Previous daf

1)

(a) Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah learns the obligation of a Ganav to pay double from a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal', (as we just explained), from the Pasuk "mi'Shor Ad Chamor Ad Seh ... ". The Pasuk is talking about - the obligation of a Ganav to pay double (as is clear from the first half of the Pasuk "Im Himatzei Simatzei be'Yado ha'Geneivah ... ".

(b) We cannot learn everything from ...

1. ... Shor and Geneivah - because Shor is confined to animals that go on the Mizbei'ach.
2. ... Shor, Seh and Geneivah - because that would incorporate only animals that are Kadosh bi'Bechorah.
3. ... Shor, Seh, Chamor and Geneivah - because that precludes inanimate objects.

(c) The other word that is included in the Pasuk, and which we initially think will allow us to learn even inanimate articles from "Geneivah" is - "Chayim?

(a) Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah said 'Yomar Shor u'Geneivah'. We query this, because they appear in the reverse order in the Pasuk. The difference between "Shor u'Geneivah" and "Geneivah ve'Shor" is - whether we Darshen a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal' or a K'lal u'P'rat'.

(b) So "Geneivah" is a 'K'lal'. We cannot explain that the Tana ...

1. ... is merely explaining what we would say, had the Torah written 'Shor u'Geneivah' - because then it would be a 'P'rat u'Ch'lal', which includes everything, and we would no longer require "Seh, Chamor and Chayim".
2. ... really meant to say "Geneivah ve'Shor" (as indeed, the Torah writes) - because that would be a 'K'lal u'P'rat', which would preclude everything except for the P'rat.

(c) Consequently, Rava explains that the Tana is (not talking about a 'K'lal u'P'rat'. He is) talking about - a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal, because he views "Chayim" as a second 'K'lal'.

(d) We are able to Darshen a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' despite the fact that the first K'lal ("ha'Geneivah", implying everything), clashes with the second one (Chayim", which implies only living creatures) - because the author of the Beraisa is Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who Darshens a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' of this nature.

(a) The problem the Tana himself has with the Pasuk in view of this 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' is - what we will then do with "Im Himatzei Simatzei ... ", which appears superfluous.

(b) In order to accommodate "Im Himatzei Simatzei", Rava now Darshens them as the two K'lalim, whereas "Shor ... Chayim" are all P'ratim.

(c) We learn from ...

1. ... "Chayim" - to include birds.
2. ... "Geneivah" - to include even inanimate objects.

(d) Even though we seem to include everything from the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal', we still need the Ribuy of "Im Himatzei Simatzei ... " - because of the serious snag in the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal', inasmuch as the last K'lal is the one that includes (as we shall now explain), and "Chayim" (the last 'K'lal') can hardly come to include inanimate objects.

4)

(a)

1. The last 'K'lal always comes to include - on the grounds that it comes to modify the 'Klal u'P'rat' that precede it, which would otherwise preclude everything else other than the 'P'rat'.
2. The first 'K'lal' always come to exclude - on the grounds that it comes to modify the 'P'rat u'Ch'lal' that follows it, which would otherwise include everything.

(b) If not for "Himatzei Simatzei" ...

1. ... "Chayim" would come to include - all living creatures.
2. ... "Geneivah" would come to exclude - all inanimate objects.

(c) The problem that "Himatzei" and "Simatzei" constitute the two K'lalim poses is - that it does not seem plausible for the Torah to place the two K'lalim next to each other.

(d) Ravina resolves this problem - by quoting the B'nei Eretz Yisrael, who do indeed consider this to be a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal', only they Darshen each 'P'rat' individually, as we shall now explain.

(a) So we try to Darshen each P'rat together with "Im Himatzei Simatzei", as we concluded. We learn from "Chayim" - to include all living creatures.

(b) Assuming that, from "Shor", we learn 'Davar ha'Metaltel ve'Gufo Mamon', we will learn from "Chamor" - whatever has a mark of identification, to preclude whatever does not.

(c) The problem that "Seh" now poses is - that there is nothing left to Darshen from it.

(d) Citing Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael in connection with Kasher fish in the Pasuk in Shemini, we change the format of the D'rashah. Based on the fact that the two K'lalim "ba'Mayim" "ba'Mayim" both precede the 'P'ratim "ba'Yamim u'va'Nechalim", Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael switches the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' - for a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut ve'Ribuy', to preclude only one thing (rather than anything which is at all dissimilar to the P'rat).

(a) From the three Miy'utim "Shor", "Chamor" and "Seh", we now preclude Avadim, Karka and Sh'taros. "Geneivah" and "Chayim" come to teach us Rav's Din - 'Achyeihu le'Keren Ke'ein she'Ganav' (meaning that in the event that the carcass of the stolen animal depreciates, he must pay the original value of the animal.

(b) We did not cite the three previous D'rashos as long as we Darshened a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' - because they are synonymous with the D'rashah "Davar ha'Metaltel ve'Gufo Mamon'.

(a) According to the Tana who learns that one Pasuk refers to a Ganav and the other, to a To'en Ta'anas Ganav, "Im Himatzei Timatzei" comes to teach us Rava bar Ahila'i's interpretation of Rav, who said "Modeh bi'K'nas ve'Achar Kach Ba'u Eidim, Patur. He derives Rav's Din from "Im Himatzei Simatzei" - via the D'rashah 'Im Himatzei be'Eidim Timatzei be'Dayanim; P'rat le'Marshi'a es Atzmo'.

(b) The Tana who learns both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav, learns 'Modeh bi'K'nas Patur' from "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim Yeshalem Shenayim ... ". The other Tana requires both Pesukim - the latter for where witnesses did not subsequently testify, and the former, for even when they did (like Rav).

(c) The Tana who learns both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav disagrees. According to him - Modeh bi'K'nas is Patur only as long as witnesses did not subsequently testify, but if they did, he is Chayav.

(a) The Tana who learns that one Pasuk refers to a Ganav and the other, to a To'en Ta'anas Ganav has already exempted Karka, Avadim and Sh'taros from "Al Kol D'var Pesha, Al Shor, Al Chamor ... " (as we explained earlier). The Torah sees fit to write "Shor", Chamor" and "Seh" in the Pasuk "Im Himatzei Simatzei be'Yado ha'Geneivah" because of the principle stated by Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael - that the Torah will sometimes repeat a Parshah for the sake of the one Chidush that it contains.

(b) The Chidush contained in this Pasuk that justifies repeating "Shor", Chamor" and "Seh" - is "Im Himatzei (be'Eidim) Simatzei (be'Dayanim)".

(c) According to the Tana who learns both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav, we know that a Ganav pays double even without a Shevu'ah because, if we were to learn from To'en Ta'anas Ganav that he is only Chayav after having made a Shevu'ah - then we would learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from To'en Ta'anas Ganav (who received the Pikadon be'Heter, whereas a Ganav received it be'Isur). The fact that the Torah writes "Shenayim Yeshalem" by Ganav must be to teach us he obligation to pay double even without a Shevu'ah.

(a) The Torah writes "Im Himatzei Simatzei be'Yado ha'Geneivah", to teach us that if the Ganav actually stole with his hands, he is obligated to pay double. The Beraisa learns from "Im Himatzei Simatzei" - that the same will apply even if he 'acquired' the animal by hitting it and it walked onto his roof or into his Chatzer or enclosure.

(b) Nevertheless, the Tana'im in the other Beraisos learn other D'rashos from the same words (either the two Ribuyim or 'Modeh bi'K'nas va'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim Patur') - because the double Lashon enables us to learn one D'rashah, whereas the change from "Himatzei" to Simatzei" enables us to make the other.