Clarification: This ('be'Yado') means that he actually stole it with his hands; 'Gago' and 'Chatzero' - means that he struck it with a stick, causing it to go from the owner's courtyard on to his roof or into his courtyard or enclosure.

Chidush: ... and it needs to mention courtyard - to teach us that a Chatzer acquires even to his detriment ...

Reason: ... since one would otherwise say that it is like a Shali'ach, to whom we apply the principle 'Ein Shali'ch li'Devar Aveirah'; so the Tana teaches us that he nevertheless acquires ...

Source: ... as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a Daf 10b) - that 'Yesh Shali'ach li'Devar Aveirah there where the Shali'ach is not subject to liability.

Support: And this is evident there, as Tosfos explained.

Inference: This implies that it is normal for the Torah to repeat the same word twice.

Precedent: And the same emerges from the Sugya in 'ha'Chovel' (later on Daf 88a) in connection with "ve'Rapo Yerapei".

Question: At the beginning of 'Hayu Bodkin' (Sanhedrin, Daf 40b; see Tosfos DH 'mi'de'Havah'), where it says that "Heitev Heitev" is Mufneh (superfluous), since it ought to have written, either "Darosh Tidrosh" or 'Chakor Tachkor', since the Pasuk changed its wording with the word "Heitev" ...eitev" ...

Question (cont.): ... implying that, had it written like that, it would not be superfluous.

Question (concl.): ... but why would it still not be superfluous, since it ought to have written either 'Darosh Darosh' or Tachkor Tachkor'?

Answer: That is correct - (It is indeed Mufneh). Only the Gemara does not want to discuss that S'vara, preferring to accept the Lashon that is often used ...

Examples: ... such as "Ha'anek Ta'anik" and "Nason Titen" (Devarim, 15).

Conclusion: The Gemara concludes that Rav is speaking in connection with 'Yukra ve'Zula' (the increase or the decrease in the value of the article).

Question: What is the Chidush? It is a Mishnah at the beginning of 'ha'Gozel Kama' (Bava Kama, later, Daf 93b) 'All Gazlanim pay according to the time of the theft'?

Refuted Answer: And even though it is implied that the Mishnah is speaking in connection with 'Shinuy' (a factual change in the article) - such as wood that the Ganav fashioned into vessels ...

Refuted Answer cont.): And the Gemara also says there (on Daf 96b) that 'All Gazlanim pay according to the time of the theft' comes to include the Din of Rebbi Ila'i - 'If someone steals a lamb and it becomes a ram, a Shinuy has taken place and he acquires it' ...

Refutation: ... nevertheless, it is also speaking about 'Yukra ve'Zula' ...

Proof #1: ... as is evident at the end of 'ha'Mafkid' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 43a), where it cites the Mishnah (of 'Kol ha'Gazlanim') in connection with 'Yukra ve'Zula'.

Proof #2: And similarly, in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 32a) in connection with 'Someone who eats T'rumah ... ', where it says that in a case where initially, it was worth four Zuzim and then went down to one Zuz, you need not ask because it is obvious that one pays according to the value of the article, since it is not worse than a Gazlan ...

Proof #2 (cont.): ... as the Mishnah states 'Kol hsa'Gazlanim Meshalmim ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah'.

Answer: By Keren, it is only coming to teach us that the payment of double or of four or five times is according to the time when they go to Beis-Din'.

Answer (cont.): And when the Gemara asks for Rav's reason, it means to ask on the payment of double and of four or five times ...

Answer (conl.): ... and what it means when it says 'Amar K'ra "Geneivah ve'Chayim", 'Achyeih le'Keren ke'ein she'Ganav', it is referring to the inference - specifically the Keren, but not the payment (of double and ) of four or five times.

Question: In Perek ha'Gozel Kama (later, on Daf 105a), Rava states that if where someone steals three bunches (of vegetables) that are worth three P'rutos, and their value drops to two P'rutos, he returns two of them, he is obligated to 'return' another one', and as proof, the Gemara cites the Mishnah 'Gazal Chametz, ve'Avar alav ha'Pesach ... ') ...

Question (cont.): Why does it not cite the Mishnah 'Kol ha'Gazlanim Meshalmin ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah', seeing as it also speaks about Yukra ve'Zula?

Answer: It could not cite the Mishnah of 'Kol ha'Gazlanim ... ', since there, if the theft would still be in existence, it would be returnable; that is why, even when it is not, he pays like the time of the theft ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas in the case of the bunch of vegetables, which is not worth a P'rutah, and which is therefore not returnable if it is in existence, and which, we would therefore think is not subject to payment if it is not.

Answer (concl.): The Gemara is justified however, in citing the Mishnah of 'Chametz ve'Avar alav ha'Pesach', which is worth nothing even if it is in existence, yet if it is not, he is obligated to pay its original price.

