Question: In Beitzah (39a), Rav Sheshes says that if Reuven filled [a Kli] of water and gave it to Shimon, it may be taken where Reuven may go (his Techum Shabbos). Rav Nachman says, it may be taken where Shimon may go;

We conclude that they argue about one who picks up a Metzi'ah for his friend. One holds that he acquires, and the other holds that he does not acquire.

It connotes that Rav Nachman holds that he acquires, therefore it may be taken where Shimon may go!

Answer #1: Rashi's text there says "one holds that he acquires, and the other holds that he does not acquire." It does not say "his friend [acquires or does not acquire]." All hold that his friend does not acquire;

Rav Nachman holds that also Reuven does not acquire, therefore when Shimon took it from him, he acquired it from Hefker, for holds that intends to acquire. Reuven, who picked it up [for Shimon] did not intend to acquire.

Rav Sheshes holds that Reuven acquired. Since Shimon did not acquire, Reuven acquired. Therefore, it may be taken where Reuven may go.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Rav Nachman agrees there that his friend acquired, for it does not harm others. There is much water in the pit [for anyone else who wants].

Answer #3 (R. Tam): The text properly says "his friend [acquires or does not acquire]." Rav Nachman holds that his friend does not acquire, like [he holds] here. Also Reuven does not acquire. Therefore, when he gave it to Shimon, he acquired it, and it may be taken where Shimon may go;

Rav Sheshes holds that his friend acquires, due to Migo that Reuven could acquire for himself. Since Shimon acquires only due to Reuven's ability to acquire for himself, and had he acquired for himself, it could be taken [only] where Reuven may go, also now that he acquired for Shimon, it may be taken [only] where Reuven may go;

Shimon is no better than Reuven regarding Techumim. It is as if Reuven acquired for himself.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [He does not acquire] because he did not make him a Shali'ach.

Objection and Explanation #2: In Kesuvos (84b), regarding the episode with Yemar bar Chashu, it connotes that Tofes l'Ba'al Chov b'Makom she'Chav Acherim does not acquire even if he made him a Shali'ach!

Implied question: Above (8a), Rava rejected the inference of Rami bar Chama. This connotes he holds that his friend does not acquire! (Why does he challenge Rav Nachman?)

Answer: Perhaps here he accepted Rav Nachman's answer.

Question: What is the Chidush? Below (77a), R. Dosa and Rabanan do not argue [about this], only R. Dosa holds that a worker [who quit in the middle of the day] has the lower hand, and Chachamim hold that he has the upper hand. (He is paid either half the wage for the entire day, or the entire wage, less what it will cost to finish the work. R. Dosa says that he gets the lower amount. Chachamim say that he gets the larger amount);

However, all agree that he may quit!

Answer: The Chidush is that he may quit, and he has the upper hand, like Rabanan;

Even if the price of labor rose in the middle of the day, after he quit, he does not get less than half his wage.

Therefore, we bring Rav's teaching. Since he has the upper hand, his hand is not like the employer's hand!

Support: Below (77a) proves like this. He holds like Rabanan regarding a day laborer, but not regarding Kablanus (one who accepts a job for a set wage).

Assertion: It seems to me that in any case, one may contract himself to work for others;

Only [one who sells himself to be] an Eved Ivri, who cannot retract, and does not leave before his time (six years) only through a document of freedom, transgresses due to "they are My slaves." (Rashash points out that he can leave through paying the value of the remaining time he must work.)

Implied question: R. Yochanan holds in Kesuvos (84b) and Gitin (11b) that ha'Tofes l'Ba'al Chov does not acquire!

Answer: That is only when there is no Migo that he could acquire for himself, i.e. the borrower does not owe anything to the one who seizes [for the creditor];

However, regarding a Metzi'ah, there is a Migo, so he acquires.

Question: In Gitin (11b), R. Yochanan said that anyone who says "give" is like one who says "acquire"!

Answer: There is different, for someone else is Makneh it [to him].

Question: In Kesuvos (31b), it says regarding one who steals a wallet on Shabbos, if he was dragging it and leaving [the owner's Reshus, to take it to Reshus ha'Rabim], he is exempt [for the theft], for the Isur [Hotza'ah] of Shabbos and the Isur of theft come simultaneously. (Since he is Chayav Misah for Shabbos, he is exempt from paying);

If he took it to Reshus ha'Rabim, there is an Isur of Shabbos, but there is no Isur of theft (Meshichah does not acquire in Reshus ha'Rabim). What is the reason? [His] four Amos acquire for him!

Answer #1: Rabanan did not enact that [four Amos] acquire for theft, only for a Metzi'ah, lest people quarrel, and for a Get, due to Agunah;

Answer #2: According to Rav Sheshes, who says below that they did not enact in Reshus ha'Rabim, this is fine.

Assertion: [The one who takes it from him] is not even called a Rasha.

Implied question: If an Oni was Mehafech b'Chararah (looking to buy property) and another came and took it, he is called a Rasha (Kidushin 59a)!

