Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE SOURCE FOR PAYING DOUBLE, 4 AND 5

(a) Question: The Tana of Beraisa #1 holds that neither verse speaks of an actual thief - how does he know that an actual thief pays double, and 4 and 5?

1. Suggestion: From a Kal va'Chomer - one who claims the item was stolen pays double, 4 and 5 - all the more so, an actual thief!
2. Rejection: The principle of Dayo says, only in the same situation, i.e. after swearing!

(b) Answer: He learns as Tana d'vei Chizkiyah. (The Gemara will later explain Tana d'vei Chizkiyah.)

1. Question (Tana d'vei Chizkiyah): The Torah should only have said 'Ox' and 'theft', we would know that (double payment) applies to everything!
2. Answer: If the only example (of a stolen object) was 'ox', we would only include animals that are offered on the Altar!

i. This would include a Seh, yet the verse also says "Seh"; it must be, this verse ("Theft...") includes everything!

3. Question: It would have sufficed to write 'Ox, Seh, theft'!
4. Answer: If so, we would only learn animals whose firstborn have Kedushah.

i. This would include a donkey, yet the verse also says "donkey"; it must be, ("Theft...") includes everything!

5. Question: It would have sufficed to write 'Ox, donkey, Seh, theft'!
6. Answer: If so, we would only include living things.

i. But the verse also says "living"; it must be, ("Theft...") includes everything!

(c) Question: Why did Tana d'vei Chizkiyah say 'Had the Torah only said 'Ox' and 'theft'' - theft is written before ox!

1. Suggestion: The Tana means, 'Had the Torah written 'Ox, theft'.
2. Rejection: If so, 'ox' would be a specific, 'theft' a generality, from a specific and generality we learn everything!

(d) Answer: Rather, the Tana means, as they are written, 'Theft, ox'.
(e) Question: If so, why should we think that all is included?

1. 'Theft' would be a generality, 'ox' would be a specific, from a generality and specific we only learn the specific, an ox!

(f) Answer (Rava): The Tana is relying on 'living', a second generality; there is a generality, specific, generality.
(g) Question: The second generality (only includes living things, this) is unlike the first generality!
(h) Answer: He holds as Tana d'vei R. Yishmael, who holds that this does not inhibit expounding as generality, specific, generality; the Tana asks and answers as follows:

1. Question: Why do we need "If will be found, you will find" - we could learn everything from (the generality, specific, generality) 'ox, theft, living'!
2. Answer: If the only specific was 'ox', we would only include animals that are offered on the Altar.
3. Question: This would include a Seh - but the Torah explicitly writes "Seh"!

i. It must be, "Theft..." comes to include everything (through the method of generalities and specifics);
ii. (Summation of question): It would have sufficed to write 'Theft, ox, Seh, living'!

4. Answer: If so, we would have thought, only animals whose firstborn have Kedushah are included.
5. Question: That would include a donkey; but the Torah explicitly writes "donkey"!

i. It must be, "Theft..." comes to include everything - it would have sufficed to write 'Theft, ox, Seh, donkey, living'!

6. Answer: If so, we would only include living things.
7. Question: But the Torah explicitly writes "living" (which includes all living things)!

i. It must be, "Theft..." comes to include everything - why did the Torah have to say "If will be found, you will find"?

(i) Question: If that was the Tana's question - how does he answer it?!
(j) Answer: We can ask as follows: the source to include everything is the latter generality - the latter generality is "living"!

1. Question: What do we learn from the generality, specific, generality?

i. Suggestion: If to learn everything - we cannot, the latter generality is "living", which can only include living things!

2. (Summation of answer): That is why we need "If will be found, you will find".

(a) Question: But the specifics are not between the generalities "If will be found" and "You will find"!
(b) Answer #1 (Ravina): In such a case, we view the specifics as being in the middle, to expound as generality, specific, generality.

1. Question: We put "ox" between "If will be found" and "You will find" - what does this include?

i. Suggestion: If to include - we already know living things from "living"!

2. Answer: Rather, it includes inanimate things.

i. We expound: the specific is movable and has intrinsic value - we include all such things.

3. Question: We put "donkey" between "If will be found" and "You will find" - what does this include?

i. Suggestion: If to include inanimate things - we already know this from "ox"!

4. Answer: Rather, it includes specific things (Rashi - that have signs; Tosfos - have a measure, or are whole).
5. Question: If so, what do we learn from "Seh"?

(c) Answer #2: Rather, we expound by the method of inclusions and exclusions, as Tana d'vei R. Yishmael.

1. (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "In water...in water" - we do not expound this by the method of generalities and specifics, rather as an inclusion, exclusion, inclusion.

(d) Question: If we expound as inclusion, exclusion, inclusion, everything is included - why were the specifics written?
(e) Answer: One excludes land, 1 excludes slaves, 1 excludes documents;

1. "Theft" and "Living" teach as Rav - the thief must resuscitate what he stole (restore it to the value at the time he stole it).

(a) Question: According to Beraisa #2 (1 verse teaches a thief, the other, one who claims that the deposit was stolen), what do we learn from "If will be found, you will find"?
(b) Answer: As Rava bar Ahila'i

1. (Rava bar Ahila'i): Rav taught, one who admits to a fine, and witnesses later come, he is exempt - he learns from "If will be found, you will find";

i. If he will be found through witnesses, judges will find him liable - this excludes one who incriminates himself (even if witnesses come later).

(c) Question: According to Beraisa #1 (both verses speak of one who claims that the deposit was stolen), from where do we know this?
(d) Answer: "That the judges will find guilty" - this excludes one who incriminates himself.
(e) Question: What does the Tana of Beraisa #2 learn from this verse?
(f) Answer: That one who admits to a fine is exempt. (This allows him to learn from "If will be found..." that even if witnesses come later, he is exempt.)

1. The Tana of Beraisa #1 only has 1 verse exempting one who admits to a fine - he holds, if witnesses later come, he is liable.

(g) Question: According to Beraisa #2, we said that "If will be found, you will find" teaches as Rava bar Ahila'i; what do the specifics teach?
(h) Answer: As Tana d'vei R. Yishmael.

1. (Beraisa - Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): An entire Parsha can be repeated for the 1 Chidush (in our case - one who admits to a fine is exempt).

(i) Suggestion: We should say, a thief himself must swear (to be liable to pay double)!
(j) Rejection (Beraisa - R. Yakov): "He will pay double" - without an oath.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps this is only if he swore!
2. Rejection: It was not so.

i. Question: What does this mean?
ii. Answer (Abaye): The Torah didn't need to say that a thief pays double - we could have learned from a Kal va'Chomer:
iii. One who (falsely) claims that the deposit was stolen - the object came to him in a permitted way, yet he pays double; a thief, who took the object in a forbidden way, all the more so he pays double!
iv. The Torah write that a thief "Pays double" to teach, even if he did not swear.

(k) Question: But we need "If will be found, you will find" for another teaching!

1. (Beraisa) Question: "(If it will be found in) his hand" - how do we know that he pays double even if it is found on his roof or yard?
2. Answer: "If will be found, you will find" - in any place.

(l) Answer: Had the same word been written twice - 'If will be found, will be found' or 'If you will find, you will find', we would only learn 1 law;

1. Since the Torah switched, we learn 2 laws.