Question: Even if it is not possible, why does he deduct? Since a big river did not dry up, this is not a regional affliction!

Answer #1: It mentioned this reason to teach that even if also other rivers of other fields dried up, and now this is a regional affliction, even so he does not deduct, since it is possible to bring water in buckets from the big river;

Only when locusts consumed it or it was blasted, and there is no way to fix it through any toil, he deducts.

Answer #2: Surely, this reason was not needed for Chakirus. Even if it is impossible to bring, it is fine;

It was needed for Kablanus. He cannot say "I will not work [the field], and I will not pay", for he is not obligated to bring from other rivers further away;

Therefore, he needed to say that the big river did not dry up, and it is possible to bring water in buckets. Therefore, he is obligated to fulfill his Kablanus.

Implied question: "Just like they divide the grain" does not apply to Chakirus!

Answer: In any case the primary teaching, i.e. the Reisha, discusses both Chakirus and Kablanus.

Inference: This connotes that when the Choker said to the Machkir, he is adamant [even] without this reason, since he did not say "both are whether the Choker said to the Machkir, or the Machkir said to the Choker."

Rejection: This cannot be. Our Mishnah discusses when the Choker said to the Machkir, for it taught that he said to him "rent this Beis ha'Shelachin to me", and even so, only for this reason he is adamant!

It was not precise to say that the Machkir said to the Choker, for the same applies when the Choker said to the Machkir!

Rather, [it said so] because Shmuel cannot find a case of adamancy when the Machkir said to the Choker, Ravina said that also when the Machkir said to the Choker, there is adamancy in this case that our Mishnah discusses.

Explanation: These are expressions that Chachamim did not enact to write, but commoners became used to writing them. He used to expound them, and even if he did not write, it is as if it was written.

Proof: If [he expounded] only when the person wrote, what did he expound? Obviously, we fulfill like he stipulated, for this is not Asmachta!

Reference: The text in the Tosefta in Kesuvos says "a man brings Korban Ashir for his wife, and similarly all Korbanos that she is obligated, for so he wrote to her 'Achrayus that you have against me from before this...'"

Explanation: All Korbanos that she was obligated before she married him, he brings for her, for he wrote to her "Achrayus that you have, that you are obligated, is on me";

"From before this" - even obligations that preceded Nisu'in.

Limitation: This is only for Korbanos obligatory for her Kaparah, or to enable her to eat Kodshim, e.g. Korbanos for a birth, Zivah or Tzara'as, or [to permit her] to drink wine, if she is a Nezirah.

Support #1: The Yerushalmi in Kesuvos says so. It teaches there "even if she ate Chelev or was Mechalel Shabbos";

Inference: Only such matters that she was obligated to bring [he accepts], but not Korbanos that she accepted through a Neder or Nedavah before Nisu'in, or if she borrowed and ate, he need not pay.

Support #2: In Bava Basra (139a), we asked only about a woman who borrowed and ate and married, whether [her husband acquires her property] like a buyer or like an heir;

If he is like a buyer, the lender cannot take from the husband. If he is like an heir, [the lender] takes from him. This is only regarding property she brought to him (entered into the marriage);

However, from the husband's property, obviously [the lender] does not collect. The same applies if she borrowed while married for the need of something he is not obligated to her. He need not pay.

Assertion: Without any proof, this is obvious! If not, if he angers her, she will borrow and dispose of [the money] and obligate him a fortune every day!

Distinction: However, we are not concerned lest she vow Nezirus and cause him a loss [for Nezirus pains her - Tosfos ha'Rosh].

Also Nedarim and Nedavos, if he were obligated to pay, [if he angers her,] she would cause a great loss to him.

Implied question: Perhaps he can annul these vows, for since [if not,] he will lose money, this is like matters between them!

Answer #1: There is concern lest she vow and pay before he hears.

Answer #2: Even if he hears, sometimes he is distracted [and will not annul], like it says in Nedarim (73a).

Remark: This is unlike Rav Acha (author of the She'altos), who ruled that the husband must pay debts that his wife borrowed before she married, due to R. Yehudah's teaching here.

Implied question: He pays to him only based on what is written [in the document. What does he lose if the security is worth more than the debt?]

Answer: In any case, he may not take a security worth more than his debt.

Question: Since he expounds Leshon Hedyot, even if he did not write it [it is as if he wrote it], like I explained above (DH Hayah)! What is the question against R. Yochanan?

Answer: If it is true that R. Yochanan's law, that one may take the security from the borrower's children, is due to Leshon Hedyot, he should have specified.

Question: How does it connote to say that what he wrote "payment that you have against me corresponding to this [security that you return to me]" helps to take it from his children, that the Makshan erred to think that this is why he wrote to him?

Answer: The Makshan understands "payment that you have against me is not due to the beginning of the loan, for it was already paid through giving the security, for I was Makneh it to you, and you lent it to me, and for this She'elah you have [a claim for] payment against me";

Therefore, he asks why he needed to write this to take it from his children. Even without this, he takes it, for automatically he acquires the security, even if the borrower was not Makneh it to him!

Question: Since if he did not write this, he is exempt from depreciation, if so the Mitzvah is that he not take it. How is it permitted through this writing?

Answer #1: The borrower willingly is Makneh to him because he returns it to him for many days. Once he is Makneh to him, it is not in his hand any more due to returning the security, rather, as a She'elah.

Answer #2: Rabanan enacted that he write this, lest the lender refrain from returning it, just like Hillel enacted Pruzbul, because he saw that people were refraining from lending.

Implied question: Our Mishnah says "we establish how much it was proper to produce", regarding one who was Mekabel a field and left it fallow. (According to Rav Kahana, why doesn't he deduct what the field would have weakened had he planted it?)

Answer #1: Indeed, he deducts from this what the field would have weakened.

Answer #2: Only here, regarding sesame, which weakens more, [Rav Kahana] held that he deducts.

Assertion: Even the one who is concerned for weakening of vines (if an animal ate immature grapes, we deduct from the payment based on what the vines would have weakened had the grapes finished growing - Bava Kama 59a), here he agrees to Rav Ashi that we are not concerned.

Implied suggestion: The Mishnah above (68a) that one may not appoint a grocer [over an Iska] for half the profit, unless [he pays him like a worker]. We can learn from there that half is a loan, and half is a deposit!

Rejection: (We cannot learn from there.) One might have thought that more than half is a deposit. Even so, he must pay for [the grocer's] toil, since less than two thirds is a deposit. (If two thirds were a deposit, and the grocer had liability for only a third of the loss, yet he gets half the profit, the extra sixth would be considered pay for his toil.)

Explanation: When he spends [the loan on beer], the investor loses, for his principal is not intact, and he does not have what to rely on [to get back his investment].