Question: The new coins have more weight (they are worth more to be melted down)!

Answer #2: A case occurred, and Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua checked with a moneychanger, and found that eight new coins equal 10 old coins (that were lent. Rashi - they ruled that eight new coins must be returned. Had they added less to the coins, the same number lent would be returned. R. Chananel, brought in Tosfos - they ruled that 10 new coins must be returned. Had they added more to the coins, only the same weight of metal lent would be returned.)

(Rabah): If Reuven threw Shimon's coin into the sea, he is exempt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The coin is there; it can be retrieved.

This is only if the water is clear, so the coin can be seen. If the water is cloudy, he is liable.

This is only if he knocked Shimon's hand. If he took the coin and threw it, he stole it, and he must return the coin to Shimon.

Question (Rava - Mishnah): One may not redeem (Ma'aser Sheni) on coins not in his Reshus;

If he had coins in a far away place (with no safe way to get there), or if his coins fell into the sea, they may not be used.

Answer (Rabah): Regarding redemption of Ma'aser, the coins must be available to him - "you will bind the money in your hand". (Normally, money on the sea floor is not considered lost.)

(Rabah): If Reuven rubbed out the writing or picture on Shimon's coin, he is exempt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: He did not do (take away) anything!

This is only if he pounded it with a hammer. If he filed it smooth, he removed some of the metal, so he is liable.

Question (Rava - Beraisa): If a master hit his slave on his eye and blinded the eye, or on his ear and deafened the ear, the slave goes free (even though nothing is missing)!

If he hit him near the eye or ear, and he cannot see or hear, he does not go free.

Answer: Rabah holds that one who deafens his father is killed, for certainly he made a wound; a drop of blood fell in his ear (there is a loss).

(Rabah): If Reuven made a groove in the ear of Shimon's cow (disqualifying it from being a Korban), he is exempt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: The cow is fine. Not all cows are destined to be Korbanos.

Question (Rava - Beraisa): If Reuven worked with Shimon's red heifer, or with his water destined to be sanctified with ashes of a red heifer (which disqualifies them), he is exempt b'Yedei Adam, but liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

He is only exempt for work, for this is not noticeable. He would be liable b'Yedei Adam for a notch in the ear, which is noticeable!

Answer: No, he is exempt b'Yedei Adam even for a notch in the ear, which is noticeable;

The Beraisa teaches that even for work, which is not noticeable, he is liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

(Rabah): If Reuven burned Shimon's loan document, he is exempt;

He can say 'I burned a mere piece of paper!'

Question (Rami bar Chama): What is the case?

If witnesses know what was in the document, they can write another document!

If no witnesses know what was in the document, how could we possibly obligate Reuven to pay?

Answer (Rava): The case is, Reuven trusts Shimon to say what was written.

(Rav Dimi bar Chanina): R. Shimon and Chachamim argue about Rabah's law;

R. Shimon holds that Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon (something that has no intrinsic value, but if it is lost, one will lose money) k'Mamon Dami (it is like property with value). He obligates for burning documents;

Chachamim hold that Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon is not k'Mamon. They exempt.

Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): R. Shimon said (that it is k'Mamon) only regarding something that was originally worth money, like Rabah's case!

(Rabah): If Reuven stole Shimon's Chametz before Pesach, and Levi burned it during Pesach, he is exempt, for all are commanded to burn Chametz on Pesach;

If he burned it after Pesach, R. Shimon, who holds that Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon k'Mamon Dami, obligates him (for now Reuven cannot return the Chametz itself, and must pay for his theft);

Chachamim, who say that it is not k'Mamon, exempt him.

We never find that R. Shimon obligates for something that never had intrinsic value!

(Ameimar): According to the opinion that obligates for Garmi ((Tosfos - direct) causation), he must pay the full value of the document;

According to the opinion that exempts for Garmi, he pays the value of the paper.

A case occurred, and Rafram forced Rav Ashi to pay the full value. (Rashi - he burned it when he was a minor.)

(Mishnah): If Reuven stole Shimon's Chametz, and Pesach passed, he can return the Chametz and say 'here is your Chametz.'

Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah, who allows saying 'here is your object' even if it is Asur b'Hana'ah (forbidden to benefit from it)?

Answer (Rav Chisda): It is R. Yakov;

(Gemara - Beraisa): If Reuven's ox killed, before the final verdict, if he sold it, it is sold. If he made it Hekdesh, it is Hekdesh. If he slaughtered it, the meat is permitted;

If Shimon was appointed to guard it, and he returned it to Reuven's house, it is considered returned;

After the verdict (if Reuven did these things), it is not sold, it is not Hekdesh, and the meat is forbidden. If Shimon returned it, it is not considered returned.

R. Yakov says, it is considered returned.

Suggestion: R. Yakov holds that one can say 'here is your object' even if it is Asur b'Hana'ah, and Chachamim (the first Tana) hold that he cannot say this.

Rejection (Rabah): No, all agree that one can say 'here is your object', even if it is Asur b'Hana'ah;

Version #1 (Rashi): If that were the argument, Chachamim would not allow one to return Chametz after Pesach (but they do allow this).

Version #2 (Tosfos): If that were the argument, the argument (here) should have been taught regarding Chametz on Pesach (lest we think they argue about something else). (end of Version #2)

Rather, they argue about whether or not Beis Din can sentence an ox in its absence.

Chachamim hold that they cannot sentence an ox in its absence. Reuven can say 'you made me lose my ox (by giving it over to Beis Din). Had you returned it to me, I would have hid it, it would not have been sentenced';

R. Yakov holds that they can sentence an ox in its absence. In any case, it would have been sentenced.

(Rabah bar Shmuel - Beraisa) Question: It says "he will return the stolen object." Why must it say "that he stole"?

Answer: This teaches that he returns similar to what he stole;

If he stole a coin and it was disqualified, produce and it rotted, wine and it soured, Terumah and it became Tamei, Chametz and Pesach came, an animal and a person slept with it or it was disqualified from being a Korban, or if (it killed but) was not yet sentenced to be stoned, he can say 'here is your object'.

This Tana does not allow returning an animal after it was sentenced to be stoned, like Chachamim, yet he allows returning Chametz after Pesach! (This supports Rabah, who says that all permit returning theft that became forbidden Asur b'Hana'ah.)

(Mishnah): If Reuven gave something to a craftsman to fix, and the craftsman ruined it, he is liable;

If he gave a chest, box or tower to a carpenter, and he ruined it, he is liable;

If a builder was hired to dissemble a wall, and he broke it or damaged the rocks, he is liable;

If he was dissembling from one side, and it fell from the other side, he is exempt;

If it fell due to the blow, he is liable.

(Gemara - Rav Asi): The Mishnah discusses only when he gave a chest, box or tower to a carpenter to insert a nail, and in doing so, he broke it;

If he gave to him wood to make a chest, box or tower, and then he broke it, he is exempt, for Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli (a craftsman immediately acquires improvements that he makes to a Kli).

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven gave something to a craftsman to fix, and he ruined it, he is liable;

Suggestion: He gave to him wood.

Answer: No, he gave him a chest, box or tower.

Question: The Seifa discusses when he gave a chest, box or tower. This implies that in the Reisha, he gave wood!

Answer: The Seifa explains the Reisha. He is liable when he gave a chest, box or tower.

Support: We must say that the Seifa explains the Reisha! If in the Reisha he gave to him wood, we would learn that Ein Uman Koneh bi'Shvach Kli. There would be no need for the Seifa to teach that he is liable for breaking a Kli!

Rejection: Perhaps the Seifa is needed to reveal that the Reisha discusses when he gave wood, but not when he gave a Kli.