1)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses a case of 'ha'Machlif Parah ba'Chamor ve'Yaldah' - where the buyer claims that the baby was born after the purchase (and therefore belongs to him), and the seller counters that it was born beforehand.

(b)The Tana presents the case of 'ha'Machlif Parah ba'Chamor ... ' then switches to 'ha'Mocher Shifchaso ... ' - because, whereas on the one hand, one acquires a Shifchah who has the Din of Karka) with money, even if the Shifchah is not actually present at the sale, a cow (which is Metaltelin) can only be acquired with Meshichah, in which case, one would see immediately if its calf was already born, and there would be nothing to argue about.

(c)In a case where Reuven claims that he purchased the bigger of Shimon's two Avadim or fields, and the latter counters that he doesn't know which of the two he sold him, the Tana rules that he receives the bigger one. In a case where ...

1. ... Shimon claims that he sold Reuven the smaller one, and Reuven counters that he doesn't know, he rules - that Reuven receives the smaller one.

2. ... Reuven claims that he purchased the bigger of Shimon's two Avadim or fields, and the latter counters that he sold him the smaller one - the seller swears that he sold the smaller one, and that is what the purchaser receives.

(d)Whereas in a case where each one claims that he doesn't know - the Din is 'Yachloku'.

2)

(a)The problem with he Tana's ruling in the case of 'ha'Machlif Parah ba'Chamor ... ' is - that due to the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah' the baby ought to belong to the one in whose domain the cow is currently standing, unless the other party can prove otherwise.

(b)Rebbi Chiya bar Avin Amar Shmuel therefore establishes the case of ...

1. ... 'ha'Machlif Parah ba'Chamor' - where the cow is standing in a public meadow.

2. ... 'ha'Mocher Shifchaso - where the Shifchah is currently in a Simta (the side of the road specifically designated for the sale of animals and Avadim).

(c)We do not place the cow and the Shifchah in the Chazakah of the seller (who was the original owner ['Chezkas Marah Kama']) - because the author of our Mishnah is Sumchus, who holds 'Mamon ha'Mutal be'Safek, Cholkin.

(d)It seems, says Rabah bar Rav Huna, that Sumchus holds 'Cholkin' even when both parties are sure of their claim. Rava disagrees. He establishes the Mishnah - when the one claims 'Shema ad she'Lo Macharti Yaldah' and the other counters, 'Shema mi'she'Lakachti Yaldah' (but by 'Bari u'Bari', Sumchus concedes that 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah.

3)

(a)We bring a proof in favor of Rava from the last case in the Mishnah (regarding two Avadim and two fields, where the Tana concludes) 'Zeh Omer Eini Yode'a ve'Zeh Omer Eini Yode'a, Yachloku' - in that just as the Seifa speaks in a case of Shema ve'Shema, so too, does the Reisha. The Seifa poses a Kashya on Rabah bar Rav Huna - inasmuch as now that Sumchus said his Din in the Reisha by Bari u'Bari, why does he see fit to repeat it in the Seifa by Shema ve'Shema? Is that not obvious? And he answers that - had he not repeated his ruling in the Seifa by 'Shema ve'Shema', we would have established the Reisha (which is not clearly spelt out) by 'Shema ve'Shema' (like Rava). But now that Sumchus teaches us the Din of Yachloku by 'Shema ve'Shema' in the Seifa, it indicates that the Reisha is speaking by 'Bari u'Bari'.

4)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Zeh Omer Gadol, ve'Zeh Omer Katan, Yishava ha'Mocher she'Katan Machar', posing a problem on Rabah bar Rav Huna - who maintains that Sumchus holds 'Yachloku' even by 'Bari u'Bari'.

(b)Rabah bar Rav Huna will answer - by pointing out that Sumchus concedes to the Chachamim that wherever there is a Shevu'ah d'Oraisa, such as here, the Shevu'ah overrides the ruling of 'Yachloku'.

