Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it refers to "Someone who is Makdish a Sadeh Achuzah'.

Refutation: This is not correct however

Reason: Because if so, the Mishnah which rules 'be'Hekdesh Mutar be'Chulan' goes like Rebbi Shimon and not like the Rabanan.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore establishes it by "Someone who sells a house in a Batei Arei Chomah.

Proof: And this is also evident in the Sugya in the first Perek of Kidushin (on Daf 21a And 20b) ...

Conclusion: But in a case of Makdish Sadeh Achuzah even the Rabanan concede that 'Loveh' and 'Go'el la'Chatza'in'.

Text: In connection with someone who sells a Sadeh Achuzah "ve'Chishav Sh'nei Mimkaro" - 'You must reckon years, but not months' ...

Text (cont.): 'And from where do we know that if he (the seller) to reckon the months as a year, he may? Therefore the Tofrah writes "ve'Chishav" '.

Question: From where do we know that, in both cases, it goes in favor of the seller? (See Avodah Berurah).

Question (cont.): Granted where he counts the months, we would find it where he came to redeem it in the middle of the year, where we count on his behalf the months that passed which the purchaser ate, to deduct from the redemption money, like we reckon the years that passed during which the purchaser ate ...

Question (concl.): But if one does not count the months, how does one find it (See Avodah Berurah)?

Answer: We can find it where he sold it in Nisan for ten and a half Litrin ten and a half years before the Yovel, and he comes to redeem it on Rosh Hashanah five years before the Yovel (See Avodah Berurah).

Explanation #1: In Maseches Nidah (Daf 47b, Tosfos DH 'Kulan') ha'Rav R. Elchanan explains that it is specifically by Batei Arei Chomah (See Avodah Berurah) that we need Me'ed Le'es in hours ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): But by the other cases there, where one possibly goes after their birthdays and not after the years of the world (i.e. Tishri), Me'es Le'es is not necessary ...

Reason: Since by Batei Arei Chomah exclusively, the Torah reveals this ruling, but not by the other cases.

Explanation #2: Tosfos however (See Avodah Berurah) writes here that in all the cases, Me'es Le'es is required ...

Reason: Since we learn "Shanah" "Shanah" from Batei Arei Chomah ...

Source: As the Gemara will say later in a different context.

Conclusion: Rebbi Yochanan concludes 'One goes like Rebbi Yehudah, the other, like the Rabanan ...

Clarification: Meaning that the Mishnah goes according to Rebbi Yehudah, who permits Tzad Echad be'Ribis, the Beraisa, which considers it proper Ribis, according to the Rabanan.

Introduction to Question: Why is this different than a Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa (a Mashkon from which the creditor eats the fruit without deducting from the rental) which is only Avak Ribis (Ribis de'Rabanan), as the Gemara says in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Bav Metzi'a, Daf 62a & 62b) ...

Source: Ravina said to Rav Ashi "But there is Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa, where according to their (i.e. the Nochrim's) laws they claim from the borrower and give to the creditor, yet according to our laws we do not return it from the creditor to the borrower?" ' ...

Question: From which we see that it is not proper Ribis, whereas here the Gemara says that it is?

Answer: According to Rashi's there, who differentiates between a filed and a house, the question falls away ...

Source: In connection with the Mishnah in Perek Eizehu Neshech (Ibid., 64b) 'Someone who lends his friend money, is not permitted to live in his Chatzer free of charge or to rent it from him below the market price because it is Ribis ...

Question: In answer to the question how this differs from Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa, which is permitted ...

Answer: Rashi answers there that one can draw a distinction between a field and a house ...

Reason: Since whilst a field may well not produce fruit, whereas on the other, it is impossible not to derive some benefit from a house in which one resides

Answer (cont.): That is why if he does not deduct from the rental it is Ribis.

Conclusion: According to Rashi, the Kashya here too, is answered - in that the house where he resides is without any doubt, proper Ribis ...

Conclusion (cont.): Whereas the field, since it may well not bear fruit, even if he eats it without deducting, it is not proper Ribis.

