(Mishnah): If Reuven received a deposit, stole or borrowed from Shimon in a settled area, he may not return to him in the Midbar (wilderness);

If he received a deposit or borrowed from him on condition to go to the wilderness, he may return it in the wilderness.

(Gemara - Beraisa) Contradiction: A loan may be paid anywhere. An Aveidah or deposit may be returned only to its place.

Answer (Abaye): The Beraisa means that one may demand payment of a loan anywhere. One may only demand an Aveidah or deposit in its place.

(Mishnah): (If he received a deposit or borrowed from him) on condition to go to the Midbar (he may return it in the Midbar).

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: It teaches about the following case;

Shimon told Reuven 'take this deposit, for I am going to the wilderness', and Reuven replied 'also I am going to the wilderness.'

Reuven meant 'if I want, I will return it to you there.'

(Mishnah): If Reuven tells Shimon 'I stole, received a deposit or borrowed from you, and I do not know whether I paid you', he is liable;

If Reuven is unsure whether or not he stole, received a deposit or borrowed, he is exempt.

(Gemara - Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah): If Levi tells Yehudah 'you stole, received a deposit or borrowed from me', and Yehudah says that he does not know, he is liable;

(Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan): He is exempt.

Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah obligate him, for a definite claim prevails over a doubtful claim;

Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan exempt, for we leave the money in its status quo.

Question (against Rav Huna - Mishnah): If he says 'I do not know whether or not I stole, received a deposit or borrowed from you' he is exempt.

Question: What is the case?

If Shimon does not claim from him, we must say so also in the Reisha. If so, why is he liable?!

Answer #1: Rather, he claims from him, and the Seifa exempts him!

Answer (and Answer #2 to question (1)): Really, Shimon does not claim from him;

In the Reisha, Reuven wants to fulfill his obligation b'Yedei Shamayim.

Support (R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): If Levi said to Yehudah 'you stole, received a deposit or borrowed from me', and Yehudah says 'I don't know', if he wants to fulfill his obligation b'Yedei Shamayim, he is liable (even though R. Yochanan exempts b'Yedei Adam).

(Mishnah): If Reuven stole a lamb and returned it to the flock, and it died or was stolen, he is liable;

If the owner did not know about its theft or return, and/or counted the flock and found that it was complete, Reuven is exempt.

(Gemara - Rav): If the owner knew about its theft, he must be informed of its return (for the thief to be exempt). If he did not know of its theft, if he counted the flock after its return, the thief is exempt;

In the Mishnah, 'and counted the flock' refers to the Seifa (the owner did not know of its theft or return).

(Shmuel): Whether or not the owner knew of its theft, if he counted the flock after its return, the thief is exempt;

'Or counted the flock' refers to the entire Mishnah.

(R. Yochanan): If the owner knew of its theft, if he counted the flock after its return, the thief is exempt. If he did not know of its theft, even if he does not count the flock, the thief is exempt.

'Or counted the flock' refers to the Reisha (the owner knew of its theft).

(Rav Chisda): If the owner knew of its theft, if he counted the flock after its return, the thief is exempt. If he did not know of its theft, the owner must know of its return.

'Or counted the flock' refers to the Reisha.

Question (Rava): Why does Rav Chisda require explicit knowledge of return when the owner never knew that it was stolen?

Answer (Rava): Once the animal was exposed to new pastures, it needs to be guarded better. The owner must know that he has such an animal in his flock.

Question: This contradicts another teaching of Rava!

(Rava): If Reuven saw Ploni take from Reuven's flock, and he cried out, and Ploni dropped the animal, and Reuven does not know whether it returned, and the animal died or was stolen, Ploni is liable.

Suggestion: This is even if Reuven counted his flock after the theft.

Answer: No, it is only if he did not count it.

Question: Rav contradicts another of his teachings!

(Rav): If one returned it to the flock in the Midbar, he is exempt (even if the owner did not know and did not count them)!

Answer (Rav Chanan bar Aba): Rav admits about a spotted animal (surely he noticed its loss, and the shepherd saw that an animal was added to the flock).

Suggestion: The Amora'im argue like the following Tana'im.

