Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa lists various cases of Ganavim who pay Daled ve'Hey, the first of which is 'Ganav veNasan le'Achar ve'Tavach ... u'Machar'. The Tana cannot mean that he gave it to him as a gift - because then, the Ganav would be Chayav immediately (which in fact, is one of the subsequent cases in the Mishnah), even without the recipient Shechting or selling it).

(b) The Tana continues 'Ganav ve'Hikdish, Ganav ve'Hikif, Ganav ve'Hichlif, Ganav ve'Nasan be'Matanah'. 've'Hikif' means that he sold it to him on credit.

(a) And the Tana concludes 'Ganav u'Para be'Chovo, Ganav u'Para be'Hekeifo, Ganav ve'Shalach Sivlonos be'Veis Chamiv, Meshalem ... '. 'Sivlonos le'Beis Chamiv' are - gifts that a Chasan sends to his father-in-law's house.

(b) The Chidush in the Reisha (the first two cases) is that he is Chayav even though *he* did not Shecht or sell it (but someone someone else). We do not apply the principle 'Ein Sheliach li'D'var Aveirah' here - because, as we have already learned, we extrapolate 'Tevichah Dumya li'Mechirah', to render one Chayav even where there is a third party involved.

(c) The only other Chidush lies in the case of Ganav ve'Hikdish - which comes to teach us that there is no difference between selling to a Hedyot and selling to Hekdesh (as we learned above).

(a) If the Ganav stole an animal in the domain of the owner and Shechted it or sold it outside his domain, he is Chayav Daled ve'Hey - because as he led it out of the owner's domain, he acquired it, taking upon himself all the obligations of a Ganav.

(b) If he stole it ...

1. ... outside his domain and Shechted or sold it inside, or if he stole it outside his domain and Shechted it there too - he is also Chayav.
2. ... inside his domain and Shechted it there too - he is Patur, because he did not yet acquire it (though he is obviously liable for damages.

(c) If someone steals a lamb, and it dies ...

1. ... as he is leading it towards the exit of the owner's domain - he is Patur from Kefel.
2. ... just after he has led it throught the gate - he is Chayav.
3. ... after he has picked it up still inside the owner's field - he is Chayav, because a Kinyan Hagbahah is effective anyewhere, even in the owner's domain.

(a) In a case where the Ganav told a Kohen to take the sheep that he wanted to steal, as payment for Pidyon ha'Ben, his creditor to take it as payment of his debt, or if he instructed any of the four Shomrim to take it and look after it, and it died ...

1. ... whilst still in the owner's domain - he is Patur.
2. ... after the person concerned had taken it out of the owner's domain - he is Chayav.

(b) One of the reasons that the Tana cannot be referring to when *the owner* gave it to a Kohen to redeem his first-born son ... or to one of the four Shomrim to look after, is because a Sho'el, why should a Shomer be Chayav for Meisah ke'Darkeh, which is a pure O'nes? The other reason is - that in the cases of giving it to a Kohen or to his creditor, the Lashon 'Patur' or 'Chayav' is inappropriate (since it is a question of whether he has lost or not). What the Tana should rather have said is 'Hifsid' or 'Lo Hifsid'.

(a) The ramifications of Ameimar's She'eilah whether the Chachamim instituted Meshichah by a Shomer or not are - whether the Shomer is liable to pay if something happened to the animal prior to his having made a Meshichah.

(b) Ameimar tries to refute Rav Yeimar's proof from our Mishnah 'Nasno li'Bechoros B'no ... Hayah Moshcho u'Meis'. The Tana may be talking (not about the Shomer leading the animal [as we explained in our Mishnah] but) - when the Ganav led the animal out of the domain of the Kohen, the creditor or the Shomer.

(c) When Rav Yeimar queried Ameimar from the fact that the Tana has already taught us the Din of a Ganav in the Reisha, when he stole from the domain of the owner - he replied that the Reisha teaches us the Din of a Ganav who steals from the domain of the owner, and the Seifa adds the Din of a Ganav who steals from the domain of a Shomer ...

(d) Rav Ashi sides with Rav Yeimar, to conclude 'Sh'ma Mi'nah, Tiknu Meshichah be'Shomrim - because what on earth is the difference whether the Ganav steals from this domain or that one (once we know the one, we know the other)?

(a) Rav Ashi has the support of a Beraisa which states - 'ke'Derech she'Tiknu Meshichah bi'Lekuchos, Kach Tiknu Meshichah be'Shomrim'.

(b) The Tana continues 'u'ke'Shem she'ha'Karka Nikneis be'Kesef, bi'Sh'tar u've'Chazakah, Kach Sechirus Nikneis ... '. He can only be referring to S'chirus of Karka, says Rav Chisda - because one cannot acquire Metaltelin with a Sh'tar (or with Chazakah).

(c) We cannot bring the same proof from Kesef - because Kesef does acquire Metaltelin with regard to a 'Mi she'Para' (the curse that one receives for retracting from a sale after paying for goods which one has not yet acquired).

