Question: If so, why is this "for Tikun ha'Olam"? According to letter of the law, he does not collect, for a Milveh Al Peh (a debt without a document) is not collected from Meshubadim!

Answer: If not due to Tikun ha'Olam, I would say that since he was judged about the principal, there is publicity also about the Peros [as if there were a document for them].

Question: If so, why did he say "consult"? A Stam Kinyan is destined to be written!

Answer: That is only when he was Makneh something intact. Since he bettered his rights to make a Kinyan, he wants them to write for him.

Assertion: He collects even from Shevach that orphans improved, even though they have no one to pursue [to compensate them];

This is like a gift, which we say below that one does not collect Shevach from it [for this reason]. Even so, [a creditor] collects [Shevach] from them, because they are like the leg of their father.

Source: It is proven like this in Bechoros (52a). A Mishnah says that a Bechor does not receive a double portion in Ra'uy (property destined to come to his father) like in [property in which his father was already] Muchzak, and not in Shevach...

Citation (cont.): Also a woman's Kesuvah is not [collected from them], and not food for [orphan] daughters.

The Gemara asks that Shmuel taught that a creditor collects Shevach, and answers that this is a leniency of the Kesuvah (it is not collected from Shevach).

Also daughters [are not fed from Shevach, because they are fed due to a Tenai Kesuvah, and] stipulations of the Kesuvah are like the Kesuvah.

There we discuss Shevach of the orphans. If it is Shevach of buyers, why must we say that daughters do not take Shevach? Also the land itself they do not take, for we do not take Meshubadim for food for a widow or daughters!

Rather, surely we discuss Shevach of the orphans, and only a Kesuvah and food, which have weak rights of collection, are not collected from Shevach, but other creditors collect!

Question: Rashi explained there "food for daughters", e.g. one married a woman and stipulated to feed her daughter [from a previous husband] for five years.

According to this, there is no proof, for we could discuss Shevach of buyers!

Answer: Rashi's Perush is wrong. This is not "Tenai Kesuvah"!

Implied question: It says below (110a) that if orphans say "we improved [the property], and the Shevach is not yours." This connotes that one does not collect from Shevach of orphans!

Answer: There we discuss when [the creditor] made the land an Apotiki, and [the orphans] say "we improved. Give to us the expenditures, like the law of one who enters another's field without permission.

Support: So we establish it there in the conclusion, when he made it an Apotiki.

Suggestion: We prove that a creditor collects Shevach, for a seller writes to a buyer that he will pay to him Shevach in case a creditor will take it!

Rejection: If so, what was the question "a gift, in which he does not write this, will you say that [a creditor] does not collect Shevach [from it]?!" Collection of a creditor does not depend on what the seller wrote!

Explanation: Rather, we can say that since a seller pays Shevach to a buyer, we are not concerned if a creditor takes it, for the buyer does not lose so much.

Note: He does lose somewhat, for the creditor takes from him now, and the buyer has no guarantee when (if at all!) he will be reimbursed by the seller.

Question: What is the proof? Perhaps we discuss one who buys from a Gazlan. Surely, the Nigzal gets Shevach!

Answer #1: If it discussed one who buys from a Gazlan, he should have written also "and their Peros"! Rather, we discuss a creditor, who does not get Peros.

Answer #2: Since it says "and from Amaleihon", i.e. expenditures, "and their Shevach", i.e. Shevach above expenditures;

If it discussed a Nigzal (taking from one who bought from the Gazlan), the Nigzal himself pays the expenditures, like the law of one who enters another's field without permission.

Question: Since he is owed only the amount of the land, why does he take Shevach above the expenditures?

Answer: Even without this, he asks properly. This is fine [according to the opinion that the buyer cannot dispel the creditor with money]...

According to the conclusion, that we establish it to discuss an Apotiki, this is fine;

Even though he is owed only the amount of the land, he pays the expenditures to the buyer, and the Shevach above the expenditures he takes for free, like the law of one who enters another's field without permission.

Reference: This is explained below (95a DH ha'Nicha. Tosfos says there that no one holds like this, for Rami bar Chama retracted.) See Tosfos Kesuvos 91b DH Mai.

Explanation: Now, we can discuss even if he was owed the amount of the land and Shevach. Even so, since he made it an Apotiki, he must pay the expenditures, like the law of one who enters [another's field without permission];

This is like it says below (110a) if orphans say "we improved [the property]", and they want the expenditures. It discusses an Apotiki.

It is even if he was owed the amount of the land and Shevach, for had their father improved it, [the creditor] would collect everything.

Disclaimer: This is not a proof. Orphans are different, for they have no one to pursue to take the expenditures;

Since their father made it an Apotiki, [the creditor] must pay the expenditures, and [the orphans are] like who enters another's field without permission. He does not lose his expenditures;

However, a buyer, who does not lose at all, for the seller pays him the expenditures and Shevach, since this exempts [the seller] from his debt, we can say that even if it was an Apotiki...

Since he is owed the amount of land and Shevach, he receives everything. Because he made it an Apotiki, he does not have less rights.

Question: Since he said "you will be paid only from here", when he sells to someone else, this is like buying from a Gazlan, since it does not belong to the seller;

If so, why does he take from the seller Shevach above the expenditures? According to Shmuel, one who buys from a Gazlan does not get Shevach!

Answer: The case is, he sold it before the time of the creditor [to collect]. The sale takes effect until the time;

This is unlike a Gazlan. [There], the sale does not take effect at all. The money was a loan. If he pays Shevach, it is Ribis;

Even if he sold it after the time [that the loan was due], he thought to appease the creditor with money. The sale takes effect until [the creditor] takes it from him.

Question: In Bava Kama (95a), it says that five collect [only] from Bnei Chorin. [One of them is] Shevach, and we establish this to discuss a Chacham, who knows that land cannot be stolen;

Inference: Even if he recognized [that it is not his], he has Shevach!

Answer: There, the case is that he accepted Acharayus.

Distinction: In Erchin (29b), regarding one who sells his field in the Yovel year itself, Shmuel said that the money returns;

There, we cannot say that a person knows that there is no sale [of land] in Yovel, for this is not simple. Rav says that it is sold, and returns!

Explanation: We discuss when he did not know that it is not his. We ask whether or not the Gazlan can nullify the sale and return his coins.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [The buyer died] after [the Gazlan] bought it.

Objection: This is wrong. Once the Gazlan bought it, the buyer acquired it. Because he died afterwards, are his rights uprooted?!

Explanation #2: Rather, [the buyer] died before the Gazlan bought it from the Nigzal.

Implied question: [Below, it says that] the Gazlan died. (Just like this is after he bought it, here the buyer died after the Gazlan bought it!)

Answer: It means that [the Gazlan] was sick or Goses (unlikely to survive) when he bought it from the Nigzal.