Explanation #1: He challenges the Beraisa, like Rashi explained.

Explanation #2: He challenges Rav Papa. Granted, if you will say that coins are not acquired through Chalipin, we discuss that he has a scarf (i.e. garments) and he has no land. Now, he is not naked;

However, if you will say that coins are acquired through Chalipin, and we discuss that he has no scarf, and you must say that he is in a granary that is not his, did the Tana give such a bizarre case?!

Explanation: "It says that he is in a granary" is not a question. Rather, it concludes the matter, that we discuss one who has no land.

Question: He should be Makneh the coins through admission!

This is like Rav Mari acquired from Rava (the Shomer for Mari's father Isur. Isur was a convert. Had Isur not "admitted" that they are Mari's, they would have become Hefker when Isur died, and Rava could have kept them), in Bava Basra (149a), even though we knew that before [his admission] they did not belong to Mari.

The same applies to a healthy person, since Rav Mari acquired them, even though [he was a convert, and] could not inherit (Since he cannot inherit, he could not acquire through Matanas Shechiv Mera.)

Explanation: Also the opinion that coins make Chalipin is refuted. Since it is not acquired [through Chalipin], all the more so it does not make Chalipin.

[The Gemara] waited until now [to ask], in order to ask against both of them.

Also, this is why it waited until now to say "and so Ula said", "and so R. Ami said in the name of R. Yochanan", because this Beraisa supports them.

Explanation: The moneychanger gave to him Perutetos, and the Ba'al ha'Bayis repays to him Perutetos, which have no Tzurah. Therefore, they make and are acquired through Chalipin.

Question: We should say that the moneychanger gave to him coins, and not Perutetos!

Strengthening of question: He needs to give to workers (presumably, they want proper coins. Since proper coins do not make Chalipin, we must say that) the Ba'al ha'Bayis was Makneh to him, through Kinyan Sudar, the Perutetos in his house!

Answer: "Give to me coins [and I will...]" connotes that through this giving [without a Sudar], I will owe you a Dinar and a Trisis (small additional coin).

Explanation: [Dinar Yafeh] would imply a good Dinar.

Question: How could we think that it is a good Dinar? He said "from Ma'os in my house"! (A Ma'ah is a sixth of a Dinar.)

Answer #1: "Ma'os" is not the name of the coins. Rather, he means "from coins in my house."

Answer #2: In some text, the Beraisa does not say "from Ma'os in my house."

Question: Granted, Se'ah b'Se'ah (lending Peros on condition to return the same quantity. Chachamim forbade this, lest the price rise, and he returns Peros worth more, which is Ribis mid'Rabanan] is permitted "until my son comes" (since the borrower will repay very soon, we are not concerned lest the price rise)...

A Se'ah for two Sa'im, like here, in which he gives to him an extra Trisis, is forbidden. This is absolute Ribis!

Answer: Here he does not give to him the same [denomination of] coin that he took, rather, a different kind. This is like business;

The Gemara means "just like a loan of Se'ah b'Se'ah is permitted, when he says "until my son comes", because Se'ah b'Se'ah is Ribis [only] mid'Rabanan...

Likewise, in the way of a sale (which is never Ribis mid'Oraisa), even Se'ah for two Sa'im is permitted when he says "until my son comes."

Explanation - part 1: According to Rav, who says (47a) that [Chalipin is done] with the buyer's Kli, it means as follows. Once this one, i.e. the owner of the sale item, acquired the coin, this one, i.e. the buyer, is obligated in Ones that occurs to [what he acquires through] Chalipin (the sale item), for wherever it is, it belongs to him.

Alternative text: If the text does not say "Zeh" the second time, it means as follows. Once this one, i.e. the seller, acquired the coin, he is obligated to pay (give) to the buyer the item that is in exchange for the coin.

Explanation #1 - part 2: According to Levi, who says that [Chalipin is done] with the seller's Kli, it means oppositely. If the text says "Zeh" the second time, it means that once this one, the buyer, acquired the coin, the seller is obligated to give to him Chalipin (what he sold);

If the text does not say "Zeh" the second time, it means as follows. Once the buyer acquired the coin, he is liable for Onesim to the sale item.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, Levi explains "Zeh" like Rav. Once this one acquired, i.e. the seller, through the Hana'ah (pleasure) that the buyer accepted the coin from him [he must give the buyer...]

Implied question: How does Levi explain (100a) "one who trades a cow..."?

Answer: It means one who trades (gives) a cow for the Hana'ah that [the other party] received a donkey [from him. He explains] similarly "one who trades an ox for a cow." (Tosfos ha'Rosh - Tana'im argue like Rav and Levi. Levi can establish that Mishnah like the other Tana! According to R. Tam, all agree that Chalipin of a swap does not require the seller's Kli.)

Implied question: Coins do not acquire!

Answer #1: That is Stam. If he specified "through Chalipin", he acquires.

Answer #2: Even Stam, since he returns to him the coin, like it is normal to return the Sudar, the Chalipin acquires.

Question: He will say "your wheat burned in the attic"!

Answer: It is not common that he will acquire the coins through Chalipin;

This is because it is not common that the seller gives his item through Chalipin for coins that are not worth the sale item. Normally, what is given for Chalipin is not worth the value of the sale item. (Mayan ha'Chachmah - we cannot say that the seller exceedingly desired the coins, and traded more than their value for them. When the full value is given, Stam this is Kinyan Kesef. He could specify that he gives through Chalipin, but this is not common.)

