Question (R. Tam): In Sanhedrin (24b), it says that diceplaying is not Asmachta;

Rashi explained that Asmachta is a case like "if I will leave it fallow and not work", or one who [paid part of his debt, and fixed a date and] gave the document to a third party (Bava Basra 168a, and said 'if I do not pay the rest by this date, give the document to the lender");

He relies on the matter, for he thinks that all this is b'Yado to do. Initially, when he stipulated, he intended that he will not give [what he promises]. He stipulated to assure [the other party. He himself] errs, for he thinks that he will not come to this (not fulfilling the stipulation);

However, a diceplayer does not rely on anything. He does not know whether or not he will win, and even so he stipulates!

Inference: This shows that amidst Safek, he resolved and was Makneh.

Summation of question: Here it connotes oppositely, that when it is not b'Yado, it is considered Asmachta more!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): There it is not Asmachta, for since he wants to acquire, he resolves to be Makneh.

Question #1: Above (48b), we consider to be Asmachta "if I will retract, my Eravon is pardoned to you." We do not say that since he wants to acquire, he resolves to be Makneh!

Question #2: If so, how do we compare in Sanhedrin (25a, the Pesul of a diceplayer for testimony) to (Reuven who accepted Nezirus if Ploni is a Nazir, and Shimon accepted if Ploni is not a Nazir) "not one of [Reuven and Shimon] is a Nazir"? There, this reason does not apply!

Retraction: R. Tam retracted in Sefer ha'Yashar regarding the episode of two who wagered with each other in Shabbos (31a, if one of them will be able to anger Hillel), to say that they were Makneh to each other, for if they were not, they can retract.

Implied question: There are places in which people acquire without a Kinyan, through mere words, e.g. in Sanhedrin (24a) "my father (or your father, or three cattle shepherds) is believed... [to judge our case]", the Tana'im argue about when he said "I will pay you" (if such a Beis Din obligates me);

Similarly, if [his opponent was obligated to swear, and] he said "swear to me by the life of your head" [and I will accept it like a proper Shevu'ah], he cannot retract.

Answer: There, it is proper that it helps, since they have claims against each other, and they accepted on themselves the verdict [of such a Beis Din]. This is unlike when he has no claim against him.

Support (for Explanation #1): In Sanhedrin (25a), regarding bird-racers, it connotes like Rashi explained;

It says "the Tana needed to teach both. Had he taught only one who relies on himself, one might have thought there he is sure that he knows better, therefore it is Asmachta";

Inference: When it is b'Yado to profit, this is considered Asmachta more.

Answer (to Question (a)): Here is different, for it is b'Yado and not b'Yado;

Even though it is available to buy, in any case, since he depends on others, that if they will not want to sell, he will not have from whom to buy, therefore he does not resolve to be Makneh;

However, there it is not b'Yado at all; he resolves to be Makneh.

Distinction: When it is totally b'Yado, e.g. "if I will leave it fallow", if he exaggerates, he does not resolve to be Makneh, e.g. if he said "I will pay 1000 Zuz", like below (104b);

However, if he said "I will pay what it would have produced", which is not exaggerated, he resolves to be Makneh.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): Only in a case like "if I will retract, my Eravon is pardoned to you", and above (65b) "if I will not give to you within three years [the field is yours]", and one who gave his document to a third party, it is considered Asmachta;

Since he exaggerates, he intends only that his friend will rely on his words, that he will believe him;

However, diceplayers do with this intent, that one or the other will profit.

In Sanhedrin (24b) [R. Tam] elaborated about the ruling about diceplayers.

Question: Why didn't R. Chiya say his law about the Reisha, regarding a container of grapes?

Answer: It is not common to warm grapes in a container, like is common for olives.

Question: According to Shmuel, who says that tasks that man can do, even if 100 must be done, one may contract about them, why does it mention olives in a container to warm them?

Answer: Warming olives in a container is considered bi'Ydei Shamayim.

Explanation: We do not refer to earth, for it is lacking three [Melachos], and one may not contract. Rather, we discuss Beitzim (clumps of wet earth).

Opinion #1: Since it uses this expression "even though this one does not have, this one has", like it says about contracting based on a market price, this connotes that there is a market price for Beitzim;

The Chidush is that even though there is no market price for pots, since there is a market price for Beitzim, it is as if he has Beitzim to contract for pots like the price of people who sell pots cheaply;

Beitzim for pots is like gatherers for grain sellers.

Opinion #2: Or even if there is no market price [for Beitzim], perhaps it is considered as if he has (Beitzim), since potters normally borrow from each other, since there are many of them.

Implied question: Why is this unlike converting a loan to [a quantity of] Peros [which is forbidden if he has no Peros - 63a]?

Answer: Here is different, for initially he gave to him coins for a sale;

There is not even Mi she'Para [if he retracts], for a person intends for the low price when he gives coins on condition to receive Peros at a later time.

Distinction: However, according to Rabanan, whether or not he contracted, he receives like [the price] now.

Explanation: He prefers to establish it like R. Shimon, for now there are only two opinions in the argument, for Rabanan who argue with R. Shimon are like R. Yehudah in our Mishnah;

However, if our Mishnah is like Rabanan, there are three arguments when he did not contract;

According to R. Shimon the buyer cannot retract at all, even if he wants to receive Mi she'Para. According to Rabanan, he can retract, and he receives Mi she'Para. According to R. Yehudah, [he can retract, and] there is not even Mi she'Para.

Explanation (cont.): Also, it is reasonable that according to Rabanan of R. Shimon, since the sale was not fulfilled at the time that the coins were given, the buyer can retract, even if the price did not drop, but then he would receive Mi she'Para;

If so, when the price dropped, there is not even Mi she'Para, for a person intends for the low price.

Distinction: However, according to R. Shimon, who holds that the buyer cannot retract, therefore, if he contracted for the low price, he receives like now. If he did not [contract for the low price], he receives like initially.

Implied question: Why can't he say that he receives like now, because a buyer intends for the low price?

Answer: The sale was fulfilled at the time the money was given so that he cannot retract, even if he wanted to accept on himself Mi she'Para.

Explanation: He challenges Rav Papa, who said above "also I said [that if he did not stipulate, he gets the old price] regarding [one who does not want] to receive Mi she'Para";

We ask that Mi she'Para does not apply to a Shali'ach.

Implied question: Why does it say Teipuk Lei? (This connotes that we know the law even without this!)

Answer: We can say that it means that granted, Ravina's question does not refute Rav Papa. In any case, [even without this] we can refute Rav Papa, for he made him a Shali'ach!