Another Beraisa states that if Reuven sells Shimon grain, he must accept a Rova (a quarter of a Kav) of legumes per Se'ah, a Rova of chaff per Se'ah of barley, and for each Se'ah of lentils - a Rova of a Kav of Tinofes and stones.

We initially assume that, seeing as grain and barley grow from the ground just like lentils, they too, must accept a Rova of Tinofes (a Kashya on Rav Ketina), and the Tana mentions it specifically by lentils - because it mentioned legumes by wheat and chaff by barley.

We refute this however, concluding that the Rova of Tinofes applies exclusively to lentils - because (unlike the other two species), one picks lentils by pulling them out of the ground (in which case someone who purchases lentils can expect more Tinofes than the others, which one tends to cut).

On the other hand, there is no proof that, since the Tana mentions a Rova of Tinofes specifically by lentils, in the case of wheat and barley, one is not obligated to accept a Rova of Tinofes (a proof for Rav Huna) - because it is possible that the Tana mentioned it there only to preclude from the contention that someone who purchases lentils needs to expect more that a Rova of Tinofes per Se'ah.

Rav Huna rules that, in a case where Shimon begins cleAning the crops that he purchased from Reuven, and discovers that they contain more than a Rova of Tinofes per Se'ah - he may clean out all the Tinofes, and Reuven is then obligated to reimburse him for the entire amount, either with wheat or with their value in cash.

If Shimon finds exactly a Rova, and cleans it out, claiming that he is particular - he cannot demand that Reuven pays him, because, since most people are Mochel a Rova, we apply the principle 'Batlah Da'ato Eitzel Kol Adam' (We cannot contend with the peculiarities of every individual, and whose mind is therefore Bateil to the majority).

The reason for Rav Huna's former ruling, assuming it is based on ...

... logic is - that basically, a purchaser tends to pay the seller for good fruit, only he is Mochel up to a Rova of Tinofes. However, once the crops contain more than a Rova, which he is not Mochel, it takes little effort for him to clean out the entire batch (in which case he is not even Mochel the Rova either).

... a K'nas is - that whereas it is normal to find up to a Rova per Se'ah (in which case there is no basis for suspecting Reuven of deliberately adding the Tinofes), it is not normal to find more than a Rova (and therefore we do indeed suspect Reuven of having done so).

The difference between whether it is Mamon or K'nas is - if we know that Reuven did not add the Tinofes (which will negate the K'nas, but not absolve Reuven if it is Mamon [see also Ritva]).

The Beraisa requires the owner of a Se'ah of crops, among which a Rova of another species is growing, to pull out the excess of a Rova. According to Rabeinu Chananel, the Tana is referring to where the owner is permitted to initially sow the Se'ah of crops. Alternatively, he might be speaking - by crops that are already growing, only that have not yet taken root (which is the point when they become forbidden).

On the assumption that a Rova of another species by Kil'ayim is Chashuv like more than a Rova of Tinofes in a sale, this poses a Kashya on Rav Huna (according to the Lashon that it is a Din Mamon) - who obligates Reuven to pull out even the Rova as well ('Kal va'Chomer', because if even in a case of Isur, over which Beis-Din have no authority like they have in Mamon, the owner is not obligated to pull out the excess, how much more so in a case of Mamon, where the they have the right to declare someone's property Hefker).

We answer that in fact, a Rova by Kil'ayim is not any more Chashuv than a Rova in our Sugya. Nevertheless, the owner is obligated to remove the excess in the first place (not according to the strict Din, but) - because of Chumra de'Kil'ayim.

In the Beraisa of Kil'ayim, Rebbi Yossi rules - that he must remove everything, even what is in excess of a Rova.

It would have been easy to establish his reasoning according to our initial interpretation of the Tana Kama (equating a Rova by Kil'ayim with more than a Rova by Mechirah) - inasmuch as he (Rebbi Yossi) would hold that we fine the Heter because of the Isur (whereas the Tana Kama holds that we don't).

We nevertheless establish his reason according to our current understanding of the Tana Kama - inasmuch as he penalizes the owner because it looks as if he is maintaining Kil'ayim in his field ...

... which is basically an Isur d'Oraysa (which is even subject to Malkos).

The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in ha'Mafkid rules that in a case where Reuven and Shimon deposited with Levi, one a Manah and the other, two hundred Zuz, and each one claims two hundred, Levi gives each one a Manah. The third hundred - is put away in Beis-Din until Eliyahu comes.

In any event, we see that in matters of K'nas - we do not penalize the Heter because of the Isur, a Kashya on Rav Huna (according to the Lashon that it is a Din K'nas), who holds that we do.

We differentiate between the two cases, however, because there is less reason to penalize even the Heter there, than there is here - seeing as we know for sure that one Manah belongs to one, and one Manah, to the other (leaving no real reason to punish the Heter); whereas in our case, it is possible that Reuven added the entire amount of Tinofes to the crops.

Rebbi Yossi rules in the Mishnah in ha'Mafkid - that all three hundred Zuz are put away until Mashi'ach arrives.

Rebbi Yossi might agree with Rav Huna however - bearing in mind that whereas in our case, there is no proof that Reuven cheated, there we know for sure that one of the two men is a cheat.

Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa invalidates a Sh'tar that contains Ribis even as regards claiming the actual debt. This does not corroborate Rav Huna's ruling, that Chazal penalized the Heter because of the Isur - since that case is different, inasmuch as we know for sure that the entire Sh'tar was written be'Isur, whereas in our case, there is no proof that Reuven performed an Isur.

The Chachamim say there - that the creditor may use the Sh'tar to claim the basic debt.

This does not pose a Kashya on Rav Huna - because there the basic debt was certainly made be'Heter, whereas that is not at all certain in our case, where Reuven may have added all the Tinofes.

Thirty Se'ah comprise a Kur ...

... and Six Kabin, a Se'ah.

If Reuven stipulates 'Beis-Kur Afar Ani Mocher lach, Midah be'Chevel', and adds 'Hein Chaser hein Yeser' - then up to a Rova less or a Rova more per Se'ah (the equivalent of thirty Reva'im [seven and a half Kabin] per Kur) is valid, but more than that is not.

The Beraisa quoted by Ravin bar Rav Nachman states that in fact, if the shortfall or the excess is more than a Rova per Se'ah - then he must give him all that is short, both what is in excess of the thirty Reva'im, as well as the thirty Reva'im themselves.

There is no proof from this Beraisa for Rav Huna, that we fine the Heter because of the Isur - because that is only there, where he initially sold him a Beis-Kur, which obviously does not incorporate more than that (and it is only because he added 'Hein Chaser hein Yeser' [or because 'Beis-Kur Ani Mocher lach' automatically implies that 'Hein Chaser hein Yeser' up to a Rova but no more] that we allow for the discrepancy of a Rova per Se'ah), but when it is more than that, there is no Mechilah at all; whereas in our case, where there is automatically an anticipated loss of a Rova per Beis-Se'ah, the Mechilah of that Rova might well extend to even more than a Rova.