(Mishnah - Chanan): If David went overseas and Reuven fed David's wife, he is not reimbursed;

The sons of Kohanim Gedolim argued with him, and said that he swears how much he spent, and he is reimbursed.

R. Dosa ben Harkinas said like them (the sons of Kohanim Gedolim).

R. Yochanan ben Zakai says, Chanan said well. Reuven threw away his money.

(Gemara - R. Ba bar Mamal) Question: One who pays another's loan document without his knowledge - do Chanan and the sons of Kohanim Gedolim argue about this?

Answer (R. Yosi): The reason for the sons of Kohanim Gedolim is, there, it never crossed his mind that his wife will starve to death. However, here he can say 'I would have appeased [my creditor], and he would pardon me.'

Question: Exert yourself [and you will find the answer]! If he had a security [how can we answer]?

Answer: [He can say] 'I would have appeased him, and he would return my security to me.'

Question: This applies to a creditor who is not Dochek (pressing to be paid). Do we say so even about a Dochek creditor?

Answer: We learn from the following [Mishnah. Even if Reuven is Mudar Hana'ah (a vow forbids him to benefit) from Shimon, Shimon] may give his [Machatzis ha']Shekel for him;

If one did not give his Shekel, do they not take a security from him?! This teaches that we say so even about a Dochek creditor [like Hekdesh].

Support (Seifa of that Mishnah): He may offer for [the Mudar Hana'ah] Kinim (Korbanos ha'Of) of a Zav, Zavah, Yoledes, Chata'os and Ashamos. Is this not when [the Mudar] did not give anything to him? Also here, [he pays another's debt] even though he did not receive anything from him (and he cannot demand to be repaid).

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): The only case in which one is Nitfas (needs to pay) for his friend, and [the latter] must give to him (what he paid), is the king's tithe and head-tax. (It is customary to force one to pay these for another.)

(Rav): Anyone who is Nitfas for his friend, he must give to him.

Source (for Rav - Mishnah): If one stole a field and extortionists took it - if [extortion] is rampant in the area, he says 'your field is in front of you.' If [they took it] due to the Gazlan, he must give to him another field [of the same value. We explained this like the ROSH.]

Rebuttal: Did he not hear that R. Yochanan said, they made a fine for a Gazlan? (According to letter of the law, he need not pay, for land is not stolen.)

Question (R. Avun): The great Dahavah (if one was Nitfas for it, what is the law? This is a tax that the king takes when needed, like "Madhevah" - Yeshayah 14:4.)

Answer: R. Yosi bei R. Bun and R. Chiya bar Lulainu, both citing Shmuel, [argued about this]. One said that it is like the king's tithe and head-tax, and one said that it is not like the king's tithe and head-tax. (We explained this like SEFER NIR.)

(Mishnah): One may heal (a Mudar Hana'ah) Ripuy Nefesh, but not a monetary cure (e.g. his animal).

Note: There is an implied question. The Reisha taught that he may return his Aveidah. This is like curing his animal!

Answer #1 (R. Yehudah or R. Yosi): Here [one may return his Aveidah] is when his body is Mudar [Hana'ah] from him. Here [one may not give a monetary cure] when his property is Mudar from him.

Answer #2 (the other of R. Yehudah and R. Yosi): Here [one may not give a monetary cure, or return his Aveidah] when there is someone else who can cure (his animal, or return it). Here [one may return his Aveidah] when there is no one else who can cure (or return it).

Question: If there is someone else who can cure, even Refu'as Nefesh should be forbidden!

Answer: One does not merit to be cured from anyone. (Perhaps only this doctor can cure him.)

Question: Is it not the case that the property of the one who returns [the Aveidah] are forbidden to the owner of the [Aveidah, e.g.] cow? (Why does the Mishnah say that where the custom is to pay the one who returns, the wage must go to Hekdesh?)

Answer (Ula bar Yishmael citing R. Yitzchak): The case is, the property of each is forbidden to the other. (Returning the Aveidah is not Hana'ah, for it always belonged to him.)

Question: Who is the Tana, [who taught that] the Hana'ah (wage given for returning) goes to Hekdesh?

Answer: It is R. Meir, for R. Meir says that Me'ilah applies to matters forbidden [through Konam, i.e. vows].

Question (R. Avun bar Chiyah): If one vowed from a loaf, may he warm his hands on it?

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa. If one said] 'this loaf is [forbidden to everyone, like] Hekdesh', and he ate it - whether he or someone else, he transgressed Me'ilah. Therefore, it can be redeemed;

If he said] 'this loaf is Alai [forbidden to me]', and he ate it, he transgressed Me'ilah. Others [who ate it] did not transgress Me'ilah. Therefore, it cannot be redeemed. R. Meir says so.

