1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that the Ganav does not need to take less than a Shaveh P'rutah to Madai. Rav Papa in the first Lashon qualifies this by restricting it to a case where the actual object that he stole is no longer available. In the event that it is, he is obligated to return it - because of the possibility that its value will rise.

(b)In the second Lashon - Rav Papa maintains that either way, he is Patur.

(c)In spite of our Mishnah, Rava rules that if someone stole three bundles worth three P'rutos, and paid back two of them after their total price dropped to two P'rutos, he remains obligated to return the third one - because at the time when he stole it, it was worth a P'rutah.

(d)And we prove this from the Mishnah above "Gazal Chametz she'Avar alav ha'Pesach Omer lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha" ', from which we can infer - that if the Chametz was not available, he would be obligated to return it, even though it is no longer worth a P'rutah, because it was worth a P'rutah at the time when he stole it.

2)

(a)In a case where the Ganav stole two bundles worth a P'rutah and returned one of them, Rava is initially unsure whether he is obligated to return the other one. He might be Patur because the one still owing is not worth a P'rutah. He might nevertheless be Chayav - because, since when he returned one of the bundles, he did not fulfill the Mitzvah of Hashavah, the obligation still remains.

(b)Initially, Rava concludes 'Gezeilah Ein Ka'an, Hashavah Ein Ka'an' - meaning that since the object of Gezeilah (which he is obligated to return) is no longer by him, there is no obligation to return it.

(c)We reject this however - because it is obvious. How could Rava even think that if there is no Gezeilah there can possibly be a Mitzvah to return it?

(d)What he really means to say is - that despite the fact that there is no Gezeilah, he has not fulfilled the Mitzvah of Hashavah either (see Tosfos DH 'Mitzvas Hashavah'). See Rosh (Siman 25).

3)

(a)To require the Mitzvah of Gilu'ach - at least two hairs must remain on a Nazir's head.

(b)Rava asks what the Din will be if a Nazir shaves off one of the last two remaining hairs and the other one falls out. Rav Acha mi'Difti told Ravina that this was not really a She'eilah - because it is obvious that he is not obligated to shave them off simultaneously, and that consequently, he fulfilled the Mitzvah of Gilu'ach when he shaved off the first hair.

(c)Rava's She'eilah must therefore be - when one of the two hairs fell out first and he then shaved the second one, whether he fulfilled the Mitzvah because there are no hairs left, or whether he did not fulfill the Mitzvah, because at the time when he carried out the Gilu'ach, only one hair remained.

(d)Rava concludes - that even though no hairs remain, he has not fulfilled the Mitzvah of shaving (see Tosfos DH 'Mitzvas Gilu'ach).

4)

(a)Rava quotes the Mishnah in Keilim. When the Tana states that an earthenware barrel with a hole in it which the dregs stop up, saves it - he is referring to the case of a corpse that is lying in a downstairs room and this barrel fills the skylight between the room and the attic. The barrel saves the attic and all that it contains from Tum'as Meis.

(b)Had the dregs not stopped up the hole, the attic would have become Tum'ah - because then the barrel itself would have become Tamei, any anything that is subject to Tum'ah cannot serve as a Chatzitzah.

(c)When Rava asks 'Agaf Chetzyah Mahu' - he means to ask whether the same will apply if the owner cemented half the hole in the barrel, reducing it to less than the Shi'ur that allows Tum'ah to penetrate the barrel?

(d)Even though when all's said and done, the hole no longer contains the Shi'ur to let the Tum'ah through, the Tum'ah might nevertheless penetrate the barrel - seeing as the owner failed to fill in the Shi'ur (in which case it is as if he did not do anything).

5)

(a)Rav Yeimar tries to resolve Rava's She'eilah with the continuation of the Mishnah in Keilim. The Mishnah rules that in a case where someone stopped up the barrel with ...

1. ... a branch - the barrel will prevent the Tum'ah from rising to the attic, provided the branch is cemented to the barrel.

