1)

(a)We try to resolve the current She'eilah (whether the responsibility that Shimon accepts for the damages to Reuven's ox, even incorporates those that it sustains via a third party), from another Beraisa. What does the Tana there say in a case where Reuven brought his ox into Shimon's Chatzer, and a third person's ox came and gored it, assuming that he entered ...

1. ... without permission?

2. ... with permission?

(b)Again, we refute the suggestion that the Tana is referring to the owner of the Chatzer by countering 'Lo, Patur Ba'al ha'Shor, v'Chayav Ba'al ha'Shor', and again, we try to refute this answer by querying the significance of 'Reshus'. Why do we not answer like we answered earlier (by differentiating between the domain of the Shutfin and the Reshus ha'Rabim)?

(c)We answer by establishing the Beraisa according to Rebbi Tarfon. What distinction does Rebbi Tarfon draw with regard to Keren?

(d)How does this resolve our problem? What does 'Patur' now mean?

1)

(a)We try to resolve the current She'eilah (whether the responsibility that Shimon accepts for the damages to Reuven's ox, even incorporates those that it sustains via a third party), from another Beraisa, which rules - that if Reuven brought his ox into Shimon's Chatzer, and a third person's ox came and gored it, assuming that he entered ...

1. ... without permission - he is Patur.

2. ... with permission - he is Chayav.

(b)Again, we refute the suggestion that the Tana is referring to the owner of the Chatzer by countering 'Lo, Patur Ba'al ha'Shor, v'Chayav Ba'al ha'Shor', and again, we try to refute this answer by querying the significance of 'Reshus'. We cannot answer this Kashya like we answered earlier (by differentiating between the domain of the Shutfin and the Reshus ha'Rabim) - because that was fine with regard to Shen, but when it comes to Keren, the animal is Chayav in whichever Reshus it damages.

(c)We answer by establishing the Beraisa according to Rebbi Tarfon - who draws a distinction between Keren in the Chatzer ha'Nizak (which pays Chatzi Nezek) and Keren in the Reshus ha'Rabim (which pays Nezek Shalem).

(d)This resolves our problem - because now, we can establish the Beraisa in the same way as we did the previous one (that with permission makes it a case of Keren bi'Reshus ha'Nizak ([i.e. 'shel Shutfin'] rendering the owner of the ox Chayav Nezek Shaleim), whereas 'she'Lo bi'Reshus' renders it a case of Keren bi'Reshus ha'Rabim (and he will be Patur from Nezek Shaliem, but Chayav Chatzi Nezek.

2)

(a)When a woman who brought her dough into someone's Chatzer' with his permission in order to bake, and a goat belonging to the owner ate it, what happened to the goat?

(b)How do we reconcile Rava, who obligated the woman to pay for the goat, with Rav, who ruled earlier that if Shimon's ox ate the fruit that Reuven brought into his Chatzer without permission, he is Patur, because it had the option not to eat?

(c)What can we extrapolate from another case, where a woman, who brought her wheat into someone's house without permission for grinding, was later Chayav to pay damages sustained by the owner's ox after eating the wheat?

(d)We now reconcile the former case, where Rava obligated the woman to pay even if she entered the Chatzer with permission, and the latter case, where she was Patur, by restricting the stringency of the former case to baking only. Why is that?

2)

(a)When a woman brought her dough into someone's Chatzer' with his permission in order to bake, and a goat belonging to the owner ate it - the goat subsequently died.

(b)We reconcile Rava, who obligated the woman to pay for the goat, with Rav, who ruled earlier that if Shimon's ox ate the fruit that Reuven brought into his Chatzer without permission, he is Patur, because it had the option not to eat - by establishing Rava where the woman had permission to enter (in which case, she also undertook to protect the owner's possessions from any harm that her dough may cause (though this is not the last word on the matter, as we shall soon see).

(c)From another case, where a woman, who brought her wheat into someone's house without permission for grinding, was later Chayav to pay damages sustained by the owner's ox after eating the wheat - we can extrapolate that had she received permission, she would have been Patur.

