(Mishnah): If Reuven deposited produce with Shimon, even if it is rotting, Shimon should leave it;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he should sell it in front of Beis Din. This is like returning an Aveidah.

(Gemara) Question: Why should Shimon let it rot?

Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): A person prefers one measure of his own Peros more than nine measures of others' Peros.

Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): We cannot sell them, lest Reuven declared them to be Terumah or Ma'aser on other Peros.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven deposited Peros with Shimon; even if it is rotting, Shimon should leave it. Therefore, Reuven may make it Terumah or Ma'aser on other Peros.

According to Rav Kahana, 'therefore' makes sense, but according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak it does not !

Answer: It means that after Chachamim ruled that Shimon must leave the produce (even if rotting) lest Reuven made it Terumah or Ma'aser on other produce, Reuven may do so.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): The Tana'im argue in a case when the loss (due to rotting) is within the specified amount (in the Mishnah 40a). If the loss exceeds this, all agree that Shimon should sell it in Beis Din.

Surely, this argues with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. (If we are concerned that they were made Terumah, they may never be sold.)

Question: Must we say that this argues with Rav Kahana?

Answer: No. Rav Kahana agrees that only a small loss should be endured.

Question: He said that one prefers one measure of his own to nine measures of another's. Shimon should not sell until the loss is 90 percent!

Answer: Nine is an exaggeration.

Question (against Rabah bar bar Chanah - Beraisa): Therefore, Reuven may make it Terumah or Ma'aser on other Peros;

We should be concerned lest the loss exceeded the specified amount, and it was sold in Beis Din! (If so, Reuven's Terumah is invalid, and he will eat Tevel (untithed Peros)!)

Answer: It is rare that the loss exceeds the specified amount. We are not concerned for this.

Question: If it occurs, why may we sell the Peros? Perhaps Reuven made them Terumah or Ma'aser!

Answer: We sell it to Kohanim who pay for it (and eat it) as if it were Terumah.

Question: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak is concerned lest it was made Terumah. We should sell it to Kohanim as if it were Terumah!

Answer: They argue as follows. Rabah bar bar Chanah holds that it is rare that the loss exceeds the specified amount. Surely, he did not leave the Peros to be Tevel so long (he either separated Terumah on it or made it Terumah);

In either case, this was before we sell it.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak holds that the loss often exceeds the specified amount in a short time. Perhaps he did not yet tithe it, and he will later make it Terumah. (Therefore, we cannot sell it, less Reuven's separation will be invalid.)

Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): If Reuven deposited produce with Shimon and it rotted, or wine or honey and it soured, or oil and it stank, Shimon should not touch it;

Chachamim say, he should fix the situation and sell them in Beis Din.

He sells them only to others, but not to himself.

Similarly, if collectors of Tzedakah have no poor people to give Perutos to (and they fear lest the coins rust), they exchange them for bigger coins with other people, but not with themselves.

If collectors of the Tamchuy (food collected to be given to the poor) have no one to give it to, they sell the food to other people, but not to themselves.

Summation of question - suggestion: The Beraisa discusses produce that rotted, i.e. even if it rotted more than the specified amount.

Answer: No, it was no more than the specified amount.

Question: It also teaches wine or honey that soured, and oil that stank. These are more than the specified amount!

Answer: Those are different. Once they soured or stank, no further loss will come, but produce will rot more!

Question: What use is there for stinking oil or soured honey? (The Beraisa says that we sell them.)

Answer: The oil can be used to anoint leather, and the honey for a wound on a camel's back.

Question (Beraisa - Chachamim): He should fix the situation and sell them in Beis Din.

What does he fix? (Wine, honey and oil will not spoil any further!)

Answer (Rav Ashi): He fixes the Kelim (so they will not rot).

Question: What do the Tana'im argue about?

Answer: They argue about whether we are concerned for a small loss (Peros that rot less than the specified amount, or the Kelim). Chachamim are concerned, and R. Meir is not.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): He sells them in Beis Din. This is like returning an Aveidah.