Implied Question: And in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 32a) the Gemara could have cited the Mishnah of 'Gazal Chametz', where he (also) pays the original price ...

Answer #1: ... only it prefers to cite the Mishnah of 'Kol ha'Gazlanim', which was learned earlier.

Answer #2): Moreover, the Ri explains, from 'Gazal Chametz ... ', it cannot prove that one pays according to the value of the article, there where it was initially worth four and later only one ...

Reason: ... since we might have thought that where the Chametz is no longer in existence, he is obligated to pay proper Chametz to the same measure as the piece that he stole, because 'One pays according to the volume' ...

Reason (cont.): ... and not according to its value at the time of the theft.

Question: How can Rav Sheishes think that Rav is speaking about a weak animal that got stronger ...

Reason: ... seeing as, if so, it would be detracting from the strength of the Keren, when from the statement of Rav it would seem that he is coming to improve the power of the Keren and to detract from that of Kefel and of Arba'ah va'Chamishah ...

Reason (cont.): ... since he said 'Achyeih le'Keren (exclusively) ke'Ein she'Ganav' - and 'Achyeih' implies a Lashon of increasing its strength.

Answer: 'Achyeih' is not a Lashon of strengthening at all, but of filling in - since anything with which one makes up the loss of the Geneivah or the Gezeilah is called 'Achyeih'.

Support: And this is also implied at the end of the Sugya (Daf 66a) where it states that he pays lambs according to their original value (See Hagahos & Tziyunim), and money according to how much they are worth now' ...

Support (cont.): ... and this implies even if initially it was worth one Zuz and now it is worth four - similar to 'the lamb that became a ram', he pays Kefel like its current price, according to the Ri later (as Tosfos will explain there be'Ezras Hash-m).

Alternative Explanation: Although Rabeinu Tam will explain the issue differently there - inasmuch as Rav is coming to detract the power of Kefel, like it is worth at the time that they go to Beis-Din and not to increase it.

Inference: This implies that if it is self-fattened, he pays its value at the time that they go to Beis-Din.

Alternative explanation of Rav: In that case, it could have established Rav's statement where it was self-fattened, and it was unnecessary to establish it by 'Yukra ve'Zula'.

Maskana: According to the Halachah however, even where it was self-fattened he pays Arba'ah va'Chamishah according to its value when it was stolen ...

Source: ... as in the case of 'A lamb that became a ram', about which the Gemara says later that he pays Kefel and Arba'ah va'Chamishah according to its original value ...

Reason: ... since he can say to him 'Did I steal an ox from you ? I stole from you a calf!'

Maskana (cont.): In this case too, where it is self-fattened, he can say to him 'Did I steal from you a fat ox?'

Maskana (concl.): And it is only by 'Yukra ve'Zula' that Rav says 'Kefel and Arba'ah va'Chamishah according to its value at the time that they go to Beis-Din' ...

Reason: ... because there the argument 'Did I steal from you an expensive ox?' is not applicable.

To Be Explained Later: ... as Tosfos will explain later (on Daf 66a DH 'Tela'im') be'Ezras Hash-m - in connection with the Gemara 'Tela'im ke'de'Me'ikara, Damim ke'shel Achshav'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - Because weakening is the beginning of Shechitah.

Question: The Ri asks however, what weakening the animal has to do with the Shechitah ...

Question (cont.): ... bearing in mind that, if he were to kill the animal in this way, he would not be subject to the Din of Arba'ah va'Chamishah?

Explanation #2: But what the Gemara means is 'What is the difference whether he killed it completely' - in which case we do not go after its current value, since he acquired it with Shinuy, and it no longer belongs to the original owner ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... but after its initial value, when it was still his - and the same will apply 'when he half-killed it'?

Inference: According to this, the same will apply where it became weaker by itself, in which case he will also pay its initial value - Because 'What is the difference whether it died completely or whether it died half'?

Inference (cont.): And when it answers by establishing Rav by 'Yukra ve'Zula', it could not have established him by where it became weak by itself.

Explanation #3: Furthermore, said the Ri, we can explain the matter differently - 'What difference does it make whether he killed it completely or whether he killed it half?' - meaning that even according to the opinion that holds 'Shechitah takes effect only at the end and that he only becomes liable to pay Arba'ah va'Chamishah at the very end of the Shechitah ...

Explanation #3 (cont.): ... nevertheless we do not go after the value of the animal at that point, but according to what it was worth before the Shechitah ...

Inference: If so, in the event that he killed it half too - where he weakened it, we should also not go after its current value, but after how much it was initially worth?

Inference (cont.): According to this explanation, it could have established Rav by where it became weak by itself.