(d)We now reconcile the former case, where Rava obligated the woman to pay even if she entered the Chatzer with permission, and the latter case, where she was Patur, by restricting the stringency of the former case to baking only - because there, the woman knows that in the process of baking, she inevitably needs to uncover her arms. Consequently, the owner will be discouraged from entering the Chatzer whilst she is there, and it is she who of necessity, takes responsibility for the safety of the owner's property. In other cases, the person who enters with permission does not accept responsibility for the owner's property (as we learned above).

3)

(a)In a case where Reuven takes his ox into Shimon's Chatzer without permission and the ox digs craters in Shimon's field, it is obvious that Reuven is Ch to pay for the damage. What does Rava say about damage that the craters cause should Shimon subsequently declare his field Hefker?

(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk "Ki Yichreh Ish Bor"?

(c)Then why does Rava obligate Shimon to pay in the previous case?

3)

(a)In a case where Reuven takes his ox into Shimon's Chatzer without permission and the ox digs craters in Shimon's field, it is obvious that Reuven is Chayav to pay for the damage perpetrated by his ox. Should Shimon subsequently declare his field Hefker, Rava continues, he is liable for all subsequent damage that is caused by the craters.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Yichreh Ish Bor" - "Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor' (that a person is not Chayav for a pit that has been dug by his ox).

(c)Nevertheless, in the previous case, Rava obligates Shimon to pay - because he should have filled in the pit (or at least covered it) before declaring his field Hefker.

4)

(a)Rava also rules that if Reuven takes his ox into Shimon's Chatzer without permission and the ox injures Shimon or Shimon trips over it, Reuven is Chayav. What does he mean when he says 'Ravatz' Patur'?

(b)This is fine according to Shmuel, who considers all obstacles 'Bor'. Why is Rava's ruling not so clear according to Rav? What does Rav say?

(c)How do we resolve Rava's ruling with Rav?

(d)He is only Patur however, for vessels, but not if the feces caused injury to the owner himself. Why do we not apply the principle "Ish Bor" 've'Lo Shor Bor'?

4)

(a)Rava also rules that if Reuven takes his ox into Shimon's Chatzer without permission and the ox injures Shimon or Shimon trips over it, Reuven is Chayav. When he says 'Ravatz' Patur', he means - that should the ox defecate, spoiling 'vessels' (e.g. food) in the process, Reuven is Patur, because the feces is considered a 'pit', and the Torah exempts the owner of the pit for vessels that fall into a pit and break.

(b)This is fine according to Shmuel, who considers all obstacles 'Bor', but problematic according to Rav - who considers obstacles a 'pit' only if the owner declared them Hefker (failing which, they have the Din of Shor, which is Chayav for damaging vessels) and no-one said here that the owner declared the feces Hefker.

(c)We resolve Rava's ruling with Rav - by applying the principle 'Stam Gelalim, Afkuri Mafkar Lehu' (that as a rule, the owner tends to declare the droppings of his animals Hefker).

(d)He is only Patur however, for vessels, but not if the feces caused injury to the owner himself. We do not apply the Derashah "Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor' - because that is confined to a Bor in the street, which is automatically Hefker, but not to the animal droppings, which the owner declares Hefker (instead of removing them), for which he is Chayav, as we explained earlier).

5)

(a)In a follow-on from the previous case (where Reuven takes his ox into Shimon's Chatzer without permission and the ox injures Shimon or Shimon trips over it), Rava adds that if Shimon injures Reuven's ox, he is Patur. How does Rav Papa qualify Rava's ruling? Under which circumstances would he be held responsible?

(b)In fact, Rava and Rav Papa follow their own ruling elsewhere, where (and some say Rav Papa) issued a statement that if two people are walking with or without permission, and they collided, they are Patur. What is the meaning of ...

1. ... with permission?

2. ... without permission?

