1)

(a)The Mishnah in Bava Kama rules that someone who steals wood and manufactures vessels, or wool and weaves a garment - pays what the wood and the wool were worth when he stole them ...

(b)... because he acquires the article that he manufactures (with Shinuy), and is therefore permitted to keep it.

(c)Rava quotes the Pasuk "Asher Gazal" in this regard - because if not for the Pasuk, we would apply the principle 'Kol Milsa ... I Avid, Lo Mehani'.

(d)Abaye learns from "Asher Gazal" that - a Ganav is only obligated to pay an extra fifth for an article that he stole, but not for a stolen article that he inherited from his father.

2)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "Lo Savo el Beiso La'avot Avoto" that - a creditor is not permitted to enter the debtor's house to take a security.

(b)The Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a rules that - if he did enter and take them, he is obligated to return the cushion by night, and the plow by day (see Hagahos ha'G'ra).

(c)Rava cites the Pasuk there "Hashev Tashiv" (See Hagahos ha'G'ra) which teaches us that the creditor acquires the security even if he took it be'Isur. Otherwise - we would have obligated him to return them (period), because I Avid Lo Mehani.

(d)According to Abaye, had the Torah not written "Hashiv Tashiv", we would have said that - returning the security is only voluntary (a good thing to do), since in fact, he has acquired it.

3)

(a)In the second Lashon, Rava cites two Pesukim "ad Bo ha'Shemesh Teshivenu lo" and "Hashev Teshivenu ke'Vo ha'Shemesh" - the first refers to a day garment (meaning something that he needs for Parnasah [that one may take at night, but must return before daybreak]), the second, to a night garment (that one may take in the day time, and return before nightfall).

(b)According to Rava, one Pasuk would suffice, and we would automatically know the other. Consequently, the extra Pasuk comes to teach us that - the creditor acquires the security, even if he took it be'Isur.

(c)Abaye however, maintains that we need both Pesukim. Had the Torah written ...

1. ... "ad Bo ha'Shemesh Teshivenu lo", and not "Hashev Teshivenu ke'Vo ha'Shemesh" - we would have thought that one does not need to return a night garment, since the owner does not need it for his Parnasah.

2. ... "Hashev Teshivenu ke'Vo ha'Shemesh" and not "ad Bo ha'Shemesh Teshivenu lo", we would have thought that - one does not need to return a day garment, because retaining it does not detract from the owner's personal comfort (like the absence of a night garment, such as a cushion) does.

4)

(a)The Mishnah in Pe'ah rules that if the owner cut the last corner of the field without leaving Pe'ah - he must leave Pe'ah from the sheaves.

(b)And if he did not even leave Pe'ah from the sheaves, or from the pile of wheat before he smoothened it (the stage which renders the owner Chayav to Ma'aser the crops) - then he must leave Pe'ah after flattening it, but not before he has Ma'asered the crops.

(c)And Rebbi Yishmael adds that if someone went so far as to knead a dough without leaving Pe'ah - he must separate Pe'ah from the dough.

(d)According to Abaye - once he failed to leave Pe'ah from the standing corn, the principle I Avid Mehani ought to apply, exempting the owner from having to leave Pe'ah after that.

5)

(a)We solve the problem - by citing the extra "Ta'azov" (which is superfluous, and) which teaches us that the owner remains obligated to leave Pe'ah even after the corn has been cut.

(b)To explain the otherwise superfluous "Ta'azov", Rava cites a Beraisa, which rules that - someone who declares his vineyard Hefker, and comes the next morning and harvests it, must leave Peret (the equivalent of Leket by corn) and Olelos (incomplete clusters of grapes) - Shikchah and Pe'ah.

(c)He is not Chayav to separate Ma'aser - because Hefker does not belong to him, and "Ta'azov" does not pertain to it.

6)

(a)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi, based on the entire Sugya that we have just learned that - since, at the end of the day, Abaye and Rava agree in all of the above cases, what are the practical ramifications of their Machlokes (whether I Avid, Mehani or I Avid, Lo Mehani).

