Rav Chinena did not answer, for he holds that only enactments mid'Rabanan with an origin in Torah (e.g. to take the Lulav every day of Sukos) are patterned on Torah laws.

Question (against Rav Chisda - Rav Avya - Mishnah): One may scheme to redeem his Ma'aser Sheni without adding the additional fifth (by asking someone else to redeem it for him);

A man may tell his adult son or daughter, or his Eved or Amah ha'Ivriyim 'here is money. Go redeem this Ma'aser Sheni.'

Question: What is the case of his Amah?

If she brought hairs, she is free. She is not his slave!

Answer: Rather, she is still a minor (yet she can redeem on behalf of others)!

Answer #1: The Mishnah refers to Ma'aser Sheni nowadays (after the Churban), which is only mid'Rabanan.

Objection: Nowadays we do not have Yisrael slaves!

(Beraisa): Yisrael slaves only apply when Yovel applies!

Answer #2: The Mishnah refers to Ma'aser Sheni of Peros that grew in a flowerpot without a hole, which is only mid'Rabanan.

(Rava): They are three ages of minors regarding acquisitions:

If a child discards a rock but keeps a nut, he can acquire for himself, but not for others;

An (orphaned) girl of this age can become Mekudeshes mid'Rabanan.

Pa'utos (mature children) can buy and sell Metaltelim (movable objects).

A girl of this age can (receive her own Get and) become divorced, even if she was Mekudeshes mid'Oraisa by her father.

When he reaches the age of vows, his vows are binding. If he made his property Hekdesh, it takes effect;

A girl of this age may do Chalitzah.

A child cannot not sell land that he inherited from his father until he is 20.

(Mishnah): If a minor made a Shali'ach to receive her Get, it is not valid until it reaches her hand. Therefore, her husband can retract until she gets it.

This is because a minor cannot make a Shali'ach.

If her father made a Shali'ach to receive her Get, her husband cannot retract after he gives it.

If a man told a Shali'ach 'give this Get to my wife in Ploni (a certain place), and the Shali'ach gave it somewhere else, the Get is Pasul;

If he told the Shali'ach 'give this Get to my wife. She is in Ploni', and the Shali'ach gave it somewhere else, it is valid.

If a woman told a Shali'ach 'receive my Get in Ploni', and the Shali'ach received it somewhere else, the Get is Pasul;

R. Elazar says, it is valid;

If she told the Shali'ach 'bring my Get from Ploni', and the Shali'ach brought it from somewhere else, it is valid.

(Gemara) Question: Why does R. Elazar agree in the Reisha (when the man made a Shali'ach)?

Answer: A man decides whether or not he wants to divorce his wife, so he can be particular about the place. A woman is divorced against her will. She cannot decide where the Get will be given. She merely suggests to the Shali'ach where she thinks that he can get the Get.

(Mishnah): If a Kohen's wife told a Shali'ach 'bring my Get', she may eat Terumah until the Get comes to her hand;

If she said 'receive my Get', she is immediately forbidden to eat Terumah;

If she said 'receive my Get in Ploni (a certain place)', she may eat Terumah until the Get gets there;

R. Eliezer says, she is immediately forbidden to eat Terumah.

(Gemara) Question: In the Seifa, the Get is valid (even if the Shali'ach received it in a different place). The previous Mishnah taught that it is Pasul!

Answer: The case is, she asked him to receive it in Ploni, and remarked that her husband is often found in Almoni.

She wants him to take the Get wherever he finds her husband, but it should take effect only when he gets to Ploni.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): She is immediately forbidden to eat Terumah.

Question: This is obvious, for he holds that she merely suggests where he will find her husband, but authorizes him to receive the Get anywhere!

Answer: The case is, she told him to go the east, for her husband is coming from the east, and the Shali'ach went to the west;

One might have thought that since surely he will not find her husband in the west, she is not forbidden immediately;

R. Eliezer teaches that this is not so. Perhaps he will encounter her husband in the west!

(Beraisa #1): If Reuven told a Shali'ach 'place an Eruv of dates for me', and he placed an Eruv of figs, the Eruv is valid;

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): The Eruv is Pasul.

Answer #1 (Rabah): Beraisa #1 is like R. Eliezer, who holds that one who instructs a Shali'ach merely suggests the easiest way to fulfill the mission, but he is not insistent that it be done that way;

Beraisa #2 is like Chachamim, who hold that he is insistent that things be done like he said.

Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): Both Beraisos are like Chachamim;

Version #1 (Rashi): In Beraisa #1, Reuven asked to make an Eruv from Reuven's dates. One does not care which food is used for his Eruv;

In Beraisa #2, Reuven asked to make an Eruv from Shimon's dates (Reuven had permission for this). Reuven had no permission to take Shimon's figs, so the Eruv is Pasul.

Version #2 (Tosfos): In Beraisa #1, Reuven asked to make an Eruv from the Shali'ach's dates. Reuven does not care if the Shali'ach used his own figs instead;

In Beraisa #2, Reuven asked to make the Eruv with Reuven's dates. We say he specifically wanted the dates. (end of Version #2)

Question (Abaye): Your answer cannot resolve the contradiction between the following Beraisos!

(Beraisa #1): If Reuven told a Shali'ach 'place an Eruv in the tower for me', and he placed it in the dovecote, or vice-versa, the Eruv is valid.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): The Eruv is Pasul.

There, it does not depend on whose food he uses!

Answer: It does depend on this! The Beraisa #2 discusses making an Eruv with fruit from a tower or dovecote.

(Mishnah): If Reuven said 'write a Get and give it to my wife', 'divorce her', or 'write a letter and give it to her', they may write and give a Get;

If he said 'exempt her', 'finance her', or 'do like is proper to her', his words are void.

(Gemara - Beraisa): If he said 'send her', 'abandon her', or 'cut her off', they may write and give a Get;

If he said 'exempt her', 'finance her', or 'do like is proper to her', his words are void.

(Beraisa - R. Nasan): If he said 'Patruha' (exempt her), we fulfill this. If he said 'Pitruha', his words are void. (Rashi's text is just the opposite. He explains that Pitruha is the expression used in a Get. Patruha connotes exempting her from a monetary obligation.)

R. Nasan is from Bavel, he distinguishes between Pitruha (an Aramaic word) and Patruha (which is Hebrew). The Tana of our Mishnah, who is from Eretz Yisrael, does not distinguish.

Question: What is the law if he says one of the following: 'take her out'; 'abandon her'; 'permit her'; 'leave her alone'; 'do what will help her'; 'do like the Torah says should be done for her'?

Answer (to one of these - Beraisa): If he said 'do like the Torah says should be done for her' or 'do like is proper to her', his words are void.