1)

(a)One Beraisa rules 'Chaval Zug shel Saparim ve'Tzemed shel Paros, Chayav Shetayim'. What constitutes the two La'avin by

1. ... a Zug shel Saparim (a pair or barber's scissors) is - the two blades, each of which can be used independently.

2. ... a Tzemed shel Paros is - the combination of the two cows and the yoke, which comprises two parts.

(b)Where the creditor took only one of them, he rules - 'Eino Chayav Ela Achas'.

(c)This Beraisa on its own does not substantiate the opinion of Rav Yehudah (who learns that 'Rechayim va'Rachev' incorporates only two La'avin and not three) - since Rav Huna might well concede in this case that there are no more than two La'avin, each vessel on account of " ... ki Nefesh Hu Chovel" (seeing as these vessels are not mentioned specifically in the Pasuk, as "Rechayim va'Rachev" are).

2)

(a)A second Beraisa compares every case of two vessels which are used in conjunction with each other to Rechayim va'Rachev - rendering him Chayav two La'avin. Consequently, by Rechayim va'Rachev too, one transgresses two La'avin (and not three, just like the other vessels to which we are comparing them), a proof for Rav Yehudah.

(b)We nevertheless need the first Beraisa - because without it, we would have thought that the second Beraisa only comes to obligate each vessel in its own right, to count them as two vessels (rather than to treat them both as one entity), but not to preclude a third La'av. However, now that the first Beraisa lists two La'avin (and not three), the second Beraisa clearly holds likewise.

3)

(a)In a case where the creditor took a butcher's knife as a Mashkon, Abaye instructed him to return it - because a butcher's knife is a source of Parnasah, and cannot therefore be taken as a Mashkon.

(b)He also instructed him to claim his debt in Beis-Din. Had the debtor denied the claim - he would have been believed with a Shevu'as Hesses.

(c)Rava objected to Abaye's ruling - on the basis that, since no-one witnessed him take the knife, he should be believed to keep it (or at least up to the value of the loan) with a 'Migu' that he could have claimed that he bought it.

(d)In a case where goats ate Reuven's peeled barley, and Reuven subsequently seized the goats and claimed them as payment for his barley - Shmuel's father authorized him to retain up to the value of his barley.

4)

(a)Abaye ruled differently in the current case than Avuhah di'Shmuel, because, he argued, a butcher's knife is different - inasmuch as, whereas people do not tend to lend or rent out goats (enabling the Nizak to claim that he had bought them [the basis of the 'Migu']), butcher's knives they do, in which case he would not have been believed had he claimed that he had bought it, and there was no 'Migu'.

(b)In a similar case, where the owner claimed that he had lent a pair of wool-cutting shears and Sifrei Agadah to the father of the Yesomim who now had them in their possession - Rava made the Yesomim return them, for the same reason as Abaye in the case of the butcher's knife.

(c)This proves that even according to Rava, 'Laku'ach Hu be'Yadi' is not believed by things that one tends to lend or hire out.

(d)The reason there cannot be because Yesomim are not conversant with their deceased father's affairs - due to the principle that whatever the defendant himself could have claimed, Beis-Din claim on behalf of Yesomim.

(e)And the reason that Rava disagreed with Abaye's ruling is - because, in his opinion, people do not lend out butchers' knives either, since they need to be sharp, and the owners are afraid that the borrower may blunt them.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a two-storey building belonging to two brothers, one of whom took the upper floor (the attic), and the other, the lower one, collapsed (and neither recognizes which bricks are his) - they divide the bricks, the wood and the dust of the building in proportion to the size of each one's apartment.

(b)If some of the bricks are broken, and each one claims that the whole bricks belong to him, the Tana gauges whether his claim is valid or not - by the way the wall fell and the position of the broken bricks. If the wall fell on itself, and the broken bricks are at the bottom of the pile, then it is clear that it was the lower apartment that was weak, and that it is the owner of the attic who then takes the whole ones; whereas it the walls fell outward and the broken bricks are the ones on the outside of the pile, then is evident that they broke because of the height from which they fell, and it is the owner of the lower apartment who takes the whole bricks.

(c)The Tana concludes that if one of them recognizes some of the bricks - then he takes them and his brother takes the corresponding number of bricks (which will be explained shortly).

6)

(a)Even though we see from the Seifa that one gauges the bricks by the way the building fell, the Reisha rule 'Yachloku' - because the Tana is speaking when the house fell during the night (and they did not see how it fell).

