Question: The Gemara here implies that even with regard to a P'sul that occurs before the Zerikah, and even when the skin is still connected to the Basar and the P'sul occurred before the Shechitah, if he brought it before the money, it is Mutar be'Hana'ah ...

Question (cont.): ... whereas in Perek T'vul Yom (Zevachim, Daf 104a, See Tosfos 103b DH 'ha'Olah') Rebbi says that the blood atones for the skin on its own' - meaning that it has been stripped, and when a P'sul occurred to the Basar, the blood atones for the skin on its own ...

Question (cont.): ... but if a P'sul occurs before the Zerikah (See Mesores ha'Shas), whilst the skin is still attached, it has the same Din as the Basar; after the Zerikah, since the Basar was atoned for a short while, one strips the skin and it is goes to the Kohanim ...

Question (cont.): So we see, that as long as the skin is still attached to the Basar, and becomes Pasul before the Zerikah, it must be burned ...

Question (concl.): ... and here, seeing as it was brought before the money, the P'sul occurred before the Shechitah, so why is it not taken out to be burned?

Clarification: This means the first Olah in Parshas Pinchas, and just as "Mil'vad Olas ha'Boker" specifically reveals that it is besides what preceded it, so too, does "Milevad Eil ha'Kipurim" mean besides what preceded it.

Question: The Gemara here learns it from "ha'Olah", whereas in Perek Kol ha'Tadir (Zevachim, Daf 89a, See Tosfos DH 'Kol') it learns it from "Milevad Olas ha'Boker" on its own?

Answer #1: There too, it relies on "ha'Olah".

Answer #2: There is another answer, but this is not the place to elaborate (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Question: Why does the Gemara require a Pasuk above, with regard to Hedyot, that a person who brings his Asham before the Gezeilah, is not Yotzei? Why can we not learn it from Hekdesh?

Answer: If there was no Pasuk that equated Hedyot with Hekdesh in this regard, we would not learn one from the other regarding other issues ...

Answer (cont.): ... but now that the Torah compares them, that in both cases he is not Yotzei if he brings his Asham first, we can also compare them with regard to other issues.

Implied Question: La'av Davka 'Ma'achil', since even if he simply gave it to them, they will be Patur according to Rav Chisda, who maintains that the Gemara establishes the Mishnah after Yi'ush ...

Reason: ... since it is now Yi'ush and Shinuy R'shus ...

Answer #1: Only the Tana states the more common case.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it specifically mentions 'Ma'achil', even according to Rav Chisda ...

Reason: ... because he does not consider it Shinuy R'shus by virtue of the fact that the father handed it to his sons who are eating at his table, even according to Shmuel, who says in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 12a) that whatever they find belongs to them ...

Reason (cont.): ... because, seeing as he gives it to them to eat, and (when all's said and done) the onus to feed them lies on him, it is not considered Shinuy R'shus.

Answer #3: According to Rav however, who holds (earlier, on Daf 67b) that Yi'ush on its own is Koneh, and who later in the Perek (115a) concurs with Rav Chisda, and according to whom, we will therefore also have to establish the Mishnah after Yi'ush - like Rav Chisda does ...

Answer #3 (cont.): ... 'Ma'achil' is La'av Davka, as the same will apply where he gave it to them.

Answer #4: Alternatively, according to Rav too, 'Ma'achil' is Davka' - and it speaks by a Davar ha'Mesuyam (a specific item).

Clarification: But if the owner was Meya'esh, he can only claim from the first Ganav, seeing as the latter one ate them ...

Clarification (cont.): .. and even there where, had he not eaten it, he would have been Chayav to return it - such as where there was no Shinuy R'shus, where the owner was Meya'esh only after it was in the hands of the second Ganav.

Support: And it is implied later when Rav Chisda establishes the Beraisa of Rebbi Oshaya, which states 'Gezeilah Kayemes, Chayavin' by after Yi'ush, because 'R'shus Yoresh La'av ki'Reshus Loke'ach Dami' , like Rava ...

Support (cont.): ... nevertheless, the Beraisa rules that if the Gezeilah is not available, he is Patur.

Question #1: ... seeing as, if the Gezeilah would be available, they would be Chayav, why are they Patur if they ate it?

Question #2: The same Kashya will apply to Rami bar Chama, who establishes it before Yi'ush.

Question #3: Furthermore, according to Rav Chisda and Rava, since 'R'shus Yoresh La'av ki'Reshus Loke'ach Dami', what is the difference between before Yi'ush and after Yi'ush, they ought to be Chayav even if the Gezeilah is not available?

Answer: The Gemara Darshens later in the Sugya (on 112a) that he is Patur if the Gezeilah is not available, from the Pasuk "asher Gazal" - if it is as it was when it was stolen, only then must he return it. From here they learned 'ha'Gozel u'Ma'achil ... '.

Answer (cont.): ... and based on a S'vara, Rav Chisda establishes the Pasuk specifically after Yi'ush, and Rami bar Chama, before Yi'ush.

Answer (cont.): According to Rav however, who says above (on Daf 67b) that Yi'ush alone is Koneh, and who also concurs with Rav Chisda, the Pasuk must be an Asmachta, because, seeing as Yi'ush is Koneh, they will be Patur even without it.

Conclusion: And as for the reason that they are Chayav when the Gezeilah is still available, that Tosfos will discuss shortly (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Rejection: This is dificult however, according to the opinion in 'Merubeh' (earlier, Daf 67a) that 'Shinuy is not Koneh', since he Darshens "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah", 'under all circumstances' ...

