1)

TOSFOS DH I LE'RAV DE'AMAR ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àé ìøá ãàîø ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos refutes this text.)

ìà âøñéðï ëãôéøùðå ìòéì.

(a)

Refutation of Text: We do not have this text, as Tosfos explained earlier (Daf 3:, DH 'mi'Shoro').

2)

TOSFOS DH MAH LE'BOR SHE'EIN KO'ACH ACHER ME'URAV BO

úåñ' ã"ä îä ìáåø ùëï àéï ëç àçø îòåøá áå

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara declines to ask from the fact that Bor is caused by the owner here but does ask it later.)

ìîàé ãôøéùéú ãìà çùéá àù îòùéå âøîå ìå ìôé ùäøåç îñééò ìå, ä"î ìîôøê äëà À 'îä ìáåø ùëï îòùéå âøîå ìå, úàîø áàáðå åñëéðå' ...

(a)

Implied Question: According to what Tosfos explained earlier (Daf 5: DH 'Ki') that Eish is not considered Ma'asav Garmu lo' because the wind assists him, the Gemara could have asked here 'Whereas Bor is a case of 'Ma'asav Garmu lo', Avno and Sakino are not' ...

àìà ìôé ãôéøëà 'ùëï àéï ëç àçø îòåøá áå' çùéá èôé ...

(b)

Answer: ... only the Pircha 'she'Kein Ein Ko'ach acher Me'urav bo' is a stronger Pircha'.

ãäùúà ìéëà ìîéîø 'ùåø éåëéç' àìà àù âøéãà.

1.

Reason: ... since now one cannot counter 'Shor Yochi'ach', only 'Eish'.

åì÷îï âáé 'áåø äîúâìâì' ôøéê 'îä ìáåø ùëï îòùéå âøîå ìå?'

(c)

Implied Question: And if, in connection with 'Bor ha'Misgalgel' the Gemara will shortly ask 'Whereas Bor is a case of 'Ma'asav Garmu lo'?

ãìà ùééê äúí 'ùëï àéï ëç àçø îòåøá áå' ...

1.

Reason: ... that is because the argument 'she'Kein Ein Ko'ach acher Me'urav bo' is not applicable there.

ãäéëé ðéîà? 'úàîø áåø äîúâìâì ùëï ëç àçø îòåøá áå' - ãîùîò ãìà äåé áåø àìà òì éãé ëç àçø, åæä àéðå, ùäøé ðòùä áåø áìà ëç àçø îùîðéçå áøä"ø?

2.

Reason (cont.): ... because what should the Gemara have said? Should it have said that Bor ha'Misgalgel is different since it only damages via Ko'ach acher, that is not correct, seeing as it became a Bor without Ko'ach acher, the moment he placed it in the street?

3)

TOSFOS DH LA'ASUYEI BOR HA'MISGALGEL

úåñ' ã"ä ìàúåéé áåø äîúâìâì

(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashi's refutation of the current text and elaborates).

áëì äñôøéí ëúåá 'àé áäãé ã÷à àæìé ÷îæ÷é, ëçå äåà?'.

(a)

Current Text: The text, in all the Sefarim, reads 'If it damages as it moves, that is Kocho?'

åôéøù ä÷åðèøñ ãìà âøñ ìéä.

(b)

Refutation: Rashi however, erases it ...

åèòîà îùåí ãàîøéðï ì÷îï áäîðéç (ãó ëæ:) 'àéï ãøëï ùì áðé àãí ìäúáåðï áãøëéí'.

1.

Reason: ... because the Gemara will say later (on Daf 27:) that 'It is not the way of people to look at the ground as they walk'.

åáòì äú÷ìä ðîé àéï ìçééáå îèòí àãí äîæé÷ àìà îùåí ãçùéá ëøåç îöåéä, åäåé àùå.

2.

Reason (cont.): Nor can one declare the owner of the object Chayav on account of Adam ha'Mazik, only of Isho.

åàéï ìîåç÷å áùáéì ëê - ãìòðéï ëãé ùìà éìëå ë"ë áçåæ÷ ùéúéæå åéæé÷å, ãøëå ìäúáåðï ùôéø ...

