Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'You are a good-for-nothing and not a Torah expert' ...

Explanation #2: But Rabeinu Chananel explains 'You say 'Hamnuna' - Cham Nuna, which is a hot fish; But in reality, you are a 'Kar Nuna' - a fish that is cold.

Question: What is the Gemara's Kashya earlier from 'Where the Kohen sprinkled on his tongue'? Perhaps Haza'ah is different, inasmuch as it is compared to Tum'ah, but as far as the main limbs is concerned, they are compared to Tevilah?

Answer: One cannot possibly compare them to Tevilah, bearing in mind that tooth and eye which are revealed regarding Eved, as he goes free on account of them, are considered hidden regarding Tevilah ...

Source: As the Gemara will conclude shortly - inasmuch as they do not require the water to reach them..

Source: The basic statement of Rebbi Zeira is in Perek ha'Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim (Menachos, Daf 103a) - where the Mishnah states that 'If someone declares that he is going to bring a Minchah of sixty-one Isaron, he brings sixty in one vessel and the one by itself'.

Source (cont.): The Gemara there explains that this is because sixty Isaron can be properly mixed, whereas sixty-one cannot.

Source (cont.): And in answer to the Kashya 'So what if they can't? Did we not learn in the Mishnah that the Minchah is Kasher even if the Kohen did not mix it at all?, Rebbi Zeira answers 'As long as it is fit to be mixed, mixing is not crucial, and even if he did not mix it, it is Kasher ...

Source (concl.): 'But if it is not fit to be mixed, then the mixing is crucial' - since it must be fit to be mixed.,

Question: What does the Gemara mean when it asks 'If he did not mix it, it is Kasher?'? Granted, mixing is not crucial, but that is only Bedi'eved; Lechatchilah, it is a Mitzvah to mix it.

Answer #1: ... since the person has in mind a large Minchah , if generally, it would be Kasher Bedi'eved, the one who donates a large Korban ought to be permitted to do so even Lechatchilah.

Introduction to Answer #2: Alternatively, we can answer according to the opinion there that even a large Minchah requires only one Log of oil, in which case if he promised to bring sixty-one Esronim (of flour), which he now has to bring in two vessels - since it will otherwise not mix properly ...

Introduction to Answer #2: He will have to bring two Lugim of oil - whereas he undertook to bring only one ...

Introduction to Answer #2: ... rendering the oil excessive, and the Gemara in Menachos (Daf 11a) rules that excessive oil is Pasul ...

Answer #2: ... whereas if it would be permitted Bedi'eved in one vessel, it would have been preferable to bring it like that even Lechatchilah, in order to avoid transgressing the prohibition of excessive oil.

Question: The question arises however, on what basis do we need it to be 'fit' - If the Torah repeated 'Belilah' to render it crucial, then it should require mixing at all costs; and if it didn't, then it shouldn't need to be fit either?

Answer: Granted, the Pasuk repeats 'Belilah' a number of times, but it does not write it in the command form "And you shall mix", implying that it must only be fit to mix.

Question: From where do we know that Tevilah only needs to be fit?

Answer: Because on the one hand, the Torah writes (in Vayikra, 15) "And he shall wash all" his flesh - implying even the hidden places on one's body, whilst on the other, we Darshen (in Nidah, 43a) 'Just as his hands* are outside - visible, so too, must he Tovel whatever is outside, to preclude the hidden places ...

Answer (cont.): Nevertheless, since the Torah writes "Kol" to include even the hidden places, it must come to include at least that the water must be able to reach them.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the owner hands it over to the purchaser by the reigns ...

Source: As the Beraisa stated earlier 'How is Mesirah performed? He takes hold of it by its hooves (Ochzah be'Talfehah)'. His words imply that Mesirah must be from hand to hand.

Support #1: And that is also how the Rivam learns - and he proves this from the Gemara in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 8b), which, in answer to the question 'What is the Lashon 'Mosirah'? replies 'Like a person hands over something to his friend'.

Support #2: And similarly we find (Ibid.), in connection with a found article and the property of a Ger, the question 'Who handed it to him that he acquires it?', implies that Mesirah is from hand to hand.

