Implied Question: The reason that the Gemara did not ask the same question earlier (on Daf 28a) in the case of 'Huchlak Echad ba'Mayim' ...

Answer #1: ... because there it is not speaking where the owner poured the water deliberately, whereas in the current case, 'ha'Shofech' implies that he deliberately poured it in a location where it will become mud.

Answer #2: Alternatively, 'Huchl'ku' in the Reisha, implies that the water only caused the victim to slip, whereas 'Huzak' in the current case, implies that he was damaged by the water itself.

Clarification: The Gemara means that it is also speaking where the water was finished.

Clarification (cont.): The Gemara preferred to establish the case both where the water was finished and where it was not, but specifically with reference to Keilim, than to establish it specifically where the water was not finished and with reference to both Keilim and to himself.

Question: If the water was finished, then the owner would normally declare it Hefker, in which case it would be a case of Bor, and one would be Patur on Keilim?

Answer #1: The water did not finish to the extent that it is not fit to be used for something.

Answer #2: If the text read the other way round, it would be even better ...

Alternative Text: 'Do you really think that the water was finished and that it sank into the ground and became mud? Not at all! It speaks where the water was not finished and where it is still clear, in which case, the owner presumably did not declare it Hefker.

Question: Even if it is a rickety wall, one should have taken into account that one may have hidden the things there when the wall was sound?

Answer: Nevertheless, the Matzni'a deserves to be Chayav seeing as he was negligent.

Refuted Answer: And it is not necessary to establish the case by a wall that was rickety to begin with.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi explains that it was so that the plow should not dig up the thorns and the glass shards.)

Question: But does the Mishnah not say that 'The first person to take them may keep them'?

Answer: The Mishnah is talking about someone who takes them after thirty days.

Question #1: According to the Gemara's current contention that it is speaking about when one takes the manure out into the street, one can ask from Raban Shimon ben Gamliel on himself ...

Question #1 (cont.): ... seeing as in the current Mishnah he rules that he is Chayav to pay', whereas in 'ha'Bayis ve'ha'Aliyah' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 118b) the Beraisa, citing Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, states that he has permission to arrange his work needs for thirty days' ...

Question #1 (concl.): ... and the Gemara extrapolates from there that he holds 'Wherever the Chachamim permit one to place something, and it damages, he is Patur from paying?

Question #2: And according to Rashi's second Lashon (in the Mishnah) - that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argues with the Tana Kama and holds that even if he placed it with permission, he is Chayav to pay, then the Kashya will extend even to the final outcome of the Gemara here?

Answer: Perhaps the cases (in the two Sugyos) are not comparable, despite the fact that the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a puts them together.

Question: Why does the Gemara not give the same answer in 'ha'Bayis ve'ha'Aliyah' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 118b and 119a), where the Mishnah rules that 'Someone who takes his manure into the street, may take it out, and that the one who fertilizes the fields should do so immediately, because if they cause damage, he will be obligated to pay'.

Question (cont.): ... and the Gemara states there that this does not conform to Rebbi Yehudah?

Answer #1: Because there, even if we were to establish the Mishnah not at the time when people take their manure into the street it will not go like Rebbi Yehudah ...

Answer #1 (cont.): ... since it is permitted to take it out in order to fertilize the fields immediately, yet the Tana nevertheless says there that 'One must pay for the damage' ...

Proof #1: Whereas from what Rebbi Yehudah says 'Because on that condition ... ', it would seem that he exempts him from paying ...

Proof #2: ... and also because he did not specifically add 've'Im Hizik, Meshalem Mah she'Hizik'.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Mishnah there implies that it is speaking at the time when people take their manure into the street, since it says 'and the one who makes manure in the street, may do so', which is why he has permission to leave it there for thirty days ...

Implied Question: And when the Tana says 've'ha'Mezabel Mezabel' ...

Answer: ... he is merely giving advice that one should fertilize the fields straightaway, to avoid having to pay.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Mishnah declares 'Gelalim' Chayav even though they are not slippery is ...

Answer: ... because they are not subject to improvement, and the Chachamim did not allow one to take things out for no reason.

Inference: One can prove from here not to have the text 'Kol ha'Kodedm bahen Zachah' in the cases of 'Matzni'a Kotz u'Zechuchis' and by 'Geder she'Nafah li'Reshus ha'Rabim' ...

Reason: ... since they are not subject to improvement.

Clarification: The Ri explains that Rebbi Meir penalizes him to make him lose the debt completely - even by his own admission or by additional witnesses ...

Source: ... as is implied by the Lashon 'Ein Govah lo es ha'Keren ve'Lo es ha'Ribis', implying that he cannot claim at all ...

Proof: ... and this is also implied by the fact that the Gemara compares it to 'Kanso Gufo atu Shevacho', where he loses even the 'money' itself.

Refuted Question: One cannot ask from Perek Eizehu Neshech (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 72a & 72b) where the Gemara compares the case here of a 'Sh'tar which contains Ribis' to 'predated Sh'tarei-Chov', which it establishes like Rebbi Meir ...

Refuted Question (cont.): ... how can it compare them, bearing in mind that; whereas here he loses the entire debt, there he only loses the Sh'tar?

Refutation: That is because there, he loses only the Sh'tar because he did not commit an Aveirah in the actual loan, only in the Sh'tar; whereas here, taking interest is intrinsically an Aveirah, even where there is no Sh'tar.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara says that he made the assessment (of Isur) from the time of writing?

Answer: ... nevertheless, there is an Isur in lending on interest even where there is no Sh'tar.

Question: The Riva asks that if the creditor loses his debt completely, it transpires that the borrower, who also sinned, gains?

