Strengthening of question: It is unreasonable to say that the Reisha teaches that Ma'amad Sheloshtan does not help for a document;

Consequence: If so, even according to him (the opinion there that establishes it to discuss a Bari), "give" in our Mishnah means "write", and in such a case of "give", that the document did not come to the world yet, Ma'amad Sheloshtan does not help;

You are forced to say that [the Reisha and Seifa] are different cases. The Reisha teaches that there is no Get after death, and the Seifa teaches the law of Ma'amad Sheloshtan for money.

Implied question: The Gemara infers there that the Seifa discusses a Bari, similar to the Reisha. This shows that we can compare them to each other!

Answer #1: The reason is because we want to establish [the Reisha and Seifa] in one way, that it discusses one person [commanding]. However, they are not totally similar.

Comment - Answer #2: We can establish the Reisha of a Get Shichrur through Ma'amad Sheloshtan, since we establish our Mishnah to discuss a Bari, and the Reisha teaches that even though he said "give a Get to my wife" through Ma'amad Sheloshtan, that his wife wanted this, and similarly regarding a slave, they do not acquire through this;

Even if you will say that to acquire the paper of the document, it is property, and Ma'amad Sheloshtan helps for it, it does not help for what is written in it;

Implied question: Saying "give" is like saying "Zechi"!

Answer #1: Here the slave does not acquire, for we can establish that at the time [he said "give", the document] was not in the Reshus of the Shomer, and we require Mesirah from hand to hand.

Answer #2: [The case is,,] the Shomer does not want to acquire for the slave. [The recipient] acquires a gift Bal Korcho (against his will) through Ma'amad Sheloshtan, but not a Get Shichrur, like I explained above (76a) that Ma'amad Sheloshtan helps Bal Korcho of the Shomer.

Rebuttal: It is unreasonable to establish the Reisha like an argument of Amora'im, that some establish it with Ma'amad Sheloshtan, and some establish it with "write and give";

Rather, surely they argue about the Seifa. The Seifa is not totally like the Reisha, like I explained above.

Remark: The text in the Seifa does not say "Zeh", for it discusses even a Stam Maneh, like it says in Gitin (13a).

Explanation (Rashbam): We discuss when he wrote to him all his property. The same applies without [writing the Kinyan in] a document, but he was Makneh to him. We say that there is no Kinyan after death according to Shmuel.

Proof (Rashbam): Below we challenge this from Shmuel's teaching that if a Shechiv Mera wrote all his property to others, even though they acquired for [the recipient, if he recovered, he can retract. This implies that if he died, the recipient acquired. If it is different when he wrote the Kinyan in a document, we should have said that there, he did not write it!]

Rebuttal #1 (Rivam): If so (it does not matter whether or not the Kinyan is written in a document), our Mishnah, which teaches that if a Shechiv Mera left over any amount of land, his gift is valid, what is the case according to Rav?

If it was without a Kinyan, [this cannot be, for] we hold above (151b) that it requires a Kinyan!

Suggestion: It was with a Kinyan.

Rejection: The Seifa teaches that if he did not leave over any amount of land, his gift is invalid. Rav holds here that with a Kinyan, it is valid!

Rebuttal #2: According to Shmuel, who says that there is no Get after death, and similarly there is no Kinyan after death, if so, our Mishnah, which says that if he left over any amount of land, it is a valid gift, this is with a Kinyan. According to Shmuel, how does it help at all? Perhaps he intended to be Makneh it only after death!

Poor defense: It is difficult to establish our Mishnah when he gives to him Yifuy Ko'ach (greater power), e.g. he said "we acquired...", for below it does not connote like this.

Rebuttal #3: The Gemara rules that the Halachah is that a partial Matanas Shechiv Mera requires a Kinyan, and if he recovered, he cannot retract;

Inference: A total Matanas Shechiv Mera (he gave all his property), if he recovered, he can retract, even if there was a Kinyan;

This is not true, for Rav holds that in a case of all his property, a Kinyan is strong like a healthy person's gift!

Rebuttal #4: [His Perush] is very difficult, for the Gemara says only with a document, and he says that the same applies to a Kinyan without a document!

Rebuttal #5: According to Seforim that say below "e.g. he wrote to him 'and we acquired from him in addition to the gift'", it connotes that he wrote this in the document.

Disclaimer: However, there are Seforim that say below "the case is, he said to him 'and we acquired from him...'"

Explanation #2 (Ri): We discuss specifically in a document. Rav's reason is because he holds that he wrote to him a Kinyan in the document to strengthen his (the recipient's) Ko'ach, that even [if he wrote] all his property, if he recovered, he cannot retract, since he wrote to him [a Kinyan in the document];

Shmuel holds that this document only weakens his Ko'ach, for even though there is a Kinyan in it, this is not Yifuy Ko'ach. Rather, we should say that he resolved to be Makneh to him only through a document... (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Explanation #2 (cont.): We ask a contradiction in Rav, and we answer that Rav does not contradict himself. There, they acquired from him;

I.e. they acquired from him [and this is written] in the document. Therefore, there is more Yifuy Ko'ach. However, if they did not acquire from him in the document, there is no more Yifuy Ko'ach.

Proof (Rashbam, for himself): The same applies without a document, for below we ask from Rav Yehudah's teaching in the name of Shmuel that if a Shechiv Mera [wrote all his property to others, even though they acquired for him...]

Rebuttal: This is not a proof, for we can say that we ask as follows. Did Shmuel say that he resolved to be Makneh only through a document?...

Shmuel said that if a Shechiv Mera wrote [to give to] all his property, even though they acquired from him, if he recovered, he can retract, but if he died (i.e. he did not recover), he cannot retract. Even though there is no Kinyan in the document, in any case according to Shmuel we should consider it like weakening his power.

