Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A REVERSIBLE CHANGE

(a) Answer #3 (R. Zeira): A change which can be reversed is not a change, regarding a change in name.
(b) Question: This implies that a change which cannot be reversed is a change, regarding a change in name!

1. But a pipe - it was called a piece of wood before it was hollowed out!
2. (Mishnah): If a pipe was hollowed out and then affixed (for water to flow through it into a Mikvah - it is considered a vessel, water which goes through it) disqualifies the Mikvah; if it was affixed and then hollowed out, it does not disqualify the Mikvah.

(c) Answer: The law that water that was in a vessel disqualifies a Mikvah is mid'Rabanan (and Chachamim were lenient).
(d) Question: If so, even when it was hollowed out first, they should be lenient!
(e) Answer: There, it was a vessel before it was attached.
(f) Question (Beraisa): A thief, robber, or extortionist - what he makes Hekdesh, Terumah or Ma'aser takes effect (this proves, one acquires through despair)!
(g) Answer: No, he acquires because of the change in name from Tevel to Terumah, from Chulin to Hekdesh.

(a) [Version #1 (Rav Chisda): We learn that change acquires from "He will return the stolen item that he stole" - the extra words teach, he only returns it if it is as what he stole; if not, he returns the value.
(b) Question: We need that verse to teach that one does not add a fifth for stealing from one's father (and swearing to deny it)!
(c) Answer: That could have been taught by saying 'He will return his stolen object'; "That he stole" is extra, to also teach that change acquires.]
(d) [Version #2 (Rav Chisda): We learn that change does not acquire from "He will return the stolen item" - in any case.
(e) Question: But it says "that he stole"!
(f) Answer: We need that verse to teach that one does not add a fifth for stealing from one's father.]
(g) (Ula): We learn that change does not acquire from "And you will offer a stolen animal, a lame, a sick animal" - this equates a stolen animal to a lame one;

1. Just as a lame animal cannot become acceptable, also a stolen animal, even after the owner despairs!

(h) (Rava): We learn from "His sacrifice" - not a stolen one.

1. Question: When does this apply?

i. Suggestion: If before despair - this is obvious, no verse is needed!

2. Answer: Rather, it is after despair - we see, despair does not acquire.

(i) Question: But Rava earlier answered, that the thief stole a sacrifice (here also, the verse is no proof)!
(j) Answer #1: Rava retracted.
(k) Answer #2: One of these was not said by Rava, rather by Rav Papa.

(a) (Mishnah): The payment of 4 and 5 (only applies to an ox or Seh).
(b) Question: Why don't we learn from Shabbos, where it says "ox", and it even applies to wild animals and birds?
(c) Answer (Rava): It says "ox" and "Seh" twice - the repetition teaches, only ox or Seh, nothing else.
(d) Question: Which are extra?

1. Suggestion: The latter - it could have written 'If a man will steal an ox or Seh and slaughter it or sell it, he will pay 5 cattle in place of it, and 4 flock in place of it.'
2. Rejection: If so, one might have thought that he pays 9 animals for either!

i. Suggestion: One 'in place of it' is extra, to show that this is not so.
ii. Rejection: The extra 'in place of it' teaches a different law!
iii. (Beraisa): One might have thought, one who steals a very expensive ox may pay dying oxen in place of it - "Tachas" teaches, this is not so (and "Tachas" written by flock teaches the same law by flock).

(e) Answer #1: The first "ox" and "Seh" are extra - it could have written 'If a man will steal and slaughter it or sell it, he will pay 5 cattle in place of the ox, and 4 flock in place of the Seh.'
(f) Question: If so, one might have thought that he only pays when he steals and slaughters an ox and a Seh!
(g) Answer: From the word 'slaughter it', we see that is not so.
(h) Question: One might have thought that he must steal both, slaughter 1 and sell the other!
(i) Answer: From 'slaughter it or sell it', we see, that is not so.
(j) Question: One might have thought that he must steal both, slaughter or sell 1, and keep the other!
(k) Answer #2: The latter "ox" and the first "Seh" are extra - it could have written 'If a man will steal an ox and slaughter it or sell it, he will pay 5 cattle in place of it, and 4 flock in place of the Seh';

1. From the extra "ox" at the end of the verse, and the extra "Seh" at the beginning, we hear, 4 and 5 applies only to cattle and flock.