Explanation: Therefore, when it is like a Yad, i.e. she is next to her Chatzer, she acquires, even b'Al Korchah, and even a minor, it is like her hand;

And when she is not next to her Chatzer, so it is not like a Yad, do not say that just like it does not have the law of a Yad, also it does not have the law of Shelichus (so she does not acquire);

Rather, it is no worse than Shelichus.

Regarding a matter of Zechus, like a gift, he acquires, even if he is not standing next to his Chatzer, and even if it is not guarded.

Regarding a Metziah, in which there is no Da'as Acheres Makneh (no one transfers ownership to him), we require that it is guarded.

Regarding a Get, which is detrimental for her, even if it is guarded she is not divorced (if she is not there), for we do not harm a person in his absence.

Assertion: The text does not say "and he made it Hefker", for we consider this Da'as Acheres Makneh, for we bring a proof from it to a gift;

If he made it Hefker, once the wallet left his hand, it was Hefker, and when [the owner of the house or Chatzer] acquired it, there is no Da'as Acheres!

Conclusion: The text does not say "and he made it Hefker." It is always his until someone else acquires it.

Question: In Gitin (30a), Shmuel did not want to establish the Mishnah of one who lends money to a Kohen or Levi [so he will separate tithes due to them, and keep them, and deduct from their debt] like R. Yosi [who makes someone who cannot acquire as if he acquires], for we do not establish a Mishnah like an individual [unless we are forced to];

Here, Shmuel rules like him!

Answer: Only here, regarding Leket, he rules like him for this reason, for presumably the Aniyim themselves are pleased [with the enactment...]

Implied question: Why does [Ula] establish the Mishnah in Gitin (30a) like R. Yosi? (Perhaps R. Yosi himself enacts only regarding Leket!)

Answer: [He establishes it] like R. Yosi taught in Bechoros (18a), that [if Reuven has 2- animals, and he is unsure which is a Bechor, the Kohen takes one of them. Reuven's animal grazes until it gets a Mum.] R. Yosi says that whenever the Kohen has an animal in place of this one, it is exempt from Matanos;

The Gemara explains his reason, that [Chachamim] made one who does not acquire as if he acquires. (Even if Reuven's animal is Pashut (not the firstborn), it as if the Kohen acquired the Bechor, and after it got a Mum, traded it with Reuven for the Pashut.)

This is like one who lends money [to a Kohen]. What is in place of [the tithes], i.e. the coins, are in the Kohen's hand. They made it as if he acquired the Ma'aser itself.

Implied question: Why does it say [in Gitin that Shmuel does not establish a Mishnah like] an individual? Only R. Meir argues with R. Yosi [regarding Bechor]!

Answer: Rabanan who argue with him here regarding Leket, all the more so they argue with him there about Matanos.

Question #1: What is the source according to R. Yosi that a minor acquires mid'Oraisa?

Question #2: Also below, we ask "does R. Yosi hold that the Metziah of a minor [is his] mid'Oraisa?!" What is the source of this? Perhaps it is only mid'Rabanan, and his father does not acquire from him at all, therefore he (the son) may collect after him!

Answer: Presumably, R. Yosi does not argue with several Mishnayos in our Perek, and in Eruvin (79b) and Ma'aser Sheni (4:4), brought in Gitin (65a). All of these Mishnayos hold that a son's hand is like his father's.

Question: We should say that really, he acquires for himself mid'Rabanan, and afterwards his father acquires from him, due to enmity. Therefore, he may collect!

Answer: Mid'Rabanan, there is no reason to enact two Zechuyos, that the son acquires for himself, and afterwards his father acquires from him;

Rather, if it is mid'Rabanan, at the time that the son acquires it, the father acquires it, because at the time he lifts it, he takes it to give it to his father.

Conclusion: Rather, surely he acquires for himself mid'Oraisa, and his father acquires from him, due to enmity, for he feeds him.

Explanation: This is not precise that he is rich. Rather, since he has a share in the field, he is obligated to give Leket, like we expound according to R. Eliezer in Gitin (12a) "Lo Selaket le'Ani", to warn an Oni about his own.

Also according to Rabanan [who expound the verse to forbid another to acquire Leket for an Oni], either they learn [R. Eliezer's law] from another verse, or they learn both laws from this.

Question: Why don't Shmuel establish the Tana's reason to be like Shmuel himself holds, that [the son] acquires for himself mid'Oraisa, and mid'Rabanan his father acquires from him, due to enmity, like R. Yosi?

Answer: The Mishnah taught a minor. This connotes to him a real minor, and even if his father does not feed him;

If [the son] acquired for himself mid'Oraisa, Chachamim would not enact that his father acquires, since there is no enmity, since he does not feed him.

