Clarification: But not Hekdesh.

Question: The Ri asks why we need "Re'eihu" to preclude Hekdesh from Kefel by 'To'en Ta'anas Ganav', seeing as Hekdesh is not subject to a Shevu'ah?

Partial Answer: According to the Maskana, that we learn Kefel and Shevu'ah from the same Pasuk, the Kashya falls away.

Question: Later in the Perek (on Daf 76a) the Gemara learns the preclusion of Hekdesh from "ve'Gunav mi'Beis ha'Ish", 've'Lo mi'Beis Hekdesh'?

Answer: There too, it does not learn it from the word "Ish", seeing as the term "Ish" applies equally to Hekdesh ...

Refuted Reason: ... not because the Torah writes (in Sh'mos, 15) "Hashm Ish Milchamah" ...

Reason: ... but because it is applicable to anything that is masculine, and similarly, "Ishah" is applicable to anything that is feminine - such as "Ishah el Achosah" that is written in connection with the hooks (of the coverings of the Mishkan, Ibid., 26)

Answer (cont.): But the explanation there is - that "Re'eihu" that is written there is applicable to "mi'Beis Ish", but not to 'Beis Hekdesh'.

Conclusion: ... and because it needed to use that Lashon in connection with a Ganav, to Darshen 've'Lo mi'Beis Ganav', it also uses it with regard to Hekdesh (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Question: But later, in connection with "ve'Nasata ha'Kesef" the Gemara Darshens all the P'ratim together? And it does he same in Kidushin (Daf 17a & 17b) in connection with 'Ha'anakah'.

Answer #1: Since the Toraah writes "al" on each P'rat individually - "al Shor, al Chamor, al Seh al Salmah", it indicates that each one is a P'rat on its own.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara is forced to Darshen each P'rat independently, and to preclude birds ...

Reason: ... because otherwise, it ought to omit all the P'ratim, and to insert just "Salmah", and no more ...

Reason (cont.): ... seeing as we can learn everything from "Salmah", whether they are living creatures or not, by means of the 'K'lal u'Pera u'K'lal' ...

Reason (cont.): ... since there is no reason for animals to be worse than other things.

Implied Question: According to this, when the Gemara initially asked why we cannot say that just as the P'rat is something that its carcass renders Tamei ... ?' ...

Implied Question (cont.): ... it could equally-well have asked - according to what it currently thinks that 'Just as the P'rat is movable and is intrinsically Mamon ... ' - that it could just as well then insert only "Salmah", and omit all the other P'ratim?

Answer: ... but it prefers to ask what it does, to point out that even what it said previously is incorrect.

Source: As the Toras Kohanim and the Gemara in Zevachim (Perek Chatas ha'Of, Daf 60b) precludes them.

Introduction to Question: According to this conclusion, we learn both Kefel and Shevu'ah from the current Pasuk.

Question: Why does the Torah then see fit to insert all these P'ratim; Let it write only "Kesef O Keilim", which will include anything that is movable and that has an intrinsic value from the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal'?

Refuted Answer: And if you will answer that we would not Darshen the 'K'lal u'P'rat ... ' since we need it for the D'rashah in Shevu'os (Daf 39a, See Tosfos there, DH 'Mah') - 'Just as Keilim implies two ... ' ...

Refutation #1: ... but the Gemara does Darshen the 'K'lal u'P'rat ... ' in 'ha'Zahav' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 57b, See Tosfos there DH 'Ki') with regard to Shevu'ah - that 'One does not swear on Karka, Avadim or Sh'taros' - and Kefel and Shevu'ah are one and the same ...

Proof: ... seeing as the Gemara asks there 'Let it write these P'ratim there?' How could it do that, seeing as we would then preclude Tamei birds from a Shevu'ah?

Proof (cont.): We are therefore forced to say that if we preclude them from Kefel, we also preclude them from a Shevu'ah.

Refutation #2: Moreover, had it written the P'ratim there, we would not have been able to Darshen them in connection with Kefel? It is therefore obvious that the Pesukim refer both to Kefel and to Shevu'ah.

Answer: We need "Kesef O Keilim" - for the D'rashah in Shevu'os (See Mesores ha'Shas) 'Just as Keilim implies two ... '.

Implied Question: ... and when the Gemara in Perek ha'Zahav (Ibid.) uses them for a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal' ...

Answer: ... that speaks if it would not have said - If it would not have said "Al Kol D'var Pesha", we would have Darshened the preclusion of Karka, Avadim and Sh'taros from the Pasuk "ki Yiten ... " ...

