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 Chayim".
What is the Pasuk talking about?

(b) Why can we not learn everything from ...

1. ... Shor and Geneivah?
2. ... Shor, Seh and Geneivah?
3. ... Shor, Seh, Chamor and Geneivah?

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

(a) Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah said 'Yomar Shor u'Geneivah'. We query this, because they appear in the reverse order in the Pasuk.
What is the difference between "Shor u'Geneivah" and "Geneivah ve'Shor"?

(b) So "Geneivah" is a 'K'lal'.
Why can we not explain that the Tana ...

1. ... is merely explaining what we would say, had the Torah written 'Shor u'Geneivah'?
2. ... really meant to say "Geneivah ve'Shor" (as indeed, the Torah writes)?

(c) So how does Rava explain the Beraisa? If the Tana is not talking about a 'K'lal u'P'rat', then what is it talking about?

(d) How can we Darshen a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' when the first K'lal ("ha'Geneivah", implying everything), clashes with the second one (Chayim", which implies only living creatures)?

(a) What problem does the Tana himself have with the Pasuk in view of this 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal'?

(b) How does Rava relearn the Beraisa, in order to accommodate "Im Himatzei Simatzei"?

(c) What do we then learn from ...

1. ... "Chayim"?
2. ... "Geneivah"?

(d) At the end of the day, seeing as we seem to include everything from the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal', why do we need the Ribuy of "Im Himatzei Simatzei ... "?

4)

(a) On what grounds does ...

1. ... the last 'K'lal always come to include?
2. ... the first 'K'lal' always come to exclude?

(b) If not for "Himatzei Simatzei", what would ...

1. ... "Chayim" come to include?
2. ... "Geneivah" come to exclude?

(c) What problem does the idea that "Himatzei" and "Simatzei" constitute the two K'lalim, pose?

(d) How does Ravina resolve this problem?

(a) So we try to Darshen each P'rat together with "Im Himatzei Simatzei", as we just concluded. What do we then learn from "Chayim"?

(b) Assuming that, from "Shor", we learn 'Davar ha'Metaltel ve'Gufo Mamon', what will we learn from "Chamor"?

(c) What problem does "Seh" now pose?

(d) Citing Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael in connection with Kasher fish in the Pasuk in Shemini, we change the format of the above 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", what does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael do with the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal'?

(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.
What is Rav's Din?

(b) Why did we not cite the three previous D'rashos as long as we Darshened a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal'?

(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 Simatzei" comes to teach us Rava bar Ahila'i'a interpretation of Rav, who said "Modeh bi'K'nas ve'Achar Kach Ba'u Eidim, Patur.
How did Rava bar Ahila'i'a derive Rav's Din from "Im Himatzei Timatzei"?

(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 ... ". According to the other Tana, why are both Pesukim necessary?

(c) What is the basis of their Machlokes? In which point does the Tana who learns both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav argue?

(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 then see fit to write "Shor", Chamor" and "Seh" in the Pasuk "Im Himatzei Simatzei be'Yado ha'Geneivah" because of a principle stated by Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael.
Which principle?

(b) What Chidush does this Pasuk then contain that justifies repeating "Shor", Chamor" and "Seh"?

(c) According to the Tana who learns both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav, how do we know that a Ganav pays double even without a Shevu'ah? Why do we not learn from To'en Ta'anas Ganav that he is only Chayav after having made a Shevu'ah?

(a) The Torah writes "Im Himatzei Simatzei be'Yado ha'Geneivah", to teach us that if the Ganav actually stole the animal with his hands, he is obligated to pay double.
What does the Beraisa learn from "Im Himatzei Simatzei" (see Tosfos DH 'Ein Li')?

(b) In that case, how can 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')?

Next daf