Question: And if you ask 'It is obvious that when Shmuel rules the sale is Bateil and the money ie returned, he is referring to 'ha'Mocher Sadeihu bi'Shenas ha'Yovel' ...

Question (cont.): Because, if he would lose the money, what would be the difference between Rav and Shmuel?

Answer #1: The difference is - if the purchaser chopped down the trees that were in it. According to Rav who declares the sale valid - the field goes back as itis, but the trees that he chopped down, he may retain ...

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas according to Shmuel, who says that the sale is not valid and the money is a gift - the trees go back to the owner, despite the fact that the purchaser does not get his money back.

Answer #2: Alternatively, where together with the firld, he sold Metalt'lin, and where the purchaser made a Chazakah on the field but did not make a Meshichah on the Metzlt'lin ...

Answer #2: And we Pasken that 'Metalt'lin can be acquired together with Karka, via money, a Sh'tar or Chazakah, and a Meshichah is not necessary ...

Answer #2 (cont.): According to Rav, who holds 'Mechurah ve'Yotz'ah' - the field will go back whilsts the Metlt'lin are acquired, whereas according to Shmuel, who holds 'Einah Mechurah u'Ma'os Matanah', the Metalt'lin are not acquired, since the Chazakah on the Karka was not a Chazakah (Until here is the wording of Rashi).

Introduction to Question: According to Rashi's explanation that Rav holds that although the sale is valid but it reverts to the owner, he nevertheless acquires the Metalt'lin with it, they query him from the first Perek in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 11a) ...

Introduction to Question: From the episode with Raban Gamliel and the elders who were traveling in a boat, where Raban Gamliel declared 'The Ma'aser that I am going to measure is given to Yehoshua and its location is rented to him' - the Seifa adds that he paid rent for the location ...

Question #1: Why did he need to pay rent? Why could he not give it to him as a Matanah on condition that he returns it ...

Question #2: Or to acquire it via a Kinyan Chalipin with a cloth (Note: It is only the first question that Tosfos asks specifically on Rashi [Avodah Berurah])

Question #3: Alternatively, why not lend lend him the location and acquire it with a Kinyan Sudar?

Answer: Anything that goes back to the owner, such as a Matanah al-M'nas Lehachzir, a loan or rental, canno be acquired via Chalipin ...

Reason: Since it is similar to Tovas Hana'ah (an abstract benefit) of which the Gemara says there (on Amud Beis) that it is not Mamon to acquire with Chalipin.

Conclusion: That is why he had to receive money from Rebbi Yehoshua.

Conclusion: According to the ultimate explanation - as the Gemara proved earlier, on Daf 29b (Avodah Berurah) that the money is returned, we say that it is not comparable to 'Mekadesh Achoso' ...

Reason: Since 'Everybody knows that Kidushin does not take effect on his sister, so he gives the money in the form of a gift' ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas in the case of someone who sells his field in the Yovel, people are generally experts and do not therefore give the money as a gift.

Implied Question: The same will apply to the reverse case ...

Answer: Only the Gemara mentions the norm.

Implied Question: The Gemara could just as well have mentioned where the price was originally high and it went down, by one purchaser alone ...

Implied Question (cont.): In which case, according to Rebbi who does not contend with the balance, whether it is the seller or the man who currently owns the field, and he redeems it according to the sale value, which is the more expensive price.

Implied Question (concl.): Whereas according to Dustai b'Rebbi Yehudah we go after the current balance of the land, and it is redeemed accordingly.

Answer: Only since the Mishnah is speaking about two sellers, the Gemara prefers to speak about two sellers as well.

Refuted Text: This is how the text reads according to all the Sefarim.

Refutation: However this is not the correct text ...

Reason: Since it is merely the he narrative concerning the Eved - "because he loves you since he had it good with with you"; it is not a command!

Authentic Text: The text therefore conforms to that of the Sifri - "ke'Soshav ke'Sachir Yih'yeh Imach", which is a command.

Clarification: This refers to doing business (with Sh'mitah produce) - which is not the main Isur, since the main Isur is plowing and planting.

Question: How do we know that all the punishments mentioned here come as a result of business alone, and not as a result of plowing and planting?

Answer: It is 'measure for measure', in that because he sold the fruits of Sh'mitah, he now has to sell all that he owns.

Clarification: It makes this D'rashah because in the end Avodas-Kochavim will be destroyed.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Pasuk is not referring to where the value of the land declined or rose.

Refutation: This is not correct however ...

Reason: Because if that is so, this is merely the simple explanation of the Pasuk, which one can learn without any Yitur (extra letters), whereas it is implied that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns from a Yitur?

Explanation #2: What the Gemara therefore means is - 'Let us say that where he worked two years and four remained, he should pay him four "from the money of the sale" (which is the closest), irrespective of whether it depreciated or improved ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas where he worked four years and two remain, he should give him two "according to his current value, irrespective of whether it depreciated or improved ...

Explanation #2 (concl.):Therefore the extra Pasuk (i.e. the 'BZeis' in "ba'Shanim") to teach us that we do not go after the closeness, but to the more lenient of the two (See Avodah Berurah).