Explanation: Even had it written only 'Lo Sashich l'Achicha Kesef Ochel', we would know Neshech in money and in food;

Had it written 'Lo Sashich l'Achicha Neshech Kesef Ochel', we would know also Ribis of money and food through Im Eino Inyan, and Neshech Ochel would come for a Gezeirah Shavah;

We would establish "Neshech Kol Davar" to forbid both of these to the lender, Im Eino Inyan for the borrower (the Torah already forbids both to him). The Gezeirah Shavah would be free from both sides

Support: Below, it says "regarding the borrower, we do not distinguish...", for everything is written regarding the borrower. We ask "what is the source for Neshech Ochel? It says "Neshech Ochel." We do not learn from "Neshech", rather, just from "Ochel", which refers to Lo Sashich;

Explanation: It says Neshech Ochel regarding a borrower, and through a Gezeirah Shavah we apply this to the lender.

Question: Since "Kol Davar" includes even sticks and stones, why do we need "Kesef" [and] "Ochel"? (Tosfos refers to the verse "... Neshech Kesef Neshech Ochel Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach." Pnei Yehoshua says that he asks why Neshech was repeated each time. Surely, it would not suffice to write Neshech Neshech Neshech!)

Answer: This is to expound a Klal u'Ferat u'Chlal. Lo Sashich is a Klal. Kesef [and] Ochel are Peratim. Kol Davar is another Klal;

Just like the Prat is Metaltelim and has intrinsic worth... this excludes land, which is not Metaltelim. It excludes less than Shaveh Perutah, which is not Mamon.

Support: In Kesuvos (46a) it teaches that R. Yehudah says "Motzi Shem Ra (one who falsely claimed that his Kalah was not a virgin) is liable only if he hired [witnesses to testify falsely that she was Mezanah], for we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Simah-Simah";

Question (R. Yirmiyah): If he hired them with land, what is the law? If he hired them with less than Shaveh Perutah, what is the law?

Observation: If Ribis applies to land or less than Shaveh Perutah, what was the question?

Inference: Rather, surely he is exempt! He asks, since we learn from Ribis, just like there he is exempt, also here (Motzi Shem Ra). Or, perhaps we do not say so.

Implied question: It says in Erchin (31a) regarding Batei Ir Chomah "it is absolute Ribis, and the Torah permitted it"! (It is Ribis of land!)

Answer: There, he lent money for [the right to use] land, but [one who lent] land for land, perhaps the Torah permits it.

Observation: Also in Avodah Zarah (20a), Pesachim (21b) and Chulin (114b), regarding "la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titnenah va'Achalah Oh Machor l'Nochri", we expound "la'Ger Titnenah u'Machor, Titnenah u'Machor l'Nochri." (Also there, the middle words apply to the Reisha and Seifa. One may sell or give to a Ger Toshav or idolater.)

Even the one who argues there, this is because it says "Oh" to separate them.

Question: In Kidushin (32b), Rabanan did not want to expound like R. Yosi ha'Gelili does, 'Mipnei Seivah Takum v'Hadarta, Takum v'Hadarta Pnei Zaken'! (Stand for and honor an old person, and a Chacham.)

Answer: This is because "Mipnei" (in front of) is not [so] appropriate to v'Hadarta (honor), and Takum (stand) is not appropriate to Pnei Zaken (the face of a Chacham).

Implied question: It says there that Rabanan hold that had it said 'Mipnei Seivah Takum v'Hadarta, Takum v'Hadarta Pnei Zaken', they would agree! (Mipnei is appropriate to v'Hadarta, and Takum is appropriate to Pnei Zaken!)

Answer: Then (had the Torah written so), we would be forced to say so.

Implied question: It says in Yoma (52a) that there are five verses that we cannot resolve (whether the words in the middle refer to the Reisha or Seifa) - Seis, Arur, Machar, Meshukadim and Kam. Why don't we say that the words apply to the Reisha and Seifa?

Answer: Here, since you are forced to say that Neshech applies to Kaspecha, we say that the likewise Ribis (applies to Kaspecha), and since Ribis applies to Ochel, similarly Neshech applies to Ochel. The same applies to Titnenah;

However, these five verses, perhaps they apply only to what is above or below.

Question - Citation (Zevachim 24a - Beraisa): "V'Lakach ha'Kohen Min ha'Dam b'Etzba'o v'Nasan" - if he received or threw [the blood] with his left hand, it is Pasul. R. Shimon says, if he received with his left hand, it is Kosher.

Citation (cont. - Abaye): R. Shimon's reason is because he holds that the verse Etzba'o, which connotes the right hand, applies only to "v'Nasan" written after it, but not to v'Lakach written before it. The first Tana holds that it applies to both.

Why is this different than the five verses that we cannot resolve?

Answer: There, the simple meaning of the verse connotes that it applies to v'Lakach;

In any case, the first Tana holds that it applies also to v'Nasan, for another verse says "v'Lakach mi'Dam ha'Par v'Nasan Al Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach b'Etzba'o";

There, Etzba refers to Nesinah. We learn what is not explicit from what is explicit. This is also R. Shimon's reason!

Question: Why do we need a verse (putting Neshech and Tarbis next to each other, to teach that both apply to food and money? We could learn this from the Gezeirah Shavah!)

Answer: The verse did not elaborate at all for this. It merely put Neshech and Tarbis next to each other.

Question: We do not warn [for lashes] Min ha'Din (from a Kal v'Chomer or Tzad ha'Shavah)!

Answer: Theft is a Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh (the Torah gave a Mitzvas Aseh for one who transgressed the Lav, i.e. to return the theft, to fix his Aveirah), like it says in Chulin (141a, so one is not lashed in any case).

