Clarification: It speaks where he (the son) indicated his wishes, and the father was silent ...

Proof: ... because, as the Gemara said earlier (on Daf 45b) a person would not have the Chutzpah to appoint his father a Shali'ach ...

Clarification (cont.): But here, where he indicated his wishes and was silent, one can assume that he relies on him.

Explanation #1: Rashi establishes the case by a cake of Hefker.

Introduction to Question #1: There is a problem with this however, from the Mishnah in 'Shenayim Ochzin' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 10a), which rules a. that - 'If Reuven sees a Metzi'ah and falls on it or spreads his cloak over it, and Shimon comes and takes it, it belongs to Shimon'.

Introduction to Question #2: ... and b. that - 'If a poor man collects a bit of Pe'ah ... and spreads his cloak over it, we take it away from him' ...

Question: Why is that? Why is he not like the 'poor man who is turning over the cake'?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Isur of 'Ani ha'Mehapech ba'Chararah' that is mentioned here is confined to where the poor man wants to earn money by being hired or where he wants to purchase something , and where his friend 'gets it first' - like the case of Rav Gidal ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and that is why he is called 'a Rasha' ...

Reason: ... because why should he go for the thing that his friend is taking the trouble to obtain? ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... whereas if the cake is Hefker, there is no Isur ...

Reason: ... because if he does not get this one, he will not find another one.

Question: The Question arises however, from the case in Perek "Lo Yachpor" (Bava Basra, Daf 21b), where the Gemara says that one must distance oneself from the fish as far as they dart', even though they are Hefker?

Answer #1: It seems that the reason there is because he is encroaching on his friend's livelihood ...

Precedent: ... like the Gemara says there (Ibid.) 'One is permitted to object to someone from the same alleyway putting up a mill next to his - because he can say to him 'You are interfering in my livelihood'.

Answer #2: Moreover, said Rebbi Meir, Rabeinu Tam's father, 'the fish' mentioned there is a dead one - because it was the way of fishermen to place a dead fish in their nets, to attract all the local fish to their nets ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... and since Reuven was the first to cast his net, and due to his efforts all the fish were bound to collect around his net, if Shimon were to cast his net, it would be akin to stealing from him ...

Answer #2 (concl.): ... in which case he (Reuven) is entitled to tell him that he must go and fish somewhere else.

Halachah #1: From here ha'Rav R. Yitzchak extrapolates that a Melamed (a children's Rebbe) is forbidden to hire himself out to a person who already has a Melamed working for him as long as the latter is employed by him ...

Reason: ... because since he is a day-laborer, the (second) Melamed can go somewhere else to find a job ...

Halachah #1 (cont.): ... unless the employer informs him that he no longer intends to retain the first Melamed.

Halachah #2: However, in the event that Reuven hires a Melamed, Shimon is permitted to employ the same Melamed ...

Halachah #2 (cont.): ... and he (Reuven) cannot demand that he hires a different Melamed ...

Reason: ... because he (Shimon) can counter 'I want only this Melamed, since I get the impression that my son will learn more from him than from any other one'.

Introduction to Question: Why does the Gemara not ask the same question earlier (on Amud Alef) in connection with T'rumah, on Rebbi Yochanan, who says 'If he negated it before he (the Shali'ach) took T'rumah, his T'rumah is not valid' - implying that if he negated it after he took T'rumah, it is?

Introduction to Question (cont.): And this speaks even where the Shali'ach took T'rumah with mere Machshavah, seeing as 'T'rumah can be taken with assessment and with Machshavah' (Beitzah, 13b) ...

Question: So we see that 'Dibur cannot negate Dibur'?

Answer: The Gemara knew that the Machshavah of T'rumah is considered a Ma'aseh - since the Torah writes (in Bamidbar 18) "ve'Nechshav lachem", and it is therefore considered as if he separated it with his hands ...

Answer (cont.): From which even a Ma'aseh would not take out - even if he then Ma'asered his pile (of produce) according to the Din (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), in accordance with the Machashavah of the Shali'ach.

Answer (cont.): Whereas regarding Tum'ah, Machshavah does not make it Tamei, but merely renders it subject to receive Tum'ah, and that rendering can be negated, since all agree that it can become Bateil via a Ma'aseh.

Answer (concl.): That being the case (asks the Gemara) why is it not negated via a Machshavah?

Clarification: This means that she retracted without informing the Shali'ach ...

Reason: ... Because if she said to him 'I do not want you to betroth me', it is obvious that she will not be Mekudeshes ...

Proof: ... since is it because she asked him to be her Shali'ach that she cannot retract?

Implied Question: The Gemara does not answer here like it did earlier - 'Giving money into the woman's hand is different , since it is akin to a deed' ...

Answer: ... because here there is no handing over of money, only speach.

Explanation #1: This means that presumably, he only intended to cancel the Shali'ach.

Inference: In that case, had he said explicitly that he wants to cancel the Get itself, it would be Bateil and Pasul to divorce with.

Question: ... But in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 32b [See Tosfos there, DH 'Hasam']) the text reads 'How can the Get itself become Bateil?', indicating that the Get cannot be cancelled?

Explanation #2: We must therefore explain 'If you think that the Get can be negated by canceling it, you are mistaken

Reason: ... since it is akin to money which cannot be negated ...

Reason (cont.): ... because, since it was written according to Halachah, one cannot cancel it, and one can still divorce with it.