Explanation: Granted, [we do not ask from] every man with a [lien for] a Kesuvah or creditor against him, even though the property is Meshubad to them (the wife or creditor);

Still, the firstborn's inheritance is not Batel, because the creditor or wife are Mechusar Govaina (not ready to collect). First, they need a document authorizing collection, announcement [to auction off the property] and assessment [of its value];

However, regarding the king's tax, even land worth 1000 Zuz is Meshubad for a small amount, and the land is primarily of the king, and he is not Mechusar Govaina. The Ri and R. Tam said so.

Explanation: These are people who write the king's documents. "Diska" is a document, like it says in Bava Kama (112b) "one who holds Diska from the great Beis Din...";

In Gitin (36a), it asks "how did [Chachamim] publicize [Simanim that they made in place of signatures? It was] through Diski."

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: Why did it need to teach Derech ha'Rabim? Since it taught that Derech ha'Yachid interrupts, all the more so Derech ha'Rabim!

Citation (cont.) Answer: It was taught for the sake of the Seifa, which taught that everything interrupts for Zera'im (crops other than trees), but only a fence interrupts for trees. It teaches that even Derech ha'Rabim does not interrupt for a tree.

It explains also why it needed to teach Shevil ha'Rabim, for it [already] taught that Shevil ha'Yachid interrupts;

It did not need to teach about [interrupting between] trees, for it already taught that even Derech ha'Rabim does not interrupt for a tree, and all the more so Shevil ha'Rabim.

Rather, it teaches that also Shevil ha'Rabim must be fixed in summer and winter.

Summation: Now, it needed to teach all of them. It needed to teach Shevil ha'Yachid, to teach that it interrupts for Zera'im, even though it is inferior to all of them. It needed to teach Derech ha'Rabim, that it does not interrupt for trees;

It needed to teach Derech ha'Yachid, that we do not require that it is fixed [in summer and winter]. It needed to teach Shevil ha'Rabim, that it must be fixed.

Question #1: It did not need to teach Shevil ha'Rabim. I would know that it must be fixed, since it taught Derech ha'Yachid!

If [Shevil ha'Rabim] did not need to be fixed, it should not teach Derech ha'Yachid. Rather, it should teach Shevil ha'Rabim, which is a bigger Chidush!

Question #2: Alternatively, it should not teach Derech ha'Yachid, and I would know that it need not be fixed, since it taught Shevil ha'Rabim, and did not teach Derech ha'Yachid, which is a bigger Chidush!

Answer (to both questions): Had it not taught both of them, we would not know which interrupts more. Derech ha'Yachid is wider, but many people go through Shevil ha'Rabim.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): They argue. R. Eliezer considers it a Sefek-Sefeka, and Rabanan consider it only one Safek.

Explanation #2 (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 70a): We discuss a field full of Tum'ah. They argue as follows. R. Eliezer holds that even though there is only one Safek, since it is not a Safek whether or not he touched, rather, whether or not he entered [the field], he is Tahor;

This is because we learn Tum'ah from Sotah. Regarding Sotah, it is a Safek of contact (of their genitals). It is not a Safek of entering, for they were surely secluded;

Chachamim are Metamei, since there is only one Safek.

Support: The Sugya in Avodah Zarah proves like Rashi, that R. Eliezer is Metaher even a single Safek;

It says that a case occurred in Neharde'a (thieves came and opened many barrels of wine), and Shmuel permitted the wine. We suggested that this is like R. Eliezer, who is Metaher a Safek about whether one entered;

Implied question: Why couldn't we say that Shmuel permitted because most thieves are Yisrael, like Rava permitted [for this reason] in a [similar] case in Pumbedisa?

Answer: Only in Pumbedisa most thieves were Yisrael, because they were Resha'im, like we said above (46a) "I will show to you the swindlers of Pumbedisa", and it says in Chulin (127a) "if someone of Pumbedisa escorts you, change your lodging (he probably wants to steal from you at night).

We answer that there is different, because they open for the sake of money, so it is a Sefek-Sefeka;

I.e. it is a Sefek-Sefeka whether the thieves were Nochrim or Yisre'elim, and if you will say that they were Nochrim, I can say that they did not touch, since they know from the smell that it is wine, they were not concerned;

Inference: When we wanted to establish it like R. Eliezer, we thought that they do not open for the sake of money, and surely they touched, it is permitted;

Even though it is a single Safek, whether they were Nochrim or Yisre'elim, [he permits] because it is a Safek of entering, whether or not Nochrim entered there.

Question: A case occurred in which a general (and his army) came to Neharde'a [and opened many barrels of wine], and R. Elazar permitted it;

Rav Dimi did not know whether this was because he holds like R. Eliezer, who is Metaher Safek entrance, or because most soldiers who follow a general are Yisraelim.

Citation (70b) Question: This is not Safek entrance. It is Safek touching!

Citation (cont.) Answer: Since they opened many barrels, I can say that they opened for the sake of money, it is like Safek entering.

Even though we assume that they intended for money, and it is a Sefek-Sefeka, it was permitted only according to R. Eliezer. Above, Shmuel permitted for this reason even according to Rabanan!

