Explanation #1: According to Rashi, one lifts up an elephant using bundles of branches that are three Tefachim high and makes the elephant climb up on to them ...

Reason: Since lifting something three Tefacim comprises 'Hagbahah' - because it tales it out of the realm of 'L'vud'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): According to him, the Gemara could not have said that one acquires via Hagbahah by placing vessels underneath its feet, because S'tam vessels are not three Tefachim tall.

Explanation #2: Whereas according to Rabeinu Tam, in whose opinion Hagbahah of one Tefach acquires (See Masores ha'Shas), we are forced to say that S'tam vessels are not one Tefach thick.

Question: But why does the Gemara mention 'bundles of branches' and not stones or wood?

Answer: R. Meshulam therefore explains that it mentions 'bundles of branches' because they are elephant-fodder ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek Mefanin (Shabbos, Daf 128a), which permits moving them on Shabbos because they are elephant-fodder ...

Explanation #3: One raises bundles of branches high up, and the elephant jumps up from the ground and eats them.

Implied Question: Nor is there a problem with considering this to be Hagbahah ...

Answer: Because we find the same concept in Perek Shilu'ach ha'Kein (Chulin, Daf 142a) - 'in order that they (the birds) are raised and he acquires them'.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not cite the Pasuk regarding Efron (Bereishis, 23 [See Hagahos ha'Bach]) ...

Answer: Because that Pasuk may well be confined to a Nochri, who only acquires with Kesef (above, 14b).

Reference: Tosfos already explained this earlier (on Daf 9a, DH 'Af-al-Pi' & DH 'Kasav').

Question: Why does he write him a Lashon of Matanah? A Lashon of Mecher he writes on account of the Achrayus that he undertakes, but what does he (the recipient) gain by the Lashon of Matanah ...

Question (cont.): If it is because by Matanah the Din of bar Metzra does not apply? But the Gemara says in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a (Daf 108b) that 'A Matanah that contains Achrayus is subject to the Din of Bar Metzra'?

Answer #1: He actually writes him two Sh'taros - In the event that he needs Achrayus, he produces the Sh'tar of sale, whereas if he needs the Din of Bar Metzra, he produces the Sh'tar of Matanah and hides the one of Mecher.

Answer #2: Tosfos Yeshanim - Furthermore, it can even speak by one Sh'tar, and the reason that he writes a Lashon Matanah is because that is what it is ... '.

Answer #3: And the Yerushalmi in this Perek (Halachah 5) explains that the advantage of inserting 'Matanah' concerns pits and exclosures ...

Answer #3 (cont.): Since someone who sells a field S'tam does not sold its pits and enclosures, whereas a person who gives a gift, gives generously, and includes everything.

Question: The Yerushalmi in Maseches Pe'ah asks on this Mishnah - Before he cuts it, it is not Chayav Pe'ah, and once he has cut it, there is nothing left?

Answer: And it answers 'It speaks where there is one stem containing five kernels'.

Inference #1: Since the Yerushalmi pushes to answer like that, it implies that literally a 'Kol Shehu' is Chayav Pe'ah.

Inference #2: And this is also implied shortly, when the Gemara pushes to establish the case by a needle on which one hung pearls ...

Inference #2 (cont.): And which the Gemara in 'Lo Yachpor' (Bava Basrs, Daf 27b) establishes by wheat, because if it was a tree, it would not be Chayav Bikurim unless there were sixteen Amos in all directions - the Shi'ur that is required to nurture.

Question: Wheat too, requires a Shi'ur of three Tefachim to nurture, as is evident in the Sugya of 'Arugah', in Perek Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos, Daf 85a)?

Answer: Although the Shi'ur of nurturing is three Tefachim, the basic Shi'ur is in the immediate vicinity of the plant.

Precedent: In fact, we find the same concept by a tree itself, wheava Basra, Ibid.), it only requires sixteen Amos, the basic Shi'ur that it needs to nurture.

Clarifying Text: Rashi omits the word 'u'be'Viduy', because, even someone who does own land recites Viduy over Ma'aser ...

Reason #1: And he is able to say 'And bless Your people Yisrael and the land that You gave to us ...

Reason (cont.): Unlike Bikurim, where one needs to say 'that You gave to me".

Support: The Ri too, learns that one does not read 'u'be'Viduy' ...

Reason #2: Only not for the reason that Rashi gives, but because the Yerushalmi (Pe'ah, Perek 3) asks on this very point 'Why does the Tana omit 'u'be'Viduy?' - a proof that it is not in the text.

Halachah: It also implies that somebody who does not own land - such as someone who comes with fruit that he has bought - does not recite Viduy (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Source: Because the Gemara says in Maseches Gitin (Daf 37a) 'One can only write a P'ruzbul on Karka, but not on Metalt'lin, since they can be destroyed.

Source (cont.): But if the borrower has a Kol Shehu of land, one can write a P'ruzbul, even if the debt is a large one - and Sh'mitah will no longer cancel the debt; Whereas one does not write a P'ruzbul on someone who does not own any land ...

Reason #1: Because it is unusual to lend someone who does own land, and 'The Rabbanan did not institute Takanos in unusual situations'.

Reason #2: Rabeinu Tam, however, explains that one writes a P'ruzbul on Karka - because one can claim one's debt from it ...

Implied Question: Even on a minimal plot of land ...

Answer: One can claim one's entire debt ...

Source: Like the case of 'The small plot of land of Abaye' - in Perek Mi she'Hayah Nasuy (Kesuvos, Daf 91b), where he claimed it again and again.

Text #1: And this is how Rashi amends the text in his manuscript ...

