Hakdama 16

I think we left off, the Rambam says that errors in the Hilchos Ha-Rif don't even reach the number 10. We spoke about that a little bit. And the Rambam says

אבל הפירושים המצויים לכל הגאונים יש להם יתרון זה על זה כפי יתרון שכל.

They're not all of the same caliber; they vary.

ואיש הנבון המצוי בעיון התלמוד יכול לדעת מהות כל גאון וגאון מדבריו ופירושיו.

Having been exposed to the Chiburei Ha-Gaonim, one can, ha-ish hanavon can based on that have a read on the Mechaber, on each Gaon. Tell a story about, I'm not sure whether I'm giving the setting accurately. The substance of the story is I think is accurate. I'm not sure whether I'm getting the details of the setting correct. Tell a story about Rav Chaim, that he was once, I think the context might have been that he was raising funds for some cause, and that he was visiting with the with the with a certain Rav whom he had he had met once before. And okay so they they begin by talking in divrei Torah. And then Rav Chaim tells him not it wasn't Rav Chaim's stichel Torah, it wasn't his, it wasn't his mahalach, it wasn't how he built with it, but he knew exactly, he knew mahut kol exactly what the Rambam was talking about, he knew from the exposure. That's what the Rambam is describing also when the Kovner Rav's sefer Dvar Avraham was printed, so he leaves out the names; most if not all of it was correspondence that he had with contemporaries, but he leaves out the names. He says alef and then, you know, ellipse dot dot dot. So when they brought the Dvar Avraham sefer to Rav Chaim, so Rav Chaim was flipping through it, so he pointed to one siman and he said: This was written to my son Moshe. Obviously kach hava that that was the case. He could tell by what the Dvar Avraham was writing, he could tell what the Torah was that he was responding to. U-behagiya zman adinu

נהגנו כפי שמוצאנו במי שהיה בעבר בחקירה ודרישה והשתדלות כפי היכולת להשיג כל מה שנקווה שיאור לנו לפני השם וקיבצתי כל הבא לידי

me-horos avi zal וזולתו על פי רבנו יוסף הלוי ז"ל. So it seems like the Rambam's father Rav Maimon was a talmid of the Ri Migash. And then the Rambam has this famous characterization of the Ri Migash:

כי בינת אותו האיש בתלמוד מדהימה חי השם למי שמתבונן בדבריו ועומק עיונו עד שאעיז לומר עליו לפניו לא היה מלך כמוהו בדרכו זאת.

When you again what we have from the Ri Migash on Bava Basra and Shevuos, we have the Chidushai Ri Migash. When you learn the Ri Migash, it was Rav Chaim's derech in the Rishonim, it's very much the case.

וגם קיבצתי מה שמצאתי הלכות ממנו בפירושו בעצמו ומה שנראה לי אני גם כן מן הפירושים כפי פחיתות יכולתנו ומה שהשגנו בלימוד וחיברתי פירושים בשלושת הסדרים מועד נשים נזיקין.

The Rambam of Perushim on Shas, it's a question of some controversy whether we have it. We have what's miyuchas to the Rambam on Shabbos and Rosh Hashanah, but whether that's really the Rambam is apparently some question. But it's unquestionable that the Rambam did as he himself writes here.

זולת ארבע מסכתות שאני מבקש עתה לפרש בהם מה שהוא ועדיין לא מצאתי את הפנאי ופירשתי גם את חולין לגודל הנחיצות לה וזהו כמו שעשינו כפי שביקשנו לעשות בנוסף לכל מה שלמדנו.

And here the Rambam sort of concludes his introduction to Torah she-ba'al peh by placing his Perush HaMishnayos in context:

שוב ראיתי לאחר מכן לחבר על המשנה חיבור נחוץ על פי אופן שאבאר אותו בסוף דברי אלה ומה שביארו על ידי כך.

What prompted me to write the Perush HaMishnayos?

