Answer #1: Regarding a Get, all agree that her Chatzer acquires like her hand;

They argue about a Metzi'ah. R. Yochanan learns from Get to a Metzi'ah. Reish Lakish does not.

Answer #2: Really, all agree that regarding a girl we learn from Get to a Metzi'ah (that her Chatzer acquires like her hand);

They argue about a boy. R. Yochanan learns a boy from a girl (his Chatzer acquires like his hand), Reish Lakish does not.

Answer #3: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish do not argue at all. They discuss different things;

Version #1: Reish Lakish taught that a boy does not acquire through his Chatzer or four Amos. R. Yochanan said that a girl acquires through them.

Version #2: Reish Lakish said that a girl does not acquire a Metzi'ah through her Chatzer or four Amos. R. Yochanan said that she acquires a Get through her Chatzer or four Amos.

(Mishnah): If Reuven saw people chasing an Aveidah in his field, e.g. after a lame deer, or chicks that cannot flutter, and said 'my field should acquire for me', he acquires;

If they were chasing a healthy deer or chicks that can flutter, saying 'my field should acquire for me' does nothing.

(Gemara - Rav Yehudah): This is only when Reuven is standing by his field.

Question: His field should acquire for him (even if he is not there)!

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): A man's field acquires for him without his knowledge.

Answer: That is only when it is guarded. If not, it acquires only if he is there.

Question: What is the source for this?

Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: If Reuven was in the city, and said 'I know that workers forgot a sheaf in my field. It should not be Shichechah (a forgotten sheaf, which must be left for the poor)', perhaps it is not Shichechah!

Rejection: "And you will forget a sheaf in the field" - when you forget (when you are) in the field, but not when you forget in the city.

Question: The Beraisa said 'one might have thought that it is not Shichechah...', which implies that it is Shichechah. We expounded the verse to teach that in the city it is not Shichechah!

Answer: We expound that when he is in the field, it is Shichechah only if it was forgotten from the beginning, but not if it was remembered and then forgotten;

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Since he is there, his field acquires for him.

When he is in the city, even if he remembered and then forgot it, it is Shichechah.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Since he is not there, his field does not acquire for him.

Suggestion: Perhaps the Torah teaches differently! It is Shichechah only when he is in the field, but not when he is in the city!

Rejection: "Do not return to take it" includes Shichechah when he is in the city.

Question: We need that verse to teach that one who takes it transgresses a Lav!

Answer #1: It could have said "do not take it" to make it a Lav. "Do not return" includes Shichechah of the city.

Question: We need "do not return" to teach a different law!

(Mishnah): What is in front (of one harvesting) is not Shichechah. What is in back of him is Shichechah, for "do not return" applies to it;

The general rule is, Shichechah is only when "do not return" applies.

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): "It will be" includes Shichechah of the city.

(Ula and Rabah bar bar Chanah): The field acquires only when he is standing by it.

Question (R. Aba - Mishnah): A case occurred in which R. Gamliel was on a boat with R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva. He said 'the tithe that I will separate (for Ma'aser Rishon) is given to R. Yehoshua. The area it rests on is rented to him;

The second tithe that I will separate (for Ma'aser Oni) is given to R. Akiva, who will acquire on behalf of the poor. The area it rests on is rented to him.'

R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva were not by the field, yet they acquired!

Ula: You ask like one who has never learned.

R. Aba repeated this dialogue in front of Rabanan in Sura.

Answer #1 (a Chacham): The land did not acquire the tithes for them. Rather, they acquired them Agav (along with) acquiring the land!

R. Zeira accepted this answer, but R. Aba did not.

Rava: Indeed, this answer is unacceptable!

Question: Why didn't they acquire them through Chalipin? Surely they had a garment to do Chalipin!

Answer #1 (Rava): We must say, since R. Gamliel did not own the tithes themselves, only the Tovas Hana'ah (the right to give it to the Levi or Oni of his choice), Chalipin does not work;

Similarly, one cannot acquire something Agav (land) when the giver owns only Tovas Hana'ah.

(Rather, R. Gamliel allowed them to acquire it, like one acquires Hefker. The field acquired it for them.)

Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question g:1): Chalipin cannot be used for gifts to a Kohen because the Torah said they should be given. Chalipin is a method of commerce;

Agav is a method of giving, so it can be used.

Answer #2 (to Question 3:b - Rav Papa): The case of R. Gamliel is different. Since one (with Da'as, i.e. intelligence) gave the tithes, the field can acquire even if the owner is not there.

Question: What is the source for this?

Answer (Mishnah): If Reuven saw people chasing an Aveidah in his field... (his field acquires).

(R. Yirmiyah): This is only if one could chase and catch (the lame deer, or chicks that cannot flutter).

Question (R. Yirmiyah): What is the law regarding a gift?

Answer (R. Aba bar Kahana): Regarding a gift, even if one cannot catch them, the field acquires.

Question: Why is a gift different?

Answer: It is because one with Da'as gave it.

Question (Rav Simi): One with Da'as gives a Get, yet Ula taught that (when the husband threw it into his wife's Chatzer or house) she is divorced only if she is by her Chatzer or house!

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): A Get is different, because she acquires it against her will.

Question (Rav Sheshes brei d'Rav Idi): That is illogical!

Even though she acquires a Get against her will, she must be by her Chatzer;

One chooses to receive a gift. All the more so he must be by the field!