(c)What can we extrapolate from their statement?

5)

(a)In a follow-on from the previous case (where Reuven takes his ox into Shimon's Chatzer without permission and the ox injures Shimon or Shimon trips over it), Rava adds that if Shimon injures Reuven's ox, he is Patur. Rav Papa qualifies this - by restricting it to a case where Shimon did not know that Reuven's ox was there, but if he did, his right to remove it would not permit him to injure it (unless it refused to move and had to be forced out), and he would be Chayav for doing so.

(b)In fact, Rava and Rav Papa follow their own ruling elsewhere, where Rava (and some say Rav Papa), issued a statement that if two people are walking with or without permission, and they collide, they are Patur.

1. With permission means - walking in the street or in a Chatzer that they share, or if the owner granted them permission to walk there.

2. ... without permission means - running in the street.

(c)We can extrapolate from their statement - that if one of them had permission but the other, did not, then the former will be Patur, and the latter, Chayav.

48b----------------------------------------48b

6)

(a)How does Rava initially qualify our Mishnah, which obligates Reuven to pay, should the ox that he brought without permission fall into Shimon's pit and foul up his water?

(b)On what grounds do we object, when he attributes this to the principle "Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor', exempting him from subsequent damage done to the water, which is considered a 'vessel'? With whose opinion would this clash?

(c)We therefore amend Rava's distinction to whether it was the body of the ox that caused the damage or the smell. What exactly does this mean?

6)

(a)Rava initially qualifies our Mishnah, which obligates Reuven to pay, should the ox that he brought without permission fall into Shimon's pit and foul up his water - by restricting it to where the damage occurs immediately; should it develop only later, he is Patur.

(b)We object when he attributes this to the principle "Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor', exempting him from subsequent damage done to the water, which is considered a 'vessel' - because that would clash with the opinion of Rav, who holds that Bor only applies to something that the owner declared Hefker (and unlike feces, there is no reason to assume that a person declares his Neveilah Hefker).

(c)We therefore amend Rava's distinction to whether it was the body of the ox that caused the damage, which is actual damage for which one is Chayav - and the smell, which the ox did not do, but which comes as a result of the ox's death. The latter is only a Gerama (an indirect damage), for which one is Patur.

7)

(a)We ask on our Mishnah, which obligates Kofer if the ox falls into the pit and kills the owner's father or son, 've'Ha Tam Hu?' How does Rav attempt to answer this question?

(b)What is the problem with Rav's answer?

(c)Why can we not answer (like we answered earlier to explain how an animal can ever become a Mu'ad) ...

1. ... that the ox ran away before they could stone it?

2. ... that the witnesses did not recognize the ox, or when the Zomemei Zomemin became themselves Zomemin?

7)

(a)To answer the Kashya on our Mishnah, which obligates Kofer if the ox falls into the pit and kills the owner's father or son - Rav establishes the Mishnah by an ox which is Mu'ad to fall on people when they are inside a pit.

(b)The problem with Rav's explanation is - why, seeing as an ox that kills is stoned, the ox is Chayav Misah after the first time, how did it ever manage to become a Mu'ad.

(c)We cannot answer (like we answered earlier to explain how an animal can ever become a Mu'ad) ...

1. ... that the ox ran away before they could stone it - because how can an ox possibly escape from a pit by itself.

2. ... that the witnesses did not recognize the ox, or when the Zomemei Zomemin became Zomemin - because here there is a Kol, and the details of the case would be widely known.

8)

(a)What does Rav Yosef add to Rav's answer to make it viable?

(b)Considering what we learned earlier, that whenever the ox is not stoned, the owner is exempt from Kofer, why is he Chayav Kofer here, even though the ox is Patur from Sekilah?

(c)Is it not unusual for an ox to fall into a pit in this way? Why is the owner Chayav Nezek Shalem?

