There seems to be a bit of uncertainty about the Rambam in laws of loans chapter 21 law 1 and law 10. We know Rabainu Chananel 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 side A,{not like the Rif}. We also know the the Gra and Rav Shach explain that an apotiki [property set aside to repay a loan.] 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 at the time of the loan or afterwards. But the Rambam writes in case of an apotiki,[law 10] if the expense was 50 shekels and the profit was 102 shekels then the lender pays 102 to the buyer, i.e., the expense plus half the profit and keeps 51 shekels of the profit, ie, half the profit and he need not pay for that half. [The buyer gets the rest of the profit from the seller.] If half the profit was less than half the expense eg 98 shekels, then the lender pays 49 shekels and keeps the other 49 free of charge and pays nothing for the expense of the buyer. [the rest from the seller] It is not like one who goes into the field of his neighbor where the law is if the expense was 50 and the profit was 51, the owner only pays to the buyer the expense and nothing for the profit. I think that means the owner pays 1 shekel, not 51 which would make no sense. the law by a loan not backed up by an apotiki is he pays the expense to the buyer and nothing for the profit.------------------------- The main issue between Rabbainu Chananel and the Rif is if we can compare our the laws about regular loans, loans with an apotiki, or regular sold property in Bava Mezia pages 13 to 17 to the cases of one who goes into the field of his neighbour and plants crops, and the law about a flood that picks up a tree and plants it in his neighbour’s field and it grows fruit. However, even those laws over there in Bava Metzia pages 102 and page 110 are unclear to me. There is a disagreement between Rishonim what the actual laws comes out to be, mainly between the Rif and Baal Hamor]. And even with the law of the apotiki, it is unclear to me what kind of apotiki we are talking about, that in which payment can only be from this, or payment can be from this even if sold. Furthermore, how to relate one set of laws to the other? For example, we can understand the idea in the Rambam about half profit with the apotiki since the idea would be we would be dividing between the lender and the buyer, and that would obviously come from the law about the tree planted by the flood. But how then what about the first law of a regular loan? In the meantime, I am trying to see how Rav Shach and Rav Nachum of the Mir explain this sugia but I have not come to any realistic conclusion as of yet.-------------------------------------The main issue between ר' חננאל and the רי''ף is if we can compare the laws about regular loans, loans with an אפותיקי, or regular sold property in Bava Mezia pages 13 to 17 to the cases of one who goes into the field of his neighbour and plants crops, and the law about a flood that picks up a tree and plants it in his neighbour’s field and it grows fruit. However, even those laws over there in בבא מציעא pages 102 and page 110 are unclear to me. There is a disagreement between ראשונים what the actual laws comes out to be, mainly between the רי''ף and בעל המאור]. And even with the law of the אפותיקי, it is unclear to me what kind of אפותיקי we are talking about, that in which payment can only be from this, or payment can be from this even if sold. Furthermore, how to relate one set of laws to the other? For example, we can understand the idea in the רמב''ם about half profit with the אפותיקי since the idea would be we would be dividing between the lender and the buyer, and that would obviously come from the law about the tree planted by the flood. But how then what about the first law of a regular loan? ------The way Rav Shach explains this makes the most sense to me, i.e., that the Rambam decided the law to be like R. Chananel. That explains why in the law about the apotiki, the Rambam writes that he does pay for the expenses because it makes sense that an apotiki would not be less than other property. So clearly the Rambam holds with a loan (with no apotiki) that the lender does pay the expense like R. Chananel---The way רב שך explains this makes the most sense to me, i.e., that the רמב''ם decided the law to be like ר' חננאל. That explains why in the law about the אפותיקי, the רמב''ם writes that he does pay for the expense because property set aside specifically to pay for the loan (אפותיקי) would not be less than other property. So, the רמב''ם holds with a loan (with no אפותיקי) that the lender does pay the expense like ר' חננאל