Explanation: We learn this mid'Rabanan, for the Metziah of a minor is [his] only mid'Rabanan;

Even according to R. Yosi, who says below (12a) that it is absolute theft [to take a minor's Metziah], this means [absolute theft] mid'Rabanan.

They (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish) agree that we learn a Yad. They argue about Chatzer.

Assertion: Even if he did not say "it acquired for me", it acquired for him, like it says above (10a) "if Rabanan enacted that [four Amos] acquire, so what if he did not say [they acquired for me]?!"

Suggestion: There, it is because he fell on it, and revealed his intent that he wants to acquire. However, here, how do we know that he wants to acquire?

Rejection #1: Just the contrary! Above, it connotes that if he did not fall, there is more reason to say that he acquires, even though he did not say "[my four Amos] should acquire for me"!

Rejection #2: R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina said that a person's Chatzer acquires for him without his knowledge. This shows that it is even if he did not say "it should acquire for me"!

Explanation: Here it mentioned [that he said so] due to the Seifa. Even if he said [it should acquire for me], since [the deer] runs normally, he does not acquire.

Observation: The same applies even to a wounded deer, if he chases it and does not catch it. [The Mishnah] discusses a typical case. When it runs normally, he cannot catch it.

Question #1: In Bava Kama (49b), it says that if a Yisrael (Reuven) was holding the security of a convert, and the convert died, [and Shimon grabbed the security, Reuven collects the amount of his loan, and Shimon] acquires the rest...

We ask that Reuven's Chatzer should acquire [the entire security for him], for R. Yosi bar Chanina taught [that one's Chatzer acquires for him without his knowledge]. We conclude "d'Leisei", i.e. the lender (Reuven) is not in his Chatzer.

There, it connotes that it is a guarded Chatzer, since we bring R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina, who discusses a guarded Chatzer, like is proven here.

Also, his house is Vadai guarded, for he guarded the security there. If so, even when he is not there, he should acquire!

Question #2: Rather than ask from R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina, we should ask from our Mishnah!

Answer (to Question #2): We can answer that [he acquires] in the Mishnah because he intended to acquire. He said "it acquired for me." Therefore, we bring from R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina.

Answer (to both questions): The Gemara said "d'Leisei", i.e. the security is not in the Chatzer.

However, also the Makshan held that the lender is not in the Chatzer. This is why we did not ask from our Mishnah, rather, from R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina.

Question: In Gitin (77b), a Mishnah says that if one threw [a Get] into her house or her Chatzer, she is divorced;

It connotes that it is guarded. Even so, Ula said that [she is divorced] only if she stands next to her house!

Answer: Only regarding a Get, which works b'Al Korchah, we require that she stands next to her house, like it says in our Sugya.

Explanation: He remembered at the time that the Shichchah begins, i.e. when the workers forgot it, and at the end also he forgot;

Forgotten from the beginning is when the workers forgot it, and also he forgot.

Distinction: However, what he remembers at the time that the workers remember, this is not "remembered, and at the end forgotten."

Proof: If not, you will never find Shichchah, for when the field is full of sheaves, he will say "my field should acquire for me"!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The text [of the Beraisa] should say "one might think that it is Shichchah!"

Question #1: This is astounding. Because he wants to reject the proof, he changes the text of the Beraisa?!

Question #2: What is the answer "to include Shichchah of the city"? The Beraisa learns that [when the owner is in the field,] what was remembered and later forgotten is not Shichchah, for it says "I know that workers forgot it..."

Here that he expounds to include Shichchah of the city, he should establish it [for a smaller Chidush,] to discuss what was forgotten from the beginning (which is Shichchah in the field)!

Answer (and Explanation #2): The Gemara does not reject the proof. Rather, the Gemara questions the Beraisa;

What is the source to expound an exclusion (i.e. this law applies only in the field) regarding the inference of the verse, that he expounds "ba'Sadeh v'Shachachta", i.e. forgotten from the beginning, but remembered and later forgotten is not Shichchah;

The exclusion applies to this, to say that in the city, even remembered and later forgotten is Shichchah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): [We ask that] perhaps it is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv, that in the field, what is forgotten from the beginning is Shichchah, but not in the city!

This is more reasonable, to establish the exclusion regarding the verse itself "ba'Sadeh v'Shachachta" (Shichchah is only in the field), and not in the city.

Support: Now he answers properly, [that a Drashah] includes Shichchah of the city. You are forced to say that [the exclusion] cannot refer to the simple meaning of the verse [for then it would exclude Shichchah of the city].

Explanation: This includes [Shichchah in] a corner.

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Kidushin 26b): [R. Gamliel] was afraid lest his family rely on him that he tithed, and eat Tevel, for there is a Chazakah that a Chaver (one who is trustworthy about Ma'aser) does not let anything leave his hand unless it is fixed (tithed).

Objection #1: That is only regarding a Chaver without died, or went away Answer does not intend to return for many days!

Objection #2: Why did he give them to R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva? He should declare the tithes, and no more!

Objection #3: He did not declare the tithes! He did not say "10 should be Ma'aser", rather, "the Ma'aser Rishon should be given to Yehoshua..."!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): It was the year of Bi'ur. He had already separated the tithes, and he needed to remove them from his Reshus;

This episode of R. Gamliel is taught in Maseches Ma'aser Sheni (5:6) regarding Bi'ur.

Citation (5:6 - Mishnah): Erev Pesach of the fourth and seventh year was Bi'ur. One gives Terumah and Terumas Ma'aser to a Kohen... One whose Peros are far from him must be Korei Shem;

Explanation: He must specify [who will be] the owner. He is Makneh them to the Levi and Kohen.

Citation (cont.): Also an episode occurred with R. Gamliel and Chachamim...

Question: Why didn't he give the Terumah Gedolah, like the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheni teaches? He gives Terumah and Terumas Ma'aser to a Kohen!

R. Elazar ben Azaryah was with him, like the Seifa teaches, that R. Yehoshua said "the Terumas Ma'aser in it (the Ma'aser Rishon I received) is given to R. Elazar ben Azaryah"!

Answer #1: Before he embarked, he separated and gave the Terumah Gedolah, for this was easy to separate, for one blade of wheat exempts the stack, and it is taken through estimation.

Answer #2: The grain was already Memurach (the piles were evened out) in R. Gamliel's house, like is proven in the Yerushalmi, and one separates Terumah Gedolah immediately after Miru'ach, like it says in the Yerushalmi of Ma'aser Sheni;

If one found scattered Peros in the field, they are permitted regarding [concern for] Gezel. They are obligated in Ma'aser and exempt from Terumah, for the granary is never finished until Terumah is separated from it.

Question: Ezra fined them (the Leviyim, that they do not receive Ma'aser Rishon)!

Answer: [R. Gamliel] holds like R. Akiva, that before the fine, Ma'aser Rishon was given only to a Levi. After the fine, it is given to a Kohen or Levi, like it says in Kesuvos (26a).

Question: R. Yochanan ben Gudgeda told R. Yehoshua "go back! You are one of the singers, and I am one of the gatekeepers" (Erchin 11b). This implies that both of them were Leviyim;

In Sukah (56b), we say that those who guarded the doors of the Mikdash were paid from Lechem ha'Panim. Lechem ha'Panim is permitted only to Kohanim!

Answer: Kohanim used to guard in three places in the Mikdash, like it says at the beginning of Tamid. Those Kohanim who guarded the doors received wages from Lechem ha'Panim.

Citation: The Seifa [of the Mishnah] teaches that they received rental from each other.

Question: Why did they receive rental? He should have lent the place [of the tithes] to them, or rented to them through Chalipin!

Answer: A loan or rental is not acquired through Chalipin.

Question: The grain was in R. Gamliel's house, like is proven in the Yerushalmi in Ma'aseros, and R. Gamliel's house was guarded!

Answer: Regarding [the other] Chachamim it was not guarded, for there was no separation between [R. Gamliel's] grain and theirs.

Question: Below (102a), regarding dung belongs to the Ba'al ha'Bayis, we establish it in the Gemara to discuss oxen that come from elsewhere, and the tenant's Chatzer, and like R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina;

The tenant uses the Chatzer. If so, the dung is guarded for the tenant. If so, how can the Ba'al ha'Bayis acquire dung of oxen that come from elsewhere?

Answer: Also the Ba'al ha'Bayis' house was open to the Chatzer. This is called standing next to his field. See also Tosfos (Gitin 79b, who answers like this, and also that the tenant is the owner's Shomer).