Question: Even if the child is in the buyer's Reshus, this is no proof that he acquired it!

We say in Bava Basra (36a) that there is no Chazakah on Godros (animals or slaves), for perhaps they went by themselves to his Reshus, or he seized them in the street when they were going to graze!

Suggestion: Here, we ask from the case of a Shifchah. We say there that there is a Chazakah on a baby in a crib!

Rejection #1: We answer "here, it is standing in a swamp. Also a Shifchah..." This shows that we ask also from the case of a cow.

Rejection #2: We say there that the reason there is a Chazakah on a baby is because his mother would not forget her son. Here that he sold the mother, why shouldn't we say that she took her son with her to the buyer's house, where she should be?!

Answer: Since there is Drara d'Mamona, and there is a Safek about the matter without their claims, and the buyer claims Vadai, if it is in his Reshus, we do not take from his hand;

However, if he claims "perhaps", it is reasonable that his Chazakah does not help amidst Safek.

Implied question: Why is this unlike one who deposited a live lamb with a Ba'al ha'Bayis, and also the Ba'al ha'Bayis has a live lamb, and one of them died?

It says in Bechoros (18b) that the depositor is ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah. The Ba'al ha'Bayis' Chazakah helps, even though he claims Safek!

Answer: There, initially he was Vadai Muchzak in a live lamb. Here, the buyer was never Vadai Muchzak with this child.

Distinction: If the seller is Muchzak, it helps even if he claims perhaps, for initially he was Vadai Muchzak before the sale, when the cow was pregnant.

Implied question: This is different than the case in Bechoros. There, initially he was Vadai Muchzak in the child. Here, he was never Vadai Muchzak in the child after it was born. [He was Muchzak] only in the fetus.

Answer #1: According to what I explained, that the buyer's Chazakah helps when he claims Vadai, this is fine that we answer that it is in a swamp, and we do not answer that it is in the buyer's Reshus.

Answer #2: We could have answered that it is in Reshus ha'Rabim, but it is not normal for an animal or slave to delay there like in a swamp, Simta or the owner's Reshus.

Inference (Rashbam): Since it does not say "rather, who taught this? It is Sumchus", this implies that we did not retract from establishing it in a swamp;

Sumchus discusses only when neither one is Muchzak, not this one and not this one, but when one is Muchzak, Sumchus agrees that the other must bring a proof.

Question (Ri): Above (97b), we say that if this one says "I do not know if [the cow that died was] borrowed or rented, and this one says "I do not know", they divide, and we establish it like Sumchus, even though the renter in Muchzak in his money!

Answer: There, also the Muchzak is unsure, so his Chazakah does not help. However, here we establish it that it is standing in the swamp, to establish it even when both of them claim Vadai;

If one of them were Muchzak, his Chazakah would help.

Question: In Bava Kama (35b), on our Mishnah of this one says "your ox damaged [my ox]", and this one says "no, [your ox] was damaged on a rock, ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah...

We say in the Gemara "this shows that Sumchus' colleagues argue with him", for according to Sumchus, they divide;

Our Mishnah there discusses Vadai and Vadai, since it teaches "this one says 'no, rather...'", like it says there (that these words connote Vadai claims).

Summation of question: Sumchus admits when the Muchzak claims Vadai, that his Chazakah helps!

Suggestion: There, one might have thought that we discuss in a swamp, and regarding a Tam ox, which pays from its body.

Rejection: Still, what is the source that Sumchus argues with our Mishnah? We can establish it when it is standing in his house. Sumchus agrees, since he claims Vadai! (Tosfos does not resolve this question, and asks another question.)

Question: Why does it say "who taught this? It is Sumchus"? We should establish it even like Rabanan;

Here we do not follow [the Chazakah of] the first owner, for there is another Chazakah against it! We establish it in the Chazakah that it is pregnant, and only now it gave birth!

Answer: The Chazakah of the first owner is more important.

Observation: If Chezkas Mamon was with the Chazakah that it is pregnant, even Sumchus agrees that ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah;

Source: We find in Bava Kama (46a) that we establish the Reisha like Sumchus, and the Seifa teaches "if a cow gored an ox, and it is not known whether the calf was [inside] at the time of the goring...

If different people own the cow and calf, the owner of the cow pays quarter damage (half of what a Tam pays), for he says "we know that there was a partner (the fetus was inside at the time)." He pays only as if the fetus Vadai helped, for ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah;

The reason is because the owner of the cow has two Chazakos - (1) it was pregnant, and now it gave birth, and (2) Chezkas Mamon.

However, from the calf he collects an eighth, for this is half its share (if we would know that it was Vadai a partner), even though [the owner of the calf] is Muchzak [in his money], because the Chazakah of being pregnant is against it.

