Explanation: We do not challenge Rabah and Rav Yosef, rather, Abaye and Rav Ashi.

Implied question: Why can't we establish the Reisha like this (the borrower trusts the lender, that he does not have the security)?

Answer: There, he does not want to believe him, for if he does, he cannot swear (the borrower cannot swear and collect, lest the lender take out the security). However, here there is no Shevu'ah;

Even though he loses the ability to force him to swear through Gilgul (if the lender must swear that he does not have the security, the borrower can force him to swear also about its value), he is not concerned for this.

Explanation: We must say that the rise in price of the rings is like Shevach (increased value) that came from elsewhere, like Kefel;

It is unlike shearings and offspring. That Shevach is seen in the animal's body.

Implied question: Why is this unlike when he exerted him to [come to Beis Din to hear the Shomer's] Shevu'ah? According to Rava, [the Shomer] acquires the Kefel if he paid afterwards (Bava Kama 108a)!

Answer: There, he paid willingly. [Here,] Rav Nachman needed to collect his house Bal Korcho (against his will).

Question: Why doesn't the land return (the borrower should be able to buy it back)! The first (buyer, i.e. the lender) sold to the second [only] all rights that he has in it (and the borrower could have bought it back from him)!

Answer: According to the letter of the law, also the first need not return it. It is sold to him, for he eats the Peros without deducting. (If it were still considered the borrower's, the lender would have to deduct their value from the loan, to avoid Ribis);

Rather, he returns it due to "v'Asisa ha'Yashar veha'Tov." Therefore, the second [buyer] need not return it.

Implied question: Even if [the husband] were considered an heir, he would not need to return it, like we said "if he sold it or bequeathed it...]"!

Answer: We said so (that a husband is like a buyer) due to the law that we do not return to him (if a creditor collected his wife's field, and she died). If he were considered an heir, it would return to him, for a son may redeem his father's land.

Implied question: In Bava Basra (139b), we conclude that Chachamim gave the husband what is better for him, either the law of an heir, or the law of a buyer!

Answer: We say there that Chachamim did not give him whatever is better if this will cause a loss to others;

Therefore, here he is not like an heir, due to the lender's loss.

Explanation: [The husband] need not return [land that his wife collected], no matter what you will say! Even if he were considered an heir, he would not need to return it;

There, the Gemara explains [that we are not concerned for the loss of buyers regarding] R. Yosi bar Chanina's teaching (Takanas Usha), because the buyers caused their own loss. (They should not have bought from a married woman.)

Question: In Kesuvos (104b), Rava said "show your Adrachta (a document authorizing a creditor to collect property. From then, the Peros are yours)"!

(You cannot say that the text should say Rabah.) There the text says Rava, for it says "you yourself said that Acharayos Ta'os Sofer (if a document does not mention Acharayos, i.e. rights to collect the loan from Meshubadim, or regarding a sale to be compensated if a creditor will take the land, we say that this was a mistake of the scribe, and it is as if Acharayos is written in it), and Rava said so above (15b)!

Answer #1: [Rava said] "show me your Adrachta." If it was written properly, she would collect the Peros from the [last] day of announcement.

Answer #2: Some texts in our Sugya say that Rava said [that he eats the Peros] from when the Adrachta came to his hand, and afterwards Rabah [says that it is from when the days of announcement end];

According to this, the Sugya in Kesuvos is simpler. (Rava asked to see the Adrachta to award her the Peros from when it was written, like she claimed.)

Implied question: [According to this text] why is Rava's opinion brought before Abaye's, and Rabah's? (Normally, Rava's opinion is brought after theirs, like in our text, for they were Rosh Yeshivah before him!)

Answer: [He is brought before Rabah] because the Adrachta precedes the announcement;

Abaye's opinion, that witnesses acquire for [the recipient] through their signatures, is more reasonable to bring after Rava's opinion (for now we know which document is discussed) than before his opinion.

Note: Likewise, even though normally Rabah's opinion is brought before Abaye's, we can say that it would be awkward to do so here, for this would connote that Abaye discusses signatures that pertain to the days of announcement.

Suggestion: This is because the owner can say to the renter "my cow is by you", for the borrower paid its value.

Rejection: Below (96b), Rami bar Chama asked about whether a husband is considered a renter or a borrower of his wife's property;

When she rented a cow from others, and then married, according to Rabanan, surely her husband is exempt, because his wife works for him, so this is Shemirah b'Ba'alim (an employer who is a Shomer for his worker, he is exempt), and his wife is exempt, like the law of a renter;

The question is according to R. Yosi. Is he is a borrower to be obligated to the original owner when it died normally? Or, is he a renter, and he is exempt?

Inference: There, since according to Rabanan the husband is exempt from [paying] the woman because it is Shemirah b'Ba'alim, also according to R. Yosi he is not obligated to the original owner!

Explanation: Rather, R. Yosi's reason is because he holds that a renter acquires only through a Shevu'ah, and the owner says "[I] disregard you and your Shevu'ah. I will go to judgment with the borrower."

Implied question: If there are witnesses that it died normally, the renter need not swear (so the owner cannot say this)!

Answer: In a case, he acquires only through bringing witnesses, and [the owner] says to him "I exempt you from bringing witnesses."

Explanation (cont.): Rabanan hold that the renter acquires through death. They argue about the words of the Makshan and the Tartzan in the Gemara.

Assertion: If the owner himself was there at the time that it died in the hands of the borrower, R. Yosi agrees to Rabanan, that surely he acquires through death alone, for now the renter need not do anything.

Explanation: Now, if it dies he owes two cows to the renter. One will be his (the renter's, permanently), and one to work with it for 10 days, and return it to the owner;

However, had he borrowed it for 100 days, he would owe only one cow, of the borrowing.

Implied question: He could have said that he rented it [the second time] for 90 days!

Answer #1: Since regarding borrowing, he needed to reduce (it was borrowed for less than the term of the rental, to teach that then the borrower owes two cows), he reduced also the rental.

Answer #2: If he rented it for 90 days, i.e. the entire term of the borrowing, it is as if he gave money to annul the borrowing, since it does not return [to the borrower] after the rental to complete the days of borrowing;

If he borrowed it back for 70 days, he would owe only one cow, of the borrowing, and for [the remaining 30 days of] the rental of 100 days.

We can say similarly in the Reisha. If he borrowed it for 100 days, like the days of the rental, it is as if he asked to be Mevatel the days of the rental, and he would not be liable at all.

Our Mishnah, in which the renter is the owner with respect to the borrower (he must pay to him) according to Rabanan, if it discusses when he did not borrow the entire term of the rental, this is fine, for after the days of borrowing, it returns to the renter;

And even if he borrowed it for all the days of rental, in any case since the renter is responsible for theft or loss or negligence, if the borrower was working for him, the borrower is exempt and the renter is liable, [therefore] he is called the owner;

Distinction: However, here if he borrowed it for 100 days, the renter is exempt from everything.