Explanation: However, he does not get Metaltelim.

Implied question: It says below (150b) that if one said "all Nichsayai are to Ploni", [even] a shirt is called Nechasai!

Answer #1: The word "Nichsayai" is different [than Nechasai]. It connotes inclusion more than "Nechasai", which we discuss here.

Suggestion: Perhaps there is different, for he said "all Nechasai"!

Rejection: If so, we should have distinguished there, like we distinguished there between "my Metaltelim" and "all my Metaltelim."

Answer #2: There we discuss a gift. People give generously. Here we discuss a sale.

Explanation: We discuss when he specified the border in all four directions, like the Rashbam explained.

Suggestion: Perhaps he specified the border only in the east and west, but not in the north and south!

Rejection: If so, how could Rav Asi say that he should acquire the triangle? Just the contrary, he should have asked that he should acquire only one furrow in the east, and one furrow in the west!

Rav Asi holds below that when he specified three borders, but not the fourth, he acquires only one furrow along every [border specified]!

Question (Ri): According to the Rashbam, if he specified the border in four directions, why does he acquire only corresponding to the short one? If so, why did he specify the fourth border?

Answer: This is not difficult. We can say that he gave wide borders [but he does not acquire everything inside them, like we said above on 61b].

Explanation (Rashbam): [He admitted in this case even] before he was silent.

Inference: This shows that when he was silent, he admitted to them.

Implied question: Below (62b), Rabah was silent to Abaye, even though he did not admit to him. Rather, he was not concerned to answer him!

Answer: Here we cannot say so, for Rav Kahana and Rav Asi were like Talmidei Chaverim to Rav, like it says in Sanhedrin (36b) that they did not need [Rav] for reasoning [but they needed to hear teachings from him].

Support: In most places, Rav admitted when he was silent to them;

Source #1: In Bava Kama (11a) regarding that we do not evaluate [the value of the carcass towards the required payment] for thieves or robbers, we say "just the contrary! Since Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav if that is really the law, and Rav was silent, this shows that we do evaluate!"

We do not say that he was not concerned to answer!

Source #2: In Beitzah (6a), regarding a chick born on Yom Tov, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav "what is the difference between this and a calf born from a Tereifah?", and Rav was silent;

Citation (6a - Rav Yosef): Why was Rav silent? He should say to them "because [the mother] was prepared along with its mother for dogs!" (It was destined to be fed to dogs. It did not require Shechitah or any other action, so it was not Muktzeh. The same applies to the fetus inside it.)

Source #3: In Bava Metzi'a (69b), regarding a boat, Rav permits to rent it if the renter will pay if it breaks. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked that if he rents it, he is exempt for breakage. If he is liable for breakage, [he is a borrower, and] he does not pay rent! Rav was silent.

Rav Sheshes: Rav should have defended himself from a Beraisa!...

Conclusion: All of these show that he was silent not because he was not concerned to answer, rather, because he admitted.

Explanation #1: He should have written only "opposite Yehudah", and not written Reuven. Since he wrote Reuven, this shows that he means the triangle.

Question: This text is wrong. Why should we discuss such a case? Now, he skipped Levi. (I.e. we say that he did not give what is opposite Levi's border.) He should have skipped Yehudah, who is last!

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): The text should say "since he should have written Reuven opposite Levi." Now, he skipped Yehudah.

Question (R. Tam): It should have said "since he should not have written Shimon, and he wrote [Shimon], this shows that he means the triangle"!

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): The first text is correct. It does not refer to the primary teaching of Rav, who said that he acquires only opposite the short side, for if so, it should have said "since he should not have written Reuven...";

Rather, it refers to the inference. Just like Rav said that he acquires only opposite the short side...

Similarly, if he specified the borders of Reuven and Shimon in the east, and the border of Levi, half the field, in the west, and by Levi is Hefker land, Rav agrees that he acquires opposite the long side, since he had no way to specify the border.

Regarding this, [the Gemara] says that when he had a way to specify the border, e.g. Levi and Yehudah are in the west, Rav agrees that he does not acquire opposite the long side, if he skipped Yehudah.

The text says "since he should have written Yehudah opposite Shimon." If it says "Shimon opposite Yehudah", the wording is difficult. (This connotes that he wrote Yehudah.)

Objection: This Perush is difficult. He does not refer to the words of Rav, only to the inference.

Question: Why didn't the Gemara say "Rav admits" regarding his primary teaching, like the Rashbam explained, and say that since he should not have written...?

