Clarification: Even if the remainder of the row is spoilt, he pays as if they were grapes that stand to be harvested.

Specifically Grapes: ... and this is confined to young grapes, since it is the way of grapes, that some get spoilt whilst others survive; therefore we do not go after the remaining grapes.

But Not Corn: ... as opposed to corn, which tends to all get spoilt together. Consequently ...

Young Corn: Regarding Chaziz (grain in its earliest stages), Rebbi Yehoshua will concede, either to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili or to the Rabanan.

Partially Grown Corn, Explanation #1: ... whereas corn that has grown to the stage that is equivalent to that of S'madar (budding) of grapes, he will hold 'that we go after the remainder of the crops'.

Partially Grown Corn, Explanation #2: Alternatively, Rebbi Yehoshua will hold that by corn the Chachamim did not punish the owner as severely as by grapes, in which case he will not have to pay according to the remainder of the crops.

Clarification (cont.): It seems that even though Rebbi Yehoshua says that we consider them as though they were grapes that are ready to be picked, he nevertheless holds that we assess them together with the land.

Proof: ... since we see that Rebbi Shimon who says the same as him with regard to young figs and young grapes, yet he definitely holds that one assesses them as part of the land, seeing as they still need the land ...

Proof (cont.): ... because it is regarding fully-grown fruit exclusively that Rebbi Shimon, in our Mishnah, obligates him to pay complete fruit.

Inference: Here it implies that Abaye holds that that they are arguing over whether to assess the fruit according to the remaining fruit or not.

Question: Rabeinu Tam queries this however, from the Gemara in ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 48b), where Abaye explains the (same) Machlokes as to whether one assesses according to the field of the Nizak or of the Mazik

Answer: Even though it implies (there) that they are arguing over whether one assesses according to the field of the Nizak or of the Mazik ...

Proof: ... seeing as the Beraisa specifically says in the first Perek (Daf 6b) 'Meitav Sadeihu shel Nizak u'Meitav Karmo shel Nizak, Divrei Rebbi Yishmael; Rebbi Akiva Omer ... ' ...

Answer (cont.): ... nevertheless Abaye understands that they also arguing over 'the remainder of the field' ...

Proof: ... since Rebbi Akiva said 'Lo Ba ha'Kasuv ... ', implying that the Pasuk is not coming to be stringent on the Mazik, like Rebbi Yishmael says, but only in that he claims damages from the best ...

Proof (cont.): ... and if their Machlokes was confined to 'Idis', then Rebbi Yishmael would not be more stringent on the Mazik than Rebbi Akiva; on the contrary, Rebbi Akiva would be more stringent than him ...

Proof (concl.): ... seeing as (according to Rebbi Yishmael), the Mazik is not obligated to purchase the equivalent of the Nizak's Idis, in the event that he does not have it himself, as Tosfos explained in the first Perek (Daf 6b & 7a, DH 'K'gon).

Question: Why does the Gemara not explain 'K'roch u'Tani "ba'Meh Devarim Amurim, bi'Zeman she'Achlah Lulvei Gefanim u'Semadar" (in the Reisha)'?

Answer: Because, it is not appropriate to include 'S'madar' together with Lulavin (palm-branches), and it ought not to have mentioned 'Lulavim', but just 'ba'Meh ... bi'Zeman she'Achlah S'madar'.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas it is appropriate to include it together with Pagim (young figs) and Boser, since the reason is because it is similar to Pagin.

Question: Why does the Gemara not say that the latter Tana comes to add and to be more Machmir with regard to payment? ...

Precedent: ... like it says at the beginning of 'ha'Mocher Peiros' (Bava Basra, Daf 93b)?

Answer: It is different here, since it is possible that he is only coming to add on to the Chachamim, to whose opinion he is referring,

Clarification: Abaye is coming to say that we do indeed know who says what, and that the latter Tana is not precluding from the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Shimon by Oneis ...

The Rabanan: ... seeing as they too, take into account 'K'chash Gufna', and their reason is because one cannot compare rape to being intimate with the girl's consent, as they explain.

