Question #1 (against Abaye - Beraisa): If one said 'Behold, it (or this) is Alai (upon me)', he is forbidden, for this is a Yad for Korban (it is as if he said 'it is to me like a Korban').

Inference: Had he not said 'Alai', he would be permitted (because ambiguous Yados are invalid)!

Answer #1: Had he not said 'Alai', it would not be a Yad at all. Nothing indicates that he refers to a Korban. Perhaps he refers to Hefker or Tzedakah!

Objection: The Beraisa says that it is a Yad for Korban! (Surely 'Alai' is not part of the Yad, for normally one is Makdish by saying 'behold it is a Korban', without 'Alai'. 'Alai' is only to make the Yad unambiguous!)

Answer #2: Rather, we infer that without "Alai", others are also forbidden, for perhaps he refers to Hekdesh. (We must be stringent due to the Safek.)

Question #2 (Beraisa): If one said 'this is a Chatas (or Asham)', it does not take effect, even if he is already obligated to offer a Chatas or Asham;

If he said 'this is my Chatas (or Asham)' and he was obligated to offer one, it takes effect.

Inference: The Yad works only if it is unambiguous!

Answer: The Beraisa is like R. Yehudah (who says that ambiguous Yados are invalid).

Question: We said that even R. Yehudah could agree with Abaye! (R. Yehudah requires unambiguous Yados only for Get.)

Answer: Abaye retracted from this. (He agrees that only Chachamim hold like him.)

Suggestion: Perhaps similarly, Chachamim cannot hold like Rava (i.e. also Rava retracted from saying that all hold like him)!

Rejection: No. Chachamim allow ambiguous Yados only for Get, for one cannot divorce another man's wife.

Question (Rav Papa): Do Yados work for Kidushin?

Question: What case does he ask about?

If Levi was Mekadesh Leah (with two Perutos) and said to Chanah "and also you" this is Kidushin without a Yad!

Answer: He asks about when he said only "and you";

Does he mean "and also you", or "and you watch"?

Question: Why does Rav Papa ask? He questioned a teaching in which Shmuel said that ambiguous Yados work (for Kidushin). This implies that he holds that (unambiguous) Yados work for Kidushin!

Answer: He asked according to Shmuel's opinion. (I, Rav Papa, am unsure whether or not Yados work for Kidushin. Even if Shmuel holds that they do, elsewhere Shmuel holds that ambiguous Yados do not work!)

Question (Rav Papa): Do Yados work for Pe'ah?

Question: What case does he ask about?

If he said "this patch should be Pe'ah, and this one, too" this is Pe'ah without a Yad!

Answer: The case is, he said only "and this one" without saying "too".

Inference: This implies that one can make the whole field Pe'ah if he wants! (Ran - if the first patch is less than the Shi'ur (mid'Rabanan, one part in 60 of the field), surely both are Pe'ah! Rather, one can give more Pe'ah than the Shi'ur. If so, there is no limit. Tosfos, Rosh - the text said 'or, perhaps this one is by itself (or to support my house)', implying that it comprises the rest of the field.)

Affirmation: Yes! We learn from "Pe'as Sadecha."

Suggestion: Since a Hekesh equates Pe'ah to Korbanos, Yad works for Pe'ah, just like for Korbanos;

Or, perhaps it is equated only regarding Bal Te'acher!

Question: What is this Hekesh?

Answer (Beraisa): (In the Parashah of Bal Te'acher it says) "from you." This refers to Leket, Shichechah, and Pe'ah.