Question: What is the source that [when the Makif built the fourth, the Nikaf] pays even [half] the cost of the fourth? Perhaps he does not give at all! (Rashash - above we inferred that the first Tana did not mention the fourth wall, for then the Nikaf would need to pay. However, now we say that the first Tana agrees when the Nikaf built the fourth, so the above inference is not valid.)

Strengthening of question: It connotes like this in Bava Kama (20b). It says that the reason is because the Nikaf [built the fourth]. If the Makif [built it, the Nikaf] is exempt. This implies that if David benefits [from Levi] and Levi does not lose [through this], David is exempt!

There we reject [the inference], for this case is different. The Nikaf can say, "for me, a cheap guarding suffices!"

Answer: We can reject the proof from there. It means "for me, a cheap guarding suffices." Therefore, he is exempt from helping for [all] four walls;

However, he must help for the fourth, for no one would not help for the fourth, in order that he will be fenced from [all] four sides.

Assertion: It seems that he did not say so (that he will make him share the cost of the four walls built merely) to scare him [into agreeing to pay for guarding].

Source #1: He did not say "if not, I will collect your house from you" or "I will prick you with a thorn that does not cause bleeding (excommunication)."

Implied question: In Sukah (34b), Shmuel told myrtle vendors "sell for the price. If not, I will expound for you like R. Tarfon [who says that even if the tops are cut off, they are Kosher for the Mitzvah]." The Gemara wanted to say that he said so [merely] to scare them!

Answer: Here, it seems that he holds like this, like Rashi explained.

Source #2: Since he said "appease him with what he consented to", this connotes that according to letter of the law, he would receive more, had he not consented.

Note: Perhaps really, he must pay only for a fence of sticks! Maharsha connotes that Tosfos seeks to prove only that Rava holds like R. Yosi. I.e. it was clear that the Halachah follows Rav Huna; we must say that Tosfos' text did not include that Shmuel ruled like R. Yosi (4b) (Mishmaros Kehunah). (Alternatively, his text included it, and Tosfos proves that Rava agrees.)

Question #1 (against Rashi - R. Tam): We do not have mercy in judgment! (Rashi explained that Runya was not a neighbor, but he was poor. Rav Safra ruled that letting Runya keep the field was "v'Asisa ha'Yashar veha'Tov.")

Question #2: "Ravina thought to remove him" connotes that Ravina erred.

Question #3: Why is this episode brought here? (How is it connected to our Sugya?)

Suggestion: It is brought because we discuss Ravina and Runya.

Rejection: If so, we should bring also the episode brought in Bava Metzi'a, which says that Runya was the sharecropper of Ravina, and these two episodes of Rav Chisda and Runya should be brought also there!

Question #4: "Tzala" is a hide, like it says in Mo'ed Katan (27a) "what is a Dargesh? It is a bed of Tzala (one lies on a leather mattress)."

Explanation #1 (and Answer to all four questions - R. Tam): Runya bought land on Ravina's border, i.e. the border of the fields with which Ravina surrounded Runya. Ravina was the neighbor on three sides, and Runya was the neighbor on one side.

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (108b) that if one of the four neighbors bought the property, he keeps it!

Answer: In any case, Ravina thought that he can take it from him, since he (Ravina) was the neighbor on three sides, and Runya was the neighbor only on one side;

Rav Safra told him that people say "four for Tzala", i.e. a big hide, one pays the tanner four Zuz, and [also] four Zuz for a small hide;

I.e. one must pay for a small [hide] like for a big [hide]. There is as much toil for a small, like for a big;

Also here, what is the reason for Dina d'Var Metzra? It is so all his fields will be adjacent, so he can plow them at once. Therefore, he is a neighbor from one side, just like you are a neighbor on three sides.

Explanation #2 (R. Avraham): The land that Runya bought was on Ravina's border, i.e. on the border of the fields in which Runya was a sharecropper, like we say that Runya was Ravina's sharecropper;

Rav Safra told Ravina that even though Runya does not own anything in the land itself, even so, since he worked them, he is a neighbor;

This is this is like people say, four for the Tzala, one pays four for the hide, and similarly one must pay four for the Tzelala, for the professional who tans the hide.

