Implied question #2: Similarly, from the case in Chulin (38b) of "Tachas Imo" to exempt an orphan, which we establish when this (the mother) died, and this was born (this shows that Efshar Letzamtzem bi'Ydei Shamayim)!

Implied question #3: Similarly, in Chulin (70a), regarding Rava's question "do we follow the majority regarding limbs?" (if the majority of a limb that came out, and this helps comprise exactly half of the child. This shows that Efshar Letzamtzem bi'Ydei Shamayim)!

Answer (to Implied question #1): In the case below (60b), even if he holds that Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, since he cannot recognize which came Mashehu before the other, and he intended to call both of them Asiri, it is unlike when he called the 10th "Asiri" and afterwards he called the 11th "Asiri".

It says afterwards there "whenever they were simultaneous, both are Kodesh", this does not mean exactly simultaneous. Rather, it is like I explained (it seems to us that they were simultaneous).

Question: In Eruvin (50a) and in Kidushin (51a) it asks from the case of two that came out as the 10th, against Rabah, who says that whatever cannot be one after the other, also at once it cannot be;

It connotes that it is difficult for him, for we should have said that since when they are one after the other, the latter is not Kadosh, also b'Bas Achas neither should be Kadosh, like one who is Mekadesh a woman and her sister;

How can this be? Ignore what he called [Asiri]. Since Iy Efshar Letzamtzem, the 10th is Kadosh by itself!

Answer: It asks from the latter. How is it Kadosh, since it is Kadosh only due to his speech?

Explanation #1 (Rashi): While you were eating dates in Bavel and indulging yourself, we toiled to resolve it. Also the Rashbam explained so in Bava Basra (107b).

Question: He should have said "Temarim", for Kafnaisa is an expression of inferior [dates], like it says in Eruvin (28b) that one may not buy Kafniyos with Ma'aser money (for they are not proper fruit)!

Explanation #2 (Ri): It would have been better that you be by me and toil in Halachah to explain it, rather than eating Kafniyos in Bavel.

Citation: It says in Gitin (30a) regarding one who lent money to a Kohen or Levi to separate [Terumah or Ma'aser] for them (and the lender will keep it and deduct from the loan) "like whom is this? It is like R. Yosi, who says that Chachamim enacted one who does not acquire (the Kohen or Levi, who never received the Terumah or Ma'aser) like one who acquired.

Explanation: This refers to R. Yosi here, for it is all one reason. Also there, Chalifav (what is in place of it) is in the Kohen's hand, for he gave to him coins.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps it refers to R. Yosi in Bava Metzi'a (12a), regarding one who hired a worker [to harvest. The worker's minor] son may take Leket after him (one or two sheaves that fall during harvesting. They must be left for the poor. Why is this permitted? Since a minor cannot acquire, he takes for his father, and his father is rich!

It explains that R. Yosi's reason is because they made one who does not acquire like one who acquired.

Rejection: There it is a different reason, in order to help the poor, like it explains there that the poor themselves are pleased...

Support: According to what I explained, it is not difficult at all that Shmuel rules like R. Yosi in the case in Bava Metzi'a, and in Gitin he did not want to establish the Mishnah like R. Yosi. Rather, he said "we do not establish the Mishnah like an individual";

[This is not difficult, for] perhaps he does not hold like R. Yosi in Gitin.

Citation: In Bava Metzi'a (37b) it asks a contradiction in Rava, against what Rava said that [if they deposited] in two bundles, [the Shomer] should have been meticulous...

Explanation: This is unlike the case of one who stole from one of five people. We say that he leaves the theft in front of them and leaves;

The Gemara asks in Bava Metzi'a (37a) "do they all take it and go? R. Aba bar Zavda said that Safek Hinu'ach (one is not sure if an Aveidah fell by accident, or if it was placed intentionally), one may not take it, and if he took it, he does not return it!"

And it explains that "he leaves it" regarding theft means that he leaves in his hand or with Beis Din, until it is clarified whose it is.

Distinction: However, here we are not concerned if they all take it and go, for we discuss when they deposited with him against his will, and it is not like Safek Hinu'ach.

Possibility #1: If "he [leaves the theft in front of them and] goes away" here means that they divide it among themselves, it is exactly like R. Tarfon said "they divide";

Possibility #2: If it means that he goes away, and Kol d'Alim Gevar (the strongest of them overpowers), since no one of them is Muchzak, we must say that this that we compare R. Tarfon's law to one who deposited with a shepherd, it means as follows:

Since there Kol d'Alim Gevar and we do not say ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah, it is logical to enact here about a Kohen that they divide.

Explanation #1: Even without a Kinyan he acquires, for he resolves and obligates himself.

Explanation #2: Often the shepherd opens and locks [the Chatzer, and this is a Kinyan], like it says (Gitin 77b), "she should go and lock or open [the room where her Get is, to acquire it]", and he makes a Chazakah with the owner's permission.