, of which the Gemara says (on 59a) that 'The Halachah is like the Resh Galusa regarding a Persian Dekel'.

Refutation: According to the Aruch however, who defines 'Kasba' as a Persian Dekel', it is impossible to interpret it like that.