Question: [R. Yochanan] said above that if he measured and puts on the Simta, he acquired, and we establish that he put in his box;

Inference: This is only if he measured, but if he did not measure, his Kelim did not acquire for him!

Answer (Ri): He needs to say "go acquire." Since he measured, it is as if he said "go acquire."

Support: Now it is fine why we need these two teachings of R. Yochanan.

Question: However, the teaching above, in which he said 'even in Reshus ha'Rabim", and we establish it to discuss a Simta, this is astounding. What is it needed for?!

Answer: Perhaps one teaching was inferred from another. (R. Yochanan himself did not say all three.)

Explanation (Rashbam): Do not explain that there are four Reshuyos, for the seller's Reshus and a Shomer's Reshus are the same;

Regarding both of them, accepting [that the buyer may use the premises to acquire], renting the place, Hotza'ah and Hagbahah apply.

Question #1: If so, they should be taught together - in the seller's Reshus and a Shomer's Reshus, he does not acquire until he accepts, lifts it, takes it out or rents the place!

Question #2: It seems that acceptance does not help in the seller's Reshus, for one cannot be Makneh his Reshus to others by himself!

Source (Eruvin 79b): He is Mezakeh [wine to others in his Mavoy] through his mature son or daughter, but not through his small son or daughter, for their Yad (power of acquisition) is like his (they can acquire only for him).

Support #1 (for Rashbam): In any case, one should not explain that [the Beraisa] counts Reshuyos, for according to the current Havah Amina, that the buyer's measure acquires even in Reshus ha'Rabim, all the more so it acquires in the seller's Reshus.

Proof: At the end, we conclude that in Reshus ha'Rabim he does not acquire. Even so, we ask whether or not the buyer's Kelim acquire in the owner's Reshus;

Consequence: If so, we must explain "in the owner's Reshus, he does not acquire until he lifts them" is in the seller's Kelim.

Support #2: Even without this, we must say so below, when we say that the buyer's Kelim acquire in the owner's Reshus;

If so, we count here only one Reshus, since the buyer's Kelim acquire everywhere. Now there is no difference between Reshus ha'Rabim and the seller's Reshus!

Conclusion: Rather, [the Beraisa] counts four laws of Kelim - a middleman's Kli, the seller's Kli, the buyer's Kli, and a Shomer's Kli.

Citation (Tosefta): In the Shomer's Reshus, he does not acquire until he accepts on himself, lifts it, takes it out or rents the place.

Question: According to texts that say "until he lifts it or takes it out", this is difficult. It should teach together the seller's Reshus with [that of] the Shomer!

Inference: Now it connotes that through acceptance alone, [the Shomer] is Zocheh for the buyer.

Question: In Gitin (13a) it says that if one said "you have 100 Zuz of mine. Give them to Ploni", b'Ma'amad Sheloshtan (if all three were there), he acquired;

Why do we need Ma'amad Sheloshtan? It is proven there that saying "give" is like saying "acquire for"!

Source - (13a - Mishnah): If one says "give this Get to my wife, or this document of freedom to my slave", he can retract the Get, but he cannot retract the freedom, because saying "give" is like saying "acquire for"!

If so, [even] without Ma'amad Sheloshtan he acquires for him, like it says here!

Answer #1: According to R. Tam, who explained that Ma'amad Sheloshtan acquires even Bal Korcho (against the will) of the Shomer, it is fine that Ma'amad Sheloshtan is needed.

Answer #2: Also, according to R. Tam, who explained that we say that "give" is like "acquire for" only when he says "give" at the time he gives the item to him, but if the item was already in [the Shomer's] hand, we do not say that "give" is like "acquire for", this is fine.

Answer #3: Ma'amad Sheloshtan helps, for even if the deposit is not in the Shomer's hand, [the recipient] acquires;

If not for Ma'amad Sheloshtan, he can acquire only when it is in [the Shomer's] Reshus.

Implied question: In Reshus ha'Rabim, we said above that all agree that he did not acquire!

Answer: This is because people of Reshus ha'Rabim are not pleased that he rest his Kelim there. Whom can he appease, and who [has authority] to let him [leave them there]?!

Distinction: However, in the seller's Reshus, he asks. Even though R. Yochanan taught that whenever he has permission to rest it, he acquires, perhaps he excludes only Reshus ha'Rabim;

However, a seller, perhaps he lends a place to the buyer so he will acquire what he sells to him.

Question: Why doesn't he settle from what R. Yochanan said above (84b), that if he measured and rested it on a Simta, he acquired, and we concluded above that he measured into [the buyer's] Kli, and this is only in a Simta, but not in the seller's Reshus!

Answer: We can say that R. Yochanan mentioned a Simta because in the seller's Reshus, he was unsure.

Support: In Gitin (78a), it says about the Mishnah of one who threw [a Get] into her garment or basket, she is divorced;

We infer "why is she divorced? This is [like] the buyer's Kli (her garment or basket) in the seller's (husband's) Reshus. This teaches that the buyer's Kli acquires for him in the seller's Reshus!

R. Yochanan answers (rejects the inference) that the place of her garment or basket is acquired to her (her husband is not adamant about it).

Question: Granted, he gives to her permission and lends [the place] to her. Even so, she needs Chazakah [to acquire the place]!

We say in Bava Metzi'a (99b) just like land is acquired through money, a document or Chazakah, also rental of land...!

Answer (Riva): Even though the place is not acquired to her, since she has permission to bring her basket there, her basket acquires for her, for one's Kelim acquire wherever he has permission to rest them;

This is like a Simta. Even though the Simta is not acquired to him, even so the Kli itself acquires for him.

Inference: Here it connotes that Meshichah helps for the buyer in the seller's Kelim, for it teaches that he acquired when he removed it from his Reshus.

Explanation: Just like the buyer's Kelim are not Batel to the seller's Reshus, likewise we should say that the seller's Kelim are not Batel to the buyer's Reshus.

Observation: We could have rejected this. Even though the buyer's Kelim are not Batel to the seller's Reshus, the seller's Kli is Batel to the buyer's Reshus, for the seller wants his Kelim to be Batel to the Reshus, so the sale will be fulfilled.

Assertion: The text says [Chamarin v'Po'alin] with a Nun at the end. It does not say Chamarav v'Po'alav, for this would connote the donkey-drivers and workers of the buyer;

This cannot be, for if so, even if they did not unload (he acquired)!

Question: R. Elazar asked in Bava Metzi'a (9b) that if one said to his friend "Meshoch this animal, and acquire the Kelim on it", what is the law? Does Meshichah of the animal help to acquire the Kelim on it, or not?

He should resolve from here that it does not help, for it teaches that both can retract!

Answer #1: Here, he was Moshech the donkey-drivers, but he was not Moshech the donkeys. Rather, the donkey-drivers were Moshech the donkeys with them.

Answer #2: Only there, he asks, for he said to him that through Meshichah of this animal, he will acquire the Kelim;

Here, we do not discuss this. Rather, he said to him only "go acquire." Therefore he does not acquire grain through Meshichah of the animal.

Implied question: Even if he measured and set a price, both can retract, since he did not unload yet!

Answer: It mentioned this case (he measured or set a price, but not both) because he wants to distinguish in the Seifa between when he set a price before measuring, and when he measured before he set a price.