(b)Rav Ashi replied that Abaye and Rava are arguing over the same Machlokes as Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar regarding Ribis Ketzutzah - (predetermined interest on a loan, which is what the Torah forbids).

(c)Rebbi Elazar holds 'Ribis Ketzutzah Yotz'ah be'Dayanim' - if the creditor claims Ribis Ketzutzah, the debtor has the right to reclaim it in Beis-Din ...

(d)... but not - Avak Ribis (Ribis de'Rabbanan).

(e)... where for example - following the sale of one's field, the seller charges the purchaser a thousand Zuz cash, but twelve hundred, should he pay him only at the end of the season. The extra two hundred Zuz , which is payment of a sale, and not repayment of a loan, is Avak Ribis.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan rules - Ribis Ketzutzah Einah Yotz'ah be'Dayanim.

(b)Abaye holds like Rebbi Elazar, and Rava, like Rebbi Yochanan.

8)

(a)We reject Rav Ashi's explanation however - based on various Pesukim cited by the Amora'im in connection with Ribis Ketzutzah.

(b)Regarding Rebbi Yochanan's opinion, (Eino Yotz'ah be'Dayanim) ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan himself extrapolates it from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "be'Neshech Nasan ... ve'Chai Lo Yichyeh" - by Darshening that the Navi has sentenced him to death, and not to return it (similar to the S'vara of 'Kam leih bi'de'Rabah mineih').

2. ... Rav Acha bar Ada derives it from the Pasuk in B'har "ve'Yareisa me'Elokecha Ani Hash-m" - by Darshening that the Torah instructs him to fear G-d but not to return the Ribis.

3. ... Rava derives it from the Pasuk which compares taking Ribis to murder, inasmuch as - just as murder cannot be retracted, neither can Ribis.

(c)Whereas Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak derives Rebbi Elazar's opinion from the Pasuk in B'har "ve'Chei Achicha Imach", which he explains to mean that - the creditor should return the Ribis, to enable the debtor to live.

9)

(a)We therefore conclude that the ramifications of Abaye and Rava's Machlokes are - whether Shinuy is Koneh or not (which is actually an old Machlokes, as we learned in Bava Kama). Abaye holds Shinuy is Koneh (as we explained above), whereas Rava holds that it is not.

(b)We are therefore forced to retract what we learned earlier, that Rava agrees that Shinuy is Koneh, based on the Pasuk "Asher Gazal" - because in fact, he holds that it is not Koneh.

(c)Those who hold that Shinuy is not Koneh, learn from "Asher Gazal" that one is not Chayav to pay double for what one's father stole. And their source for saying that Shinuy is not Koneh - is the preceding words in the Pasuk "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah", implying that one is obligated to return the stolen object in any event (even if the article has changed).

10)

(a)The second Lashon also learns initially that Abaye and Rava argue over Ribis Ketzutzah, like we explained. We object to that however - because Abaye cannot hold Ribis Ketzutzah Eino Yotz'ah be'Dayanim, as we will now see.

(b)According to Abaye, if Reuven, who owes Shimon four Zuz in Ribis, gives him a coat worth five, Beis-Din make him return four Zuzim - Rava says five ...

(c)... since he gave him the coat (which was worth five) as Ribis.

(d)In any event, we see that Abaye agrees that Ribis Ketzutzah Yotz'ah be'Dayanim, in which case the basis of their Machlokes must be - whether Shinuy is Koneh or not (as we explained).

(e)The only difference between the two Leshonos is that - the first is the Lashon of the Bavli, and the second, that of the Yerushalmi.

11)

(a)The Beraisa discusses the Pasuk in Emor "Kol asher bo Mum Lo Sakrivu", which cannot be a prohibition against Shechting a Ba'al-Mum for the Mizbe'ach - since we already have a Pasuk for that, as we will see shortly.

(b)The Pasuk must therefore be referring to - declaring a Ba'al-Mum a Korban.

