Explanation (R. Chananel): Shmuel argues with Rav, and the Halachah does not follow Rav, who says [that if he said] "hit it with a stick and it will come", he is liable.

Support: [The Gemara] connotes that [Shmuel] argues, and the Halachah follows him, since the Gemara wanted to bring a support for Rav, and gives a poor rejection.

Implied question: In Kidushin (16a), we say that [a master] bodily owns his Eved Ivri!

Answer: This means that he cannot pardon the remainder of his redemption [based on how many years of servitude remain] verbally. [He can pardon] only through a document.

Explanation: Even though his slave takes it, it is not Shemirah b'Ba'alim.

Implied question: We say that a slave's Yad (power of acquisition) is like his master's Yad!

Answer: That is when the master himself was borrowed [to work] with the cow, and he sent his slave in place of himself. Since he is in place of the owner, he is not considered like an animal (without his own Yad);

However, here that [the borrower] borrowed his slave, it is like borrowing two animals, for his slave is like his animal.

Explanation #1: It seems that we discuss when it left immediately to a Simta or Tzidei (the side of) Reshus ha'Rabim, it is considered as if the borrower did Meshichah;

However, if it left immediately to Reshus ha'Rabim, no, since Meshichah does not acquire in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Implied question: Why didn't Rav need to explain this?

Answer #1: This is obvious. It is not better than Meshichah!

Answer #2: A Stam Chatzer opens to Tzidei Reshus ha'Rabim, and not to Reshus ha'Rabim itself. Therefore, he did not need to specify.

Question: In Bava Basra (84b), we say that Rav and Shmuel both say that a person's Kelim acquire for him everywhere except for Reshus ha'Rabim;

Inference: If he measured and put on a Simta, he did not acquire. Only his Kelim acquire for him.

Summation of question: Here, Rav says that he acquires [even without Kelim]!

Answer: There, we discuss when initially it was resting in his Kelim before the Kinyan. The seller did not put it there at the time of the sale. However, if he placed it on the ground of the Simta for the sake of a Kinyan, he acquires.

Explanation #2: Here we discuss even when it left immediately to Reshus ha'Rabim. Regarding liability for Ones, Meshichah acquires in Reshus ha'Rabim, even though it does not acquire regarding a sale;

This is like one who borrows an axe, according to Rav Huna, who says below that he acquired it through Meshichah to be liable for Ones, even though he did not acquire it for [preventing the lender] from taking it back [until he uses it].

Question - Citation (Tosefta): If one chopped with a Hekdesh axe, and his friend came and chopped with it, and [another] friend came and chopped with it, all of them transgressed Me'ilah.

Suggestion: We discuss an ax that is a Kli Shares. It is used for Shechitah. It does not become Chulin [through Me'ilah];

Citation (Me'ilah 19b - Mishnah): The only cases of Mo'el after Mo'el in Kodshim are an animal and Kli Shares. (For anything else, it became Chulin through the first person.)

Rejection - Citation (Seifa of the Tosefta): If took [the ax] and gave it to his friend, [the first] transgressed Me'ilah, but his friend did not. Regarding an Olah, if he gave it to his friend, and his friend to his friend, all of them transgressed Me'ilah. (If the ax were a Kli Shares, it would have the same law as an Olah!)

Suggestion: [The Reisha] discusses when they did not intend to steal. Each intended to return it after chopping. Only what he intended to steal becomes Chulin.

Rejection (Ri): We hold that Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as is [considered] a Gazlan (so it is as if he intended to steal. The first was Mo'el for the entire ax,) and it is totally his!

Explanation #1 (Ri): The Tosefta discusses Gizbarim (overseers of Hekdesh) to whom were handed over Hekdesh axes. Each transgressed Me'ilah according to the amount he benefited, and it does not become Chulin, for they did not intend to remove it from its Reshus, like I explained above;

The Seifa teaches that if he gave it to his friend, i.e. a friend who is not a Gizbar, even without chopping, he transgressed Me'ilah, for he intended to remove it from its Reshus.

Implied question - Citation (Me'ilah 19b - Mishnah): The only cases of Mo'el after Mo'el are an animal and Kli Shares. What is the case? If he rode on an animal, and his friend came and rode on it...

Answer: There we discuss people who are not Gizbarim. If they were Gizbarim, even regarding Kedushas Damim, all of them transgressed Me'ilah.

