Clarification: Nevertheless, Rashi explains, it was necessary for him to acquire it, to prevent the Eved from acquiring himself from Hefker after his master's death ...

Clarification (cont.): Not like Aba Shaul, according to whom he could have acquired him even after his master's death.

Question #1: How do we know that it is not like Aba Shaul, asks Rabeinu Tam? Perhaps he (Mar Zutra) holds like Aba Shaul, and the reason that he made a Chazakah on the Eved in the master's lifetime was to prevent others from acquiring him first?

Question #2: Moreover, it ought rather to have said 'Like the Rabbanan'?

Question #3: And furthermore, in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 39a), Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi Paskens like Aba Shaul? ...

Question #3 (cont.): And even though Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with him, we hold that the Halachah is always like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi against Rebbi Yochanan ...

Source: As is evident at the beginning of the fourth Perek of Megilah (Daf 27a), where it implies that Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's opinion is the more prominent of the two, in the case where he permits a Shul to be made into a Beis ha'Medrash'.

Question #3 (concl.): That being the case, how could he act here not in accordance with the Halachah?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore changes the text to 'Like Aba Shaul' - meaning that according to Aba Shaul, who says that 'Whoever acquires them', it was necessary to do what he did, to prevent others from taking him first.

Explanation #3: Alternatively, Rabeinu Tam explains - 'Some say that he was a Katan, because had he been a Gadol, 'The one separated for death, and the other for life', would not have applied ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): Because even though he was under the jurisdiction of others, he would still have acquired himself first, seeing as he had a Yad, whereas regarding a Katan, who does not, it would be a matter of 'first come, first served', like Aba Shaul.

Explanation #3 (cont.): And he did not ask him to take off his shoes until after Yehudah Hindu'ah's had died - like Aba Shaul, who says that a Katan does not have a Yad to acquire by himself, which is why Mar Zutra acquired him even after his death.

Explanation #3 (concl.): Whereas according to the Rabbanan, he would have acquired himself, irrespective of whether he was a Gadol or a Katan, even if he was under the jurisdiction of others.

Explanation #4: The Ri however, explains that when the Gemara says that it goes 'like Aaba Shaul' it refers also to the first opinion, because even according to the first Lashon - that 'He was a Gadol', the Chazakah would only have helped according to Aba Shaul ...

Rabbanan: Since, according to the Rabbanan, who maintain that both Gedolim and Ketanim acquire themselves and go free, Mar Zutra would not have been able to acquire him ...

Reason: As the Rabbanan's reason is given in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 39b) - in that they learn "Lah" "Lah" from Ishah - that, just as the death of her husband releases her without a Get, so too, does an Eved go free without a Get.

Reason (cont.): It transpires that the death of the master is like a Get; and if he were to give the Eved a Get, would somebody else be able to acquire him?

Aba Shaul: But according to Aba Shaul, it works out fine - since he learns that 'Just as by a woman, the aspect of Isur goes away when her husband dies, but not Mamon, and the same applies to an Eved' ...

Aba Shaul (cont.): And since the Eved rendered himself subservient to Mar Zutra, and did not want to acquire hmself, he was like a Katan according to Aba Shaul.

Question: Initially, the Gemara also knew that this is the Chidush of the Mishnah, as it stated 'With money via others yes, via oneself, no!'

Answer: At first, the Gemara thought that the Chidush of the Mishnah was both from the statement - 'via others', and from the inference - 'but via oneself, not'.

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara cncludes that it is only needed for the inference. Tosfos Yeshanim]

Clarification, Rebbi Meir: Rashi explains that, according to Rebbi Meir, he can acquire redeemed with Kesef via others even without his knowledge, but not via himself, since 'An Eved cannot acquire without his master' ...

Clarification, Rebbi Meir (cont.): Whereas with a Sh'tar it is specifically via himself that he can be redeemed and not via others, since it is a disadvantage for him.

Implied Question: But he acquires himself with money, even though it is a disadvantage for him ...

Answer: Because it his master's receiving it that brings about his freedom.

Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar: Whereas according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, he can be redeemed via others both by Kesef and by Sh'tar - since he holds that 'It is a merit for him'; but not via himself ...

Reason: Because regarding Kesef, he holds 'Ein Kinyan le'Eved ... '; and by Sh'tar - because he does not hold that 'His Get and his Yad come simultaneously' , and all the more so by Kesef.

Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (conl.): So we see that in neither case can he redeem himself.

Rabbanan in the Mishnah: Whereas the Rabbanan in the Mishnah hold that with Kesef he can be redeemed both via himself and via others; via himself - because 'Yesh Kinyan le'Eved ... '; and via others - because 'It is a merit for him'.

Rabbanan in the Mishnah (cont.: And with a Sh'tar too, he can be redeemed both via himself and via others.

Halachah: And when we Pasken 'Gito ve'Yado Ba'in ke'Echad', it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbanan.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana does not combine them is ...

Answer: ... because the Seifa goes according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Rabbanan (concl.): And in the Reisha, what the Rabbanan are saying to Rebbi Meir is that he can be redeemed via himself even with money - since 'Yesh Kinyan le'Eved ... ', and even more so via others - since 'It is a merit for him', and even more so with a Sh'tar.

Refuted Explanation: Now if we try to explain the 'three opinions' (in the Mishnah), in that, according to the Rabbanan, with Kesef he can be redeemed both via others and via himself, but by Sh'tar, only via others and not via himself ...

Refutated Explanation (cont.): ... and that Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Meir, that by Kesef via himself not - because 'Ein Kinyan ... ', but like the Rabbanan by Sh'tar - because 'Ein Gito ve'Yado Ba'in ke'Echad' ...

