Opinion #1 (R. Shimshon of Folira): The Halachah follows Rav Sheshes, for Bahag rules like Rav Nachman in monetary matters, and like Rav Sheshes in Isurim.

Opinion #2 (R. Tam): The Halachah follows Rav Nachman.

Source #1 (Gitin 64a): If the husband says that he gave [the Get] for divorce, and the third party says that it was for divorce, and she says "the third party] gave it to me and it was lost", Ein Davar sheb'Ervah Pachos mi'Shenayim (divorce and Kidushin require two witnesses. Therefore, she may not remarry.

The Gemara asks from [R. Yitzchak's teaching, that] if Levi told Shimon 'be Mekadesh a woman to me', and did not specify which woman [and Shimon went away and died], Levi is forbidden to all women. (Anyone he wants to marry, we must be concerned lest Shimon was Mekadesh to Levi her sister, or another close relative.) This shows that there is a Chazakah that a Shali'ach fulfills his mission! The Gemara answers that [we rely on the Chazakah] to be stringent, but not to be lenient.

Source #2: Also in Chulin (12a) we conclude that really, there is no Chazakah that a Shali'ach fulfills his mission, and one who tells a Shali'ach "go slaughter for me. Go tithe for me", and [the Meshale'ach] went and found it tithed, there is no Chazakah that it is tithed. Perhaps someone else heard [the command] and tithed.

Implied question: Rav Nachman said so! (We know that he holds that there is no Chazakah. This is no proof that the Halachah follows him!)

Answer: In any case, the Gemara concludes like this, and the one who asked [from Rav Nachman] accepted this answer from him.

Source #3: Rav Shemayah below holds like Rav Nachman, for according to Rav Sheshes, there is no need for the [special] Chazakah of [Beis Din of] Kohanim.

Rebuttal (Ri): None of these is a proof. Also Rav Sheshes holds that there is a Chazakah that a Shali'ach fulfills his mission only when if he will not fulfill his mission, the Meshale'ach will come to transgress if he relies on [the Shali'ach];

Therefore, regarding a Get, the Shali'ach is not concerned to give the Get. Also in the case in Chulin, he is not concerned to slaughter and tithe, for if he will not tithe, the Meshale'ach will see that it is not tithed. It does not cross [the Shali'ach's] mind lest someone else hear and tithe;

Also regarding Rav Shemayah's teaching, we can say that he did not say [that there is a Chazakah of Beis Din of Kohanim] to explain why we rely on the Kohanim, rather, in order to resolve Rav;

[Rav] taught (Pesachim 90b) that we do not do Shechitah [of Korban Pesach] and Zerikah (throw the blood) for one who became Tamei through a Sheretz, even though there is a Mikveh in front of us, lest he be negligent and not immerse (today, and then he may not eat at night);

However, we do Shechitah and Zerikah for a Mechusar Kipurim (a Zav, Zavah, Yoledes or Metzora who completed all steps of the Taharah process except for bringing Korbanos), even though also he is lacking an action (before he is permitted0. There is no concern for negligence, like Rav Shemayah taught.

Also there, Rav Shemayah's teaching is brought.

Implied question: They are obligated to offer due to the Mitzvah of the Omer! (We cannot learn from here to a Shali'ach who is not commanded.)

Answer: Even so, he brings a proof from the Heter of people far away [to eat Chadash] after midday. Even though there is time [for Kohanim to fulfill the Mitzvah] the entire day, they rush because they know that people far away rely on them;

Similarly, regarding Kinim (Chatas ha'Of and Olas ha'Of) of a Zavah or Yoledes, even though [Kohanim] are obligated to offer them, they would not be obligated to offer the same day (that she put the money in the box), if not they know that women rely on them, and there is a Chazakah that a Shali'ach fulfills his mission.

Reference: In Sukah (39a), regarding one who buys a Lulav from Chavero in Shevi'is, Rashi changed the text to say "from an Am ha'Aretz", for one would not call [an Am ha'Aretz] the Chaver (colleague) of a Chaver (one who properly observes Shemitah).

Remark: There is no need to change the text. Here, we establish it to discuss an Am ha'Aretz who said to a Chaver, even though it says "to Chavero"!

Support: In Shabbos (150a), it says that one may say to his friend "go hire workers for me", and we establish it to discuss [telling] his Nochri friend.

