Question: The Gemara could have asked what pushes Shmuel to establish the Beraisa with regard to the wool and the dyes of the owner, and specifically as they fell in ...

Question (cont.): ... Why not by the dyes of the dyer, and even after they fell in?

Answer: ... only it has a better question to ask.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he agreed to pay him according to the number of 'treadings' - each treading for a Ma'ah, since he is a day-laborer and not a contractor that he should acquire the Sh'vach.

Question: What does Rashi mean, seeing as, when all's said and done, he is a contractor and not a day-laborer?

Explanation #2: In 'ha'Mekabel' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 112a, See Tosfos DH 'Uman') he explains it differently - 'de'Agreih le'Bitshi: 'When he comes from the weaver, one treads it with one's feet in a vessel of water; We are not speaking however, about a contractor but a day-laborer - irrespective of whether it improves or not, he hired him according to the number of 'treadings', corresponding to which he will pay him.

Explanation #3: Others explain that when he hires him to tread it, he transgresses already by the first treading, since at that point there is no Sh'vach yet.

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that it is speaking about a day-laborer?

Answer: Because the Tana states that 'he informed him when he finished', and by a day-laborer what informing is necessary?

Clarification: Regarding the earlier case, the Gemara could not have established it by a Shali'ach to deliver a letter ...

Reason: ... since the Tana specifically states 'Someone who gives his Talis'.

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas the current case of Rav Sheishes it could have established where he hired him to beat the skin.

Question: How can the Gemara establish it by a 'Shalicha de'Igr'sa', seeing as the Gemara in 'ha'Mekabel' (Ibid.) specifically explains that he is in doubt as to whether a contractor acquires the improvement of the K'li or not?

Question (cont.): ... since it says there 'They asked Rav Sheishes whether a contractor transgresses "Bal Talin" or not; Whether he acquires the improvement of the K'li, in which case he does not transgress, or whether he doesn't, in which case he does transgress?'?

Answer: They asked the She'eilah S'tam, and it is the Gemara that interpreted it the way it did, because it thought that that was their Safek.

Conclusion: That is also the way of the Gemara - at the beginning of the second Perek (Daf 19a) and in many other places. But here is not the place to elaborate (See Masores ha'Shas).

Explanation #1: The Ri explains that she is not Mekudeshes with his foregoing of his remuneration ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And even if 'Ein Uman Koneh bi'Shevach K'li', and it remains a loan which he is Mochel her, she is not Mekudeshes ...

Reason: ... since she does not have in mind to be betrothed until she actually receives the bracelets and the rings.

Explanation #2: Moreover, says the Ri - and this is the authentic explanation - even if both parties want the Kidushin to take place before she receives the objects, she is not Mekudeshes, even though she becomes obligated as each one is manufactured, since 'The S'chirus lasts from the beginning till the end' ...

Reason: ... seeing as he is unable to claim payment Halachically until she receives the objects, and he is not considered as having given her anything at the beginning, until such time as he is able to claim it Halachically.

Clarification: Because if it was only at the end, then seeing as his remuneration only falls due all at the same time when all the work is completed, and he is then Mochel her in the form of Kidushin, it is not considered a loan.

Refuted Proof: One cannot however extrapolate from here that the Halachah is 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof' ...

Refutation: ... since the Gemara could not have explained it differently.

Authentic Proof: One can however, bring a proof from the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 19b, See Tosfos there, DH 'Alma'), in connection with the case where 'He reached the archway in which one placed the idol, it is forbidden to build it' ...

Authentic Proof (cont.): ... where the Gemara states that if he built it, the remuneration is permitted - because 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof' ... 'When does it become Asur, with the last bang, but that last bang is not worth a P'rutah ...

Authentic Proof (concl.): ... and nobody argues with that there - implying that it is Halachah.

Implied Question: And although we Pasken that 'Einh li'Sechirus Ela be'Sof ...

Answer: Even the opinion that holds 'Yeshnah ... ' concedes that its payment falls due only at the end ...

Source: As the Gemara learns in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 65a & 65b) from the Pasuk "ki'Sechir Shanah be'Shanah" - 'The S'chirus of one year is only paid the following year'.

Explanation: And when the Gemara states that 'A laborer is permitted to retract even in the middle of the day', that goes even according to the opinion that holds ' ... Einah Ela li'b'Sof', because when he retracts and does not want to continue working, that is 'the end'.

Conclusion: The only ramifications in the Machlokes of whether 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus' or 'Einah li'Sechirus' are concerning the case in our Sugya - whether it is a loan or not, and concerning the case cited in Avodah-Zarah.

Question: In the second Perek of Kidushin (Daf 47a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the name of Rebbi Meir states that a loan is akin to a Pikadon, and if nothing remains of it, the woman is not betrothed ...

Reason: ... since it is not available'?

Refuted Answer: Nor is it a S'vara to say here that the rings that he returns to her are a loan that is available ...

Refutation #1: ... seeing as a contractor does not acquire the Sh'vach K'li ...

Refutation #2: Moreover, if that was the case, why is she not betrothed according to Rebbi Meir in the earlier Lashon?

Clarification: But free of charge, he would be Patur ...

Implied Question: In spite of the principle 'Adam Mu'ad le'Olam' (Above, Daf 26a) ...

Answer: ... because by an Oneis such as this, Adam ha'Mazik is not Chayav, as Tosfos explained at the beginning of 'ha'Meni'ach (Daf 27:, DH 'u'Shemuel').

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that Rav called it a Safek Isur is because, in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 18a) he Paskened like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah with regard to the large Taba'as (cartilege) ...

Reason: And he was stringent with the man, who was an Am ha'Aretz, in order to prevent him from being lenient by the other Taba'os ...

Precedent: ... like we find in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 15a) in connection with someone who cooks on Shabbos - 'When Rav Paskened for his Talmidim, he Paskened (leniently) like Rebbi Meir, but when he Darshened publicly, he Darshened (stringently) like Rebbi Yehudah, on account of the Amei ha'Aretz'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And he called it 'Safek Gezeilah' and not 'Gezeilah', because the man who Shechted for the Am ha'Aretz should taken into account that they would be strict with him.

Explanation #2: And the R"i explains that this case involved the other Taba'os.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and Rav stated in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 18b) that the Halachah is not like him by the other Taba'os because he was not sure whether the Halachah was like him or not.

Implied Question: It is not possible to answer here 'Ka'an bi'Sechar Ka'an be'Chinam', as the Gemara answered (earlier) in connection with Shechitah ...

Answer: ... because to be acquainted with coins requires much expertise, and someone who is not an expert like Danko and Isur should not examine them.