כי ראיתי שהתלמוד עושה במשנה מעשה שאי אפשר לשום אדם להבינו בסברה לעולם.

The way the Gemara says pshat... In the Mishna, it's impossible for a person to figure that out misvara.

שהוא מנהיג כללא ואומר לך שהמשנה זו בנויה באופן כך וכך או שמשנה זו חסרה בלשונה ותיקונה הוא כך חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני.

And what's the manhig klala? I don't know, maybe it means לא זו אף זו, something like that in terms of what the structure of the Mishna is, that it's a לא זו אף זו or lo mibaya, that type of construct.

או שמשנה זו היא לפלוני וסברתו כך ועוד שהוא מוסיף בלשונה ומחסר ממנה ומגלה טעמיה.

Question is how this line differs from the previous line in terms of the mechaser mimena. So one of them presumably is chisurei michsara, but what's the other thing the Rambam's referring to? The Tosafot Yom Tov, and I don't remember whether he quotes the Rambam, but the Tosafot Yom Tov writes like this also. He says that Rabbeinu HaKadosh was intending to, and he did, he was threading a needle when he wrote down the Shisha Sidrei Mishna. On the one hand, as the Rambam in Hakdama le'Mishneh Torah explains, the need to write down תורה שבעל פה lest it be forgotten chas v'shalom, but me'idach gisa he didn't want to move away entirely from the oral transmission. So he wrote down Mishnayos in a way that on the one hand you had this written record, but on the other hand you really needed a Rebbe to understand pshat in the Mishnayos. And that was the balance that Rabbeinu HaKadosh intentionally created. And again, the Rambam doesn't articulate the reason for it, but he's clearly reflecting the same reality and saying that you can't just sit down with a Mishna and really understand it on your own.

וראיתי שאם אהיה אני עושה החיבור הזה על פי התכונה שנתבארה בכל המשנה הרי שיהיו בו ארבע תועליות גדולות.

Four things are achieved by the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos.

האחת שנודיע את פירוש המשנה הנכון וביאור לשונה. כאילו שאלת את הגדול שבגאונים על פירוש הלכה מן המשנה לא יוכל לומר לך בה דבר אלא אם כן הוא יודע על פה את תלמוד אותה ההלכה או שיאמר לך אעיין מה שדיברו עליה בתלמוד ואין ביכולת אדם לדעת על פה את כל התלמוד. ובפרט כשהלכה אחת מן המשנה מתפרשת בארבעה דפים ובחמישה מפני שנכנסים מעניין לעניין וטענות וקושיות ותירוצים עד שלא יוכל להשיג מסקנת פירוש אותה המשנה אלא הבקי בעיון. וכל זה אם אין ההלכה אחת מאותן שלמשנה פירושן ופסק הדין בהן אלא בשתי מסכתות או שלוש מסכתות.

So the Rambam says the first to'eles of the Peirush HaMishnayos is to be able to learn Mishna without plowing through at least one particular sugya or maybe many sugyos that are needed to ultimately establish what the correct pshat in the Mishnayos. So in other words, the Rambam's Peirush HaMishnayos, again, this is the first of four to'alios, but the first to'eles was to allow for Mishna to be an independent unit of study. That absent a Peirush HaMishnayos, so a person can't sit down, right, like we just take it for granted when we go. Again because of the fact that Mishna sometimes is very terse because of the fact v'chulu. So Rambam's Perush hamishnayos made Mishna into an independent unit of limud. That's the first to'alos. V'chiteima meheicha teisi that it's supposed to be? If you can't really understand pshat in the Mishna without the Gemara, so maybe it's maybe it's not supposed to be an independent unit. So but it's clear in Chazal that it is supposed to be. Amar Rav Safra Kiddushin daf lamed

משום רבי יהושע בן חנניה מאי דכתיב ושננתם לבניך אל תקרי ושננתם אלא ושלשתם לעולם ישלש אדם שנותיו שליש במקרא שליש במשנה שליש בתלמוד.

