Explanation: The text does not say R. Shimon ben Elazar, for below (74b) it is proven that it is (Stam R. Shimon, i.e.) R. Shimon ben Yochai.

Question: What is Rava's Chidush? Also the Beraisa says that if one retracts, Chachamim are not pleased with him!

Answer: He teaches that "Chachamim are not pleased with him" is not Mi she'Para, which was taught in the Reisha.

Question: What did the Makshan think?

Answer: This Beraisa is R. Shimon. Even Reish Lakish agrees that he holds that coins acquire. Therefore, when coins [were given], he receives Mi she'Para;

The Makshan equates according to Reish Lakish, who holds that coins do not acquire according to Rabanan, to words without coins according to R. Shimon.

Explanation: Also here, there was no need to repeat Oshek. It was repeated for some Drashah.

Question: In Kesuvos (42a), it says "if one said to Ploni 'you raped my daughter' (and he swore falsely to deny it), R. Shimon exempts from Korban Shevu'ah, even if he stood in judgment;

He learns from "v'Chichesh [... b'Pikadon...]" - this excludes these (cases like rape), which are fines.

Citation (42a) Question: Granted, according to R. Yochanan, who does not require Meshichah, rather, mere designation, this is fine. Regarding a fine, designation does not help;

Citation (cont.): However, according to Reish Lakish, who requires that he took it and returned and deposited it with him, once he took it, it is Mamon (not a fine). A fine does not apply!

Answer: This is not difficult at all. There it is [like] R. Shimon, and he holds that coins acquire, even according to Reish Lakish. (Only according to Rabanan, Reish Lakish says that coins do not acquire.) He requires only designation.

Question: When one knocked out the tooth or blinded the eye (of one's Eved Kena'ani), why do we need a verse to exclude [from Korban Shevu'ah, if he swears to deny it]? There he is exempt only because it is a fine. Designation does not apply, for he goes free!

Suggestion: [The slave] claimed both, that he knocked out his tooth and blinded his eye. [The master] designated a Kli for the value of his eye, like it says in Bava Kama (74a) that he goes free for the tooth, and [the master] pays him for his eye.

Rejection: There, we establish this like the opinion that (a slave who goes free due to a limb) does not need a Get Shichrur, and R. Shimon holds in Gitin (42a) that he needs a Get Shichrur!

Answer: This is properly considered that he designated, for [the slave] demands his body. The master withholds him for service, and does not free him.

Question: Chazakah must be done! (He does not acquire, just like when Meshichah is lacking.)

Answer: Rental of land is acquired through Kesef, like it says in Bava Kama (79a).

Question: What is the source that [he transgressed Me'ilah] only when he gave it to a bathhouse attendant?

Answer: The Seifa says "because he tells him 'enter and bathe, for the bathhouse is open in front of you.'" (This shows that the law applies only to a bathhouse.)

Question: How can a Mishnah refute R. Yochanan?! (Surely he knew the Mishnah!)

Answer: R. Yochanan establishes it to discuss a Nochri bathhouse attendant. However, a Nochri barber requires Meshichah;

Reish Lakish and Rava hold that we discuss a Yisrael bathhouse attendant, just like the Reisha, which says "if he gave it to his friend, he transgressed Me'ilah, and his friend did not transgress Me'ilah";

This discusses his friend a Yisrael, for Me'ilah does not apply to Nochrim.

Inference (R. Tam): A scribe who hired himself out, if [the employer] did Meshichah on his quill or razor, they cannot retract.

Question: Why is this different than a worker, who can retract?

Answer: Only regarding a worker, about whom it says "Avadai Hem" (Yisrael are Hash-m's slaves), and not slaves of slaves (other people, e.g. his employer), he can retract, but not regarding a Kablan (one hired to complete a task for a set wage).

Observation: We could have answered that R. Shimon taught the [Beraisa], like we say below (Amud B).

Question: We should establish it to discuss a Nochri Siton (wholesaler)!

Answer: A Siton sells liquids, i.e. wine and oil, like the Mishnah in Bava Basra (88a) says "a Siton cleans his measures [once every 30 days, for they are used often, and much sticks to them]";

[Both] wine and oil of Nochrim were forbidden, for the Beraisa was taught before R. Yehudah Nesi'ah (the grandson of Rebbi, who was after the period of the Tana'im) permitted oil. (Surely, a Yisrael would not buy them from a Nochri.)

Pesak: R. Tam rules like R. Yochanan.

Implied question: Rava said that a verse and Mishnah support Reish Lakish!

