1)

(a)In a case where Reuven produces an undated Shtar that he has rented Shimon's house for ten years, Rava Amar Rav Nachman rules that if Shimon claims that he has already been in the house for five years and Reuven argues that he has been there for only three, Shimon is believed - because he has a Chezkas Karka (which resolves every Safek).

(b)When Rav Acha subsequently asked Ravina - whether, in a case where Reuven produced a Shtar that he had lent Shimon a hundred Zuz, and the latter claimed that he had already paid back half, he would be believed (seeing as he too, is Muchzak in the money) - he replied in the negative ...

(c)... because whereas in the first case the purpose of the Shtar is merely to prevent the hirer from staking a claim to the house (see Tosfos), in the second, it is in order to claim with it. Consequently, if had Shimon had paid half, Reuven should have safeguarded himself by recording the payment, either on the back of the Shtar (with the Beis-Din's stamp of approval) or by insisting on a receipt.

2)

(a)When Rav Nachman says 'Sho'el Adam be'Tuvo Le'olam', he means - that if Reuven borrows a vessel from Shimon using the expression 'be'Tuvo', it gives him an ongoing right to borrow it whenever he needs it.

(b)Rav Mari B'rah de'Bas Shmuel qualifies this ruling - by restricting it to where Reuven reinforced the contract with a Kinyan, failing which, Shimon retains the right to retract.

(c)Should the object break however - Rav Mari B'rah de'Bas Shmuel obligates Reuven, who has not been given the object as a gift, must return the broken pieces to Shimon.

3)

(a)Rava rules - that if someone asks to borrow a spade to dig 'this orchard', he may only dig that particular orchard; 'an orchard', then he is permitted to dig any orchard, irrespective of its size (see also Hagahos ha'G'ra).

(b)If he stipulated 'orchards', then he is permitted to dig all the orchards that he owns. If Rava had not taught us this Halachah - we would have thought that the principle 'Mi'ut Rabim Shenayim' (plural that is unspecified is restricted to two) applies here, and that he is allowed to dig two orchards but no more.

(c)Rav Papa rules - that if someone asks to borrow 'this fountain' and it caves in, then he has no right to dig a new one; 'a fountain', he does.

(d)'A place to dig a fountain' - he has the right to dig as many fountains as he pleases in the space allotted to him.

(e)We qualify this final case (see Ritva) however - by restricting it to where he made a Kinyan, failing which, the owner is entitled to retract.

4)

(a)Our Mishnah rules - that if a rented apartment collapsed, the owner must provide the hirer with a substitute apartment.

(b)The owner is forbidden to change from ...

1. ... a small apartment to a large one or vice-versa, or from ...

2. ... a one-room apartment to a two-room one, or vice-versa.

(c)He is also forbidden to change - the number of windows in the apartment.

5)

(a)The Tana cannot be speaking where the owner originally agreed to rent the hirer ...

1. ... 'this apartment' - because then, why would he be obligated to replace the one that collapsed?

2. ... 'an apartment' - because then, why would he not be permitted to make any changes regarding its size ... ?

(b)we object to Reish Lakish's suggestion that the owner specifically stipulated the apartment's specifications - on the grounds that the Mishnah would not then be teaching us a Chidush.

(c)Ravin quoting Reish Lakish finally establishes our Mishnah - where he stipulated that he is renting him an apartment 'like this one', and where that apartment is standing in an attractive location (e.g. by the river-bank). If not for our Mishnah, we may have understood 'an apartment like this one' to refer to its location by the river bank, rather than to its specifications.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone who is Mekabel a field - is obligated to cut the crops or to uproot them according to local custom, and to plow afterwards, if that is what is normally done.

(b)By 'Mekabel' the Tana means - either as an Aris (who pays the owner a percentage of the crops that the field yields) or as a Choker (who pays a fixed amount of crops per annum) in lieu of rental.

(c)The purpose of plowing after reaping or uprooting is - in order to destroy the roots of the weeds that remain in the ground.

(d)In a case where he received the field be'Kablanus' and they divide the produce, or the wine in the case of a vineyard - they also divide the straw, the stubble, the cut branches and the canes.

(e)Initially - they both provide the canes.

7)

(a)The owner - cannot force the Mekabel to change any of the above Minhagim, any more than the Mekabel can force the owner to accept any changes.

(b)If one of them wants the crops to be uprooted where the Minhag is to cut them ...

1. ... the owner can object - on the grounds that he wants the roots to remain in the ground, for fertilizer the following year.

