The case is there is a loan and the borrower sold his land to a buyer after the loan. In case of default on the loan, the lender can take that property. But does he pay the expenses of the buyer, the time effort and money he spent to improve that property? To the Rif the answer is no. To R Chananel the answer is yes. Rav Nachum of the Mir thinks that the case in Rambam laws of loans 21, law 10 is like the Rif because the case is that of an apotiki (property set aside to pay for the loan) and the profits are less than the expenses, and the lender only pays the amount of the profits to the buyer, but I do not see it this way. I think the lender is still paying the expenses, but just less than the full amount, and so it is not like the Rif. Besides that, Rav Shach also holds that the Rambam holds like R. Chananel that the lender does pay the expenses of the buyer.-------------------------------The case is there is a loan and the borrower sold his land to a buyer after the loan. In case of default on the loan, the lender can take that property. But does he pay the expenses of the buyer, the time effort and money he spent to improve that property? To the רי''ף the answer is no. To רבינו חננאל the answer is "yes." רב נחום of the מיר thinks that the case in רמב''ם laws of loans 21, law 10 is like the Rif because the case is that of an אפותיקי(property set aside to pay for the loan) and the profits are less than the expenses, and the lender only pays the amount of the profits to the buyer, but I do not see it this way. I think the lender is still paying the expenses, but just less than the full amount, and so it is not like the רי''ף. Besides that, רב שך also holds that the רמב''ם holds like רבינו חננאל that the lender does pay the expenses of the buyer.