Inference: The Halachah follows Rava, for no one argues with him.

Question - Citation (Gitin 74b): A case occurred in which a man told his sharecropper 'other sharecroppers irrigate three times a year and receive a quarter of the yield. If you will irrigate four times, I will give you a third.' Rain came [so there was no need for the extra irrigation];

Rav Yosef said that he did not irrigate extra (he gets only the usual quarter). Rabah said that it was not needed (he did not detract from his contract. He gets the full third.)

It explains there Rabah's reason is because Shamayim had mercy on him [to spare him work]. It is clear there that the Halachah follows Rabah!

Answer: Only regarding a sharecropper, who enters the land to work it like a sharecropper, [the employer] gives a third even if rain comes, due to Safek, for perhaps rain will not come [and he will need to irrigate four times];

This is like other sharecroppers, who receive a quarter even if rain comes and they need not irrigate three times.

However, here the workers are not sharecroppers. Rather, he gives to them wages for the work;

Even if they began work, they receive only according to what they did, since they did not enter the land to be sharecroppers.

Explanation #1: According to texts that say "b'Leilya", we must say that he showed the workers land. If he did not show them, the workers would not lose, like Rava said in the case above [of digging a trench - 76b];

Note: I.e. this is unlike our text, which does not mention night at all, i.e. the rain came during the day. Tosfos does not distinguish between ba'Laylah and b'Leilya.

We need this teaching to teach that when a river came, the employer loses, even though he showed them the land;

Above, in the case of digging, we could not teach that a river came, for it is not common that due to an overflowing river, the land is so full of water that due to this it is not proper to dig in it.

In this case here of irrigating, even if he would distinguish between when he showed the workers and when he did not show them, we could not learn from this the case of digging;

One might have thought that regarding digging, even if he showed them, the workers would not lose, for they would not know that it will be so full of water through the rain that they cannot dig in it;

However, the owner knows his land, that the rain prevents digging in it. He should not have taken them there in the morning.

Explanation #2: Or, we can say that here regarding irrigating, even if he did not show them, the workers lose. Therefore, we do not distinguish between when he showed them and when he did not show them, like we did in the other case (digging);

There, if he did not show them, the workers do not lose, for we do not expect the workers to know that that the rain prevents digging in the land;

However, regarding irrigating, in most fields rivers (irrigation channels) get filled through rain. [The employer] did not need to fear more than the workers. He was not negligent for taking them there.

Implied question: Why does it mention in the middle of the day?

Answer: [The river] is prone to cease in the middle of the day, because people draw water from it to irrigate fields.

Implied question: Above, when we discuss a river coming, we did not distinguish between whether or not it is common to come!

Answer: Stam, it is common to come. Therefore, there are channels to take the water to the entire field.

Implied question: Why didn't we distinguish between people (workers) of that city and people of another city?

Answer: Even if they [live] in the city, the employer loses, for they are not responsible to know about his field, whether or not the river flows into it;

However, if the river dried up, the entire city knows.

Explanation: This means that [the worker] does not have the lower hand, like R. Dosa said. He deducts for them what [the employer] will need to hire workers for a high wage.

Question: In Bava Kama (102a) it says the Halachah follows our Mishnah of "anyone who deviates, he has the lower hand" because it was taught amidst clearcut Halachah of "anyone who retracts";

The Halachah does not follow this Mishnah of "anyone who retracts"! Presumably, the Halachah follows Rav, who argues with it!

Answer #1: [That Gemara] holds like the other version here, that Rav can properly hold like our Mishnah of "anyone who retracts."

Answer #2: Since it was taught amidst clearcut Halachah, if so the Tana holds that this is the Halachah, that anyone who deviates has the lower hand;

Granted, the Halachah does not follow the Mishnah of "anyone who retracts", but the Halachah follow the Mishnah of anyone who deviates, for we do not find an Amora who argues.

Explanation: It is not difficult why he collects from Ziburis (worst quality land, in the Seifa). Even if he is a creditor, Rabanan established him on Torah law, to collect from Ziburis;

(It was enacted that creditors collect from Beinonis, due to Ne'ilas Delet, i.e. lest people be reluctant to lend.) Here, Ne'ilas Delet does not apply.

Implied question: When we answer [that he collects] from the Ziburis in it (the field sold), there was no need to say so. There was no question from Ziburis, like I explained!

Answer #1: We establish it like this so that the Ziburis in it will be like the Idis (best quality land) in it.

Answer #2: [We establish it like this] lest one ask that a borrower may not dispel a creditor with land when the borrower has coins;

When we answer "from the Ziburis in it", it is fine here that he does not pay with coins, for the sale was fulfilled corresponding to the coins that he gave.

Explanation: He does not get Beinonis, because [Chachamim] fined the one who retracts;

Initially, he asked [because he hold that] we should not fine him so much, and collect for him from other Idis (not from the field itself).

Implied question: He is not literally a damager, for we do not estimate according to the damage (loss) that he caused him. He pays only according to the money he received!

Answer: Rather, [Chacham] slightly equated him to a damager, so that [the buyer, i.e. the victim] collects his debt from Idis.

Assertion: It seems that even if he did Meshichah on the sale item, if he did not specify at the time of the sale "this Meshichah will acquire the item, and the money is a loan with me", like with a document, about which he said above "I, Ploni, sold...";

It is unreasonable to say that we discuss [when he did not do Meshichah, and hovering around to get the rest of the coins affects only] Mi she'Para.

Assertion: Even if he hovers around to get all the coins, [the buyer] acquired. "One Zuz" is not precise;

We say below [if Reuven wanted to sell land for 100,] "and he did not toil [to do so, rather, he sold a land for 200], and he hovers around for the coins, is this like one who sells land due to its poor quality, or not?"