2. ... two branches - the branches also need to be cemented together.

(b)Rav Yeimar tries to resolve Rava's She'eilah from the fact that one needs to cement the gap in between the two branches, a proof that the hole must be stopped up properly in order to be effective.

(c)Rav Ashi rejects Rav Yeimar's proof however - on the grounds that this case is different, inasmuch as without cement in the middle, the branches will not remain in place, in which case, they cannot be considered a permanent filler (like dregs and cement).

6)

(a)We already learned that if someone stole Chametz before Pesach, he can say to the owner after Pesach 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'. Rava asks what the Din will be if the Ganav swears that he did not steal it, after the Chametz became forbidden. He might be Chayav a Chomesh and an Asham despite the fact that the Chametz has no intrinsic value - because it is a 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon', seeing as could have returned it to its owner and exempted himself from having to pay.

(b)Rabah rules that Reuven is Chayav, if he claims that Shimon stole his ox and Shimon replies that he did not (and swears accordingly), but that he is ...

1. ... a Shomer Chinam on it - because his Shevu'ah exempted him from Geneivah va'Aveidah.

2. ... a Shomer Sachar on it -because his Shevu'ah exempted him from Onsin.

3. ... a Sho'el on it - because his Shevu'ah exempted him from - Meisah Machmas Melachah (even though, in all three cases, he admits that he owes him the actual article.

(c)We see from here - that although Rava is unsure whether the Ganav is Chayav in such a case, Rabah is certain that he is.

7)

(a)Rav Amram queries Rabah from a Beraisa which learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Chichesh Bah" - that one is only Chayav a Chomesh and an Asham if he denies the actual object, but not if he claims, for example, that it was chasing after his ox or that he was a Shomer on it (seeing as he does not deny the actual article, as we explained earlier) ...

(b)... a Kashya on Rabah, who obligates the defendant on account of Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon, even though the object itself is worth nothing.

(c)To reconcile Rabah with the Beraisa, we establish ...

1. ... the Beraisa - by 'Heilech', where the animal is available and he offers it to the owner as it is.

2. ... Rabah - when it is not.

(d)Among the cases that the Tana cites are 'Atah Mecharto li, Atah Nesato li, Avicha Nasno li and To'eh ba'Derech Metzasiv'. He includes in 'Modeh be'Ikar' ...

1. ... 'Atah Mecharto li' - when he claims that the owner sold him the animal, but that, since he had not yet paid him, he should take his animal back.

2. ... 'Atah Nesato li, Avicha Nasno li' - when he claims that either of them gave him the ox on condition that he repaid the son with a certain favor, but that, because he had not fulfilled his side of the bargain, he should take the ox back.

(e)Shmuel's father explains that when the Ganav said 'To'eh ba'Derech Metzasiv', he claimed and swore that he found the lost animal, and that he took it home and failed to return it to the owner - because he did not know who the owner was.

8)

(a)Ben Azai lists three cases regarding Shevu'as ha'Eidus regarding a lost article - where someone asks a potential witnesses (who denies having seen his lost article) to swear to that effect, which he does, but then admits that he swore falsely.

(b)ben Azai is talking about a single witness.

(c)The first case is when the potential witness claimed and swore that he recognized the animal but not the owner, and the second, the reverse. The third case cannot be where he recognized neither - because then his Shevu'ah would not have been false.

(d)The third case must therefore be - where he recognizes both the animal and the owner.

9)

(a)What makes these cases 'Davar Gorem le'Mamon' is - the fact that the finder of the lost article initially has the option of swearing, and it is only if he does want to, that he is obligated to pay.

(b)According to Rav Ami Amar Rebbi Chanina, ben Azai holds that these cases are all Patur from swearing. Shmuel says - that they are all Chayav

(c)The former holds - 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon Patur, the latter holds Chayav.