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam however, does agree with this distinction ...

Reason: Bearing in mind that even by a house there is a doubt that it might collapse or get burned ...

Refutation (cont.): So there is definitely no difference between a field and a house.

Question: And the case of 'Malveh es Chavero Lo Yiskor mimenu be'Pachos' ...

Answer: One can explain is not comparable to Mashkanta be'Nachyasa (See Avodah Berurah), which is permitted ...

Clarification: Because that is speaking where he lent him against a field which the borrower is not permitted to rent it out to anybody else, since it is in the domain of the lender ...

Reason: Which is not Ribis because the field was not in use anyway.

Implied Question: And the Mishnah which forbids a owner from renting a field from the borrower for less than the market price ...

Answer: Is speaking where he did not lend him against the field or the house, where the borrower retains the right to rent it out to somebody else ...

Answer (cont.): In which case when he (the borrower) reduces the rental for the owner, it is Ribis.

Repeat Question: According to Rabeinu Tam's current explanation, that does not distinguish between a field and a house, the initial Kashya returns ...

Repeat Question: Why is the current case different than a Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa - which the Gemara does not consider proper Ribis?

Answer: We must therefore say that 'proper Ribis' (in the current case) means mi'de'Rabanan ...

Question: And when the Tana says 'only the Torah permits it' ...

Answer: What he means is that by inserting the Din of Batei Arei Chomah, the Torah indicates that such a case is not Ribis d'Oraysa.

Question: According to Rebbi Yehudah, why is Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa not also permitted, since it is Tzad Echad be'Ribis, seeing as the owner may not redeem it?

Answer: It is only considered Tzad Echad be'Ribis if he makes his field a sale, where one side will become a sale should he fail to redeem it within the specified time ...

Answer (cont.): But a Mashkanta be'Lo Nachyasa, where there is no side of Mecher, and which the borrower is able to redeem it without deducting the fruit that the lender ate, that is Ribis ...

Precedent: Similar to 'Someone who lends a Sa'ah for a Sa'ah', which Rebbi Yehudah does not consider Tzad Rchad be'Ribis, despite the fact that the price may not rise ...

Precedent (concl.): Nevertheless, since there is no side of Mecher it is forbidden, and Rebbi Yehudah does not consider it Tzad Echad be'Ribis.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Mishnah and the Beraisa argue in that the Beraisa holds that, when all's said and done, since one side leads to Ribis, it is considered proper Ribis, only the Torah permits it (this is the wording of Rashi).

Explanation #2: One can also explain that the Mishnah and Beraisa argue over a case where he entered the house with the intention of returning the money of the year's rental should he (the seller) come to redeem it during the year ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since the Tana of the Mishnah permits taking Ribis with the intention of returning it, whilst the Tana of the Beraisa forbids it.

Explanation #3: Alternatively, one says one thing, the other, says another and they don't argue - since the Mishnah is speaking where he returns the Ribis should the seller redem it, whereas the Beraisa speaks where he does not.

Explanation #1: One can explain that since it is not like a sale, he can never redeem it, even during twelve months ...

Question: In which case, the Kashya that Tosfos asked earlier in Perek ha'Makdish (Daf 28b [See Avodah Berurah]) - since the Torah writes "Achuzas Olam hi Lahem", we ought to have said that they cannot give their houses as a gift?' is relevant.

Explanation #2: One can also explain however, that 'Matanah is not like Mecher' and the donor can redeem whenever he likes, even after twelve months ...

Answer: In which case, the Kashya falls away, since the Kohanim and the Levi'im are permitted to give away their houses as a gift.

Introduction to Question: It implies here that in the days of Hillel, who lived during the era of the second Beis Hamikdash - as the Gemara says in the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 15a & 15b) 'Hillel, Shimon, Gamliel and Shimon enacted their Nesi'us the last hundred years of the Beis Hamikdash - they kept the Yovel ...

Reason: Seeing as Batei Arei Chomah applied ...

Source: As the Gemara says in the previous Perek (Daf 29a) - 'Batei Arei Chomah only applies when the Yovel applies'.