Explanation #1 (Ri) (cont.): Regarding lending an ax to his friend that it says here, the Ri says that the entire ax became Chulin through this She'elah. Therefore, his friend may chop l'Chatchilah;

Even so, [the giver] was Mo'el only for the amount of his Tovas Hana'ah (his benefit, in this case what he would have paid to lend it), even though he caused Hekdesh to lose all of it.

Consequence: Also one who takes a rock or beam of Hekdesh was Mo'el only for the amount of his Tovas Hana'ah.

Question (Ri): If so, why did [R. Ami] need to explain [here that he was Mo'el] the amount of his Tovas Hana'ah, since whenever one gives to his friend, [the giver] was not Mo'el more than this amount?

Explanation #2 (Ri): [When one lends, even not to a Gizbar], only the Hana'ah that he gives to the borrower becomes Chulin. He may chop until the time it was lent for, and no longer;

When he gives to his friend, he transgressed Me'ilah for the entire [ax].

Question: Why may [a borrower] chop with it? The ax has Chulin and Hekdesh mixed in it!

Why is this unlike one who rented out his house and was Makdish it? If the tenant lives in it, he transgressed Me'ilah, because his share is mixed with Hekdesh!

Answer: Since he lent it and transgressed Me'ilah through the She'elah, all the Hana'ah of chopping [for the time of the rental] became Chulin. There is no mixture of Hekdesh in it at all.

Question: Since when he gave it to a friend he transgressed Me'ilah for all that he removed from Hekdesh's Reshus and gave to his friend, also here [lending], he should transgress Me'ilah for the full value of chopping? (Why does he transgress only the amount of his Tovas Hana'ah?

Answer: When he gives it, he properly transgresses Me'ilah for all of it, for he caused Hekdesh to lose all of it;

However, here he caused Hekdesh to lose only what the ax depreciates through chopping. The Tovas Hana'ah of the She'elah is more.

Implied suggestion: [They enacted that only after Meshichah] the Shomer is liable for Ones.

Rejection: A Shomer Chinam is liable for negligence even without Meshichah, like we said above (80b) that if [one said] "leave it in front of me", he is a Shomer Chinam, and the same applies to a Shomer Sachar [becoming liable] for theft or loss;

It cannot refer to a borrower, for also mid'Oraisa, he acquires only through Meshichah!

Suggestion: It refers to a Shomer Sachar. They enacted Meshichah, and he acquires the money [for guarding only through Meshichah of the deposit].

Rejection #1: Sechirus is owed only at the end [after he finished guarding it].

Rejection #2: [If so,] why did the Gemara say that [Rav Huna] argues [with R. Elazar, who says that they enacted Meshichah for Shomerim]?

Explanation: Rather, it was said regarding retracting. A renter or borrower, once they did Meshichah on the animal from the owner's Reshus, the owner cannot retract;

This is why it says that [R. Elazar] argues with Rav Huna.

Explanation: [One who damages Hekdesh] does not pay a Chomesh, i.e. mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa he does not pay even principal;

It connotes like this in Bava Kama (9b). It taught regarding all four Avos [Nezikim, that they are liable for] "property to which Me'ilah does not apply."

Support - Citation (Yerushalmi in Gitin): R. Akiva says, Kal v'Chomer for Hekdesh. What is the case?

Citation (cont.): It cannot discuss Nezikim (paying for damaging Hekdesh), for the Torah said [that one pays to] "Re'ehu", and not to Hekdesh...

Citation (cont.): It cannot discuss what he himself damaged Hekdesh, for R. Chiya taught a Beraisa that says that damages are paid to a person, but not to Hekdesh!...

Question: "Ki Yochal" discusses Terumah! (How can we learn Hekdesh from it?)

Answer: We learn Me'ilah from a Gezeirah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from Terumah.

Question: Since we learn from Terumah, one should not be liable for benefit from Hekdesh, just like Terumah, which Zarim may benefit from!

Answer: "Ki Sim'ol" is an inclusion, like we say in Me'ilah (18b).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We are not meticulous to estimate what this patch that was eaten was worth;

Rather, [we estimate] the decreased value of a Beis Se'ah, due to this patch that was eaten, had he come to sell the land.

Objection #1 (Ri): Since [the estimation] refers to the Beis Se'ah, it should be in the masculine "Kamah Hayah Yafeh"!

Objection #2: In Bava Kama (58b), the Gemara asks "how do we estimate?"