Answer: He meant that they seem to support Reish Lakish, but one can answer like R. Yochanan. Also our Mishnah we can establish to discuss a Nochri bathhouse attendant, like I explained.

Suggestion: We can prove [that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan] from the fact that Rava did not list this in Yevamos (36a) among the three cases in which the Halachah follows Reish Lakish [against R. Yochanan]!

Rejection: This is no proof. [He did not list it] because Reish Lakish did not say so in his own name. In Bechoros (13a) he said so in the name of R. Oshaya that Meshichah acquires, and not coins;

Rava counts only those cases in which [Reish Lakish] taught in his own name [and we follow him against R. Yochanan];

Source: [Rava] also did not count what Reish Lakish said in the name of the elder Levi "Shechitah is only at the end" (i.e. it is considered to be instantaneous, at the moment that the majority of the last Siman is cut), even though Rava himself holds like this in Pesachim (63a) and Zevachim (30a).

Support #1: We can infer that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan, for Rav Nachman, whom the Halachah follows in monetary matters, holds like him.

Support #2: Also Rav Huna holds like R. Yochanan, for he said that if one said "sell to me for these [coins]", he acquires, and we said above (47a) that he holds that coins acquire, like R. Yochanan.

Support #3: Also Rav Chisda said above (47b) "just like they enacted Meshichah for sellers, so they enacted for buyers." If so, he holds that coins acquire, like R. Yochanan;

According to Reish Lakish, [Meshichah] is mid'Oraisa, and not an enactment.

Implied question - Citation (Kidushin 14b): We find that a Nochri acquires only through Kesef;

Inference: This is like Reish Lakish, who says so in Bechoros (13b) "la'Amisecha" (with your fellow Yisrael, you acquire) through Meshichah, and with a Nochri, through Kesef;

According to R. Yochanan, a Nochri acquires only through Meshichah.

Answer (R. Tam): It means as follows. We find that a Nochri, since he acquires an Eved Ivri only through Kesef, and not through a document...

We learn that a document acquires an Eved Ivri from Amah Ivriyah, and this does not apply to a Nochri. (He cannot buy her because he could not do Yi'ud, i.e. marry her.)

Implied question: In Gitin (38a) we say that a Nochri acquires a Yisrael through Chazakah! (How can we say that he acquires an Eved Ivri only through Kesef?)

Answer: That is only through Chazakah of conquest in war. We learn from "va'Yishb Mimenu Shevi."

Question - Citation (Avodah Zarah 63a): We discuss a Nochris Zonah (harlot). [The Esnan, i.e. her hire, which becomes Pasul for a Korban] is not lacking Meshichah.

Answer: That is like Reish Lakish (who says that Nochrim acquire through Kesef. The Bi'ah is in place of Kesef.) R. Yochanan would give other answers that it gave there, i.e. "alternatively, it is in her Chatzer."

Question: There (71a), Mereimar said that Meshichah acquires for Nochrim, and Rav Ashi said that Meshichah does not acquire for Nochrim;

Inference: Rav Ashi, who was greater in Chachmah and number [of Talmidim, than Mereimar], and he was Basra (later, so the Halachah follows him,) holds like Reish Lakish!

Strengthening of question: Rav Ashi holds like this also in Bechoros (13b)!

Answer #1 (R. Chayim): There is no difficulty from Kidushin (14b), and not from Avodah Zarah (71a). R. Yochanan could hold that coins acquire for Nochrim, just like for Yisrael, and Rav Ashi can hold like this;

They do not expound like the one who expounds in Bechoros "la'Amisecha with Kesef, and to a Nochri with Meshichah";

Rather, they expound "la'Amisecha you return Ona'ah, but you do not return Ona'ah to a Nochri." There is an opinion that expounds so. He holds that one may not steal from a Nochri;

Tana'im argue about this (Gezel Nochri) below (111b). Also in Bava Kama (113b) there is an opinion that forbids Gezel Nochri;

If he held that one may steal from a Nochri, there would be no need for a verse to permit overcharging him!

Support: Based on this answer, there is no contradiction in Rav Chisda, Here he holds like R. Yochanan;

Contradiction: In Avodah Zarah (63a), Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda answered in the name of Rav Chisda "we discuss a Nochris Zonah. [The Esnan] is not lacking Meshichah." This is like Reish Lakish!

Answer: According to what I explained, this can properly be [also] like R. Yochanan.

