Inference (cont.): All the more so according to Abaye (one is not lashed for Chai or cooked in hot springs of Tiverya), for he says that one is not lashed for Lav she'Bichlalos, and he establishes Ki Im Tzli Esh like the Beraisa (that the Isur to eat Pesach Na applies only when there is a Mitzvah to eat it roasted)!

Question #1: This is difficult for Rashi, who explained in Pesachim (41a) that the Beraisa that teaches "you are liable for Na u'Mevushal, but not for Chai" is according to the opinion that one is not lashed for Lav she'Bichlalos. (Our Sugya connotes that it is even like Rava!)

Question #2: [According to Rashi, the Beraisa] is difficult for Rava, who says that one is lashed [for Lav she'Bichlalos]!

Question #3: Rashi explained that it says there "he is not lashed twice, according to Abaye, who says that one is not lashed for Lav she'Bichlalos, but he is lashed once";

[Rashi] explained that he is not lashed twice for Na and Ki Im Tzli Esh, but something else, which applies only to Ki Im Tzli Esh, e.g. Chai or cooked in hot springs of Tiverya, he is lashed for it;

It seems that he contradicts himself! Now, the Beraisa is not even like Abaye!

Explanation (unlike Rashi): The Beraisa is like everyone. He is never lashed for Chai or cooked in hot springs of Tiverya, like I explained above.

Implied question: Why does it say that he is lashed once?

Answer (R. Tam): He is not lashed twice. If they warned him for Na and for Ki Im Tzli Esh, he transgresses only Na. The same applies to Mevushal;

However, when they warned him only for Ki Im Tzli Esh, when he eats Na or Mevushal, he is lashed.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to two plowing cows with their yoke.

Rebuttal (and Explanation #2 - Ri): We do not discuss cows! (Rather, it is only the yoke.)

Explanation (Rashi): We cannot prove from the first Beraisa [like Rav Yehudah, that one is not liable for "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel"].

Objection #1 (Ri): If so, also from the latter Beraisa we cannot prove so, for we can say that it comes to teach only that he is liable for each one by itself, but not that he is not liable three times!

Objection #2: We can prove properly from the first like Rav Yehudah, for according to Rav Huna, if he is liable twice, you are forced to say that he is liable three times;

Since he learns from Reichayim va'Rachev, to apply to them the Lav of Reichayim va'Rachev, and therefore he is liable twice, once for Reichayim and once for Rachev, if so, he is liable a third set of lashes due to "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel."

If he does not learn to apply the Lav of Reichayim, rather, only the Lav of "Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel", he will be liable only once by itself, for Ki Nefesh Hu Chovel obligates only once even for Reichayim va'Rachev!

Alternative text (Ri and R. Chananel): The text says "Tanya Idach" without a Vov. (We can prove from the first Beraisa itself.)

Assertion (Ri): This is only regarding Kelim, but one may take a security of food itself.

Question: Here it connotes that just for the reason of matters normally lent or rented, he is not believed to say "I bought them";

In Shevuos (46b), regarding one whom they saw that he hid Kelim under his garment, and he claimed that he bought them, he is not believed...

Citation (46b): This is only regarding a Ba'al ha'Bayis (i.e. not a merchant) who does not normally sell his Kelim, and Kelim that it is not normal to hide, and an immodest person, but if one of these is lacking, he is believed.

Citation (cont.): This is only for matters normally lent or rented.

Inference: Even for matters normally lent or rented, we require all these [conditions]!

Alternative text (R. Tam, R. Chananel): The text should say like it says in old Seforim "all of these apply only to matters not normally lent or rented, but for matters normally lent or rented, he is not believed, even if there is not one [of the other reasons to assume that he stole them]."

Question: Here it implies that Seforim are normally lent or rented, even a Sefer of Agadata, and all the more so other Seforim, like it says in Kesuvos (50a) "v'Tzidkaso Omedes la'Ad" refers to one who writes Seforim and lends them to others;

Contradiction (Bava Kama 114b - Mishnah): If David recognizes his Kelim or Seforim with Ploni, if there is publicity in the city that that someone stole from [David, Ploni] swears how much he paid, and he receives [this amount from David, and returns the Kelim or Seforim];

Citation (114b): If not (there is no publicity of a theft, David) is not believed. I can say that [David] sold them to someone else, and Ploni bought from him!