Answer: This is not a Kashya, the Ri explains, since they penalized the money because of the benefit with regard to the creditor who benefits (from the sin), as a result of which he will be careful not to sin ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas as far as the debtor is concerned, there is nothing with which to penalize him, seeing as at the outset, he borrowed in order to pay.

Inference: This implies that one can claim with the Sh'tar even from Meshubadim.

Question: Why is the Sh'tar Kasher, asks the Ri, seeing as the witnesses transgressed the La'av of "Lo Sasimun"?

Refuted Answer: Even if, seeing as, since they gain nothing, they are not Eidei Chamas ...

Refutation: .. because we Pasken like Abaye, who says (in Sanhedrin, Daf 27a) that a Meshumad, who eats Neveilos in order to provoke Hash-m, is Pasul.

Implied Question: And the Tana in 'Zeh Borer' Ibid. Daf 24b) does not list them (the witnesses) ...

Answer: ... for the same reason as he does not list the borrower - because he is included in 'the lender', as the Gemara answers there - when it interprets 'Malveh be'Ribis' as ' Milveh ha'Ba'ah be 'Ribis'.

Refuted Answer #1: One cannot answer that it speaks where the Ribis is not discernable in the Sh'tar - where they wrote S'tam 'P'loni owes P'loni a Manah', and where the witnesses thought that it was all part of the Keren, and they only discovered later that it included Ribis ...

Refutation: ... because in Perek Eizehu Neshech (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 72a & 72b, Tosfos DH 'Sh'tar) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the case of 'Sh'tarei-Chov ha'Mukdamin, Pesulin' even according to the Rabanan, in the form an enactment in case he claims from the earlier date.

Refutation (cont.): ... and if it is not discernable ... , then by a Sh'tar she'Yesh bo Ribis too, they ought to decree in case he claims the Ribis as the Keren?

Refuted Answer #2: Nor can one explain that the witnesses are Kasher - seeing as it is not subject to assessment ...

Refuted Answer #2 (cont.): ... because, since the Ribis is discernable in the Sh'tar, Beis-Din will not allow the Ribis to be claimed via such a Sh'tar ...

Refuted Answer #2 (concl.): ... and when the Mishnah in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Ibid. 75b) rules that the witnesses transgress a Lo Sa'aseh', that speaks where the Ribis is not discernable in the Sh'tar ..

Refutation: Because the Gemara in our Sugya says that the moment they sign on the Sh'tar (in which the Ribis is discernable), they have made the assessment, in which case at that moment, they transgress the Lo Sa'aseh.

Answer #1: In the eyes of the people, "Lo Sasimun alav Neshech" is confined to the creditor, the debtor and the guarantor (but not to the witnesses), which is the reason why they do not become Pasul by signing ...

Precedent: ... as the Gemara says there (on Daf 8b) 'People think that "Lo Sachmod" only applies to where one does not pay for the article'..

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is speaking where there are witnesses who testify that the witnesses on the Sh'tar were forced to sign on pain of death.

Precedent: And this is how we have to establish the case of 'Sh'tarei-Chov ha'Mukdamin (Pesulin)', which some establish according to Rebbi Meir, but according to the Rabbanan, they are Kasher ...

Precedent (cont.): What's more, even Rebbi Meir declares them Pasul only in the form of a K'nas.

Precedent (cont.): Why is that? Why are the witnesses not Pasul because they signed on a predated Sh'tar?

Precedent (concl.): It must be because they were forced to sign on pain of death.

Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, because they claimed that they erred in the year of the king (they thought it was the second year of the king when really it was the third).

Halachah: The Ri rules like the Rabanan ...

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara rules (in Kesuvos, Daf 60b) like Rebbi Meir in his decrees ...

Answer: That refers specifically to his decrees, but not to his fines.

Support: And similarly, the Halachos Gedolos Paskens like the Rabanan of Rebbi Meir in connection with 'Me'uberes Chavero and Meinekes Chavero' (in Yevamos, Daf 36b. See also Tosfos Zevachim, Daf 104a DH 'Amar Rebbi Akiva').

Question: Rabeinu Yitzchak asked - what assessment is there here, and how does their testimony harm the borrower ...

Question (cont.): ... since as Beis-Din will not permit the Ribis to be claimed with this Sh'tar seeing as the Ribis in it is discernable?

Refuted Text: From here it is evident that one should not have the text in the Mishnah in the words of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel 'Kol ha'Kodem bahen Zachah' ...

Refutation: ... because if one did, the Gemara ought to have mentioned it ...

Refutation (cont.): Seeing as Raban Shimon ben Gamliel must penalize him on their bodies as well, because if he does not, in which point does he disagree with the Tana Kama.

Reinstatement #1: It is possible to refute that and to say that the whole Mishnah goes according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the Mishnah means to say 'Because Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says ... '.

Reinstatement #2: Alternatively, we would have thought (the Tana Kama holds) that 'Kol ha'Kodem Zachah' only applies to 'Kasho ve'Tivno', where there is a lot of improvement, but not to other things ...

Reinstatement #2 (cont.): Therefore Raban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to teach us that it applies to whoever spoils the street, even if the gain is only minimal.

Refuted Answer: The Gemara does not want to say that they are Asur because of Gezel to the one who takes it first, and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that it is permitted ...

Refutation: Because it is not logical to say that that is what they are arguing about.

Refuted Answer: Since it is not logical to say that they are arguing over 'Halachah u'Morin Kein' with regard to the Sh'vach ...

Refutation: ... since it is obvious that everyone holds 'Morin ... '.