1)

(a)The Beraisa discusses what happens if the Gazlan gave the Asham and the money to two different Mishmaros. Rebbi Yehudah says 'Nasan Asham li'Yehoyariv, ve Kesef li'Yedayah, Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham' (the money must be given to Yehoyariv) The Chachamim say - 'Yachzir Asham Eitzel Kesef' (the Asham must be given to Yedayah).

(b)The Beraisa cannot be speaking when the Gazlan gave the Asham to Yehoyariv during their Mishmar and the money to Yeda'ayah during their Mishmar - because then each one would acquire what he has (in which case, the Rabbanan would penalize Yehoyariv, but there would be no reason for Rebbi Yehudah to penalize Yedayah, as we learned in our Mishnah).

(c)Rava therefore establishes the Beraisa when he gave both during the Mishmar of Yehoyariv. The Chachamim's reason is because Yehohariv should not have accepted the Asham before the Gazlan had returned the money (as we learned in our Mishnah in a case where he gave the money to Yedayah during their Mishmar), whereas Rebbi Yehudah maintains - that Yedayah should not have accepted the money outside the time of their Mishmar.

2)

(a)Rebbi in a Beraisa states that if, in the above case, Yehoyariv actually brought the Asham before Yedayah gave them the money to them - then the Gazlan is obligated to bring a second Asham which he gives to Yedayah, and Yehoyariv may keep the Asham that they have ...

(b)... meaning that they are permitted to retain the skin.

(c)When Rebbi Yehudah says 'Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham', he is speaking - when Yehoyariv claimed the money; whereas Rebbi is speaking when they did not.

(d)... and his Chidush is - that we presume their not claiming to be an indication that they have been Mochel.

3)

(a)In a second Beraisa, Rebbi states that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, if the Asham is still alive, 'Yachzir Asham Eitzel Kesef' (meaning that Yehoyariv must give the Asham to Yehoyada to bring - because he is speaking when they had failed to do so by the time their Mishmar ended, a sign that they were Mochel the money; whereas Rebbi Yehudah ('Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham') is speaking Lechatchilah (meaning that Yehohariv has the right to claim the money from Yedayah should they so wish).

(b)In yet another Beraisa, Rebbi states that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, if the Asham is still alive, 'Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham' - when neither they claimed the money from Yedayah, nor did Yedayah claim the; whereas Rebbi Yehudah is speaking when Yehoyariv claimed the money during the duration of their Mishmar (as we just explained).

(c)Rebbi is then coming to teach us - that we do not say now that both Mishmaros were Mochel, and that each one keeps what it has, but that, seeing as Yedayah did not claim the Asham either, the Din reverts to the original ruling, and Yedayah must give the money to Yehoyariv ...

(d)... who will bring the Asham - when their turn comes round next.

4)

(a)Rava learns from the Pasuk "ha'Asham ha'Mushav la'Hashem la'Kohen, mi'Levad Eil ha'Kipurim asher Yechaper bo Alav" - that a Gazlan must first return what he stole, and only then bring his Asham.

(b)Assuming that Rava learns this from "mi'Levad Eil ha'Kipurim"' which, he maintains, implies that the Asham comes later, this poses a Kashya on the Pasuk "mi'Levad Olas ha'Boker asher le'Olas ha'Tamid", which is written immediately after the Korban Musaf - yet we know that it is the Tamid which precedes the Musaf, and not vice-versa.

(c)In fact, it is Rava himself who Darshens from the word "ve'Arach alehah ha'Olah" (written in Vayikra, in connection with the Korban Tamid) - that the Olas Tamid precedes all other Korbanos.

(d)Rava really learns that the Gazlan must return the Gezel ha'Ger before bringing the Asham - from the words "asher Yechaper bo Alav", which by virtue of the future tense, implies that at the time that the Gazlan brings the money, he has not yet brought his Korban.

5)

(a)The Torah writes in Vayikra, in connection with Me'ilah (the misappropriation of Hekdesh) "ve'ha'Kohen Yechaper alav be'Eil ha'Asham ve'Nislach lo". "ha'Asham refer to" - the Keren.

(b)Consequently, the Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... "be'Eil ha'Asham ve'Nislach Lo" - that someone who is Mo'el does not attain forgiveness until he both pays the Keren (that he used of Hekdesh) and brings his Korban (Asham Me'ilos).

2. ... the order of the words "be'Eil ha'Asham" (implying that he had already paid the money when he brought the Asham) - that he must pay the money first and bring his Korban afterwards.