Refutation: It would then transpire that the ruling 'Gito ve'Yado Ba'in ke'Echad' is an individual opinion, and that we hold like Rebbi Meir.

Refutation (cont.): Therefore the only way to explain it is as I (Rashi) explained earlier - that the Reisha is said by the Rabbanan'. Until here are the words of Rashi.

Question: How does the Gemara know that there are three opinions? Perhaps all the words of the Rabbanan in the Mishnah are the opinion of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar ...

Question: Who, when he says in connection with Kesef 'via himself', he means also via himself; but by Sh'tar, 'via others', via others exclusively ...

Question (cont.): ... and when we Pasken 'Gito ve'Yado Ba'in ke'Echad', it is because we hold like Rebbi Meir against Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar?

Answer #1: If, in the Beraisa of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar we read 'Also by a Sh'tar via others, and not via himself', there must be three Machlokos ...

Reason: Since it cannot be the Rabbanan in the Mishnah, who specifically say 'with money via himself'.

Answer #2: Whereas according to the Sefarim that do not read 'Also', we are forced to say that since we find that the Rabannan argue with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar ...

Source: When they say at the end of the first Perek of Gitin (Daf 12b) - 'If he wants, he can throw the Get to him and render him Pasul (from T'rumah)', from which we see that they hold 'Gito ve'Yado Ba'in ke'Echad'.

Answer #2 (cont.): And since that is so, one cannot refer to the Chachamim in the Mishnah as an individual opinion, since the Rabbanan argue with him (Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar) ...

Answer #2 (concl.): Hence the Gemara is forced to say that 'There are three opinions in the matter'.

Explanation #1: Some commentaries explain the She'eilah as follows - There where the Eved asked somebody else to accept the Get from the hand of his master, whether his acceptance is valid or not.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Because if he had not asked him to accept his Get, and he came of his own accord and accepted, it is obvious that it would be valid, as we learned in the Mishnah (above, Daf 22b) 'And with a Sh'tar via others'.

Explanation #1 (concl.): But his request, that he asked him to 'Go and accept my Get', is perhaps worse -since he now comes in the form of a Shali'ach, or not?

Explanation #2: Others however, explain the She'eilah like this - 'Can he appoint a Shali'ach?' When Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says 'bi'Sh'tar al-Yedei Acherim', is that based on the laws of Shelichus, that the Eved has to appoint a Shali'ach to accept his Get ...

Reason: Since he learns "Lah" "Lah" from Ishah ...

Clarification #: In which case, according to the opinion that it is a merit for him, he will be able to accept the Get even without his knowledge, provided he does not object...

Clarification #2: Whereas according to the opinion that considers it a disadvantage, he will need to obtain his (the Eved's) permission, but if he (the Eved) stands and shouts that he does not want it), his acceptance is ineffective ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Or perhaps means that it is not based on the laws of Shelichus ...

Reason: ... since it is not comparable to Ishah, who, because she can accept her Get herself, she can also appoint a Shali'ach ...

Reason (cont.): Whereas an Eved, who, according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, cannot accept his own Get, cannot appoint a Shali'ach either.

Explanation #2 (concl.): Consequently, when he says 'bi'Sh'tar al-Yedei Acherim', that will be even if he stands and shouts, seeing as it is not based on the laws of Shelichus.

Clarification: Rashi explains that it is speaking with regard to bringing Korbanos - and the ramifications are whether a Kohen can bring the Korbanos of someone who is Mudar Hana'ah from him.

Introduction to Question: It implies here that the ruling is obvious, whereas in Maseches Nedarim (Perek Ein bein ha'Mudar, Daf 35b) the Gemara asks 'Whether the Kohanim are the Sheluchim of the Torah or our Sheluchim', and it leaves the She'eilah unresolved.

Question: Why does it not cite the statement of Rav Huna b'reih de'Rav Yehoshua to resolve it?

Answer #1: It is the way of the Gemara in many places only to resolve She'eilos from a Mishnah or a Beraisa, in spite of the fact that it can resolve it from an Amora (See Masores ha'Shas).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the She'eilah there is whether the Kohanim are exclusively the Sheluchim of the Torah and not our Sheluchim at all, or whether they are not our Sheluchim as well (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim 5 & 6) ...

Ramifications: Where a Kohen is bringing a Korban without the owner's knowledge ...

Side #1: If they are the Sheluchim of the Torah exclusively, the Korban is Kasher...

Side #2: Whereas if they are our Sheluchim too, it is not, since he brought it without the owner's knowledge.

Halachah: Rabeinu Tam rules like Rebbi Meir, who says that 'An Eved cannot acquire without his master and a woman cannot acquire without her husband' ...

Halachah (cont.): ... accordng to Rav Sheishes, who establishes the Machlokes where someone else gives it to him 'on condition that your master does not acquire it' ...

Inference: ... implying that if he were to say 'on condition that you go out with it to freedom', Rebbi Meir will concede that the condition is effective.

Support: And this is also implied in the Mishnah in last Perek of Nedarim (Daf 88a) 'Someone who is Madir his son-in-law and subsequently wants to give money to his daughter, should say to his daughter 'I am giving you this money as a gift, provided your husband has no jurisdiction over it, only what you take and place in your mouth' ...

Support (cont.): And Rav comments on that that 'this applies only where he said 'What you place in your mouth'; but if he said to her 'Do whatever you want with it', her husband will acquire it.

Support (cont.): Whereas Shmuel maintains that even if he said to her 'Do whatever you want with it', her husband will not acquire it ...

Support (concl.): The Gemara concludes that Rav's statement goes like Rebbi Meir - and the Gemara in Bechoros (Daf 49b) rules like Rav in matters of Isur.