Clarification: This refers to Shmuel's statement 'Ba'al-Chov Govah es ha'Shevach' ...

Reason: ... because, since he owes him the land plus the Sh'vach, he can claim the Sh'vach for nothing from the purchasers.

Extention: And it would seem that the creditor can also claim the Sh'vach free of charge from Yesomim, without having to pay money, as he does from the purchasers ...

Implied Question: Even though they have nobody to reclaim it from, similar to a gift, from which the creditor cannot claim the Sh'vach, as is implied in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 115a, See Tosfos there DH 'Ba'al-Chov') ...

Implied Question (cont.): ... because it is specifically from the purchasers that he can claim, since the seller writes for the purchaser that he will reimburse him should the Ba'al-Chov claim it from him ...

Implied Question (concl.): But that is not the case by a Matanah, where the benefactor does not write this, and where the recipient has therefore nobody to turn to reimburse him ...

Answer: Nevertheless, he can claim from the Yesomim, on account of the principle 'A son is the leg (the extention) of his father'.

Source: ... as is evident in Perek Yesh B'chor (Bechoros, Daf 52a) where the Mishnah states that a B'chor does not take Ra'uy (what his father did not actually possess) or the Sh'vach, nor does a woman take them for her Kesubah or daughters for their sustenance.

Source (cont.): And in answer to the question from Shmuel, who said that a Ba'al-Chov claims the Sh'vach, the Gemara replies that the Tana is teaching here some of the leniencies of Kesubah'; and the sustenance of daughters is also a T'nai Kesubah (a condition of the Kesubah) ...

Source (cont.): ... and the Tana there is speaking about the Sh'vach of the Yesomim' ...

Proof: ... because, if it was the Sh'vach of the Lekuchos, why does he say that the daughters do not claim from the Sh'vach? Seeing as it is based on the Halachah that one cannot extract the sustenance of a wife or of a daughter from property that is Meshubad (from the purchaser), they cannot claim from the actual land either?

Source (concl.): It must therefore be speaking about the Sh'vach of the Yesomim, and it is specifically the Kesubah of a woman and her Mezonos, which are lenient, that one cannot claim from the Sh'vach, but other creditors can.

Introduction to Refutation: Rashi there, defines 'Mazon ha'Banos' as a woman who marries, and whose husband undertakes to feed her daughter for five years.

Refutation: According to his explanation, the proof falls away, since it can well be speaking about the Sh'vach of Lekuchos.

Rejection of Refutation #1: This is not correct however, because if so, the Tana ought to have said 'And not his wife's daughter (rather than 'daughters') for Mezonos'.

Rejection of Refutation #2: Moreover, 'T'nai Kesubah' is not applicable to her?

Implied Question: And when the Gemara in 'ha'Mekabel' (Bava Metzi'a (Daf 110a) speaks about Yesomim who claim that they improved the land and that the claimant is not entitled to the Sh'vach, implying that one cannot claim from the Sh'vach of Yesomim ...

Answer: ... that speaks where he designated the field as an Apotiki (a security) , and where they claim 'We improved it, so reimburse our expenses', like the Din regarding someone who goes into his friend's field without permission ... '.

Proof #1: And also in the Maskana, the Gemara establishes it where he designated it as an Apotiki.

Proof #2: In fact, also the beginning of the Sugya implies that he designated it as an Apotiki - since it states that it is up to the Yesomim to bring a proof; Why is that? Because, since the land stands to be claimed, it is as if it has already been claimed' ...

Proof #2 (cont.): ... Now if it was speaking where he made it an Apotiki, on what grounds is it in the Chazakah of the Ba'al-Chov, requiring the Yesomim to bring proof? On the contrary, the land is in the Chazakah of the Yesomim, seeing as should they so wish, they have the right to pay off the Ba'al-Chov with money, and the onus to bring a proof ought to lie with the Ba'al-Chov?

Proof #2 (cont.): It must therefore be speaking where the borrower designated it an Apotiki ...

Proof #2 (cont.): ... and the power of the Ba'al-Chov is actually weakened by the fact that he did, since it is now considered one of his (the Ba'al-Chov's) fields, in which case he is obligated to reimburse the one who improved it ...

Proof #2 (concl.): Had he not made it an Apotiki, the Ba'al-Chov would have been able to claim everything from the Yesomim without having to reimburse the Yesomim their expenses, just like he would from the Lekuchos, as Tosfos explained.

Clarification: We can now say that by Lekuchos too, where he designated it as an Apotiki, the Ba'al-Chov is obligated to pay the Loke'ach his expenses - even if he lent the borrower the amount equivalent to the land plus the Sh'vach ...

Clarification (cont.): ... because according to the Maskana - that he made it an Apotiki - we will no longer draw a distinction between where the debt was equal to the value of the land plus the Sh'vach and where it wasn't.

Clarification (concl.): ... since that distinction is negated in the Maskana, because, since he designated it as an Apotiki, he pays him his expenses, even though the debt was equivalent to the value of the land plus the Sh'vach.

Retraction: It is possible, however, to differentiate and to say that by the Lekuchos, since they have someone to whom to turn, where the debt was equivalent to the value of the land plus the Sh'vach, he does not need to reimburse them their expenses, even where he made it an Apotiki ...

Reason: Since it is not because he made it an Apotiki that the rights of the Ba'al-Chov should be diminished, seeing as the Loke'ach has someone from whom to claim ...

Refuted Rejection: ... because it is a Dochek to say that in the Maskana, which establishes it where he made it an Apotiki, we no longer need to differentiate between where the debt was equivalent to the value of the land plus the Sh'vach and where it wasn't ...