Objection #1: If so, the Mishnah about one who gave [Hekdesh coins] to a bathhouse attendant is difficult for [R. Yochanan and Rav Chisda], for we cannot establish it to discuss a Nochri bathhouse attendant, and not a Yisrael bathhouse attendant;

[The Mishnah] connotes that only regarding a bathhouse attendant (there is Me'ilah immediately), but not regarding a barber, until he does Meshichah. According to their Perush, Meshichah does not acquire for Nochrim, and not for Yisrael (mid'Oraisa)!

Objection #2: In Bava Kama (113b) it connotes a little that Rav Ashi holds that Gezel Nochri is permitted, for it says that Rav Ashi was walking on the road, and he saw some grape clusters hanging outside [an orchard];

He told his servant 'see who owns them. If it is a Nochri, bring them to me.' A Nochri heard this, and asked 'may you steal from Nochrim?!'

Rav Ashi answered "(I did not want to take for free.) A Nochri would accept money [for them], but a Yisrael would not."

Inference: He holds that Gezel Nochri is permitted, but because the Nochri heard him, he gave a different answer for his words!

Answer #2 (to Question (q)): Rav Ashi retracted, like Ravina proved to him in Avodah Zarah that Meshichah acquires for a Nochri, like the Gemara concludes "this teaches that Meshichah acquires for a Nochri." (Rashash - Tosfos does not answer for R. Chayim. He never answers Objection #1. Also, the following question is difficult only for Tosfos, but not for R. Chayim.)

Implied question: [Ravina] proved this from R. Yochanan's teaching itself! (Since R. Yochanan holds that mid'Oraisa, Kesef acquires for Yisrael, surely he holds that Meshichah acquires for Nochrim. How can he bring a proof from R. Yochanan?)

Answer: In any case, had Ravina not heard that Rav Ashi holds like R. Yochanan's teaching, he would not have brought [a proof] from it.

Answer #2 (cont.): Presumably, [Rav Ashi] retracted also from what he said in Bechoros (that Meshichah does not acquire for Nochrim).

Note: Above (s:1), Tosfos asked a contradiction in Rav Chisda. He holds like R. Yochanan, yet he answered "we discuss a Nochris Zonah", which is like Reish Lakish! R. Chayim's answer answered this. Tosfos now gives his own answer to this.)

Answer #2 (to Contradiction s:1): In Avodah Zarah (63a), the text does not attribute the answer of a Nochris Zonah to Rav Chisda. In some texts, [the answer] is not brought at all.

Limitation: He is not called "one who does not act like your nation" to permit cursing him without reason. He maybe cursed only for [retraction from] this sale, with Mi she'Para.

Explanation: [R. Chiya] knew our Mishnah, but he wanted to receive the curse rather than lose the rise in price (i.e. fulfill the sale for the lower initial price that he sold for).

Suggestion: [The seller] says [that if he retracts], he will return twice as much money [as the buyer gave].

Rejection: If so, why does he acquire [part of] the Mekach (property sold) according to his Eravon (the money given), according to R. Yosi? (The seller may keep the entire Mekach, and return twice the money! Pnei Yehoshua asks, perhaps the Tana'im argue about a seller who wants to give from the Mekach only according to the Eravon, without paying a fine, but he could return twice the money and keep the entire Mekach if he wants!)

Explanation: Rather, he says "I will double [your money] in the Mekach." He will give part of the Mekach corresponding to twice the money that he gave him;

R. Yehudah says, it suffices to acquire in the Mekach Bal Korcho (against the will) of the seller, corresponding to the money he gave;

However, if the buyer wants, he can demand not to buy [part], rather, to get back coins. He can say "I do not want a small Mekach."

Explanation: R. Shimon ben Gamliel explains that R. Yehudah and R. Yosi argue when he did not give the coins for payment;

However, if he gave the coins to him for the initial payment, he acquires [the entire Mekach], and [the buyer] returns the rest [of the money] according to everyone. This is unlike Rav.

Explanation (Rashi): He said "my Eravon will acquire", i.e. it will acquire corresponding to the entire Mekach.

Question: This is astounding. This is better than when he gave for payment, in which case he acquired everything. [This Eravon is better], since he explicitly stipulated that he will acquire everything!

Suggestion: Perhaps "my Eravon will acquire" means that only corresponding to his Eravon he will acquire from the Mekach.

Rejection: If so, according to R. Yosi, why does he double his Eravon?

Answer: "My Eravon Yikon" connotes that the Eravon will be acquired to you, if I retract, and Yikon also connotes that it will acquire for [the buyer] in the Mekach its value more than the amount of the Eravon, if you retract;

It is as if he explicitly said "you will double my Eravon."