1)

(a)'de'Ha Kol Chad v'Chad Klal u'Frat b'Apei Nafsheih Darshinan', which we just cited is based on the fact that the Torah should only need to write one Prat, and that all the others are therefore superfluous. Had the Torah written ...

1. ... "Shor", it would still have needed to write "Chamor to include even animals that are not fit to go on the Mizbe'ach.

2. ... "Chamor", it would still have needed to write "Shor" to include animals that are not subject to Kedushas Bechorah (such as deer).

(b)We can learn the latter from "Shor", even though they are subject to the Din of Bechor through the principle of 'Im Eino Inyan', because, seeing as we do not require a Pasuk to include animals that are subject to Bechorah, we use the extra word ("Shor") to include those that are not.

(c)The Torah needs to write "Seh" to include birds.

(d)But that will only suffice to include Tahor birds, which are similar to sheep (with regard to the Dinim of Tum'ah) inasmuch as, like the carcasses of sheep are Metamei, so too are their carcasses Metamei even the clothes of people who eat them (whereas the carcasses of Tamei birds are not Metamei at all).

2)

(a)We will include Tamei birds from "Kol", which is (not just a "Klal, but) a 'Ribuy'.

(b)We have already discussed (in the previous Perek, the 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' (in connection with Ma'aser Sheni) "v'Nasata ha'Kesef b'Chol asher Te'aveh Nafshecha; ba'Bakar u'va'Tzon ... u've'Chol asher Te'aveh Nafshecha", from which we learn that one may only use Ma'aser-Sheni money to purchase something that is 'Pri mi'Pri v'Gidulei Karka'.

(c)"u've'Chol" there is not considered a 'Ribuy' because whereas "Kol" is a Ribuy, "v'Chol" is not.

3)

(a)Alternatively, "Kol" is generally a 'Klal', and not a 'Ribuy', and the reason that it is considered a 'Ribuy' here is because we already have a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' from the beginning of the Parshah (as we shall now see).

(b)In fact, both the 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' of "Al Kol Devar Pesha ... " and that of "Ki Yiten Ish El Re'eihu, Kesef O Kelim, Li'shmor" teach us to confine the Pasuk to 'Davar ha'Metaltel v'Gufo Mamon'. The "Klal u'Frat u'Chlal" of ...

1. ... "Ki Yiten Ish El Re'eihu; Kesef O Kelim; Lish'mor" speaks in connection with Shevu'as Shomrim, that of ...

2. ... "Al Kol Devar Pesha, Al Shor Al Chamor Al Seh v'Al Salmah, Al Kol Aveidah" with the Din of Kefel (paying double by To'en Ta'anas Ganav).

(c)What makes the 'Kol' in the second Pasuk a 'Ribuy' rather than a 'Klal' is the fact that it repeats the entire 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal', instead of inserting the Peratim in the first list, using the same two Kelalim.

4)

(a)So now, with regard to paying Kefel, we have to contend with four Mi'utim ("Shor", "Chamor", "Seh" and "Salmah"). If "Shor" excludes Karka, and "Chamor", Avadim, we use ...

1. ... "Seh" to preclude Shtaros.

2. ... "Salmah" to preclude something which has no clear identification.

(b)"Al Kol Aveidah" comes to include the statement of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba who says 'ha'To'en Ta'anas Ganav ba'Aveidah, Meshalem Tashlumei Kefel'.

(c)His source is the Pasuk "Al Kol Devar Pesha"?

5)

(a)We have learned in a Mishnah in Shevu'os 'Heichen Pikdoni, Amar leih Avad, Mashbi'acha Ani ... v'ha'Edim Me'idim Oso she'Achlo, Meshalem Es ha'Keren'. In a case where the Shomer confesses that he ate it the Tana obligates him to pay the principle plus a fifth and to bring an Asham.

(b)He does not pay the extra fifth and bring an Asham in the previous case because he only does so by his own admission (as we shall now see).

(c)We learn that To'en Ta'anas Ganav or Avad who is proved false through witnesses, is Patur from Chomesh when there is no Asham, from a Pasuk by the Asham of Gezel ha'Ger (where the Torah writes ''ve'Hisvadu Es Chatosam") because there is no such thing as Chomesh without an Asham.

(d)With regard to the case where there are witnesses, the same applies to a To'en Ta'anas Ganav. The Tana says that a To'esn Ta'anas Ganav ...

1. ... who confesses that he ate the animal pays the principle plus a fifth and brings an Asham.

2. ... who is proved to have lied through the testimony of two witnesses, but whose claim is not supported by a Shevu'ah pays the principle only.

6)

(a)The Tana of the first Beraisa learns that the Pasuk "Im Yimatzei ha'Ganav Yeshalem Shenayim" is referring to a Shomer who is To'en Ta'anas Ganav and not to the Ganav himself from the Pasuk after it ("Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav"), which is definitely talking about a To'en Ta'anas Ganav (as we shall see, and) which reflects on the previous Pasuk.

(b)The second Beraisa says that to the contrary, since the second Pasuk is speaking about a To'en Ta'anas Ganav, the first Pasuk must be speaking about a Ganav (to teach us that a thief pays double).

(c)Both Tana'im agree however, that the second Pasuk ("v'Gunav mi'Beis ha'Ish ... Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav ... ") is speaking about a To'en Ta'anas Ganav, and they interpret ...

1. ... "Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav Yeshalem Shenayim l'Re'eihu" to mean that the alleged thief is not found, because it is the Shomer himself who stole the article.

2. ... v'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis El ha'Elohim" to mean that the owner took the Shomer to Beis-Din and demanded a Shevu'ah.

(d)They learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' Shelichus Yad' 'Shelichus Yad' 'Shelichus Yad' (" ... Im Lo Shalach Yado bi'Meleches Re'eihu") from (the Ones of) Shomer Sachar that the Torah does indeed refer to a Shevu'ah here (a Shevu'ah that he did not lay a hand on the object), and not just to a monetary claim.

7)

(a)The Tana who learns both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav, explains the need for Torah to insert two Pesukim to stress that it is only a To'en Ta'anas Ganav who pays double, but not a Ta'anas Avad.

(b)The other Tana precludes To'en Ta'anas Avad from the extra 'Hey' in "Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav". The first Tana uses the 'Hey' to include the Din of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who says that if a To'en Ta'anas Ganav then slaughters or sells the ox or the sheep he pays four or five times (just like a Ganav).

(c)The second Tana, we explain, learns Rebbi Yochanan's Din from a Hekesh comparing To'en Ta'anas Ganav (of "Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav") and Ganav (in the Pasuk of "Im Yimatzei ha'Ganav").

(d)We cannot refute the Hekesh on the grounds that Ganav pays Kefel even without a Shevu'ah, whereas To'en Ta'anas Ganav only afterwards because of the principle 'Ein Mashivin Al ha'Hekesh' (a Hekesh cannot be queried).

8)

(a)According to the Tana who establishes both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav, we need to find a source for a Ganav having to pay double. We cannot learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from To'en Ta'anas Ganav because then, bearing in mind the principle 'Dayo La'vo min ha'Din Lih'yos k'Nadun'), the Ganav would only be obligated to pay after having sworn falsely, like a To'en Ta'anas Ganav.

(b)Tana d'Bei Chizkiyah learns it from a "Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' (as we shall now proceed to explain).