8)

(a)To make Rav's answer viable, Rav Yosef adds - that the ox did not jump into the pit in order to kill the person inside it, but fell into it after spotting some vegetables at the edge of the pit (see Tosfos above 44a. DH 'Hacha Nami'), making the entire act (including the killing of the person in the pit), a Toldah of Shen.

(b)In spite of what we learned earlier (that whenever the ox is not stoned, the owner is exempt from Kofer), he is Chayav Kofer here, (even though the ox is Patur from Sekilah) - because that principle only applies by Keren, which the Torah exempted she'Lo b'Kavanah (and Kofer together with it); but not here, where the Chiyuv is that of Shen, and where Sekilah is not applicable in the first place. In such a case, there is nothing to exempt him from Kofer, when it falls due.

(c)It is only unusual for an ox to this the first three times, but after the third time, it becomes normal, and changes from Keren Meshuneh to Shen (though it is difficult to understand how this works, seeing as the ox fell into the pit each time in a way that was completely unintentional).

9)

(a)To answer the above Kashya, Shmuel establishes our Mishnah by Chatzi Kofer like Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili. What does this mean?

(b)Ula too, establishes our Mishnah by a Tam, like Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, but he adds that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili holds like Rebbi Tarfon. Which Rebbi Tarfon?

(c)What does Ula gain with his explanation?

9)

(a)To answer the above Kashya, Shmuel establishes our Mishnah by Chatzi Kofer like Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili who says - that a Tam pays Chatzi Kofer (and 'Meshalem Es ha'Kofer' in our Mishnah, means 'Chatzi Kofer').

(b)Ula too, establishes our Mishnah by a Tam, like Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, but he adds that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili holds like Rebbi Tarfon - who holds that Keren in the Chatzer of the Nizak pays full Nezek. By the same token, Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili will hold that the Tam in our Mishnah pays full Kofer (see Gilyon ha'Shas) ...

(c)... in which case it is not necessary to explain Kofer as Chatzi Kofer.

10)

(a)According to Shmuel, what problem do we have with the Tana talking about the owner's father or son being in the pit?

(b)Why is this not a problem according to Ula?

(c)How do we answer Shmuel?

10)

(a)The problem, according to Shmuel is - why the Tana finds it necessary to restrict the occupant of the pit to someone in the Nizak's household? Seeing as, in his opinion, he pays Chatzi Kofer, there is no reason to differentiate between the Chatzar ha'Nizak and the Reshus ha'Rabim; so what difference does it make who is in the pit?

(b)According to Ula it is indeed necessary to do so - because to be Chayav Nezek Shalem in the case of Shen, the damage must take place in the Chatzar ha'Nizak.

(c)To answer Shmuel, we conclude that the Tana only mentioned the fact that the owner's father or son were in the pit - because it is more likely to have happened that way.

11)

(a)Rav rules like the Tana Kama in our Mishnah (who assumes that when the owner permits someone to enter his courtyard, he automatically takes responsibility for the safety of whatever he brings with him. What does Shmuel say?

(b)The Reisha of the Beraisa says 'K'nos Shorcha v'Shamro Hizik Chayav, Huzak Patur'. How does this clash with the Seifa 'K'nos Shorcha va'Ani Eshmerenu'?

(c)Rebbi Elazar replies 'Tavra, Mi she'Shanah Zu ... '. Rava establishes the entire Beraisa like the Rabanan. Why, in that case, does the Seifa need to say 'va'Ani Eshmerenu'?

11)

(a)Rav rules like the Tana Kama in our Mishnah (who assumes that when the owner permits someone to enter his courtyard, he automatically takes responsibility for the safety of whatever he brings with him. Shmuel rules - like Rebbi, who requires the owner to specifically undertake to do so.

(b)The Reisha of the Beraisa says 'K'nos Shorcha v'Shamro, Hizik Chayav, Huzak Patur' - implying that Stam, the owner of the Chatzer accepts responsibility (like the Rabanan of Rebbi). This clashes with the Seifa 'K'nos Shorcha va'Ani Eshmerenu' - implying that Stam, he does not (like Rebbi).