(c)The Chomesh is not Me'akev however - since the Torah only mentions the Keren and the Asham (in connection with the Mechilah).

6)

(a)The Tana concludes that we learn Hekdesh from Hedyot (the Parshah of Me'ilah from that of Gezel ha'Ger), and vice-versa. We learn ...

1. ... by Hekdesh from Hedyot - that "Asham" refers to the Keren (as we learned earlier in the Sugya).

2. ... by Hedyot from Hekdesh - that the Chomesh is not Me'akev (as we just explained).

7)

(a)Our Mishnah exempts the heirs of a Gazlan who fed them or left them what he stole. The Tana concedes however, that they will be Chayav - if it was a 'Davar she'Yesh bo Acharayus' (which will be explained in the Sugya).

(b)Rav Chisda rules that if someone ate what a Gazlan stole before the owner has been Meya'esh (given up hope of getting it back) - then the owner has the right to claim from whichever one he chooses ...

(c)... because before Yi'ush, the object remains in the owner's domain. Consequently, the moment the second person ate it, he stole it too.

(d)Rav Chisda therefore establishes our Mishnah, which exempts the heirs who ate what their father left them from paying - after Yi'ush (in which case they acquired it with Yi'ush and Shinuy Reshus).

8)

(a)Rami bar Chama extrapolates from the previous statement of Rav Chisda (from the fact that the heirs acquire the object with Yi'ush and Shinuy Reshus) - that 'Reshus Yoresh ki'Reshus Loke'ach Dami' (an heir is considered a third person [just like a purchaser] with regard to Shinuy Reshus).

(b)know that our Mishnah holds Yi'ush alone is not Koneh - because otherwise, the Tana would have exempted the Gazlan himself from paying.

9)

(a)Rava holds 'Reshus Yoresh La'av ki'Reshus Loke'ach Dami', and the reason that the Mishnah exempts the heirs from paying is - because it speaks where they already ate what their father left them.

(b)The problem with this is - that the Seifa 've'Im Hayah Davar she'Yesh bo Acharayus, Chayavin' implies that the stolen object is still in existence (otherwise, how would people recognize it?).

(c)Rava therefore fuses the middle section of the Mishnah ('ve'Hini'ach Lifneihem') with the Seifa - which he now amends to read 'Im Hini'ach Lahem Avihem Acharayos Nechasim, Chayavin Le'shalem' ...

(d)... meaning that if their father left them Karka, then they are obligated to pay from that Karka (even though the stolen object is no longer there).

10)

(a)We query this however, from a statement of Rebbi, who explained to Rebbi Shimon his son - that 'Davar she'Yesh Bo Acharayus' does not mean Karka (like Rava just explained) but an object that is easily recognizable as belonging to the original owner (as we explained earlier), such as a cow with which he plows, or a laden donkey with which he travels.

(b)In response, Rava said that when he died, Rebbi Oshaya would come out to greet him. He said that - because he (Rava) established the Mishnah like him rather than like Rebbi.

(c)Rebbi Oshaya interpreted ...

1. ... 'Hini'ach Lahem Avihem, Peturim mi'Le'shalem' to read - 'Gezeilah Kayemes, Chayavin Le'shalem, Ein Gezeilah Kayemes, Peturin'.

2. ... 've'Im Hayah Davar she'Yesh bo Acharayus, Chayavin Le'shalem' to read - 'Im Hini'ach Lahem Avihem Achrayos Nechasim, Chayavin Le'shalem' (as we just explained according to Rava).

11)

(a)We just established our Mishnah according to Rebbi Oshaya to read 'Gezeilah Kayemes, Chayavin Le'shalem. Ein Gezeilah Kayemes, Peturin'.

1. Rav Chisda, who learned earlier that the third person (who ate the object) is Chayav - will establish 'Ein Gezeilah Kayemes, Peturin' after Yi'ush (whereas he is speaking before Yi'ush).

2. Rami bar Chama, who holds 'Reshus Yoresh ki'Reshus Loke'ach Dami' - will establish 'Gezeilah Kayemes, Chayavin Le'shalem' before Yi'ush (Otherwise, the heirs ought to acquire the object with Yi'ush and Shinuy Reshus).

(b)The latter explanation proves - that Rami bar Chama (who holds 'Reshus Yoresh ki'Reshus Loke'ach') does not hold like Rav Chisda.

(c)The Gazlan's heirs do not acquire the Gezeilah due to Shinuy Reshus, according to Rami bar Chama - because Shinuy Reshus is not Koneh without Yi'ush.