Answer (Rav Yosef): It is still called a beam, even after it is built into the roof.

(Beraisa): "Tzal'os of the (future Mikdash)" are the boards that hold the rafters in place. "Ha'Ovim" are the beams.

Answer #3 (to Question 3:a, 66b - R. Zeira): A change in name that can be reversed is not considered a change.

Inference: A change of name that cannot be reversed is a change!

Question: A pipe was called a piece of wood before it was hollowed out (and even after it is a pipe, it is as if did not change)!

(Mishnah): If a pipe was hollowed out and then affixed (for water to flow through it into a Mikvah, it is considered a Kli. Water that goes through it is called 'She'uvim', and) it disqualifies the Mikvah (if the Mikvah did not yet have 40 Sa'im of water). If it was affixed and then hollowed out, it does not disqualify the Mikvah.

Answer: The law that Mayim She'uvim disqualifies a Mikvah is mid'Rabanan. (Chachamim were lenient about it.)

Question: If so, even when it was hollowed out first, they should be lenient!

Answer: There, it was a Kli before it was attached.

Question (Beraisa): If a Ganav, Gazlan or Chamsan extortionist made something Hekdesh, Terumah or Ma'aser, it takes effect. (This shows that one acquires through despair!)

Answer: No, he acquires due to the change in name from Tevel to Terumah (or Ma'aser), or from Chulin to Hekdesh.

Version #1 (Rav Chisda): We learn that Shinuy Koneh from "he will return the stolen item that he stole." - the extra words teach, he returns it only if it is like what he stole. If not, he returns the value.

Question: We need that verse to teach that one does not add a Chomesh for what one's father stole (even if his father swore to deny it)!

Answer: The Torah could have written 'he will return his stolen object' to teach that. "That he stole" is extra, to teach also that Shinuy Koneh.

Version #2 (Rav Chisda): We learn that Ein Shinuy Koneh from "he will return the stolen item" - in any case.

Question: It says "that he stole"!

Answer: That teaches that one does not add a Chomesh for stealing from one's father. (end of Version #2)

(Ula): We learn that Ein Yiush Koneh from "and you will offer (an animal that is) stolen, lame or sick." This equates a stolen animal to a lame one;

Just like a lame animal cannot become acceptable, also a stolen animal, even after the owner despairs!

(Rava): We learn from "his Korban" - not a stolen one.

Question: When does this apply?

If it is before despair, this is obvious. No verse would be needed!

Answer: Rather, it is after despair. This teaches that despair does not acquire.

Question: Earlier, Rava answered that the thief stole a Korban. (We can say so also here, so the verse is no proof!)

Answer #1: Rava retracted.

Answer #2: One of these Rav Papa said, not Rava.

(Mishnah): The payment of four and five (applies only to an ox or Seh).

Question: Why don't we learn from Shabbos, about which it says "ox", and it even applies to wild animals and birds?

Answer (Rava): It says "ox" and "Seh" twice. The repetition teaches that this is only for an ox or Seh, but nothing else.

Question: Which are extra?

Suggestion: The latter are extra. It could have written 'if a man will steal an ox or Seh and slaughter it or sell it, he will pay five cattle Tachtav (in place of it), and four flock Tachtav.'

Rejection: If so, one might have thought that he pays nine animals for either!

Suggestion: One 'Tachtav' is extra, to show that this is not so.

Rejection: The extra 'Tachtav' teaches a different law!

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one who stole an expensive ox may pay dying oxen in place of it!

Rejection: "Tachas" (they must correspond to it. "Tachas" written regarding flock teaches the same about flock).

Answer #1: The first "ox" and "Seh" are extra. It could have written 'if a man will steal and slaughter it or sell it, he will pay five cattle in place of the ox, and four flock in place of the Seh.'

Question: If so, one might have thought that he pays only when he steals and slaughters an ox and a Seh!

Answer: 'Slaughter it', teaches that that is not so.

Question: One might have thought that he must steal both, and slaughter one and sell the other!

Answer: 'Slaughter it or sell it' shows that that is not so.

Objection: One might have thought that he must steal both, slaughter or sell one, and keep the other!

Answer #2: The latter "ox" and the first "Seh" are extra. It could have written 'if a man will steal an ox and slaughter it or sell it, he will pay five cattle in place of it, and four flock in place of the Seh';

From the extra "ox" at the end of the verse, and the extra "Seh" at the beginning, we hear, four and five applies only to cattle and flock.

(Mishnah): A thief who steals from a thief does not pay Kefel...

(Rav): This is only before despair (of the owner). After despair, the first thief acquires it, and the second thief pays Kefel to the first.

Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa - R. Akiva): The Torah said that one who slaughters or sells pays four and five, because he entrenched himself in sin.

Question: When did he slaughter or sell?

If it was before despair, he (one who sold) did not go deeper in sin (the sale does nothing)!

Answer: Rather, it was after despair.

(Summation of question): If despair acquires, why does he pay four and five? He slaughters or sells his own animal!