Question: That is just like Rabah answered, that they pay even though they did not accomplish anything!

Answer: Indeed, it should say that Rav Nachman gave the same support that Rabah did.

(Rav Yehudah): An Ed Zomem pays according to his share.

Question: What does this mean?

Suggestion: Each witness pays half of what he tried to make the Nidon pay.

Rejection: A Mishnah explicitly teaches this!

(Mishnah): Edim Zomemim divide among themselves the payment of money they tried to make the Nidon pay. They do not divide lashes (each is lashed the full amount they tried to inflict).

Answer #1: If one of the witnesses was Huzam, he pays half of what he tried to make the Nidon pay.

Rejection (Beraisa): An Ed Zomem does not pay unless both witnesses are Huzmu.

Answer #2 (Rava): The case is, he admits that he testified falsely.

Rejection: A witness is not believed to retract his testimony!

Answer #3: Rather, he says 'we testified and we were Huzmu in Ploni's Beis Din.'

Question: This is unlike R. Akiva, who says that an Ed Zomem does not pay based on his own admission! (The Halachah follows R. Akiva.)

Answer #4: Rather, he says 'we testified and were Huzmu in Ploni's Beis Din, and they obligated us to pay money.' (Once Beis Din rules that a Kenas must be paid, it is like a regular obligation, and one pays based on his own admission.)

One might have thought that since his admission does not obligate the other witness to pay, also he is exempt. Rav Yehudah teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If Edim (who were later found to be) Zomemim testified that Reuven divorced his wife and did not pay her Kesuvah:

They need not pay him the full value of her Kesuvah, for he would have eventually paid it anyway (if he divorces her, or if she was widowed she would have collected it from his estate);

Rather, we estimate what one would pay for the chance to collect her Kesuvah (the Tovas Hana'ah):

She collects if and when she is divorced or widowed. If she dies first, he inherits her.

(Gemara) Question: How do we make the estimation? (It cannot be what someone would pay for her rights of collection, this is not what they tried to make Reuven lose!)

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): We estimate Reuven's Tovas Hana'ah (what one would pay for his rights to keep and use the money and property of the Kesuvah until it must be paid. If she dies first, he keeps it forever.)

Answer #2 (Rav Noson bar Oshaya): We estimate her Tovas Hana'ah, and deduct this from the total value of the Kesuvah. (If she would agree to sell it, her husband would buy her Tovas Hana'ah to guarantee that he will keep the Kesuvah forever. This is more than his Tovas Hana'ah, for the sum of his and her Tovas Hana'ah is less than the Kesuvah. This is because one would buy such collection rights only for less than the true value based on statistical expectations to collect. One who wants to buy land is loathe to buy her Tovas Hana'ah, for he has no idea when (if at all) he will receive it. People are reluctant to buy his Tovas Hana'ah, for they fear to invest in the land, lest she collect it suddenly. Also, perhaps they suspect that he sells because he has thoughts of divorcing her - PF.)

Answer #3 (Rav Papa): We deduct her Tovas Hana'ah from the Kesuvah. They do not pay for Nichsei Melug (property that she brings into the marriage, and receives it back with her Kesuvah, without compensation if its value rose or declined. This is because they can say that they did not know about it.)

(Mishnah): If witnesses testified that Reuven must pay to Shimon 1000 Zuz in 30 days, and Reuven says that he has 10 years to pay, and they were Huzam, we estimate the difference of what one would pay for rights to have 1000 Zuz for 30 days, or for 10 years. (They tried to make Reuven lose this.)

Version #1 (Rav Yehudah): Shemitah (the seventh year) is Meshamet (cancels) a loan of 10 years;

Even though "Lo Yigos (do not request payment)" does not apply in Shemitah (since the loan is not due yet), since it will apply later, Shemitah is Meshamet.

Question (Rav Kahana - Mishnah): We estimate the difference of what someone would pay for his rights to have 1000 Zuz for 30 days, or for 10 years.

If the loan is cancelled, Reuven need not repay after 10 years!

