Why does the Torah write "ve'Lo Yishmerenu" by Mu'ad and not by Tam?
Ramban #1: According to the opinion that a Mu'ad requires a better guarding than a Tam, 1 it teaches us that the minimal Shemirah that will suffice for a Tam will not suffice for a Mu'ad.
Ramban #2: According to those who hold that both require only a minimal Shemirah, it is to inform us that, since, even after it became a Mu'ad, the owner still failed to guard it, he is obligated to pay full damages.
See Rav Chavel's footnotes.
Why does the Torah use the double Lashon "Shalem Yeshalem"?
Bava Kama, 34b: To teach us that, even though the Mazik shares in Sh'vach Neveilah, 1 this will not aply if half the Sh'vach comes to more than the value of the damage.
Refer to 21:35:4.3:1.
What if the Ganav steals an animal other than an ox or a lamb and Shechts it?
Bava Kama, 62b: "Shor" in the Seifa and "Seh" in the Reisha 1 are superfluous, to teach us that the Din applies to Shor and Seh exclusively.
See Torah Temimah, note 290.
Why does the Torah insert the word "O Noda"?
Rashi (in Vayikra, 4:23): "O" here is equivalen to 'Im'.
Bava Kama, 77a: To include Kil'ayim (the baby of a sheep and a goat) in the Din of Arba'ah va'Chamishah. 1
Mechilta: To teach us that if the Ganav steals both a Shor and a Seh and Shechts or sells them, he is Chayav for each one. 2
Is the owner permitted to pay money instead of an ox?
Mechilta: We learn via a Gezeirah Shavah "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo" "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo" from Pasuk 34 that just as there the Torah permits the owner of the pit to pay money, so too here; and just as here the Torah permits him to pay an ox, so too there.
Why does the Torah add the suffix "Vav' in "u'Tevacho O Mecharo"?
Bava Kama, 71a: To include a Shali'ach - to obligate Reuven if he sent Shimon to Shecht or sell on his behalf an ox that he stole. 1
Bava Kama, 78b #1: To include where Reuven, without Shimon's knowledge, Shechted or sold an animal that he shared with Shimon, or where he Shechted or sold an animal that he and Simon stole. 2
Bava Kama, 78b #2: The Ganav is only Chayav Arba'ah va'Chamishah if he sells the entire animal, but not if he sells it minus one ninety-ninth, minus a foreleg or minus a hindleg, 3 though he is Chayav if he sells it minus a horn or minus the wool. 4
See Torah Temimah, note 293.
In spite of the principle 'Ein Shali'ach li'Devar Aveirah'. See Torah Temimah, note 295. See also Torah Temimah, note 296, who discusses the Gemara on 79a, which learns Tevichah from Mechirah - which is only possible via a third party.
Since they are not an intrinsic part of the aniamal.
What can we learn from the comparison between Mechirah and Tevichah?
Bava Kama, 68a: Just as Tevichah is ireversible (permanent), so too must the Mechirah be permanent - to preclude a temporary sale of thirty days from the Din of Arba'ah va'Chamishah.
Mechilta, Just as Mechirah takes place outside the domain of eth Ganav, so too, may the Tevichah, and just as Tevichah permits the entire animal, so too, Mechirah. 1
Refer also to 21:36:1.4:3.
What if the Ganav declares the ox Hekdesh?
Bava Kama, 79a: He is then Chayav Arba'ah va'Chamishah'. What difference does it make whether he sells it to a Hedyot or to Hashem?' 1
See Torah Temimah, note 300.
If he only pays double when he steals the animal, why must he pay four or five times when he Shechts or sells it?
Bava Kama, 67b & 68a, #1 (according to R. Akiva): Because he became attatched to the sin. 1
Bava Kama, 67b & 68a, #2 (according to Rava): Because he sinned a second time. 2
See Torah Temimah, note 301 who elaborates and explains the difference between the two opinions.
Refer to 21:36:0.7:1* It is unusual for an Amora to argue Halachically with a Tana.
If the Ganav steals and Shechts or sells an ox belonging to two partners and confesses to one of them, is he Chayav to pay him (half) the K'nas?
Bava Kama, 71a: The Torah writes "Chamishah Bakar" - implying even Chamishah Chatza'i Bakar'. 1
Even though in a similar case by Shor Mu'ad (See Pasuk 30), he is Patur. Refer to 21:30:1.1:1*.
What are the connotations of "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh lo"?
Ramban #2: The Neveilah belongs to the Mazik, to include in the payment to the Nizak. 3
See also Ba'al ha'Turim.
Ramban: In which case, what the Pasuk is saying is that the Mazik pays full damage, including the Neveilah (which he returns to the victim). The 'Vav' means 'including' - like in Sh'mos 1:5 and Yeshayah, 1:13.
Ramban: In any event, it is the owner who is responsible for it. Refer to 21:34:2:1**.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that "ve'ha'Meis Yihyeh lo" teaches us that the Neveilah belongs to the Nizak, and the Mazik pays the balance. But the Gemara in Bava Kama 51a Darshens from here to exclude Pesulei ha'Mukdashim?
Perhaps the Pasuk teaches us that the Neveilah belongs to the Nizak, and automatically 1 we extrapolate that Pesulei ha'Mukdashim are excluded! (PF)
Refer to 21:34:2:2*.
Riva left this difficult. Perhaps he holds that "Kol she'Eino Ra'uy le'Bilah Bilah Me'akeves" applies only to Mitzvos, but not to payment of damage. (PF) See also Torah Temimah, note 271.