(c)

Confirmation of Current Text: This is not a good reason however, to erase it - because, to the point that one should not walk with such force that one kicks objects and causes damage, people do tend to watch where they are going.

åìäëé ôøéê 'ëçå äåà' - åéúçééá äîâìâì äëì åìà áòì äú÷ìä

1.

Confirmation of Current Text: And that is why the Gemara asks 'Kocho hu', in which case he is liable for the entire damage, and not the owner of the obstacle.

åàò"â ãìâáé 'ëìá ùðèì äçøøä åäìê ìâãéù ... ' (ì÷îï ã' ëà:) ôøéê áâîøà (ã' ëâ.) 'åìéçééá áòì äâçìú ðîé' - ùäåà áòì äú÷ìä?

(d)

Implied Question: And even though in connection with 'a dog that took a cake to a haystack ... ' (on Daf 21:) the Gemara asks (on Daf 3.) 'Let the owner of the coal also be held liable (since he is the owner of the obstacle)?'

äééðå îùåí ãëìá ìàå áø ãòä äåà, àáì äëà äî÷ì÷ì áø ãòä äåà.

(e)

Answer: ... that is because a dog does not possess intelligence; but here, the person who performs the damage, does.

úãò - ãàí äãìé÷ àù åáà àçø åùøó èìéú çáéøå àå çôø áåø åáà àçø åãçó ùåø çáéøå ìúåëå, àéï ñáøà ùéúçééá áòì äáåø àå áòì äàù.

(f)

Proof: If Reuven makes a fire or digs a pit and Shimon comes and burns Levi's Talis or pushes his ox into it, it is illogical to suggest that Reuven should be Chayav.

åäîâìâì áøâìé áäîä, àí äæé÷ áäãé ãàæìé, éúçééáå ùðéäí áòì äáäîä åáòì äú÷ìä.

1.

Proof (cont.): Whereas if Reuven's object rolls among the feet of Shimon's animal in the street and causes damage as it walks, both Reuven and Shimon are Chayav.

åäà ãàîøéðï ì÷îï áôø÷ äôøä (ã' ðâ:) 'ùåø åàãí ùãçôå ìáåø ìòðéï ðæ÷éï ëåìï çééáéï', ãîùîò àôéìå áòì äáåø?

(g)

Question: And when the Gemara says later in Perek ha'Parah (Daf 53:) 'An ox and a person that pushed an animal into a pit, as far as damages is concerned, all three are liable?

öøéê ìåîø ãîééøé àãí áìà ëååðä, ãëéåï ãàéï ãåçó áëååðä ëìì çééá áòì äáåø ëîå äàãí.

(h)

Answer: ... it must be speaking where the person pushed the animal unintentionally, which explains why the owner of the pit is Chayav too.

åäà ãàîøéðï (ùí) 'ìòðéï ã' ãáøéí åãîé åìãåú, àãí çééá' ...

(i)

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says there that, as far as the four things and paying for the babies are concerned, the person is Chayav' ...

äàé ã' ãáøéí äééðå ðæ÷ öòø åøéôåé åùáú, àáì áåùú àéï çééá òã ùéúëåéï, ëãàîø áäçåáì (ì÷îï ã' ôå.)

(j)

Answer: It must be referring to Nezek, Tza'ar, Ripuy and Sheves because Boshes is not Chayav unless the person acts deliberately, as the Gemara explains in 'ha'Chovel' (later on Daf 86.)

åìà äåé ëàøáòä ãáøéí ãìòéì ãäúí ìà çùéá ðæ÷.

1.

Answer (cont.): And 'the four things' there are not the same as 'the four things' mentioned earlier (on 5: [which includes Boshes]), because there it is not contending with Nezek.

åäà ãàîø (ì÷îï ðâ:) ìòðéï ëåôø åùìùéí ùì òáã 'ùåø çééá', ö"ì ãäééðå ãå÷à áëååðä, àò"â ãìà äåé ãåîéà ãàãí ...

(k)

Clarification: However when the Gemara says later (on Daf 53:) regarding Kofer and the thirty Sela'im Of an Eved, that the ox is Chayav, it must refer to where it damaged intentionally ...

