Explanation (Aruch): [Nisterei] is an expression of destruction and ruin.

Question: Even without this reason he should be exempt, for a Mishnah (Bava Kama 96b) teaches that if one stole slaves and they grew old, he pays [their value] like at the time of the theft, but he does not pay the wages for their work!

Answer: We can distinguish between one who intended to steal, and one who intended to work with them, like we distinguish there regarding one who seized his friend's boat and worked with it.

Implied question: There is an opinion (Bava Kama 99a, Kidushin 48a) that Sechirus (rental or wages) accrues [continuously, bit by bit] from the beginning to the end!

Answer: That opinion agrees that it is paid only at the end, like we learn here from a verse.

Even according to the opinion that Sechirus [is owed] only at the end, he agrees that a worker can retract even in the middle of the day. When he retracts, this is the end, for he does not want to work more;

The only consequence of that argument is regarding Kidushin. If Sechirus accrues from the beginning to the end, it is considered a loan, and one may not be Mekadesh a woman with it;

Another consequence is the case in Avodah Zarah (19b, of one who builds for idolaters). When he gets to the dome where they put the idolatry, he may not build it.

The Gemara says that if he built [even idolatry itself], the wages are permitted. It explains that this is because wages accrue continuously from the beginning until the end;

When is it forbidden? It is when the last hammer blow is done. The last blow is worth less than a Perutah.

Question: In Bechoros (53b), we expound "one may not take Terumah from new [Peros] on old, for it says "Shanah Shanah." This connotes that year itself!

Answer: There, it says "Shanah" without a [prefix] Beis. Here, we expound [differently] because it says "Shanah b'Shanah" with a Beis, which connotes a different year.

Question: In Bechoros (27b), regarding a Bechor [it says] "Tochalenu Shanah b'Shanah." Which year enters the next year? This is the year of the Bechor;

We do not count from years of the world. If it was born in Kislev, the year of the world ends [at the beginning of] Tishrei, [yet] one may eat [the Bechor] until Kislev.

Implied question: We should expound that it is not eaten until the next year, and not within its year!

Answer: The verse proves that it is eaten within its year, for it says "ba'Yom ha'Shemini Titno Li."

Explanation: If not for this, it would be forbidden, even though Rav Chama had Achrayus for [losses to the merchandise through] transportation;

This is because they toiled to bring the merchandise and sell it for wages of the loan (so it is like Ribis).

However, now that they had first rights to sell, even in their return, this was [like payment] for their toil, and it was permitted.

Pesak (R. Tam): The Halachah follows also Rav Nachman regarding Tarsha.

Source: It says below (68a) "the Halachah does not follow (i.e. permit) Tarsha of Papunai." This implies that the Halachah follows (permits) the others.

Implied question: Why does it say that the Halachah follows Rav Chama? (This connotes that it does not follow the others!)

Answer: It comes to teach only that the Halachah does not follow Rav Papa.

Explanation: This is because Rav Nachman permits only when he did not fix [a lower price if he pays now], but Rav Papa and Rav Chama permit even if he fixed, or the [market] price is steady, which is like fixed;

Rav Papa refers to Rav Nachman's answer, that the Mishnah] is different, for he fixed. (Rav Papa explains that in his case, it is permitted even though he fixed.)

Assertion: The text of Rav Papa's teaching does not say "my Tarsha is surely permitted", for "surely" connotes that surely it is permitted more than Rav Nachman's. Rather, the text says "my Tarsha is permitted."

If the text says so ("surely"), we can say that according to Rav Papa, who does not consider the buyer's perspective, it is permitted more (because the seller does not profit);

However, the truth is that Rav Nachman's is permitted, and Rav Papa's is forbidden (for we consider the buyer's perspective. He pays more because he lacks money now.)

Support: Rav Hai Gaon ruled like this in Sha'ar 42, that the Halachah follows Tarsha of Rav Nachman;

However, he explained Tarsha of Rav Nachman unlike we explain.

Implied question: Why didn't (Rav Huna and Rav Anan) want to say that the buyer eats the Peros, in a case that he said "the land is acquired to you from now, and the coins are a loan with you", like we say below?

Answer: They discuss our Mishnah, which teaches "bring money, and take yours." "Take yours" connotes to them "acquire yours." Acquire your purchase through bringing coins. Acquire from now, or retroactively;

It does not connote to them "take yours, that you already acquired." Rather, it remained in his hand like a security.

Explanation #1: Rashi explained that he contracted to increase a small amount of coins above these coins, to establish them in his hand, if he wants to sell it.

[He explained so] because it is not normal to totally pardon him for the money of the loan. Why should he do so? It is better that it have the status of a security that he can redeem when he wants to.

Rebuttal: He explained so needlessly. Without any extra money, he stipulates to finalize it in his hand, if he comes to sell it;

When the lender will press him for his coins, he will be forced to redeem it or sell it.

Question: Why do we forbid here? A Mishnah (65a) says that if one lent to someone on his field, and said to him "if you will not pay me from now until three years, it is mine", it is his;

Presumably, we discuss one who buys for less than its value. Also the Gemara (66a), which says that [if he said so] after giving the money, he acquired only corresponding to his coins! (I.e. the field is worth more than the loan.)

Answer #1: Based on how we establish it, that he said "from now", this is fine, for it is not a loan.

Answer #2: Even according to the opinion that establishes it without "from now", still, there the borrower was able to sell part of the field to someone else, corresponding to the amount of the loan, and keep the rest [of the field] for himself;

When he leaves the entire [field] for [the lender], he does not do so for the sake of Ribis. He merely did a favor for the lender, and pardoned [the excess] to him for free.

Explanation: This is unlike R. Yehudah [who permits Tzad Echad b'Ribis].

Implied question: This should be like Mashkanta without deducting (67b. Even R. Yehudah forbids it!)

Answer: (It is different.) Here, if he does not redeem it, it is not a loan, rather, a sale. However, Mashkanta, he can always redeem it, either he or his heirs;

Distinction: However, here, granted, he can redeem it [forever], but his heirs cannot redeem.