And especially according to the Rambam who learns pshat in this Gemara that it means בתחילת תלמודו של אדם and it means three equal parts, so it's quite clear that Chazal do intend that Mishna should be an independent unit of limud. And that's what the Rambam says, but practically it isn't. Practically it isn't. So how did Chazal then intend us to fulfill this, in the I don't know, probably close to a thousand years between chasimah hamishna I don't know, maybe close to nine hundred years between chasimah hamishna and the Rambam's Perush hamishnayos? I'm not sure what the answer is, maybe ina hachi nami, maybe it required a rebbi that one takei couldn't be mikayeim this din on one's own. One would need to find a rebbi to teach him the Mishna. And what the Rambam was looking to do is to allow a person to be able to fulfill this mandate of shlish b'mishna even if he didn't have the benefit of, even if he wasn't in a position to have a rebbi. So okay, so that's clear again. So on the one hand this is clear that why the Rambam is looking to achieve this to'alos to make Mishna an independent unit of limud, because you see from that meimra in the Gemara Kiddushin that's what Chazal intended. That's what Chazal wanted that it should be. But m'idach gisa, so when the Rambam quotes this Gemara in Kiddushin that we just looked at, so the Rambam says וחייב לשלש זמן לימודו shlish b'Torah sheb'ksav

שליש בתורה שבעל פה ושליש יבין וישכיל אחרית דבר מראשיתו וכולי.

So the Rambam where the Gemara uses the lashon Mishna, so the Rambam uses the lashon Torah shebe'al peh. What Chazal mean by Mishna, again, is on the one hand literally Mishna, but on the other hand what that represents is that Mishna as we... if the halacha is like the merubeh, why do why do we mention anything which is shelo kehalacha in the Mishnayot? Because Mishna is intended as a sefer halacha. So when Chazal say shlish bemishna, they mean Mishna literally, but what Mishna represents is halacha, and that's the way the Rambam again uses the term Torah shebe'al peh. Not the way we use the term Torah shebe'al peh, but the Rambam uses the term Torah shebe'al peh more narrowly. Torah shebe'al peh means, means halacha. That's what the Rambam says in the hakdama that

כל המצוות שניתנו לו למשה בסיני בפירושן ניתנו, שנאמר ואתנה לך את לוחות האבן והתורה והמצוה. תורה זו תורה שבכתב,

mitzvah zu peirusha,

וציוונו לעשות התורה על פי המצוה. ומצוה זו היא הנקראת תורה שבעל פה,

which means again, the halachot. Then the Rambam tells us at the end of the hakdama that Mishneh Torah is all-encompassing such that לפי שאדם קורא תורה שבכתב תחילה ואחרי כן בזה, meaning Mishneh Torah, ויודע ממנו תורה שבעל פה כולה. So the question is whether or not the first of the four to'aliyos of the Rambam's Peirush Hamishnayot, which allowed for limmud haMishna to be an independent seder halimmud, was that ultimately eclipsed when the Rambam wrote Mishneh Torah? Because when the Rambam writes Mishneh Torah, he says, no, you'll use Mishneh Torah to learn halacha because it's more encompassing than the Mishna. It has all the dinim from the Gemara as well, not only from the Mishnayot, it has all the dinim from the chibburei haGeonim ad hayom hazeh. Itachen that that is the case, that that is the case. So Rebbe, would that create a nafka mina then, if there's a stira between Peirush Hamishna and Mishneh Torah, we only care about what's written in the Mishneh Torah, and the Rambam we always assume that what's written in the Mishneh Torah is going to be the final psak of the Rambam as opposed to Mishneh Torah—Peirush Hamishna? I think either way that's probably warranted because that's the Rambam's Mishnah achrona, because he wrote Mishneh Torah after Peirush Hamishnayot. Vehashniyah, what the second of the to'aliyos of the Rambam's Peirush Hamishnayot: hattavat hapsak. Mishnayot, whenever you have a machloket tanna'im in the Mishna, so absent a Peirush Hamishnayot, when you learn Mishnayot, you don't know who we pasken like.

