Two proofs: The Gemara in 'ha'Mafkid' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 37b) extrapolates both from this Lashon and from another Pircha that it is speaking where he comes to fulfill his moral obligation.

Question: That being the case, in the case of the Chasid, why did Rebbi Tarfon tell him to place the value of his sale among them, since, seeing as he was a Chasid, we can assume that he wanted to fulfill his moral obligation?

Answer #1: Initially, he came for litigation, to know whether he was Chayav min ha'Din, and whatever happened subsequently, happened.

Answer #2: Alternatively, one is not even Chayav to fulfill one's moral obligation according to Rebbi Tarfon, other than by Gezel, but not by a Pikadon or by a sale.

Proof: And this is also implied in 'ha'Mafkid' (Ibid, Daf 37a, See Tosfos there, DH 'Hasam') ...

Proof (cont.): ... because when the Gemara asks there from 'Gezel' on to 'Gezel', it answers that the current case is speaking where he is coming o fulfill his moral obligation; whereas when the Gemara asked earlier from 'Pikadon' on to 'Pikadon', it did not want to give that answer.

Conclusion: But here is not the place to elaborate on the Sugya in 'ha'Mafkid'.

Explanation #1: According to the texts that do not read 'Ela', it implies that Rava is coming to answer the Kashya that the Gemara asked according to Rebbi Tarfon - to say that really the author is Rebbi Tarfon ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... and it is saying that, since he admitted to him, it is as if he explicitly said 'Let it be in your hand', in which case, it probably speaks where he admitted in front of him ...

Proof: ... because otherwise, why should it be as if he said 'Let it be in your hand' ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): And since the Mishnah is speaking where he admitted in front of him, one can still ask why the Gemara does not establish it like Rebbi Akiva as well?

Implied Question: ... because even though Rebbi Akiva penalizes even where he did not swear ...

Answer: ... that is only where the money is not returned to the owner, whereas since the Mishnah is speaking where he did not swear and where he admitted in his presence, the money is returned to the owner ...

Reason: ... because, since he admitted in his presence, what difference does it make whether he holds it in his hand or whether he gives it over to the Beis-Din? Consequently, Rebbi Akiva will not issue a K'nas.

Answer: The Gemara maintains that, since Rebbi Akiva penalizes, he does so in all cases, since he did an Aveirah, and he does not draw any distinctions.

Retraction: However, it does not seem to speak here where he admitted in front of the owner, because if he did, even if he swore to him, he would not need to take it after him to Madai, and he can bring his Kaparah ...

Reason: ... because, since he admitted in front of him and placed the money in his hands and left, it is as if he deposited it in his hand, so why should he need o take it after him?

Retraction (con.): It must therefore speak where he admitted not in his presence, but in the presence of witnesses.

Conclusion: And that explains why it cannot establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva, because, since he did not hand over the money to Beis-Din, it has not been returned to the owner.

Explanation #2: But according to Rashi, who has the text 'But Rav said', the there is no problem ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... since then Rava is not coming to answer the Kashya on Rebbi Tarfon; but to explain the Mishnah in a way that makes it possible to establish it according to both Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Tarfon.

Explanation #1: Initially, it seems to be speaking where he did not say to him 'Send it through him!' (See Hagahos ha'Bach), only witnesses testify that he appointed him a Shali'ach ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... because had he done so, it is obvious that he would be a Shali'ach ...

Source: ... since the Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 98b & 99a) states that, if the borrower tells the owner to send it with his (the borrower's) son, his Eved or his Shali'ach, or with the son, the Eved or the Shali'ach of the owner, he is Chayav ...

Source (cont.): ... and what difference does it make whether he told him to send it in his presence or not in his presence.

Refutation: However, this is not implied later (on Amud Beis), when the Gemara asks according to Shmuel what he can do about it - where it should have answered that where he sends a message 'Send me the money via this man', in which case he is a Shali'ach.

Explanation #2: We will therefore be forced to say that he is never a Shali'ach when it is not in his presence, until he says to him in his presence 'Send it to me via him!'

