1)WHICH TREES ARE EXCLUDED

(a)(Rav): He excludes only trees so tall that one needs a rope to climb up (to harvest it).

(b)(Judges of Bavel): Only trees that impede a plowing ox from passing by are excluded.

(c)They do not argue. Rav discusses date trees, and judges of Bavel discuss other trees.

(d)Version #1 - Question (Rav Acha bar Huna): If he sold 'except for carob (or sycamore) Ploni (a mature tree, it would be excluded anyway)', what is the law?

1.Is that the only (mature) carob excluded, or are all excluded (as if he kept quiet)?

(e)Answer (Rav Sheshes): He does not acquire the others.

(f)Question (Beraisa): If he sold 'except for carob (or sycamore) Ploni', he does not acquire.

1.Suggestion: This means that he does not acquire it, but he acquires the others.

(g)Answer: No, he does not acquire the others.

(h)Support: If he said 'I sell to you my field, except for field Ploni', does he acquire all the fields except for Ploni?!

1.Surely, he does not. Also here, he does not acquire the others.

(i)Version #2 - Question (Rav Acha bar Huna): If he sold 'except for half of carob (or sycamore) Ploni', what is the law?

1.Surely, the others are excluded. Does the buyer get the other half of carob Ploni, or not even that?

(j)Answer (Rav Sheshes): He does not acquire.

(k)Question (Beraisa): If he sold 'except for half of carob (or sycamore) Ploni', he does not acquire.

1.Suggestion: This means that he does not acquire the others, but he acquires half of Ploni.

2.Answer: No, he does not acquire even half of Ploni.

(l)Support: If he said 'I sell to you my field, except for half of field Ploni', does he acquire half of field Ploni?!

1.Surely, he does not. Also here, he does not acquire the other half.

2)A MIGO AGAINST A DOCUMENT

(a)Question (Rav Amram): If Reuven deposited (something) with Shimon with a document, and Shimon claims 'I returned it to you', what is the law?

1.Do we say that since Shimon would be believed to claim 'it was lost through Ones', he is believed to say 'I returned it'?

2.Or, since Reuven still has the document, this proves that he did not return it?

(b)Answer (Rav Chisda): Shimon is believed.

(c)Question (Rav Amram): If he returned it, why does Reuven still have the document?

(d)Answer (Rav Chisda): (Shimon returned it even though Reuven said that he lost the document. He was not afraid lest Reuven later claim with the document, for) if Shimon would say that it was lost through Ones, the document would not disprove this!

70b----------------------------------------70b

(e)Question (Rav Amram): Shimon would have to swear (that it was lost through Ones)!

(f)Answer (Rav Chisda): I meant that Shimon is believed if he swears (that he returned it).

(g)Suggestion: Rav Amram and Rav Chisda argue like the following Tana'im:

1.(Beraisa - judges of Bavel): If Levi brought a Shtar Kis (document of a business venture) against orphans, he swears (that their father never paid) and collects it all;

2.Judges of Eretz Yisrael say, he swears and collects half.

3.All agree with Chachamim of Neharde'a, that Shtar Kis is half a loan, and half a deposit;

4.Suggestion: Judges of Bavel say that since Levi has the document, this proves that he was not paid;

i.Judges of Eretz Yisrael say that their father would be believed to say that the money (or merchandise) was lost through Ones, which would exempt him from paying half (the deposit), therefore he would also be believed to say 'I returned it';

ii.Therefore, we claim on behalf of the orphans, that perhaps their father paid half. (They swear that they do not know that their father still owed.)

(h)Rejection: No, all agree with Rav Chisda (the Migo is believed against the document);

1.Judges of Bavel say that had he paid half, he would have told his children;

2.Judges of Eretz Yisrael hold that perhaps he died suddenly, and was unable to tell them.

(i)(Huna bar Avin): If Reuven deposited with Shimon with a document, Shimon is believed to say 'I returned it';

1.If Levi brings Shtar Kis against orphans, he swears and collects it all.

(j)Objection: These laws contradict each other!

(k)Answer: No. Had the father paid half, he would have told his children.

(l)(Rava): The Halachah is, he swears and collects half.

(m)(Mar Zutra): The Halachah follows the judges of Bavel.

1.Ravina: Rava said that he collects only half!

2.Mar Zutra: Our text of the Beraisa switches the opinions. Judges of Bavel say that he collects half.