Question (Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): The Torah should have said only 'ox' and 'theft', and we would know that Kefel applies to everything!

Answer: If the only example (of a stolen object) was 'ox', we would include only animals that are offered on the Mizbe'ach!

This would include a Seh. However, the verse also says "Seh"! We must say that "theft..." includes everything! (The Gemara proceeds to explain this.)

Question: It would have sufficed to write 'ox, Seh, theft'!

Answer: If so, we would learn only animals whose firstborn have Kedushah.

This would include a donkey. However, the verse explicitly says "donkey"! We must say that "theft..." includes everything!

Question: It would have sufficed to write 'ox, donkey, Seh, theft'!

Answer: If so, we would include only living things.

The verse says also "living"! We must say that ("theft...") includes everything!

Question: Why did Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah say 'had the Torah said only 'ox' and 'theft''? "Theft" is written before "ox"!

Suggestion: The Tana means 'had the Torah written 'ox... theft...'

Rejection: If so, 'ox' would be a Prat, and 'theft' a Klal. From a Prat u'Chlal we learn everything!

Answer: Rather, the Tana means 'had the Torah written only 'theft... ox...'

Question: If so, why would we think that all is included?

'Theft' would be a Klal, and 'ox' would be a Prat. From a Klal u'Frat we learn only the Prat, an ox!

Answer (Rava): The Tana relies on 'living', a second Klal. There is a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal.

Question: The second Klal (includes only living things. This) is unlike the first Klal!

Answer: He holds like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael, who expounds such a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal. The Tana asks as follows:

Question: Why do we need "Im Himatzei Simatzei?" We could learn everything from (the Klal u'Frat u'Chlal) 'ox, theft, living'!

Answer: If the only Prat was 'ox', we would include only animals that are offered on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: This would include a Seh. However, the Torah explicitly wrote "Seh"!

Rather, we must say that "theft..." comes to include everything (through the method of Klalim and Peratim);

(Summation of question): It would have sufficed to write 'theft, ox, Seh, living'!

Answer: If so, we would have included only animals whose firstborn have Kedushah.

Question: That would include a donkey. However, the Torah explicitly wrote "donkey"!

We must say that "theft..." includes everything. It would have sufficed to write 'theft, ox, Seh, donkey, living'!

Answer: If so, we would include only living things.

Question: The Torah explicitly writes "living" (which includes all living things)!

We must say that "theft..." includes everything. Why did the Torah need to write "Im Himatzei Simatzei"?

Question: If this was the question, how can we answer it?!

Answer: We asserted that we could have included everything from 'theft, ox, Seh, donkey, living.' This is wrong. We cannot include more than the latter Klal, which is "living"!

Question: What do we learn from the Klal u'Frat u'Chlal?

We cannot learn everything, for the latter Klal is "living", which can include only living things!

(Summation of answer): This is why we need "Im Himatzei Simatzei" (to include everything).

Question: The Peratim are not between the Klalim "Himatzei" and "Simatzei"!

Answer #1 (Ravina): In such a case, we consider it as if the Peratim were in the middle, to expound like a Klal u'Frat u'Chlal.

Question: We put "ox" between "Himatzei" and "Simatzei". What does this include?

It need not include living things. We already know this from "living"!

Answer: Rather, it includes inanimate things.

We expound: the Prat is movable and has intrinsic value. We include all such things.

Question: We put "donkey" between "Himatzei" and "Simatzei." What does this include?

It need not include inanimate things. We already know them from "ox"!

Answer: Rather, it includes specific things (Rashi - that have Simanim; Tosfos - they have a measure, or are whole).

Objection: If so, what do we learn from "Seh"?

Answer #2: Rather, we expound it through Ribuyim and Mi'utim, like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael.

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): We do not expound "in water... in water" through the method of Klalim and Peratim. Rather, it is a Ribuy u'Mi'ut u'Ribuy.

Question: If it is a Ribuy u'Mi'ut u'Ribuy, everything is included. Why were the Peratim written?

Answer: One excludes land, one excludes slaves, and one excludes documents;

"Theft" and "living" teach like Rav, that the thief must resuscitate what he stole (restore it to the value at the time he stole it).

Question: According to Beraisa #2 (one verse discusses a thief, and the other discusses one who claims that the deposit was stolen), what do we learn from "Im Himatzei Simatzei"?

Answer: It teaches Rava bar Ahilai's law;

(Rava bar Ahilai citing Rav): If one admits to a fine, and witnesses came later, he is exempt. He learns from "Im Himatzei Simatzei";

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

Question: According to Beraisa #1 (both verses discuss one who claims that the deposit was stolen), from where do we know this?

Answer: "Whom the judges will convict" excludes one who incriminates himself.

Question: What does the Tana of Beraisa #2 learn from this verse?

Answer: It exempts one who admits to a fine. (This allows him to learn from "Im Himatzei..." that even if witnesses come later, he is exempt.)

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

Question: According to Beraisa #2, we said that "Im Himatzei Simatzei" teaches like Rava bar Ahilai. What do the Peratim teach?

Answer: This is like Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael taught:

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): An entire Parshah can be repeated for the one Chidush. (Here, Im Himatzei Simatzei exempts one who admits to a fine. We did not need the Peratim, for we can learn from the coming Parshah (Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav, which discusses one who claims that it was stolen, and also lists the Peratim).)

Suggestion: An actual thief should pay Kefel only if he swore!

Rejection (Beraisa - R. Yakov): "He will pay Kefel" - without an oath.

Suggestion: Perhaps this is only if he swore!

Rejection: It was not so.

Question: What does this mean?

Answer (Abaye): The Torah did not need to write that a thief pays Kefel. We could have learned from a Kal va'Chomer:

One who (falsely) claims that the deposit was stolen pays Kefel, even though the object came to him in a permitted way. A thief took the object in a forbidden way, all the more so he pays Kefel!

The Torah write that a thief "pays two" to teach that this is even if he did not swear.