(Abaye): If Reuven sold land to Shimon without Achrayus, and others protested, claiming that it is theirs:

Before Shimon makes a Chazakah, he can retract from the purchase. After making a Chazakah, he cannot.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Reuven can say 'you knew that you were taking a chance.'

Question: What is considered a Chazakah (regarding this law)?

Answer: It is when he walks around the borders.

Version #1: This applies only if Shimon bought without Achrayus. If he bought with Achrayus, he can retract.

Version #2: Even if he bought with Achrayus, Reuven can say 'when they legally take it from you, I will return your money.'

(Rav Huna): Damages are paid with money or Idis.

Question (Rav Nachman - Beraisa): "He will return" teaches that (anything) worth money may be given, even bran.

Answer: The Beraisa discusses when the damager has no money or land.

Question: If so, surely he may pay with anything!

Answer: One might have thought that he must sell his things so that he can pay with money. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Rav Asi): Money is like land.

Question: What did Rav Asi come to teach?

Suggestion: He teaches that a damager may pay with money or Idis.

Rejection: This is what Rav Huna taught!

Answer #1: Rather, two brothers divided an inheritance. Reuven took land, and Shimon took money. A creditor (of the father) took the land. Shimon must compensate Reuven him with money equal to half the value of the land taken.

Version #1 - Objection: This is obvious. Surely, both brothers must pay the debt!

Version #2 - Objection: Shimon need not compensate him. He can say 'I took money, knowing that you would not compensate me if it were stolen;

Likewise, you knew that if a creditor would collect the land, I would not compensate you!

Answer #2: Rather, two brothers divided an inheritance. A creditor took Reuven's portion. (Shimon may compensate him with money or land.)

Objection: Rav Asi already taught this!

(Rav): If two brothers divided an inheritance, and a creditor took Reuven's portion, the division is nullified.

(Shmuel): Reuven is not compensated.

(Rav Asi): Reuven receives a fourth of the value (of what he lost) in money, v'Revi'a (and/or a fourth) in land.

Rav says that the division is nullified. He holds that brothers who divided are like heirs. (They make a new division on what remains).

Shmuel says that Reuven is not compensated. He holds that brothers who divided are like buyers (without Achrayus).

Version #1: Rav Asi says that Reuven receives a fourth in money or a fourth in land. He is unsure whether brothers are like heirs or like buyers (without Achrayus).

Version #2: Rav Asi says that Reuven receives a fourth in money and a fourth in land. He is unsure whether brothers are like heirs or like buyers (with Achrayus).)

Answer #3: Rav Asi taught that a damager may pay with money or Idis.

Question: That is what Rav Huna taught!

Answer: Indeed, it should say 'Rav Asi also taught...'

(R. Zeira): One must spend up to a third for Mitzvos.

Question: What does this mean?

Suggestion: One must spend a third of his wealth to fulfill a Mitzvah.

Rejection: It is unreasonable that if one encounters three (expensive) Mitzvos, he must exhaust all his wealth!

Correction (R. Zeira): One must spend an extra third to beautify a Mitzvah.

Question (Rav Ashi): Is this a third of what the plain Mitzvah costs, or a third of the beautified Mitzvah?

This question is unresolved.

(Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, citing R. Zeira): Up to an extra third, one spends his own money to beautify a Mitzvah. Above a third, Hash-m returns the money to him (in this world).

(Mishnah): Anything that a man must guard, he must pay if it damages;

Anything for which he must pay some of the damage it causes, he is responsible for all the damage.

(There is compensation for the following, if they are damaged): property to which Me'ilah does not apply; property of members of the covenant; owned property.

(One must pay for damage) in any place, except for the premises of the damager, or the joint property of the damager and victim.

When one damages, he must pay with Idis.

(Gemara - Beraisa): Anything a man must guard, he must pay if it damages.

If Reuven handed over an ox or pit to a Cheresh (deaf-mute), lunatic or child, and the ox or pit damaged, Reuven must pay. This is not true regarding fire.

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: The ox is tied up and the pit is covered. The corresponding case of fire is (entrusting a Cheresh, lunatic or child with) a coal.

Rejection: If so, Reuven should be exempt in all cases!

Answer #1: Rather, the ox is loose and the pit is uncovered. The corresponding case of fire is a flame.

Rejection: If so, why is Reuven exempt for fire?!

(Reish Lakish): (A Mishnah teaches that if Reuven sent a fire with a Cheresh, lunatic or child, and the fire damaged, Beis Din cannot make Reuven pay.) This is only if he sent a coal;

If he sent a flame, Beis Din forces Reuven to pay, because a flame is likely to damage.

Answer #2: Really, the ox is tied up and the pit is covered. The case of fire is a coal.

Reuven is liable if the ox or pit damage, for oxen break loose on their own, and pits become uncovered by themselves, but a coal dies out if left to itself!

Question: R. Yochanan says, even if Reuven sent a flame (with a Cheresh, lunatic or child) he is exempt. The corresponding cases of an ox and pit are a loose ox and an uncovered pit. Why is Reuven liable for the ox and pit more than the flame?

Answer: Regarding the flame, we attribute the damage to the way the Cheresh (or lunatic or child) held it. (Regarding the ox or pit, the Cheresh did not cause the damage.)