Answer (Rashi in Avodah Zarah): [Regarding] thieves of Neharde'a, they did not know whether the majority were Nochrim or Yisre'elim, and he permitted even according to Rabanan, for it is a Sefek-Sefeka;

However, regarding those who followed the general, R. Elazar, who permitted, knew whether most [thieves] were Yisre'elim, or most were Nochrim;

Therefore, even though we can say that they came for the sake of money, if the majority were Nochrim, there was only one Safek, , and it is permitted according to R. Eliezer;

Since they opened many barrels, it is proven that they came for the sake of money, and they do not pour libations [to idolatry], like a troop that entered a city in wartime, about which it was taught that these and these (open barrels and closed barrels) are permitted;

Therefore, even though it is Safek touching, since it is proven that we should be lenient, it is like a Safek entering.

Question (R. Tam): Both Perushim are difficult. In Taharos (6:4), it is proven that Rabanan are Metamei even a Sefek-Sefeka!

Citation (Taharos 6:4 - Mishnah): Even if you have many Sefekos and Sefekei Sefekos, in Reshus ha'Yachid it is Tamei, and in Reshus ha'Rabim it is Tahor. What is the case?...

Afterwards, it teaches "if one entered a valley in winter..." that is brought here (that R. Eliezer and Rabanan argue about it)!

Answer: We can explain the Sugya in Avodah Zarah like Rashi. R. Eliezer permits even with one Safek, like the Sugya proves;

And Rabanan, granted, that they are stringent to be Metamei even a Sefek-Sefeka, regarding Yayin Nesech they permit a Sefek-Sefeka.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): They argue as follows. Rabanan are Metamei even many Sefekos, because according to letter of the law, even one Safek should be Tahor, for we establish [Taharos] in their Chazakah. We learn from Sotah that it is Tamei;

If so, there is no difference between one Safek and two Sefekos, for even regarding one Safek, we should have been Metaher!

R. Eliezer says that we do not extend the Chidush. Only regarding one Safek it is Tamei.

Support: The case of the general is fine. Even regarding a Sefek-Sefeka, it is permitted only according to R. Eliezer;

In the episode in Neharde'a, R. Tam's text does not say "no, there is different...", for according to this text, it connotes that Rabanan agree that a Sefek-Sefeka is permitted, and R. Eliezer permits even one Safek;

Rather, R. Tam explains that the text says "like whom? It is like R. Eliezer", b'Nichusa (not in astonishment), and afterwards "this is not Safek entrance. It is Safek touching!"

Implied question: This is not precise that it is Safek touching. Just the contrary, it is Safek entering, for the Safek is whether or not Nochrim came there. Perhaps they were Yisre'elim!

Answer: It calls a single Safek "Safek touching", for Safek entrance of R. Eliezer is a Sefek-Sefeka;

We ask as follows. This is one Safek, and even R. Eliezer does not permit one Safek!

Question: What is the source that Rabanan forbid even Yayin Nesech in a case of Sefek-Sefeka?

Answer: In several places in Maseches Avodah Zarah, we compare the stringency of Yayin Nesech to the stringency of Taharos.

Assertion: The text says R. Elazar (ben Shamu'a, a Talmid of R. Akiva).

Proof: If the text said R. Eliezer (ben Hurkenos, the Rebbi of R. Akiva), how did the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (70a) want to say that Shmuel and R. Elazar (ben Pedas, an Amora) hold like R. Eliezer?!

Shmuel and R. Elazar hold in Nidah (8a) that the Halachah follows R. Eliezer in only four places in Seder Taharos (and this is not one of them), and this Mishnah is in Seder Taharos!

Explanation: [He is liable] even [if he took the two halves] to different Reshuyos.

Question: Rava said in Shabbos (80a) that if one was Motzi half a Grogeres and put it down, and he was Motzi [another] half a Grogeres over the first, he is liable;

Why must he take it over the first? Here we require only to one Reshus, even if they are far from each other!

Answer: Surely, even if he did not take it over the first, he is liable;

He discussed taking it over the first to teach that if he passed it within three [Tefachim] of a half a Grogeres resting [on the ground], he is liable, even if it is not within three of the ground.

Question (R. Tam): According to R. Yosi, why is he is exempt [when he put it down] in two Reshuyos? It says in Shabbos (104b) that if one wrote one letter in Teverya, and one letter in Tzipori, he is liable. The need to bring them close [so they could be read together] is not as if an action must be done [to complete the Melachah].

Answer #1 (R. Tam): The text says "from one Reshus he is liable. From two Reshuyos he is exempt." If he took half a Grogeres from [each of] two Reshuyos to Reshus ha'Rabim, he is exempt;

However, if he took it from one Reshus, even if he divided it and took it to two Reshuyos, he is liable, for the need to bring them close is not as if an action must be done.

Answer #2 (Ri): This is not difficult, for it is different. There, the name of the Halachah is writing. The writing is finished when he writes two letters, even if they are far from each other;

Here, the name of the Melachah is Hotza'ah. If he was Motzi to two Reshuyos, he did not finish the Melachah until he brings them close [to each other].