Inference: [R. Meir] said [that there is Me'ilah] only for eating it. This implies that one may warm his hands on it.

Rebuttal (Talmidim of R. Yonah, citing R. Bun bar Chiyah): [The Beraisa] discusses one who said 'I will not eat it' or 'I will not taste it.' He forbade only eating. We still do not know about one who vowed [Stam] from a loaf, may he warm his hands on it.

[Our Mishnah taught that] if one went overseas, and someone else fed his wife, [Chanan said that he is not paid back]. R. Chagai said, this is only if someone else did so, but if [her] father fed her, he collects.

(R. Yosi): Whether her father or someone else, he does not collect.

This argument is like the following argument;

(Mishnah - 4:6): [A father] merits [his daughter's] Metzi'ah, her earnings, and can annul her vows. He can receive her Get [during Eirusin]. He does not eat the Peiros of her property in her lifetime. He is obligated to feed, redeem and bury her;

Note: The Mishnah says that after Nisu'in, her husband must bury her. A Beraisa teaches that if he did not want to bury her, her father buries her, and collects from him in Beis Din.

(R. Chagai): This is only her father, but someone else does not collect.

(R. Yosi): Whether her father or someone else, he collects.

According to R. Chagai, both for burial and food, her father collects, but someone else does not collect.

According to R. Yosi, for burial, whether her father or someone else, he collects. It did not cross [her husband's] mind that his wife will be cast to the dogs (to eat her). And for food, whether her father or someone else, he does not collect.

(Mishnah): Admon said seven laws (in the coming Mishnayos. The first is,) If a man died leaving sons and daughters, if the estate is big (enough to feed all the children for 12 months), the sons inherit and the daughters are fed. If the estate is small, (Chachamim say that) the daughters are fed and the sons beg at the doorways [for their food];

Admon: Because I am a male, I lose?!

R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

(Gemara) Question: What is called a big estate?

(R. Ze'ira citing Rav Yehudah citing Rav): It is in order to enough to feed all the [sons] and [daughters] for 12 months.

Shmuel heard, and said 'this is the opinion of R. Gamliel b'Ribi, but Chachamim say, it is until [the daughters] become Bogeros or make Nisu'in.

Question (to R. Yosi): What did you hear from R. Yochanan?

Answer (R. Yosi): We can explain (infer) the opinion of Rabanan (R. Yochanan and Nasan bar Hoshayah) from their words (elsewhere);

Question (Nasan bar Hoshayah, to R. Yochanan): If there was [enough for food] for 12 months, and the property diminished [what is the law]?

Answer (R. Yochanan): Once the orphans began eating b'Heter, they eat until the last Perutah is consumed. (This shows that they hold that the Shi'ur is 12 months.)

Question: When do we estimate [enough for food for 12 months]?

Answer #1 (R. Mana): We estimate for them at the end. (Even if only later there is not enough, we apply the law of a small estate.)

Objection (R. Chaninah): Did you not hear the words of Rabanan? Nasan bar Hoshayah asked R. Yochanan, if there was for 12 months, and the property diminished, and he answered, once the orphans began eating b'Heter, they eat until the last Perutah is consumed!

Answer #2 (R. Chaninah): Rather, we estimate for them at the beginning.

Question (Rav Chisdai): If there was not food for 12 months, and the property increased in value [what is the law]?

Answer: We learn from the following. R. Chaninah cited R. Yosa citing R. Yochanan to say that if the orphans got up and sold (in a case of sparse property), they sold theirs (we do not take from buyers for food for the daughters). And [similarly] here, when the property increased in value, it increased for them.

Question: If there was not food for 12 months, can the sons tell the daughters 'take yours (food for 12 months), and leave (and the rest is for us? Or, is all the property left for the girls?)

Answer (R. Aba): This Mishnah teaches that they cannot say so to them;

(Mishnah): If the orphans said 'we will consider the property above its true value, to be a Dinar above (both Kesuvos), in order to receive Kesuvas Benin Dichrin, we do not heed them. Rather, we estimate the property in Beis Din. (Also here, if the property is sparse, we save all of it for the daughters; the sons cannot change this.)

Question: Just like you say that [the calculation of a big or small estate] is excluding [property needed to pay] the Kesuvah, and excluding his burial, and excluding a loan [that the father owed] through witnesses, and excluding a loan with a document, [is it likewise] excluding Parnasah of the daughters? (Each receives a 10th of the estate when she marries.)

Answer: The one who says that we collect Parnasah from Meshubadim, Parnasah of daughters has precedence (it is excluded from the calculation). The one who says that we do not collect Parnasah from Meshubadim, Parnasah of daughters does not have precedence. (We explained this like PNEI MOSHE.)