כי הוא אומר לך ליד פירוש כל הלכה כדת מי יושבים.

Vehashlishit, and this is quite fascinating, not so easy to understand, explain what the Rambam means here, but vehashlishit, the third of the four to'aliyos associated with the Peirush Hamishnayot: שיהיה כמוהו למשכיל בעיון. It introduces a person to learning be'iyun. וישיג לו בזה את דרך הדקדוק. Learning Mishnayos properly, not just on the level of that it provides us with the basic yedios, not just if you learn Mishnayos Yevamos so you have the basic yedios from Maseches Yevamos, not only on that level but on the level of training a person to think clearly, subtly, in a nuanced way.

וישיג לו בזה דרך הדקדוק בדברים וביאורים ויהיה כמי שהקיף את כל התלמוד. וזה יסייע לו מאוד בכל התלמוד. והרביעית שתהיה מזכרת למי שכבר למד וידע שכל מה שקרא יהיה קבוע נגד עיניו תמיד ותהיה משנתו ותלמודו סדורה על פיו.

Right, one way to chazer Gemara is whenever you finish a particular sugya is to go back and to read the Mishna, and with each line in the Mishna to be able to think, to be able to review what the Gemara said to explain pshat in this line of the Mishna. And that's what the Rambam says also, that having a Perush HaMishnayos it's both ends of the spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, it means someone who maybe even hasn't learned the sugya can understand the Mishna because the Perush HaMishnayos gives you pshat in the Mishna. But me'idach gisa, the Perush HaMishnayos is also basically a very compact summation of the sugyos ha'gemara. The Rambam clearly intends it as a method of chazara. And B, when the Rambam writes ותהיה משנתו ותלמודו סדורה על פיו, the ideal, right? The ideal even bazman hazeh that we live after the eis la'asos of Rabbeinu HaKadosh, so the ideal is that a person knows as much of Torah she'ba'al peh ba'al peh, right, not just to be able to open up the Gemara, the Mishnayos, or the Shulchan Aruch, but that he knows it ba'al peh. To know something ba'al peh, the more compact the formulation is, obviously the easier it is to know it ba'al peh. It's easier to memorize three lines of Mishna than it is to memorize two dappim of Gemara. So what the Perush HaMishnayos does again by sort of condensing at least the maskanos, in terms of the Gemara, the maskanos, the normative pshat in the Mishna, so then basically when the person knows the Mishna ba'al peh, he not only knows the Mishna ba'al peh, but he knows at least in terms of the maskanos, he knows the Gemara ba'al peh as well, again because it's compressed into the words of the Mishna. Okay, just a few more lines here.

וכאשר נתקבצו אצלי עניינים אלו נחלצתי לחבר החיבור שעלה בדעתי.

Chalutzim taveiru, right? So I took the initiative to compose this work.

ומטרתנו בחיבור הזה לפרש המשנה כפי שפירש התלמוד. ולהסתפק בפירושים הנכונים ולהשמיט את הפירושים שנדחו בפירוש בתלמוד ולבאר את הטעמים שבכללם נכתב אותו עניין והטעמים שבגללם נפלה המחלוקת בין החולקים במקצת המחלוקות וכאשר יוסף כפי שביאר התלמוד.

Let's look at this next line. What's put in this next line? ואדקדק בכל זה לקצר בלשון. And I'm going to be very careful about writing as tersely as possible,

כדי שלא יהיה בו ספק לקורא, כי אין חיבורינו לבני אבנים אלא הוא לבני מי שמבין.

So we're generally concerned that if things are written very compactly, that they may become cryptic, and that certainly can be the case. But the Rambam said the opposite hashshash also exists. That if things are inflated, if they're unnecessary, if there's an unnecessary arichus, so that itself can cause confusion. At least that's what the line seems to say. If you can say something precisely in three words, and you say it in six words, yitachen, yitachen, it doesn't have to happen, but it could happen, the potential is there for it to happen, that there will be an element of imprecision by the added, the added three words. And that's what the Rambam is saying. I don't think the Rambam is sort of denying that if something is, you know, too compact, that it will become cryptic and one won't understand, but it's true in the opposite direction as well. Okay, just one more paragraph and I think that will basically conclude our study of the hakdama.