Question: The Ri queries that however, from the Gemara earlier 'How is Mesirah performed? He takes hold of it by its hooves ... ', where the Lashon 'He takes hold of it by its hooves' implies that he takes hold of it of his own accord, and not that someone hands it to him?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that it need not be given hand to hand, but that when the owner says to him 'Go take possession of it and acquire it!', he acquires it (when he takes hold of it).

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says there with regard to a found object and the property of a Ger 'Who handed it to him, that he should acquire it?' ...

Answer: ... it means 'Who said to him 'Go take possession of it and acquire it'?

Support: Also the Rashbam explains 'Ochzah be'Talfehah' as - 'He took hold of it on the seller's instructions', implying that one does not require from hand to hand.

Introduction to Proof: And he cites a further proof from Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah (Bav Basra, Daf 76b), where one Tana holds that a ship is acquired by Mesirah, and the other Tana says until he pulls it ...

Introduction to Proof (cont.): ... and the Gemara concludes that "If the seller says 'Go, take possession of it and acquire it!', they both agree that he acquires it; and they argue where he says "Go and pull it!" - One holds that he is particular, whilst the other one holds that he is merely indicating ...

Proof #1: ... and since the Gemara says that he is particular, it cannot be speaking where he gave it him from hand to hand, because if it did, his 'Hakpadah' (fussiness) was obviously overcome?

Conclusion: A clear proof that Mesirah is not from hand to hand!

Proof #2: Moreover, if Mesirah was from hand to hand, he ought not to have said 'Go, take possession and acquire it!', but 'Come, take possession and acquire it!'

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rashi explains 'Specifically with Mesirah, but not with Meshichah ...

Reason: Since it is not the way to lead it in front of oneself.

Explanation #1 (cont.): This implies that Mesirah is better than Meshichah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And when the Gemara citing Rav, rules that 'One acquires a large animal with Meshichah, and how much more so with Mesirah', and Shmuel asked Rav's Talmidim from the Mishnah which says 'Mesirah', this meant Davka Mesirah but not Meshichah.

Question #1: The Ri asks how Shmuel explains the Gemara's Kashya 'But did we not learn 'Mesirah' to mean Mesirah and not Meshichah?

Question #1 (cont.): ... but we learned in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 2a) - that, if two people are riding an animal or if one is riding and one is leading it (Manhig) ... , they divide it, since each one acquires a half - and 'Manhig' is synonymous with Meshichah?

Introduction to Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara there (on Daf 8b) says 'We can learn from this that Shmuel holds two things - riding and leading - one of them acquires, the other one, doesn't, and we don't know which is which ...

Introduction to Question #2 (cont.): How is this speaking? If he means riding on its own and leading on its own - Is there anyone who holds that Manhig does not acquire?' ...

Question #2: This implies that Shmuel himself, who says here that Mesirah is Davka, says there that Manhig - Meshichah, acquires?

Question #3: Moreover, when the Gemara asks how, according to Rebbi Shimon, one acquires an elephant, why does it not ask how one acquires a large animal that one finds, or if it is the property of a Ger ...

Question #3 (cont.): According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar, since Mesirah is not applicable - as who will hand it over to him that he should acquire it? (Bava Metzi'a, 5b) and Meshichah does not acquire according to them?

Answer to Question #3: One can answer this Kashya however, by drawing a distinction between buying and selling on the one hand, and finding and the property of a Ger on the other ...

Answer to Question #3 (cont.): Since by the former, which it is possible to achieve with Mesirah, one cannot acquire with Meshichah, whereas the latter, where Mesirah is not possible, one can.

Question: The question remains however, on Rebbi Elazar, who holds here that Mesirah is Davka as stated in the Mishnah - 'The words of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar' ...

Question (cont.): Whereas there (in Bava Metzi'a), R. Elazar says that riding in a field and leading in town acquires - and the Gemara there establishes it by buying and selling, so we see that Meshichah acquires even according to Rebbi Elazar.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains that when the Mishnah says 'A large animal is acquired with Mesirah', it means even with Mesirah, and certainly with Meshichah, which is better than Mesirah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It now fits nicely when Shmuel asks 'But we learned in the Mishnah 'with Mesirah'? - because it means 'even with Mesirah'.

