Clarification: This means that if it is still available, he must return it, and if it is not, he pays him a P'rutah, in accordance with its value at the time that he stole it.

Implied Question: The same actually applies to where he stole only one bunch and its price dropped, in which case he returns the bunch or its value ...

Answer: Only Rava is teaching us a Chidush - that even when he stole three, where he fulfils the Mitzvah by returning two, he is nevertheless obligated to return the third one ...

Question: ... even though from the 'Tana Tuna' that he cites we can only extrapolate the obligation in the case of one bunch which went down in price ...

Question (cont.): ... since that is the case that is similar to 'Gazal Chametz ve'Avar alav ha'Pesach

Answer: Rava applies the Chidush of three from a S'vara ...

Inference: And from the fact that Rava mentions that their price dropped it implies that he takes for granted that if one was to steal three equally-priced bunches worth two P'rutos and returned two of them, he would not be Chayav to return the third one.

Reason: ... seeing as initially, at the time of the theft, it was not considered Mamon, and we do not take into account the possibility that the price may increase.

Text: We do not read the words that appear in some texts 'If their price increased and they stood at ... '.

Clarification: It appears that it is only coming to resolve the She'eilah that the Mitzvah of returning the object is not crucial, which in fact he has not fulfilled.

Explanation #1: And it prevents him from drinking wine and rendering him Tamei Meis as if he had not shaved ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... and it goes according to the opinion that shaving is crucial

Explanation #1 (cont.): ... because the Pasuk "Achar Yishteh ha'Nazir Yayin" means after all the requirements have been fulfilled.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, it refers to the Mitzvah - in that he has not fulfilled the Mitzvah of shaving, according to all the opinions, since it is a Machlokes in Nazir, in Perek Sheloshah Miynim (Daf 46a).

Explanation #1: Rashi's explanation that it refers to a barrel that one placed on a skylight to save the attic (from becoming Tamei), is not correct ...

Refutation #1: ... since the Mishnah that the Gemara cites shortly 'Chavis she'Nikvah' in Maseches Keilim (Perek 10, Mishnah 6), implies that it is speaking about saving what is inside it (the barrel) if it is inside an Ohel ha'Meis ...

Refutation #1 (cont.): ... because had it been speaking in connection with a skylight, it ought to have been cited in Ohalos?

Refutation #2: Moreover, the Lashon 'Hatzalah' does not imply like Rashi, because it should rather have written a Lashon of 'Chotzetzes' (interrupts)?

Explanation #2: It must therefore be speaking about a barrel that is firmly shut with a lid, as the Tana mentions in Maseches Keilim (Perek 9, Mishnah 8) ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and when it it is stopped-up with dregs, it saves whatever is inside it (from becoming Tamei.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara at the end of 'ha'Matzni'a (Shabbos, Daf 96a) states that 'With regard to Tzamid Pasil', the Shi'ur is when most of it is open ...

Answer: ... that speaks where it was stopped-up, that if it became holed and is stopped-up, it is still called a K'li until most of it is broken, at which point, stopping it up is not effective.

Reason: ... because then is it comparable to food that one mixed with cement, seeing as it is no longer classified as a K'li.

Refuted Explanation: And not like Rashi explains in 'ha'Matzni'a' (Daf 95b) - 'regarding Tzamid Pasil, until most of it is open, since Tum'ah does not enter an earthenware vessel via its holes until most of it is open'.

Refutation: ... as is evident in the third Perek of Maseches Keilim - that the Shi'ur is 'Koneis Mashkeh (if liquid can enter)'.

Proof: And this is implied from the very Mishnah that Rashi cites there, where Beis Shamai say that 'Everything becomes Tamei with the Shi'ur of Koneis Mashkeh'.

Proof (cont): And even Beis Hillel only render an attic Tahor, but they concede that a pot is Tamei - so we see that Tum'ah enters it with the Shi'ur of Koneis Mashkeh.

Question #1: How is this She'eilah comparable to the previous She'eilos ...

Question #1 (cont.): ... because, since he stopped it up, there is no hole here, so why should the stopping up not be effective? What difference does it make if the hole was always only this size or if he now stopped-up half of it?

Question #2: Furthermore, here the Gemara states that if dregs stopped it up it is considered a closure ...

Question #2 (cont.): ... whereas at the end of the first Perek of Yevamos (Daf 15b) it says, citing Beis Shamai - that a barrel of olives that are tightly-packed does not need to be holed (to allow the juice to escape - to prevent the olives from becoming Muchshar Lekabeil Tum'ah); Whereas Beis Hillel holds that it does require a hole ...

Question #2 (concl.): ... and they (Beis Hillel) concede that, in the event that it did become holed but became stopped-up with dregs, that it is nevertheless Tahor?

Answer: Certainly there, in connection with Hechsher, we can assume that the owner is not happy with the juice that escapes, seeing as it is holed; Consequently, even though the dregs stopped it up, it is not considered a proper clusure.

Answer (cont.): ... But as far as saving from Tum'ah is concerned, it is a proper closure

Question: How can he (Shmuel) say that he is Chayav, since then the Beraisa is a case of 'Zu ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu'?

Question: How can one apply the principle 'Lo Anash Ela-im-Kein Hizhir' by Mamon?

Question (cont.): ... because we can understand how it is applicable by the punishment of Shevu'ah - which is a Korban; but by Pesach and Milah there is no Korban, since there is no La'av, even though there is Kareis (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Clarification: And we need two warnings ...

Reason: ... since their punishments are not the same - because if he admits, he pays a fifth and brings an Asham, whereas if witnesses come they only render him Chayav Onsin.

Question: The question remains however, why does the Tana say in the Reisha 'We know the punishment', and in the Seifa ... 'and he swore falsely' ...

Question (cont.): ... because., seeing as it speaks after the Shevu'ah, it should have said in both cases 'and he swore falsely'?

Question: Why does the Tana not reckon Shevu'as Milveh?

Answer: Because it is not written independently, only we learn it from Pikadon.