וראיתי לנכון שיהיה סדר החיבור כפי שעושים כל המפרשים, והוא שאכתוב את לשון המשנה עד סוף ההלכה.

I think earlier there was a note here in this edition that the Rambam refers to individual mishnayos as a halacha, as halachos, and he generally uses the term mishna for as a collective for Shisha Sidrei Mishna, and he refers to individual mishnayos as halacha. So that's והוא שאכתוב את לשון המשנה. Lashon hamishna means the lashon hamishna referring to of Shisha Sidrei Mishna ad sof hahalacha, this what we would call this individual mishna, this particular mishna.

ואחר כך אדבר על פירוש אותה ההלכה כפי שהבטחתי ושוב אפתח בהלכה שנייה וכן עד סוף המשנה,

meaning until the end of Shisha Sidrei Mishna. This is the method I'm going to adopt throughout Shisha Sidrei Mishna. וכל הלכה שהיא פשוטה אכתבנה ולא אדבר בה. So it's quite clear that the Rambam wrote the mishnayos. So that therefore the Rambam's Perush haMishnayos is a source for knowing what, when there's a question of girsos in the mishna, so the Rambam's Perush haMishnayos is a source for that. The Rambam didn't just, you know, sort of write a separate manuscript with the Perush haMishnayos that was, you know, then matched up with some manuscript of the mishnayos. No, the Rambam copied out, copied the mishnayos. Okay, maybe we just have a few more minutes for today. So just one, the rest is... is well worth looking at. It's quite, quite extraordinary, but there's, I don't really have much to say about it, but not because it's not worth looking at. Maybe just one, we have a few more minutes, so just one he'arah in Hilchos Talmud Torah apropos of this. Mitzvah Yud Aleph of Mitzvos Aseh is lilmod Torah u'lelamdah shene'emar veshinantam levaneca. So the Rambam has lilmod u'lelamed as a single mitzvah in contrast to Rav Sa'adia Gaon who counts lilmod u'lelamed as two distinct mitzvos. If you look in Sefer Hamitzvos, I'm sorry I forgot to bring it, but if you look in Sefer Hamitzvos, Mitzvah Tes, so the Rambam says למוד חכמת התורה ולמדה, something to that effect, and then he quotes two drashos chazal. He quotes one drashos chazal ושננתם לבניך בניך אלו תלמידיך, a Sifrei. And then he quotes another drashos chazal

ושננתם לבניך שיהיו דברי תורה מחודדים בפיך, שאם ישאלך אדם דבר אל תגמגם ואמור לו,

but rather emor lo miyad. So why is the Rambam quoting those two drashos? Again, the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos is just giving you a listing in the mitzvos. He's not telling you the dinim, he's not telling you any of the pratim. So it's clear that the Rambam is saying you're wondering why I'm counting lilmod u'lelamed as one mitzvah, but look, according to chazal lilmod u'lelamed the Torah itself compresses into the same pasuk because the drasha ושננתם לבניך בניך אלו תלמידיך is clearly understanding that veshinantam means to teach. ושננתם לבניך שיהיו דברי תורה מחודדים בפיך is clearly talking about what the shiur of yedias hatorah is that a person should have. So chazal are understanding that veshinantam doesn't mean only to teach levaneca, it also means veshinantam pshat, veshinantam to learn. So you see gufa that the Torah itself, I'm not being mechadesh as the Rambam says, that lilmod u'lelamed is one mitzvah. The Torah itself compressed it into the same word veshinantam, and you see that in the drashos chazal, levaneca elu talmidecha is lelamed, שיהיו דברי תורה מחודדים בפיך is lilmod. So on the one hand we understand sort of the Rambam is being machriach his shita in terms of divrei chazal, in terms of lashon hatorah, but how do you understand in svara? In svara isn't Rav Sa'adia Gaon certainly correct? That obviously there is lilmod u'lelamed are obviously interconnected. But that interconnection notwithstanding, conceptually they're two different things. A person learns, a person teaches. Again, do they overlap? Is one a condition for the other? Yes, yes, yes. But at the end of the day, lilmod is one chalos, lelamed is another chalos. So how is it that the Torah compresses them into one mitzvah? So itachen as follows. If one understands maybe to first mention a he'arah from Rav Chaim. The Rambam begins Hilchos Talmud Torah... that

