What does the Torah mean when it writes "Im Zarchah ha'Shemesh aLa'av"? Since when does the sun shine only on the Ganav?
Rashi #1 (citing Sanhedrin, 72a) and Targum Yonasan: It is a Mashal that if it is as clear as daylight that if the Ba'al ha'Bayis confronts him, the Ganav will not kill him - such as a father who is coming to steal from his son, 1 then 'Damim lo', his value is intact 2 and one is not permitted to kill him.
Rashi #2 (citing Targum Onkelos): If witnesses see the Ganav, and when the Ba'al ha'Bayis comes, they warn him, in the event that he then kills him, he will be held responsible, because, since witnesses saw the Ganav, it is obvious that he would not have killed the owner. 3
Rashbam: If the Ganav comes to steal during the day, whoever kills him is guilty of murder. 4
Ramban (citing Onkelos): If the Ganav left the tunnel, and the Ba'al ha'Bayis says that he has witnesses that he was in the tunnel, he is liable if he kills him. Normally, a thief tunnels in at night, and if daylight comes, he flees. Witnesses can obligate him to pay for his theft, but Beis Din or the Ba'al ha'Bayis may not kill him.
Da'as Zekenim: If he comes during the day, he must pay for what he takes. 5
Yerushalmi 8:8: If it is as clear as the sun shining spells peace for the world that the Ganav is coming in peace
Sanhedrin, (Ibid.): Another Beraisa, which states that one is forbidden to kill the Ganav unless it is as clear as daylight that he will not kill the owner is speaking about a son who is coming to steal from his father (or anybody else other than a father from his son).
And by the same token, should the wall that he is digging under collapse on him, one may clear it away even on Shabbos to save his life (Sanhedrin, 72b).
See Ramban's objection to this explanation. He also explains that both the previous Pasuk and this one are speaking whether or not there are witnesses and warning. See also Rav Chavel's footnotes.
Oznayim la'Torah. Because he is afraid that witnesses will see him commiting the murder.
Since Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei does not apply (PF).
See Torah Temimah, note 11.
Why can we not extrapolate from the Pasuk that someone who kills the Ganav in the day is Chayav, but in the night,he is Patur?
Mechilta: Because we learn from the rapist of a Na'arah Me'urasah, by whom the Torah does not differentiate between day and night
Mechilta: And just as one may not kill the rapist if one is able to save the Na'arah by other means, so too, may one only kill the Ganav if there is no other way of saving the owner. See Torah Temimah, note 12, who elaborates.
How does the second half of the Pasuk "Shaleim Yeshaleim ... " follow on from the first?
Rashi: In the latter case, knowing that that the Ganav will not kill the owner, one may not kill him without warning. 1
Ramban: It doesn't! It follows on from "Ki Yignov" (in 21:37).
Targum Yonasan: In the event that he is not caught, he is Chayav to pay for whatever he stole. 2 Otherwise he is sold by Beis-Din.
Consequently, the Ganav is Chayav to pay for any damage that he causes as he breaks in. And even if someone kills him, his heirs are obligated to pay out of their father's property (Mechilta).
In the former case, where we suspect that he came with the intention of killing, he is Patur from paying Mamon - due to the principle 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Minei' (a person who performs an act for which he is Chayav both Misah and Mamon, receives the stricter punishment, and is absolved from the more lenient one).
Why must a Ganav who is unable to pay be sold as an Eved?
Seforno: Because otherwise, the poor people would steal indiscriminately, knowing that, since they are unable to pay for the theft, they will get off scot-free.
What if the theft is worth five hundred Zuz and he is worth a thousand ?
Kidushin, 18a: He is not sold
See Torah Temimah note 15, who discusses the Machlokes Tana'im as to whether, in the reverse case, he is sold twice or not at all.
What does "Venimkar bi'Geneivaso" come to preclude?
Sotah 23b: It comes to preclude a woman from being sold for her theft
Moshav Zekenim: R. Eliyahu of Paris derived similarly 'not for his obligation', so a man need not hire himself out to work to feed his wife. R. Tam asked that the Kesuvah says 'I will work [and honor feed you]'! R. Eliyahu said, this refers to bodily honoring her. The Halachah follows R. Tam; this is not called a sale.