Proof #1: A further proof that Meshichah is better than Mesirah is from the Berasisa, in Bava Basra (Daf 76a) where Rebbi states that a ship can be acquired with Mesirah, and the Chachamim say 'He does not acquire it until he pulls it' ...

Proof #1 (cont.): So we see that when Rebbi says 'with Mesirah', he does not mean to preclude Meshichah; but the opinion that holds 'with Meshichah' comes to preclude Mesirah.

Proof #2: ... and the Lashon there 'Why does one not also acquire a ship with Mesirah?' implies as well as with Meshichah.

Support: The Rashbam too, holds that Meshichah is more Chashuv than Mesirah ...

Introduction to Support: Where, in connection with Abaye and Rava, in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah (Bava Basra, Daf 76b), who say that 'Mesirah acquires in the R'shus ha'Rabim and in a Chatzer that does not belong to both of them; and Meshichah in a Simta (an alleyway) and in a Chatzer that belongs to both of them" ' ...

Support (cont.): ... and the Rashbam explains there 'Mesirah acquires in the R'shus ha'Rabim' - because one cannot acquire there with Meshichah, since Meshichah requires one to pull it into one's domain, and the current domain is not his ...

Support (cont.): 'Meshichah does however, acquire in a Simta' - which is his domain to place his things there as the need arises, which one cannot do in the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

Support (concl.): And since it is possible to make Meshichah, which is an important Kinyan, it is not the done thing to acquire there with Mesirah, which is a minor Kinyan.

Question: Rabeinu Tam however, queries the Rashbam, and asks - 'Are Meshichah and Mesirah Mitzvos, that they cancel one another out, that one may only perform the more important one'?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains there that 'Meshichah acquires in a Simta' - and all the more so Mesirah, which is better than Meshichah, and so does Rashi.

Refutation: But the current Sugya poses a Kashya on his explanation, as Tosfos explained earlier.

Explanation #3: Rebbi Chayim Kohen resolves the Rashbam's explanation; he explains that Mesirah does not acquire in a Simta, only not for the reason given by the Rashbam, but because a Simta is a domain that is designated for the individual, and whoever comes first has first right ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): Normally, he explains, the seller arrives there with his animal before the purchaser, in which case, the location of the animal is like his Chatzer, and neither Mesirah nor any other Kinyan takes effect in the seller's domain ...

Implied Question: And the reason that Meshichah does, is ...

Answer: ... because he moved it from its initial location.

Introduction to Question: The Ri queries what Rabeinu Tam says that 'Mesirah acquires even in a Simta' - from the Gemara in 'ha'Sefinah' (Ibid., Daf 76b) ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Which, quoting Rebbi, says that 'A ship is acquired with Mesirah', whereas according to the Chachamim, it is acquired with Meshichah. Then, after suggesting that it is speaking in the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): The Gemara asks whether Abaye and Rava, who say that Mesirah acquires in the R'shus ha'Rabim, hold like Rebbi - implying that, if it was speaking in a Simta, there would be no Kashya ...

Question: Now if Mesirah acquired in a Simta, then even if the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim was speaking in a Simta, it should have asked the same Kashya - 'Do Abaye and Rava hold like Rebbi?'

Conclusion: Therefore the Ri explains that when Abaye and Rava say that Mesirah acquires in the R'shus ha'Rabim, they mean Davka in the R'shus ha'Rabim, and not in a Simta, as the Rashbam explained (See Tosfos, Bava Basra, 76a, DH 'Sefinah').

Question: Perhaps it is not speaking in the domain of the seller?

Answer: Generally it speaks in the seller's domain, as that is where the animal is standing.

Alternative Answer to Gemara's Question: The Gemara could have countered that it speaks where the seller said to the purchaser 'Your vessels should acquire on your behalf', in which case everybody will agree that the purchaser will acquire it, as the Gemara explains in Perek ha'Sefinah (Bava Basra, Daf 86a).