Proof: ... like the case in 'ha'Sho'el', which speaks specifically in his presence.

Support: And this is also evident from Rashi.

Question: Some commentaries query Rabah here, when he says that he is not a Shali'ach ...

Question (cont.): ... from the Gemara in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah (Bava Basra, Daf 87b), where Rabah and Rav Yosef establish the case by a shop-keeper, adding that Rebbi Yehudah follows his reasoning - that he sent him to bring it (and not merely to obtain information).

Question (concl.): So we see that according to Rabah in Rebbi Yehudah, he is a Shali'ach?

Answer #1: It is different there, because, since he gave him a Pundiyon with instructions to bring him back an Isar's-worth of oil, it is as if he expressly told him to send it through him, and he is Patur.

Answer #2: And according to what Tosfos wrote (earlier, in DH 'Shali'ach') - that it is specifically where he told him in his presence ... , we can answer that, since he gave him the Pundiyon, it is as if he said 'Send it!' in his presence, which explains why Rebbi Yehudah says 'He sent him to bring it'.

Question: Why is he liable for the Onsin of the journey, seeing as the owner, who proclaimed him trustworthy, cannot claim that he did not want his Pikadon to be handed over to a stranger (as in Gitin, Daf 29a)?

Answer: It seems that even if he himself would bring the animal along that route and an Oneis would occur, he would be Chayav ...

Reason: ... because the fact that he took it along that dangerous route is in itself, an act of negligence ...

Answer (cont.): ... and whether he likes it or not, he is Chayav to look after it until he returns it to the owner in a residential area, in the location where he received it.

Proof: ... as the Gemara says later (on Daf 118a) 'Someone who deposits an article by his friend in a residential area, he is not permitted to return it to a desert' ...

Proof (cont.): ... implying that he is obligated to look after it until he has returned it in the residential area that he received it, and he has no right to return it to him in a desert, which is a location of danger.

Clarification: In other words, how did the owner hand him the cow, seeing as he did not know whether he was the Shali'ach of the Sho'el?

Question #1: Why did Rav Chisda himself not give his explanation on this case?

Question #2: Moreover, why did the Gemara not first ask from our Mishnah and then from the Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el'?

Explanation #1: This means that if Reuven tells the Sofer to write to Shimon that he should send him money via Levi, and he then signs it with a D'yukni (a figure in place of his signature) - even if witnesses sign that this is indeed his 'trademark', it is ineffective ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Though if the witnesses were to sign on the fact that he issued the instructions, Levi would be a Shali'ach.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it means that he wrote in his own handwriting 'Send it through Levi!'

Question: Why is a D'yukni not effective, in face of the Gemara in 'ha'Shole'ach' (Gitin, Daf 87b) where 'One Amora signed in the shape of a fish, and another, in the shape of a mast'?

Answer: That applies exclusively to the names of Chachamim who are well-known, but not to anybody else.

Explanation #3: According to what Tosfos explained earlier (on Amud Alef, DH 'Shali'ach'), even if he wrote in his own handwriting and signed with a D'yukni, it will not help, as long as he does not instruct him personally.

Clarification: The same will apply according to Rebbi Yochanan without a D'yukni, in the case of a Shali'ach whom he appointed with witnesses, who is a Shali'ach, as Rebbi Yochanan stated earlier.

Clarification: ... and he is coming to teach us here that a D'yukni without witnesses is not effective.

Halachah: The Halachah is like Rav Chisda - that 'A Shali'ach whom one appoints with witnesses, is a Shali'ach' ...

Reason: Since Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar hold like him.

Implied Question: And even though Sh'muel concurs with Rabah ...

Answer: ... we Pasken like Rebbi Yochanan when he argues with Rav, so too will we Pasken like him when he argues with Sh'muel.

Implied Question: And what one writes in a Harsha'ah that the owner is Makneh to him four Amos in his Chatzer ...

Answer: ... is La'av Davka ...

Source: ... seeing as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 26b & 27a) that the smallest measure of Karka is Chayav Pe'ah ... and one can acquire Metalt'lin together with it.