Implied Question: In Perek Eilu Na'aros (Kesuvos, Daf 39a and 39n) in connection with the Mishnah 'ha'Oneis Nosein es ha'Tza'ar', the Gemara asks 'Tza'ara de'Mai?'

Implied Question (cont.): ... even though it is obvious that a virgin who is intimate for the first time suffers great pain when her virginity is removed; indeed, most virgins become ill as a result?

Answer: That is because the Gemara takes for granted that he does not pay for the pain caused by the removal of her virginity ...

Reason: ... which, in turn, because eventually, she is anyway destined to suffer that pain when she marries.

Proof: ... since the Tana of that Mishnah takes into account 'the weakness of the vine', as he says there 'Because an Oneis pays for the pain whereas a Mefateh does not ...

Proof (cont.): And since he declares a Mefateh Patur, we see that he takes into account 'the weakness of the vine' - that ultimately, she will suffer that pain at the hands of her husband anyway.

Proof (concl.): Hence the Gemara asks 'Which pain are we talking about?'

Inference: This implies that they did not used to wear black shoes.

Support: And this is also implied in 'Seider Ta'aniyos Eilu' (Ta'anis, Daf 22a & 22b), where the Gemara says 'Meanwhile, a man came who was wearing black shoes without laces, so that they should not know that he was not a Yehudi'.

Question: In the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 15a), a Beraisa states that 'One may not send a white shoe on Yom-Tov, since it still requires a piece of black clay to blacken it', implying that they only wore black shoes?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the shoe itself was black, and it was the laces that were white ...

Answer (cont.): And the black shoes mentioned here and in Maseches Ta'anis means the shoe and the laces, both of which were black.

Proof: And that explains the Gemara in Perek ben Sorer u'Moreh (Sanhedrin, Daf 74b & 75a) which says that 'At the time of Sh'mad (forced conversions) one is forbidden to change even one's shoelaces, because the shoelaces were different than those of the Nochrim (See also Hagahos ha'Gra).

Answer (concl.): And the Aveilus of Eliezer was such that he wore black clothes and covered himself in black, and he wanted that even his shoelaces to be black, so that, out of love of Yerushalayim, there should be no white on him at all.

Clarification: At the end of 'Mi she'Hayah Nasuy' (Kesuvos, Daf 95a & 95b) Rav Ashi explains that even Rebbi Meir only issues is ruling in a case of two purchasers, since, if she wanted to perform an act of goodwill (towards her husband), she ought to have done so by the first purchaser ...

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas where there is only one purchaser, even Rebbi Meir concedes ... .

Question: But in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 58a & 58b) in the case where 'Someone bought first from the man, and then from the woman, his sale is invalid', Rav said that 'This speaks specifically where he said "Go, make a Chazakah and acquire!', but if he has a Sh'tar, he acquires it ...

Question (cont.): ... and this refers to where he purchased first from the man, and then from the woman, as is clear from the Sugya?

Answer #1: The Ri explains that one can draw a distinction between whether the woman wrote in the Sh'tar of her husband or whether she wrote an independent Sh'tar.

Answer #2: Furthermore, he says, it can even speak there where she wrote in her husband's Sh'tar, only she wrote that she actually sold it to the purchasers, whereas the 'she signed' in our Sugya means that she foregoes the Shibud of her Kesubah that she had in that field.

Support: Indeed the Lashon 'Chasmah' means to say that she agrees to the sale without any objection.

Answer #3: Whereas Rebbi Elazar from Shantz explains that the reason that Rav says there that with a Sh'tar he acquires it, is because he holds '(omitting) Achrayus (from a Sh'tar) is an error on the part of the Sofer', and it is as if she accepted Achrayus (even though it is not written).

Answer #3 (cont.): ... but had she specified 'without Achrayus', he would not acquire it even with a Sh'tar.

Answer #3 (concl.): Whereas Shmuel says 'until he writes Achrayus in the Sh'tar', because he holds that 'Achrayus is not an error on the part of the Sofer'.

Source: ... and they are arguing over this principle in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 14a) ...

Source (cont.): Where Shmuel specifically says that the Sofer needs to consult (the borrower) concerning Shibud', whereas according to Rav, he claims both the money the Sh'vach (the impovements) ...