Explanation: The case is, we know that one tried to persuade the other, and the other refused. The words "we do not obligate him" connote like this;

Therefore, the Chazakah is that he did not give. We need not establish the case to be that he made a Chazis (marker on the wall).

Implied question: When one (e.g. the one wants to put a roof on it) benefits, and this (the one who built it) does not lose, [the former] is exempt!

Note: R. Akiva Eiger asks that when he benefits (supports his roof on it), the other will lose, for it will weigh down on his wall! He answers that perhaps he will not support his roof on it, but he benefits, for his neighbor's wall will be a wall of his house.

Answer #1: Even so, since he revealed that he is pleased with the height, he is obligated.

Support: It connotes like this in Bava Kama (20b). It says that [when Reuven built walls around Shimon's property on three sides, Shimon must pay] only when Shimon [built the fourth wall]. If Reuven [built it, Shimon] is exempt;

Inference: If one benefits, and the other does not lose, [the former] is exempt. Even so, if Shimon built the fourth wall, he is obligated [because he showed that he is pleased]! So it seems to me.

Answer #2: Here, [the one who built the wall] loses, for [his neighbor] caused him to build the wall higher than four Amos, so that he will not have Hezek Re'iyah from [his neighbor] in any way.

Note: Maharam says that even if the one who built the tall wall later used it to add to his house, initially he built it only due to Hezek Re'iyah. (Presumably, this is if it is not much more than four Amos. One need not build a 10 Amos tall to totally avoid Hezek Re'iyah!)

Explanation (Ri): This is only if he fixed a time. A Stam loan (even though it is as if he specified 30 days), we do not consider within 30 days like within the time.

Assertion: There are witnesses that he owes him, and he fixed a time.

If not, he should be believed that he paid within the time, through a Migo, that if he wanted, he could have said "you did not lend to me at all", or "you did not fix any time for me."

Below, we ask whether or not we say a Migo against a Chazakah.

Suggestion: We can prove from here that Reish Lakish holds that one who lends in front of witnesses, the borrower need not pay in front of witnesses! (If he were, he would be believed to say that he paid on the day it was due.)

Rejection: Perhaps here the case is, he lent to him without witnesses, but he admitted to him in front of witnesses;

Even according to the opinion that he must pay in front of witnesses, this is when initially he lent to him in front of witnesses. He did not believe him, [so he lent to him] only in front of witnesses.

Question: In any case, we should resolve from here that we do not say a Migo [against a Chazakah], that he could have said "I paid you now"!

Answer (Ri): This is not considered a Migo, since the case is, he is on the last day of the time.

Implied question: We conclude in Bava Metzi'a (102b) that a person is prone to pay on the last day of the time!

Answer: Even so, this is not a Migo, for one is not brazen to say "I paid you today" (for this is an obvious lie. One could not forget so quickly!)

However, it is normal to say "I paid you yesterday, and you forgot."

Implied question: In Bechoros (49a), a Mishnah teaches that a Bechor within 30 days, the Chazakah is that he was not redeemed! (This refutes Abaye and Rava!)

Answer #1 (Ri): There, the reason "lest I be distracted" does not apply, for no one can claim from him (the father. Perhaps he will give it to another Kohen!)

Question (Tosfos' Rebbi) Citation (Bava Metzi'a 102b): They asked R. Yanai, if the tenant says "I paid", and the landlord says "I did not receive", who must bring a proof?

Citation (cont.): When is this? If it is within the time, a Mishnah teaches this! If the father [of a Bechor] died within 30 days, the Chazakah is that he was not redeemed.

Question: How do we compare this (rental) to a Bechor? There, it does not apply to say "lest I be distracted"!

Answer: Therefore, we must say that also a Bechor has distraction, of the Mitzvah. He must give immediately, for Zerizim are prompt [to do Mitzvos].