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): If one stole a lamb from the flock or a coin from a wallet, he should return to the place he stole from;

R. Akiva says, the owner must know that it was returned.

We are thinking that all hold like R. Yitzchak.

(R. Yitzchak): One constantly checks his wallet.

Suggestion: The owner knows that the coin was stolen. R. Yishmael holds like Shmuel (it suffices that the owner counted his money after it was returned). R. Akiva holds like Rav (he must know that it was returned);

The owner does not know that the lamb was stolen and returned. R. Yishmael holds like R. Yochanan (it suffices to return it to its place). R. Akiva holds like Rav Chisda (he must know that it was returned).

Rejection (Rav Zvid): If a Shomer stole from the owner's premises, all agree like Rav Chisda (the owner must know);

They argue about a Shomer who stole from his own premises.

R. Akiva says, he is no longer a Shomer, so he must return it to the owner. R. Yishmael says, he continues to be a Shomer, so he may return to the place he stole from.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about whether or not the owner's counting exempts the thief.

(Beraisa #1): If Reuven stole from Shimon, and in a subsequent transaction, Reuven gave to Shimon more than he should have, in order to return the theft (without telling him), he was Yotzei.

(Beraisa #2): He was not Yotzei.

We are assuming that all hold like R. Yitzchak.

(R. Yitzchak): One constantly checks his wallet.

Suggestion: Tana #1 (of Beraisa #1) holds that the owner's counting exempts the thief. Tana #2 holds that it does not.

Rejection: No, all agree that the owner's counting exempts the thief;

Explanation #1: They argue about R. Yitzchak's law. Tana #1 agrees to it, and Tana #2 does not.

Explanation #2: They agree to R. Yitzchak's law. One Beraisa discusses putting the money in Shimon's wallet, and the other discusses putting it in his hand. (Rashi - if he put it in his wallet, surely Shimon will notice it. If he put it in Shimon's hand, perhaps he will put it in his moneybox, not his wallet, and will not know that the theft was returned. Meiri - one notices what is put in his hand, but sometimes does not notice what is put in his wallet, like the coming explanation.)

Explanation #3: In both Beraisos, he put the money in Shimon's wallet. In Beraisa #1, there was no other money in the wallet at the time. In Beraisa #2, there was other money in the wallet at the time (and he did not know how much - Rashi. Meiri - some explain oppositely. When there is no other money, he does not check to see how much there is.)

(Mishnah): We may not buy wool, milk or kids from shepherds (perhaps they stole them);

We may not buy fruit or wood from people who guard fruit;

We may buy from women woolen garments in Yehudah, linen garments in Galil, and calves in Sharon.

If the seller says to conceal it, it is always forbidden.

Everywhere, one may buy eggs and chickens.

(Gemara - Beraisa): We may not buy from shepherds: goats, kids, Gizim (shearings) or bits of wool taken off the sheep;

We may buy garments. (Even if they stole the wool), they acquired it by changing it.

We may buy from them milk and cheese in the wilderness, but not in a settled area.

We may buy four or five goats or sheep, or four or five Gizim, but not two.

R. Yehudah says, we may buy home animals (those that stay near the house), but not Midbariyos (those normally far from the house).

The general rule is, we may buy only things that the owner will realize they are missing.

Question: The Beraisa permits four or five goats or sheep, or four or five Gizim. If four are permitted, there is no need to say five!

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): It means that if he has five, we may buy four of them.

Answer #2 (Rav Chisda): We may buy four from a small flock, or five from a big flock.

Question: The Beraisa permits four or five. This implies that three is forbidden. It forbids two, which implies that three is permitted!

Answer: We may buy three healthy animals, or four or five weak ones.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): We may buy home animals, but not Midbariyos.

Question: To which law does R. Yehudah refer?

Does he qualify the allowance to buy four or five, and restricts this to home animals, but four or five Midbariyos are forbidden?

Or, does he qualify the Isur to buy two, and restricts this to Midbariyos, but two home animals are permitted?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): We may buy home animals, but not Midbariyos. We are always allowed to buy four or five.

This shows that he qualifies the Isur to buy two.