1)

(a)Rava bar Yitzchak Amar Rav describes 'two Shtaros'. If someone asked two people to make a Kinyan on his field on behalf of a friend and to write him a Shtar, once the Kinyan has been made, the seller may no longer retract from the sale though he is permitted to retract from writing the Shtar.

(b)In the event that he said 'Al-Menas she'Tichtevu Lo Es ha'Shtar', then as long as the purchaser has not received the Shtar, he may retract from the transaction.

2)

(a)The Mishnah in Bava Basra permits the seller to write a Shtar on behalf of the buyer prior to the sale, without first consulting him.

(b)The Shtar is not Pasul because it is pre-dated either because they made a Kinyan that effects the transaction immediately, or like Abaye, who says that, provided that the witnesses signed on that day, the transaction takes place from the date on the Shtar (retroactively).

3)

(a)Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna now adds a third case of 'Shtar' to the previous two. A seller wrote such a Shtar, following which the purchaser acquired the field with a Kinyan Chazakah, he rules acquires the Shtar too.

(b)He added the words 'wherever the 'Shtar happens to b', implying that Metaltelin do not require Tziburin.

(c)We try to refute this by differentiating between a Shtar which is like the reigns of the field (an intrinsic part of it) and other Metaltelin which are not, and which might therefore need to be piled up in the field, before they can be acquired.

(d)We conclude however, that there is no such distinction, which we know from a Beraisa which, after teaching the Din of Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna regarding Shtar, adds that this is what our Mishnah meant when it taught the Din of Metaltelin Agav Karka.

4)

(a)We attempt to resolve the Sheilah whether one needs to specify 'Agav or not' from the two cases on the previous Amud of the men who wanted to give gifts from the fact that in both cases, the Kinyan was effective, even though the need to specify 'Agav' ('Agaban Me'ah Tzon ... ') is not mentioned there.

(b)We conclude however, that in fact, there is no proof from there because the need to specify 'Kni ([or Z'chei] b'Tefach Al Tefach li'Peloni ... ') is not mentioned there either, even though it is obvious that it must be said. Clearly then, they took it for granted, in which case, we can say the same abut 'Agav'.

(c)The final ruling is that Kinyan Agav ...

1. ... does not require Tziburin.

2. ... but does require 'K'ni' ...

3. ... and 'Agav'.

5)

(a)We then ask whether one will acquire Metaltelin that he received as a gift together with Karka that he is purchasing by means of a Kinyan Agav. We resolve this She'eilah from the case of Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua cited above where Rebbi Yehoshua received the Ma'aser Rishon as a gift together with the Karka, which he hired simultaneously.

(b)We cannot also prove from the same episode (where Rebbi Akiva rented the land for himself but acquired the Ma'aser Ani on behalf of the poor), that one is able to acquire the Karka for oneself and the Metaltelin for somebody else, either because Raban Gamliel rented Rebbi Akiva the land together with the Ma'aser Ani, all on behalf of the poor or because, in his capacity as a Gabai Tzedakah, Rebbi Akiva automatically acquired everything for them.

(c)Rava says that, if the purchaser who made a Kinyan Agav, had only paid for some of the Metaltelin he only acquires those Metaltelin for which he paid.

6)

(a)The Beraisa cited in support of Rava, discusses the advantages of the various Kinyanim over one another. The advantage of ...

1. ... Kesef over Shtar is that one can use it to redeem Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni.

2. ... Shtar over Kesef is that it releases a married woman from her husband.

(b)And the advantage of ...

1. ... Kesef and Shtar over Chazakah is that they acquire an Eved Ivri.

2. ... Chazakah over Kesef and Shtar is that, if someone acquires ten fields in ten different lands, a Kinyan on one of them will acquire them all.

(c)The Tana adds to this last case that the purchaser acquires only as many fields as he paid for, but not more, bearing out Rava's ruling.

(d)The last case also bears out a statement of Shmuel, who said that if someone sold ten fields in ten different lands, then a Kinyan on one of them will acquire all of them.

7)

(a)We just cited Shmuel, who says that a Kinyan on a field in one country can acquire ten fields in ten different countries. Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika tries to prove this from someone who hands his friend ten animals attached to one rein, who will certainly acquire all ten provided he said 'K'ni'.

(b)Shmuel himself refutes this proof by pointing out that in the case of the fields, he is not holding them in his hand, as he is by the rein.

(c)According to others, Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika tries to refute Shmuel's ruling from the case of the ten animals attached to one rein, where he does not acquire all the animals there where he said 'Acquire this one!', and the same will apply to the case of Chazakah regarding ten fields.

(d)Shmuel rejects Rav Acha's Kashya, by drawing a distinction between the animals which are independent bodies, and the fields, which are all part of the same block of fields.

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that Metaltelin can obligate a Shevu'ah on Karka. Ula give the source for 'Gilgul Shevu'ah' as the Pasuk in Naso, where the Sotah declares "Amen Amen" following the Kohen's curse.

(b)We learned in the Mishnah in Sotah 'Amen Al ha'Alah, Amen Al ha'Shevu'ah'. The ...

1. ... Alah is the curse (her thighs falling ... [the punishment that will befall her should she turn out to be guilty]).

2. ... Shevu'ah is the oath that the Kohen is making her swear, in support of her claim that she is innocent.

(c)We learn from the same 'Amen me'Ish Zeh Amen me'Ish Acher' (see Tosfos DH 'Amen'). The other "Amen" comes to teach us Arusah and Shomeres Yavam (as we will now explain).

(d)There is no real difference between a Nesu'ah and a Kenusah only the former refers to the stage after Erusin, and the latter, to the stage after Yibum.

9)

(a)'Arusah' cannot refer to an independent case where the husband warned her ...

1. ... and made her drink when she was still an Arusah because we learned in a Mishnah in Yevamos that an Arusah and a Shomeres Yavam neither drink nor receive a Kesuvah.

2. ... warned her when she was an Arusah, and she secluded with the man whilst she was an Arusah, but he makes her drink after they are married because seeing as her husband was guilty of marrying her (and the Torah writes "v'Nikah ha'Ish me'Avon"), the water will not have any effect on her.

3. ... warned her when she was an Arusah and married her without consummating the marriage, at which point she secluded and he made her drink because we require the husband to have been intimate with her prior to the adulterer (as the Sugya in Yevamos explains).

(b)Ula proves Gilgul Shevu'ah, from all this, since that is now the only possible explanation of the Beraisa's statement 'Amen she'Lo Satisi Arusah u'Nesu'ah'.

(c)The Sugya in Yevamos does present one way of explaining 'Arusah' without Gilgul Shevu'ah, is where the husband warns her when she is an Arusah (at which point he has already been intimate with her), then marries her without consummating the marriage, after which she secludes with the man, and he them makes her drink (but Ula does not agree with it).

(d)Seeing as we cannot learn Mamon from Isur with a Binyan Av, we learn Gilgul Shevu'ah by Mamon (such as Mamon and Karka in our Mishnah) from a 'Kal va'Chomer'. If Gilgul Shevu'ah works by Isur (where one witness is ineffective), then by Mamon (where one witness obligates a Shevu'ah) Gilgul Shevu'ah should certainly work.