There seems to be a bit of uncertainty about the Rambam in laws of loans chapter 21 law 1 and law 6. Law one brings the opinion of the Rif, and then brings the opinion of Rabainu Chananel, and both Rav Shach and Rav Nahum of the Mir say that that last opinion is how the Rambam means to decide the law. That is all about a regular loan. The later law, law 6, is about an apotiki, [an object set aside to pay for the loan in case there is default on the loan.]. On the way back from the sea shore it occurred to me that the Gra and Rav shach are probably explaining the Rambam in a similar way. Several things we know. We know Rabainu Chanael holds the law of a borrower that sells all his land and the lender gets that land in case of default that this law is like (in part) that of one who goes into his neighbours’ field and plants it without permission in Bava Mezia page 102. There he gets the expenses from the lender and the crops that came by his efforts belong to the buyer. we also know the the Gra and Rav Shach explain that an apotiki is in the domain of the lender and that the sale of that property was only meant to be temporary. so that cannot be less of the lender than a case where there was not special property set aside to pay for the loan. For even when there is an apotiki the lender can anyway go after all the property that was owned by the borrower. So I think the Gra and Rav Shach intend that the lender pays for all the expenses to improve the property to the buyer and pays for the crops that the buyer planted that were worth more that the expenses and the part that was worth less than the expenses the lender pays half and the borrower pays half. ---------------------------------------------------------------------There seems to be a bit of uncertainty about the רמב’’ם in הלכהs of loans chapter 21 הלכה 1 and הלכה 6. הלכה one brings the opinion of the רי''ף, and then brings the opinion of ר' חננאל, and both רב שך and רב נחוםof the מיר say that that last opinion is how the רמב’’ם means to decide the הלכה. That is all about a regular loan. The later הלכה, הלכה 6, is about an אפותיקי, [an object set aside to pay for the loan in case there is default on the loan.]. On the way back from the sea shore it occurred to me that the Gra and Rav shach are probably explaining the רמב’’ם in a similar way. Several things we know. We know Rabainu Chanael holds the הלכה of a borrower that sells all his land and the lender gets that land in case of default that this הלכה is like (in part) that of one who goes into his neighbours’ field and plants it without permission in Bava Mezia page 102. There he gets the expenses from the lender and the crops that came by his efforts belong to the buyer. we also know the the גר''א and רב שך explain that an אפותיקי is in the domain of the lender, and that the sale of that property was only meant to be temporary. So that cannot be less of the lender than a case where there was not special property set aside to pay for the loan. For even when there is an אפותיקי the lender can anyway go after all the property that was owned by the borrower. So, I think the גר''א and רב שך intend that the lender pays for all the expenses to improve the property to the buyer and pays for the crops that the buyer planted that were worth more that the expenses and the part that was worth less than the expenses the lender pays half and the borrower pays half.