Version #1 (Chachamim of Nehardai): One cannot write an Orkesa (power of attorney) for Metaltelim (movable objects).

Question (Rav Ashi): What is the reason?

Answer (Ameimar): It is due to R. Yochanan's law;

(R. Yochanan): If something was stolen and the owner did not despair, neither the thief nor owner can make it Hekdesh;

The thief cannot, for it is not his. The owner cannot, for it is not in his Reshus!

Version #2 (Chachamim of Nehardai): One may not write an Orkesa for contested Metaltelim.

Inference: This is only because it looks like Sheker (since another contests this). If they were not contested, one may write it! (end of Version #2)

(Chachamim of Nehardai): If Reuven wrote an Orkesa to authorize Levi, and it does not say 'go claim and acquire for yourself', it is void.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The one from whom Levi claims (Shimon) can say to him 'you have no claim against me.'

(Abaye): If it says that Levi receives a percentage of the property, since he has a claim on his percentage, he can argue the case for all the property.

(Ameimar): If Levi seized the property (and refuses to return it to Reuven; some explain, if he seized from Shimon with an invalid Orkesa), he keeps it.

Version #1 (Rav Ashi): No. Since Reuven wrote "all (Meiri - gains or) losses you incur, is upon me', Levi is merely a Shali'ach.

Version #2: He is a partner. (end of Version #2)

Question: What difference does it make if he is a Shali'ach or partner?

Answer: If he is a partner, he may keep half for himself.

The Halachah is, he is a Shali'ach.

(Mishnah): If one stole in front of two witnesses, and slaughtered or sold in front of them or two other witnesses, he pays four and five;

In all these cases, he pays four and five: he stole and sold on Shabbos, or to idolatry;

He stole and slaughtered on Yom Kipur;

He stole from his father and slaughtered or sold, and then his father died;

He stole and slaughtered, and then made it Hekdesh.

If he stole and slaughtered for medicinal needs, or to feed to dogs, or the animal was found to be Tereifah, or he slaughtered Chulin ba'Azarah (in the Mikdash); he pays four or five;

R. Shimon exempts for these (last) two.

(Gemara) Suggestion: The Mishnah is unlike R. Akiva, for he holds that testimony must be about a full matter.

(Beraisa - Aba Chalafta and R. Yochanan ben Nuri): If three different pairs of witnesses saw Reuven living on Shimon's land, and each pair saw this for a different year (for three consecutive years), this is a Chazakah (demonstration of ownership. Reuven is believed to say 'I bought it from you, and I lost my document of purchase.)

R. Akiva says, it is not a Chazakah. Witnesses must testify about a (full) "Davar (matter)", not half a Davar. (Living on Shimon's land for one year has no significance. Similarly, the testimony about slaughter has no significance by itself.)

Rejection (Abaye): R. Akiva can agree to our Mishnah!

He surely agrees that if two witnesses saw David be Mekadesh Leah, and two others saw Menasheh have Bi'ah with her, even though the latter testimony has no significance without the former, since the first witnesses do not need the latter, all the testimony stands;

Here also, even though the latter witnesses (about the slaughter) need the former witnesses (about the theft), since the former do not need the latter, all the testimony stands!

Question: In what case do Chachamim invalidate testimony because it is only half a "Davar"?

Answer #1: One witness saw that a girl (above 12 years old) has one (pubic) hair on her back, and one witness saw one hair on her front. (She is an adult only if she brought two hairs.)

Rejection: That is half-testimony (only one witness saw each hair)!

Answer #2: Two witnesses saw one hair on her back, and two saw one hair on her front.

This is a half-Davar, since each pair of witnesses testifies that she is still a minor!

(Mishnah): If he stole and sold on Shabbos...

Contradiction (Beraisa): He is exempt.

Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): The Beraisa discusses when Levi (the buyer) told Reuven (the thief) 'pick a date from my tree to be payment for the stolen item.' (Since Reuven is liable to die for detaching on Shabbos, he is exempt from the fine due to the sale that resulted from this action.)

Rejection: Since Levi cannot force Reuven to give him anything (since Reuven is Chayav Misah for Chilul Shabbos), this is not a sale at all!

Answer #2 (Rav Papa): In the Beraisa, Levi told Reuven 'throw the stolen item into my yard so I will acquire it'.

Suggestion: This is like R. Akiva, who considers an airborne object as if it rests on the ground below. (The item is acquired when it enters the airspace of Levi's yard. That is also when Reuven is liable for Chilul Shabbos.)

Chachamim hold that the item is acquired when it enters Levi's airspace; but Reuven is not liable until it lands.

Rejection: It is even like Chachamim. The case is, Levi said 'I do not want to acquire until it rests on the ground.'

Defense (of Answer #1 - Rava): The Torah forbade the wages of a harlot (to be a Korban) in every case, even if one paid his mother for Bi'ah with her;

Even though Beis Din cannot make him pay what he promised her (since he is Chayav Misah for Bi'ah with her), if he pays, it is considered a harlot's wages.

Here also, even though Beis Din cannot force Reuven to give Levi the animal (for which Levi paid a date), if Reuven gives it, it was a sale.