1)

(a)The elders of Masa Mechasya told Rav Ashi that the duration of a Stam Mashkanta is one year - which means that, even be'Asra de'Mesalki, the borrower is not allowed to redeem it before that year has elapsed.

(b)They also told him that the acronym of 'Mashkanta' is - 'de'Shachna Gabeih', meaning that the creditor is the closest neighbor of that field ...

(c)... which means that should the debtor subsequently decide to sell it, the Din of Bar Metzra applies to it, and the creditor must be given the first option of purchase.

2)

(a)Rava declared the Tarsha of Rav Papa invalid (as we learned above). He also declared invalid the Shtaros of Mechuza - where Reuven would purchase goods from Ba'alei-Batim and give it to merchants to take to market, sell at a profit, and they would split the profits. Only Reuven would assess the profit in advance, and write out a Shtar to the effect that the merchant owed him half the principle plus profits, and the Chakirus of the Narsha'a.

(b)The problem with the former is - that sometimes that profit did not materialize, in which case when Reuven nevertheless claimed it, he was claiming Ribis.

(c)Mar bar Ameimar told Rav Ashi that his father use to do just that. To eliminate the element of Ribis however - he would accept the merchants' word when they claimed that there was no profit, and subsequently waive his own claim.

(d)Rav Ashi objected to that however - because if Ameimar was a Chasid and volunteered to waive the non-existent profits, who said that, in the event of his death, his heirs, who would take over his claim, would do likewise.

(e)We cite here the Pasuk "ki'Shegagah ha'Yotzeis Milifnei ha'Shalit"- because no sooner had Rav Ashi made his point than Ameimar died.

3)

(a)'Chakirus' - constitutes where one pays a fixed annual rental on a field, whether the field produces or not.

(b)In the case of the Chakirus of the Narsha'a - the creditor would take a field as a Mashkon from the debtor, which he would then rent back to him in the form of Chakirus.

(c)The problem with this was - that a. he was using the debtor's field (which he has not really acquired) to make easy money from the debtor himself (a clear-cut case of Ribis Ketzutzah); and b. he received his rental, irrespective of whether the field produced fruit or not.

4)

(a)We initially think that 'nowadays', the problem has been circumvented - because they added to the Shtar - that the debtor was Makneh the field to the creditor, who first ate the fruit be'Nachyasa before the debtor rented it back.

(b)The basis of this Heter was 'Ne'ilas De'les' (to encourage the creditors to overcome their fear of not retrieving their money, and not to refrain from lending money to those who need it).

(c)We nevertheless conclude 've'Lav Milsa Hi' - because even nowadays, it is considered proper Ribis.

5)

(a)'Iska' is - where Reuven gives goods to a storekeeper to sell at a profit, which they will later share.

(b)It is forbidden - because the storekeeper accepts Acharayus for half the principle, rendering him a borrower on that half, and a Shomer on the other half. This means that he is looking after the owner's half because of the loan of his half, which constitutes Ribis.

(c)Iska will be permitted however, if the owner pays the storekeeper for the trouble of looking after his half, like a worker (which will be explained shortly).

(d)Our Mishnah presents two cases, one of them 'Ein Moshivin Chenvani le'Mechtzis S'char' (which is the case we just described). The other case is - the prohibition of giving him money with which to purchase fruit to sell at a profit and to then split the profit.

6)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah ...

1. ... '(Ein) Moshivin Tarnegolin le'Mechtzah, which means - that Reuven pays Shimon (who rears chickens) money for eggs, which he then places underneath chickens to hatch. Here too, they will share the proceeds when the chicks grow into chickens, and Shimon accepts half the Achrayus of the eggs.

2. '(Ein) Shamin Agalim ve'Sayachin le'Mechtzah' means - that Reuven, after assessing the current value of Shimon's calves and fillies, pays him money to raise them, to split the profit when they turn into cows and horses (under the same circumstances as the previous case).

(b)The latter case will be permitted - if Reuven gives Shimon the money and stipulates that they divide the calves and foals when they have reached one third of their growth, without making a prior assessment.

(c)If, instead of calves and fillies, Reuven paid Shimon to raise baby donkeys - he would stipulate that they would divide the proceeds when they reach the stage that they are able to carry.

7)

(a)We learned in the Reisha of our Mishnah that the owner of the goods is obligated to pay the storekeeper like a worker. The Beraisa interprets this to mean like a Po'el Bateil, which Abaye explains to mean - how much a person who normally works much harder than this, will be willing to accept to be idle from his work, and to do this work instead.

(b)Having taught us this in the case of ...

1. ... 'Ein Moshivin Chenvani ... ', the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to add the case of 've'Lo Yiten Ma'os Likach bahen Peiros' - because it involves harder work, and we might have thought that paying him like a Po'el Bateil will not suffice to counter the Ribis.

