Question: How can the Gemara prove from there that 'R'shus Yoresh ki'Reshus Loke'ach' ...

Reason: ... seeing as he gave it to him of his own accord, he does not have it in the form of Gezeilah but in the form of a loan, which is why they are not Chayav to return it, seeing as 'One cannot claim a Milveh-al-Peh from the heirs' (See Hagahos ha'Rav Renchberg)?

Answer: Despite the fact that he gave it to him of his own accord, it is nevertheless in his domain in the form of Gezeilah ...

Reason: ... because it is considered a gift given in error - since he did not give it to him as a gift but as Ribis ...

Reason (cont.): ... and since the money is available, it is called a Gezeilah that is available, in which case they would be obligated to return it if it was not considered 'ki'Reshus Loke'ach', turning it into a Shinuy R'shus.

Explanation #1: Seeing as they could have claimed that they already returned it.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it speaks where there are no witnesses that it was stolen, only on the admission of the children.

Rejection of Text: Tosfos erases this text ...

Reason: ... seeing as that is not a problem - since the earlier Beraisa goes like Sumchus, whereas the current Beraisa goes according to the Rabanan, as Rashi explains.

Amended Text: And the correct text, as appears in all the Sefarim, reads 'va'Achilas Katan Midi Mashasha Is beih? Lo Y'hei Ela Mazik, u'Tenan ' "Chashu" Pegi'asan Ra'ah?'

Implied Question: And the Gemara could likewise have asked why Gedolim are Chayav if they ate it after Yi'ush, according to Rav Chisda, and before Yi'ush, according to Rami bar Chama ...

Implied Question (cont.): ... because even though they are Chayav if the Gezeilah is still available, they will be Patur if they ate it - as Tosfos explained above (on the previous Amud, DH 'Gazal')?

Answer: Only the Gemara prefers to ask more directly on Ketanim.

Refuted Answer: One cannot however answer by establishing it where their father left them Acharayus Nechasam, which will explain why the Gedolim are Chayav to pay, and why there is a Kashya on Ketanim, who ought to be Patur, seeing as one is only permitted to accept testimony in the presence of the litigant (and a Katan is considered absent) ...

Refutation: ... because they will only be Patur for that reason according to Sumchus, but not according to the Rabanan.

Clarification: This implies that it speaks even if Rebbi Yirmiyah was inside the house ...

Proof: ... since it does not differentiate and say that there it speaks where the owner of the field was Muchzak in the field, whereas here Rebbi Yirmiyah was not M uchzak.

Conclusion: So it appears that that is not the criterion, only the fact that his brother-in-law had a Chazakah from his father.

Explanation #1: It implies, says the Ri, that they required 'Shalchu lo ve'Lo Ba' together with 'she'Hayu Eidav Cholin' or "she'Hayu Mevakshin Leilech li'Medinas haa'Yam' ...

Proof: ... since it did not say 'O Shalchu', as it does ... 'O she'Hayu Eidav Cholin " she'Hayu ... '.

Explanation #2: Shortly however, it implies that it means 'O ve'Shalchu' - when it says 'K'gon de'Paschu leih be'Dineih O Shalchu leih ve'Lo Asa' ...

Proof: ... which suggests that due to the reason that 'Shalchu lo ve'Lo Asa' alone they accepted the witnesses not in the presence of the litigant.

Refutation: One can refute the proof however, on the grounds that it is different there, seeing as the Beis-Din ha'Gadol began dealing with his case.

Alternative Text: Some texts read 'O Shalchu Acharav ve'Lo Ba'.

Conclusion: One therefore needs to study the old texts.

Conclusion (cont.): And in the explanation of the Rach and in an old text it is written 've'Shalchu lo'.

Clarification: The B'hag explains that the defendant can get out of it with that argument.

Explanation #1: It would seem that it is specifically the defendant who can absolve himself with this argument, but not the claimant ...

Reason: Because otherwise, anybody can say to his friend 'Either give me a Manah or come with me to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol!'

Explanation #2: But Rabeinu Tam says that Kal va'Chomer the claimant ...

Reason #1: ... since now that the defendant, who it would seem, is playing a trick in order to absolve himself from the claim, can say this, how much more so the claimant, who is merely bearing out his claim, and who does not therefore appear to be playing tricks.

Reason #2: Moreover, if even the debtor whom Chazal describe as 'an Eved to the creditor' can claim that he wants to go to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, how much more so the claimant!

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara in Perek Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin, Daf 31b & 32a) citing the Halachah in the name of Ameimar, says 'We force him to accompany him to "the place of the Va'ad" ' - and it concludes that this is confined to the creditor, but that the borrower is 'the creditor's Eved ' and that he cannot therefore make the same demands of him ...

Answer: ... Beis ha'Va'ad is not equivalent to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol ...

Answer (cont): ... 'Beis ha'Va'ad' is simply the fixed location where Beis-Din convene, and the Beis-Din ha'Gadol is superior to it in Chochmah.

Conclusion: The Halachah is that even the borrower can demand that they go to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, but not to the Bis-ha'Va'ad. Consequently, the creditor can force him to accompany him to the town's Beis-Din.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it speaks where the witnesses want to go overseas ...

Refutation: The Ri disagrees however, in that, if so, why does Rava mention 'Kiyun ha'Shetar', seeing as the same applies to Kabalas Eidim, as we learned earlier?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that Rava is speaking under all circumstances ...

Reason: ... because Kiyum ha'Shetar is only mi'de'Rabanan ...

Source: ... based on the fact that 'When witnesses sign on a Sh'tar, it is as if their testimony has been verified in Beis-Din, in which case, (min ha'Torah) it no longer requires verification - only mi'de'Rabanan ...

Conclusion: ... and this explains why it can be verified even not in the presence of the debtor.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Yochanan who says 'Ein Mekaymin', holds that the Rabanan did not draw a distinction between Kiyum Sh'taros and Kabalas Eidus.

Implied Question: And when Rav Sheishes says that he will explain Rebbi Yochanan's reason' ...

Answer: What he means is that, even regarding Kiyum Sh'taros, Rebbi Yochanan holds that 'the owner of the ox must come and stand by his ox'.

Conclusion: Rav too however, holds in general that 'the owner of the ox must come ... '.

Clarification: Since they probably judged him on Monday.

Clarification: When they tear it up, he is obligated to pay the Sofer's fee.