(a) What reason do some commentaries give to explain this?

(b) There is a support for this from the Gemara in Bava Basra. What does the Gemara there say about Kinyan Shtaros?

(a) What does Rav say?

(b) We ask why the Gemara does not establish Rav even by a Milveh, and that the Tana'im (R. Meir and the Chachamim) are arguing over Shmuel's Din of 'ha'Mocher Shtar la'Chavero ... '. Over which statement of Shmuel will they then be arguing?

(c) Alternatively, even if they hold like Shmuel in that point too, what else might be the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) What can we prove (in connection with Ma'amad Shelashtan) from the fact that the Gemara does not present either of the two above explanations?

(b) How will we reconcile this with the Gemara earlier, which rules that Mechilah by Ma'amad Shelashtan is valid?

(a) On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that the earlier Beraisa speaks where he said 'K'ni Lach Shtar ve'Chol Shibudeih', whereas the latter Beraisa speaks where he did not?

(a) According to this explanation, what is wrong with the text (in the Rabanan) 've'Im Lav, Einah Mekudeshes'?

(b) Why can we not say that she does not in fact, need a Get?

(a) Why is this specifically according to the Rabanan, but according to R. Meir?

(b) Why do we think that assessing the value of the paper ought not to be necessary even according to the Rabanan?

(c) On what grounds do we conclude that it is? What difference will it make if the paper is worth a Perutah or not?

(a) Why can we not extrapolate from here that this is the Halachah?

(b) Why indeed, could we not have concluded 'de'Kuli Alma Einah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof'?

(a) The Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah discussing someone who is building and reaches the archway one which the idol is placed, prohibits any further building. What does R. Elazar in the Gemara say with regard to a person who did continue to build?

(b) What reason does the Gemara there give for this? Why does it depend on the last hammer-blow?

(c) What can we prove from there?

(a) Why can the ramifications of the Machlokes (whether Sechirus is mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof or only be'Sof) not be with regard to whether one may or may not, retract?

(b) Then what are its ramifications?

(c) Why, with regard to Avodas-Kochavim, is one permitted to accept payment even if we take on 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof'?

(d) How does the Gemara in Bava Metzia learn this from the Pasuk in B'har "ki'Sechir Shanah be'Shanah ... "?

TOSFOS DH HA BE'MAYA

(a) Rashi explains that 'be'Maya' refers to 'Bo ve'Lo she'be'Socho', because water is not Chashuv. By the same token, what does the Tana then say when the cup contains ...

1. ... wine?

2. ... fish-juice?

(a) How does Rabeinu Tam therefore explain ...

1. ... 'Bo ve'Lo ba'Meh she'Besocho'?

2. ... 'Bo, ve'Lo ba'Meh she'Besocho'?

3. ... 'ba'Meh she'Besocho ve'Lo Bo '?

(b) How do we answer the question on Rashi (based on a Beraisa in Sukah)?

(a) Why would a person prefer silver to gold?

(b) This form of logic explains why the Rabanan argue with R. Shimon. What will they hold by 'Sh'vach Mamon' (where she received more money than the man stipulated [see Maharsha])?

(a) How does Rashi explain this statement?

(b) Why could the Gemara not have given the same answer earlier to answer the question 'Nimtza! Me'ikara Nami Zahav Havah'?

(c) How do we know that there she must have known at the outset that it was of gold, and not that she initially believed it to be of silver? What ought the Gemara to have then asked?

(d) Why are we also forced to say there that the Shali'ach must also have known?