Clarification: This Sugya goes like Rebbi Yashiyah, who always requires "O" to divide ...

Clarification (cont.): ... but according to Rebbi Yonasan, "O" is not required to divide.

Question #1: In that case, this Sugya does not go according to the Halachah ...

Question #1 (cont.): ... seeing as the Gemara in Perek ha'Sho'el (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 95b) establishes Abaye like Rebbi Yashiyah and Rava like Rebbi Yonasan, and we Pasken like Rava against Abaye?

Question #2: And in Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin, Daf 78b) too, in connection with Chosh'shin le'Zera ha'Av', where it implies that it hinges on the Machlokes between Rebbi Yoshiyah and Rebbi Yonasan, one can ask why we don't Pasken like those who hold like Rebbi Yonasan, based on the opinion of Rava in Perek ha'Sho'el?

Question #1: Why do we not learn "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos?

Question #2: The question also arises according to the Maskana, which includes birds from "Yashiv li'Be'alav", 'anything that has a master, why do we not learn "Shor" "Shor" or "Chamor" "Chamor" from Shabbos ...

Precedent: ... like we do in connection with 'Chasimah' and Perikah, later (on Amud Beis)?

Question #2 (cont.): And Adam will automatically be excluded, seeing as we cannot learn Adam from Shabbos ...

Precedent: .. as the Gemara will say later (on Amud Beis) in connection with Kil'ayim - 'I compared him (Adam) regarding Hanachah (Shabbos) but not regarding anything else?

Question #3: And similarly (one can ask) in connection with the payment of double and with the returning of a lost article, why does one need a Ribuy (to include them), when we can learn them from Shabbos?

No Question: Regarding separating on Har Sinai however, there is no problem, seeing as one cannot learn from Shabbos, since the Aseres ha'Dibros (including Shabbos) had not yet been said.

Answer: Wherever it is possible to Darshen via a 'K'lal u'Perat', we do not learn "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos.

Answer (cont.): And so it is with all those cases where a 'K'lal u'Perat' are applicable - since 'the payment of double' we explicitly Darshen in Perek Merubeh (later on Daf 63a), were it not for the Ribuy of "ve'Chol" ...

Answer (cont.): ... and one can offer the same explanation with regard to the returning of a lost article.

Answer (concl.): Whereas by all the other cases (where we do learn from Shabbos) we must say that they are not subject to a 'K'lal u'Perat u'Kelal'.

Implied Question: In the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 17a) in connection with 'Ha'anakah', where the Torah writes "Tzon, Goren ve'Yekev", the Gemara does not preclude whatever does not go on the Mizbe'ach ...

Answer: ... because "Goren" incorporates many items that are not brought on the Mizbe'ach.

Question: But in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 25) one needs to look into the matter, since the Torah writes "Kol Ma'aseh Izim Tischata'u", which the Gemara Darshens to preclude birds. Why do we not preclude anything that does not go on the Mizbe'ach?

Answer: However, according to the Lashon that learns later (on Amud Beis) that "Kol" is a Ribuy (and not a K'lal), the Kashya falls away.

Question: What is the Gemara asking? The fact that they are not subject to death is all the more reason to require a Ribuy?

Answer: Because, if not for the Ribuy, Rebbi Yehudah too, would preclude Keilim from "Chamor"...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, the Gemara is asking both on the Rabanan, who preclude Keilim from "Chamor" and on Rebbi Yehudah, who includes Keilim from "O", to preclude from the Miy'ut of Chamor ...

Answer (concl.): ... 'But they are not subject to Misah?'

Implied Question: Even according to the opinion in Perek ha'Me'ni'ach (above, on Daf 29a) that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'ha'Mafkir Nezakav achar Nefilas Peshi'ah, Patur' ...

Implied Question (cont.): ... in which case, he will only declare it Chayav in a pit that is in his domain, and regarding a pit that is in his domain, we do indeed need to declare Patur Keilim from Chavatah ...

Reason: ... seeing as it is his Chavatah?

Answer #1: The Gemara's Kashya is justified - seeing as the Pasuk is talking about the damage of Hevel ...

Source: ... since Rav Darshens "ve'Nafal", 'until it falls normally (face downwards)' ...

Answer #1 (cont.): ... whereas Chavatah, where it belongs to him, we learn (only) from a Kal va'Chomer ...