(c)Despite the fact that this appears to be a case of Heilach (which does not require a Shevu'ah) - we will later establish it where the seller cut off the hand of the Eved (one of a number of possible explanations that will be presented - see Maharam).

(d)We resolve the problem that the current Shevu'ah contradicts the principle ...

1. ... 'Ein Nishba'in al ha'Avadim' - by establishing it like those who hold 'Nishba'in al ha'Avadim'.

2. ... 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin, Patur' - by establishing it like those who hold 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin, Chayav'.

5)

(a)Initially, Rav answers the Kashya of Heilach (which we just discussed) by establishing our Mishnah by 'D'mei', when the bone of contention concerns (not the actual Eved or the field, but) the value - where the buyer claims that he gave the seller money for a large Eved or field, and the seller counters that he only gave him money for a small one.

(b)Shmuel disagrees. According to him, the Tana is speaking where the argument is whether the buyer paid for the garment of a big Eved or the garment of a small one.

(c)Both Rav and Shmuel have also resolved the problem of 'Ein Nishba'in al ha'Avadim. The Kashya of 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo Se'orin' however, still remains however, according to Shmuel.

(d)Rav Papa dispenses with the problem by establishing the Mishnah where the cloth for the garment is still attached to the roll, and they are arguing over how much cloth the one sold the other (see Tosfos DH 'Ksus', regarding the sheaves).

6)

(a)Rebbi Hoshaya objects to Shmuel's establishing our Mishnah by the garment of an Eved and the sheaves in the field, on the grounds that the Tana is discussing an Eved, and not his clothes. He therefore establishes it - where the dispute is over the Eved together with his garment and the field together with the sheaves that are lying in it.

(b)And the problem 'Mah she'Ta'ano Lo Hodeh Lo ... ' Rav Papa resolves - by establishing the Mishnah where the cloth is still attached to the roll, as we explained earlier.

(c)Rav Sheishes refutes Rav Hoshaya's explanation on the grounds that 'Zokekin Asa le'Ashme'inan?', meaning that - we do not need to learn 'Zokekin' (a shortened name for Kinyan Agav [the acquiring of Metaltelin by means of a Kinyan on Karka]).

7)

(a)To resolve the problems of 'Ein Nishba'in al ha'Avadim' and 'Mah she'Ta'ano, Lo Hodeh ... ', Rav Sheishes himself establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir (who holds - 'Avdi ki'Metalteli Dami') and like Raban Gamliel (who holds - 'Ta'ano Chitin ... Chayav')

(b)And he resolves the problem of Heilach regarding the case of ...

1. ... Eved - by establishing the Mishnah where the seller cut off the Eved's arm (as we explained earlier).

2. ... Sadeh - by establishing it when he dug holes in it.

(c)The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Bava Kama rules - that if someone stole an animal or an Eved which subsequently grew old, he must pay the owner their original value.

(d)According to Rebbi Meir - the Ganav can say to the owner 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha' because he holds 'Avdi ki'Metalteli Dami'.

8)

(a)We reconcile this Mishnah with Rav Sheshes, who just established that Rebbi Meir holds 'Avdi ki'Metalteli Dami', by citing Rabah bar Avuha, who in turn, cites a Beraisa - which switches their opinions.

(b)Bearing in mind that the Tana of our Mishnah also obligates a Shevu'ah in the case of Sadeh, the remaining problem is - that if Rebbi Meir obligates a Shevu'ah on Avadim, because he considers them like Metaltelin; on what basis will he also obligate a Shevu'ah on fields, which are Karka?

(c)The Beraisa, largely echoing the Reisha of our Mishnah, discusses the various computations by 'ha'Machlif Parah ba'Chamor' and 'ha'Mocher Shifchaso'. In the case of 'Zeh Omer bi'Reshusi, ve'Zeh Omer bi'Reshusi', Rebbi Meir obligates the seller to swear - because (based on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Lakach Be'Alav ve'Lo Yeshalem") it is always the defendant who swears, in order to exempt himself from paying.