Clarification: According to this text, it is coming to uphold the 'Hachi Nami Mistavra' - that it is speaking about money and that the Metalt'lin must be on the Karka ...

Clarification (cont.): Because if it was speaking about the barrels (themselves) why could he not give it to him with Chalipin via a third person? ...

Clarification (concl.): Without needing to worry that 'He may take it and eat it', since it would get to him, unlike the money, which will get to him when he makes a Meshichah on it, and he will then volunteer to look after it, and take it and eat it.

Text #2: In most Sefarim however, there is another text which reads - 'But what then, with money? Let him acquire it with Meshichah! ...

Text #2 (cont.): What will you say, that the recipient of the gift is not there to acquire it? Here too, the r3ecipient of the gift is not there to acquire it with Chalipin.

Text #2 (concl.): So let him be Makneh it via a third person? He does not trust him.'

Clarification: According to this text, the 'Hachi Nami Mistavra' does not remain.

Halachah: And from here R.Sh'maya learns that Kinyan Sudar is only effective in the presence of the recipient ...

Source: Since the reason that he was not Makneh it to him with Chalipin via a third person is because it would not have helped, seeing as the recipient of the gift was not there.

Question #1: The Rivan however, found this incredible - bearing in mind that we find on a daily basis that one acquires with a Kinyan Sudar even not in the presence of the recipient of the gift?

Question #2: Moreover, throughout Shas it implies that a Kinyan Sudar is effective via a third person, even not in the presence of the recipient ...

Question #2: Where the witnesses acquire from the owner on his behalf, as the Gemara says in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 47a) 'And I acquired from him (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) with a Keili with which one can acquire'?

Question #3: And in many places the Gemara states 'They acquired from him', and 'It speaks where he acquired from him', always implying that the witnesses were accustomed to acquire from the owner on behalf of the recipient ...

Question #3 (cont.): And if the Kinyan of the witnesses would only be effective in his presence, why did they always mention the witnesses acquiring rather than the recipient himself whose Kinyan is always effective, whilst the witnesses will only acquire in the presence of the recipient?

Question #4: Moreover, why did they generally use the Sudar belonging to the witnesses, seeing as it is only effective in front of the recipient, in which case, he could have performed the Kinyan himself, just as well as the witnesses?

Resolving Text #2: One can however, resolve this text according to Rashi's explanation on 'Here too, the recipient of the gift is not there' ...

Resolving Text #2 (cont.): 'He was not Makneh it to him with Chalipin via a third person, because there was nobody there who was interested in the benefit of the recipient to whom to give the Sudar to on his behalf. since if the owner would have wanted, he could have cut it off (See Masores ha'Shas).

Conclusion: But granted, had he found someone, it would have been effective.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Raban Gamliel did not separate T'rumah, and he forgot to authorize anyone to do so; so he hurried to take T'rumah whilst he was still on the ship, because he was afraid that perhaps people would eat from it, relying on him, on the assumption that that he took T'rumah ...

Reason: Based on the Chazakah that 'A Talmid-Chacham does not leave anything that has not been Ma'asered'.

Question: In that case, what would he have achieved by Ma'asering it now? If anything, he made it even worse, since his family may now eat the entire batch, even the Ma'aser itself?

Answer: One can however, answer that this was not a problem, since the pile contained a large amount of produce, and he knew that they would not manage to eat it all before his return, and from what was left, he would separate Ma'aser.

Question #1: But how could Raban Gamliel leave his house without Ma'asering and without informing them that it was not Ma'asered, bearing in mind the aforementioned Chazakah?

Question #2: Moreover, why did he see fit to give it to them and to rent them a place, when declaring it T'rumah would have sufficed?

Question #3: Furthermore, since he didn't say that it should become Ma'aser, he didn't do anything?

Question #4: And he should also have stated how much was Ma'aser? ...

Precedent: Like the case of 'Someone who purchases wine from among the Kutim' (D'mai, 7:4) where he said 'ten is Ma'aser Rishon, and nine, Ma'aser Sheini'.

Question #5: Another Kashya is from the Seifa, where Rebbi Yehoshua declared that 'the T'rumas Ma'aser that he was going to measure would go to Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya, who was a Kohen ...

Question #5 (cont.): Why was this necessary? He did not need to be afraid that the members of his household would eat from it, since the produce was in Raban Gamliel's house, and they were not aware that it had been given to him?

Question #6: Moreover, since he did not fix a place on the north or on the south (of the produce), What did he gain by designating it, when we learned in the Tosefta of Ma'aser Sheini (3:17) If someone declares 'The Ma'aser Sheini which is in this receptacle, is redeemed on this Isar', but he does not fix a location ...

Question #6 (cont.): The Chachamim say that his designation is not valid unless he fixes a location on the north or on the south" ' ...

Question #6 (cont.): And it cites the episode of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi who stayed with a certain Balabos and who said 'Let us see how this Balabos Ma'asers his fruit' ...

Question #6 (concl.): When he declared 'The fruit in this vessel will be redeemed on the money in the pouch', they said 'Go and eat your money! You have gained money but destroyed souls!'

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore learns that it was the year of Biy'ur (following the Sh'mitah-year), and Raban Gamliel needed to clear out his Ma'asros from his house and give them to their respective owners.

Proof: And this is also implied in the Tosefta of Masechtas Ma'aser Sheini (See Maharsha) - 'How is the Mitzvah of Bi'ur carried out? One gives the T'rumah and T'rumas Ma'aser to the Kohen and Ma'aser Rishon to the Levi, and Ma'aser Sheini and Bikurim must be destroyed wherever they are ...

Proof (cont.): Rebbi Shimon says 'One gives the Bikurim to a Kohen like T'rumah ... (cont. on the following page).