Explanation #1 (Rashbam): If he protested from the beginning, he did not acquire. Even so, the giver removed himself [from his property], and it is Hefker;

This is like Reish Lakish, who said in Kerisus (24a) that if one gave a gift to his friend, and the latter said "I do not want it", whoever seizes it first acquires it.

Explanation #1 (cont.): However, if he was initially quiet and later protested, since he was quiet, it is not Hefker, and he acquired Bal Korcho (against his will).

Implied question: Below, regarding one who was Mezakeh through another, R. Shimon ben Gamliel considers one who was initially quiet and later protested like one who protested from the beginning. Even so, he says that [the property] returns to the heirs of the giver, and it is not Hefker!

Answer: Reish Lakish does not hold like him, rather, like Rabanan.

Implied question: In Kerisus (24a, the Gemara) challenges Reish Lakish, who said that if the recipient said "I do not want it", whoever seizes it first acquires it, from Rav Sheshes, who said that if a gift recipient said after receiving the gift "it will be Batel" or "I do not want it," it has no effect. If he said "it is Batel," his words are fulfilled;

Citation (24a) Suggestion: "His words take effect" means that it reverts to the original owner! (The Rashbam connotes that Reish Lakish discusses before the recipient took it. How can we ask from Rav Sheshes, who discusses after he took it?)

Answer: According to the Rashbam, it asks as follows. Just like "it is Batel" helps even after he took it, and it returns to the original owner, similarly we should say that [if he said] "I do not want it" before it came to his hand, it returns to the original owner. However, Reish Lakish said that whoever seizes it first acquires it!

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Gemara answered that no, "his words take effect" and it does not revert to the original owner.

Question #1 (Ri): What was the question there against Reish Lakish from "I have no claims on this field", that this has no effect? We should answer that Reish Lakish discusses before he received it, and therefore it is Hefker through the owner's removal [from it];

However, regarding "[I have no] claims", that the property is his, he cannot remove himself through this expression!

Question #2: What was the question there against Reish Lakish from Rabanan here, who say that [the slaves] eat Terumah?

Here we established Rabanan to discuss when he was initially quiet and later protested, and Reish Lakish discusses when he protested from the beginning. Just the contrary, we should have asked from R. Shimon ben Gamliel!

Question #3: We find that Rabanan and R. Shimon ben Gamliel argue here only [about one who was Mezakeh through another, and the recipient initially was quiet and later protested -] one (Rabanan) considers him like one who (himself took a gift, and) was initially quiet and later protested, and one (R. Shimon ben Gamliel) considers him like one who protested from the beginning;

However, if he protested from the beginning, all agree that the heirs [of the giver] already acquired, and it is not Hefker. Reish Lakish said that it is Hefker [unlike both of them]!

Question #4 (R. Peter): It says in Bava Kama (116a that a lion accompanied the caravan of Rav Safra. Each night, a member of the caravan gave his donkey to the lion, and the lion ate it. On Rav Safra's night, the lion did not eat it. He made a Kinyan on his donkey. The Gemara says that really, he did not need to, for) Rav Safra made his donkey Hefker for the lion, but not for others;

If so, according to Reish Lakish, before the gift came to his hand, why is it Hefker? We should say that it returns to the giver, for he gave it with intent for the recipient, but not that it should be Hefker for everyone!

Note: Do not say that Rav Safra and Reish Lakish disagree. The Gemara asked why he re-acquired it, and did not suggest that he holds like Reish Lakish!

Explanation #2: Also Reish Lakish discusses after the gift came to the recipient's hand, i.e. he was initially quiet and later protested.

Implied question: It says here that if one who was initially quiet and later protested, he acquired!

Answer: It means that it does not return to the giver, but it is Hefker. If one protested from the beginning, he did not acquire, and it returns to the giver, for he gave only with intent that the recipient take it.

Correction: The text in Kerisus says oppositely in Rav Sheshes' teaching. If the recipient of a gift said after it came to his hand "this gift is Batel," it has no effect. [If he said] "I do not want it," or "it will be Batel" his words take effect;

[The Gemara asks] doesn't "his words take effect" mean that it reverts to the giver, even though the gift came to [the recipient's] hand? It answers that it does not revert to the giver.

Support #1: Now, it asked properly from "I have no claims..." He cannot remove himself, since the property is in his hand.

Support #2: Similarly [it asked properly] from Rabanan's opinion, that [the slaves] eat Terumah. They discuss when he was quiet and later protested, like Reish Lakish's teaching.

Observation: However, in Gitin (32b) the text in Rav Sheshes' teaching is opposite - if he said "I do not want it," it has no effect. If he said "it is Batel," his words take effect, like is proven there!

Explanation: This is like another version [of Rav Sheshes' teaching]. There are many cases like this in the Gemara.

Explanation: If they would do Chalitzah even though [the Beis Din] does not recognize (that she is his Yevamah), another Beis Din would think that the first Beis Din recognized them, and they will permit her to remarry based on that Chalitzah.

Version #1: The text does not say "from what Rava said in the name of Rav Sechorah [that they may do Chalitzah or Mi'un without Beis Din recognizing]." And if the text says so, it is like "etc." (Rava said in the name of Rav Sechorah... but Rava himself said that they must recognize), and we ask from Rava's opinion, like the Rashbam explained.

Citation (Yevamos 106a, in old Seforim): Rava cited Rav Sechorah citing Rav Huna that they may do Chalitzah even if they do not recognize;

We are not concerned lest a Beis Din err when [witnesses] will testify in another Beis Din that she did Chalitzah or Mi'un, they will permit her through this Chalitzah or Mi'un, for [the latter Beis Din] knows that [perhaps] the first Beis Din did not recognize them.

Rava himself said that they may do Chalitzah only if they recognize. We are concerned lest a Beis Din err, like I explained.

Version #2: Rashi's text in Yevamos (106a) is opposite. Rav Sechorah is concerned lest a Beis Din err, and Rava is not concerned.

[Rashi] explained [that Rav Sechorah explains] "therefore, they may not write";

If witnesses wrote for her a document that she did Chalitzah or Mi'un, and they did not write "it became known to us that he is the Mes' brother", we are concerned lest she show the document to another Beis Din, and they will err and reason that the first Beis Din did not do Chalitzah unless they recognized. Therefore, [witnesses] may not write.

Implied question: Even if they do not write, we should be concerned lest [witnesses] testify in another Beis Din, and they will err!

Answer: If witnesses themselves will come, the second Beis Din can clarify through them whether the first Beis Din recognized them.

Version #2 (cont.): Rava said... therefore, we may write, and we are not concerned lest a Beis Din err. I.e. since we do Chalitzah only if we recognize, witnesses may write that they saw Chalitzah, even if they do not recognize. We are not concerned lest the first Beis Din erred about the Halva'ah, and did Chalitzah, even though they did not recognize.

Question #1: Now, "Beis Din err' of Rav Sechorah and of Rava do not means the same thing! "Beis Din err' of Rav Sechorah is the latter Beis Din, and of Rava it is the first Beis Din!

Question #2: According to Rashi's text, the text must say here "why is this different than what Rava said in the name of Rav Sechorah?", for we ask from Rav Sechorah's opinion.

Answer (to Question #2): There are texts like this.

Conclusion: The Ri holds like he explained (Version #1), and like the text of old Seforim in Yevamos.