Assertion (Ri): This is not Tavlul (like Rashi explained), for the Tosefta taught this matter itself that we paint the eye for Chavrur, and in Bechoros (38b) it lists Tavlul and Chavrur (amidst Mumim). This shows that Tavlul is not Chavrur!

Alternative text: The text in the Tosefta says "and other kinds of liquids."

Support: The text in the Tosefta is correct, for not all liquids have the Shi'ur of a Revi'is. Wine, oil, honey and water have the Shi'urim taught in our Mishnah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We could have said "what is the case? He stored it and took it out", but he prefers to answer when the Matzni'a (the one who stored it) did not take it out himself, because it is like R. Shimon ben Elazar.

Question #1: What is his source that it is like R. Shimon ben Elazar? Just the contrary, it is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who was the last Tana mentioned [before this]!

Question #2: Why does it mention a Talmid whose Rebbi told him? The same applies to any person! It is difficult to say that R. Shimon obligates due to another's intent only regarding a Talmid for his Rebbi!

Explanation #2: Is the Matzni'a not Motzi? Since it did not teach "but one who was Matzni'a any amount", which would connote that the Matzni'a was Motzi, like we inferred above (75b-76a, from) "only the Matzni'a is liable", that our Mishnah (75b) is unlike R. Shimon ben Elazar...

Rather, it taught "b'Matzni'a" (when one stores it). This implies that even if someone else stored it, the Motzi is liable;

Therefore, it is difficult for him - is the Matzni'a not the one who is Motzi? Every Tana obligates only when the one who stored it was Motzi, except for R. Shimon ben Elazar, and the Stam Mishnah above (75b) is unlike him! (Therefore, it is difficult to say that our Stam Beraisa is like him.)

We answer [that the Beraisa discusses] a Rebbi who told his Talmid. In such a case, all agree that the Talmid does everything according to his Rebbi's intent.

Explanation: We ask only about the Beraisa.

Support: It connotes like this below (79a). It asks that regarding mud, [the Shi'ur before kneading is unlike the Shi'ur after kneading!] Before kneading, a Beraisa teaches that Chachamim agree to R. Shimon about the Shi'ur for Hotza'ah of waste water. We asked, what use is there for waste water?...

Inference: [Since we cited the Beraisa before asking "what use is there for waste water?", and we did not ask this about our Mishnah] this implies that our Mishnah was fine!

Answer (Ri): This is because waste water in our Mishnah, we can say that it is useful for many things, e.g. to wash cups and bowls. It is not so repulsive, just it is not proper to drink;

However, here it was taught similar to blood, which is very repulsive. Therefore, we ask what it is useful for.

Explanation (Rashi): This is lard or oil.

Objection: You are forced to say that it is not oil, for Chachamim gave a different Shi'ur for oil in our Mishnah (76b)!

Implied question: In Pesachim (30b), we say that we do not smear an oven [for baking bread] with lard of the tail, and if he smeared, all the bread is forbidden [lest he eat it with milk]!

Answer: It says there (36b) that the amount of an ox's eye is permitted. (Such a small amount will be finished before people forget that it is meaty.)

Explanation: It needs to teach that this is even if he wrote on parchment, even though it taught afterwards that the Shi'ur for parchment is to write the smallest Parshah in Tefilin.

Explanation #1: When writing, he needs a place to hold [the paper]. We must say that one can write a tax receipt without holding it.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): When looking at it, he needs a place to hold it.

Explanation: Because [the first Tana holds that even if a borrower admits that he authorized a document, the lender must validate it,] when the borrower says "I paid", [the lender] is exempt [for Hotza'ah of the document], for he cannot collect with it. The case is, he knows that he cannot find witnesses [who recognize the signatures] for Kiyum.

Question: Even if [the borrower] did not pay, why is [the lender] liable [for Hotza'ah]? What use does the document have, since he cannot validate it? If [the borrower] will claim "I paid" or that it is forged, he will be exempt, and if he will admit, it is not due to the document!

Answer #1: The document helps him, for due to it, the borrower remembers that he borrowed from him.

Answer #2: [The document helps] to collect from Meshubadim (property that the borrower sold), if the borrower will admit that it is not forged.

Question: After he paid, why is one who is Motzi the document exempt? Granted, it is not useful to collect his debt, but it is proper to wrap on his flask (like a cork)!

Even though it is forbidden to keep a paid document, how can we take it from him, since he screams that it was not paid?

Answer: The case is, he says "I have no witnesses and no proof, and I will not be able to validate it." Even if he finds [a proof] later, it does not help. Therefore it is forbidden to keep it, lest later he validate it and collect illegally. (He can erase the signatures or write over them. Then there is no concern - PF.)

Suggestion: If we would not claim for buyers and orphans [that perhaps a document brought against them was] forged, it would be fine that it is forbidden to keep it [lest he use it against buyers or orphans, whether do not know that it was also!

Rejection: I explained in Kesuvos (92b DH Dina), Bava Metzi'a (13b DH v'Ha) and Gitin (2a DH v'Im) that we claim for buyers and orphans that [perhaps] it was paid or forged. I elaborated there.

Question: Why doesn't it say oppositely, that the first Tana says that he need not validate it, and "after he paid it" is like it connotes, that he truly paid it?

He is exempt [for Hotza'ah] because it is forbidden to keep a paid document, lest he collect with it again, for when the borrower will claim the truth, that he paid it, the lender will not need to validate it, and he will collect a second time!

And R. Yehudah holds that he must validate it, and even after [the borrower] paid it, he is liable [for Hotza'ah], for he needs it to wrap on his bottle! There is no Isur to keep it, for the case is, it is known that [the lender] will not find witnesses to validate it, and he cannot collect a second time;

When the borrower will claim the truth, that he paid, the lender will need to validate it [and he cannot]!

Answer: Even R. Yehudah would forbid keeping it, lest [the lender] by chance happens to validate it, and he will collect illegally.

Support: This is the correct text, for we hold like this, for Rav Nachman holds like this in Kesuvos (19a), and the Halachah follows him in monetary laws.