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara was not concerned to explain this, for it is obvious that he did not say here that he acquires only opposite the short side;

Surely he did not specify Shimon's border for naught. The Gemara needed to explain only why he does not acquire opposite the long side, since he specified Shimon's border.

Implied question: Had he written to him "land between the fields of Reuven and the fields of Shimon", we could say that he acquires half the field like this [the picture in Tosfos]!

Answer: We could not say so. If so, it is not between the fields of Reuven and the fields of Shimon! (It borders only one field of Shimon.)

However, I would have thought that he acquired a diagonal from corner to corner. This is between the fields of Reuven and the fields of Shimon in the corners.

Explanation #1 (Ri): This is (e.g.) on the east and south, i.e. from two [adjacent] sides.

Objection: (The question about specifying borders like a Gam was not resolved. Perhaps he acquires the entire area in between.) If so, why must one write above "the border of Reuven in two directions, and the border of Shimon in two directions", if he acquires like a Gam? (Even if he wrote one direction of each, he acquires everything!)

Explanation #2: The Rashbam's Perush is primary. (He specified two "L"-shapes in opposite corners.)

Implied question: Normally, everywhere we say ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah, and we leave money in its owner's Chazakah!

This is whether the Safek is about how the case occurred, e.g. above, when he said that both of them have witnesses. We leave the land where (in the Chazakah of whom) it stands;

It is also regarding a Safek about the Halachah, like in Bava Metzi'a (102b), in which Shmuel establishes our Mishnah to be when one rented a bathhouse (for 12 Dinarim for the year, a Dinar per month, and it was made a leap year), and he comes in the middle of the month;

They divide, because we are unsure whether the first expression is primary, or the latter. However, if he came at the beginning of the month, it belongs totally to the owner. If he came at the end of the month, it belongs totally to the renter, for ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.

Answer: It seems that here, Chachamim saw proper to do Shuda (the judges rule according to their discretion).

Implied question: Regarding one who was Mekadesh with 20 (Sela'im, i.e. 80 Zuz, and she became forbidden to him b'Ones, e.g. a Kohen's wife was raped), he gives to her [another] 30 half (Sela'im, i.e. 60 Zuz - below, 145a). R. Yosi is in doubt whether or not Kidushin money must be returned);

He counts only half of the Kidushin money (40 Zuz) towards the Kesuvah, i.e. they divide. (We discuss a widow, who receives a Kesuvah of 100. Therefore, he gives another 60.) He did not want to say ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah, even though presumably he does not hold like Sumchus (who says that we divide money in Safek), for the Halachah does not follow [Sumchus].

Also, Shmuel establishes the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, which cites R. Yosi, to be when he comes in the middle of the month, i.e. like Rabanan who argue with Sumchus.

Also, Rav Asi in Bava Kama (9a), regarding brothers who divided [their inheritance], and the creditor [of their father] came and took the portion of one of them, we say that [that brother] receives a quarter [of what was taken from him] in land...

This is because he is unsure whether [brothers] are like heirs (if Yesh Breirah, we say that each brother took the share he inherited), or like buyers (if Ein Breirah, we say that each traded the share he truly inherited for the share he actually took). We do not say ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah! (If we knew that he was an heir, he would get back half. Since it is a Safek, he gets only a quarter, like Sumchus.)

Also below (124b), we say that a firstborn does not receive a double portion in a loan due to the father, for it is Ra'uy (destined to come, but the father was not Muchzak in it when he died), if a firstborn owed money to his father, they divide (he keeps half his extra share of it, and gives half to his brothers);

This is because we are unsure whether he is Meshabed his property so much that it was considered Muchzak to his father, and he gets an extra share in it. We divide, due to the Safek.

Also in Bava Metzi'a (83a), regarding people hired to carry burdens on shoulder-poles (one in front and one in back), if the load breaks, he pays half. What is the reason? It is more than one person should carry, but it is not enough that people would hire two workers for it. It is between Ones and negligence.

Answer: In all of these, it seemed proper to Chachamim to divide.

Pesak: Where the Gemara does not specify anything, we should say ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.

When the Gemara did not rule like either opinion, and the judge holds like one of them, and ruled like him, what he did, he did (his ruling stands).

Source (Shevuos 48b): Since the Gemara did not rule like this opinion or the other, one who ruled like this opinion, it stands, and one who ruled like this (the other) opinion, it stands.

If the judge is unsure, whom the Halachah follows, ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah.

Explanation: They used to collect half [the field. When the document said] "half in the land that I have", a quarter, i.e. they would collect a quarter [of the field].