Pesak (R. Tam): In any case, the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel, for we say (Gitin 75a) that whenever R. Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion is taught in our Mishnah, the Halachah follows him. (There are three exceptions, but this is not one of them.)

Rebuttal: Rav and Shmuel require either to fix a Dinar [for wages], or the head of a calf given to fatten, and R. Shimon ben Gamliel requires only dung!

Suggestion: Perhaps this is only for a calf with its mother, which is not much exertion.

Rejection: R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah said above (68b) that even for big animals, whey, and wool that is washed off the sheep, suffice, for he holds like his father!

Support: Also R. Chananel explained that in every such case that the Gemara says [that some opinions are a] Shitah, the Halachah does not follow any of them.

Pesak: Rather, the Halachah follows R. Shimon, who says that he pays the full wage.

Question #1: This is Tzad Echad b'Ribis, for perhaps there will not be an extra third, and Rav does not hold like R. Yehudah, who permits Tzad Echad b'Ribis!

He said above (63a) that we do Amanah with Peros, but we do not do Amanah with money! Above it connotes that this is unlike R. Yehudah.

Question #2: Even R. Yehudah permits only in a case that the borrower or lender is able to do in a way that will not be Ribis!

Answer: Here Rabanan were lenient, because it is very common that there is an extra third.

Question: Due to this reason, we should permit even if he does not have an animal himself, due to the half of the lender!

Answer: These are different. If he does not have an animal himself, he need not toil for it every day. Rather, each toils for it on his day.

Question #1: Why did she think so? Also when he joins with him and takes the entire head, this is like initially!

Initially, [the sharecropper] toiled for the entire animal of R. Elazar, he received the head. Now that he toils for R. Elazar for only half the animal, he gets half of the head from R. Elazar's portion!

Question #2: What did [R. Elazar] mean "now we are partners"? Also now, R. Elazar's share was half a loan!

Answer: When he joined with him, he toiled for R. Elazar's half for free. Therefore, she said "he will give to you also the tail, since you do not take any wages from his share."

Inference: Only here, because he has grounds to suspect [the judge], he must inform him, due to "vi'Hyisem Neki'yim me'Hashem umi'Yisrael", but elsewhere, he need not.

Implied question: It says in Sanhedrin (31b) that if two were quarreling [and one wants to go to a local Beis Din, and the other wants to go to the Beis ha'Va'ad, the former] can force [the other] to be judged here;

If he asks to know the reason for the verdict, they write and give it to him.

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Based on our Sugya, only there, when he did not consent to be judged, just he was forced [they write the verdict and give it to him], but if he was judged willingly, they do not write and give it to him.

Answer #2: Some say that "in every such case, he must inform him" does not mean [that the judge] must inform him why he obligated him;

Rather, he answered [the litigant] that in every such case, you should have informed [your partner] when you divided. You should not have divided without his knowledge.

Explanation: He accepted Achrayus for Ones. Therefore, he thought that it is permitted.

Explanation #1: Also, the depreciation [to a shovel] is evident. It is impaired and ruined through use.

[When one borrows coins,] the same coins are not returned, for he spends them. Therefore, [the borrower] has Achrayus, and the rental is Ribis, even if he said an expression of rental.

Further, even if the same coins are returned, their depreciation is not known. Therefore, the rental was for naught, and it is Ribis. Rashi explained like this.

Question #1: If so, it should be forbidden to rent to one's friend a necklace, gold cup or ring, for their depreciation is not known!

Citation (Me'ilah 18a - Mishnah): Something [Hekdesh] that does not depreciate, once one benefited from it, he transgressed Me'ilah;

Citation (cont.): E.g. if one put a necklace on her neck or a ring on her hand, or drank from a gold cup, once she benefited, she transgressed Me'ilah.

Question #2: The Tosefta (4:2) explicitly teaches that one may rent his coins to a moneychanger to show them off or train with them!

Answer #1: The Rivan's text does not say "its depreciation is known."

Answer #2: It seems that the text says so. It means that a shovel is not a Halva'ah, for it is not given for Hotza'ah (to be expended) and to return another. Rather, he must return it itself. The rental is not wages of a Halva'ah;

And even if a shovel was given for Hotza'ah and to do all his needs with it and return another, even so it would be permitted to receive rental.

We cannot learn from there a Heter to rent coins. Regarding a shovel, the rental is not due to the Halva'ah, that he may expend it;

Rather, he gives rental for the depreciation that it depreciates through usage, if the renter will return it itself;

However, R. Chama used to lend coins, and he rented them for Hotza'ah, and not due to depreciation.