Summation of question: What is the reason? [David] should be believed through a Migo, since if he wanted, he could have said 'I lent it to you'!

Implied question: It says in Shevuos that we do not establish people to be thieves, and he is not believed to say that Ploni stole them, Migo (since) he could say that he lent them!

Answer: That is when he says "you stole from me." However, when he says "someone else stole from me and sold to you", this is not establishing [a particular person] to be a thief, for [we know that] there are many thieves in the market.

Answer #1 (R. Tam): There, we know that David does not normally lend his Seforim to Ploni, who now has them.

Answer #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi and uncle): We do not take [from a Muchzak] based on a Migo.

Disclaimer: According to the opinion in Bava Basra (32b) that we take [from a Muchzak] based on a Migo, we must answer like R. Tam.

Consequence: Even if there is no publicity in the city that someone stole from him, he is believed to say that they were stolen, when he could say "I lent them to you."

Question: Here it is obvious to [the Makshan] that they fell to the Reshus of one of them, for normally, it does not fall exactly evenly;

In Bava Basra (4a), we ask "obviously, if the wall fell, [the rocks] belong to both of them!", and we answer that the case [about which the Mishnah must teach] is, it fell to the Reshus of one of them!

Answer #1: Because here we establish that they are resting [equally] in this one's Reshus like in this one's, there we ask "this is obvious!", for it seems [proper to the Makshan] to establish it similar to here, which was taught beforehand, close to it.

Note: It seems that this is according to the opinion that Bava Kama, Bava Metzia and Bava Basra are all one Maseches.

Answer #2: There, it is explicit in the Sugya that we properly ask "this is obvious!"

Note: It seems that the Makshan thought that even if they fell to one's Reshus, obviously they divide. The Tartzan answered that in this case, one might have thought that the one to whose Reshus they fell is Muchzak.

Explanation: [Rav Nachman] says that he is exempt.

Implied question: Rav Nachman's reason is because we establish money in the Chazakah of the one holding it, and here we establish that [the rocks] are in Reshus ha'Rabim or their joint Chatzer. Neither is more Muchzak than the other!

Answer #1: In any case he is considered Muchzak due to this, for we know that half are his. Therefore, we ask properly.

Answer #2: Above (97b DH Leima), we explained that every case of Safek Mamon is considered as if both of them are Muchzak in it.

Assertion (Ri): This means according to the number of broken and whole [rocks], like they are mixed in the place that they fell. (I.e. if a third of the rocks are whole, the other takes the same number of rocks, a third whole and two thirds broken.)

Source: It is totally unreasonable to say that [the one who recognizes] will select [whole rocks], and the other will take specifically broken rocks corresponding to them!

Version #1: Rashi's text does not say "of two [people]."

Version #2 (R. Tam): Even though the Gemara establishes it to discuss a tenant and a landlord, in any case the text can say "of two", since it teaches Ba'al ha'Bayis and Ba'al ha'Aliyah;

The Gemara establishes it to discuss a tenant and a landlord, because if brothers divided, the owner of the bottom need not build a ceiling.

Question: If he need not build, why does the Gemara say (117b) "if the bottom one comes to make a roof with cedar, we heed him"? Why does he come to make a roof, since it is not incumbent on him? There, we discuss brothers who divided!

Note: There, the Mishnah says that it is of both of them. Also, the Gemara says that if they sell [the house and Aliyah], the one who lives in the Aliyah gets a third!

Explanation: He gives to him rental for what he already lived there. If he lived for half the time, he gives half the rental, like it says above (79a) regarding one who rented a donkey and it died in the middle of the journey. [The renter] gives to him the rental of half the journey.

There, I explained why here and above (103a) regarding one who rented a house to his friend, and it fell, we do not say that if the money [of the fallen house] suffices to buy [another house], we buy, and if it suffices to rent, we rent, which we do say regarding a donkey. (There, the house is not destined to be sold, rather, to add to it and rebuild it like initially.)