Refutation: ... bering in mind that all of this is said by Rav Ashi answering Ravina - because in all the Sefarim, the text reads 'Amar leih, "Ha de'Masik vih Shi'ur Ar'a ... "; Amar leih, "Hacha be'Mai Askinan, de'Shavyah Neheleih Apotiki" '.

Reason: ... and it is unlikely that he retracted from his initial statement.

Alternative Text/Explanation: The Ri points out that, according to the text that reads 'Amar leih, "Ka'an bi'Shevach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim ... " ', his initial answer definitely does not remain.

Conclusion: However, the majority of Sefarim have the text 've'Chi Teima Ka'an bi'Shevach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim ... '.

Clarification: It is a Machlokes in Perek Mi she'Hayah Nasuy in Kesuvos (Daf 91b & 92a) in connection with 'A man whom they lent a thousand Zuz') ...

Clarification (cont.): The one who holds there that one cannot pay him off with money is Rami bar Chama, who says there that 'that is the Din of the Mishnah'.

Implied Question: Although in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 15b & 16a) it appears that even according to Rav who says that if he did not know that it did not belong to the seller, he can claim the Sh'vach', and that 've'Lakchah' means from the Gazlan, but the owner is not obligated to give him the Sh'vach ...

Answer: ...that is specifically with regard to Karka, which is not subject to theft and where the Gazlan himself does not therefore receive the Sh'vach ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas here it is talking about Metalt'lin, where the Gazlan receives the Sh'vach on account of Takanas ha'Shavim, in which case, so does the person who purchased them from him (See also Hagahos ha'G'ra & Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Implied Question: Even though someone who steals an animal and kills it acquires it ...

Answer: ... that is a more discernable Shinuy.

Explanation #1: The Ri found in the Teshuvos of the Ge'onim, with reference to 'Nitlah ha'Tiyomes' - 'The uppermost leaf - the one at the top of the Lulav, which is like two leaves that are stuck together - are called the "Tiyomes" '.

Support: And that is also how the B'hag seems to define it.

Problem: According to them, we do not possess a Kasher Lulav, since it is with great difficulty that one finds such a 'Tiyomes' - even one in five hundred!

Resolution: One can however explain that even according to them, it is only Pasul if it initially grew like that and then split, because it changed from the way it was formed.

Explanation #2: Rashi (in Succah, Daf 32a, DH 'Nechl'kah') explains - 'Nechl'kah ha'Tiyomes' - The two top middle leaves that grow from where the spine of the Lulav ends; if they come apart, and the spine too, splits down to the leaves immediately below them.

Explanation #2 (cont.): This implies that the spine split to the extent that the top leaves are completely separated from one another.

Explanation #3: The Ri also cites other commentaries, who explain that all the leaves of the Lulav are doubled (into two), and that at the top of the Lulav from the end of the spine there grow two leaves, each one folded into two (like all the other leaves); those two leaves are called 'the Tiyomes' ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): And it is in connection with them that the Gemara now asks 'Nechl'kah ha'Tiyomes, Mahu?' - If they separated from one another, meaning that they separated a little from the spine.

Implied Question: The majority of Lulavin that we have however, are not shaped like that.

Answer: Nevertheless, the Gemara asks what the Din will be, should one find such a Tiyomes which is split.

Halachah: The Ri explains that, when the Gemara rules 'Niktam Rosho Pasul', it means that the tops of most of the leaves have been cut off.

Proof: There is no 'Niktam' more than the Ketimah of the Tiyomes, yet it implies that Davka 'Nitlah' is Pasul, but 'Niktam' is Kasher.

Refutation: But then he (the Ri) said that it may well be that the Tana mentions 'Nitlah' (not for the inference, but) because we would otherwise have thought that 'Nitlah', which is completely removed, is more Hadar than 'Niktam'.

Clarification: Specifically where he made coins with it ...

Clarification (cont.): But if he made a K'li with the silver - such as a silver cup, he would acquire it, even if he subsequently reverted it to silver.

Reason: ... since it is no worse than planks which one manufactured into Keilim.

Reason (cont.): But coins and a brick are not so Chashuv

Clarification: This is what normally happens, because it is the way to exchange a cow for a donkey and to sell a Shifchah for money

Refuted Explanation: But one cannot explain that the Tana could not have stated 'ha'Mocher Parah ve'Yaldah' - because one cannot acquire a cow with money, only with Meshichah, and during the Meshichah, one can see whether it gave birth or not

Refuted Explanation (cont.): ... whereas a Shifchah one can acquire with money, since Avadim are compared to Karka'os.

Refutation: ... because the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Meir who does not compare them ...

Source: ... becaue he maintains 'Nishba'in al ha'Avadim (ve'al Karka'os Ein Nishba'in') - as is evident in Shevu'os (Daf 42a & 42b), in connection with 'Yesh Devarim she'hein ke'Karka ve'Einan ke'Karka'.

Source (cont.): ... and since he does not compare them with regard to Shevu'ah, the same will apply with regard to Kinyan ...

Proof: ... seeing as the Gemara brings a proof here from Shevu'ah on to Gezel.

Refutation: One can however, draw a distinction and say that regarding Gezel and Shevu'ah, the Gemara compares them, since both are derived from a 'K'lal u'Perat' ...

Source: ... Gezel, later in the last Perek (on Daf 117b) and Shevu'os in Perek Shevu'as ha'Dayanim (Shevu'os, Daf 42b)

Statement: This goes well with the opinion that holds 'Bari ve'Shema, Bari Adif' ...

Implied Question: And as for the opinion that holds 'Lo Bari Adif' ...

Answer: He will explain that 'Silence is akin to admission', and not like saying that one doesn't know.