Clarification: And one is permitted even to wear it.

Sugya in Shabbos: And the same applies to the Mishnah (in the last Perek of Kil'ayim) 'Mochrei K'sus Mochrin ke'Darkan' and which the Gemara in (Shabbos, Daf 29b & 30a) establishes like Rebbi Shimon, who permits Davar she'Ein Miskaven ...

Clarification: ... there as well, they are permitted to wear the garment, and are not obligated to drape it over their shoulders.

According to the Rabanan: This goes well with the Rabanan who hold (later, on Daf 114a) that 'S'tam Gezeilah is not Yi'ush Ba'alim'.

Implied Question: Nevertheless the Tana says that he gives him a Dinar and he (the tax-collector) gives him change' ...

Answer: ... since it is not known for sure that the money is stolen.

According to Rebbi Shimon: And even according to Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that S'tam Gezeilah havi Yi'ush Ba'alim', in which case it is Yi'ush and Shinuy R'shus, nevertheless, one may not exchange coins ...

Reason: ... because it is a despicable thing to do, seeing as the box and the purse are designated for discreetly placing in them what they have stolen, and they do this constantly.

Clarification: The Gemara in Nedarim (Daf 28a) explains that with his lips he says 'Ye'asru Kol Peiros she'be'Olam alai, Im Einam shel T'rumah!', whilst in his mind he thinks 'today', so it is only forbidden on that day.

Implied Question: And despite the fact that generally 'Words that are not verbalized are not effective' ...

Answer: ... due to the Oneis, the Chachamim permitted it to him - as the Gemara explains there ...

Clarification (cont.): ... and the same token, one is allowed to think in one's mind 'one hour' or even 'just one moment'.

Extension of Clarification: And this is what one customarily does when the princes force the Jews under their jurisdiction to swear that they will not go and live in another town - one is permitted to swear S'tam that one will not leave, and to think in one's mind 'today!'

Extension of Clarification (cont.): And even if one says with one's lips that he will never leave for the rest of his life, he is permitted to 'cheat' and to think in his mind any condition that he fancies ...

Extension of Clarification (concl.): ... and if he actually negates what he swore with his lips - silently, that is most certainly a valid negation.

Implied Question: The Tana'im in Perek ha'Mekabel (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 111b [See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim]) who hold that 'Gezel Akum is permitted' ...

Answer: ... learn something else from this D'rashah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'We would have thought that one allows the Nochri to double the amount and to add on to the debt even what he did not lend him'.

Refutation: Why do we need a Pasuk to teach us this? Why should he lose and let the Cana'ani trick him?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains 'Yachol Yiglom alav' to mean - that he is permitted to trick the Nochri and to pay him less than what he gave him; therefore the Torah writes "And he shall reckon with his purchaser".

Support: And so the Aruch explains on the word 'Galam' - even though the error of a Nochri would have been permitted, it would nevertheless be forbidden to trick him there where the Nochri is aware that he (the Yisrael) is stealing from him, but makes out that he is not.

Clarification: The Ri explains that this was in fact, what Ravina meant to begin with - as he answered the Nochri, and not what the Nochri thought he meant ...

Reason: ... because otherwise, he would have thought that Gezel Akum is permitted ...

Proof: ... since there is no difference between Geneivah and Gezeilah, seeing as by Geneivah too, there is a Chilul Hash-m when he ultimately discovers what the Yisrael did.

Proof (concl.): And the Gemara only cites the Sugyos which prohibit Gezel Akum, and not the Tana'im in 'ha'Mekabel (Ibid.) who permit it.

Explanation #1: They should have taken to a Din Torah whoever passed by them.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Only they were certainly Meya'esh due to the fact that, according to the Din they were not obligated to pay them anything ...

Reason: ... since 'Diyna de'Malchusa Diyna'.

Explanation #2: Rashi however, explains 'How could they be Meya'esh' to mean - Is it really Yi'ush, seeing as Yi'ush alone is not Koneh?

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... bearing in mind that there was no Shinuy R'shus here, since the palm-trees were lying in the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): Nor was there Shinuy Ma'aseh, seeing as now too, they were (still) called logs of a date-palm, as the Gemara stated earlier, in 'ha'Gozel Kama' (Daf 96a & 96b).