Rejection: ... and he does not Darshen "asher Gazal" - 'If it is unchanged from the way it was when he stole it, he must return it', but to preclude a case where one steals from one's father ...

Rejection (cont.): ... from where does he learn the current D'rashah?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that that Amora holds 'Yi'ush alone is Koneh', in which case the current D'rashah is not needed, and it is merely an Asmachta ...

Refutation: ... because Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan at the beginning of 'ha'Gozel' (above, on Daf 94b) states that min ha'Torah a stolen article that has been changed is returned as it is, based on the Pasuk "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah", and he does not hold of the D'rashah 'Ke'ein she'Gazal' ...

Refutation (cont.): Though he does hold in 'Merubeh' (on, Daf 68b) and in this Perek that 'Yi'ush alone is not Koneh' . If so, from where will he learn that, if the Gezeilah is not available, they are Patur from paying?

Final Answer: We must therefore say that the forthcoming D'rashah, is an Asmachta according to all opinions, and it is based on a S'vara that Rav Chisda differentiates between before Yi'ush and after Yi'ush ...

Reason: Seeing as it is not in the domain of the owner after Yi'ush to the extent that it is before Yi'ush - since it will easily leave his domain via Shinuy R'shus or Shinuy ha'Shem.

Proof: And this is not a Dochek - because even if we would learn it from a Pasuk, we would have to apply this S'vara ...

Proof (cont.): ... seeing as otherwise, why would we establish the Pasuk more after Yi'ush than before Yi'ush, bearing in mind that even after Yi'ush it is still in the owner's domain?

Precluding Rami bar Chama: According to Rami bar Chama however, this is not a problem, since he does not hold of the reason of 'the owner's domain' at all, because, since he did not steal it, one cannot claim from him at all ...

Precluding Rami bar Chama (cont.): ... since it is entirely not in his domain - seeing as he is not able to declare it Hekdesh, and what's more, the Gazlan is able to acquire it with Shinuy Ma'aseh.

Proof #1: Proof of this is that specifically Rav Chisda needs to explain the reason why ...

Proof #2: ... and the Gemara too, queries him from the Mishnah.

Implied Question: According to the opinion in 'Get Pashut' (Bava Basra, Daf 175b) that one cannot claim a Milveh-al-Peh either from the heirs or from the purchasers' one can establish the case where they took the claim to Beis-Din, thereby rendering it a Milveh-bi'Shetar ...

Answer: ... as is evident in many places (See for example, above 108a [See also Tosfos, above, Daf 104b, DH 'Milveh al Peh']).

Clarification: This was how he was accustomed to resolve Mishnayos like him, as we find in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 62b) in connection with 'Keitzad? Lakach heimenu Chitim'.

Clarification (cont.): But he would not have said this simply because he resolved one Mishnah like him.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked from the Reisha - 'ha'Gozel u'Ma'achil es Banav, Peturin', according to Rav Chisda, as long as the Gemara has not ascertained that it speaks after Yi'ush ...

Precedent: ... just as it asked above from the Mishnah ...

Answer: Only it prefers to ask from the Seifa, since it is able to ask from it on both Rami bar Chama and Rav Chisda.

Question: Since, according to Rav who holds a. 'Yi'ush alone is Koneh', and b. like Rav Chisda (later, on Daf 115a), in which case he too, will establish the Mishnah after Yi'ush ...

Question (cont.): ... why are they Chayav if the Gezeilah is still available, seeing as 'Yi'ush alone is Koneh'?

Answer: Rav will establish it by a Davar ha'Mesuyam (a specific object).

Implied Question: ... in which case when the Tana says 'Ein Gezeilah Kayemes, Peturin', it could equally well have drawn a distinction even where the Gezeilah is available - between an object that is specific and one that is not ...

Answer: ... only it prefers to teach us that even in the case of a specific object, if it is not available, they are Patur ...

Answer (cont.): Despite the fact that they ate what their father stole has become publicized.

Precedent #1 (to former answer): Similarly the Beraisa later, which states 'ha'Gozel u'Ma'achil es Banav, Peturin mi'Leshalem', which, according to Rav Chisda, the Gemara attempts to establish after Yi'ush ...

Precedent #1 (to former answer [cont.]): ... according to Rav, we will have to establish it by a Davar ha'Mesuyam, since it states 'Im Hini'ach le'Banav Gedolim, Chayavin Leshalem'.

Precedent #2: And similarly, regarding the other Beraisa, which states 'bein Gedolim u'bein Ketanim, Chayavin' - if it is speaking about a Davar she'Eino Mesuyam, why does Rav declare them Chayav, seeing as it speaks after Yi'ush?

Clarification (According to Rav): According to Rav, these Beraisos argue as to whether Ketanim are Chayav on account of Kavod Avihem or not ...

Clarification (According to Rav) cont: One goes according to Sumchus and one, according to the Rabanan, since, according to Rav, the Gemara will shortly attempt to establish their Machlokes in this point - whether the reason of 'Kavod Avihem' applies to Ketanim or not.

Clarification (According to Rami bar Chama): But according to Rami bar Chama, who establishes the Beraisos before Yi'ush, it is straightforward ...

Clarification (According to Rav Chisda): Whereas according to Rav Chisda, who establishes them after Yi'ush, they are arguing over a proper Gezeilah in the hands of a Katan, which he is not Koneh, as to whether one can accept witnesses to take it from him or not ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and that is also the point over which Sumchus and the Rabanan are arguing.