Source (concl.): ... implying that he takes for granted that he gets the Sh'vach even though he did not specify it - because he holds 'Achrayus Ta'us Sofer Hu'.

Clarification: The RacRabeinu Chananel explains that, it is based on this ruling that, in the Gemara in Perek Na'arah in Kesuvos (Daf 51a & 51b) we take for granted that 'Whatever stands to be shorn is considered as if it has already been shorn', with regard to the fact that a creditor cannot claim from it ...

Clarification: ... even though regarding a Shevu'ah in Perek Shevu'as ha'Dayanim (Shevu'os, Daf 43a & 43b) there is a Machlokes as to whether 'Grapes that stand to be harvested are considered harvested' or not.

Justification: The Tana needs to mention this case, either to present a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi ...

Justification (cont.): Or to teach us that even Rebbi agrees in this case, as the Gemara will explain.

Explanation #1: The Ri explains that it is speaking about a regular wind, as is implied by the Gemara, that S'tam 'Libuy Ru'ach' refers to a regular wind ...

Proof: ... since the Gemara asks on the Beraisa 'Why it is not like the case (in connection with Shabbos) where a person winnows and is helped by the wind? And if this referred to a storm wind, this is something that a person would not be expected to take into account.

Question: Since the fire is fanned by a regular wind, the last one of those who placed the wood and the fire ought to be Chayav ...

Source: ... bearing in mind that we always find that one is Chayav by Eish, if one can cause damage by means of a regular wind ...

Examples: Such as 'One's stone, knife or load that one placed on top of one's roof and which falls in a regular wind and causes damage' (above, Daf 6a), or 'Someone who bends the standing corn of his friend towards a fire, which reaches it via a regular wind (above on Daf 56a)'.

Refuted Answer: Nor can one differentiate inasmuch as those cases lack only transporting the fire via a regular wind, whereas here it lacks fanning, in which case it is not considered Eish and it does not therefore fall under the heading of 'ha'Mav'ir es ha'Be'eirah' ...

Refutation: ... because in the first Perek (Daf 9b) the Gemara said that if one leaves a coal alone, it gradually goes out, and even though it moves around when the Cheresh carries it, it still tends to go out. But if the moving around of the Cheresh would cause it to flare up, the person who handed it to him would be Chayav ...

Refutation (cont.): Here too, the last one ought to be Chayav, even though it lacks fanning.

Answer: 'Libso ha'Ru'ach' in the Mishnah refers to 'Ba Acher ve'Libah', in which case it is equivalent to 'Libah ve'Libsah ha'Ru'ach' in the Beraisa quoted in the Gemara.

Proof: This is also implied by the Lashon 'Kulan'.

Answer (cont.): And it speaks where there is not sufficient power to fan - either in his fanning on its own or in the wind on its own, as Tosfos will explain in the Gemara (See following Dibur).

Refutation: What he (the Ri) pushed to explain that 'Libso ha'Ru'ach' means that both he and the wind fanned the flames is unnecessary.

Explanation #2: But the explanation is that 'Libsah ha'Ru'ach' speaks where a storm-wind fanned it on its own ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas 'Libah ve'Libsah ha'Ru'ach' in the Gemara speaks about a wind, irrespective of whether it is a regular wind or a storm-wind - where the wind that fanned it at the end was already there before he fanned it, whichever wind it is ...

Reason: Because, seeing as it was there beforehand, a storm-wind has the same Din as a regular wind.

Proof #1: And this is also implied in the answer of Rava, who explains that 'Libah' speaks with a regular wind, whereas 'Libsah ha'Ru'ach' speaks by a storm-wind' ...

Proof #1 (cont.): ... implying that the Gemara initially thought that the wind which fanned it in the end was blowing already before.

Proof #2: And it is also implied in the Yerushalmi - that the Mishnah speaks by a storm-wind, since the text there reads 'Libso ha'Ru'ach, Kulan Peturin' - 'There they established the case by a storm-wind, but by a regular wind, he will be Chayav ...

Second Opinion: Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish both say that he is Patur even by a regular wind ...

Reason: ... because sometimes it blows and sometimes it doesn't.