Answer #2 (Ri): Here, since he owes him, and he obtained money, he pays him within the time, lest he be distracted;

However, regarding a Bechor, he was not obligated at all yet until 30 days. Perhaps [the baby] will die within 30 days, and he will be exempt;

Similarly, a tenant, perhaps the landlord's house will fall, and the tenant will need to leave, for he is no better than him. (The landlord can say, why should you have a house to live in, and I will not?!)

Note: Tosfos (Bava Metzi'a 102b DH b'Chezkas) said "perhaps the tenant's house or the landlord's house will fall." Kovetz Shi'urim (29) explains that our Tosfos mentioned only the landlord's house, for he holds that if a rented house fell, the tenant owes the rent, like the Ra'ah, in Shitah Mekubetzes in Bava Metzi'a. Tosfos in Bava Metzi'a holds like the Ramban, who disagrees.

Question: What did [the Makshan] ask against Reish Lakish from the wall of a Chatzer that fell, and he deduced that a person pays within the time?

He can ask also against Abaye and Rava. They agree there that a person does not pay within the time, lest [his neighbor] not build the wall!

Answer: In several places, the Gemara could have said "also according to you (the Makshan, this is difficult)", and it does not say so.

Question: Why is this obvious? Since a person does not pay before the time, and Anan Sahadei (we can testify) that this one made the wall, it needs to teach that he need not pay him with witnesses!

Answer: Even the one who says that one who lends to his friend in front of witnesses, [the borrower] must pay in front of witnesses, that is because he did not trust him initially (to lend to him without witnesses);

Here, there is no proof that he did not trust him. Therefore, it is obvious that he need not pay him with witnesses.

Assertion: We discuss adult orphans, but one does not collect from minor orphans, even within the time, according to Rav Papa, who explains the reason why we do not collect [from minor orphans] is because paying a debt is a Mitzvah, and orphans are not Bnei [commanded to fulfill] Mitzvos.

Even according to Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua, who explains that the reason [one may not collect from minor orphans] is due to [concern for] Tzerari (perhaps the father stashed away money for the lender to collect his debt from it], one does not collect from minor orphans even within the time, for we do not accept witnesses in the absence of the litigant;

Minors are considered as if they are not present (because they are unaware), like is proven in Bava Kama (112a);

And even if the testimony was accepted in the father's lifetime, you can say that for minors, we are concerned for Tzerari even within the time.

Source #1: We find like this regarding a widow, in Gitin (34b). A Mishnah teaches that a widow collects from orphans only through a Shevu'ah. The reason is lest her husband deposited Tzerari with her, even though it is within the time.

Rejection: There is no proof from a widow, for there we are concerned for Tzerari even regarding adults, because there we are concerned Tzerari regarding daughters (they are fed from their father's estate until Bagrus or marriage) more than [one who accepted to feed] his wife's daughter, since there is a Tenai Beis Din [for his daughters];

This is like we say in Kesuvos (102b) that we are concerned for Tzerari for his daughters more than [we are concerned for] his wife's daughter;

Since [his daughters] have a Tenai Beis Din, we should say that he deposited Tzerari for them!

Suggestion: Since it does not say here "even though Rabanan said that we collect from [minor] orphans' property only if Ribis (due to a Nochri creditor) is consuming them", [which shows] that we do not discuss minor orphans, rather, adults! (I.e. we did not discuss minors, because even Rav Huna agrees that we do not collect from them, for even within the time, there is concern for Tzerari.)

Rejection #1: Perhaps due to Rav Papa we discussed adults. (I.e. but according to Rav Huna, we could have discussed minors, for within the time there is no concern for Tzerari.)

Rejection #2: We mentioned [the teaching that] "one who comes to collect from orphans..." to teach that he collects even without a Shevu'ah.

Suggestion: We can bring a proof from below (174b). It says "what is the difference between Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua?", and it does not say that they differ in a case when the borrower died within the time, [i.e. then] Rav Huna holds that he collects!