Even according to Rav, who holds that Kinyan in a document is Yifuy Ko'ach, here he held that it weakens his Ko'ach, that [the giver] can retract if he recovers;

All the more so, Shmuel, who holds above that Kinyan in a document weakens his Ko'ach, also here it weakens his Ko'ach more than he held above, and even if he did not recover, he can retract...

This is like Rav holds here. that he weakens his Ko'ach more than above. All the more so according to Shmuel, there is no less weakening [than according to Rav].

However, it is difficult to say that Shmuel does not distinguish between when he was Makneh to him, and when he wrote [this] in the document, and the reason for the Mishnah is due to Yifuy Ko'ach, like I explained above.

Consequence: Based on this, it seems that we need not establish this Sugya at all when he wrote all his property, like the Rashbam and R. Chananel explained;

Rather, he can establish it well to discuss a Matanas Shechiv Mera, whether partially or totally.

You are forced to say that it also discusses totally, since we ask from a Shechiv Mera who wrote all his property to others.

All the Rashbam's questions (Reish 152a, that forced him) to establish it to discuss a total Matanas Shechiv Mera, they are not difficult according to this. Rather, we can explain that it properly discusses a total and partial Matanas Shechiv Mera.

Inference: Since we hold like Shmuel, we learn that one should not write a Kinyan in a Matanas Shechiv Mera.

Remark: A Gaon wrote in his laws of documents [to write] "acquire from me with every expression of Zechus."

Explanation: It seems that he needed to write some Yifuy Ko'ach, or "even acquire from me", which connotes more Yifuy Ko'ach, or perhaps he needed to write "and we acquired from him in addition to this gift."

Note: Maharshal says that the next two Diburim are continuations of this Dibur.

Explanation (Rashbam): "Zikah" means that he was Moser (handed over) the document.

Question #1 (Rivam): If so, this that it says "he wrote to this one and wrote to this one" is without Mesirah. How does it say about this "Daitiki (a document of a Matnas Shechiv Mera) is Mevatel a Daitiki"?

A Mishnah above (135b) says that if a Daitiki was found tied to his thigh, it has no effect (because there was no Mesirah)!

Question #2: If [Zikah means only that] there was Mesirah, Rav would not have said that the Shechiv Mera cannot retract!

Source: If not (rather, even when there was only Mesirah, Rav said that he cannot retract, the Mishnah in) Bava Metzi'a (18a) is difficult for you, that [if one found] gift Daitikim or receipts, he does not return them, for I can say that they were written, and [the giver] reconsidered and decided not to give them (or the lender never gave it, for he was not paid);

The Gemara infers (19a) that the reason is because [the giver] did not say "give". Had he said "give", we would give. We ask a contradiction from [a Beraisa] that says that Daitikim and Apotkiyos (one made special collateral for a loan), even though both parties agree, he does not return, not to this one and not to this one;

The Gemara establishes the Mishnah there that regarding a Shechiv Mera, we give it, for (even if he gave to someone else) there is no loss to him (that other person), for the latter recipient [to whom he says to give it now] acquires, for [the giver] retracted from the first.

Why are we not concerned lest he gave it to [the other person] first and did Mesirah, for now he cannot retract?!

Explanation #2: "He wrote and was Mezakeh" does not mean Mesirah. Even if he did Mesirah, he can retract;

Rather, Zikah means that one acquired the property for him, and wrote for him in the document that he was Mezakeh through someone else, if it is Metaltelim. If it is land, he said "go do Chazakah and acquire". The Zechiyah is written in the document.

[The Gemara] asks "they already argued about this!", for Zechiyah in the document is in place of a Kinyan, and Rav holds above that it is like Matanas Bari, and he cannot retract.

Observation: There is no difficulty from Shmuel. Here he says that the latter acquired, and above he said that there is no document after death, and he did not acquire at all! (Surely, he needed to teach both of these.) However, it is a proper question from Rav.

[The Gemara] answers that had [only] that [argument] been taught, [we would think that] there Rav said [that he cannot retract], because they acquired from him, i.e. the Kinyan is written in the document, but here that they did not acquire from him...

And had [only] this [argument] been taught, [we would think that] here Shmuel said [that the latter acquires...]

There is no need to teach why Shmuel needed to teach here. Surely Shmuel does not hold here like above. Only according to Rav we needed to ask so.

Note: Maharshal says that this Dibur, the previous and the coming Dibur are all one Dibur.

Explanation #1: They wrote the Kinyan in the document with the Zikuy. [Shmuel] sent [back to Bei Rav] that nothing [helps] after a Kinyan, and he cannot retract. Also [to keep the property] for himself he cannot retract, like Rav Huna explains.

Explanation #2: R. Tam explained this Sugya differently. Rav and Shmuel discuss even when the Kinyan is not written in the document. It was a mere Kinyan;

Our Mishnah (146b), which teaches that if he left over any amount of land, his gift is a gift, is with a Kinyan. The Seifa, which teaches that if he did not leave over any land, his gift is not a gift, is without a Kinyan. The Seifa is unlike the Reisha.

The case in which he wrote and was Mezakeh, presumably, it is like the Rashbam said, that Zikuy is in place of a Kinyan.

Implied question: It says above "a Daitiki is Mevatel a Daitiki" when he wrote to this one and to this one!

Answer: That is when he did not write to him for the sake of a document, rather, for a mere command. Now it is not difficult at all from Bava Metzi'a, for there it discusses a Daitiki of a command. A Stam Daitiki is of a command.

Rebuttal #1: This is unreasonable. The word "Daitiki" connotes an absolute document given for the sake of a document for that gift!

So connote the words "they were written and he reconsidered about them, not to give them. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)