Question (R. Yaakov bar Idi citing R. Shimon ben Lakish): Doesn't the Mishnah (Maseches Bava Metzia) teach that when a person falls on an ownerless object (he does not acquire it even though it is in his surrounding four Amos) so that if someone else would come a take it, they would acquire it? (This questions the law of Reish Lakish above, in daf 36 (e)).

Answer: When the person did not say that his four Amos should acquire for him.

Question (Mishnah): 'If he fell on it or he spread his garment on it, they may remove him from it'?

Answer: Here also, he did not say that his four Amos should acquire for him.

Question (R. Chiya's Baraisa): If two poor men were arguing over a sheaf and another poor man came and snatched it from in front of them, he acquires it.

Answer: Here also, he did not say that his four Amos should acquire for him.

(R. Yochanan): This ability to acquire with one's four Amos applies to a woman acquiring a Get but not to acquiring a gift.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish each discussed a case that brings out his Chidush - R. Yochanan said that four Amos do not acquire a gift and Reish Lakish said that four Amos acquire an ownerless item...

The Chidush of Reish Lakish is brought out in the case of an ownerless item - if an ownerless item does not have anyone giving it to the receiver and the receiver's four Amos acquire for him; for a gift, that has the donor giving it, his four Amos should certainly acquire it.

The Chidush of R. Yochanan is brought out in the case of a gift - if a gift that is acquired from another, does not acquire within a person's four Amos, an ownerless item that is given by another should certainly not acquire within four Amos.

Question (R. Zeira to R. Yosa): (Questioning R. Yochanan's statement (above (g), that the four Amos law only applies to a Get) - the Mishnah (in Maseches Gitin) teaches that it applies to Kidushin?

Answer: Gitin and Kidushin are the same (as the Torah compares them).

Question: The Mishnah also applies the four Amos law to a debt?

Answer: The reason that it is effective there is not because of the law of four Amos, but rather, it is because the lender could even tell the borrower to throw the money into the sea and he will forgive the loan.

Question: If so, even if the borrower throws it and it lands close to the borrower, it should be a valid repayment; but the Mishnah teaches that in such a case, the borrower would still owe the money?!

Answer: He still owes there because when the lender told him "Throw it to me!'', he meant into his domain.

(R. Abahu): All of these questions that R. Zeira asked R. Yosa were asked by Reish Lakish to R. Yochanan and R. Yochanan accepted the questions and answered in the same way that R. Yosa answered.