Rejection #1: It says in our Sugya that Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua disagree with the Chazakah of Reish Lakish [that people do not pay within the time].

Rejection #2: In several places we could find more differences, and [the Gemara] says only one or two.

Source: We say so in Bava Kama (33a) regarding the argument of [whether we] assess a [Tam] ox (that gored, and obligate the owner to pay, or whether the victim becomes a partner in it).

Source #2 (for the strengthened assertion): However, we can bring a proof that even Rav Huna, who explains that that the reason [we do not collect from minor orphans] is due to concern for Tzerari, one does not collect from minor orphans even within the time;

Source: In Erchin (22a), we challenge Rav Asi [who said that we collect from minor orphans' property only if Ribis is consuming them], and gave a difficult answer that [the Mishnah discusses auctioning orphans' property] in a case of a [Nochri] creditor who accepted [to abide by the laws of Yisrael] for this [to wait 30 days of announcement], but did not accept for this [not to take Ribis];

We did not [give a better] answer, that we discuss when the time [to pay the loan] did not arrive in the father's lifetime! (We must say that even Rav Huna agrees that even then, we do not collect from minor orphans.)

Suggestion: [This is not a proof, for] that Sugya holds like Rav Papa.

Rejection: In the conclusion [there], we answer that the case is, the [father] who owed admitted [just before he died, that he owes]. This is not an answer according to Rav Papa! (Even if we know that he owes, minors are exempt from the Mitzvah of paying a debt.)

Source #3: We can bring a proof from Rav Asi's teaching itself! He said "only if Ribis is consuming [the property], and R. Yochanan adds only [that we collect from minor orphans also] to pay a Kesuvah, due to food (before she is paid, she is fed from the estate);

Inference: We never find that a [Yisrael] creditor is paid [from minor orphans' property]. Presumably, Rav Asi and R. Yochanan hold like Reish Lakish's Chazakah, for this is the Halachah, like we rule in our Sugya.

Also, if [Rav Asi and R. Yochanan] did not hold like Reish Lakish, if so the Halachah follows Reish Lakish in four matters [against R. Yochanan], and in Yevamos (36a), Rava rules like Reish Lakish [against R. Yochanan] only in three matters!

Implied question: [This is no proof, for] Rava surely argues with Reish Lakish in our Sugya! (This is why Rava counted only three places, but we hold unlike Rava!)

Answer: Also according to us, it is proven that we rule like Reish Lakish in only three places. (The Rashash did not know a source for this. Some say that it is because we often cite Rava's Klal (general rule). The Gra (CM 78:3) says that when it is proven that the Halachah follows Reish Lakish, we are not concerned for the Klal.)

Implied question: In Bava Kama (39a), we ask against R. Yochanan, who says that [if an Apotropos oversees orphans' property, we accept testimony that their ox gored in order to make it a Mu'ad to collect future damages] from the Aliyah (other property) of the orphans...

[We challenge this,] fro R. Yochanan taught that that we collect from minor orphans' property only for a Kesuvah [or Ribis];

Summation of question: (What was the question?) We hold that the reason [that we collect from minor orphans' property] is due to Tzerari, and regarding an ox that gored, Tzerari does not apply!

Answer: In any case, it was a proper question, for R. Yochanan holds that we do not collect [from minor orphans' property] in any case [except for a Kesuvah or Ribis], even regarding a loan due to [the orphans] themselves, to which Tzerari does not apply, because we do not accept testimony in the absence of the litigant.

Observation: Also a Beraisa in Kesuvos (87a) says "[if a husband stipulated that his wife need not swear to collect her Kesuvah even from his heirs, this helps,] but what can I do? Chachamim said that one who comes to collect from orphans collects only through a Shevu'ah!"

Question: This connotes that it is a Mishnah somewhere. This is astounding. Where did Chachamim say so?

We cannot learn from a widow, for there is a Tenai Beis Din [that she receives a Kesuvah]. We are concerned lest he left Tzerari for her more [than regarding a creditor]!

