Explanation: The case is, he gave to him wages for his toil and food, so he does not toil for him as wages for the loan.

Question: If so, what is the Chidush?

Answer: We need the Seifa to teach that in the buyer's Reshus it is forbidden;

One might have thought that it does not look like Ribis, since he sells in an expensive place like he gives to him now in the cheap place.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is even if Achrayus for the journey going and returning is on the donkey-drivers.

Rebuttal #1: This cannot be, for above (65a), regarding Tarsha of Rav Chama, Rashi himself explained that Achrayus for the journey was on Rav Chama, even though they used to pardon the tax [to the donkey-drivers, because it was Rav Chama's merchandise], and they had rights to sell before anyone else...

And even if the Achrayus was on the acceptors (the donkey-drivers), there is reason to permit there more than here, because as recompense for pardon of the tax and rights to sell before other merchandise, [Rav Chama's] merchandise was worth more, and they sold it for a higher price;

However, here, this that the merchants became known through the money (in the future, sellers will give to them on credit), and the buyers reveal to them where the price is high, the same would occur with others' coins. All borrowers profit like this!

Rebuttal #2: Below, we say that Rav bought five [measures of grain for a Zuz] in Sura (where it sold for four measures for a Zuz) and accepted [loss due to] Ones on the way (from where it sells for six measures for a Zuz). We did not ask that he need not accept Achrayus for the journey!

Explanation #2: Rather, Achrayus for the return trip with the grain from the cheap place was on the buyer, and the donkey-drivers profited through the coins in going from the expensive place to the cheap place through [buying] some merchandise;

If not for the reason that [the buyers] reveal to them where the price is high, or [sellers] sell to them for less, it would be forbidden, for as wages for the loan they toil for them on the return trip.

Implied question: Why couldn't he say that the case is, they give to them wages for their toil, like I explained "in the seller's Reshus it is permitted"?

Answer: This would not be any Chidush.

Implied question: R. Chananel explained that even rental of the donkeys, the Ba'al ha'Bayis (buyer) gives to the donkey-drivers!

Answer: In any case, it seems that he admits that he does not give to them wages for their toil, for if he did, he would not need at all the reason of revealing to them where the price is high, or [sellers] sell to them for less.

Implied question: What forced R. Chananel to explain that he gives rental of the donkeys?

Answer: He holds that revealing to them where the price is high is a small wage. (It is not enough compensation.)

Rebuttal: There was no need for him to explain so. Chachamim were lenient about Ribis mid'Rabanan, like above (69a), that one who fattens calves receives the head.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Through the coins in their hand, the merchants are recognized, and [sellers] give to them other merchandise on credit.

Question: It says that [a difference between the reasons is] a new merchant. According to Rashi, they differ also about an old merchant! The reason of the merchants being recognized does not apply, for they are recognized from of old!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): Miglu Lehu Tar'a means that the Ba'alei Batim who lend to them reveal to them where the price is high;

Sometimes, while the donkey-drivers are going to the cheap place and returning, it gets expensive here. The Ba'alei Batim inform them, and help them to sell.

Alternative text: R. Chananel's text says Tavrei. I.e. he sells young calves and offspring born in his herd this year;

Rav agrees that they are permitted, for it is very common that they miscarry. This is a bigger ruin than grapes that do not grow properly in an orchard.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Ba'alei Batim lend grain to sharecroppers for seed, and they pay to them new grain.

Objection: We do not find in any place that this is called Shivshi!

Explanation #2: Shivshi are vine branches. The Targum of "Sheloshah Sarigim" is "Telas Shivshin." Also in Brachos (5b) it says "the master did not give Shivsha to the sharecropper."

Explanation (R. Chananel): He gives coins to the owner of the branches for such and such for a load, and they are worth more at the time that he prunes the vineyard;

There is no ruin in branches like there is in Peros. Therefore, Shmuel obligates to help in the land.

Explanation: He was in the days of Rava, like it connotes here, and in Bava Basra (149a);

In Yevamos (45b), the text does not say that Rav was Machshir Rav Mari bar Rachel, rather, Rava [was Machshir him. Rav Mari] was the son of Isur the convert;

We find that there was another [Rav Mari bar Rachel], the son of Rabah, like it says in Shabbos (154a) "Rabah, the father of Rav Mari bar Rachel."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [He waited a year, and brought the] rent for the coming year.