Rather, surely he does not acquire for himself at all, rather, for his father, for at the time he lifts it, he lifts it for the sake of his father.

Explanation #1 (R. Tam): Just like they argue here, they argue also about an Eruv;

Citation (Eruvin 79b - Mishnah): One may be Zocheh for [the people in his Mavoy] through [giving the Eruv to] his son or daughter;

According to Shmuel, who says here that "minor" is literally a minor, also there regarding Eruv, [a minor] cannot be Zocheh, for his hand is like his father's hand;

Since his Metziah belongs to his father, likewise everything he acquires is his father's.

Implied question: Why can an Amah Ivriyah be Zocheh in the Eruv [from her master]? She is a minor!

Answer: It is because her Metziah does not belong to her master (rather, to her father).

Implied question: Shmuel holds in Gitin (64b) that a minor can acquire for himself, but he cannot acquire for others!

Answer: We answer there that Shituf Mavo'os are different, for they are mid'Rabanan. (Chachamim enacted that a minor can acquire for others.)

Implied question: Shmuel holds in Eruvin (49a) that Eruv works due to Kinyan. (The host makes them partners in his house.) Rabah holds that it works through Dirah. (It is as if everyone lives in the host's house.) They differ about a minor. (This implies that Shmuel holds that he can be Zocheh in the Eruv!)

Answer: R. Chananel explained there that the minor owns a house [in the Chatzer];

This is unlike Rashi, who explained that he cannot collect the Eruv from others, because he cannot be Zocheh.

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to R. Yochanan, who says that "adult" does not literally mean an adult (rather, one whose father does not feed him), the same applies to Eruv. A minor whose father does not feed him can be Zocheh, like an Amah Ivriyah;

An adult whose father feeds him cannot be Zocheh.

Consequence: One must be careful not to be Zocheh the Eruv through an adult son whose father feeds him, for we rule like R. Yochanan against Shmuel, like it says in Eruvin (47b).

Distinction: His Eved and Shifchah Ivriyim, even though he feeds them, they keep their Metzi'os; and similarly they can be Zocheh in the Eruv;

Their hand is not like the master's hand. Enmity applies only to a son, for normally one always feeds him, and if his father does not feed him, no one else will feed him;

However, if Ploni feeds a stranger, e.g. an orphan or someone similar, there is no reason why his Metziah should belong to Ploni, and all the more so an Eved and Amah, who eat due to their toil.

Distinction: One's daughter, even a Na'arah and her father does not feed her, her Metziah belongs to her father due to enmity, lest [if he resents that she kept it herself] he marry her to a disgusting man or leper (they would pay him greatly to be Mekadesh his daughter, for no one wants to marry them), like it says in Kesuvos (46a);

This is unlike Rashi, who explained there that it is because it says "bi'N'ureha" (all money that accrues to a Na'arah goes to her father).

Rejection: [Bi'N'ureha] refers to Hafaras Nedarim (and not monetary matters), like it says in Kidushin (3b) and Kesuvos (46b).

Implied question: Why can his wife acquire an Eruv? Her hand is like her husband's hand!

Answer: In Nedarim (88b), we establish it when she owns a house in the Mavoy. Since she acquires for herself, she acquires also for others.

Question: A Beraisa in Kidushin (16b) says that an Amah Ivriyah's Metziah goes to her father, and the wage for the time she was Batel [from working for her master] goes to her master. How can we establish this according to Rava [who answered here that the worker picked up the Metziah without neglecting his work]?

If she picked up the Metziah without neglecting her master's work, there is no wage for the time she was Batel. If she picked up the Metziah through neglect of his work, it belongs to her master! (A Stam Metziah is worth more than the time she loses from his work, so he wants her to take it for him.)

Answer: Surely, there he must establish [the Beraisa] to discuss an Amah who pierces pearls. (A Stam Metziah is not worth the time she loses from this lucrative task, so he does not want her to stop to take Metzi'os.)

Explanation: The Beraisa means "what is the case? This is when he told him "work with me in this matter", e.g. weed with me today;

However, if he told him "work with me [finding] Metzi'os..." (the master gets them).

Explanation: [Her father cannot sell her after she brought two hairs, and] also she cannot sell herself afterwards, like it says in the Sifri.

Explanation: Now he wants to borrow with the document, for there is toil to write another document, and also he wants to save the coins one must pay to the scribe.

Suggestion: He already borrowed with this document before it fell.

Rejection: If so, what was the answer "this is tainted", because it fell, and there is a proof that because it is Pasul, he was not careful to guard it?

He already borrowed with it. Obviously, he was careful to guard it!

Implied question: We should be concerned for looking like Sheker, like regarding a validation of Beis Din! If they wrote it before witnesses testified about the signatures, it is Pasul!

Answer: Here, since he writes to obligate himself, looking like Sheker does not apply.