Implied Question: The Gemara concluded earlier that according to everyone he does not have to make a notice in the case where he did so for himself (see below and Tosfos 109b, DH "Asa'ah" for the exact case), as each person's friend has a friend. [Why, then, is this a point of contention in our case?]

Answer: It is possible to answer that it is not comparable to our case. In that case when he delineated the borders of the land as belonging to someone else, it is not as much of an admission as in our case where he sold him an entire field (despite the fact that he owed him money). Therefore, in that case he did not have to make a notice beforehand (stating his real intentions), but in our case of admission (selling him a field) there is an argument, as it is more similar to admission.

Observation: According to Rashi this is understandable. Earlier, the person with the claim certainly did not have to make a notice, as perhaps the one selling the field will hear about his notice and therefore avoid selling the field. This will cause him a loss, as he will now not have a field to buy.

However, here regarding the sale of a field, he will not suffer such a loss as there are many potential buyers for his field, as people are wont to say, "If you bought - you acquired. If you sold - you have lost."

Implied Question: We usually deal with the complaint of the plaintiff first. [Why, then, does the Gemara ask that they both should be looked at as coming at the same time with their loan documents?]

Answer: Where there is a loss to the other party when we do so, we do not deal with his complaint first (if they both have a claim on each other). This is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Kama (46b), which says that in a case where dealing with the complaint of the first claimant first will lower the value of the other party's property, we look at both of their cases together.

Explanation: The Tosefta states that this is only true when the groom came from Yehudah and did the Airusin in Yehudah, or similarly a person from Galil who did the Airusin in Galil.

However, if a person from Yehudah did the Airusin in Galil or a person from Galil did the Airusin in Yehudah, we force her to go with him because she clearly married him on condition that she would have to go with him.

Implied Question: Rav Yosef ben Rav Yom Tov explained that the Gemara in Gitin (45a) states that there was a slave who ran away to Eretz Yisrael, with his master chasing after him. He came before Rebbi Ami, who said that we will write for you a document stating that he owes you money (and you must write a document freeing him).

If you do not free him, we will take him away from you based on the words of Rebbi Achi bar Yoshiyah, who understands that the Pasuk "do not lock a slave to his master" is referring to a slave who runs away from Chutz la'Aretz to Eretz Yisrael. However, our Gemara does not say that they will take the slave away, but rather says "go and sell him." [Why is there a difference between the two Gemaros?]

Answer #1: The Gemara there is talking about a case where he would not have found a buyer in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore the Gemara states we will write you a document regarding his worth (that he owes you). Otherwise, all servants would get out of servitude by running away to Eretz Yisrael.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that when the Gemara here says "sell him," it doesn't actually mean to sell him to others, but rather it means "sell him to yourself," that Beis Din writes a document saying that the slave owes him his value.

Question: If you will ask, why doesn't the Gemara answer that this comes to include a servant who ran away from Yerushalayim, similar to the explanation given regarding the statement "we do not take out" in the first part of the Mishnah?

Answer: It is possible to answer that we cannot encourage servants to flee to Yerushalayim, as we do not want Yerushalayim to be a city of many servants but rather of people who have fine lineage.

Observation #1: This does not apply today, as there is a danger to travel to Eretz Yisrael (in the days of Tosfos).

Observation #2: Rabeinu Chaim used to say that nowadays there is no Mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisrael, as there are many Mitzvos that are dependent (only apply) on the land of Eretz Yisrael and many punishments (that would come because they would be transgressed). We would not be able to be careful about these Mitzvos and make sure they are fulfilled properly (and therefore there is no Mitzvah to live there today).

Question: This is difficult. Why is the Gemara talking about Eretz Yisrael? It is difficult to suggest that he should even have to leave his place in Chutz la'Aretz!

Answer: It is possible to answer that here it is even talking about going from an ugly city to a beautiful city (and she still cannot force him, see Maharsha).

Explanation: This implies that pieces of silver are preferred payment over money and dinars of silver. If it were less preferred, what would the Gemara be asking? It would be true, that even silver pieces would be acceptable as the terminology used was "whatever he wants he can pay." It therefore must certainly be that it is better (which is why the Gemara asks if he can pay him in silver pieces).

Even so, the Gemara asks "and I will say that silver pieces should be collected?" This means that because the word used in the document was "money," perhaps mere cheap coins cannot be used. The Gemara is asking, why did the Beraisa say that whatever he wants he can give him as payment, even cheap coins? [Why doesn't he have to give him silver pieces and the equivalent?]