1)

(a)The Beraisa lists various cases of Ganavim who pay Dalet v'Hey, the first of which is 'Ganav veNasan le'Achar ve'Tavach ... u'Machar'. The Tana cannot mean that he gave it to him as a gift because then, the Ganav would be Chayav immediately (which in fact, is one of the subsequent cases in the Mishnah), even without the recipient Shechting or selling it).

(b)The Tana continues 'Ganav ve'Hikdish, Ganav ve'Hikif, Ganav ve'Hichlif, Ganav ve'Nasan be'Matanah'. 've'Hikif' means that he sold it to him on credit.

2)

(a)And the Tana concludes 'Ganav u'Para be'Chovo, Ganav u'Para be'Hekeifo, Ganav ve'Shalach Sivlonos be'Veis Chamiv, Meshalem ... '. 'Sivlonos le'Beis Chamiv' are gifts that a Chasan sends to his father-in-law's house.

(b)The Chidush in the Reisha (the first two cases) is that he is Chayav even though he did not Shecht or sell it (but somebody else). We do not apply the principle 'Ein Shali'ach li'D'var Aveirah' here because, as we have already learned, the Torah compares Tevichah to Mechirah', to render one Chayav even where there is a third party involved.

(c)The only other Chidush lies in the case of Ganav ve'Hikdish which comes to teach us that there is no difference between selling to a Hedyot and selling to Hekdesh (as we learned earlier).

3)

(a)If the Ganav stole an animal in the domain of the owner and Shechted it or sold it outside his domain, he is Chayav Dalet v'Hey because as he led it out of the owner's domain, he acquired it, taking upon himself all the obligations of a Ganav.

(b)If he stole it ...

1. ... outside his domain and Shechted or sold it inside, or if he stole it outside his domain and Shechted it there too he is also Chayav.

2. ... inside his domain and Shechted it there too he is Patur, because he did not yet acquire it (though he is Chayav to pay damages.

(c)If someone steals a lamb, and it dies ...

1. ... as he is leading it towards the exit of the owner's domain he is Patur from Kefel (since he has not yet acquired it).

2. ... just after he has led it through the gate he is Chayav.

3. ... after he has picked it up still inside the owner's field he is Chayav, because a Kinyan Hagbahah is effective anywhere, even in the owner's domain.

4)

(a)In a case where the Ganav instructs a Kohen to take the sheep that he wants to steal, as payment for Pidyon ha'Ben, his creditor to take it as payment of his debt, or if he instructs any of the four Shomrim to take it and look after it, and it dies ...

1. ... whilst still in the owner's domain he is Patur.

2. ... after the recipient has taken it out of the owner's domain he is Chayav.

(b)One of the reasons that the Tana cannot be referring to an owner who is giving the animal to a Kohen to redeem his first-born son ... or to one of the four Shomrim to look after, is because, apart from a Sho'el, a Shomer is not Chayav for Meisah ke'Darkeh, which is a pure Ones. The other reason is that in the cases of giving it to a Kohen or to his creditor, the Lashon 'Patur' or 'Chayav' would be inappropriate (since it is a question of the of the Kohen and the creditor losing out or not). What the Tana should rather have said is 'Hifsid' or 'Lo Hifsid'.

5)

(a)The ramifications of Ameimar's She'eilah whether the Chachamim instituted Meshichah by a Shomer or not are whether the Shomer is Chayav to pay if something happened to the animal prior to his having made a Meshichah.

(b)Ameimar tries to refute Rav Yeimar's proof from our Mishnah 'Nasno li'Bechoros Beno ... Hayah Moshcho u'Meis'. The Tana may be talking (not about the Shomer leading the animal [as we explained in our Mishnah] but) when the Ganav led the animal out of the domain of the Kohen, the creditor or the Shomer.

(c)When Rav Yeimar queried Ameimar from the fact that the Tana has already taught us the Din of a Ganav in the Reisha, when he stole from the domain of the owner he replied that the Reisha teaches us the Din of a Ganav who steals from the domain of the owner, and the Seifa adds the Din of a Ganav who steals from the domain of a Shomer ... .

(d)Rav Ashi sides with Rav Yeimar, to conclude 'Shema Minah, Tiknu Meshichah be'Shomrim because there is no reason to differentiate between whether the Ganav steals from this domain or that one (once we know the one, we know the other).

6)

(a)Rav Ashi has the support of a Beraisa which states 'ke'Derech she'Tiknu Meshichah bi'Lekuchos, Kach Tiknu Meshichah be'Shomrim'.

(b)The Tana continues 'u'ke'Shem she'ha'Karka Nikneis be'Kesef, bi'Shtar u've'Chazakah, Kach Sechirus Nikneis ... '. Rav Chisda explains that he can only be referring to Sechirus of Karka because one cannot acquire Metaltelin with a Shtar or with Chazakah.

(c)We cannot bring the same proof from Kesef because Kesef does acquire Metaltelin with regard to a 'Mi she'Para' (the curse that one receives for retracting from a sale after paying for goods which one has not yet acquired).