(R. Aba b'Rebbi Yakov citing R. Yochanan): The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

(Rava): The Halachah follows Chachamim.

Question: Why did R. Yochanan need to say this? We already know his opinion from another of his teachings!

(Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan): The Halachah always follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel in a Mishnah, with three exceptions: the Mishnayos of a cosigner, the Get in Tzidon, and a litigant who found witnesses after the allotted time.

Answer: Amora'im argue about the opinion of R. Yochanan. (R. Aba says that R. Yochanan never gave such a general rule. Rabah says that R. Yochanan did not (need to) rule about our particular Mishnah.)

Inferences: From R. Shimon (ben Gamliel), we learn that when one is captured, we (i.e. Beis Din) appoint a relative (an heir) over his property. From Chachamim, we learn that we do not appoint a relative over property of a minor (these will be explained).

Rejection #1: Perhaps R. Shimon permits selling only in our case, lest the principal be lost, but he would not permit appointing a relative for the sake of Peros!

Rejection #2: Perhaps Chachamim forbid selling only in our case, for the reason of Rav Kahana or Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, but they would permit appointing a relative!

Question: This implies that these two laws are independent. However, Shmuel said that the Halachah follows R. Shimon, and he also permitted appointing a relative over property of a captured person!

Suggestion: Because he rules like R. Shimon, he permits appointing a relative.

Answer: No. Neither law follows from the other.

Support: Rav Nachman said that the Halachah follows R. Shimon, and he permits appointing a relative over property of a captured person!

This shows that the reasons for the two laws are not the same.

(Rav): We do not appoint a relative over property of a captive.

(Shmuel): We appoint a relative.

If we heard that the captive died, all agree that we appoint a relative. They argue in a case when we did not hear.

Rav is concerned lest he cause a loss to the property (he will plant constantly, without fertilizing), since he is afraid that he has the field for a limited time;

Shmuel says, since he is paid like a sharecropper (if the owner returns and the land reverts to him), we are not concerned lest he cause a loss.

Question (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): "V'Haragti Eschem... v'Hayu Nesheichem Almanos u'Vneichem Yesomim" - obviously, if they will die, their wives and children will be widows and orphans!

Rather, this teaches that the widows will not get permission to remarry (because their husbands were captured and we do not know if they died, and for the same reason), the orphans will not be given their father's property.

Answer (Rava): That teaches that the orphans will not be given permission to sell it, but they will be allowed to use it.

Based on this Beraisa, Rav Sheshes ruled in a case in Neharda'a (and forbade an heir to use the property).

Question (Rav Amram): Perhaps the Beraisa teaches that the orphans may not sell it, but they may use it!

Rejection (Rav Sheshes): Only Chachamim of Pumbedisa (e.g. Rava) would establish the Beraisa in such a difficult way!

Presumably, the orphans are like the widow. Just like she is not permitted (to marry) at all, also the orphans are not given the land at all.

Tana'im argue about whether or not we appoint a relative over property of a captive.

(Beraisa): If Reuven started working on property of a captive, we do not remove it from him. Even if he heard that the owner is coming, and he harvested and consumed the Peros, he profits from his zealousness.

The case of property of a captive is when Shimon went overseas, and we heard that he died. His son, brother or heir started working on the property.

If one started working on Netushim (abandoned) property, we remove it from him.

Netushim property is when Shimon went overseas, and we did not hear that he died. His son, brother or heir started working on the property.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Netushim property is like property of a captive, but if one started working on Retushim (another kind of abandoned) property we remove it from him.

The case of Retushim property is when we do not know where Shimon went, and his son, brother or heir started working on the property.

Question: Why is the former called Netushim, and the latter Retushim?

Answer: Netushim connotes against his will - "Tishmetenah u'Netashtah (you will refrain from working the land in Shemitah, and it will be abandoned)" - the King commanded so;

Retushim connotes willingly - "Em Al Banim Rutashah (they abandoned their wives and children)".