1)

(a)If someone is Mudar Hana'ah from his friend, the Mishnah in Nedarim permits the latter to pay his annual half-Shekel for his share in the Korbanos as well as his debts. The third thing the Tana permits him to do is - to return his lost articles.

(b)If both are Mudar Hana'ah from each other, says the Tana, then, in a place where it is customary to pay the returner of a lost article for his services, the owner of the lost article must pay the money to Hekdesh (and not to the returner). He cannot just keep it - because then he will be contravening the Neder forbidding him to benefit from the returner.

(c)When we ascribe the concession to pay the Mudar Hana'ah's half-Shekel to the fact that he is only performing a Mitzvah - we mean that the half-Shekel is only a Mitzvah, and that even if he fails to give it, the latter will acquire a portion in the public Korbanos anyway. Consequently, the only benefit that he receives is a Mitzvah, in which case, we will apply the principle 'Mitzvos Lav Lehanos Nitnu'.

(d)When the Tana of the Mishnah in Shekalim says 'Tormin al he'Avud', he means that when the Kohen empties the boxes for the public Korbanos, he is taking even on behalf of people who sent their half-Shekel but it got lost. When he says ...

1. ... v'Al ha'Gavuy' - he is referring to people whose half-Shekel got lost after they have already given it to the treasurer of Hekdesh.

2. ... v'Al he'Asid li'Gavos' - he is referring to those who had not yet given their half-Shekel (even if they fail to subsequently give it).

2)

(a)The Madir Hana'ah is permitted to return the Mudar's lost article - because, from the point of view of the actual article, he is merely giving him what is already his; whereas as far as the trouble of returning it is concerned, he is performing a Mitzvah (and not doing him a personal favor).

(b)To explain how the Madir is permitted to pay the Mudar's debts, Rav Oshaya establishes this Mishnah like Chanan in our Mishnah - who holds that someone who volunteers to pay someone's debts cannot reclaim the money he paid (since it is considered as if he gave the creditor a personal gift, rather than having paid the debtor's loan).

(c)According to Rava, the author of the Mishnah in Nedarim could even be the Rabanan (the Bnei Kohanim Gedolim) - and the Tana speaks when he borrowed the money on the express condition that it need not be returned (in which case he has not given him anything).

(d)Rava disagrees with Rav Oshaya, because he prefers to establish the Mishnah in Nedarim like the Rabanan. Rav Oshaya, on the other hand, declines to learn like Rava - because even if he did make such a condition, the Madir supplies him with the benefit of alleviating his shame, which a person who borrows and does nor pay back is bound to experience.

3)

(a)Admon said seven things: According to the Tana Kama, when a man dies leaving little property, the girls are fed and the boys can go begging at the doors. By 'little property' - the Tana means that the property will not suffice to feed all parties concerned for even twelve months.

(b)Admon asks - why the boys should lose out just because there is little property?

(c)We reject Abaye's explanation of Admon, that since the boys are able to learn Torah, they ought not to lose - because then, by the same token, boys who do not learn Torah, ought not to inherit.

(d)So Rava explains that what Admon means is - that since when there is a lot of property, the boys inherit all the property, why should they lose out just because there is little?

4)

(a)According to Admon, if someone claims jars of oil from his friend, who counters that he owes him empty jars, he is Chayav to swear - the Shevu'ah of 'Modeh b'Miktzas' (like any defendant who admits to part of the claim).

(b)According to the Chachamim - he is Patur.

(c)In both this Mishnah, the previous one and the next one - Raban Gamliel agrees with Admon.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah extrapolates from the Chachamim in our Mishnah that 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, v'Hodeh b'Achad Meihen' - is Patur ...

(b)... posing a Kashya on Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel - who rules that someone whose friend claims from him wheat and barley, and he admits to owing him one of the two, is Chayav to swear (like a regular Modeh b'Miktzas).

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav answers this by explaining 'Kadei Shemen' to mean a quantity - by which he means that the claimant is claiming, not barrels, but the amount of oil that fills ten barrels (say) ...

(d)... turning it into a case of 'Ta'ano b'Chitin v'Hodeh lo bi'Se'orin', in which case even Shmuel will agree that he is Patur.

(e)the problem with this answer is - why Admon then disagrees.

6)

(a)Therefore, Rava divides the issue into three categories. He places ...

1. ... 'M'lo Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh Li b'Borcha' - into the category of 'Ta'ano Chitin v'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orin' (since he is claiming only oil, but not the barrels), in which case everybody agrees that he is Patur.

2. ... 'Asarah Kadei Shemen Mele'im Yesh Li b'Borcha' - into the category of 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin v'Hodeh Lo b'Achad Meihen' (since he is claiming both the oil and the barrels), and (according to Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel) everybody agrees that he is Chayav.

(b)Whereas 'Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh Li b'Borcha' - is the case over which the Tana'im are arguing in our Mishnah. According to Admon, this Lashon includes the barrels, and he is Chayav to swear (like Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel); whereas the Chachamim hold that it does not, and he is Patur.

(c)Establishing the Machlokes like this (that even the Chachamim will agree that 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin v'Hodeh Lo b'Achad Meihen, Chayav') poses a Kashya on Rebbi Chiya bar Aba who holds 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin v'Hodeh Lo b'Achad Meihen, Patur'.

7)

(a)Rav Shimi bar Ashi tries to reconcile Rebbi Chiya bar Aba with our Mishnah, by comparing the case of the barrels of oil to a pomegranate with its skin - meaning that, like the latter, they are like one object, rendering the case like a regular 'Modeh b'Miktzas', whereas 'wheat and barley' are two independent objects.

(b)Ravina rejects this comparison - because, whereas a pomegranate needs its skin for protection (rendering it like one object), the oil does not need the barrel (seeing as it can be guarded in the pit even without it, in which case they are two distinct objects).

(c)We conclude that Admon and the Chachamim argue in a case when the claimant claims ten barrels of oil, and the defendant admits to five. The basis of their Machlokes is now - whether this Lashon ('Asarah Kadei Shemen Yesh Li Etzlecha') incorporates the barrels (Admon) or not (the Chachamim). Consequently, according to Admon, it is a case of 'Ta'ano Chitin u'Se'orin, v'Hodeh Lo b'Miktzas Chitin' (and he is Chayav); whereas according to the Chachamim, it is a case of 'Ta'ano Chitin, v'Hodeh Lo b'Miktzas Se'orin' (and he is Patur).

(d)Assuming that 'ten barrels of oil' does incorporate barrels (like Admon), he must nevertheless swear on the oil, despite the fact that he denied it completely - on the basis of 'Gilgul Shevu'ah' (someone who is Chayav a Shevu'ah anyway, can be made to swear even on something from which he would normally be exempt, too).