(c)The Tana now lists - five La'avin that someone who designates and brings a Ba'al-Mum on the Mizbe'ach transgresses ...

(d)Bal Takdishu (not to declare it Hekdesh), Bal Tishchatu, Bal Tizr'ku ha'Dam - Bal Taktiru (not to burn it on the Mizbe'ach) Kulo and Bal Taktiru Miktzaso ...

(e)... to which Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah adds - Kabalas ha'Dam (receiving the blood in a k'li).

12)

(a)Another Beraisa Darshens the Pasuk (there) "Averes O Shavur ... Lo Sakrivu", which cannot be a prohibition of declaring Hekdesh a Ba'al-Mum for the Mizbe'ach - since we already know that from "Kol asher bo Mum Lo Sakrivu".

(b)It must therefore refer - to that of Shechitah.

(c)The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "ve'Isheh Lo Sitnu ... " - the La'av of Bal Taktiru Kulo.

2. ... " ... Meihem" - the La'av of Bal Taktiru Miktzasan.

3. ... " ... al ha'Mizbe'ach" - the La'av of Zerikas ha'Dam.

(d)Whereas from "la'Hashem" we include in the prohibition - the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach.

13)

(a)Another Beraisa, which discusses Shechutei Chutz, learns from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o (Lehakriv Korban la'Hashem)" - the preclusion of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis from the prohibition of Shechutei Chutz.

(b)We cite the Pasuk "va'Nakreiv es Korban Hash-m", in connection with this D'rashah - to prove that Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis fall under the category of Korban (otherwise, they would not need to be excluded).

(c)And the two Korbanos (which are fit to be brought to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed) that we also preclude from the word "la'Hashem" are - the Parah Adumah and the Sa'ir la'Azazel.

(d)Rava explain that the latter "la'Hashem" precludes the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (with regard to Shechitas Chutz) - because we do not need a Pasuk to include it, since "ve'el Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o" already does so; whereas the former "la'Hashem" includes it (with regards to Kedushas Chutz) - because by the same token, "Isheh" already precludes it (since the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach does not go on the Mizbe'ach), in which case "la'Hashem" must come to include it.

14)

(a)From the fact that we need a Pasuk to include bringing a Ba'al-Mum as a Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach in the prohibition, we can infer that - if not for the Pasuk, it would be permitted.

(b)The problem with that is - the fact that each of the two goats must be eligible to become the Sa'ir la'Hashem (in case the Goral falls on it).

(c)Rav Yosef tries to establish the Beraisa like Chanan ha'Mitzri who rules that, if the blood of the Sa'ir la'Hashem is already in the cup, when the Sa'ir la'Azazel dies - one does not begin all over again, but merely brings a second goat to match up with the Shechted one (which seemingly implies that no new Goral is needed, explaining why the blemished goat might have been Kasher).

(d)According to the Chachamim of Chanan ha'Mitzri, one brings two fresh goats, on which one makes a new Goral, the blood in the cup is poured out and the already Shechted goat is Nidcheh (rejected).

15)

(a)We refute Rav Yosef's answer however because - Chanan ha'Mitzri has said nothing about not making a Goral between the new goat and a third one (in which case it will still need to be fit to become a Sa'ir la'Hashem [though what to do with it if it does, is a side problem]).

(b)The goat on which the Goral falls la'Hashem - is sent to graze in the field, until it obtains a blemish, when it is redeemed and the proceeds brought as an Olah.

(c)So Rav Yosef establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon, who rules that if one of the two goats dies before the lots have been drawn - one simply brings a second one without drawing lots.

16)

(a)Rava establishes the Beraisa in a case where the Sa'ir la'Azazel becomes blemished after the lots have already been drawn, at which point - the sinner transferred the Kedushah on to another goat, rendering him Chayav Malkos.

(b)We would otherwise have thought that he is Patur - because since the Sa'ir la'Hashem has already been determined, perhaps it will not matter if the Sa'ir la'Azazel is not eligible to be the Sa'ir la'Hashem.