Question: Above (97b), the Mishnah teaches that if he borrowed it today, and rented it tomorrow, if this one says "I do not know", and this one says "I do not know", they divide;

What is the reason? There are two Chazakos! There is (1) the Chazakah that it is still alive and only now it died, when it was rented, and (2) Chezkas Mamon!

Answer: We must say that "they divide" does not refer to the case in which he borrowed it today, and rented it for tomorrow.

Implied question: He could have asked from the Reisha (97b), this one says "the borrowed [animal] died", and this one says "the rented one", he swears!

Answer #1: He prefers to ask from the Mishnah that we are discussing.

Answer #2: This is fine for the Rashbam, who explains that there Sumchus agrees that they do not divide, since he is Muchzak and he claims Vadai.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [He claims] "I gave to you money to buy an adult slave."

Question: If so, the Mishnah should not have mentioned a buyer and seller, rather, a Shali'ach and Meshale'ach!

Explanation #2 (Ri): The case is, he sold to him a slave and [the buyer] paid money, and he did not write the document yet. We discuss a place where they write a document, or they stipulated that they can retract until the document is given.

Question: How can Sumchus say that they divide? There is no Drara of money (the Safek is due only to their claims), and we said (above, 2b) that Sumchus does not argue in such a case!

Answer: The case is, the seller said in front of witnesses "I will sell an adult slave to you for 25 Dinarim, or a minor slave for 20 Dinarim", and we do not know how much he received from the buyer.

Explanation: Granted, regarding a field, the buyer says "you sold to me 40 sheaves", and the seller says 20. These are the sheaves of a big and of a small [field]. The admission was the same [species] that he claimed;

However, regarding a garment, he demands a big cloak and he admits to a small cloak. He does not admit at all to what was claimed!

Question: Above (98b), we established that if this one says "the borrowed [cow died]", and this one says "the rented one", he swears through Gilgul. Why didn't we ask "does the Mishnah come to teach Gilgul?!"

Answer: Above, it teaches much, that we are Megalgel even to something that does not resemble [the claim about which he must swear], even though it is unlike Sotah (the source of Gilgul Shevu'ah. There, we are Megalgel only what resembles the primary claim, i.e. perhaps she was Mezanah in seclusion.)

Explanation: [R. Meir holds that] we swear also about land, for our Mishnah teaches a slave and a field.

Implied question: [If so,] why does he say [that slaves are like] Metaltelim? (Shevu'ah applies also to land!)

Answer: This excludes documents, for the one who expounds Ribuy u'Mi'ut v'Ribuy excludes only documents, like is proven in Bava Kama (117b);

Below we compare Shevu'ah to Gezeilah to acquire through Shinuy, and also [regarding Gezeilah] there is a Ribuy u'Mi'ut v'Ribuy, like it says there in Bava Kama.

Distinction: However, regarding Kinyan Kesef, slaves are not like Metaltelim according to R. Meir. Rather, they are acquired through Kesef;

Source: Regarding a cow, it says "Machalif" (i.e. Chalipin), because it is not acquired through money, and regarding a Shifchah, it says Mocher (one who sells, which includes Kinyan Kesef), in our Mishnah and the Beraisa below.

Implied question: Why can't we establish [our Mishnah] like Rabanan?

Answer: Below, a Beraisa explicitly says that we do not swear about slaves and land.

Question: What is the source to distinguish, in order to ask?

Answer: He relies on our Mishnah of 10 vines, brought below, that we do not swear about land according to R. Meir, and we swear about slaves, like he answers, and like it says in the Beraisa brought below.

Question: If R. Meir expound Ribuy u'Mi'ut, if so [he should hold that] we swear also about land;

If he expounds Kelalei u'Peratei, [he should hold that] we do not swear also about slaves!

Answer: He expounds Ribuy u'Mi'ut, and he has some exclusion that he uses to exclude land, and not slaves;

The one who expounds Ribuy u'Mi'ut needs two exclusions to exclude land and slaves. One exclusion does not suffice, even though slaves are equated to land, like it says in Bava Kama (62b).

Observation: [Even] without R. Yosi, we can prove that we do not swear about land, since it taught "and they are not like land"!

Observation: Even though here they argue [about Shevu'ah], regarding Shabbos all agree that they are not considered to be harvested, and one who detaches is liable;

Observation: Regarding a creditor (he has a lien to collect from the borrower's land, even if he sells it), Rabanan agree that they are considered to be harvested, since it asks in Kesuvos (51a) "anything destined to be sheared, it is as if it was shorn"!

Rebuttal: However, R. Chananel explained there that we ask based on what we hold in Bava Kama (59b) like R. Shimon, we say that if [an animal] ate finished Peros, it pays finished Peros. (If so, we cannot infer that Rabanan agree.)