2. ... 've'Lo Yiten Ma'os Li'kach Bahen Peiros', the Tana needed to add the case of 'Ein Moshivin Chenvani ... ' - because we might otherwise have thought that since it entails less work, a token payment such as dipping his food into fish-juice or eating one dried fig together with him will suffice.

(c)The Beraisa cites three opinions with regard to how to pay in the case of 'le'Mechtzis S'char. Rebbi Meir says whether a lot or a little; Rebbi Yehudah says even if he only dipped his food into fish-juice or ate a fig with him it will suffice. The more lenient of the two is - Rebbi Yehudah, who does not require a fixed wage (like Rebbi Meir does), only that the storekeeper or the Mekabel derives some benefit from the owner.

(d)The third opinion is the author of our Mishnah - Rebbi Shimon, who says that he must 'give him his full wage'.

8)

(a)The Tana Kama of a Beraisa forbids Shuma (assessing) for Mechtzis Schar any animal that needs to be fed but does not work (to pay for its food and care). The animals ...

1. ... that fall under the category of 'needs to be fed and works' are - cows (which plow) and donkeys (which carry loads).

2. ... to which the Tana Kama is referring - are goats and sheep.

(b)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah permits Shuma by ...

1. ... goats - because they produce milk.

2. ... sheep - because they provide wool in the shearing season, as well as the Shotfos and Mortos (what the water washes off whenever they cross a river, and what gets caught on the brambles as they walk past bushes).

3. ... chickens - because they produce eggs on a daily basis.

(c)We ask how the Tana Kama can possibly argue with the fact that the wool and the milk (should the owner be willing to forego his half) are sufficient to dispel the Ribis, and we answer - that the Tana Kama is referring (not to the regular shearings and milk, but) to the whey (of the milk) and the Shotfos and Mortos (as we explained).

(d)In that case ...

1. ... the Tana Kama - holds like Rebbi Shimon (who requires the Mekabel to receive full wages), whereas ...

2. ... Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah - concurs with his father, who considers a minimal benefit sufficient.

9)

(a)The Tana - permits a woman to rent her chicken to her friend for two chicks (out of the revenue)?

(b)In the same Beraisa, Rebbi Shimon forbids a woman to enter into an agreement whereby she places her friend's eggs under her chickens, to divide the chicks that are hatched. Despite the fact that the owner of the eggs is not paying for the trouble and the chicken-fodder, Rebbi Yehudah permits it - because there is the odd egg that cannot hatch, which the Mekabel takes.

(c)Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah - follow their own respective opinions (as discussed above).

10)

(a)The Tana Kama requires the owner to pay the Mekabel Schar Katef where it is the Minhag to do so. Schar Katef is - paying the Mekabel for the trouble of having to carry the calf or the filly in and out on his shoulders.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel absolves him from paying Schar Katef for a calf or a filly (even where it is customary to do so when the mother is not present), if he is dealing with its mother, too - because then, the young animal tends to follow its mother on its own.

(c)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel will explain that the trouble (for the occasions when it does not follow its mother) and food (failing which, constitutes Ribis) - are paid for by the droppings left by the animal, which the Mekabel takes (see also Tosfos DH 've'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel'), because Raban Shimon ben Gamliel too, holds like Rebbi Yehudah.

(d)The Tana Kama will counter this - by pointing out that the owner tends to consider the droppings Hefker (in which case it cannot be considered a payment from him to the Mekabel).

11)

(a)Rav Nachman declared - 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah, ve'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, ve'Halachah ke'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel'.

12)

(a)When someone produced a Shtar Iska against the sons of Rav Ilish, on which it was stated that the owner accepted half the gains and half the losses - Rav commented that Rav Ilish was a great man who would not have fed the owner Ribis (because for the owner to accept half the gains and half the losses without paying for the trouble constitutes Ribis).

(b)One of the two options open to Rav Ilish was that the owner would accept two thirds of the losses alongside one half of the gains the other - that the Mekabel would accept half the losses but receive two thirds of the gains.

13)

(a)When Rav Kahana related this episode to Rav Zvid from Neharda'a, the latter suggested that Rav Ilish probably - dipped into fish-juice together with the owner (like Rebbi Yehudah in the previous Sugya).

(b)The Chachamim rejected Rav Zvid's interpretation, which was based on Rav Nachman's statement ('Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah, ve'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah ... ') however, by reinterpreting that statement to mean (not that the Halachah is like these three Tana'im, but) - that they were all of the same opinion (which generally means that it is not Halachah).

(c)And they proved that this must have been what Rav Nachman meant - because otherwise, why did he find it necessary to rule like all three? Why would it not have sufficed to rule like Rebbi Yehudah, who is the most lenient of them all?