Observation: The Gemara implies that Rav does not hold like Rebbi Meir.

Implied Question: It says in Erchin (5a) that if someone says that "the value of this vessel is upon me," he must pay for its value, as is the opinion of Rebbi Meir. Similarly, the Mishnah there (20a) states that if someone says, "the value of my hands and feet are upon me," he did not say anything. Rav says about this Mishnah that he must pay their value. He explains this according to the position of Rebbi Meir (implying that he indeed does hold of Rebbi Meir).

Answer: He is explaining according to Rebbi Meir's opinion, but does not hold like him.

Implied Question: In Sanhedrin (15a), regarding values of movable objects dedicated to Hekdesh, Rav explains the case is when a person says, "the value of a certain vessel is upon me," according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir.

Answer: Rav himself does not agree with this opinion.

Similarly, we find in Kesuvos (96a) that Shmuel wanted to say that the Mishnah's text is "ha'Nizones" -- "who is supported," which would mean the Mishnah is according to the opinion of the Anshei Yehudah. This is despite the fact that we find that Shmuel himself in Kesuvos (54a) says that the law follows the opinion of the Anshei Galil.

Explanation: Therefore, one cannot usurp it from Hekdesh, as one cannot usurp something connected to the ground. This Gemara in Me'ilah (18b) derives this from a Gezeirah Shaveh using the word "Chet" from Terumah.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Basra (79a) states that if someone dedicates a pit full of water, one can transgress usurping Hekdesh by using it and its contents. (Note: This indicates that one can usurp something of Hekdesh that is part of the ground!)

Answer: The correct explanation of this Gemara is not like Rabeinu Shmuel explains there, that he hid his possessions in the pit, as one cannot usurp Hekdesh connected to the ground.

Rather, the case is where he uprooted part of the pit and then proceeded to have benefit from it.

Explanation: They do not have a "hand" to acquire on their own. This is similarly stated in Bava Basra (156b), when the Gemara discusses the argument of acquiring for a minor and not an adult. (Note: Everyone there agrees that a minor does not have a hand to acquire.)

Implied Question: A minor does have the ability to acquire when it comes to acquiring lost objects, as stated later (59b). (Note: How can we reconcile this with our insistence here that he does not have a "hand" to acquire?)

Answer: His power of acquisition regarding lost objects is a special Rabbinic enactment due to keeping the peace. Here, the reason for that enactment is inapplicable.

Question: In Sukah (46b), the Gemara says that a person should not give a Lulav to a minor on the first day of Sukos, as he can acquire the Lulav but cannot give it back. (Note: This implies that he does have a power of acquisition.)

One cannot say that there he was a very smart minor, who would know to throw away a worthless rock and would keep a nut.

In Kidushin (22b), regarding the incident where Mar Zutra told a minor slave, "Take off my shoes for me," the implication is that he has knowledge. The Gemara there says that some state this occurred with a slave who was a minor.

Answer: In a case where someone else helps them acquire, they can effectively acquire, unlike other cases (where they attempt to acquire alone).

Explanation: This shows that he does not require a Get to permit him to marry a regular Jewess. This is according to Shmuel, who says that someone who is not in the actual possession of his master is not called a slave. Aba Shaul's reason regarding minors is that they are still considered to be in the possession of the master, as they themselves have no "hand" to acquire.

Question: Why does the Gemara say, "If so etc.?" According to Shmuel, the opinion of Ameimar is even more difficult!

Answer: The Gemara does not have a question due to Shmuel's law, as his law is actually an argument among the Tannaim in Yevamos (48a) and Nazir (62b).

However, the Gemara's difficulty is that Ameimar would be going against the position of his Rebbi, Rebbi Yochanan. (Note: See Pnei Yehoshua regarding whether or not Ameimar was actually a student of Rebbi Yochanan.) This is also why the Gemara didn't ask a question on Ameimar based on the opinion of the Rabbanan and Aba Shaul (according to the text of the Maharshal in Tosfos), as Ameimar could say that the argument there is according to the Tana that holds of Shmuel. However, Ameimar himself holds like the Tana who argues on Shmuel, and therefore holds that a Get Shichrur would be needed and there is no way to help this slave.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that the law follows Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi when he argues with Rebbi Yochanan.

Proof: This is as apparent from the Gemara in Megilah (27a) that says that Rav Papi's opinion is more logical. This is because Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that one can turn a shul into a Beis Medrash (as a Beis Medrash as more holiness). Even though Rebbi Yochanan argues on Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi there, the Gemara infers from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the law follows Rav Papi.

