(Mishnah): A debt is not collected from Meshubadim (i.e. property that was sold to someone else) if the debtor has Bnei Chorin (property that he did not sell), even if it is Ziburis.

We collect from orphans' property only from Ziburis.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan citing R. Yanai): We collect from minor orphans only if there is a document and Ribis is accumulating against them.

Some say, we collect even for a Kesuvah.

(R. Imi): This is due to food. (Through paying the Kesuvah, the orphans are spared feeding the widow.)

(R. Matanyah): Who is concerned for food? It is R. Shimon, for R. Shimon says that it depends on collection. (She is fed until she collects part of her Kesuvah - PNEI MOSHE Kesuvos 9:7, MEICHAL HA'MAYIM.)

Question: What is Rabanan's [reason to allow her to collect]?

Answer: It is due to grace. [She can collect] in order that all men will be eager to marry her.

Some say, [we take from minor orphans] even for theft and damages [of their father].

Support (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): We learned both of these from Mishnayos;

We learn theft from this [Mishnah. If their father stole] something with Achrayus, [the orphans] are obligated to pay.

Note: We taught above that to save from Ribis and food, we collect from minor orphans. Presumably, R. Nasan teaches that we collect theft from minor orphans. Obviously we collect it from adult orphans! However, there is no proof that this Mishnah (Bava Kama 10:1) discusses minor orphans! In the Yerushalmi on this Mishnah, Sumchus says that we collect only from adults! Below, the Sugya proves that the Mishnah about damage discusses minors. Why does it not do so for the Mishnah about theft? I answer that R. Yosi cites the Tosefta (Bava Kama 10:21), which says so explicitly about minor orphans. The words "Im Hayah" are not in the Tosefta; they should be deleted. Perhaps a scribe inserted them, for he thought that R. Yosi cites the Mishnah (PF).

We learn damages from [our Mishnah]. We collect from orphans' property only from Ziburis;

Our Mishnah means that we collect from orphans' property only from Ziburis.

Contradiction (Beraisa): If [the father died, and] the son stood in place of the father, we estimate [to collect] damages from Idis, creditors from Beinonis and a Kesuvah from Ziburis.

Resolution (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Here (the Beraisa teaches that a son is in place of his father to pay damage from Idis) discusses an adult orphan, and here (the Mishnah says that we collect damage from orphans' property only from Ziburis) discusses a minor orphan.

(Mishnah): [The following are not collected from Meshubadim - compensation for] consumed Peros (if Reuven bought a field from Shimon, and really it was Levi's, Levi takes back the field with any Peros that are on it, and Reuven collects their value from Shimon);

[Compensation for] Shevach to land (in the above case, Reuven is compensated for improvements he made to the field);

The food that a widow and (orphaned) daughters receive from the deceased's estate. [All of these] are not collected from Meshubadim, due to Tikun ha'Olam.

One who finds an Aveidah (lost item) need not swear, due to Tikun ha'Olam.

(Gemara - R. Chanina): [They are not collected from Meshubadim], for there is no limit.

If Reuven stole a field from Shimon, and sold it to Levi, and Shimon took it from Levi, Levi collects the principal (what he paid) from Reuven's Meshubadim, and Shimon collects consumed Peros from Reuven's Bnei Chorin.

If Levi had improved [the field], Levi collects the principal from Reuven's Meshubadim, and he collects the Shevach from Reuven's Bnei Chorin.

(R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): [He collects Shevach from Bnei Chorin, but not from Meshubadim] when the [second] sale (Reuven sold land to David) preceded the Shevach, but if the Shevach preceded the sale, Levi collects even the Shevach from Reuven's Meshubadim (for all know that Reuven sold to Levi with Achrayus for the Shevach).

(Rabah citing R. Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): Also for consumed Peros, it is so (if the Peros preceded the second sale, Shimon collects even the Peros from Reuven's Meshubadim).

Question: How is [the law of collecting Shevach]?

Answer #1: [If Levi] spent four Dinarim, and [the field] rose in value six, Levi collects four Dinarim from Reuven's Meshubadim, and he collects the other two from Reuven's Bnei Chorin.

Answer #2 (R. Avin citing Rabanan of there (Bavel)): He does not have the law of one who descended [to another's field] with permission. He has the lower hand against Shimon (he gets the lesser of his expenses and the Shevach).

Answer #3 (R. Yosi bei R. Bun citing Rabanan of there): This is the ultimate case of one who descended [to another's field] with permission! He has the upper hand against Reuven (he gets the greater of his expenses and the Shevach).

If Reuven stole a field from Shimon, and sold it to Levi, and Levi gave it for a gift to Yehudah, and Shimon came and took it from Yehudah, Yehudah cannot come to [collect from] Levi, for he received a gift. Levi comes to [collect from] Reuven, for it was a [phony] sale.

Question: Did not [Levi] gave it for a gift? (He did not lose through Shimon taking it back. Why does he collect from Reuven?)

Answer: He can say, I wanted to give to him, and he would 'repay' me (benefit me, out of appreciation).

If Reuven stole a field from Shimon, and gave it for a gift to Levi, and Shimon took it from Levi, and Levi sold it to Yehudah, and Shimon came and took it from Yehudah, Yehudah comes to [collect from] Levi, for it was a [phony] sale. Levi cannot come to [collect from], for he received a gift;

(R. Yosi citing Rabanan): There is no Shibud (Achrayus) for a gift.

Question: If Reuven stole a field from Shimon, and sold it to Levi, and Reuven went back and bought it from Shimon, and before [Shimon] wrote the document, [Reuven] died - who owns it?

Answer #1: Rav Huna and Chiyah brei d'Rav [argued about this]. One of them said that if they wrote Tarfo [in Reuven's lifetime], it is of Reuven. (Since he could have established it with Levi, but he did not, this shows that he bought it for his heirs.) If not, it is of Levi (presumably, he bought it to make his sale valid, so Levi can keep it);

Answer #2: The other said, whether they wrote or did not write, it is of Levi (unless Reuven explicitly bequeathed it to his heirs).

Answer #3 (R. Mana): Presumably, [in either case] it is Reuven's, for he can say 'I sold to you what was not mine' (your purchase was invalid).

Support (of Answer #2 - R. Yosi bei R. Bun): Presumably, it is Levi's. He can say 'is it not in front of you (now that you bought it)?! Establish my purchase well!' (We explained this like RASHBA.)