What was the question? Our Mishnah (Bava Kama 55b) explicitly explains the estimation! Why did it cross our minds that they would do another estimation?

Objection #3: It explains there "a Se'ah in 60 Sa'im." Rashi explained that we do not estimate a Beis Se'ah by itself, for the damager would lose;

Rather, we estimate first 60 Sa'im, and see how much money is for each Beis Se'ah, and return to estimate how much it decreased through consumption of a patch;

If initially they estimated a patch amidst 60 Sa'im, he would not lose anything, for a patch is not noticed among them. However, it is noticed amidst a Beis Se'ah.

Summation of objection #3: What is the source for these two estimations? From the verse we learn only that we estimate amidst a field!

Objection #4: According to the opinion (Bava Kama 58b) that we estimate a stalk amidst 60 stalks, i.e. 60 times its amount, why did our Mishnah mention a Beis Se'ah?

Objection #5: There, we challenge all the Amora'im from a Beraisa that teaches "if it ate one or two Kavim, we evaluate amidst a small patch." Doesn't this mean that we estimate [the small patch] by itself?!

He could challenge our Mishnah, which teaches that we estimate in a Beis Se'ah!

Explanation #2 (Ri): "We estimate a Beis Se'ah" refers to the Beis Se'ah that was eaten, like the Seifa teaches in R. Shimon's words "if a Se'ah, a Se'ah..." [which refers to what was eaten];

He discusses a Beis Se'ah of grain (an area that produces a Se'ah of grain), and not a Beis Se'ah of seed (a field in which one seeds a Se'ah of barley, i.e. 2500 square Amos), for an animal cannot eat so much.

Resolution of objection #1: Therefore it is feminime "Kamah Haysah", for it refers to estimation of a field. ("Sadeh" can be masculine or feminine, but "Beis Se'ah" is always masculine - Shach CM 316:5.)

Resolution of objection #2: The Gemara properly asked how we estimate, for the Mishnah did not specify the size of the field in which we estimate.

Also, [the questioner] was unsure - perhaps "we estimate a Beis Se'ah in that field", i.e. in the land itself of the Beis Se'ah.

[The Tartzan] explained a Se'ah amidst 60 Sa'im, and the same applies to more or less. We estimate according to the calculation of a Se'ah amidst 60 Sa'im.

Note: Also Objection #3 is not difficult. There is only one estimation.

There is an opinion that says that we estimate a stalk amidst 60 stalks. We always estimate amidst 60 like it. (Objection #4 is not difficult. Our Mishnah mention a Beis Se'ah, for this is what it ate!)

According to the one who says a Tarkav amidst 60 Tarkavim, "it ate a Se'ah" of our Mishnah we estimate according to this Shi'ur (for each Tarkav eaten, we it pays how much this would decrease a field of 60 Tarkavim);

There it explains in which Shi'ur harms or helps the damager - a Tarkav amidst 60 Tarkavim, or a Se'ah amidst 60 Sa'im.

Resolution of objection #5: We challenge all of the Amora'im from the Beraisa of "it ate a Kav or..." - do we not estimate the patch by itself, how much the land was worth with the crops, and how much it is worth now that they were eaten?!

We could not challenge our Mishnah itself, for we could explain it like I explained ("Beis Se'ah" refers to the small patch that was eaten).

Question: According to the Ri, why does it say Beis Se'ah? It should say Se'ah!

So Rav Huna bar Mano'ach asked of Rav Papa, who explains a Kav among 60 Kavim, and a Beis Kor among 60 Korim. [If so,] it should not say 'a Beis Kor', rather 'a Kor'!

Answer: There, we ask only because just like the Reisha taught "Kav", and did not teach "Beis", similarly it should have taught Kor, and not Beis Kor, rather, like it began [to teach] in the Reisha.

Question: How do we bring a proof from land to Metaltelim? You are forced to say that they are different, for here we do not estimate a clump of dates amidst 60, like there, rather, by itself!

Answer: We bring a proof as follows. Since we are so lenient about land, we should not be stringent about Metaltelim, and say that he would have sold each by itself.

Explanation: [If they returned it] before the first market day, he cannot say "I will take only coins";

However, if the market day passed, he need not take wine. [He may demand] only coins. He can say [that had they returned it earlier,] he already would have sold it on the market day that passed, and he should not need to wait until the coming market day;

However, if he still has wine, he cannot say so, for he did not sell his own!