Question: How can a slave be freed with a document according to Aba Shaul if his owner will not first declare him ownerless? This is a problem based on the Gemara's teaching that if a woman's Get is a matter of prohibition not a matter of money, so too etc. (Note: This implies that freeing through Get alone does not release the monetary hold the master has on the slave.)

If you will say that the term used in the document, such as "Harei At Ben Chorin/l'Atzmecha" -- "You are a free man/to yourself," is a term pronouncing the slave is ownerless, why would Shmuel say a document is required? Let him just declare him ownerless!

Additionally, even if the master declares him ownerless, how can a slave who is a minor be freed?

Answer: The Ri says that only regarding the acquisition resulting from a dead husband/master do we derive from a married woman that this type of acquisition is strictly a matter of prohibition. However, a document whose source is in the Torah as is evident from the Pasuk, "Oh Chufshah Lo Nitan Lah" -- "or her freedom is not given to her" (Vayikra 19:20) can be freed with a document alone, as this is explicitly stated in the Pasuk.

Additionally, a document is compared to an acquisition of money, as the Pasuk states, "And she wasn't redeemed" (ibid.). An acquisition using money takes away monetary obligations, as is said here that if someone says that he has given up hope of finding Ploni his servant, the only possible solution is for him to receive a freedom document. However, monetary redemption will not help, as this already went away when he made the slave ownerless.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the principle that the words of a person on their deathbed are as if they are written in a document and given over does not apply here. This is because he did not command to his sons that she should be given the ability to acquire herself. Rather, he thought to free her with this mode of Kinyan, which ended up being invalid.

It is not possible to mention a present of a person on their deathbed, as it was only a partial gift (that was valid). The principle, "it is a Mitzvah to uphold the word of the dying" would be applicable if it would be like telling his children what to do (not the case here).

Explanation: However, if the vessels of the one who was acquiring would have been used, she indeed would have acquired herself through Chalifin. This is as stated in the Beraisa in Kidushin (22b) that an Eved Kenani can be acquired through Chalifin, as the Kinyan of Chalifin is like the Kinyan of Kesef (money). Whenever Kesef works Chalifin also works, besides for acquiring a wife, because a woman does not give herself over to be acquired for less than a Perutah, as stated in Kidushin (3a).

Observation: We can deduce from here that the law follows Rav who says in Bava Metzia (47b) that one must use the vessels of the one acquiring in order for the Kinyan Chalifin to be effective.

Additionally, the Gemara (ibid.) itself says that the word "with a vessel that is "kosher" to acquire with" written in a document about a Kinyan Chalifin excludes the position of Levi who says that the vessel used in the vessel of the one giving the object.

Implied Question: This is unlike the Gemara later (85b) that says that Rav decreed that "from now and forever" be included in the Get, excluding the opinion of Rebbi Yosi who says that the date on the document proves its validity. This seems difficult, as Rav himself rules like Rebbi Yosi there. (Note: Some texts say Rava made this decree. The Maharshal and others understand it was Rav, and hence there is a contradiction in Rav.)

Answer: Rav's decree was in order that the document should be more polished. (Note: He was not arguing on Rebbi Yosi, but rather being stringent to ensure the Get was valid.) However, the opinion here that states that one must use the vessels of the one giving, holds that if the vessels of the one who is receiving are used the transaction is invalid.

Opinion: Rashi explains in Bava Metzia (47a) that Levi, who says that one must use the vessels of the one giving, holds that certainly the Kinyan is valid if the vessels of the one acquiring are used.

Question: This does not appear to be correct. Being that, according to Levi, the redeemer (relative) gave his vessel to Boaz, the implication is that only in this way (where the giver's vessels are used) is a Kinyan Chalifin effective. This is similar to Rav Nachman's position that fruit cannot be used for Chalifin, because we require that the object used for the Kinyan should be similar to a shoe (as used in Megilas Rus). We do not say that because a vessel worth a Perutah works in general, certainly fruit worth one thousand Zuz could be used! This is despite the fact that logically this is correct, as there is even more benefit in this case, as the person will certainly decide to do the Kinyan.

Additionally, we say in Nedarim (48b) that a head covering is considered something one acquires on condition to give it back to someone else (often the one who gave it to him in the first place). (Note: Even so, we still derive this from Megilas Rus, and don't say that anything can be used for Chalifin because it is clearly just a mode of Kinyan and not dependent on actual value.)