(Gemara) Question: If Reuven sent it with his own slave on Shimon's request, why is Shimon liable? A slave does not have his own Yad (power of acquisition). He can acquire only for his master. It is as if Reuven still has it!

Answer #1 (Shmuel): The Mishnah discusses a Yisrael slave. Reuven owns only his labor. The slave has his own Yad.

Answer #2 (Rav): It can even be a Kena'ani slave. It is as if Shimon said 'hit the cow so it will come to me.' Once it leaves Reuven's premises, Shimon is liable.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven lent Shimon a cow, and sent it (on Shimon's request) with his own son or Shali'ach, Shimon is liable. If Reuven sent it with his own slave, Shimon is exempt.

Shmuel can say that the Beraisa discusses a Kena'ani slave. How can Rav answer?

Answer: Rav did not mean that asking to send with a Kena'ani slave is as if Shimon said 'hit it so it will come to me.' Rather, the Mishnah discusses when Shimon actually said 'hit it...';

In the Beraisa, Shimon just asked 'send it with your slave.'

(Rav Nachman citing Rav): If Levi asked to borrow Yehudah's cow, and Yehudah asked with whom he should send it, and Levi said 'hit it and it will come to me', once it leaves Yehudah's premises, if it dies, Levi is liable.

Support (Beraisa): If Levi asked to borrow Yehudah's cow, and Yehudah asked with whom he should send it, and Levi said 'hit it and it will come to me', once it leaves Yehudah's premises, if it dies, Levi is liable.

Rejection (Rav Ashi): The case is, Levi's Chatzer was inside Yehudah's. It is sure to go to Levi after leaving Yehudah's Chatzer. (However, if it is a distance away, Levi is unsure if it will come to him, so he does not resolve to accept liability until it comes to him.)

Question: If so, this is obvious. What is the Chidush of the Beraisa?

Answer: There are small passages where it could hide. It is not absolutely certain that it will go to Levi. One might have thought that Levi does not resolve to accept liability. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Rav Huna): Reuven borrowed an axe from Shimon. Once he chops with it, he acquires it. Before chopping with it, he does not acquire it.

Question: For what must he acquire it?

Suggestion: It is to be liable for Ones.

Rejection: This should be no different than a cow. He is liable once he borrows it, even before using it!

Answer: Rather, it is so Shimon cannot demand that he return it (for the duration of the loan);

Before Reuven chops with it, Shimon can demand that he return it.

Rav Huna argues with R. Ami.

(R. Ami): If Levi lent a Hekdesh axe to Yehudah, Levi transgressed Me'ilah according to the benefit he received (how much he would pay to be able to lend an axe). Yehudah may use it.

If Yehudah did not acquire it (even before using it), why does Levi transgress, and why may Yehudah use it? He should be obligated to return it to avoid Me'ilah!

Rav Huna argues also with R. Elazar.

(R. Elazar): Just like Meshichah was enacted for buyers (to acquire in place of money), it was also enacted for Shomrim.

Support (Beraisa): Just like Meshichah was enacted for buyers, it was also enacted for Shomrim;

Just like land is acquired through money, a document or Chazakah, also rental is acquired through these.

Question: How can one make Chazakah (on rented Metaltelim) without already acquiring through Meshichah?

Answer (Rav Chisda): The Beraisa refers to rental of land.

(Shmuel): If Reuven stole 50 dates stuck together, which sell for 49 when sold together, and for 50 when sold individually:

If he stole from an individual, he pays 49. If he took from Hekdesh, he pays 50 and a Chomesh;

If he damaged Hekdesh, he does not add a fifth.

"If one will eat Kodesh (he adds a fifth)." This excludes one who damages.

Question (Rav Bivi bar Abaye): Why does he pay only 49 to an individual? The victim can say 'I would have sold them one at a time!'

Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua - Mishnah): We evaluate damage by estimating the decreased value of a Beis Se'ah due to the damaged patch (Rashi; Tosfos - we estimate a damaged Beis Se'ah as part of a field 60 times greater). (I.e. we are lenient about damages!)

Question: Does Shmuel really distinguish the laws of paying people and Hekdesh?!

(Mishnah): If Reuven (the treasurer of Hekdesh) took a rock or beam of Hekdesh, he did not transgress Me'ilah;

If he gave it to Shimon, Reuven transgressed Me'ilah;

If Reuven (kept it and) used it to build his house, he does not transgress Me'ilah until he gets a Perutah's worth of benefit from it by living in the house.

(R. Avahu citing Shmuel): We learn from this that if Levi dwells in Yehudah's field without his knowledge, Levi must pay!

Answer: Shmuel retracted from that teaching.

Question: Perhaps he retracted from this teaching!

Answer: Presumably, he holds like Rava.

(Rava): One who takes from Hekdesh unknowingly is like one who takes from a person knowingly. (Therefore, we cannot learn about dwelling in a man's field without his knowledge from dwelling under Hekdesh.)

(Rava): If burden carriers broke a barrel of wine, and on most days, it sells for four, but on the market day, the grocer sells it for five:

If they replace it before the market day, that suffices. If not, they must pay five.

This is only if the grocer did not have other wine to sell. If he did, they can return a barrel even after the market day.

Even when they pay five, they deduct to compensate for the toil the grocer was spared (he did not have to sell it) and the cost of making a hole in the barrel (some explain - the cost of announcing that he has wine to sell).