רב פפא maintains that רב said his ruling regardless whether it is a loan or a deposit - קסבר רב פפא כי אמר רב לא שנא מלוה לא שנא פקדון
Summary:
רב פפא did not say the he disagrees with רב זביד because it does not seem that the משנה is discussing מעמ"ש, because ר"פ wanted to give an irrefutable reason why the משנה cannot be discussing מעמ"ש as ר"ז maintains.
From where do we know this; since the משנה taught ‘give’ and it did not teach, ‘write’ - ממאי מדקתני תנו ולא קתני כתבו
Summary:
Our משנה discusses the rule of אין גט לאחר מיתה, but not whether מצוה לקיים דברי המת. According to the רבנן we force the heirs to free the slaves (even if it is a גט לאחר מיתה) since מצוה לקיים דברי המת.
It was stated: רב הונא said in the name of רב, etc. ‘give it to him’ in the presence of all three, he acquires it - גופא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כולי תנהו לפלוני במעמד שלשתן קנה
Summary:
מעמ"ש is effective even against the will of the לוה or the נפקד.
In the presence of all three; he acquires it - במעמד שלשתן קנה
Summary:
In the case of מעמ"ש with a gentile if he is the נפקד or לוה it is not effective, if he is the receiver one may give it to him if the benefactor does not retract and one should not give it to him (if he can get away with it) if the benefactor retracts (regardless if it was במע"ש), if the עכו"ם is the benefactor then it is קונה במע"ש.
Did he say; to something which does not exist - לדבר שאינו בעולם מי אמר
Summary:
רב הונא and רב נחמן have opposite views as to where it easier to be מקנה, either a דשלב"ל (the view of ר"ה), or לדשלב"ל (the view of ר"נ). We find that ראב"י clearly maintains מקנה דשלב"ל.