Answer (cont.): ... but now that the Torah has written "Al Kol D'var Pesha ... ", "Kesef O Keilim" is superfluous, and comes to teach us 'Just as Kelim implies two ... '.

Chidush: And now that Tosfos has explained that Kefel and Shevu'ah are one and the same, just as we Darshen regarding Shevu'ah 'Just as "Keilim" implies two ... ', so too will be the Din regarding Kefel.

Chidush (cont.): And in the same way, when we preclude an unspecified object (See Mesores ha'Shas) - it applies both to Shevu'ah and to Kefel ...

Chidush (concl.): ... and even when he swears on an unspecified object via a Gilgul Shevu'ah, he is Patur from paying Kefel.

Implied Question: Even though the Beraisa Darshens them with a K'lal u'P'rat u'K'lal ...

Answer: ... that is not because the Tana Darshens the Pasuk in this way, but because for some reason or other, he includes anything that is movable and that has intrinsic value.

Conclusion: And it is due to the fact that this D'rashah appears often in the Gemara, that he cites it in this way.

Question: It ought to have mentioned 'Sh'taros first, since they are the most obvious to preclude ...

Source: ... as is evident in the last Perek (Daf 117b), where the opinion that Darshens Ribuyi and Miy'uti precludes only Sh'taros.

Implied Question: Even though earlier, the Gemar learned Avadim from the fact that it is compared to Karka'os ...

Answer: ... here, since we Darshen from "Kol", we need a Ribuy for each item independently.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains it as something that the owner has no identifying marks.

Question: What difference does it make whether it has identifying marks or not?

Explanation #2: The Riva therefore equates it with the Mishnah in Shevu'os ha'Dayanim (Shevu'os, Daf 42b [See Tosfos there DH 'Al']) 'Ein Nishba'in Ela al Davar she'be'Midah, she'be'Mishkal ve'she'be'Minyan' - to preclude 'I handed you a houseful ... ' or a purse-full (of money'), and the Nifkad counters 'What you gave me, take!' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... but where the owner says 'Up to the window', and the Nifkad counters, 'Up to the bracket', he is Chayav (to swear)".

Explanation #2 (concl.): Now where does the Tana get this from if not from the word "Salmah"?

Explanation #3: Furthermore, we can equate 'Davar Mesuyam' with the Gemara in Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 47a) 'Just as a shoe is specific ... , to preclude half a pomegranate or half a wall-nut, with which one cannot acquire'.

Support: And so the Gemara says later (on Daf 64b) in connection with the D'rashah on "Himatzei Timatzei" - 'Cast Chamor in between "Himatzei" and "Timatzei" ... to preclude something that is not specific, such as half a pomegranate or half a wall-nut, which are precluded from Kefel'.

Implied Question: Why can we not learn 'Davar she'be'Midah, she'be'Mishkal ve'she'be'Minyan' which are required by a Chiyuv Shevu'ah, from the implication of "Ki Hu Zeh"?

Refuted Answer: There are actually some Sefarim that have the text 'to include something that is not specific'.

Refutation: However this is not correct, since why would we have thought to preclude it that creates the necessity to include it?

Refuted Answer: Because even though we preclude it from Kefel with regard to To'en Ta'anas Ganav ...

Refutation: ... on what basis would we say it by a Ganav himself? The correct text is therefore 'to preclude'.

Conclusion: And even though it is precluded by the Ganav himself in the first Pasuk, one cannot likewise preclude it in the later Pasuk unless the Pasuk specifically does so ...

Proof: ... as we see with regard to Karka'os, Avadim and Sh'taros, which need to be precluded independently, and we do not learn one from the other.

Clarification: The Tana mentions that he ate it - to teach us that although he removed it from the world, he is Patur from Kefel if he claims that it was lost.

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas the Seifa mentions that he stole it - to teach us that even though it still exists, he is Chayav Kefel, since he claims that it was stolen.

Clarification: The second Pasuk teaches us how to explain the first one.

Clarification: Since "ha'Ganav" implies a specific Ganav ...

Precedents: ... in the same way as "ha'Olah" refers to the first Olah (in Pesachim, Daf 58b) and "ha'Yerech" to the right thigh (in Chulin, Daf 91a).

Implied Question: Even though one of them learns from the Pasuk to include, and the other, to exclude?

Answer: ... it doesn't matter, since it depends upon the content of the D'rashah.