We know only if it was in his hand - אין לי אלא בידו
Summary:
The inclusion of גגו וחצירו, etc. from המצא תמצא is in a case where he hit the stolen animal and it went into his חצר. The words המצא תמצא teach us that the חצר is not considered a שליח לדבר עבירה since it is not a בר חיובא.
Let him write, either אם המצא המצא or תמצא תמצא, etc. - ליכתוב או אם המצא המצא או תמצא תמצא
Summary:
Occasionally the גמרא is content with offering a sufficient explanation (which is more popular) even though it is not the precise explanation.
גופא אמר רב קרן כעין שגנב - It was previously stated; רב said: ‘the principal is to be repaid similar to what he stole’
Summary:
The purpose of רב is to teach us that כפל and ד' וה' do not pay כעין שגנב but rather כשעת העמדה בדין.
The משנה of כל הגזלנים teaches that the payment is כשעת הגזילה (even) if it is worth a lesser amount בשעת השבה. The משנה of גזל חמץ teaches that [even] if something is worthless בשעת השבה, nevertheless there is an obligation to pay (but not necessarily כשעת הגזילה).
דתניא כחושה והשמינה כולי – For it was taught in a ברייתא:
If it was lean and he fattened it, etc.
Summary:
The ר"י maintains that there is no יפוי כח of קרן over כפל, etc. according to רב (and רב is discussing all cases whether the price increased or decreased); while the ר"ת maintains that when רב ruled that כפל is כשעת העמדה בדין he meant only to diminish the כח of כפל (and רב is only discussing a decrease in price).
אנא מפטימנא ואת שקלת –I fattened it, and you will take it!
Summary:
The ruling of רב concerning כפל ודו"ה that it is כשעת העמדה בדין is only by יוקרא וזולא and not by נתפטמה (even) מאליה. In all other cases he pays כעין שגנב.
מה לי קטלה כולה מה לי קטלה פלגא –What is the difference whether he killed it entirely or whether he killed half of the animal
Summary:
מה לי קטלה כולה מה לי קטלה פלגא according to רש"י; just as by טביחה he pays the value of the animal as it was worth before the קטלה כולה, similarly by כיחשה he pays the value of the animal as it was worth before קטלה פלגא.
According to תוספות; just as by killing (קטלא כולה) he pays the value it had before the שינוי (when it belonged completely to the נגנב) the same is by קטלה פלגא, that he pays the value before it became a כחושה.
According to the ועוד אומר ר"י; just as by a קטלה כולה of טביחה he is responsible for the diminishing value caused by the תחילת השחיטה, similarly by קטלה פלגא he is responsible for the diminishing value caused by כיחשה. It follows that according to רש"י ועוד אומר ר"י, the ruling of רב (that כשעת העמדה בדין) is applicable to כחשה ממילא, however according to תוספות the ruling of רב is by יוקרא וזולא exclusively and not by any sort of כחש.