2. ... the Mekabel can object - because it is too much work.

(c)And if either of them wants to cut the crops where the Minhag is to uproot them ...

1. ... the owner can object - on the grounds that he wants his field to be neat and clean.

2. ... the Mekabel can object - on the grounds that he needs the roots as fodder for his animals.

(d)When the Tana adds 'u'Sheneihem Me'akvin Zeh al Zeh', he is coming to teach us (not a new Halachah, but) that, in both of the above cases, each party is justified in objecting to a change of Minhag, as we just explained,

8)

(a)The Tana needs to teach us that where the Minhag is for the Mekabel to plow after the cutting, he is obligated to plow - even if, in a place where it is not customary to weed whilst the crops are growing, he did, and he now argues that he specially weeded before the harvest, to absolve himself from the need to plow afterwards.

(b)He nevertheless remains obligated to plow again afterwards - because he failed to stipulate any change from Minhag ha'Makom at the time of the contract.

(c)The Tana added 'ha'Kol ke'Minhag ha'Medinah' to teach us that in a place where the Minhag is to rent fruit-trees that line the border of the field to the Mekabel of a field of crops, then the owner is obligated to do so, and where it is not, then he is not. The significance of these trees is - that, unlike produce, which require a lot of tending to, the fruit constitutes an easy profit, without much work.

(d)The Tana needs to teach us that in a place where the Minhag is ...

1. ... to rent these fruit-trees, then the owner is obligated to do so - in a place where the owner undertook to accept a quarter of the annual produce, instead of the regular third. If not for our Mishnah, we would have thought that he can claim that he took less than everybody else, in order not to have to rent out the trees.

2. ... not to do so, then he is not - in a place where the Mekabel undertook to give the owner a third of the produce instead of the regular quarter. If not for our Mishnah, we would have thought that he can claim that he paid more than everybody else, thinking that he would be compensated by renting the trees.

(e)We do not accept both sets of arguments - on the basis of their not having expressed their intentions and stipulated accordingly.

9)

(a)Rav Yosef says that ...

1. ... in Bavel, it was the Minhag not to give straw to an Aris. He needs to tell us this - so that even if we come across someone who does, we cannot go by that to form the Minhag (since the Minhag has already been established).

2. ... it is the job of the owner to arrange Buchra - (the first row of earth that one piles around the ditch from which one extracted it) Tafsa -(the second row (after the first has been trodden underfoot), Arkavta (the third row) and Kani de'Chizra.

(b)Although, as we just explained, Rav Yosef obligates the owner to arrange Kani de'Chizra, the Aris arranges Chizra itself.

1. ... 'Kani de'Chizra' are - the closely-arranged poles, through which they would 'weave' the thorn-bushes or the boards that complete the protective fence.

2. ... 'Chizra' is - the actual thorn-bushes or the boards themselves.

(c)The underlying principle behind this distinction is - that the onus of providing whatever is needed for the basic protection of the field lies on the owner, whereas any extra protection, which makes life easier for the Mekabel, must be provided by him.

(d)Rav Yosef obligates ...

1. ... the owner to provide the hoe and the shovel, the bucket and the water-pitcher, and ...

2. ... the Mekabel, the irrigation ditches.

10)

(a)We also learned in our Mishnah that the owner and the Mekabel share the canes (not growing canes, which have no use in a vineyard, but) - split canes which are used to hold up the vines.

(b)Having taught us that the owner and the Mekabel share the canes, the Tana adds that initially, they both supply them (not to teach us an additional Halachah, but) - to provide the reason as to why they share them.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses the differences between ...

1. ... a 'Beis ha'Shalachin' - (a dry field that needs to be watered manually, over and above the rain that waters it) and ...

2. ... a 'Beis ha'Ilan' - (a field with trees growing in it).

(b)If the fountain dries up or the tree dies, the Mekabel remains obligated to pay his full dues - if he received the field Stam, but if initially, he specifically asked for that 'Sadeh Beis ha'Shalachin' or that 'Sadeh Beis ha'Ilan', then he deducts from his Chakirus.

(c)The Reisha of our Mishnah cannot be speaking where the main river dried up - because then, on the grounds that it is a communal problem, he would be entitled to deduct from his Chakirus (as we shall see later).

(d)Rav Papa therefore establishes it - where the tributary leading from the main river to the field dried up, and the reason that the Mekabel remains obligated to pay the owner is - because he ought then to have watered the field with buckets.