Question #1: Zechiyah (acquiring on behalf of someone else) works due to Shelichus. Since it is Zechus (beneficial) for him, we can testify that [the recipient] makes him a Shali'ach;

This is clear from Bava Metzi'a (12a). We say that a Chatzer was included [to acquire for a person] because it is like his hand, and it is no worse than Shelichus;

If so, how can we be Zocheh for a minor? A minor has no Shelichus, like it says in Bava Metzi'a 71b!

Question #2: Also, [before conversion] he is still a Nochri, and we say there that a minor [Yisrael], who will come to have Shelichus (when he matures), has Zechiyah mid'Rabanan;

A Nochri, who will not come to have Shelichus, does not have Zechiyah even mid'Rabanan!

Answer (Ri): Also here, we are Zocheh for him mid'Rabanan, like it says there that a minor has Zechiyah mid'Rabanan;

Even though he is still a Nochri, [since he will convert], he will come to have Shelichus.

Alternatively, since through this Zechiyah he becomes a Yisrael, he is like a total Yisrael regarding Zechiyah.

Question: How can he be a convert mid'Rabanan, and we permit him to a Bas Yisrael, and his Kidushin is valid Kidushin? Mid'Oraisa, he is a Nochri!

Answer #1: He holds like the opinion in Yevamos (89b) that Chachamim have power to uproot Torah law [even] through actions.

Implied question: When we asked what is [Rav Huna's] Chidush, we could have said that he teaches that Chachamim have power to uproot Torah law through actions!

Answer: The Gemara gave one of two possible answers.

Question: It says in Sanhedrin (68b) regarding Gezel ha'Ger (one who stole from a convert, and the convert died) "Im Ein la'Ish Go'el" - an Ish (adult), you must check whether he has heirs, but you need not check a minor. (This implies that mid'Oraisa, there can be a minor convert!)

Answer: We can find a minor convert mid'Oraisa if a pregnant woman converted, like it says in Yevamos (78a);

If a pregnant Nochris converted, her son need not immerse. He is a convert mid'Oraisa. He is a full Yisrael.

It is possible that he has money mid'Oraisa (and it was stolen from him), e.g. he inherited his mother;

[The verse teaches that] you need not check, for [surely] he has no heirs, for he cannot father, and his maternal brothers do not inherit him.

Answer #2: According to Seforim in which the text in Bava Metzi'a says [that a minor] has Zechiyah, and does not say "mid'Rabanan", this is fine;

We can say that he has Zechiyah mid'Oraisa. A minor Nochri, since he comes to convert, he is considered like a Yisrael minor.

Question: Zechiyah is due to Shelichus, and mid'Oraisa he has no Shelichus!

Answer: This refers to a matters with some Chovah (disadvantageous side), e.g. to separate his Terumah. Perhaps he would have wanted to exempt [all his wheat] with one blade of wheat, or perhaps he would have wanted to give more!

However, here it is absolute Zechus, so he has Shelichus.

Implied question: Rabanan argue with R. Meir in Gitin (13a). They do not say that he prefers Hefkeirus (wantonness)!

Answer: That refers to a slave. He is not concerned for [losing] Hefkeirus, for [through freedom,] he uproots himself from bondage;

However, a Nochri, who is not enslaved, prefers Hefkeirus.

Support: If you would not say so, how do we bring a support from the case of a female convert? Perhaps it is like Rabanan, who do not say even regarding an adult that he prefers Hefkeirus!

Implied question: A Mishnah (Gitin 13a) says "one who says 'give this Get to my wife', or 'this [Get] Shichrur to my slave' (and the Shali'ach took it), he (the husband or master) can retract from either, according to R. Meir! (Because they are not pure Zechus, the Shali'ach was not Zocheh for the recipient.)

Answer #1: This refers to an adult slave. R. Meir agrees that freedom is Zechus for a minor, for he does not prefer Hefkeirus, like we say here, for he did not taste Isur.

Answer #2: It discusses even a minor slave, i.e. of a Kohen. It is a Chov for him to become free, for he ceases to eat Terumah.

Note: Aside from the Mitzvah to eat Terumah, often the slave gets much to eat, e.g. if his master receives more than his household can consume. Also, it is cheaper than Chulin.

Question: She is already an adult, for she is a Na'arah, since she receives a fine!

Note: Rava asked from the Mishnah (29a), which says "Na'arah." The Gemara infers there that the Mishnah is R. Meir, who says that there is no fine for a minor.

Answer (Ri): [We give the fine to her] when she matures and conducts like a Yisraelis.

Inference: Rava does not hold [that we are concerned] lest a sinner profit.

Question: We say in Bava Kama (38b) that R. Meir holds that Kusim are proper converts;

He fines them monetarily regarding an ox that gored, lest people mingle with [and become corrupted through] them.

Citation (38b) Question: A Mishnah teaches that there is a fine for one who had Bi'ah with (raped or enticed) a Kusis. If R. Meir fines them monetarily, also here he should fine them!

Citation (38b) Answer: Here he does not want to fine them, lest a sinner profit.

Summation of question: According to Rava, who is not concerned lest a sinner profit, how can he answer there?

Answer: There, he holds like this reason, since letter of the law they receive a fine, for they are true converts, just he wants to fine them;

It is reasonable due to the reason that a sinner should not profit, we leave them on letter of the law;

However, here Rava holds that due to the reason that a sinner should not profit, we should not give to her, since letter of the law she does not get it, for she is a Nochris if she will protest.

Below (36b), Rava holds that a sinner should not profit regarding a [woman who had been taken] captive, for we leave her in her Kedushah (she is still a Besulah).

Explanation: We discuss when he did not uproot the Besulim. If he did, why is she less (i.e. considered a Besulah more) than a Mukas Etz?!

Explanation: Our Mishnah (13a) is R. Meir, and not Rabanan.

Question: Why didn't he say that according to Rabanan, whether or not he knew, she gets 100, like he said in the conclusion, and our Mishnah would be like everyone?

Answer: He did not want to say so, for since Rabanan compare her to a Be'ulah...

[Therefore,] when he did not know, this is like making Nisu'in b'Chezkas Besulah, and she was found to be Be'ulah. He holds that [in such a case] she has no [Kesuvah].

In the conclusion, he holds that Rabanan compare her to a Be'ulah, i.e. regarding 100, but it is not a Mekach Ta'os like [when she was found to be] Be'ulah;

A man is not so upset about Mukas Etz to the point that it would be Mekach Ta'os.

Explanation: However, we did not want to say that he retracted from this, for "Mekach Ta'os" connotes totally (the Kidushin was invalid, so she gets nothing).

Question: What is the source that he retracted from what he said that according to Rabanan, if he did not know, she gets nothing?

Let us say that he retracted from what he said that if he did not know, according to R. Meir she gets 200! Rather, now he explains that if he did not know, she gets 100, and he can establish the Beraisa like R. Meir!

Answer: We can say like Rashi explained above, that this is unreasonable. If it is considered Mekach Ta'os, she should not get anything;

If it is not considered Mekach Ta'os, why shouldn't she get 200, since [R. Meir] compares her to a Bogeres?

Do we reduce the Kesuvah of a Bogeres?! (Surely, we do not!)