Answer (Rava): The case is, Shimon took a security when he lent him, or he handed over his documents to Beis Din (authorized Beis Din to collect for him, e.g. Pruzbul);

(Mishnah): If one takes a security when he lends, or he hands over his documents to Beis Din, the loan is not cancelled in Shemitah.

Version #2 (Rav Yehudah): Shemitah is not Meshamet a loan of 10 years;

Even though "Lo Yigos" will apply later, since it does not apply in Shemitah, Shemitah is not Meshamet.

Support (Rav Kahana - Mishnah): We estimate the difference of what someone would pay for his rights to have 1000 Zuz for 30 days, or for 10 years.

If the loan is Meshamet, Reuven need not repay after 10 years!

Rejection (Rava): The case is, Shimon took a security when he lent him, or handed over his documents to Beis Din.

(Shmuel): If one lent 'on condition that Shemitah will not be Meshamet the loan', Shemitah is Meshamet;

Suggestion: He holds that this is a stipulation contrary to Torah, and such stipulations are void.

Question: Elsewhere, he holds that such stipulations are valid, as we find in the following discussion

(Rav): If one sells 'on condition that you have no (claim of) Ona'ah (overcharging) against me', the buyer has (a claim of) Ona'ah;

(Shmuel): He has no Ona'ah.

Answer: Rav Anan said that Shmuel explained that if he said 'on condition that you have no Ona'ah against me', (he stipulates that the buyer pardon the Ona'ah, therefore) the stipulation is valid;

If he said 'on condition that there is no Ona'ah in the sale' (Rashi - he promises that he is not overcharging; Tosfos - he stipulates that the law of Ona'ah will not apply), Shmuel agrees that this is a stipulation contrary to Torah, so it is void.

Likewise, if he lent 'on condition that you will not Meshamet the loan in Shemitah' (he asks him to waive his right), Shemitah is not Meshamet;

If he lent 'on condition that Shemitah will not Meshamet', Shemitah is Meshamet.

(Beraisa): If one lends without setting a date (for payment), he may not demand payment until 30 days.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): This is only if he wrote a document, for people do not bother to write a document for less than 30 days, but one may demand a Milveh Al Peh (a loan without a document) immediately.

(Rav): No. Whether or not he wrote a document, he must wait 30 days.

A Beraisa says exactly like Rav.

Question (Shmuel): What is the source that if one lends without setting a date, he may not demand payment until 30 days, whether or not he wrote a document?

Answer (Rav Masnah) Question: Why does it say "Shenas ha'Sheva Shenas ha'Shmitah"? We already know that the seventh year is Shemitah!

Answer: The verse alludes to another Shemitah (period when one may not demand payment), i.e. if one lends without setting a date. He may not demand payment until 30 days.

Thirty days are considered like a year (Shenas ha'Shmitah).

(Rav Yehudah): If one makes a neckhole in a garment on Shabbos, he is liable (for finishing a vessel).

Question (Rav Kahana): Why is this different than cutting off a lid plastered onto a barrel?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): The neckhole was part of the garment itself. The lid was merely stuck on the barrel.

(Rav): (If three Lugim (a Lug is about a half liter) of Mayim She'uvim, i.e. water that was in a vessel, falls into an incomplete Mikveh, the Mikveh is Pasul even after it has a full Shi'ur.) If a Kortov (a 64th of a Lug) of wine fell into three Lugim of Mayim She'uvim and gave it the appearance of wine, it (is considered like wine, so it) does not disqualify a Mikveh (if it fell in).

Question (Rav Kahana): Why is it different than dye water?

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): If three Lugim of dye water fell into a Mikveh, they disqualify it.

Answer (Rava): Since it is called dye water, the law of Mayim She'uvim applies. In Rav Yehudah's case, it is called mixed (diluted) wine, so the law of Mayim She'uvim does not apply.

Question (R. Chiya's Beraisa): A case (like Rav discusses) occurred, and they disqualified the Mikveh.