Explanation #1: According to Rashi's interpretation of 'Chumsho Oleh lo bi'Kefeilo' - he pays the double and he is Patur from paying the extra fifth ...

Question: ... it is a little difficult (as to why the Kefel and the Chomesh must be equal). What would be wrong if the Kefel was four Zuzim and the fifth, one?

Answer: Rashi explains however, that there would not be an atonement for the fifth, seeing as it is not discernable, and is absorbed in the Kefel.

Explanation #2: Now if we were to explain that 'Chumsho Oleh lo bi'Kefeilo' means - he pays the Chomesh and is Yotzei the Kefel, it would fit nicely, since the Gemara's Kashya would then be valid.

Refutation: But the Lashon 'bi'Kefeilo' does not seem to mean that.

Support for Explanation #1: The Tosefta too, has the text 've'Chomsho Oleh lo mi'Toch Kefeilo'.

Explanation #3: The Riva explains that the Gemara's Kashya pertains to the Lashon of the Beraisa, which implies that the Chomesh is equal to the entire Kefel.

Question: Why does the Gemara not refute the proof (in support of Rav) by establishing the case where it was initially worth one Zuz, and at the end, four, and he pays the Kefel of one Zuz like when he stole it, not like Rav, and the Chomesh like the time when they went to Beis-Din, like Rabah said 'If he broke it or drank it, he pays four Zuz'?

Answer #1: One cannot say this at all ...

Reason: Since how is it possible to pay the Keren like the time when they go to Beis-Din and the Kefel and the Arba'ah va'Chamishah like the time when he stole it?

Reason (cont.): ... since one can only draw a distinction between the Keren and the Kefel and the Arba'ah va'Chamishah when it is based on a Pasuk, and here there is no Pasuk on which to base it.

Support: And also when Rav draws a distinction between them, he learns it from a Pasuk.

Answer # 2: Moreover, the Gemara refutes the proof satisfactorily, in a way that fits in with the correct explanation ...

Answer # 2 (cont.): And it establishes precisely in the way that the Amora who brought the proof said that one cannot establish it.

Clarification: Meaning similar to the case of a lamb that became a ram.

Clarification (cont.): But here it is obvious that one acquires through Shinuy...

Source: ... as it will say shortly, 'One acquires through Shinuy according to Beis Hillel'.

Qualification: However, certainly regarding a Korban, we consider it a ram when it is two years old...

Source: ... as it states elsewhere, "a sheep that is a year old" (Vayikra 12)

Clarification: This answer does not go like Rava, who says at the beginning of 'ha'Gozel Kama' (later, Daf 94a) that Beis Shamai only forbid it from being used for Hash-m, since it is disgusting.

Question: How can the Gemara compare them (the Din of Esnan to that of Shinuy)? What has Esnan got to do with Shinuy?

Answer: He holds that if Shinuy acquires, it is befitting to permit Shinuy by Esnan, since it is considered like another article, not the one that she received as an Esnan, in which case it is not disgusting either.

Question #1: Rabah will shortly learn that 'Shinuy acquires' from a different Pasuk, from the fact that the Torah writes "asher Gazal" - 'He must return it like it was when he stole it'.

Question #2: Moreover, Rav Chisda (on Daf 67a) holds that 'Shinuy does not acquire' because he Darshens "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah" to mean 'under all circumstances'.

Question #2 (cont.): And in 'a'Gozel Kama' (Daf 94b) Rebbi Yochanan says that 'Min ha'Torah, a stolen article that has changed goes back to the owner, since the Torah writes "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah" mi'Kol Makom. How can they argue with Beis Hillel?

Answer: The Ri explains that the Gemara later (in ha'Gozel Kama) is speaking about a Shinuy that is retractable.

Answer (cont.): ... and Rabah who is quoted shortly, holds that even such a Shinuy acquires ...

Answer (concl.): And both Pesukim are necessary, because if there was only one Pasuk, we would establish it by a Shinuy that is irreversible.

Implied Question: ... and the reason that Rabah supports his ruling from the Mishnah in 'ha'Gozel Eitzim' (later, Daf 93b) is ...

Answer: ... because it is speaking about a Shinuy that reverted to its original state, as the Gemara establishes there at the beginning of the Perek (Ibid.) - by smoothened wood and spun wool.

Clarification: And the case where 'If he did not manage to return the article before he died it, he is Patur' - Rabah learns that it too, is speaking by a Shinuy that is reversible, where he is able to remove the dye with soap ...

Source: ... as the Gemara explains there at the beginning of 'ha'Gozel'.

Implied Question: ... and even though according to Rebbi Yochanan it is speaking about a Shinuy that is irreversible - and he establishes it by a special dye that cannot be removed ...

Answer: ... Rabah considers it a Dochek to establish it (exclusively) by a special dye.

Conclusion: That is why he supports his view from there.