1)

(a)Still in connection with Rebbi Shimon, Rava say 'Gazal ve'Hishbi'ach u'Machar, Gazal ve'Hishbi'ach ve'Horish Mah she'Hishbi'ach Machar, u'Mah she'Hishbi'ach Horish' (and the purchaser or the heir will receive a half, a third or a quarter of the Shevach from the owner.

(b)On the other hand, he might be speaking even not according to Rebbi Shimon but according to the Tana of our Mishnah, in which case, the purchaser or the heir will be able to retain the entire Shevach, on account of Takanas ha'Shavin.

(c)Where the purchaser from a Ganav improved the field Rava concludes that seeing as the Ganav would have received a percentage, the purchaser, who bought all the rights from him, receives a percentage too.

2)

(a)When Rav Acha mi'Difti heard Rava's She'eilah as to what the Din will be if a Nochri improved the ground (whether the Din of Mechtzah ... will pertain to him, too) he asked in surprise how Chazal would make a Takanah for Nochrim?

(b)He even objected when Ravina tried to establish the case where the Nochri stole the field, improved it, and then sold the field to a Yisrael because, as we just learned, a purchaser adopts all the rights of the seller (and conversely, any rights that the seller did not enjoy, the purchaser will not receive either).

(c)Ravina finally establishes Rava's She'eilah by a case where a Yisrael stole the field and sold it to a Nochri, who improved the field and sold it to another Yisrael.

(d)The She'eilah is whether, since it is a Yisrael who stole the field and a Yisrael who finally owns it, Chazal included him in the Takanah, or whether, because the middle man is a Nochri, the Takanah does not apply. The resolution is 'Teiku' ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').

3)

(a)We might have thought that if Reuven steals Shimon's date-palm, cuts it down and moves it to his domain, he will acquire it (and may compensate the owner with cash) because, since it has changed from a live tree into a dead one, he acquires it with Shinuy.

(b)Rav Papa actually says that he does not acquire it, because no visible change has taken place (see Tosfos DH 'de'Gazal Dikla'), and like before, it has not changed its name either.

(c)Someone who steals and cuts up ...

1. ... a date-palm into logs is not Koneh it (because the logs are still referred to as logs of a date-palm, in which case the Shinuy is not yet complete).

2. ... logs into beams he is Koneh.

3. ... large beams into small ones he is not Koneh.

4. ... beams into planks he is Koneh.

4)

(a)Rava rules that someone who steals ...

1. ... a Lulav-branch and pulls out the leaves is Koneh.

2. ... Lulav-leaves out of which he makes a broom is Koneh.

3. ... a broom made of Lulav-leaves and makes a rope he is not Koneh.

(b)The basic difference between the two previous cases is the fact that in order to make the broom, it was necessary to split the leaves into two, in which case the Shinuy is not reversible, whereas if one makes a rope out of the leaves of a broom, it is.

5)

(a)Rav Papa asks what the Din will be if the Tiyomes splits. 'A Tiyomes' is the middle leaf of a Lulav.

(b)The She'eilah is whether a split Lulav is Pasul, in which case, in the realm of Kinyanim, it will be considered a Shinuy (on or just before Sukos), or not.

(c)We refute the proof from Rebbi Masun Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who says that a Lulav whose Tiyomes is removed is Pasul by differentiating between when the Tiyomes has been removed (in which case the Lulav is Chaser [lacking]), and when it is split (when it is still complete).

(d)In the second Lashon, the proof is clear-cut. There, Rebbi Masun Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says Nechlekah ha'Tiyomes, Na'aseh Kemi she'Nitlah, u'Pasul'. Clearly then, if the Tiyomes splits, the Lulav is Pasul, and if a stolen Lulav splits on or just before Sukos, the Ganav acquires it with Shinuy.

6)

(a)Rav Papa rules that someone who steals ...

1. ... dust and makes bricks out of them is not Koneh, whereas vice-versa he is, and likewise someone who steals ...

2. ... a piece of silver and mints it into a coin is not Koneh, whereas vice-versa he is. The reason for these two distinctions is because whereas a brick can easily be ground back into dust, and a coin into a piece of silver, in the reverse case, each brick that one were to manufactures and each coin that one were to mint is different that its predecessor.

(b)Even though Rav Papa rules that someone who steals old clothes and bleaches them white, he is not Koneh them because they can easily be sullied again, nevertheless, in the reverse case, he is because even if he bleaches them again, they will never be quite the same as new.

7)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Zeh ha'Klal, Kol ha'Gazlanim Meshalmin ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah'. This come to include what Rebbi Ila'a said (in the seventh Perek) 'Ganav Tleh ve'Na'aseh Ayil, Eigel, ve'Na'aseh Shor, Na'aseh Shinuy be'Yado, ve'Kan'o'.

(b)The immediate ramifications of this ruling (besides the fact that he is not obligated to return the animal) are that should the Ganav then Shecht or sell the animal, he will be Patur from Dalet ve'Hey, since he will have Shechted his own animal.

(c)When the case where Reuven stole a pair of oxen and plowed with them and sowed with them before returning them to Shimon came before Rav Nachman he obligated Shimon to pay the Shevach (the amount that the oxen had improved because they had plowed Reuven's field).