Question: Why didn't he wait until the end of the year? Rental is not due until the end!

Answer: Perhaps their custom was to pay rent at the end of every month.

Support: Our Mishnah (above, 65a), regarding paying extra rental [if he pays later] connotes like this. (One may charge 10 Sela'im for the year if paid up front, or one Sela per month. The latter is considered "normal", and the former is a discount for paying early.)

Explanation #2: "He waited a year", i.e. [until the end of] the second year (the first year for which he thought that he must pay rent).

Question: Why didn't [Rav Mari] deduct [the rental] from the debt?

Answer: Perhaps he was sure that the Nochri would pay him, or he wanted to show that he gives to him rental, so it will not look like he dwells in the house as wages for the loan.

Question: Due to the law of Bar Meitzra (when one sells land, the neighbors have first rights to buy), Rav Mari could take it from Rava (through giving to Rava the amount that Rava paid for it)!

This is like we said above (68a) "Mashkanta" connotes that Shechuna (he dwells) in it (he is considered a resident).

Implied question: We say below (108b) that if one bought from a Nochri, the law of Bar Meitzra does not apply!

Answer: This is because [the buyer] can tell [the neighbor] "I chased a lion from your border";

However, here Rav Mari did not have a house next to the Nochri's house, so this reason does not apply;

Just the contrary! [Rav Mari] lost [through Rava's purchase], for until Rava bought it, Rav Mari lived there [for free] due to Ribis!

Answer: Rav Mari did not want to buy it.

Explanation: "The Nochri could not expel me (Rav Mari)." It was as if it was sold to him, for that entire year, like above (67b), in a place where they do not expel;

[Rav Mari thought that] now, (Rava) should take rental of the house, for it is considered as if it [Rav Mari] had it for a Mashkanta from Rava;

If Rava came to take possession of the house, Rav Mari could stop him if he wanted, until he paid to him his money. Therefore, Rava is like a borrower, and Rav Mari may not live there for free;

Rava answered him that [Rava] has no more rights than the one from whom he bought it.

Inference: This implies that one can sell what he rented to others.

Support: It connotes like this also in Erchin (21a), that if the landlord was Makdish the house, the tenant may not live there any longer, and if he lived there, he transgressed Me'ilah.

Question: We say in Kesuvos (59b) and Nedarim (86a) that if one said "the house that I mortgaged to you, when I will redeem it, it should be Kadosh", it becomes Kadosh [when he redeems it];

Inference: As long as it is mortgaged, he cannot be Makdish it.

Answer: He can be Makdish or sell [the value of the house] above the debt, but [the lender] collects his debt first [before the seller takes it].

Implied question: Why can't tenant live there [after the landlord was Makdish it]?

Answer: This is because Hekdesh is mixed in.

Answer (cont.): [The landlord] sells the house, and [pays the lender, and if the tenant already paid rental,] he takes back the rental that he gave.

Explanation: This is not post-loan Ribis Me'ucheres, for [the sellers] did not mention that they give [extra] due to [Ravina's] coins that were idle with them (before they gave to him his wine), like Rashi explained.

Implied question: One who lent to Reuven and lives in Reuven's Chatzer must pay to him rent (above, 64b), even though he does not say that he lives there due to his coins that were idle with Reuven!

Answer: There is different, for he still owes him.

Alternative text: Some texts do not say "more", for in the end [the ones who did not pay their tax] would return the amount of the head-tax that [the others] gave for them, and all that they worked for them was wages for the Halva'ah [so if they worked more, it would be Ribis].

Inference: Here it connotes that it was sold cheaply there.

Contradiction: In Bava Basra (98a), it connotes that they used to take wine there in order to sell it expensively!

Resolution: It was between the province in which wine was abundant, and the province in which wine was not found. They used to bring there from the cheap place, and [buyers] came from the expensive place, to buy.

Question: Why is it b'Yado there more than here?

Suggestion: There we discuss when he has grain to plant.

Rejection: Also here, if he has wine, it is b'Yado!

Suggestion: There it is considered b'Yado because he can buy.

Rejection: Also here, it is b'Yado to buy!

Answer: Here it is not b'Yado at the cheap price, for the cheap price of Zolshafat does not last so long. Perhaps when he comes to buy, he will not find at that price;

However, "if I will leave it fallow" is b'Yado. If he cannot buy grain cheaply, he can buy for the expensive price!