A widow and sons - both of them are equal. A widow and daughters - both of them are equal. A widow is not Docheh (override) sons, and a widow is not Docheh daughters.

Question: What is the case?

Answer: If there was food for 12 months and a widow to feed - this is what was taught, sometimes a widow is Docheh sons through daughters. (Because she diminishes the property, the sons are Nidchim.)

Question: Just like she is Docheh sons through daughters, so she should be Docheh [daughters] through sons! (She has greater rights than daughters, for she is fed without limit.)

Answer: She is prone to claim her Kesuvah and lose her food.

(Mishnah): The sons Yish'alu (beg) at the doorways.

Some teach "Yish'anu (they rely on) [the doorways'."

The one who teaches "Yish'anu" learns from "v'Hish'anu Tachas ha'Etz." The one who teaches [like our text] "Yish'alu" learns from "v'No'a Yanu'u Vanav v'Shi'alu v'Darshu me'Charvoseihem."

(R. Ze'ira citing R. Chananel citing Rav, and R. Ze'ira citing Aba bar Yirmeyah): Chanan said two laws; the Halachah is like him. Admon said seven laws. The Halachah does not follow him.

(R. Ada bar Zavda citing R. Yitzchak bar Chakulah): Wherever we learned "R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, I agree with Admon", the Halachah is like him. (We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

(Mishnah - Admon): If Reuven claims that Shimon owes him barrels of oil and Shimon admits that he owes barrels, since he admits to part of the claim, he must swear;

Chachamim say, the admission is not from the same class as the claim (so he need not swear).

R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.

(Gemara - R. Imi citing R. Yochanan): (In Shevu'os 6:4, Chachamim say that if Reuven claimed wheat, and Shimon admitted that he owes barley, Shimon is exempt. Raban Gamliel obligates.) The Mishnah discusses when he claimed wheat, and he admitted to barley, but if he claimed two species, and he admitted to one of them, all agree that he is obligated.

(R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan): The Mishnah discusses not only when he claimed wheat and he admitted to barley. Rather, even if he claimed wheat and barley, and he admitted to barley, Chachamim exempt [from a Shevu'ah].

Question: [According to R. Chiya,] why does the Mishnah teach one who claimed wheat, and he admitted to barley? (It should teach that even when he claimed wheat and barley, and admitted to barley, Chachamim exempt!)

Answer: It is because the Mishnah taught 'R. Gamliel obligates.' It comes to teach the extremity of R. Gamliel, until how far he obligates. (We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Note: It is better to teach Ko'ach d'Hetera, the extremity of the lenient opinion. One who is lenient must be Vadai! Here, R. Gamliel must be Vadai to rule that he swears with Hash-m's name. (PF)

(Reish Lakish): The Mishnah discusses one who claimed wheat and he admitted to barley, but if he claimed two species, and he admitted to one of them, all agree that he is obligated. [This is like R. Imi above. Also] Rav holds like Reish Lakish.

A man went for judgment with his colleague in front of Rav. He began to claim from him barley, wheat and spelt [and the defendant admitted to one of them]. Rav told him, whatever you can claim, claim, and he will make one Shevu'ah to you about all of them.

(R. Avahu): So Reish Lakish answered R. Yochanan [according to R. Chiya]. You hold that if he claimed two species, and he admitted to one of them, Chachamim exempt. A Mishnah teaches that if he claimed Kelim and land, and he admitted to Kelim and denied land, or admitted to land and denied Kelim [he is exempt];

If for Kelim and Kelim (two species of Metaltelim, and he admitted to one of them) he is exempt, all the more so Kelim and land! (Why did the Mishnah need to teach this?)

Question: How will R. Yochanan establish this?

Answer: He explains that it is to obligate a Shevu'ah [even on the land when he partially admitted about the Kelim].

Question (Mishnah): If he claimed barrels of oil and he admitted to barrels - [according to Reish Lakish] what is the case?

If he claimed barrels and oil and he admitted to one of them, all agree that this is [admission] like the claim!

If he claimed oil and he admitted to barrels, all agree that this is not admission like the claim!

Answer (R. Ze'ira citing R. Avunah citing Rav): Our Mishnah discusses when he claimed 'barrels of oil.' [Admon] says that [this connotes] full barrels, and [Chachamim] say that it is empty [barrels, or oil without barrels - PNEI MOSHE].

Question: Granted, if he claimed barrels without oil [we understand why he said 'barrels'. However, if he claimed oil without barrels [why did he say 'barrels']?

Answer (R. Elazar citing R. Avun): He said an expression 'Machatzin of oil.' (This word refers to a Kli (KORBAN HA'EDAH), and it is also a measure - PNEI MOSHE.)

Question: Do we not ask him which he meant?!

Answer: The case is, he became mute. (He cannot clarify his intent.)