1)

(a)Tana d'Bei Chizkiyah learns the obligation of a Ganav to pay double from a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal', (as we just explained), from the Pasuk "mi'Shor Ad Chamor Ad Seh ... ". The Pasuk is talking about a Ganav (as is evident from the first half of the Pasuk "Im Himatzei Simatzei b'Yado ha'Geneivah ... ".

(b)We cannot learn everything from ...

1. ... Shor and Geneivah because Shor is confined to animals that go on the Mizbe'ach.

2. ... Shor, Seh and Geneivah because that would incorporate only animals that are Kadosh bi'Bechorah.

3. ... Shor, Seh, Chamor and Geneivah because that still does not include inanimate objects.

(c)The other word that is included in the Pasuk, and which we initially think will allow us to learn even inanimate articles from "Geneivah" is "Chayim?

2)

(a)Tana d'Bei Chizkiyah said 'Yomar Shor u'Geneivah'. We query this, because they appear in the reverse order in the Pasuk. The difference is that "Shor u'Geneivah" is a 'Prat u'Chlal' ", whereas "Geneivah v'Shor" is a Klal u'Frat'.

(b)We cannot explain that the Tana ...

1. ... is merely explaining what we would say, if the Torah would have written 'Shor u'Geneivah' because then it would be a 'Prat u'Chlal', which includes everything, and we would no longer require "Seh, Chamor and Chayim".

2. ... really means to say "Geneivah v'Shor" (as indeed, the Torah writes) because that would be a 'Klal u'Frat', which would preclude everything except for the Prat.

(c)Consequently, Rava explains that the Tana is (not talking about a 'Klal u'Frat' at all. He is) talking about a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal, because he views "Chayim" as a second 'Klal'.

(d)We are able to Darshen a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' despite the fact that the first Klal ("ha'Geneivah", implying everything), clashes with the second one (Chayim", which implies only living creatures) because the author of the Beraisa is Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who Darshens a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' of this nature.

3)

(a)The problem the Tana himself has with the Pasuk in view of this 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' is what we will then do with "Im Himatzei Simatzei ... ", which appears superfluous.

(b)Rava therefore Darshens "Himatzei" and "Simatzei" as the two Kelalim, whilst "Shor and Chayim" are now considered Peratim.

(c)And we include from ...

1. ... "Chayim" birds.

2. ... "Geneivah" even inanimate objects.

(d)Even though we could apparently learn everything from the initial 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal', we still need the Ribuy of "Im Himatzei Simatzei ... " because of the serious snag in the 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal', inasmuch as the last Klal is the one that includes (as we shall now explain), and "Chayim" (the last 'Klal') can hardly come to include inanimate objects.

4)

(a)

1. The last 'Klal always comes to include because it comes to modify the 'Klal u'Frat' that precede it, which would otherwise preclude everything else other than the 'Prat'.

2. The first 'Klal' always come to exclude on the grounds that it comes to modify the 'Prat u'Chlal' that follows it, which would otherwise include everything.

(b)) Consequently, were it not for "Himatzei Simatzei" ...

1. ... "Chayim" would come to include all living creatures.

2. ... "Geneivah" would come to exclude all inanimate objects.

(c)The problem that "Himatzei" and "Simatzei" constituting the two Kelalim poses is why the Torah juxtaposes the two Kelalim next to each other (rather than one before the Prat and one after it, as it usually does).

(d)Ravina resolves this problem by quoting the Bnei Eretz Yisrael, who nevertheless consider this to be a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal', only they Darshen each 'Prat' individually, as we shall now explain.

5)

(a)So we try to Darshen each Prat together with "Im Himatzei Simatzei", as we concluded. We learn from "Chayim" to include all living creatures.

(b)Assuming that, from "Shor", we learn 'Davar ha'Metaltel v'Gufo Mamon', we will learn from "Chamor" whatever has a mark of identification, to preclude whatever does not.