Implied question: Due to the reason that we do not warn Min ha'Din, we could have said above that this is why we do not learn them from each other (regarding Ona'ah and Ribis)!

Answer: The Gemara answered better, that we could not learn them Min ha'Din.

Question: We should establish it to discuss theft itself, regarding theft of slaves, which we do not learn from Ribis and Ona'ah, for Ona'ah does not apply to slaves, like it says above (56b)!

This that land cannot be stolen is not expounded from a verse. Rather, it is because one cannot move it from its place;

However, slaves can be moved. Even though they are equated to land, one should transgress Lo Sigzol for them! (Pnei Yehoshua - we exclude land from Gezel from verses about returning theft. Seemingly, we should expound that the Isur applies, just it need not be returned. However, since land cannot be moved, this is a reason to say that there is no Isur. This does not apply to slaves. Tosfos asks that the Lav of Gezel should teach an Isur to steal slaves!)

Question: We should establish it to discuss theft itself, and transgress two Lavim!

Answer: One is not lashed for the Lav of Gezel, since it is Nitak l'Aseh;

Note: There are two Lavim of Temurah, and we say that one is lashed for it, for the Aseh exempts for only one of the Lavim (Temurah 4b)! Tosfos (Chulin 80b-81a) says that this is because the Lavim of Temurah are written next to each other. Also, the Aseh (v'Hayah Hu u'Smeraso Yihyeh Kodesh) is fulfilled passively.

However, when we establish it to discuss withholding wages through Im Eino Inyan, he is properly lashed.

Question: Below (111b), we say that Gezel Kena'ani is permitted, and we expound "Re'acha", and not a Kena'ani. Both of these are needed;

Had the Torah written Gezel, we would say that this is because he did not toil. [Perhaps] he inherited [the property], or found it or received a gift. However, wages, for which he toiled, even from a Kena'ani is forbidden;

Now, we would establish the entire verse "Lo Sa'asok Es Re'acha v'Lo Sigzol" to discuss withholding wages!

Answer: He expounds the fact that Re'acha was written next to v'Lo Sigzol, and [withholding wages] was taught [through Im Eino Inyan] in an expression of Gezel, to teach that Gezel Kena'ani is permitted.

Question: What was the Hava Amina to say that Gezel Kena'ani is forbidden, that we need a verse to permit it?

Regarding Yisrael, we know [the Isur of Gezel] only from Ribis and Ona'ah, and Ribis is permitted with a Kena'ani, for it says "l'Nochri Tashich"!

Also Ona'ah [is permitted with a Kena'ani], for it says "Amisecha", and we expounded above (59a) the nation that is with you in Torah and Mitzvos!

Answer: We would forbid Gezel Kena'ani due to "v'Achalta Es Kol ha'Amim";

We expound from there in Bava Kama (113b) that Gezel Kena'ani is forbidden. The verse permits only when they are given into your hand (you conquered them in war).

Question: Even if it is true that they are of a Nochri, it is forbidden [to lend them with Ribis], since the borrower has no [dealing] with the Nochri!

Answer #1: Based on what we will bring below a proof that a Yisrael who has coins of a Nochri, and the Nochri has Achrayus for them (suffers any loss of them), one may lend them to a Yisrael with Ribis, this is fine.

Answer #2: The case is, his friend told him "lend me the Nochri's coins", and tell [the Nochri] to rely on me [to pay him with the Ribis].

Answer #3: The case is, Reuven gave his securities to Shimon to give to the Nochri [and get a loan from the Nochri with Ribis], and Shimon gave his own money to Reuven, and said that he fulfilled Reuven's words.

Implied question: He transgresses the Mitzvah of Tzitzis! (Why must the Torah write Yetzi'as Mitzrayim regarding Tzitzis to forbid this?)

Answer: We need a verse to teach that he transgresses from when he puts it in the garment (even before he wears it).

Explanation: Even according to the opinion that an heir's Reshus is not like a buyer's Reshus, and there is no Shinuy Reshus, and even if he left land, and a Milveh Al Peh is collected from heirs...

Even so, Yilbash Tzadik (the lender's heirs keep the Ribis), like Rava said in Bava Kama (112a) "v'Chei Achicha" - the Torah commanded him (the lender) to return [rented]. It did not command his son.

Implied question: Rava answered in Bava Kama (112a) "even if you will say that an heir's Reshus is not like a buyer's Reshus, and here is different, for it says v'Chei Achicha Imach"... (Therefore he must return the Ribis, like R. Elazar!)

Answer: He does not hold like R. Elazar, for here he expounds like R. Yochanan;

Rather, he merely comes to resolve the Beraisa there according to the opinion that [an heir's Reshus] is not like a buyer's Reshus;

Support: This is why below, Rav Nachman asks what is R. Elazar's reason. The Gemara did not ask so in the name of Rava.

Question: How does Damav Bo connote the Aveirah of murder?

Regarding Ov and Yid'oni, and several Aveiros that do not pertain to murder, it says Demeihem Bam!

Answer #1: He expounds "Damav Bo", which is extra. If not for this (to connote murder), why was it written?

Suggestion: It was written to learn that there is Skilah (stoning) for Ribis, from Ov and Yid'oni.

Rejection #1: We do not learn Torah law from Nevi'im or Kesuvim.

Rejection #2: We do not find Misas [Beis Din] for monetary transgressions.

Answer #2: In Temurah (6b), some texts say that "and after this it is written "v'Holid Ben Paritz Shofech Dam."

According to this, it is fine, for [Ribis and murder] are explicitly equated.