8)

(a)When Rava asked Rav Nachman 'Turi Ashbach, Ar'a Lo Ashbach', he meant to ask why Rav Nachman had charged Shimon for the full Shevach, when surely, Reuven's land had improved too (so why should Shimon pay the full amount of the Shevach of the oxen)? ...

(b)... to which Rav Nachman replied that what he meant was that Shimon should pay half the Shevach (but not all of it).

(c)Rav Huna said that when Rav Nachman sat in judgment, he was like Shavur Malka (by whom he meant Shmuel, who was an expert in money-matters).

(d)When Rava then queried Rav Nachman from 'Kol ha'Gazlanim Meshalmin ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah', in which case, Reuven ought to have received all the Shevach (as he had originally insinuated), he replied that Reuven was an established Ganav, and he therefore saw fit to fine him.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses someone who steals animals and Avadim, which subsequently become old. The Chachamim rule in both cases 'Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah'. Rebbi Meir ...

1. ... agrees with the Rabanan in the case of Beheimah because he agrees that 'Shinuy Koneh'.

2. ... argues with them in the case of Avadim because he holds that Avadim are compared to Karka (in this regard) where Shinuy does not apply.

(b)The Tana rules in the case of ...

1. ... 'Gazal Matbei'a ve'Nisdak, Peiros ve'Hirkivu, Yayin ve'Hichmitz Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah'.

2. ... 'Gazal Matbei'a ve'Nifsal, Terumah ve'Nitma'as, Chametz ve'Avar Alav ha'Pesach' that he may say to the owner 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha'.

(c)The reason for the difference between the two rulings is that the depreciation in the first list is discernible (either by sight, by smell, or by taste), whereas the depreciation in the second list is not.

(d)If the animal which the Ganav stole is then used for sinful purposes, became disqualified from the Mizbe'ach or if it was actually being taken out to be stoned the Ganav can say to the owner 'Harei Shelcha Lefanecha', because, here too, the change is not discernible.

10)

(a)Rav Papa interprets 'Hizkinah' in our Mishnah to be 'Lav Davka', but that the Tana is also referring to 'Kachshah' (became weak). The reason that the Tana says 'Hizkinah' is to teach us that 'Hakchashah', like 'Hizkinah', must be irreversible.

(b)When Mar Keshisha Brei de'Rav Chisda quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that if the Ganav stole a lamb and it grew into a sheep ... he acquires it, Rav Ashi commented that he had already instructed Mar Keshisha not to confuse names, and that he should have quoted Rebbi Ila'a, and not Rebbi Yochanan.

(c)Rav ruled like Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, even though he is a minority opinion because that is the opinion of the Rabanan in a Beraisa.

(d)We ask why he opted to switch the opinions of the Mishnah on account of the Beraisa, and not vice-versa? On this we give two answers, one of them, that he actually learned the opinions in our Mishnah the other way round too; the other that although he would not have switched the opinions in the Mishnah in face of one Beraisa, he switched them because he actually had two Beraisos that quote Rebbi as saying that Avadim are like Metaltelin and that the Ganav acquires them.

11)

(a)The Beraisa says 'ha'Mocher Shifchah', but 'ha'Machlif Parah ba'Chamor'. The Tana does not say ...

1. ... 'ha'Mocher Parah' (like he says by Shifchah) because, unlike a Shifchah, one cannot acquire a cow with money.

2. ... 'ha'Moshech Parah' because once he makes a Kinyan on the actual cow itself, there is no room for doubt as to in whose domain the baby was born.

(b)In a case where the cow or the Shifchah gave birth, and the original owner of the cow or of the Shifchah claim that the baby was born whilst the mother was still in his domain, whereas the recipient doesn't know, the Tana rules that the original owner is believed ...

(c)... based on the principle 'Bari ve'Shema, Bari Adif' (if one of the litigants does not know, we believe the one who does [see also Tosfos DH 've'Halah Shosek']).

(d)In a case where neither litigant knows when the baby was born they divide it.

12)

(a)If each litigant claims that the baby was born in his domain, the seller of the Shifchah must swear that it is as he says because, in his capacity as the original owner, he is considered the defendant, and we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Lakach Be'alim ve'Lo Yeshalem" that it is always the defendant who swears.

(b)What makes this a Shevu'ah d'Oraisa is the fact that the defendant admits to part of the claim (i.e. the Shifchah).

(c)'Heilach' is where the defendant offers to pay the article that he admits he owes intact, and is subsequently Patur from a Shevu'ah.

(d)In spite of the fact that, in our case, the seller offers to give the purchaser the Shifchah, this is it not a case of Heilach because we are speaking where he broke her arm (in which case she is not 'intact').

(e)This is the opinion of Rebbi Meir. According to the Chachamim a Shifchah is considered Karka, and one does not swear on Karka.

13)

(a)Even though Rebbi Yochanan also switched the opinions of Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan in our Mishnah, he nevertheless said 'Halachah k'Rebbi Meir' because he was referring to those who maintained the original version.