[Because it is not common,] Chachamim did not decree, like it says below about one who traded the money for an ox for a cow;

Through Kinyan Sudar, which is common, there is no concern lest he tell him "your wheat burned in the attic." Since the seller did not receive the money, he will toil to save it, lest the buyer refuse to give to him the coins.

Alternative text: Rashi's text does not say "meat", for also a live ox and cow are called Peros;

We challenge Rav Nachman (who says that Peros do not make Chalipin, for the Mishnah says that animals make Chalipin), both according to the initial Havah Amina, and according to what we answer "everything appraised."

Note: In the Havah Amina, the text in the Mishnah Kidushin 28a is "Kol ha'Na'aseh Damim", i.e. coins, which are given in place of what is bought. We answered that the text is "everything appraised", i.e. Metaltelim, but not coins.

Question #1: If so, "presumably, this is correct" does not remain in the conclusion according to Rav Nachman. He must say that there is money that is like Chalipin! (Even after we changed the text of the Mishnah, he needed to establish the Seifa to discuss the money for an ox...)

Question #2: According to Rashi, who rules below like Reish Lakish (who says that also mid'Oraisa, coins do not acquire), we cannot establish our Mishnah at all (we cannot answer the current question)!

We hold that Peros do not make Chalipin, like Rav Nachman, so we cannot answer "also Peros make Chalipin";

[We cannot answer] "there is money that is like Chalipin" according to Rashi, who [says that we] rule like Reish Lakish!

Question #3: The text of R. Chananel, the Rif and early Seforim is "also Peros make Chalipin. What is the case? He traded the meat of an ox for a cow...", and in the answer "everything appraised" it does not say "meat of an ox."

Question #4: A Beraisa below (47a) says "how much for your cow? For this amount..." We can challenge Rav Nachman, who says that Peros do not make Chalipin. It cannot discuss money!

Note: Rashash says that Tosfos did not explain why it cannot discuss money. I say that it is clear from the Beraisa that we cannot establish it like above, that he gave his animal in place of money owed money for a previously bought animal, for in the Beraisa both owners needed to ask the price of the other animal (PF)!)

Answer (to Question #4): According to R. Tam, who says that all agree that Chalipin Shaveh b'Shaveh (an even swap) acquires according to everyone, even for Peros, the Beraisa below is fine.

Answer (to all the questions): A live ox and cow are considered like a Kli, for one uses them to carry loads and plow;

According to the answer "everything that is appraised", it is fine even according to Rav Nachman. We challenge Rav Nachman only according to the initial Havah Amina, which said [that coins make Chalipin, and] also Peros make Chalipin. (Maharsha - since the Reisha teaches that coins make Chalipin, for they are Kelim, the Seifa would not need to teach that live animals make Chalipin, for also they are like Kelim! Rather, the Seifa discusses meat, i.e. Peros.)

Question: We should answer that Rav Nachman can answer "everything appraised", like he truly did!

Answer: Presumably, Rav Nachman does not argue with Rav and Levi, who preceded him;

The one [of Rav and Levi] who says that coins make Chalipin must have the text (in the Mishnah) "is made [money, i.e. coins]." [His text cannot say] "whatever must be appraised", for this connotes that it excludes coins;

He (the one who says that coins make Chalipin) must say that also Peros make Chalipin.

The [other] one, who says [that coins] do not make Chalipin, he argues only about coins. However, regarding Peros, they agree. (Just like the former holds that Peros make Chalipin, also this opinion.)

Question: According to R. Tam, we should establish this to discuss Chalipin of a swap also according to Reish Lakish! Why must he hold like Rav Sheshes? We should establish it to discuss Peros, and an even swap!

Answer: [The Seifa] is like the Reisha "anything appraised", which discusses a Kli for a Kli, or [the Reisha says] "anything made (given, i.e. coins)", according to the opinion that [coins] make Chalipin;

[The Reisha] does not discuss an even swap. Likewise, the Seifa of Chalipin of an ox for a cow discusses when they are not even.

Distinction: However, according to the opinion that coins do not make Chalipin, we cannot say that an even swap works.

Source #1: If so (it works), what was the question from "anything made money for something else", and from our Mishnah of "Metaltelim acquire each other", brought below, to prove that coins make Chalipin? Perhaps it discusses an even swap!

Source #2: Also above (46a), why did we need to answer [that we discuss] Perutetos (blank coins)? It is an even swap!

Due to the extra Trisis [that the buyer gave], this is not called uneven. It is uneven only when the sale item is worth twice the amount of the money. Then, it is like Chalipin.

Conclusion: Rather, surely the verse is extra [to teach about] an even swap is for Peros, and not for coins.

Question: According to the opinion that both Peros and coins make Chalipin, what does the verse teach?

Answer #1: It includes dung Kelim, or something not specific (e.g. half a pomegranate), when it is an even swap. Below, we exclude these from the law of [regular] Chalipin.

Answer #2: According to Levi, who says below that [Chalipin is with] the Makneh's Kelim, the verse comes to teach that if it is an even swap, it works even with the buyer's Kelim.

Explanation: He is Makneh them through pardoning the money.

Implied question: It says in Kidushin (6b) that one who is Mekadesh with a loan, she is not Mekudeshes, and regarding a sale, [a loan] does not acquire!

Answer: That is when he was Mekadesh her or bought the item through coins that he (the seller, or the girl's father) owes to him. However, if he was Mekadesh her or bought through Hana'ah of pardoning a loan, it helps, like ["be Mekudeshes to me through your Hana'ah that] I will give you more time [to pay your debt to me], or that I will speak to the governor on behalf of you."