(b)They cannot check the bricks in the morning (as we explained earlier) - because the Tana is speaking when they had already been cleared (and placed in a pile).

(c)Nor can they even ask the person who cleared them, because they do not know who he is.

(d)The reason that we do not simply ascertain in whose Reshus the house was built, and require the other one to prove that the whole bricks are his (based on the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah') is - because we are speaking where it was built in their joint Reshus or in the Reshus ha'Rabim.

7)

(a)When we answer alternatively that in such a case, partners are not particular - we mean that even if the owner of the lower apartment does own the land, since one partner is not generally fussy about the other partner using it, it is as if the bricks fell on joint property.

8)

(a)When the Tana concludes that if one of them recognizes some of the bricks, he takes them, he cannot be speaking when the other one ...

1. ... concedes that - because then there would be no Chidush.

2. ... denies it, and claims that he is the rightful owner - because in that case, there would be no grounds to believe the claimant.

(b)The Tana must therefore be speaking - when the other one doesn't know.

9)

(a)Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah rule that if Reuven claims a Manah from Shimon, and Shimon replies 'Eini Yodei'a, he is Chayav to pay - because of the principle 'Bari ve'Shema, Bari Adif' (as we learned in the eighth Perek).

(b)Rav Nachman and Rebbi Yochanan say 'Patur' (because of the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro ... '). We only know he really doesn't know - after he has sworn to that effect.

(c)We just established that according to the Tana of our Mishnah, Reuven takes the bricks that he recognizes if Shimon counters that he does not know. In order not to clash with the Tana - Rav Nachman will establish our Mishnah when he is obligated to swear ('she'Yesh Eisek Shevu'ah Beinehem').

(d)The case in our Mishnah will then be - when Reuven claimed that so many of the whole bricks are his, and Shimon admitts to half of them, and the other half he doesn't know.

(e)In reality, Shimon is obligated to swear. We have a principle however, that whoever is Chayav a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa, and cannot swear, has to pay (though he is obligated to swear that he doesn't know). It is not clear however, why Shimon is not Patur from a Shevu'ah because of 'Heilech' - see Rashash).

10)

(a)Rava thought that Shimon takes the equivalent number of broken bricks as the whole bricks that Reuven recognizes (seeing as he doesn't deny Shimon's claim). Abaye objects to this however, on the grounds - that since Reuven only recognizes some of the bricks, that is what he takes, and all the rest are available to Shimon.

(b)This does not mean that Shimon takes the rest of the bricks - but that he takes the equivalent number of whole bricks as Reuven.

(c)Nevertheless, Reuven has the advantage - of having taken larger bricks and better-quality cement.

11)

(a)Or Mishnah rules that if Reuven rented an attic, if the ceiling (which also serves as the roof) of the attic broke and Shimon, who lives on the ground floor, refuses to repair it - then Reuven is entitled to take his things and move downstairs until Shimon repairs the roof.

(b)Rebbi Yossi obligates Shimon to repair the attic, but Shimon must supply the cement.

(c)Rav establishes our Mishnah where the majority of the ceiling broke. According to Shmuel - four Tefachim will suffice to permit Reuven to move.

(d)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we can expect a person to live and one floor and place even one or two articles on another floor (Rav), or not (Shmuel [because four Tefachim is the space one needs to place a vessel]).

12)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah cannot be speaking in a case where Reuven rented Shimon...

1. ... 'this attic' - because then, he would be under no obligation to provide him with alternative accommodation when the attic become uninhabitable.

2. ... 'an attic' - because then, it would be obvious that he must, and our Mishnah would not be teaching us anything.

(b)If he specifically stipulated that should the attic become uninhabitable, he will be permitted to share the house with him, the Tana will not be teaching us anything either. Rav Ashi finally establishes the Mishnah - where he stipulated that he is renting him 'this attic which is on top of this house' ...

(c)... and this Lashon, the Tana is teaching us - implies that he is Meshabed the house to the attic.

(d)In a parallel case, one man sold another 'a vine-arbor on top of a peach-tree', and the peach-tree became uprooted. Ravin bar Rav Ada Amar Rebbi Yitzchak, quoting Rebbi Chiya, ruled - that as long as the vine-arbor was still standing, the owner was obligated to provide him with another peach-tree to support it.