Answer: That is because he could toil and buy other land. However, we cannot say so about a Metzi'ah or Hefker, so he is not even called a Rasha. (See also Tosfos Bava Basra 21b.)

Question: Below, we conclude that it is because he learns Metzi'ah from Get. This shows that the Kinyan of four Amos applies to Get;

In Gitin (78b), R. Yochanan said that if [one threw a Get to his wife, and it landed] closer to her [than to him], even if it is 100 Amos from her, and she can guard it, it is a Get! (If so, there is no need to enact four Amos.)

Answer: In her four Amos, even if he can guard it like she can, she is divorced. Outside of four Amos, she must be able to guard it.

Question: We should say that "Himatzei Simatzei" is a Klal, and "b'Yado" is a Prat. From a Klal u'Frat we learn only the Prat!

Answer: We insert Yado between "Himatzei" and "Simatzei", and it is a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal;

This is like we say in Bava Kama (64b), that wherever you find two adjacent Klalim, insert the Prat between them.

Similarly below regarding Get, we include her roof from "v'Nasan b'Yadah", we can say that [we do not expound like a Klal u'Ferat, for] "v'Shilchah" is a closing Klal.

Question: Why do we need to prove this from Ein Shali'ach [l'Devar Aveirah]? Why don't we learn from the fact that the Torah included Chatzer from the verse 'Yado'?

Below, regarding Get, we prove that Chatzer is included due to Yad, since it is included from the verse 'Yadah.' We do not bring any [other] proof!

Answer: Below, we prove based on the Tana, who includes her roof and Chatzer to be divorced [through putting the Get in them] even b'Al Korchah (against her will), or even if she is a minor;

If it were due to Shelichus, she would not be divorced b'Al Korchah, or if she is a minor.

However, here it is impossible to prove from this, for even his hand does not acquire the theft b'Al Korcho, and not if he is a minor.

Source: In Kidushin (43a) some learn from Shechutei Chutz, for it says "Hu", and not his Shali'ach;

And some learn because Me'ilah and Shechitah [of a stolen ox or Seh] are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (two sources, one of which could have been learned from the other) that Yesh Shali'ach [l'Devar Aveirah], and we do not learn from them. (Rather, we learn that Yesh Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah only in these two cases.)

Question: A Mishnah in Bava Kama (59b) says that one who sends a fire with a Cheresh, lunatic or child is exempt;

What is the reason? [We should say that Yesh Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah, for] they are not Bnei Chiyuva (liable for their actions)!

Answer: There, [they are not Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah, for] Shelichus does not apply to them.

Question: A Mishnah (Bava Kama 79a) says that if one was dragging [an animal he wanted to steal] and leaving, and it died in the owner's Reshus, he is exempt. If he lifted it, or took it out from the owner's premises and it died, he is liable;

Rashi explained in one version that the thief told a Shomer "I have one ox in Ploni's house. Take it, and be a Shomer Chinam on it", and the Shomer took it out from the owner's premises and it died, the thief is liable through the Shomer's Meshichah.

What is the reason [why Yesh Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah]? If [the Shali'ach] wanted, he need not do so!

Answer: Since the Shomer does not know that it is stolen, he is like a Chatzer, which people put in it b'Al Korcho.

Question: Even if he said to a Kohen, [the Kohen is not Bar Chiyuva for being Mekadesh a divorcee to another Kohen]!

Answer: A Kohen is called Bar Chiyuva, since if he were Mekadesh her to himself, he would be liable;

However, a Yisrael, even though he transgresses "v'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol" when he is Mekadesh her to a Kohen, since if he were Mekadesh her to himself, he would not be liable, he is not Bar Chiyuva.

Question: What difference does it make? Both according to the opinion that [Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah when he does the Shelichus only] if he wants to do, and according to the opinion that it is when the Shali'ach is Bar Chiyuva, he is not lashed for Kidushin according to Rava, who says in Kidushin (78a) that if [a Kohen] was Mekadesh [a divorcee] he is not lashed. If he had Bi'ah with her, he is lashed!

Answer #1: When he has Bi'ah with her afterwards, he is lashed also for the Kidushin, like is proven in Temurah (5a).

Answer #2: Even according to Rava, it makes a difference. If Yesh Shelichus, the Kidushin takes effect. If Ein Shelichus, the Kidushin does not take effect.

Observation: Likewise, we could have said [that he told her] "cut the sideburns of an adult", just an adult would not let someone cut his Pe'os;

This is like it says in Makos (20b) that both the Nikaf (whose sideburns are cut) and the Makif (who cuts them) are liable.

Implied question: We establish this there when the Nikaf helps him (moves his head to facilitate cutting the Pe'os. An adult could consent to be Nikaf without helping, for he is not liable for this!)

Answer: This is because otherwise (if he does not help), he is not lashed, for it is Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh. However, he always transgresses the Lav [when he consents, even if he does not help].