Answer #1 (Ri): A Mishnah in Kesuvos (84a) teaches regarding one who died, and left a widow (she is entitled to collect her Kesuvah) and a creditor, and he had lent to or deposited with someone else...

His heirs get [the loan or deposit], for all of the others need a Shevu'ah to collect, and heirs do not need a Shevu'ah.

Answer #2: A Mishnah in Shevuos (45a) says that also orphans [of the lender] collect from orphans [of the borrower] only through a Shevu'ah... "we did not find among our father's documents that this document was paid."

Inference: Also their father [the lender] would have needed to swear that it was not paid [before collecting. There is no reason to obligate his heirs more than himself!]

Inference: (Here we say that Reish Lakish's Chazakah exempts from the oath normally needed to collect from heirs.) This connotes that if one brought a document against his friend, and [the defendant] said "swear to me that I did not pay you within the time", he need not make an oath.

Question (Rivam): This Chazakah (people do not pay before the time) is stronger than a document, for with a document, one collects [from orphans] only through a Shevu'ah, and through the Chazakah, he collects without a Shevu'ah!

If so, what was the question? This is obvious! We do not apply a Migo against witnesses, and all the more so against a Chazakah, which is stronger [like Tosfos said above. A document is like witnesses.]

Answer #1 (Ri): This is not difficult at all. Surely, witnesses are stronger than a Chazakah;

If witnesses said that he paid even within the time, he is exempt, and if they said even after the time "we know that he did not pay", he would collect from the orphans without a Shevu'ah.

Implied question: Why does he need a Shevu'ah [to collect from orphans] when he has a document?

Answer: This is because it is not proven from the document whether or not he paid. Sometimes [the lender] keeps the document [even after the loan was paid until the borrower pays] for the scribe's fee, like we say in Bava Metzi'a (17a).

Question: In any case, we should resolve that we do not apply Migo against a Chazakah, from Rami bar Chama, who said in Shevuos (45b) that one who deposits with his friend with a document, he must return to him with witnesses;

He is not believed to say "I returned it" Migo (since) if he wanted, he could have said that Ones occurred, because [the depositor] can say "[if you returned,] why am I still holding your document?!"

All the more so, he does not say a Migo against a Chazakah, for a Chazakah is stronger;

He (one who collects due to the Chazakah) does not need a Shevu'ah, but the reason "why am I still holding your document?!" does not help to exempt from a Shevu'ah!

Answer: Perhaps the Sugya here does not hold like Rami bar Chama.

Implied question #1: Why is this unlike what it says in Kidushin (64b) that when we have a Chazakah that a man has brothers (but he is Muchzak not to have children, so his wife will fall to Yibum when he dies), and he said "I have children", he is believed due to a Migo, that if he wanted, he could have exempted his wife through a Get!

Implied question #2: In Yevamos (115a), we ask "if a woman established that there is war in the world, do we say that [she is believed] Migo (since) if she wanted, he could have said that there is peace in the world...

Or, perhaps since she established [that there is war in the world], and she will say through estimation, Mah Li Leshaker does not weaken the Chazakah.

We bring there similar cases to that question. (Why is the same question brought in different places, and different attempted answers are given?)

Answer: This is not at all like the question here. (Here we discuss a Chazakah of human nature. There, we discuss Chazakah of assuming that the status did not change.)

Question: A Mishnah in Yevamos (111b) says that if a Yevamah said within 30 days [of entering the Yavam's house] that he has not had Bi'ah with her, we force him [to do Chalitzah. If she says so] after 30 days, we request [that he do Chalitzah];

The Gemara explains that a man can restrain himself [from having Bi'ah] up to 30 days. He cannot restrain himself more than this.

Therefore, after 30 days we do not force him, for she is not believed, even though she has a Migo. If she wanted, she could have said "he cannot have Bi'ah with me."

She is believed about this, like is proven in Nedarim (91a)! (R. Akiva Eiger did not understand Tosfos' question. There, she is believed because she cannot be brazen to lie about this. Therefore, there is no Migo that she could have lied about this!)