Shmuel establishes the Mishnah like R. Elazar. The Beraisa refutes him like it refutes R. Elazar.

Also, Shmuel said that one who finds a Hakna'ah document should return it, for we are not concerned for repayment. The Beraisa says that we do not return a document with Achrayus, even when both admit. This implies that we are concerned;

All the more so, when the borrower does not admit, we are concerned!

(Shmuel): Chachamim hold that every document should have Achrayus. If it is not mentioned in the document, we attribute this to a mistake of the scribe, and we consider it as if Achrayus is written in the document.

Question (Rava bar Isi): This contradicts another teaching of Shmuel!

(Shmuel): A scribe must consult (with Reuven, the seller of a field) before writing the following provisions in the document (in case a creditor will take the field from the buyer (Shimon)):

Improvements (if Shimon improved the field and it was taken, Reuven compensates him);

Idis (Shimon will be compensated from highest quality land);

A lien (on Reuven's property to repay Shimon if the land is taken).

Suggestion: One of these teachings was mistakenly said in Shmuel's name.

Answer: No. Regarding a loan, every document should have Achrayus. One lends money only on condition to get it back;

Regarding a sale, the scribe must consult. People sometimes buy land for a day (i.e. without assurance that they will keep it a long time).

Avuha bar Ihi bought an upper story from his sister. His sister's creditor took it.

Shmuel: Did she write for you Achrayus?

Avuha: No.

Shmuel: You receive no compensation.

Avuha: You hold that if Achrayus is not mentioned in the document, this is a scribal mistake!

Shmuel: That refers to a loan. Regarding a sale, people sometimes buy land for a day.

Version #1 (Abaye): If Reuven sold a field to Shimon with Achrayus, and Reuven's creditor (Levi) took it, Reuven can take Levi to Beis Din to contest this.

Levi cannot say 'you have no claim against me (since I did not take from you)', because Reuven must compensate Shimon for what Levi took.

Version #2 (Abaye): Even if Reuven sold without Achrayus, he can take Levi to Beis Din. (Even though Reuven need not compensate Shimon,) he can say 'I don't want Shimon to bear a grudge against me.'

Version #1 (Abaye): If Reuven sold a field to Shimon without Achrayus, and people protested (said that the field belongs to them), before Shimon makes a Chazakah, he can withdraw from the sale. After making a Chazakah, he cannot.

Reuven can say 'you knew that you were taking a risk.'

Question: When is it considered that Shimon made a Chazakah?

Answer: It is from when he walks around the borders.

Version #2: Even if Reuven sold with Achrayus, Shimon cannot retract after making a Chazakah;

Reuven can say 'if and when Beis Din rules that it is theirs, I will compensate you.'

(Rav): If Reuven sold a field to Shimon, and it was found that it was not Reuven's, Shimon receives what he paid, and is also compensated for Shevach (improvements that he made to the land).

(Shmuel): Shimon receives what he paid, but he is not compensated for Shevach.

Question: (According to Shmuel), if Reuven stipulated that he will compensate him for Shevach if it is taken, what is the law?

If Shmuel exempts from compensating for Shevach because he did not stipulate, here he stipulated (he is liable)!

Or, perhaps Shmuel's holds that since Shimon never truly received land, it is as if he lent Reuven the money. If Reuven will compensate him, it will look like interest, so even if he stipulated, he does not pay?

Rav Huna was unsure.

Answer (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): Shimon receives what he paid. He is not compensated for Shevach, even if Reuven stipulated;

Since Shimon never received land, it would look like Ribis.

Question (Rava - Mishnah): It was enacted that the following are not paid from Meshubadim: Peros that were eaten (this will be explained), Shevach to land, and food for the widow and daughters.

They are not paid from Meshubadim, but they are paid from Bnei Chorin!

Suggestion: 'Shevach to land' refers to when it was found to be stolen.

Answer: No. It is when a creditor took it.

Question: The Mishnah teaches Peros that were eaten. A creditor who takes land does not take Peros!

(Shmuel): A creditor takes Shevach.

Inference: He only takes Shevach, but not Peros!

We must say that the Mishnah discusses Peros in a case when the land was stolen. Presumably, the same applies to Shevach!

Answer: No. Peros are in a case when the land was stolen. Shevach is when a creditor took it.

Question (Beraisa): Compensation for Shevach: if Yehudah stole David's field, when it is taken, he collects principal (what he paid) even from Meshubadim, and Shevach from Bnei Chorin (this will be explained).

Question: What is the case?

If it is like the Beraisa says, who should pay the thief?!

Answer: Rather, Yehudah stole David's field and sold it to Moshe, who improved it.

Answer (Rav Nachman): The Beraisa must be corrected. We can correct it to discuss a creditor!

Support (Beraisa): Evaluation of Peros: Yehudah stole David's field. Behold, it leaves his hand; he collects principal from Meshubadim, and Peros from Bnei Chorin.

Question: What is the case?

If it is like the Beraisa says, who should pay the thief?!

Answer: Rather, Yehudah stole David's field and sold it to Moshe; who improved it.

Rejection #1 (Rava): The case is, Yehudah stole David's field laden with Peros. He ate the Peros and dug pits in the field. David collects principal (the decreased value of the land due to the pits) even from Meshubadim, and the value of the Peros from Bnei Chorin.