(d)And the Tana'im in the Beraisa which discusses 'ha'Mashbi'a Eid Echad', is based on the same principle. The Tana Kama there holds Patur. Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - Chayav.

(e)The basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon ke'Mamon Dami'. Consequently ...

1. ... the Tana Kama holds Patur - because one witness initially obligates the litigant to swear, with a chance that it leads to him paying. That is a 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon', as we explained earlier, and the Tana Kama holds 'La'av ke'Mamon Dami'.

2. ... Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar holds Chayav - because the Chiyuv Shevu'ah can lead to the litigant paying (and he holds 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon ke'Mamon Dami').

10)

(a)Rav Sheishes rules - that a Shomer Chinam who denies having received the Pikadon (even without a Shevu'ah) - becomes a Ganav (and is Chayav Onsin, even though, had he not denied it, he would have been Patur).

(b)We try to prove his opinion from a Beraisa, which learns the punishment of a Shomer Chinam who denies that he is a Shomer from the words "ve'Chichesh Bah" (in Vayikra)", and from the words "ve'Lo Sechachashu" (in Kedoshim) - the warning (since every punishment must have a corresponding warning).

(c)We initially think that the Tana is referring to - the punishment of the Chiyuv Onsin (as we just explained).

(d)We are trying to prove from here that once the Shomer denies that he is a Shomer, he becomes a Ganav (like the opinion of Rav Sheishes).

11)

(a)We reject the proof from the Beraisa however, by establishing the case by 'Onesh Shevu'ah'. But we query this from the Seifa - which specifically refers to Onesh Shevu'ah (implying that the Reisha is speaking where he did not make a Shevu'ah)?

(b)The Seifa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Nishba al Sheker" - Onesh Shevu'ah.

2. ... "Lo Seshakru" - the warning.

(c)Nevertheless, we establish the Reisha too, where the Shomer swore, and the reason that the Tana present two cases of Nishba - is because the Reisha is speaking where it was two witnesses who subsequently revealed the truth, whereas the Seifa speaks where he admitted that he swore falsely.

(d)The difference between the Onesh in the Reisha and the Onesh in the Seifa is - that, in the Reisha, he has to pay for Onsin (as we explained earlier), whereas in the Seifa, he pays Keren and a Chomesh, and has to bring an Asham.

12)

(a)Another Beraisa discusses 'Kenegdo Chashud al ha'Shevu'ah' - which means that although, min ha'Torah, it is always the defendant who swears, there where the defendant is unable to swear, because he is suspected of swearing falsely, then the Chachamim switched the Shevu'ah to the claimant.

(b)The Tana gives three examples of a Chashud. He refers to cases of Shevu'as ha'Eidus, of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon - and of Shevu'as Shav.

(c)Shevu'as Shav is different than the other two cases - inasmuch as it does not involve money, and that it renders him 'Ra la'Shamayim', but not 'Ra la'Beri'os (like the other two). Nevertheless, he is Chashud.

(d)Rami bar Chama asks from this Beraisa on Rav Sheishes - why according to him, in the case of Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, the Tana did not consider the Shomer Chashud from the time he denied the Pikadon, even without having sworn?

13)

(a)We answer Rami bar Chama's Kashya by establishing the Beraisa where the ox was standing in a meadow, in which case - had he not sworn, we would have assumed that his denial was only to give him time to go and fetch it; whereas Rav Sheishes is speaking where witnesses testify that the article was actually in his domain when he denied it.

(b)And we support this answer with a statement by Rav Idi bar Avin, who ruled that if someone denies ...

1. ... a loan - he remains a valid witness (because he is only stalling for time, as we just explained).

2. ... a Pikadon (where witnesses testify that the article was actually in his domain when he denied it, as we establish in Bava Metzi'a) - he is Chayav.

(c)The difference between the two cases is based on the fact - that a loan is intended for spending (which explains why he needs time to obtain the money), whereas a Pikadon is intact (in which case the Shomer has no reason to stall for time).