Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her father, Melvyn Sydney Goldstein, on his 4th yahrzeit. "He was gone too soon, and his presence and good counsel are missed by many of his friends and family." 

How does the braita previously quoted raise a difficulty with Shmuel on two counts? Another statement of Shmuel is brought explaining the rabbi's position - that even if a document doesn't say that the property is liened to the loan, the property is still liened to the loan, as we assume the scribe forgot to add it. Rava bar Itai raises a contradiction between that statement of Shmuel's and another statement of Shmuel's in a different context. The Gemara then distinguishes between the cases - one was a loan and the other was a sale.  A story is brought to support this distinction. Abaye mentions a few laws about liened property. If a creditor collects from liened property, the debtor can get involved to bring a claim against the creditor even though the creditor seized it from the one who purchased it from the debtor, as the debtor is still considered an involved party. Can one back out of a deal if rumors are circulating that the land doesn't belong to the "owner"? At what stage, and does it depend if the land was sold with a guarantee?  If one sold a field that he/she stole, when the owner takes back the land and the buyer returns to the seller to retrieve the money from the sale, Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not the seller needs to reimburse the buyer for improvements to the field. Shmuel does not allow the buyer to collect the money for improvements as it looks like an interest payment. Rava raises a difficulty with Shmuel but it is resolved. A further difficulty is raised against Shmuel but it is resolved as well.