(d) There is no 'Mi she'Para' for retracting from a sale on which one has written a Sh'tar (which is considered no more than words).

7)

(a) Rebbi Elazar obligates someone who hides in the forest in order to steal animals and then Shechts them to pay Daled ve'Hey -because he considers him a Ganav.

(b) The Ganav concerned acquires the animals, Rav Chisda explains - by hitting them with a stick (which is a form of Meshichah).

(c) Despite the fact that people saw him he is nevertheless a Ganav and not a Gazlan - since he hides from them.

(a) According to Rebbi Avahu, a Gazlan is someone who steals openly like Benayahu ben Yehoyada - who actually grabbed the spear out of the hands of an Egyptian and killed him with it.

(b) Rebbi Avahu does not agree with Rebbi Yochanan, who gives an example of a Gazlan as someone who lies in ambush (like the Ba'alei Sh'chem in Shoftim), because, when all's said and done, they did hide. Rebbi Yochanan counters this argument - by pointing out that they only hid in order to prevent their victims from escaping (and not because they were afraid of them) see Tosfos DH 've'Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) A Ganav is more stringent than a Gazlan - inasmuch as he pays Daled ve'Hey (whereas a Gazlan does not).

(b) The reason that Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai give his Talmidim for this is - because whereas the Gazlan does not respect (fear) Hashem less than his fellow man, a Ganav does (since he fears man, but not Hashem).

(c) What the Pesukim "Hoy ha'Ma'amakim me'Hashem, Lastir Eitzah ve'Hayah be'Machshach Ma'aseihem" (Yeshayah); "va'Yomru Lo Yir'eh Kah ve'Lo Yavin Elokei Ya'akov" (Tehilim); "ve'Amru Azav Hashem es ha'Aretz, ve'Ein Hashem Ro'eh" (Yechezkel) have in common is - that they all describe the Ganav.

(d) To describe Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's explanation, Rebbi Meir in the name of Raban Gamliel gave a Mashal to two people who organized a party - one of whom invited the townspeople but not the king, whereas the other invited neither. It is obvious that the first of the two is more deserving of punishment than the second.

(a) Rebbi Meir in the name of Raban Gamliel extrapolates the importance of work from the Parshah of Daled ve'Hey - from the fact that the Ganav has to pay fourfold for Shechting or selling a lamb, but fivefold for an ox (because whereas the latter works [and that is what he deprived the owner of], the former does not).

(b) According to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, the reason that the Ganav pays less for Shechting or selling a lamb is because, whereas the ox walked with the Ganav on its own volition, the lamb had to be carried on his shoulders, involving a degree of shame - from which we can extrapolate the importance of self-respect.

(a) Our Mishnah forbids rearing small animals in Eretz Yisrael - because they tend to wander off into other people's fields, and to eat the produce. (Chazal term this 'Yishuv Eretz Yisrael', safeguarding the property of Eretz Yisrael).

(b) The Mishnah permits it in Syria, despite the fact that David ha'Melech captured it, because ' 'Kibush Yachid Lo Sh'mei Kibush' (Land that was conquered before the conquest of Eretz Yisrael had been completed, is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael).

(c) He permits it even in Eretz Yisrael however - in the deserts.

(d) Chazal forbade ...

1. ... anyone to rear chickens in Yerushalayim - because of the Kodshim that were constantly being brought there, and chickens tend to carry dead Sheratzim around.
2. ... Kohanim anywhere in Eretz Yisrael to do so - due to the same fear, seeing as they are obligated to eat Terumah (which must be kept Tahor).

(a) It is forbidden to rear Chazeirim anywhere. One may ...

1. ... rear dogs - as long as they are constantly kept on a chain.
2. ... spread nets to trap doves - provided they are placed at least thirty Ris (four Ris = one Mil) from the town.

(b) The reason that Chazal forbade rearing dogs is - because they bite and bark (and sometimes even cause women to lose their babies through the fear that results from their barking).

(c) The Beraisa permits rearing small animals in the Chorshin of Eretz Yisrael. 'Chorshin' means - forests.

(d) They also permitted rearing them in the desert of Yehudah and of the border of Acco. They did not extend the decree to big animals (which are needed for carrying and plowing), because it was too difficult a burden for the community to bear - because to import them from outside the country was problematic.

(a) Chazal permitted a person to keep small animals - thirty days before his son's wedding or before Yom-Tov.

(b) If for example, one purchased an animal fifteen days before Yom-Tov, he is not permitted to retain it for fifteen days after Yom-Tov, in order to make the most of the thirty-day concession.

(c) A cattle-dealer is permitted to keep small animals as from thirty days prior to market-day until market-day.

(d) The Tana discusses whether a cattle-dealer who purchased animals fifteen days before market-day may retain them until the end of the thirty-day period (just as he did with regard to keeping animals that remained after Yom-Tov). When he writes 'u'Vil'vad she'Lo Yashheh *ha'Agunah* she'Bahen Sheloshim Yom', he means - that he is not permitted to retain *the last of them* for the full thirty days, only until market-day.