(d)A sale on which one has written a Shtar is not subject to a 'Mi she'Para' because a Shtar on Metaltelin is considered no more than words.

7)

(a)Rebbi Elazar obligates someone who hides in the forest in order to steal animals and then Shechts them to pay Dalet v'Hey because he considers him a Ganav.

(b)The problem with this is that since he failed to acquire the animals through Meshichah, what makes him a Ganav?

(c)Rav Chisda explains that he acquires the animals by hitting them with a stick (which is a form of Meshichah).

(d)Despite the fact that people saw him he is nevertheless a Ganav and not a Gazlan because he hides from them.

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Avahu, a Gazlan is someone who steals openly like Benayahu ben Yehoyada who actually grabbed the spear out of the hands of an Egyptian soldier and killed him with it.

(b)Rebbi Avahu disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan, who gives an example of a Gazlan as someone who lies in ambush (like the Ba'alei Shechem in Shoftim) because, when all's said and done, they did hide.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan counters this argument by pointing out that they only hid in order to prevent their victims from escaping (and not because they were afraid of them) see Tosfos DH 've'Rebbi Yochanan.

9)

(a)A Ganav is more stringent than a Gazlan inasmuch as he is subject to Dalet v'Hey should he Shecht or sell the animal that he stole (whereas a Gazlan does not).

(b)The reason that Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai gave his Talmidim for this is because the Gazlan does not fear Hash-m less than his fellow man, whereas a Ganav does.

(c)What the Pesukim "Hoy ha'Ma'amakim me'Hashem, Lastir Eitzah ve'Hayah be'Machshach Ma'aseihem" (Yeshayah); "va'Yomru Lo Yir'eh Kah ve'Lo Yavin Elokei Ya'akov" (Tehilim); "ve'Amru Azav Hash-m Es ha'Aretz, ve'Ein Hash-m Ro'eh" (Yechezkel) have in common is that they all describe the Ganav.

(d)To describe Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's explanation, Rebbi Meir in the name of Raban Gamliel gave a Mashal to two people who organized a party one of whom invited the townspeople but not the king, whereas the other invited neither. It is obvious that the first of the two is more deserving of punishment than the second.

10)

(a)Rebbi Meir in the name of Raban Gamliel extrapolates the importance of work from the Parshah of Dalet v'Hey from the fact that the Ganav has to pay fourfold for Shechting or selling a lamb, but fivefold for an ox (because whereas the latter works [and that is what he deprived the owner of], the former does not).

(b)According to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, the reason that the Ganav pays less for Shechting or selling a lamb is because, whereas the ox walked with the Ganav on its own volition, the lamb had to be carried on his shoulders, involving a degree of shame from which we can extrapolate the importance of self-respect.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah forbids rearing small animals in Eretz Yisrael because they tend to wander off into other people's fields, and to eat their produce. (Chazal term this 'Yishuv Eretz Yisrael', safeguarding the property of Eretz Yisrael).

(b)The Mishnah permits it in Syria, despite the fact that David ha'Melech captured it, because ' 'Kibush Yachid Lo Shemei Kibush' (Land that was conquered before the conquest of Eretz Yisrael had been completed, is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael).

(c)He permits it even in Eretz Yisrael however in the deserts.

(d)Chazal forbade ...

1. ... anyone to rear chickens in Yerushalayim because of the Kodshim that were constantly being brought there, and chickens tend to transport dead Sheratzim from one place to another.

2. ... Kohanim to do so anywhere in Eretz Yisrael due to the same concern regarding the Terumah they are obligated to eat (and which they are obligated to guard against Tum'ah).

12)

(a)It is forbidden to rear Chazirim anywhere. One may ...

1. ... rear dogs as long as they are constantly kept on a chain.

2. ... spread nets to trap doves provided they are placed at least thirty Ris (four Ris = one Mil) from the town.

(b)The reason that Chazal forbade rearing dogs is because they bite and bark (and sometimes even cause women to lose their babies through the fear that results from their barking).

(c)The Beraisa permits rearing small animals in the Chorshin of Eretz Yisrael. 'Chorshin' means forests.

(d)They also permitted rearing them in the desert of Yehudah and on the border of Ako. They did not extend the decree to large animals (which are needed for carrying and plowing), because it was too difficult a burden for the community to bear because to import them from outside the country was problematic in those days.

13)

(a)Chazal permitted a person to keep small animals, with the intention of Shechting them thirty days before his son's wedding or before Yom-Tov .

(b)If for example, one purchased an animal fifteen days before Yom-Tov, he is not permitted to retain it for fifteen days after Yom-Tov, in order to make the most of the thirty-day concession.

(c)An animal dealer is permitted to keep small animals as from thirty days prior to market-day until market-day.

(d)The Tana discusses whether a cattle-dealer who purchased animals fifteen days before market-day may retain them until the end of the thirty-day period (just as he did with regard to keeping animals that remained after Yom-Tov). When he writes 'u'Vil'vad she'Lo Yashheh ha'Agunah she'Bahen Sheloshim Yom', he means that he is not permitted to retain the last of them for the full thirty days, only until market-day.