Implied Question: It is sufficient to raise the barrel of Shitufei Mevo'os a Tefach, even according to Rashi who says that to make a "Kinyan Hagba'hah" -- "acquisition by picking something up" one must pick up the item three Tefachim off the ground. (Note: Why don't we say that the picking up must be like the Torah way of acquiring through picking up?)

Answer: It is considered enough like the Torah way of picking up because the one who is picking it up is able to acquire, and he has picked it up a little bit.

Question: How does it help that the minor redeemed the Ma'aser Sheini? The action of a minor is nothing! The Toras Kohanim (Bechukosai) excludes a minor as being unable to redeem Ma'aser Sheini. The Mishnah in Terumos (1:1) also states that five people cannot take Terumah, and one of them is a minor.

Earlier (52a), the Beraisa states that a caretaker can take off Terumos and Ma'aseros. This implies that a minor cannot do so. It would not seem that there is any difference between Ma'aser and Terumah (if he cannot take, it would seem he also cannot take Ma'aser).

Answer: This is according to the opinion in Terumos (1:3) that if the minor came to the age of their vows being valid, just as their vows are valid so too their taking of Terumah is valid. Additionally, just as the Terumah is called Terumah when he takes it, and the (remaining grain that used to be) Tevel is now permitted to be eaten, so too he can redeem Ma'aser Sheini (and make the grain Chulin while having the Kedushah fall on money).

Question: How can the minor redeem for others? Even according to the opinion that he can acquire for others, this is only because another mind is actually effecting the acquisition to others. While redeeming Ma'aser is like redeeming for others, it does not work with the mechanics that another mind is actually effecting the acquisition to others through the actions of the minor. It is more like the minor finding a lost object, which according to Torah law he does not acquire. (Note: Here, he is acquiring the original Ma'aser grains for the owner from Hash-m, so to speak. This is like acquiring a lost object for someone, not effecting a Kinyan as instructed by an adult for that adult.)

Answer: A "Mufla Samuch l'Ish" (loosely translated as a child who is close to being an adult) is a Torah concept, and his taking of Terumah is valid, as well as is his creating a status of Ma'aser. If regarding money matters, he can acquire for others according to Torah law when another mind effects the transaction, he should certainly be able to redeem Ma'aser (regarding which the Torah states he can take Ma'aser) even without another mind effecting the transaction.

However, according to Rav Chisda that he cannot acquire for others even though he can acquire for himself even by redeeming his grain from Ma'aser, he will be unable to acquire through others by redeeming their Ma'aser.

Observation: The Gemara here also could have asked if the case of a Jewish maidservant is applicable nowadays, why does he have to use trickery? He can have the holiness of Ma'aser (which is mid'Rabbanan) worth a Manah go on something worth one Perutah and a fifth!

According to the opinion in Bava Metzia (53b) that we require even the fifth to be worth a Perutah, he should redeem the Kedushah of the Manah on five Perutos (four and a Chomesh worth a Perutah).

Question: The Mishnah in Bava Basra (156b) states that one can acquire for a minor but not for an adult. The Gemara here states that a minor can acquire on his own!

Answer#1: The Gemara there is referring to an age that is less than the age referred to here.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is referring there to a Kinyan Chalifin that the minor cannot understand. (Note: This is why they enacted that one can acquire for him in such a case, as opposed to him being able to do a basic Kinyan, which he must do himself.)

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that one year before Na'arus, for example at eleven years and one day, if she brings Simanim (physical signs of maturity) she does Chalitzah, and we do not say the signs are just marks.

Question: This is difficult, as Rava himself rules in Nidah (46a) that the law is that (the appearance of Simanim) within the amount of time (before the expected age of maturity) is like before the time (and the Simanim are not counted as Simanim, but rather physical marks).

Answer: Rabeinu Shmuel explains that when Rava says, "this age by a female minor," it does not mean the age where a girl would have her Neder taken seriously, but rather when she is twelve years old and one day. This is because the age that the vows of a male minor become valid is the same age that a girl can become an adult (twelve and a day).

Question#1: The Gemara's (Rava's) terminology does not imply this explanation.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam states that Rava is saying his law according to Rebbi Yosi. This is as we say in Yevamos (105b) that from Rebbi Yosi's words we learn that a minor does Chalitzah at the age of Perutos. Rava holds that she can only do Chalitzah from the age where her Nedarim are valid. (Note: In other words, Rava here is making his statement according to Rebbi Yosi who indeed holds that a young girl can do Chalitzah, while Rava himself does not hold this way.)

Rabeinu Tam additionally explains that the Gemara's conclusion in Yevamos that the law is that she can only do Chalitzah if she has two (pubic) hairs (indicating she is really an adult) is based on Rava's opinion. In other words, while Rebbi Yosi holds that she can do so when she reaches the age when her vows could be valid, the law is that she can only do so when she has two such hairs.

Implied Question: Rava (in our Gemara) quoted Rebbi Yosi's position. (Note: If he does not hold that way himself, why did he say his statement according to Rebbi Yosi's position?)

Answer#1: He did this in order to make his own rule that in all of these things, the opposite is true by a minor.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible that here the correct text should be Rabah (not Rava). This is evident from his statement here that in order to sell his father's possessions he must be twenty, while in Bava Basra (155a) Rava says in the name of Rebbi Nachman that he can do so from the age of eighteen. (Note: It therefore must be that the author here is not really Rava, but Rabah.)

One cannot say that in the Gemara in Bava Basra (ibid.) Rava is merely recording the opinion of Rav Nachman, and that he himself does not agree with Rav Nachman.