9)

(a)We try to extrapolate from the Chachamim, who counter Rebbi Meir's Sevara 'Ein Nishba'in Lo al ha'Avadim ve'Lo al ha'Karka'os' - that Rebbi Meir holds that one swears on Karka as well as on Avadim.

(b)We reject this proof however, on the grounds that what the Rabanan are saying to Rebbi Meir is - that 'just as you concede that one does not swear on Karka, won't you also concede that one does not swear on Avadim either'.

(c)In the Mishnah in Shevu'os, Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue over a case where Reuven claims that he sold Shimon ten laden vines, and Shimon argues that he only sold him five. Rebbi Meir obligates Shimon to pay ('Yesh Devarim she'Hein ke'Karka, ve'Einan ke'Karka'); the Chachamim say - 'Kol ha'Mechubar le'Karka, Harei Hu ke'Karka' (and Karka is not subject to a Shevu'ah).

(d)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina establishes their Machlokes - by grapes that are ripe and ready to pick. And they argue over whether they are considered as if they have already been picked (Rebbi Meir) or not (the Chachamim).

10)

(a)We prove conclusively) from the Mishnah in Shevu'os - that Rebbi Meir concedes to the Rabanan that one does not swear on Karka.

(b)Consequently, in order to accommodate both the case of Avadim and that of Sados, we reinstate Rebbi Hoshaya's interpretation of our Mishnah, where the two parties are arguing over the Eved together with his garment and the field together with the sheaves. And we resolve the Kashya that we asked earlier (that we do not need this Mishnah to teach us 'Zokekin') - by pointing out that, were it not for our Mishnah, we would have thought that the garment of an Eved and the sheaves in the field are (considered Karka) like the Eved and the field.

(c)In the Beraisa which echoes our Mishnah, the author of the statement 'Zeh Omer Eini Yode'a, ve'Zeh Omer Eini Yode'a, Yachloku' too must be - Sumchus.

(d)In that case, Rabah bar Rav Huna, who establishes Sumchus even by 'Bari u'Bari', will ascribe the ruling in the Seifa 'Zeh Omer bi'Reshusi, ve'Zeh Omer bi'Reshusi, Yishava ha'Mocher ... ' - to the fact that the Shevu'ah is d'Oraisa (as we explained earlier).

(e)And it is not a case of Heilach - because Rava establishes the Beraisa where the seller cut off the hand of the Eved and the foot of the cow (like he explained the Mishnah earlier).

11)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that in a case where someone sells his olive-trees for firewood, and they produce ...

1. ... less than a Revi'is (ha'Lug) per Sa'ah - the oil goes to the purchaser of the trees.

2. ... more than a Revi'is per Sa'ah - they divide the oil, since the oil was produced jointly by the trees of the one and the ground of the other.

(b)If a river sweeps away one's olive-trees and deposits them in someone else's field, where they subsequently produce olives - the owner of the trees and the owner of the field divide the oil between them.

(c)If the seller stipulates that the purchaser ...

1. ... is to remove his trees immediately - then even if it produces less than a Revi'is per Sa'ah, the oil will belong to the owner of the field.

2. ... may leave his trees there indefinitely - then even more than a Revi'is per Sa'ah will belong to the owner of the trees.

(d)And when the Tana rules that if the trees produce less than a Revi'is per Sa'ah, the oil goes to the purchaser, and more, to the seller, the Tana is speaking - where he sold them to him Stam, in which case people tend to be less fussy about less than a Revi'is per Sa'ah than if he had demanded that he remove his trees immediately, and more fussy than if he had allowed him to leave them there indefinitely.

12)

(a)When Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi says 'Chutz min ha'Hotza'ah', he means that, when our Mishnah says 'Revi'is le'Sa'ah ... Yachloku' (because people are fussy about a Sa'ah), that Sa'ah refers to the profit, over and above the cost of the picking and the pressing.