Implied Question: And the fact that even people who do not own Karka tend to write a Harsha'ah ...

Answer: ... some attribute this to the principle 'The admission of the litigant is akin to a hundred witnesses'.

Question #1: The Gemara in Perek Chzkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, Daf 44b & 45a) asks 'Let us suspect that he was Makneh to him Metalt'lin together with Karka?' And it answers 'The case must be where witnesses testify that they know for a fact that the man in question never owned Karka'?

Question #2: And in Perek Mi she'Meis (Ibid. Daf 149a) in connection with the case of Isur Giyora, where the Gemara, in response to the question as to how he would be Makneh the money to his son, Mari, answers 'If it was together with Karka - Isur did not own any Karka'.

Answer (to first question): Initially, the reason of admission did not occur to the Gemara there (regarding Isur Giyora); but later on, it concludes 'In the meantime, an admission was issued from the house of Isur'.

Answer (to second question): And as for the Gemara in Chezkas ha'Batim - seeing as it was merely a suspicion that perhaps he was Makneh it to him, since he did not own any land, we do not act on it.

Implied Question: And as for the Gemara in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 46a & 46b), which, in connection with the case 'Hayah Omeid be'Goren', asks 'Let him be Makneh it (the Ma'aser-Sheini money) together with Karka?', and it answers that he does not own Karka ...

Answer: ... there, min ha'Torah he (the purchaser) has to own Karka, because otherwise, the money would not be considered his (the owner of the Ma'aser Sheini) min ha'Torah, with which to redeem his Ma'aser Sheini.

Answer (cont.): ... whereas with regard to claiming money, since he admitted that he owns land, and he was Makneh it together with Karka, why should he not be able to claim it? See also Tosfos, Kesuvos, Daf 54b Tosfos DH 'Af-al-Pi' & Bava Basra, Daf 44b, DH 'de'Lo').

Question: Why does the Tana need to mention this? Since the Reisha states 'Shaveh P'rutah', it implies not less than that?

Implied Question: Even if he had not paid the Keren, but swore on both the Keren and the fifth, he would have to add a fifth on to the fifth ...

Answer: Only the Tana presents a regular case, since one does not swear twice on the Keren.

Chidush: On the other hand, if he swears on the fifth, he will be obligated to take it after him to Madai ...

Reason: ...because, since he swore on it, he became a Gazlan.

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk for the Keren? Why should he not be Chayav to pay it, seeing as there is Achrayus Nechasim and he already attended the court-hearing - as the Gemara will establish shortly?

Clarification: The question is according to the opinion that holds 'Shibuda La'av d'Oraysa', since here it implies that it is mi'd'Oraysa that one claims from the heirs.

Refuted Question: One cannot however, ask from the Beraisa in 'ha'Gozel u'Ma'achil' (later, on Daf 111a) which states that if their father left them Karka, they are obligated to pay' ...

Refutation: ... because he will establish that mi'de'Rabanan - 'In order not to close the door before the borrowers', as Rav Papa Paskens in Perek Get Pashut (Bava Basra, Daf 176a & 176b).

Question: According to Rav and Shmuel however, who say that one cannot claim an oral loan from the heirs or from the purchasers - even mi'de'Rabanan, as is evident in 'Chezkas ha'Batim' (Ibid. Daf 42a) and at the end of 'Mi she'Meis' (Ibid. Daf 157a) ...

Question (cont.): ... one can ask from that later Beraisa.

Answer: One can answer though, that they will establish it where he has already attended the court-hearing (be'she'Amad ba'Din).

Question: And with regard to Rashi's Kashya as to how can be'she'Amad ba'Din make any difference, bearing in mind that their father denied the claim and swore to that effect ...

Source: ... seeing as the Gemara established the case earlier where the father did not admit, but the son did?

Answer: It speaks where the court hearing took place after he swore in front of witnesses, in which case the father is not Chayav to pay the fifth ...

Source: ... as we will learn in the Mishnah later (on Daf 109b) - that where there are witnesses, he is not Chayav to pay the Chomesh.