This is because the Gemara concludes there that this was not an actual statement of Rava, but rather was derived from an incident where someone less than twenty years old came before Rava etc. It is clear that Rava practically held eighteen was old enough (based on the position of Rav Nachman).

Implied Question: We could have stated (i.e. asked) that the woman should remain in her non-divorced status until she is divorced (and be able to eat Terumah). (Note: Why isn't this objection raised in the Mishnah or Gemara?)

Answer: Rather, this was a mere stringency that the Chachamim instituted because there is an assumption that the messenger performs his mission.

This is despite the fact that the messenger does not have the ability to ensure that this happens, as the husband might not want to give him a Get.

This is just like the stringency we encountered earlier (64a) that a person who sends a messenger to be Mekadesh any woman for him, and the messenger later died without anyone knowing whether he was Mekadesh a woman or not, is forbidden to all of the women in the world. (Note: The reason is that he might end up marrying a relative of his unknown wife who the messenger was Mekadesh that he is forbidden to marry.) This is despite the fact that each woman is presumed to be permitted to him according to the letter of the law, and the messenger could not ensure the mission was performed (as every woman he approached may reject the offer).

Question: If she doesn't want the Get to be valid until the messenger reaches Masa Machsya, it should also not be valid when he reaches Masa Machsya, as the messenger is not receiving it there from the husband! This is like a woman who is instructed to pick up her Get from the ground (which is invalid).

If the case is where the husband makes the messenger a Sheliach l'Holachah (messenger to take the Get) until Masa Machsya, and he will accept the Get as the messenger of the wife in Masa Machsya, it is still not valid. This is because the Shelichus does not revert back to the husband (when he gets to Masa Machsya, see 24a where the Gemara indeed said this is a problem).

Answer#1: The case is where the husband appointed the messenger as his Sheliach l'Holachah until he gets to Masa Machsya, and when he gets to Masa Machsya he should be a Sheliach for Holachah and Kabalah. This is the Gemara's answer earlier (24a).

Answer#2: Alternatively, from Bavel until Masa Machsya he is indeed a Sheliach l'Kabalah, and it is like the husband tells his wife, "Here is your Get, but you should not be divorced with it until after thirty days." (Note: As long as the giving is halachically between husband and wife (or a Sheliach l'Kabalah), it is still possible for the Get to take effect later.)

Explanation: Rashi explains that according to the Rabbanan, as well, the husband is only stringent that the woman should go and accept the Get in a certain place, as opposed to a different place. However, regarding the Eiruv, he doesn't care what gets used (from amongst his fruits).

The case where the Eiruv is invalid is where he takes from his friend. For example, if his friend gave him permission to make an Eiruv with his dates, he is certainly stringent that only his friend's dates be used. This is because he has no permission to use his friend's figs.

Question#1: This is difficult, as there is no implication whatsoever that Rav Yosef is arguing on our Gemara earlier. The Gemara there held that the Rabbanan are stringent regarding his own Eiruv, just like the husband is stringent regarding where his wife receives the Get. Rav Yosef seems to only come to say that he is stringent that the messenger should not take the wrong fruits of his friend.

Question#2: Additionally, if so the Gemara should have said that both cases are according to everyone. Rebbi Eliezer also admits that he is stringent that the messenger shouldn't take other fruits from his friend, just like Rebbi Eliezer admits that there is a stringency regarding the husband.

Answer: Therefore, the explanation appears to be that he is stringent with his own things. However, with his friend's fruit, meaning the messenger owns the fruit (and he is his messenger), he doesn't care what the messenger makes the Eiruv from, as long as he is doing so with his fruit.

Question: The Gemara now implies that according to the Rabbanan he is stringent that the messenger should not take the wrong fruits when it is his fruits even according to Rav Yosef, as we have explained. Similarly, in Meilah (21a) when the person instructs a messenger to bring something from the window and he brings it instead from the bag (and the item in the bag was actually Hekdesh), the messenger transgressed Meilah, because he did not do as he was asked. This is because we assume a person wants his bidding to be carried out exactly as ordered.

This is difficult, as the Gemara implies in Bava Metzia (42b) regarding hops of Hekdesh that there is no stringency (from the owner) to take certain hops, as he did not say that he should take from these and not from these. (Note: Why would the Gemara in Bava Metzia say this if in the Gemaros above it is clear that the owner is stringent that his worker only take fruits from the fruits pointed out to him?)

It does not appear that this is according to Rebbi Elazar here, who the law indeed follows in this case, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds like his opinion in Bava Basra (165a). This is because he is not quoted in the Gemara in Bava Metzia (ibid.). (Note: See Mesores Hashas who has a significantly different text in this part of Tosfos.)

Answers: It seems here that because dates and figs are specifically mentioned, and in Meilah (21a) the window and bag are mentioned, it is only because the person is indeed stringent regarding what should be used. However, in Bava Metzia (ibid.) he showed his worker (who makes the beer) where the hops are stored. There were two piles of hops, and people do not usually care about which one is used as it is all one type of thing. The messenger had no reason to think that other people stored hops in this house. (Note: Therefore, when he used the other hops he was not doing anything other than fulfilling the master's orders.)

Implied Question: The Gemara didn't want to answer that the Beraisa that says the Eiruv is valid is when they are close to each other, and the one that says it is invalid is when they are far from each other. (Note: Why didn't it give this seemingly logical answer?)

Answer#1: Otherwise, the Beraisa would have given a case of two coops (not two different things, one being a coop and one being a tower).

Answer#2: Additionally, it is better to say that both Beraisos are talking about the same case.