Question: We should answer [that one must help] a Rovetz (an animal that happens to be crouching) for free, and a Ravtzan (one that regularly crouches) for wages!

Answer: He prefers to answer that it is like R. Yosi ha'Glili, for it is proven that [the Beraisa] is like him.

Explanation: He is paid for walking with it. We discuss [when he walks with it lest the owner need help] unloading, for [the owner] fears lest it crouch;

We cannot say [that the owner fears lest the load fall off, and he will need help] loading, for this is obvious! For loading itself he is paid, and all the more so for walking with it [lest he need to load it again]!

Alternative text: Some texts say "Rus". Seven and a half times [the Gematriya of] Rus is (1995, which is just about) 2000, which is the amount of [Amos in] a Mil, like is proven in Yoma (67a) regarding the huts of Se'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (along the path it is taken).

Question: [If he sees] his own Aveidah, his Rebbi's Aveidah and an opportunity to fulfill Kibud Av, which has precedence?

If you will say that his own Aveidah has precedence, Kibud Av has precedence over it, according to the opinion that in Kidushin (32a) that the son must honor his father from the son's money!

If you will say that Kibud Av has precedence, his Rebbi's Aveidah has precedence over it, like it says above (32a) "Ani Hash-m"! (And we cannot say that his Rebbi's Aveidah has precedence, for here we say that his own Aveidah has precedence over his Rebbi's!)

Answer: His own Aveidah has precedence, for when his father benefits from the animal itself, he must honor him, e.g. [the father says] "slaughter your animal for me";

However, [if his father says] "leave your animal to perish, and bring to me to eat", no (he need not honor him), for also the father is displeased that the animal be lost, just he wants to eat.

Explanation: [One Chacham tears over the death of another] even though [the Mes] was not a bigger Chacham than him, because they learn from each other.

Question: We say in Shabbos (105b) that one must tear over a Kosher person, even if he was not there at the time of death! (Everywhere, Chachamim must tear over each other!)

Answer: Here we discuss a tear that may not be sewn back, like the law of a Talmid who tore due to his Rebbi. Also Rashi explained like this.

Explanation: [People who know only written Torah] do not know laws and rulings, for only people who know Gemara [know them];

"Son'eichem" are people who know [only] Mishnah. They think that they know like people who know Gemara, but [really,], they do not know the matter clearly.

"Menadeichem" are ignoramuses, who hate Chachamim.

Explanation (cont): Perhaps you will say that they have no hope [for the world to come]! It says "v'Nir'eh b'Simchaschem" - [all of] Yisrael will rejoice, and Nochrim will be ashamed.

Alternative text: Some texts do not say "or were lost", because Kefel does not apply to an Aveidah.

Resolution #1: We can defend the text. The Shomer claims [that they were lost], and afterwards the thief was found.

Resolution #2: [The case of theft is when] we know that they were stolen from his house, but we do not know whether [the Shomer] was negligent;

[The case of] "or they were lost] is when we know that they were lost from him, but we do not know whether through theft or another way.

Implied question: Likewise, if he said "I was negligent", he gets the Kefel, like it says in the Gemara, Migo (since) if he wanted, he could have exempted himself through [a claim of] theft!

Answer #1: [The Mishnah] discusses theft, for it is common to claim something for which he is exempt, even though he wants to pay.

Answer #2 (Rivan): Also our Mishnah means like this. The Shomer says that they were stolen through negligence. "He paid and did not want to swear" means that he did not want to swear falsely.

Question #1: Here, even if they normally come, how can he acquire the Kefel through coins that he pays? Coins acquire only to cause [one who retracts] to receive Mi she'Para (the curse 'He who punished the generations of the flood and the dispersion, He will punish one who does not honor his word')!

Question #2: What was the question below "who says that it will be stolen?" When he paid, it was already stolen!

It should have said "who says that it was stolen?!", i.e. that it was already stolen! Perhaps it was lost!

Answer: The Makshan thought that at the time of Meshichah, he was Makneh the cow to him to acquire the Kefel when it will come.

Implied question: In Bava Basra (147b), we say that [if one sold] a date tree for its Peros, even Rabanan [who say that Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam] agree that he acquires!

Answer: That is because they normally come. However, here that they do not normally come, even according to R. Meir he does not acquire.

Question: In Gitin (42b), we asked about an Eved Kena'ani whose master sold him for the fine (if a Mu'ad animal kills him, the buyer will receive the 30 Shekalim, perhaps even according to R. Meir this does not work, for it is not common to come, that he will be gored;

Or, perhaps it works even according to Rabanan, because the slave is here, and this is like a date tree for its fruits.

Summation of question: Here it is obvious that [giving] a cow for Kefel does not work, even according to R. Meir!

Answer #1: Perhaps there it is more common [to collect a fine for a gored slave] than here [to collect Kefel].

Answer #2: Here, we ask "if you will say that that if a master sold his slave for the fine, it does not work according to R. Meir" [also here it should not work];

We answer that it is as if he said "when it will be stolen, and you will pay me, my cow is acquired to you from now." He sold to him the cow itself. Now, automatically the Kefel is his (the Shomer's).