נשים ועבדים פטורים מתלמוד תורה, אבל קטן אביו חייב ללמדו תורה,

shene'emar ולימדתם אותם את בניכם לדבר בם. So the Rambam begins Hilchos Talmud Torah with the chiyuv of teaching, not with the chiyuv of learning. He has to mention the ptur of nashim ve'avadim because the ptur of nashim ve'avadim from learning is the basis of the ptur of the isha from teaching. So he he needs to give us that yediah, but the Rambam is beginning with lelamed, which seems to be counter-intuitive. Obviously, why not go chronologically? Obviously the lilmod in a person's life precedes the the lelamed. So Rav Chaim said no, because the ikkar is lelamed. So that's why the Rambam is beginning with what the ikkar mitzvah is. The ikkar mitzvah is the... okay, fine. Yitachen that the omek hapshat in that is, I mean it could stand on its own, but yitachen that the omek hapshat in that is, and the answer to Rav Saadia Gaon of aren't lilmod and lelamed two different chaluyos? That they're two different things is that yitachen that the mitzvah of Talmud Torah is for a person to be a shalsheles in mesiras hatorah. That's what the definition of of Talmud Torah is. The definition of Talmud Torah is not learning and is not teaching. It's neither learning nor teaching. The definition of Talmud Torah is that that each one of us to the best of his ability should be a link in the chain of mesiras hatorah. Now to be if if that's the definition of the mitzvah, so then lilmod and lelamed are takeh two two sides of a coin, they're two halves of one whole. They're not two different... if if lilmod represents receiving a massora and lelamed represents transmitting a massora, so then lilmod and lelamed are no longer two distinct conceptually distinct activities. No, they're two halves they're two halves of a whole. And and yitachen that that's what Rav Chaim that would then be the omek hapshat of what Rav Chaim is saying is that it's sort of the a person only fully becomes a link in the massora if if there's a link after him as well. If the person if it ends with him, so then okay, to a a certain degree he he connected to the massora. But but the mitzvah is clenched, the mitzvah really hinges on the on the lelamed. It it again it gives an added depth to to the mishna of that a person is supposed to be לומד על מנת ללמד. It it again, not that the mishna wouldn't be intelligible otherwise, but but it certainly gives an added depth to to what that means. Is that ultimately for the lilmod to be a lilmod, it's sort of not just a condition that's imposed, it's it's integral. For the lilmod to be an act of becoming part of the massora, so that's only true if it's al menas lelamed. It's not stam, you know, that a person should be altruistic, you know, he shouldn't be selfish. No, in order for the lilmod to to be an act of becoming part of the massora, so that really requires that the person's kavana in the lilmod be al menas al menas lelamed. This way, he's already mitchayev the kefel before the tivichah happens. Or, ve'ibayis eima, even if you have only one kat of eidim, כגון שעמד בדין על הכפל ואחר כך טבח ומכר. If he already stood in din on the kefel and then he slaughtered and sold. Mai shna? What's the difference? Why is it that once he stood in din it's different? כיוון דעמד בדין נעשה כמי שפסק ליה לידיה. Since he stood in din, it's as if it was already cut off from his hand. It's already a finished debt. אבל היכא דלא עמד בדין, but where he did not stand in din, no, he would not pay both. U'Rabbi Yochanan amar: ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו לא עמד בדין. Rabbi Yochanan says, even if he didn't stand in din, he still pays both. Mai ta'ama? What's the reason? Rabbah sabir: טביחה ומכירה מילתא דעלה גניבה היא. Slaughtering and selling is something that is based on the theft. It's all part of the same thing. And unless there's a hafsakah, either a hafsakah of kittos eidim or a hafsakah of amad badin, he only pays one. V'Rabbi Yochanan sabir: טביחה ומכירה מילתא אחריתי היא. Slaughtering and selling is a separate matter. It's a separate act. And therefore he pays for both. U'Rabbah amar, mai ta'ama d'Rabbi Yochanan? What is the reason of Rabbi Yochanan? שמען לריש לקיש דאמר: nispagru b'veis hamishpat. He heard it from Reish Lakish who said they were nispagru b'veis hamishpat. This is a machlokes in Sanhedrin. The question is, if someone is chayav two different things, do we say קם ליה בדרבה מיניה? Do we give him the more severe punishment? תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן. There's a beraisa that supports Rabbi Yochanan:

גנב וטבח ואחר כך באו עדים משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה.

If he stole and slaughtered and then eidim came, he pays arba'ah v'chamishah. Rabbah tries to explain the beraisa: mai 'stole and slaughtered and then eidim came'? It means

באו עדים על הגניבה ואחר כך באו עדים על הטביחה.

It means there were two separate kittos of eidim. But the Gemara says: im ken, if so, the beraisa should have said that. It should have said eidim came for the geneivah and then eidim came for the tivichah. Since it doesn't, it implies one kat of eidim. And since he still pays both, it's a tiyuvta d'Rabbah tiyuvta. Rabbah's view is refuted. The halacha follows Rabbi Yochanan. Now, let's look at Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa says:

השתא דאמרת כל היכא דלא משלם כפל לא משלם ארבעה וחמשה.

Now that you've said that whenever he doesn't pay kefel, he doesn't pay arba'ah v'chamishah. For example, in a case of modeh b'kenas where he's patur from the kefel. Or if he stole a taleh and it became an ayil, or an egel and it became a shor. גנב טלה ונעשה איל עגל ונעשה שור, since it changed in his possession and he acquired it through shinui, he doesn't pay kefel for the animal it is now. So he shouldn't pay arba'ah v'chamishah either. Mai ta'ama? Because the arba'ah v'chamishah is an extension of the kefel. If there's no kefel, there's no arba'ah v'chamishah. Rava says to him: אמריתו להא מילתא משמיה דברת שפט. You say this in the name of Bar Shefet. And we can learn it from our mishnah.

גנב על פי שנים וטבח ומכר על פיהם ונמצאו זוממין משלמין הכל.

If the eidim are eidim zomemim, they pay everything. Why do they pay the arba'ah v'chamishah if they only witnessed the geneivah? Because it's all tied together. If they are hazama on the geneivah, they are patur from everything. This shows that the tivichah depends on the geneivah. Then the Gemara brings another beraisa: גנב וטבח ומכר ונודע לו ואחר כך באו עדים. If he stole and slaughtered and then he admitted to the geneivah before eidim came, he is patur from the kefel. And the beraisa says he only pays keren, meaning he is patur from arba'ah v'chamishah. This supports Rav Pappa! The Gemara asks: לימא תיווה דרבי יוחנן? Is this a refutation of Rabbi Yochanan? Rabbi Yochanan says they are separate acts! If they are separate, why does the hoda'ah on the geneivah exempt him from the tivichah? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yochanan would say the beraisa follows Rabbah. Or, even according to Rabbi Yochanan, the Torah says v'tavacho u'mechoro. Just as the geneivah must be something that he could be chayav for, the tivichah must be on a geneivah that he is chayav kenas for. If he's patur from the geneivah's kenas, he's patur from the tivichah as well. This is the maskana.