1)

(a)We now query Rav Yosef from a Beraisa, which rules that a half-pipe that is first carved and then fitted to a Mikveh invalidates the Mikveh, whereas one that is first fitted and then carved does not.

(b)If, as Rav Yosef maintains, Shinuy ha'shem changed the status of an article then why is the Mikveh not Pasul even in the Seifa, seeing as what was a piece of wood has now become a pipe?

(c)We resolve this problem by pointing out that the P'sul of Mayim She'uvim (drawn water) is only mi'de'Rabbanan, who were lenient in the Seifa (notwithstanding the fact that a Shinuy ha'shem has taken place).

(d)Nevertheless, they declared the Mikveh Pasul in the Reisha (in the case where the pipe was carved first and fitted afterwards) because it was already a vessel whilst it was still detached.

2)

(a)The Beraisa discusses a Ganav, a Gazlan or an Anas with regard to Hekdesh, Terumah and Ma'asros of the crops that they stole. An 'Anas' is someone who takes an article by force, even though he pays for it.

(b)The Tana rules that the Hekdesh is Hekdesh, the Terumah is Terumah and the Ma'aser is Ma'aser.

(c)There is no proof from there that Yi'ush is Koneh, because there too, there is Shinuy ha'Shem (seeing as the article was first Chulin and then it became Hekdesh, first Tevel and then Terumah or Ma'aser). Note, it is unclear how a Ganav can separate Terumah from crops that are not his, unless he acquires the Chulin too, by Shinuy ha'Shem (from 'Tevel' to 'Mesukan'), but then, why did the Gemara not say so?

3)

(a)Rav Chisda Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from the Pasuk "Asher Gazal" 'Im ke'Ein she'Gazal, Yachzir ... ', that one is only obligated to return the actual article as long as it is just as it was when it was stolen ... ' (i.e. Shinuy is Koneh, like Rabah on the previous Amud).

(b)We query this however, on the grounds that this Pasuk is needed for a different D'rashah to teach us that if a man steals, swears that he didn't, admits that he swore falsely, and then dies, his son is not obligated to pay the extra fifth.

(c)We answer that the Torah could have written "es Gezeilo" to teach us the latter Din. The fact that it chose to add the words "Asher Gazal", enables us to learn that Shinuy is Koneh, as well.

4)

(a)The second Lashon learns from "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah" that the Ganav must return the article that he stole at all costs (i.e. Shinuy is not Koneh).

(b)He learns from "Asher Gazal" that a son is not obligated to pay an extra fifth for the article that his father stole.

5)

(a)Ula learns from the Pasuk in Mal'achi "ve'Heveisem Gazul es ha'Pise'ach ve'es ha'Choleh" "Gazul" 'Dumya de'Pise'ach' (meaning that, just as a permanently lame animal cannot be brought as a Korban under any circumstances, so too, can a stolen animal never be brought as a Korban, even after Yi'ush).

(b)Rava learns that Yi'ush is not Koneh from the Pasuk "Korbano" (like Abaye on the previous Daf). He knows that the Pasuk is not speaking before Yi'ush because then it would be obvious that a stolen animal cannot be brought as a Korban (as we explained there).

(c)Initially, we resolve the apparent contradiction between this statement of Rava, and that what he said earlier (that the Pasuk speaks when he stole his friend's Korban) by explaining that Rava retracted from what he said there. Alternatively one of the statements was actually made by Rav Papa.

(d)We might have confused Rava and Rav Papa's statements because Rav Papa was Rava's successor, and because he was his Talmid, who may have issued statements which we thought were said in his Rebbe's name, but which were really his own.

6)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that Midas Arba'ah va'Chamishah is confined to an ox and a sheep. When we ask 'Let us learn "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos, we mean to ask why we do not learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos to include all animals (like we Darshened in Perek ha'Koneis regarding other issues).

(b)Rava answers that "Shor and "Seh" are superfluous (enabling us to preclude all other animals). He cannot be referring to the "Shor" and "Seh" of the Seifa, because had the Torah omitted "Shor" and "Seh" and concluded "Chamishah Bakar Yeshalem Tachtav, ve'Arba Tzon Tachtav" we would have thought that the Ganav has to pay (not four or five times, but) nine, five bulls and four sheep.

(c)Nor can we counter this with the argument that this is why the Torah writes twice "Tachtav", to preclude from this suggestion because we need the second "Tachtav", to teach us that the Ganav cannot pay four or five near-dead animals, if the Nizak's animal was healthy.

7)

(a)So we switch to "Shor and Seh" of the Reisha. Perhaps they are superfluous. We initially think that, had the Torah written "Ki Yignov Ish u'Tevacho O Mecharo, Chamishah Bakar Yeshalem ... " that the Ganav is only Chayav if he stole two animals and Shechted them both or sold them both.

(b)We reject this suggestion on the grounds that the Torah writes "u'Teva*cho* O Mecha*ro*" (in the singular). We then conclude that, had the Torah not written "Shor O Seh", we might learn from this Pasuk that he would only be Chayav Daled ve'Hey if he stole the two animals and Shechted one of them or sold one.

(c)Consequently, when Rava said that we preclude all animals from the extra "Shor" and "Seh", he must have meant that "Seh" is superfluous in the Reisha and "Shor" in the Seifa (because the Torah could have written "Ki Yignov Ish Shor u'Tevacho ... Chamishah Bakar Yeshalem, ve'Arba Tzon Tachas ha'Seh").

8)

(a)Our Mishnah exempts someone who steals from a Ganav from paying Kefel. Rav qualifies this Halachah by confining it to where the owner has not been Meya'esh, but if he has, then the first Ganav acquires the animal, and the second Ganav will be obligated to pay Kefel to him.

(b)Based on Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa, Rav Sheishes strongly objects to Rav's Chidush. Rebbi Akiva attributes the Din of four or five times to the fact that the Ganav extended the roots of the sin by Shechting the animal (by acquiring the animal).

(c)What caused Rav Sheishes to believe that Rebbi Akiva must be speaking after Yi'ush is the fact that otherwise, how can he accuse the Ganav of extending his sin, seeing as his second sin (of Shechting the animal) did not yield the Ganav any benefits.

(d)It is therefore clear from Rebbi Akiva, that not only the Shechitah, but also the selling of the animal achieves something (i.e. it creates a Kinyan), through Yi'ush and Shinuy Reshus. Now, if Yi'ush alone was Koneh, as Rav maintains, then the first Ganav would have already acquired the animal. Why then, would he be Chayav Daled ve'Hey if he Shechted the animal?

9)

(a)We nevertheless conclude that according to Rav, Rebbi Akiva speaks when there was no Yi'ush. When he says 'Mipnei she'Nishtaresh be'Chet', he simply means that it is because he sinned twice that the Torah fines him Daled ve'Hey (even though he did not achieve anything with his second sin).