Question: Even if he sold it, what did he steal? He must return the money!

Answer: In any case, he will call him a Gazlan as long as he did not pay him.

Pesak: [The Gemara] connotes that the Halachah follows this, since it did not say like the version "so he will not be called a Gazlan."

Support: The Halachah follows Rav Ashi, for he is Basra, and he was greater in Chachmah and Minyan [than Mar Zutra].

Note: Normally, the Halachah follows Basra even if he was not greater in Chachmah! Perhaps it is not clear that Rav Ashi is Basra. The Rosh mentions only that he was greater in Chachmah and Minyan. Menachos 35b connotes that Rav Ashi was a Talmid of Mar Zutra, but Kesuvos 61b connotes a little unlike this (he referred to Mar Zutra in the third person without a title of respect). Presumably, after Rav Ashi became Rosh Yeshiva, he became greater in Chachmah.

Question: We should say that [the buyer] acquires it through making Chazakah in it after the Gazlan bought it [from the Nigzal]!

Answer: It connotes to him that from the time the Gazlan bought it, it belonged to the buyer, even though he did not do any action.

Question: His coins, which were initially a loan, became a sale now!

Answer #1: We discuss a place where people do not acquire through money.

Answer #2: One cannot acquire through a debt [in place of giving money], like we say in Kidushin (6b) "one who is Mekadesh with a debt, she is not Mekudeshes. Regarding a sale, he does not acquire [with a debt].

Implied question - Citation (Kidushin 47a): They agree regarding a sale, that he acquired!

Answer: That refers to a loan that others (not the seller) owe to the buyer. In such a case, all would agree that a woman is Mekudeshes, if not that she does not resolve [to become Mekudeshes], for she fears lest [the Mekadesh] pardon the borrower;

However, a debt that she owes to him, if he pardons her and is Mekadesh her with it, she is not Mekudeshes, for he did not give to her anything, for beforehand it was in her Reshus. Similarly, regarding a sale he does not acquire.

Implied question: When he is Mekadesh her with Hana'ah of pardon of a loan, she is Mekudeshes, for this is no worse than [Kidushin through the Hana'ah of] extending her time [to pay a loan] (Kidushin 6b) or "I will speak to the officer for you" (Kidushin 63a); she is Mekudeshes;

Similarly regarding a sale, if he sold with Hana'ah of pardon, he acquires, just like one who exchanged money [owed] for an ox for a cow (below 46b)!

Answer: It does not connote to him that he was Makneh to him through Hana'ah of pardoning the debt, for it connotes to him that immediately from when the Gazlan bought it, the first buyer (who bought from the Gazlan) acquired.

Explanation: It is as if he said "this field will be acquired to you when I will buy it."

Question: We should say that Rav teaches like R. Meir, and the Beraisa is like Rabanan!

Answer: He asks according to us (how we rule). We hold like Rav, like it says below (72b), for the Gemara brings the reason lest he be called a Gazlan, and he wants to establish his integrity;

We hold like Rabanan, that Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam.

Source: Shmuel rules like R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar in Kesuvos (59a), and Rav Nachman holds that [one who sold] fruits [that will grow on] a date tree, even after they came to the world, he can retract;

Pesak: Rav Hai Gaon rules unlike Rav regarding this, because we hold that Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam.

Rejection: This is wrong, due to the Sugya below (72b).

Question: Why do we need "from now", since Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba l'Olam?

Suggestion: It is to previous him from retracting.

Rejection: As long as it did not come to the world, he can retract, even though he said "from now"!

Answer: This makes a difference if the document was torn or lost before this one bought it. He acquires, since he said "from now."

Assertion: The text does not say "this [field]", since Rava swore [that Rav said so] even regarding "this field." (If the text says "this", why did he need to swear?) Rav said so explicitly!

Question #1: Why doesn't payment apply to Adrachta documents, since [the lender] did not yet acquire the field until they wrote for him Chaltasa documents?

Question #2: Similarly, below it says that he caused his own loss, for he should have torn it, or written a sale document;

Regarding an Adrachta document, the land is still in his hand. How did he cause his own loss? He can claim "I paid"!

Answer: It mentioned Adrachta documents according to Rabah, who holds below (35b) that [the lender] eats the Peros from when the Adrachta comes to his hand;

If so, [the borrower] cannot say from now "I paid", for the lender already acquired the land.

Distinction: According to Rava, who holds (below 35b, that a lender who collected land eats the Peros) from when the days of auction [of the land] finish, he establishes our Mishnah to discuss only Chaltasa documents.

Support: In some texts it does not say "Adrachta."

Inference: It connotes that we discuss when the Chayav does not admit (i.e. he is not here), like it says "perhaps he wrote to borrow, and did not borrow." Therefore [the finder] does not return it, for we are concerned for payment;

However, if the borrower admits, he returns it, for we are not concerned for scheming, and not lest he paid it and wants to borrow with it again, in order to save the scribe's fee.

Question: Below (17a), R. Yochanan says that if a [found] document has today's date, and it has a Henpek, he returns it. Rav Kahana establishes this when the Chayav admits;

This is only when it has today's date. If it does not have today's date, he does not return it, either due to [concern lest he borrow with it again, to save] the scribe's fee, or due to scheming.

Strengthening of question: Also above (13b), R. Yochanan established our Mishnah of "one who found loan documents does not return them" when the Chayav admits, due to scheming;

Rabanan holds that [even] when there is no Acharayus, he collects also from Meshubadim.

Answer: Amora'im argue about the opinion of R. Yochanan. Here, Rav Kahana establishes R. Yochanan's teaching even when the Chayav admits, due to scheming;

R. Avahu explains that [he taught] only when the Chayav does not admit. However, when the Chayav admits, he agrees that we return, for he is not concerned for scheming;

He establishes also our Mishnah above (13b) when the Chayav admits, and lest he wrote to borrow, and did not borrow, like Rav Asi.

However, when there is no concern lest he wrote to borrow, and did not borrow, e.g. Shtar Hakna'ah, or there is a Henpek on it, like here, he return it, and we are not concerned for scheming;

The Gemara above, which mentioned the reason of scheming, holds like Abaye, who says that Edav b'Chasumav Zachin Lo, or [one may not write for the borrower not in the presence of the lender, and] we are not concerned lest he [improperly] wrote so.

Implied question: We say below (17a) "he was Huchzak Kafran about that money" [and from now he is not believed about it]!

Answer: Here that it fell is different, for the matter is proven that due to this, he was not careful to guard it, i.e. because the borrower paid it.