Reason: Some commentaries ascribe 'Mochlo Machul' to the fact that Kinyan Sh'tar is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and it is not sufficiently powerful to remove the rights of the first one - to prevent him from being Mochel it.

Proof: And it is also implied in Perek Mi she'Meis (Bava Basra, Daf 147b) that Kinyan Sh'taros is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Question #1: Why does the Gemara not say that, according to everyone, Rav is speaking even by a loan, and it speaks here by Ma'amad Shelashtan (when the borrower is present at the time of the transfer) ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And they are arguing either over Shmuel, who says that 'Even the heir can be Mochel ...

Explanation #2: Or they both hold like Shmuel, and they are arguing about whether she is Somech Da'as, as the Gemara said a little earlier? ...

Answer: Since the Gemara does not say this, it is clear that even Shmuel concedes that someone who is Makneh something to his friend be'Ma'amad Sheloshtan, and is then Mochel the debtor, it is not Machul.

Answer (cont.): And when he said earlier that 'If someone sells a Sh'tar Chov to his friend and he is then Mochel the debtor, it is Machul', that speaks when the debtor is not present at the time of the sale.

Question: Why is this difficult? Let the Gemara answer that the earlier case is where he said 'acquire the Shtar and all of it's Shibudim', and here he did not say this to him.

Answer: The Gemara chose this approach because both cases are phrased identically and it seems forced to interpret that they differ in what the Mekadesh said.

Establishing Text: According to this, we do not have the text 've'Im La'av, Einah Mekudeshes' ...

Reason: Because if we were to say that she does not require a Get, it would go like Rebbi Meir, who says 'EIDEI Chasimah Karsi' - completely ...

Reason (cont.): In which case, how can the Gemara say that they are in doubt as to whether we hold like Rebbi Meir or Rebbi Elazar?

Clarification: It is specifically according to the Rabbanan that we assess the paper, but according to Rebbi Meir, even if the paper is worth a P'rutah, she is not Mekudeshes ...

Reason: since he says 'Eidei Chasimah Karsi ha'Kidushin' (it is the witnesses who sign who effect the Kidushin).

Question: Why, according to the Rabbanan, need one assess the paper, seeing as ...

Question (coont.): Even if it is not worth a P'rutah, she is Mekudeshes mi'Safek, like Rebbi Elazar, who says 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi' (it is the witnesses who see the handing over who effect the Kidushin)?

Answer: The fact that it is worth a P'rutah has the effect that she is Mekudeshes a definite Kidushin, but otherwise, she would only be Meudeshes mi'Safek, and would therefore require a Get should she marry anybody else.

Refuted Inference: One cannot extrapolate from here that the Halachah is 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilach ve'ad Sof' ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara could not have said that they both hold 'Einah li'Sechirus ... ' ...

Reason: Because then, what would be the reason of the opinion that holds 'Einah Mekudeshes'?

Halachah: One can however, prove that the Halachah is 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof' from the Mishnah in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 19b) ,,,

Introduction to Proof (cont.): 'If he (the laborer) reaches the archway where the image is placed, it is forbidden to construct it' - Rebbi Elazar, in the Gemara there, explains that one who did is permitted to receive his remuneration ...

Introduction to Proof (cont.): And the Gemara goes on to explain that this is because 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof' - because then it is only with the last bang that it becomes Asur, and the last bang is not worth a P'rutah ...

Proof: A clear indication that this is the Halachah, since nobody argues with it.

Ramifications: There is no difference as far as retracting is concerned, bearing in mind Rav's ruling in Bava Meyzi'a (Daf 77a) that 'A laborer may retract even in the middle of the day' - even according to the opinion that holds that 'Einah li'S'chirus Ela be'Sof'.

Ramifications #1: There are ramifications however, regarding Kidushin - inasmuch as if 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus ... ' the rental becomes a loan, and she is not Mekudeshes.

Ramifications #2: And regarding Avodas-Kochavim, inasmuch as 'If he did build, his remuneration is permitted' ...

Conclusion: In spite of the fact that 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof', nevertheless, it is only payable at the end ...

Source: As the Gemara states in Eizehu Neshech (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 68a) ...

Source (cont.): Based on the Pasuk (in Vayikra, 25) "ki'Sechir Shanah be'Shanah" - 'The rental of this year is only payable in the following year'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that because water is not Chashuv, we say 'Bo ve'Lo na'meh she'be'Socho', whereas by wine, which is - 'ba'Meh she'be'Socho ve'Lo bo'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And 'Tzihara' he explains either 'brine' which is made to last a long time for dipping into, in which case the cup is needed to protect it ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): Or it means oil - like the word "Yitzhar" - where one needs the receptacle to hold it for a long time - 'Bo u'va'Meh she'be'Socho'.

Question: Rabeinu Tam queries this however, in that this does not conform with the order that they appear in the Beraisa?

Explanation #2: Therefore Rabeinu Tam explains 'Water - bo u'va'Meh she'be'Socho' - since the water is Bateil to the cup ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'Wine, bo ve'Lo ba'Meh she'be'Socho' - because wine is Chashuv and is not Bateil to the cup ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Though not Chashuv enough to say that one's mind is on the wine.

Explanation #2 (concl.): Whereas 'Tzihara ba'Meh she'be'Tocho' - since it is more Chashuv than the cup, 'Aval Lo bo' - because the cup is not Bateil to the Tzihara.

Refutation of Question: Rabeinu Tam's Kashya however, is not a Kashya ...

Reason: Seeing as we find cases in the Gemara a case where it does not bother to follow the order of the Beraisa ...

Source: As it says in Perek ha'Yashen (Sukah, 26a) in connection with the Beraisa 'One should not sleep with one's Tefilin - neither a fixed sleep nor a nap ... '.

Source (concl.): Look there carefully and you will find it.

Reason: Where for example, she needs silver to complete a specific ornament that she is making.

Halachah: But where he cheated her concerning money, Rebbi Shimon does not argue.

Clarification: Rashi explains that when he gave it to the Shali'ach, it was covered with a cloth, and when it reached the woman, she discovered that it was a golden Dinar.

Implied Question: Earlier, when the Gemara asks 'Discovered? Initially it was also of gold?

Answer: It could not have answered that ' "Discovered" speaks where it was covered with a cloth' ...

Reason: Since the woman herself received the Kidushin, in which case she knew that it was of gold ...

Reason (cont.): Because if she thought it was of silver, the Gemara would have asked why she is Mekudeshes, seeing as some people prefer silver to gold?

Reason (cont.): And certainly the Shali'ach knew it, since otherwise, he would have erred, and the Kidushin would be invalid.

Answer (cont.): Nor is the argument of 'Mar'eh Makom hi Lo' (and it is not considered a Shinuy) applicable there ...

Answer (concl.): As it is here, since she made him a Shali'ach to receive the Kidushin.