(c)The problem that "Seh" now poses is that there is nothing left to Darshen from it.

(d)So citing Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael in connection with Kosher fish in the Pasuk in Shemini, we change the format of the Derashah. Based on the fact that the two Kelalim "ba'Mayim" "ba'Mayim" both precede the 'Peratim "ba'Yamim u'va'Nechalim", Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael switches the 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' for a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut v'Ribuy', to preclude only one thing (rather than anything which is at all dissimilar to the Prat).

6)

(a)From the three Miy'utim "Shor", "Chamor" and "Seh", we now preclude Avadim, Karka and Shtaros, whereas "Geneivah" and "Chayim" come to teach us Rav's Din 'Achyeihu l'Keren Ke'ein she'Ganav' (meaning that in the event that the carcass of the stolen animal depreciates, the Ganav must pay the original value of the animal.

(b)We did not cite the three previous Derashos as long as we Darshened a 'Klal u'Frat u'Chlal' because they are synonymous with the Derashah "Davar ha'Metaltel v'Gufo Mamon' (which we learned there from "Shor").

7)

(a)According to the Tana who learns that one Pasuk refers to a Ganav and the other, to a To'en Ta'anas Ganav, "Im Himatzei Timatzei" comes to teach us Rava bar Ahila'i's interpretation of Rav, who said "Modeh bi'Kenas v'Achar Kach Ba'u Edim, Patur- by Darshening 'Im Himatzei b'Edim, Timatzei b'Dayanim, Prat l'Marshi'a Es Atzmo'.

(b)The Tana who learns both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav, learns 'Modeh bi'Kenas Patur' from "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim Yeshalem Shenayim ... ". The other Tana requires both Pesukim the latter for where witnesses did not subsequently testify, and the former, for even when they did (like Rav).

(c)The Tana who learns both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav disagrees because in his opinion, 'Modeh bi'Kenas Patur' only applies where witnesses did not subsequently testify (but if they did, he is Chayav).

8)

(a)The Tana who learns that one Pasuk refers to a Ganav and the other, to a To'en Ta'anas Ganav has already exempted Karka, Avadim and Shtaros from "Al Kol Devar Pesha, Al Shor, Al Chamor ... " (as we explained earlier). The Torah sees fit to write "Shor", Chamor" and "Seh" in the Pasuk "Im Himatzei Simatzei b'Yado ha'Geneivah" because of the principle stated by Tana d'bei Rebbi Yishmael that the Torah will sometimes repeat a Parshah for the sake of the one Chidush that it contains.

(b)The Chidush contained in this Pasuk that justifies repeating "Shor", Chamor" and "Seh" is "Im Himatzei (be'Edim) Simatzei (be'Dayanim)".

(c)According to the Tana who learns both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav, we know that a Ganav pays double even without a Shevu'ah because, if we were to learn from To'en Ta'anas Ganav that he is only Chayav after having made a Shevu'ah then we would learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from To'en Ta'anas Ganav (who received the Pikadon b'Heter, whereas a Ganav received it b'Isur). The fact that the Torah writes "Shenayim Yeshalem" by Ganav must be to teach us he obligation to pay double even without a Shevu'ah.

9)

(a)The Torah writes "Im Himatzei Simatzei b'Yado ha'Geneivah", to teach us that if the Ganav actually stole with his hands, he is obligated to pay double. The Beraisa learns from the double Lashon ("Im Himatzei Simatzei") that the same will apply even if he 'acquired' the animal by hitting it, causing it to walk onto his roof or into his Chatzer or enclosure by itself (see Tosfos DH 'Ein li').

(b)Even though we need "Im Himatzei Simatzei" for the current Derashah, the Tana'im in the other Beraisos learn other Derashos from the same words (either the two Ribuyim or 'Modeh bi'Kenas va'Achar-Kach Ba'u Edim Patur') because the double Lashon enables us to learn one Derashah, whereas the change from "Himatzei" to Simatzei" enables us to learn the other.