Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa says "u'Tevacho O Mecharo", 'Mah Tevichah she'Einah Chozeres, *Af Mechirah she'Einah Chozeres*'.
How do we initially interpret this statement?

(b) Why does this pose a Kashya on Rav?

(c) We establish the Beraisa, according to Rav, when there was no Yi'ush. How will Rav then explain 'Af Mechirah she'Einah Chozeres'?

(a) In another Beraisa, the Tana reiterates the Din that someone who steals from a Ganav does not pay Kefel.
What is each one obligated to pay in the Seifa, where Reuven stole a cow and Shechted it, and Shimon stole the carcass from him?

(b) In the Metzi'asa, where Reuven sold the animal to Shimon and Levi then stole it from Shimon, the Tana obligates Reuven to pay fivefold to the owner.
How about Levi?

(c) Why must the Tana be speaking after Yi'ush?

(d) What is now the Kashya on Rav ...

1. ... from the Metzi'asa?
2. ... from the Reisha?

(a) To answer the Kashyos on Rav, Rava first points out that the Beraisa cannot be correct as it stands.
What is wrong with the Seifa, which exempts Shimon from paying Kefel?

(b) Rava therefore switches the Din in the Metzi'asa with that of the Seifa ... '.
How does he establish the Beraisa, before Yi'ush or after Yi'ush?

(c) What will the Din then be ...

1. ... in the Metzi'asa, where Reuven sold the cow to Shimon ... ?
2. ... where Shimon stole the cow after Reuven had Shechted it?

(d) Rav Papa leaves the Beraisa intact.
How does he then explain the Seifa? Who must be the author who would exempt Shimon from paying Kefel to Reuven even though the latter had Shechted it?

(a) However, we are still left with the Kashya on Rav from the Metzi'asa and the Reisha on Rav. Rav Z'vid establishes the entire Beraisa when Reuven stole the animal before Yi'ush.
Does he concur with Rav Papa's explanation of the Seifa?

(b) If the owner had not been Meya'esh before Reuven stole his cow, why does Levi pay Kefel in the Metzi'asa (where he purchased the cow from Reuven, seeing as Shinuy Reshus without Yi'ush is not Koneh)?

(c) Why, in the Metzi'asa, does the Tana speak specifically when the owner was Meya'esh *after* Reuven had sold it (and he pays Kefel to Shimon), and not before (in which case, he would pay Kefel to Reuven).
Is it because he holds that Yi'ush is only Koneh together with Shinuy Reshus, but not on its own (a Kashya on Rav)?

(a) If the Ganav sells the animal before the owner has been Meya'esh, Rav Nachman obligates him to pay Daled ve'Hey, because the Torah sells that a Ganav who sells the article is Chayav, and he did.
On what grounds does Rav Sheishes argue with Rav Nachman?

(b) Rav Sheishes derives his opinion from Rebbi Akiva, who ascribes the Din of Daled ve'Hey to the fact that 'his sin took root' (as we learned on the previous Amud).
How does Rav Nachman interpret this phrase?

6)

(a) Rebbi Elazar agrees with Rav Sheishes.
Based on the assumption that there must have been Yi'ush, what does Rebbi Elazar prove from the fact that a Ganav who Shechted or sold the stolen article is obligated to pay four or five-fold?

(b) And what makes him so certain that Yi'ush is necessary? Perhaps the Beraisa is speaking when there was no Yi'ush (and the Tana holds like Rebbi Shimon, who holds S'tam Gezeilah Yi'ush Ba'alim, but not S'tam Geneivah)?

(c) And how does he know that the Tana is not speaking when the Ganav heard the owner specifically say that he had given up hope of retrieving the animal?

(d) What does Rebbi Yochanan hold? How does he counter Rebbi Elazar from 'Geneivah be'Nefesh'?

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Chiyuv of Daled ve'Hey applies before Yi'ush, but it also extends to after Yi'ush.
What does Resh Lakish say?

(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes? with whom does Resh Lakish concur?

(c) Rebbi Yochanan asks on Resh Lakish from a Beraisa.
The Tana says that if someone steals a cow and, after declaring it Hekdesh, he Shechts it, he pays Kefel for the theft.
How about Daled ve'Hey for the Shechitah?

(d) Why can the Tana not be speaking before Yi'ush? What do we learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Ish Ki Yakdish es Beiso Kodesh"?

(a) Why is the Ganav then Patur from Daled ve'Hey?

(b) What can we now extrapolate from here that poses a Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(c) What does Resh Lakish reply to this Kashya? Who declared the animal Hekdesh, according to him?

(a) We query Resh Lakish's explanation however, with a statement of Rebbi Yochanan.
What did Rebbi Yochanan say in a case of 'Gazal ve'Lo Nisya'ashu ha'Ba'alim' that clashes with it?

(b) We answer that Resh Lakish holds like the Tzenu'in.
What is the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini's concern in connection with a Kerem of Neta Revai?

(c) What did the Tzenu'in used to do to offset this?

(d) What Kashya does this pose on the Beraisa currently under discussion which (according to Resh Lakish), we have just established like the Tzenu'in, but which obligates the Ganav to pay Kefel?

(a) We resolve the problem by establishing the case when the owner had taken the Ganav to Beis-Din before he declared it Hekdesh.
What difference does that make?

(b) What problem does this answer pose, assuming that Beis-Din had said 'Tzei Ten Lo'? What did Rava say in such a case?

(c) Then how does the Beraisa speak? What did the Beis-Din say to the Ganav?

Next daf