Clarification: Without Achrayos it would be obvious that one gives the money to the heirs, even Shimon had not turned the payment into a loan.

Clarification (cont.): But now that Reuven sold it with Achrayos, Rami bar Chami is teaching us that, even though we might have thought that Shimon is permitted to keep the money, since it is as if he would have seized it during Reuven's lifetime, this is not the case, seeing as he turned it into a loan.

Clarification: The Chidush here is that Shimon cannot claim that even though he gave the creditor money, what he gave him was the money that he owed the Yesomim's father, Reuven.

Question: Why do we not say the same with regard to Metalt'lin?

Answer: The Ri explains that it is only with regard to Karka, which is subject to Shi'bud, that we can say this, because when this land is Meshu'bad to Reuven, we consider it as if it is in his possession.

Reason: This is because if the owner were to sell it or to give it as a security, Reuven would have the right to claim it. That is why it is also Meshu'bad to the creditor.

Reason (cont.): Whereas we cannot, by the same token, consider Metalt'lin as if they are in Reuven's possession, because if the owner were to sell them or to give them as a security, he would be unable to claim them.

Halachah: From this Sugya we have a proof that the Halachah is like Rebbi Nasan, seeing as Rava holds like him in the course of the Sugya.

Question #1: The Riva asks how Abaye will explains that, bearing in mind that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Meir can only argue over Rebbi Yitzchak, why in the Seifa does everyone agree that one transgresses, even though he has not acquired it, seeing as he claims retroactively?

Question #2: And in the Reisha too, why does one not transgress according to the opinion that holds that one claims retroactively?

Answer: The Riva answers that now that we establish the Machlokes like Rebbi Yitzchak, it speaks that the Yisrael did not actually manage to claim it because the Nochri ultimately redeemed it, in which case the Machlokes between Abaye and Rava is not applicable.

Answer (cont.): And the Machlokes is - that the one who says that he transgresses holds that a Yisrael acquires from a Nochri, in which case it is in the domain of the Yisrael; whereas the one who holds that he does not, holds that since he does not acquire it, it is not in his domain.

Answer (cont.): Whereas in the Seifa, everyone agrees that he transgresses, seeing as they both agree that the Nochri does not acquire from the Yisrael, and it remains in the domain of the Yisrael.

Conclusion: Our Mishnah however, which states that 'A Nochri who lent a Yisrael ... it is Mutar be'Hana'ah, speaks where the Yisrael did not redeem it, because if he did, even though we will shortly establish it where he specifically said 'from now' (retroactively), nevertheless what purpose would that serve?

Question: But Rebbi only said that a creditor acquires the Mashkon if it was given after the loan took place, as is evident in 'ha'Umnin' (Bava Metzi'a 82.), whereas here the Lashon the Mishnah says 'A Yisrael who lent a Nochri against his Chametz', which implies that it was given at the time of the loan ...

Source: as is implied in 'ha'Umnin', where the Gemara queries the Mishnah which states ''If he lent him against his Mashkon, he is a Shomer Sachar' from a Beraisa which declares him a Shomer Chinam ...

Source (cont.): And it answers that one of them (the latter) speaks where he gave it at the time of the loan, whilst the other speaks where he gave it after the loan took place.

Source (cont.): And the Gemara then asks 'But do both not say 'against a Mashkon'?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that since a Mashkon that is given after the loan acquires completely, as Rebbi Yitzchak says, then even if it is given against the loan it ought to be considered his (the creditor's) at least with regard to Chametz, since it is considered 'Matzuy' (found by him) ...

Precedent: And this is also how we must explain the Gemara in Gitin (37.) which states that if someone lends against a Mashkon, the loan is not cancelled at the end of the Sh'mitah, based on Rebbi Yitzchak ...

Precedent (cont.): Since one acquires it when it is given after the loan, then when it is given at the time of the loan, then it falls under the category of 'your brother's in your hands'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he acquires the security with regard to being liable for Onsin.

Explanation #2: The Ri says that in 'ha'Umnin' it is implied that one only becomes a Shomer Sachar, since the Gemara there wants to say that someone who lends against a security is a Shomer Sachar, since he holds like Rebbi Yitzchak.

Clarification: The entire Sugya speaks about the Chametz of a Nochri in the hands of a Yisrael on which he did not accept liability

Reason: Because if he did, it would be considered his, and he would transgress for having it, as is evident in the first Perek (Daf 5:).

Clarification: According to Abaye, the Reisha speaks where he actually redeemed it, the Seifa, where he said 'You already have it', in other words, where he does not want to redeem it.