(c)Rebbi Elazar replies 'Tavra, Mi she'Shanah Zu ... '. Rava establishes the entire Beraisa like the Rabanan. Nevertheless, the Seifa says 'va'Ani Eshmerenu', not because he needs to, but to balance with the Reisha, where needs to say 'Sh'mor', as we explained.

12)

(a)Rav Papa establishes the entire Beraisa like Rebbi. To explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa, he establishes Rebbi like Rebbi Tarfon (who says that when Keren occurs in the Chatzer of the Nizak, the Mazik pays full damage). How will we now explain the Reisha? Why did he need to say 'Shamro', seeing as he is Chayav anyway?

12)

(a)Rav Papa establishes the entire Beraisa like Rebbi. To explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa, he establishes Rebbi like Rebbi Tarfon (who says that when Keren occurs in the Chatzar of the Nizak, the Mazik pays full damage). We now explain the Reisha with regard to paying full damages - the fact that he specifically told him to guard the ox himself implies that he was not Makneh him a portion in the Chatzer (making it a case of Keren b'Chatzar ha'Nizak, for which he pays full damages); whereas had he not specifically told him to guard the ox himself, he would automatically have been Makneh him a portion in the Chatzer (making it a Chatzar ha'Shutfim, and he would pay only Chatzi Nezek).

13)

(a)What distinction does our Mishnah draw between an ox that means to gore another ox, and inadvertently struck a pregnant woman, killing her babies, and a man who means to strike another man, and inadvertently struck a pregnant woman ... ?

(b)According to the Tana Kama, we evaluate the damage by assessing the value of the woman when she was pregnant and her current value and make the Mazik pay the difference. Why is it the woman's husband who receives the Demei Vlados, and not the woman herself?

(c)Who receives the Demei Vlados, should her husband no longer be alive?

13)

(a)Our Mishnah draws a distinction between an ox that means to gore another ox, and inadvertently struck a pregnant woman, killing her babies - from which he is Patur from paying, and a man who means to strike another man, and inadvertently struck a pregnant woman, killing her babies - who is Chayav to pay.

(b)According to the Tana Kama, we evaluate the damage by assessing the value of the woman when she was pregnant and her current value and making the Mazik pay the difference. The reason that the woman's husband receives the Demei Vlados, and not the woman herself is - because of a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' which specifically grants all monetary rights concerning the babies to the husband.

(c)Should her husband no longer be alive - the Demei Vlados go to the husband's heirs.

14)

(a)On what basis does the Tana exempt someone who kills the babies of a Shifchah who was set free or of a Giyores (who were married to an Eved Meshuchrar or to a Ger who died) from paying?

(b)Why does the Tana refer to the case of a Shifchah who was set free, and not just say 'Hayesah Meshuchreres'?

(c)What would be the Din in the same case if it was a Yisre'eilis who was married to a Meshuchrar or to a Ger? Who would then receive the Demei Vlados?

(d)Then why does the Tana refer specifically to a Meshuchreres and to a Giyores?

14)

(a)The Tana exempts someone who kills the babies of a Shifchah who was set free or of a Giyores (who were married to an Eved Meshuchrar or to a Ger who died), in the same way - based on the Halachah that anyone who is holding something belonging to a Ger, may keep it the moment the Ger dies.

(b)The Tana refers to the case of a Shifchah who was set free, and does not just say 'Hayesah Meshuchreres' - because the former has connotations of having taken place recently, which in turn, conforms better with our case, which must be speaking when she had no children from the Meshuchrar when he died (who would have inherited the rights from their father).

(c)If it was a Yisre'eilis who was married to a Meshuchrar or to a Ger - the Din would be exactly the same, since it is the father who receives the Demei Vlados, and not the mother.

(d)Nevertheless, the Tana refers specifically to a Meshuchreres and to a Giyores - since it is more common for a Meshuchrar to marry a Meshuchreres, and a Ger, a Giyores.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF