Explanation: Since the Heter to use them obligates for Ones (it should have taught even if he did not spend them).

Question #1: A Mishnah below (44a...) teaches that if one gave coins and was not Moshech the Peros, he can retract;

According to Rav Huna, who holds that the Heter to use obligates for Ones, and according to Rav Yosef above (29a, who says so about coins that a Shomer Aveidah received when it is proper to sell the Aveidah), the seller may not use the coins that he received;

If it were permitted to use them, we could challenge them from the Mishnah brought (48a) regarding the argument of R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish, "if one gave [Hekdesh coins b'Shogeg] to a bathhouse attendant (to pay for a bath that he will take, the giver) transgressed Me'ilah";

This refers only to a bathhouse attendant, for Meshichah is not lacking, like the Seifa says "the bathhouse is in front of you. Enter and bathe!"

However, [if he gave to] a barber, he does not transgress Me'ilah until he does Meshichah.

Consequence: According to [Rav Huna and Rav Yosef], also when he gave to a barber, he should transgress Me'ilah even though he did not do Meshichah, since the barber may use the coins!

This is whether we discuss a Nochri barber, like R. Yochanan explains, or a Yisrael barber, like Reish Lakish explains;

And just like he may not use the coins according to Rav Huna and Rav Yosef, similarly according to R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish, for they do not argue about this!

The seller would be only a Shomer Chinam for those coins according to everyone.

Culmination of Question #1: If so, according to R. Yochanan, how did the enactment help that coins do not acquire [Metaltelim], for if coins acquired [and a fire erupted in the seller's attic, where rests the wheat that he sold,] the seller [would be lazy to save it, and he] would tell the buyer "your wheat burned in the attic"?

Also now that coins do not acquire, he will say "your coins burned in the attic" [since he is only a Shomer Chinam regarding the coins]!

Question #2: Rav Huna himself holds (below, 46b) that mid'Oraisa, coins acquire [Metaltelim], like R. Yochanan, for Rav Huna said [that if one held up coins and said] 'sell to me [your item] for these, he acquired [if the buyer could not see the amount of coins. We can ask Question #1 also against him!]

Answer: Even though he is only a Shomer Chinam regarding the coins, he cannot say "your coins burned in the attic", for the only proper Shemirah for coins is in the ground.

Question: In a case when he did not do Meshichah, it is forbidden to use the coins. If so, why do we say (72b) that one may contract (pay now on condition to receive the goods later based on today's price) based on a stack of grain [that the seller has] or a market price? (We are not concerned lest the price rise, and the buyer receives at the previous lower price. This is not considered Ribis, for they could have bought the goods now with the money.)

How does advancing the coins help [since the seller one may not use them]?

Answer #1: The case is, he stipulated "on condition that [the seller] may use them."

Answer #2: Even in a Stam case, since he stipulates and advances the coins half a year from when the grain is piled until [the seller will give it to him] in summer, it was with this intent, that [the seller] may use them.

Answer #3: According to R. Yochanan and Rav Huna, who hold that mid'Oraisa, coins acquire, [Chachamim] did not uproot the seller's rights to use the coins, since mid'Oraisa they acquire;

He is a borrower [regarding the coins], and he cannot say "your coins burned in the attic." They enacted Meshichah only so he will [be liable for the buyer's property, so he will be zealous to save it, and] not tell him "your wheat burned in the attic."

Distinction: However, according to Reish Lakish, surely, since coins do not acquire, it is forbidden to use the coins, and he is not considered a borrower. Therefore, if he gave [Hekdesh] coins to a barber, he did not transgress Me'ilah until he does Meshichah;

Similarly according to R. Yochanan and Rav Huna, regarding a Nochri barber, he did not transgress Me'ilah until he does Meshichah, since coins do not acquire for a Nochri.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (96b), we say that "the general rule is, all Gazlanim pay according to the time of the theft" comes to include R. Ila'i's law that if one stole a lamb, and it became a ram, or he stole a calf, and it became an ox, this is a Shinuy [that occurred] in his Reshus, and he acquires;

Inference: [The Mishnah] does not discuss the price going up or down, rather, Shinuy, like the Reisha of the Mishnah "one who stole wood and made Kelim, or [he stole] wool and made garments"!

Answer: This is only the extra Chidush that we learn from "the general rule is", but the simple meaning of the Mishnah, that they pay according to the time of the theft, discusses the price going up or down.

Support: There (103a) we bring [the Mishnah] also regarding the price going up or down regarding the rise in price of Rav Kahana's flax, and we bring it in Pesachim (32a) regarding paying according to the value (if a non-Kohen ate Terumah).

Question #1: In Bava Kama (65a), Rav taught that a thief pays principal like he stole, and Kefel [like at the time of Din] and we establish this when initially it was worth four, and at the end it was worth one;

What is the Chidush? The Mishnah teaches this!

Question #2: What was the question there "what is Rav's reason?" We should ask "what is the Mishnah's reason?"!

Answer: Rav teaches that even though he pays principal like he stole, Kefel is unlike principal. Rather, it is like at the time he stands in Din;

We ask what is Rav's reason to distinguish Kefel from the law of principal, and answer [that it says] "ha'Geneivah" and "Chayim" - revive the principal like he stole. This is only for the principal, but not for the Kefel.

Question: He can establish their argument when it broke by itself, and Rabah holds like Beis Hillel!

Answer: If so, Beis Shamai would not argue.

Question: If so, why do we need two clauses, i.e. this clause, and the Seifa "one who intended to be Shole'ach Yad"?

Answer: The Seifa teaches that according to Beis Shamai, he is liable even for speech without Meshichah;

The clause here teaches that according to Beis Hillel, [Shelichus Yad] requires Chisaron.

Explanation (R. Tam): In all of these, the text says "Rava" [and not Rabah], for this teaching of a Sho'el she'Lo mi'Da'as, you are forced to say that it is Rava, for it was said after Rabah and Rav Yosef in Bava Basra (88a);

Since this teaching is of Rava, all of them are of Rava;

Proof: If not, [the Gemara's question] is not difficult at all! He could establish the argument like one of the arguments above.

Question - Citation (Bava Kama 100b - Mishnah): If one gave wool to a dyer to dye it red, and he dyed it black:

Citation (cont.): If the Shevach (improvement) exceeds the expenditures, [the owner] gives to him the expenditures. If the expenditures exceed the Shevach, [the owner] gives to him the Shevach. This is R. Yehudah's opinion;

Citation (cont.): R. Meir says, [the dyer acquired it through Shinuy, so he] gives to [the owner] only the [initial] value of his wool.

They hold oppositely [to their opinions here]!

Answer (R. Tam): Here, regarding theft, R. Meir holds that Shinuy does not acquire, for a fine. He fines him, for he was Mezid;

However, when he gave [wool] to dye it red, he was Shogeg. He does not fine him. It says so in Bava Kama (95b).

R. Yehudah holds that here, Shinuy acquires, because he intended to acquire through Shinuy;

However, when he [mistakenly] dyed it black, he did not intend to acquire it through this.

Question #1: What is R. Akiva's opinion?

If he holds that Shinuy acquires, why does he pay Shevach like at the time of the claim? He acquired it at the time he sheared it!

If the sheep grew or the shearings rose in price, he pays only like the sheep was worth at the time of shearing!

If he holds that Shinuy does not acquire, if so, also if he sheared it after the claim, everything would belong to the owner. How could [the Gazlan] acquire it?!

Question #2: Also, it says that R. Akiva agrees in a place that there are witnesses at the time of Shelichus Yad, that he pays like at that time;

How did he acquire it? There is not even Shinuy. Even if he would shear it, Shinuy does not acquire!

Question #3: To whom does he admit? Both according to Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, he does not acquire at the time of Shelichus Yad, until the time of Shinuy!

Question #4: Shmuel and R. Yochanan rule like R. Akiva in our Sugya, and in Bava Kama (94b) they hold that Shinuy acquires!

Answer: Beis Shamai say that [if one was Shole'ach Yad], he is stricken with the lesser or greater amount. This includes increase and decrease in price;

If it rose in price, he pays like at the time he eradicated it from the world. If it declined in price, he pays like at the time he stole it;

Beis Hillel do not argue about this. This is like Rabah. However, Beis Shamai discuss also Shinuy;

This is like it says "also [Beis Shamai's words 'he is stricken with the lesser or greater amount'] connote so [that they argue about Shinuy]", since they did not teach decrease and increase in price. Beis Hillel argue and say that Shinuy acquires;

R. Akiva argues about decrease and increase in price. He says that he pays like at the time of the claim, whether it decreased or increased in price.

Explanation: This "intention" is speech, like we learn from "Al Kol Devar Pesha."

Observation: Also intent [to consume part of a Korban, or burn it on the Mizbe'ach, after the allotted time] that makes Pigul (the Korban is Pasul, and one who eats it is Chayav Kares) is through speech, like is proven in Zevachim (30a), Menachos (3b), Pesachim (63a) and Gitin (54b). In other places I explained this.