Answer #1 (concl.): And it is by Hevel, about which the Pasuk is speaking, that we now need to find a Ribuy for Keilim according to Rebbi Yehudah (Hence the Gemara's Kashya is valid).

Answer #2: Rebbi Yehudah does not appear to Darshen 'until it falls normally', even according to Rav.

Reason: ... because, since he only declares Chayav in a pit that is in his domain, he does not need to Darshen it

Precedent: ... just as Shmuel does not Darshen it, because (he holds that) wherever one is Chayav for Hevel, one is also Chayav for Chavatah.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not add "Gam" according to Beis Hillel at the beginning of 'ha'Gozel Kama' (Daf 94a)?

Answer: ... because it only reckons those things that fall under the category of Ba'alei Chayim.

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that "Chamor" comes to preclude Sh'taros?

Answer: Because, according to the opinion that does not declare 'Garmi' Chayav, even the person himself will be Patur; whereas the opinion that declares him Garmi Chayav, does so only mi'de'Rabanan ...

Source: ... as is evident in Perek ha'Koneis (later, on Daf 62a), where the Gemara asks as to whether they instituted a Takanas Nigzal by a Masur (whose objects someone handed over to a Nochri, or not?' Now if Diyna de'Garmi were d'Oraysa, why should they not have instituted Takanas Nigzal by a Masur, just like they did by the Nigzal?

Question: It is needed for itself, for the P'rat u'Chelal, to make the K'lal one that adds to the P'rat, thereby including everything?

Question (cont.): This is because "Shor, Chamor and Salmah" are needed, each one for its own Chidush, as the Gemara explains in Perek Eilu Metzi'os (Bava Netzi'a, Daf 27a), and if not for the fact that "Seh" is superfluous, we would have had to relinquish one of them, and not Darshen it, in order to form that P'rat u'Chelal?

Introduction to Answer: Wherever we find a P'rat u'Chelal, Rabeinu Shmuel would give a reason why we need the P'rat, seeing as the Klal includes everything.

Introduction to Answer (cont.): And he would explain that perhaps there are things that one would not include from the K'lal were it not for the P'rat that preceded it, turning it into a K'lal that adds to the P'rat, thereby including everything.

Answer #1: Here on the other hand, the Ba'al ha'Shas knew that "Aveidah" S'tam implies all lost articles, as if there had been a 'P'rat u'Chelal', in which one cannot preclude an Aveidah from a Binyan Av, a Kal va'Chomer or by any other method.

Answer #1 (cont.): Consequently, a P'rat is not needed here to prevent precluding whatever it might be from the K'lal, in any way whatsoever.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Torah writes "le'Chol Aveidas", which is a Ribuy, to include any Aveidah, as if it had inserted a 'P'rat u'Chelal'.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah (Daf 26b) learns from it 'to include a Mumar' ...

Answer: ...nevertheless, one can also Darshen from it all lost articles, since the Ribuy goes on both - on both "Aveidah" and on "Achicha".

Conclusion: So we include both every Aveidah (from "le'Chol Aveidas") and the Aveidah of every person (from "Achicha"),

Clarification: The Gemara does not consider this a 'K'lal u'Perat' that are far apart' ...

Reason: ... since the first Luchos and the last Luchos are one and the same ...

Reason: ... seeing as "Zachor" and "Shamor" were said simultaneously (Rosh ha'Shanah, 27a & Shevu'os, 20b).

Question #1: In that case, why would the Torah see fit to insert the P'rat, seeing as "Behemt'cha" is already written in the K'lal?

Question #2: Moreover, when the Tana says that just as the P'rat specifically says Ba'alei Chayim, so too, will we include all Ba'alei Chayim, including birds ...

Question #2 (cont.): ... how can we even think to include birds? Why does the K'lal itself not preclude them?

Implication: Here it implies that cattle and sheep are called 'Gidulei Karka'.

Question: But in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 17a) in connection with 'Ha'anakah', the Gemara says that 'Had the Torah written "Goren", we would have thought Gidulei Karka, yes, animals, no'. Therefore it added "Tzon" '?

Answer: As far as things that actually grow from the ground, animals are not considered Gidulei Karka ...

Conclusion: ... and this is not the place to elaborate further (See Masores ha'Shas).