הזבל של בעל הבית ב"מ ק"ב

The Gra points out that there is a fundamental machlokes harishonim about a rented חצר. Rashi, Tosafos, Ritva and others hold that if you rent a חצר you, the renter is קונה with the חצר. The Rambam on the other hand (quoted in שו"ע סי' שי"ג) holds that the משכיר is קונה. The Rambam is difficult based on the Gemara on י"א by ר"ג. The Gemara says that ר"ג was מקנה to ר' יהושע with a קנין חצר by renting out the place where the grain was. We see clearly that the שוכר is קונה with a קנין חצר. The acharonim on the shulchan aruch give various answers עיי"ש.

This is also relevant to pshat in the Gemara. According to Rashi you have to say that בחצר דאגר ליה לשוכר ותורי דשוכר is either or because since the שוכר is קונה if he rented the חצר then why would it need to be his animals? On the other hand according to the Rambam you may need both.

The רישא of the Mishna according to Rabba Bar R' Huna (Bava Metzia 100a)

As was pointed out yesterday, if the רישא of the mishna is ברי וברי why is the din יחלוקו even according to סומכוס there should be a שבועה of מודה במקצת?

The שיטה quotes the ראב"ד who answers as follows. He says that the case of the Mishna is where the לוקח was תופס the cow or שפחה. Therefore the whole dispute is only on the ולד and there is no מודה במקצת. This very similar to saying הילך however, here it is לכ"ע as he actually was תופס already.

תנא אמר הלה זייתי אני נוטל אין שומעיו לו- ב"מ ק"א

What about if the owner of the field doesn't want the olive trees in his field? Can he force the tree owner to uproot them? Or do we say he can't because of ישוב א"י? The Ritva writes that the owner of the field can force the owner of the trees to uproot them even in ארץ ישראל and this is brought down להלכה in שו"ע ח"מ סי' קס"ח. However, the Acharonim point out that this is really a machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad (הל' גזילה י,ה). The Rambam writes:

היורד לתוך שדה חברו שלא ברשות, ונטעה--אם הייתה שדה העשויה ליטע--אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בשדה זו ליטעה, ונוטל מבעל השדה; ואם אינה עשויה ליטע--שמין לו, וידו על התחתונה.
אמר לו בעל השדה, עקור אילנך ולך--שומעין לו

The Rambam writes that the owner of the field can force him to remove the trees. The Raavad there is משיג that this is in חו"ל but in א"י he is not allowed to uproot them because of ישוב א"י.

96b meisa machmas melacha vs. regular oness

What is the basis for the chiluk between meisa machmas melacha and a regular oness where even the animal dropping dead from a heart attack would be mechayev you?
Ramban calls it peshiya of the mashil -- that the mashil did not verify that the animal is up to the task he is lending it for. Rashba says, since "לאו לאוקמה בכילתא שאילתא" and he realizes that the animal will have wear and tear from the work and yet he does not set up an evaluation of the animal's worth, it shows he is not makpid. And once he is not makpid on כחש, he is not makpid on death either מחמת מלאכה, because of the idea of מה לי קטלה כולה מה לי קטלה פלגא

be'alav imo for city employees

Rav Meir explained today that according to rashi the teacher and barber are considered be'alav imo when they do melacha for you even though you are not paying them since they collect their salary from the city. In the previous lines, we were not paying the guy to give us a drink of water, so why is this a chiddush?
First of all, we see that Rishonim attack Rashi for his peshat and Ramban and others explain that the case is that these workers, since they are collecting their salary from all the inhabitants of the city, they are considered be'alav imo for everyone at all times, even when he is not teaching your son.
The shita suggests that the Ramban's peshat works in the words of Rashi as well.
Another possibility may be not to focus on the money but to say that the worker is not really working for you -- he works for the city and that is the chiddush.

בעל בנכסי אשתו (Bava Metzia 96a)

The Gemara has a question what is the status of the בעל with respect to the נכסי מלוג. What about the reverse? What is the status of the wife when she uses the husbands property?

The Ramabm (אישות כ"א:ט) writes:

האישה ששברה כלים, בעת שעושה מלאכותיה בתוך ביתה--פטורה: ואין זה מן הדין, אלא תקנה, שאם אין אתה אומר כן, אין שלום בתוך הבית לעולם--אלא נמצאת נזהרת ונמנעת מרוב המלאכות, ונמצאת קטטה ביניהם.

The ראב"ד there is משיג that the פטור is because of שאילה בבעלים. The ראב"ד seems to assume that just like the Gemara says that the husband with respect to the wifes property would be שאילה בבעלים (except that למסקנה he is a לוקח not a שואל), so too the reverse. The husband is משועבד to the wife and therefore it is always considered שאילה בבעלים. The Rambam would seem to assume that since the husband is not always working for the wife the פטור would not apply in all situations.