Inference: This supports what Rashi explained in Menachos (33a) that we place the Mezuzah vertically. Therefore, one needs a hollow reed, lest it fall;

However, according to R. Tam, one puts it horizontally, like a Sefer Torah resting in an Aron, and not vertically;

Also in Menachos (33a), it says that if one made it like a bolt, it is Pasul. This means vertically;

Source: In Bava Basra (101a) it says that "like a bolt" is like a donkey's burial. This connotes that it is vertical.

Question: If so, why does one need a hollow reed?

This is so it will not be ruined from moisture of the wall.

Reference: I explained this above (11a).

Question: If R. Yosi's law is not true, what is in the Chatzer, why is it of the Ba'al ha'Bayis?

Explanation: These contradict each other. "In the pen" did not need to be taught for itself. Obviously, one who rents a house in a Chatzer has no rights in the pen!

It was taught only to infer that what is in the pen is of the Ba'al ha'Bayis, because the renter has no rights in it, but in the Chatzer, in which the renter walks, enters and leaves his house, it is not of the Ba'al ha'Bayis!

And after, it teaches that even what is in the Chatzer is of the Ba'al ha'Bayis!

Question: We should ask also from the Seifa! Why are they forbidden [only] due to Darchei Shalom? This is absolute Gezel!

Answer #1: He likes to ask from the Reisha. Likewise, he could have asked from the Seifa.

Answer #2: He could not ask from the Seifa, for we could say that it means "they are forbidden due to absolute Gezel", i.e. the eggs, and the mother is "due to Darchei Shalom."

Explanation: They are not forbidden even due to Darchei Shalom!

We answer that this refers to the mothers, i.e. and not the eggs.

Question: Also the mothers [should not be forbidden due to theft, for] they must be sent!

Answer: [They are forbidden due to theft] when there are no eggs under them (so there is no Mitzvah to send them)!

Observation: Alternatively, we could have said like we thought initially, that for eggs that fell there is absolute theft, and for their mothers there is Darchei Shalom.

Assertion: The text does not say "a minor sent it", for if he sent it, the owner of the dovecote acquired mid'Oraisa. Because a minor took it, will it be his (the minor's)?!

Rather, the minor took the eggs without sending. The owner of the dovecote did not acquire the eggs yet.

Question: Even regarding an adult, we could have established it when he put his hand or garment under the eggs at a time when the mother crouches on them, and he did not intend to acquire the eggs yet, for it is forbidden;

Rather, he did so in order that the owner of the dovecote will not acquire the eggs afterwards, and he sent the mother and took the eggs now, and acquired them.

Question: It connotes that Shmuel is unsure according to R. Yosi whether we follow his first words or his latter words;

In Temurah (25b), regarding Temuras Olah and Shelamim, R. Yosi said that his words are fulfilled, i.e. we follow both of them!

In Nazir (9a), Zevachim (30a), Pesachim (53a) and Menachos (103b), R. Yosi holds that we follow a person's final words!

Answer: Here he is unsure, for you cannot say that he intends for both of them, for they contradict each other;

However, in Temurah, that [his two statements] do not contradict each other, R. Yosi said that we follow both of them;

In the case in Nazir, in which he explains his words "I am a Nazir from figs", and "it is upon me to bring a Minchah from barley", we say that we follow his final words.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We would have thought that "Astira Me'ah Ma'ah" is Me'ah Ma'ah, not because we follow his latter words, rather, because [his final words] explain that "Astira" is esteemed, and it is worth 100 Ma'os (Perutos. A standard Astira is a Chetzi Dinar, which is worth only 96 Perutos.)

Question: A Mishnah (Bava Basra 165b) says that [if a document said] "100 Zuz, which are 30 Sela'im (120 Zuz), he has only 100;

Inference: When it (the latter expression) explains [the former], we follow the smaller expression, to say that they are 30 inferior Sela'im!

Suggestion: There, it does not explain, even though it says "d'Inun" (which are), because they are so far from each other, 100 (Zuz) from 30 (Sela'im, i.e. 120 Zuz). Rather, he retracted.

Rejection: If so, everything would follow the bottom (latter), like the Mishnah says there "if he wrote above 100, and below 200, we follow the bottom"!

Explanation #2 (Ri): If we would learn from the case of Astira, one might have thought that here it explains, and the tenant gets the entire [month];

He said as follows. It is 12 Dinarim for the year, but you must pay me a Dinar every month. I will not wait until the end of the year like rental, which is due to be paid only at the end.

Support: It says like this in Bava Basra (105a) regarding "Ben Nanas' colleagues argue with him."

Explanation #2 (cont.): Had he said only the law here, that the owner gets the entire [month, one might have thought that in the case of Astira, (Me'ah Ma'ah) explains it, and we follow the smaller expression, like the case in Bava Basra (165b), even though he did not say there "d'Inun Me'ah Ma'ah", like he said there (d'Inun 30 Sela'im);

Alternatively, one might have thought that "the owner gets the entire [month]" is not because we follow the latter expression, rather, because he is unsure;

Because land is in the Chazakah of its owner, the owner gets [the month], and even if he reversed the order (first he said a Dinar every month, and then 12 Dinarim for the year), like Rav Nachman said.

Explanation #3 (Rashbam in Bava Basra): If we learned from the bathhouse, one might have thought that it explains, for he was unsure [whether it will be a leap year];

He said 12 Dinarim for the year if it is simple (not a leap year), and a Dinar every month if it is a leap year. Therefore, the owner gets the entire [month], but not because we follow the latter expression.

Question #1: Now, "it explains" is not like the case above there, like the Ri explained.

Question #2: We need not reject [learning from] the case of the bathhouse because it (the latter expression) explains;

Even without this, we can reject that the reason is because land is in the Chazakah of its owner, and even if he reversed the order!

Observation: Like the Ri explained, this is fine;

Question: However, in Bava Basra (105a) the words "if from there [I would have thought that he explains]" are difficult [for the Ri]. It connotes that they refer to the bathhouse!

Answer: There are many cases like this in the Gemara ("if from there" does not refer to the last matter mentioned).

Question: According to the Rashbam, "if from there" is difficult in our Sugya.

Question: According to Rashi, it is difficult there, unless you explain there like the Rashbam, and here like Rashi.

Alternative text: Some texts do not say "if from there", rather, only "what might one have thought." This is better.

Question: According to Abaye, who said in Bava Basra (5a) that a person is prone to pay within the time, why is the Chazakah that he was not redeemed?

Answer #1: There, the reason [why a person is prone to pay within the time] is lest [the creditor] bother him [to pay him]. This does not apply to Pidyon ha'Ben, for one may give to any Kohen he wants (no one can demand payment from him).

Objection: If so, how do we bring from it a proof to a renter, to whom the reason lest [the owner] bother him [to pay the rent] applies?

Answer #2: The Chazakah is that he was not redeemed, for [the father] fears lest the son die, or the coins be consumed within 30 days, and his son is not redeemed, like Rava taught in Bechoros (49a);

Also a renter fears to pay rental in advance, lest the house fall, or the owner's house fall, and he will evict the tenant, for he says to him "you are no better than me" (that you should live in my house, and I should sleep on the ground), like we said above (101b).