Implied question: Ma'aser of Peros (other than grain, wine and oil) is mid'Rabanan, and Rav Nachman agrees that for mid'Rabanan laws, there is a Chazakah that a Shali'ach fulfills his mission!

Answer: Since the source of Ma'aser is mid'Oraisa, it is considered like mid'Oraisa.

Implied question: In Shabbos (4a), we conclude regarding one who stuck bread (i.e. dough) to [the wall of] an oven [on Shabbos], that we do not tell someone else to transgress (mid'Rabanan, one may not remove bread from the wall on Shabbos) to help another (if he leaves the dough to bake, the one who placed it did a Melachah)!

Answer: Here is different, for [if he will not tithe] he causes him to transgress, for he told him "gather', and [the gatherer] thinks that [the owner] tithed them.

Question #1 - Citation (Pesachim 59a): Nothing is offered after the afternoon Tamid, except for Ketores, Hadlakas ha'Neros, Pesach, and [birds of] a Mechusar Kipurim on Erev Pesach;

[After his Korban is offered] he immerses and eats his Pesach at night. The Kohanim transgress the Aseh of Hashlamah (offering after the afternoon Tamid), which has no Kares, so this [Mechusar Kipurim] will fulfill an Aseh (Pesach) that has Kares (for one who neglects it).

Question #2: Below (103b), it says that if a wart came on a Kohen [on Shabbos], his friend cuts it off with his teeth, to enable him to do his Avodah, even though if not for [the sake of] his Avodah, this would be forbidden;

There, we do not permit removing bread from the wall, which is an Isur mid'Rabanan!

Answer (Ri): We can distinguish there, where he stuck (on the oven), since he was negligent. He stuck close to Shabbos. Even though he was Shogeg (he thought that it was still day), it should have crossed his mind (that perhaps it is already Shabbos. Also, mid'Rabanan it is forbidden unless it will form a crust before Shabbos - Rashash Gitin sof 41b);

However, in these cases he was not negligent at all. It is permitted [for another to transgress to help him].

Implied question: Why was it permitted to free a half-Shifchah, half-Bas Chorin, when men were treating her like Hefker (wantonly having Bi'ah with her? The master) transgresses an Aseh!

Answer #1: The immorality [of those men] is unlike one who stuck bread on the oven. He had no Ones at all;

However, the [half-]Shifchah, who was forbidden to slaves and to free men, and she passionately seeks Zenus, it is impossible that men will not stumble with her. It resembles Ones.

Answer #2: This was like a Mitzvah of the Rabim, like we answer regarding R. Eliezer, who freed his slave to complete 10 (for a Minyan), that a Mitzvah of the Rabim is different.

Implied question: Now that it did not yet cross his mind that [our Mishnah] is like Rebbi, he could have asked that both above and below it is not an Eruv, because [to take his Eruv] he uses a tree (which is forbidden mid'Rabanan)!

Answer: He asked that since below it is an Eruv, and we are not concerned that he uses a tree, also above it should be an Eruv, for he and his Eruv are in one place.

Implied question: This reason was not needed, that Reshus ha'Yachid goes up to the Shamayim! Also if it were Mekom Petur, he and his Eruv are in one place!

Answer: He says the truth.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Likewise, we could have asked that he brings from Karmelis to Reshus ha'Rabim;

Rather, he asked one of two possible questions.

Explanation #2 (Ri): [Had we asked that he brings from Karmelis to Reshus ha'Rabim] he could have answered that he is (not in Reshus ha'Rabim, rather,) in Karmelis.

Explanation: [He has four Amos] in every direction [around his Eruv], as if it were surrounded by a Mechitzah [on each side];

Since we consider the Ibur of the city as if it were full, even though it is Reshus ha'Rabim, because it is as if it is surrounded for the people of the city, for it is considered as part of the city, like four Amos regarding Techum Shabbos, and similarly, regarding one who puts his Eruv there (below, 60b)...

Also outside the Ibur of the city, that he has four Amos in the place of his Shevisah, without the calculation of 2000 Amos, it should be considered as if it were full.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Therefore, below 10 it is an Eruv, for he can bring it less than four Amos at a time until within four Amos of himself;

He needed to explain so only because he wants to be Machshir even if he placed it much further than his four Amos. If the tree leaned only two or three Amos out of his four Amos, he could bring it at once.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Even if it is very far, he can bring it at once until the place of his Shevisah. Since Akirah was from Karmelis, he can be liable for Hanachah only mid'Rabanan.