Clarification: R. Tarfon declares the principle 'Lo Nitnah Nezirus Ela le'Hafla'ah' (Nezirus must be clear-cut).

Explanation #1: Consequently, Rashi explains, since, in the case of R. Tarfon, Reuven is not sure whether Shimon is a Nazir or not, he does not undertake Nezirus based on a doubt. Likewise here, by Mesachek be'Kuvya, he does not obligate himself to pay based on a doubt.

Question: The Rivan queries this however, in that how can we compare Kinyan to Nezirus, which is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (based on the Pasuk "Ki Yafli")?

Answer #1: In fact, we can learn Kinyan from it.

Answer #2 (Part 1): The Ri seems to agree with the Rivan's basic answer, but he elaborates. The Pasuk does not actually define Hafla'ah; All it does is inform us that Hafla'ah is necessary, leaving us to define it from a S'vara.

Answer #2 (Part 2): And this is what the Gemara means when it says 'That goes according to R. Yehudah in the name of R. Tarfon'. Because since he does not consider it Hafla'ah, he must be the one who holds, in a similar case (of Kinyan) that it is Asmachta. Whereas if something that he does not know would not be considered an Asmachta, then something that he does not know would also be considered Hafla'ah.

Answer #2 (Part 3): And now that R. Yehudah said that not one of them is a Nazir, we see that it is not considered Hafla'ah in such a case, we can extrapolate that above in the case of Kinyan it is considered an Asmachta ...

Elaboration (Part 4): ... and as for the Pasuk of "Ki Yafli" we need it to teach us that, although we normally hold that Yados of Nezirus are like Nezirus itself, in which case we might have thought that we consider R. Yehudah's case as a Yad, and the Nezirus will take effect. Therefore we need to "Ki Yafli", to teach us that it is not.

Question: According to those who interpret 'Mafrichei Yonim' as 'Ara' (luring other doves to one's nest), the initial P'sul is also due to Darkei Shalom.

Answer: The statement 'Mipnei Darkei Shalom' was said exclusively according to the Lashon that interprets it as 'Takdemeih Yonech le'Yoni' (with regard to betting in a dove-race)

Question: Why is he not Pasul d'Oraysa for transgressing the La'av of "Lo Sachmod"?

Answer: "Lo Sachmod" implies that he does not pay for the article, and that where he does, there is no La'av at all.

Question: The Gemara in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 5b) however, states that "Lo Sachmod" seems to people to mean without money, implying that this may well be what people think, but that in reality, the people err, because "Lo Sachmod" applies even if one pays for the article?

Answer #1: When the Gemara says 'seems to people to mean', it means that that is the truth (that "Lo Sachmod" does not in fact apply).

Answer #2: Alternatively, 'D'mei Kayahiv' means that they would appease them (the owners) until they agreed to the 'sale', in which case they did not transgress "Lo Sachmod" - and since they saw that they took it against their will and were not concerned tht they were first appeased, they rendered them Pasul.

Clarification: The Chachamim forbade rearing a Beheimah Dakah (a small species of animal) even in the house, due to 'Yishuv Eretz Yisrael' - in case one comes to graze them in the fields. They did not however, extend the decree to a Beheimah Gasah (a large species of animal), which they permitted to rear in the house, because it is vital for plowing, and the people would not have been able to live with such a decree.

Question: But is that not what the Mishnah says in 'Merubeh' Bava Kama, 79a & 79b, when it forbids rearing a Beheimah Dakah in Eretz Yisrael, implying Davka Beheimah Dakah - but a Beheimah Gasah is permitted?.

Answer: From there alone, we would have thought that a Beheimah Gasah is forbidden too, and the Tana mentioned specifically a Beheimah Dakah (not to preclude a Beheimah Gasa, but) on account of the Seifa, to teach us that even a Beheimah Dakah is only forbidden in Eretz Yisrael, but not in Syria, because 'Kibush Yachid Lo Havei Kibush' (Syria does not have the Dinim of Eretz Yisrael, because it was captured by David ha'Melech, in his capacity as an individual, and not on behalf of K'lal Yisrael).

Clarification: Rashi explains that the Chachamim added the Gaba'in and the Muchsin when they saw that they took excessively, and the Chidush is that even though the Gabai and the Moches returned the money, they remain Pasul.

Implied Question: Why does their Din differ from that of other Gazlanim, who become Kasher once they return the stolen object.

Answer #1: The difference is that whereas Gazlanim know basically from whom they stole, Gaba'in and Muchsin (who have stolen from so many people) do not.

Answer #2: And besides, seeing as they continue in their capacity as Gaba'in and Muchsin, they are suspect to reverting to their former ways.