Observation: According to the opinion that judges force one to return Ribis Ketzutzah, we ask properly. He should have returned it!

Implied question: According to the opinion that judges do not force, what was the question?

Answer: Even so, he should have returned it due to La'az (scandalous talk) and shame. Since he was not concerned, also his children need not be concerned for his honor.

Question: Perhaps it says "even though they collected" due to the case of those who lend with Ribis!

Answer: If so, why did it teach Gazlanim? Obviously he must return!

Therefore, we had to answer "what are Gazlanim? They are people who lend with Ribis."

Question: In Bava Kama (94b), it answers that they return [Ribis Ketzutzah] in order to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim. Why don't we give this answer here?

Also there, why don't we answer that Tana'im argue about this, like we answer here?

Answer: Here he says according to R. Yochanan. According to him, who says that judges do not force him to return it, even to be Yotzei Yedei Shamayim he need not return;

Therefore, here we could answer only that Tana'im argue about this.

The Sugya there is like the Tana who holds that that judges force him to return.

It challenges the Beraisa that holds that mid'Oraisa we return, but due to an episode that occurred, they enacted not to return;

It asks from this Beraisa, which was after the enactment, and here Tana'im argue about whether or not judges force him to return mid'Oraisa.

Observation: This is unlike Rivan, who explained above "it was given for fear." One must return due to Yir'as Shamayim; Beis Din does not force one to return.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): All hold like R. Yochanan, that if they collected, they do not return, for then there is no Aseh to return Ribis. The argument is when they did not collect.

Question: Initially, we challenged R. Yochanan, and answered that Tana'im argue about R. Yochanan's law;

We rejected this, and said that all hold like him. All the more so [R. Yochanan] said properly!

Explanation #2: Initially, surely he held that they argue about the Lav "Al Tikach me'Ito Neshech", and they argue like R. Yochanan and R. Elazar do;

We conclude that all hold like R. Elazar. He is not lashed for the Lav 'Al Tikach', for it is Nitak to the Aseh of returning [Ribis Ketzutzah];

However, they argue about the Lav of "Lo Sesimun" when he did not yet collect the Ribis. The first Tana holds that immediately when the document was written, the Suma (placing of Ribis) was finished. It is as if he already collected, and there is no solution to fix the Lav of "Lo Sesimun."

R. Nechemyah and R. Eliezer ben Yakov hold that the Lav of Shuma is contingent. If the document will be torn before it is collected, he is exempt.

The Makshan did not understand the reason well. He asked "if it is as if it was collected...' and "if it is not as if it was collected...', why is he liable according to Rabanan?

[The Gemara] answers that it is not as if it was already collected. Rabanan's reason is, from the time of writing the Shuma was finished.

Question: How could we think initially that they argue about 'Al Tikach'? We say below (75b) that the Arev transgresses only "Lo Sesimun"!

Answer: That is when the Arev did not receive Ribis from the borrower. However, here that the Arev received Ribis from the borrower and gave it to the lender, therefore he is liable also for 'Al Tikach' according to the first Tana.

Question: Why don't we reject that all of them hold like R. Elazar, and they argue about whether or not he is liable for a Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh?

Answer: The Halachah is that he is exempt [for Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh]. Also, in Temurah (4b, DH v'Chol) I explained that all hold that he is exempt.

Explanation: It says below (63b) "would wheat sprout [and spoil] in my storehouse?!" Just like [I take back Peros worth more than when I deposited them], I could have guarded them in my house and sold them [now] for a high price!

Explanation #1 (Rashi, 60b): The purchase of wheat was permitted, even though [the seller] has no wheat, since [the buyer] gave to him coins (he could have bought wheat). The Isur is only regarding the wine;

The Reisha mentions [buying wheat] for a bigger Chidush in the Seifa, that wine is forbidden, even though it comes due to the first contract of wheat, which was in the way of a sale, and not in the way of a loan.

Question #1: He must erase what Seforim say in the Gemara below (63a) "the Mishnah teaches "Lakach"! What is Lakach? Lakach (he took) for a loan";

[He must erase this,] for "Lakach" is fine! It refers to wheat, which was permitted [to buy].

Question #2: Since "Asur" refers only to wine, why does the Gemara ask "so what if he has no wine? The Mishnah says that if there is a market price, one may contract. Even if this [seller] has none, another has"?

Did [the Makshan] not know that one may not contract [to give] wine due to a debt, if he did not give any money then?

Question #3: Since [Rabah] answered that he comes to obligate himself in its value, this implies that initially, [the Makshan] thought that he gave money!

Question #4: Rather than asking "if there is a market price, one may contract", [the Makshan] should ask from the Reisha, which permits regarding wheat!

Answer (to Question #4): This we can answer that he would have answered that "Asur" refers also to the Reisha, or we would establish the Reisha, which permits, only when he has wheat.

Explanation #2: "Which Tarbis is forbidden?" refers to the entire Mishnah. When the Seifa says "he has no wine", similarly he has no wheat;

Therefore, the Gemara asks "so what if he has no wine, and not wheat?" The primary question is due to wheat, which is forbidden when he has none, even though he gives a gold Dinar;

[Rabah] answers that he comes to obligate himself in its value. He already owed to him a gold Dinar, and at the time of the Kinyan he does not give to him anything.

Implied question: [The Gemara] should have asked immediately "it taught Lakach"!

Answer: Now [Abaye] asks a better question (if he never gave money, it is forbidden even if the seller has wine)!

Question: Why was it taught regarding wine "he has none"? Even if he has, it is forbidden to give the value of 30 Dinarim;

Even wheat, it is forbidden to take [the value of 30] since he did not have wheat at the time of the first contract!

Answer: It mentioned [that he has no wine] to teach that even in the Reisha he has no wheat, and it is forbidden.

Alternative text: Some texts say "veha'Tanya", because it does not say in the Mishnah "if there is a market price, one may contract";

Similarly below (72b), in some Seforim the text says "our Mishnah says that one may not contract... This implies that if there is a market price, one may contract. How do we find such a case? Storehouses [are open] and ships [arrive with grain, so the price will be stable for a long time]."

Observation: According to the texts that say here "veha'Tanan", that Mishnah [explicitly] says that if there is a market price, one may contract, and below (72b) the text does not say "Ha". (We need not infer this, since it is explicit in the Mishnah.)

Implied question: Since he did not do Meshichah on the wheat [to acquire it], this is Ribis!

Answer: Since if the seller wanted to retract, he would receive Mi she'Para, therefore it is considered that it rose in price in the buyer's Reshus.

Question: Coins acquire here even mid'Rabanan, for this is not common, like we say above (46b) regarding one who exchanged the money [owed] for an ox for a cow!

Answer: Here we discuss when he does not exempt him [of the debt] until he will give to him the wheat.