ãáùìà áëååðä ìéëà ëåôø åùìùéí ùì òáã, ëãàé' áùéìäé ùåø ùðâç ã' åä' (ì÷îï ã' îâ.).

1.

Reason: ... since an ox that damages unintentionally is not subject to Kofer or to the thirty Sela'im of an Eved, as the Gemara explains in 'Shor she'Nagach Arba va'Chamishah (later on Daf 43.)

4)

TOSFOS DH MAH LE'BOR SHE'KEIN SHE'LO BI'RESHUS

úåñ' ã"ä îä ìáåø ùëï ùìà áøùåú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

ãàôéìå òùàå áøùåú åàç"ë äô÷éø, ëéåï ùäô÷éø äééðå ùìà áøùåú.

(a)

Clarification: Because even if he dug the pit with permission and then declared it Hefker, his declaring it Hefker is without permission.

5)

TOSFOS DH TOMAR BE'HANI DE'BIRESHUS SHOR YOCHI'ACH

úåñ' ã"ä úàîø áäðé ãáøùåú ùåø éåëéç

(Summary: Tosfos queries this according to the opinion that holds Shor refers to Regel.)

åà"ú, ìî"ã 'úðà ùåø ìøâìå', äéëé ÷àîø 'ùåø éåëéç ãáøùåú çééá', åäà øâì ìà îéçééá àìà áøùåú äðéæ÷ åùí àéï ìå øùåú?

(a)

Question: According to the opinion that interprets 'Shor' as Regel, how can the Gemara say 'Shor Yochi'ach, de'bi'Reshus', bearing in mind that Regel is only Chayav in the domain of the Nizak, where he does have R'shus to be?

åé"ì, ëâåï ùäìê áøä"ø åäúéæ åäæé÷ áøä"é, ãçééá, ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï (ãó éè.).

(b)

Answer: It speaks where, for example, the animal is walking in the street and it shoots up stones which cause damage in a private domain, where he is Chayav, as we will learn later (on Daf 19.).

6)

TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN HA'KOSEL VE'HA'ILAN SHE'NAFLU LI'RESHUS HA'RABIM VE'HIZIKU PATUR MI'LESHALEM (This Dibur and the remaining two Diburim on the Amud belong to Amud Beis).

úåñ' ã"ä ä"â äëåúì åäàéìï ùðôìå ìøùåú äøáéí åäæé÷å ôèåø îìùìí

(Summary: Tosfos condones this text.)

åëï ëúåá áñôøå ùì øù"é, åëï áñôø øá àìôñ, åëï òé÷ø.

(a)

Current Text: This text, which appears in Rashi's Seifer, and in that of the Rif, is the correct one.

àáì àåúí ãëúåá áäå 'çééá ìùìí' ìà ðäéøà ...

(b)

Refuted Text: Whereas the Sefarim that have the text 'Chayav Leshalem' is not right ...

ãëéåï ãáùìà äæäéøå, çééá, ìà éúëï ìä÷ì òìéå áúåê äæîï ìôåèøå áîä ùîæäéøéï àåúå ì÷åõ åìñúåø.

(c)

Reason: ... because if without a warning, he is Chayav, it would not be logical to then be lenient and to declare him Patur where they warn him to cut it down or to demolish it, and it falls down within the allotted time.

7)

TOSFOS DH I DE'AFREKINHU BEIN LE'RAV BEIN LI'SHEMUEL HAYNU BOR

úåñ' ã"ä àé ãàô÷øéðäå áéï ìøá áéï ìùîåàì äééðå áåø

(Summary: Tosfos explains why this is not comparable to 'Mafkir Nezakav le'Achar Nefilas Oneis, which is Patur.)

åà"ú, åäà îùîò ì÷îï áäîðéç (ã' ëè.) ãìë"ò äîô÷éø ðæ÷éå ìàçø ðôéìú àåðñ, ãôèåø ...

(a)

Question: It implies later in 'ha'Meni'ach' (on Daf 29.) that someone who declares his objects Hefker after they fall be'Oneis is no longer liable, according to all opinions

åäàé ðîé àåðñ äåà, ãááðéï åðèéòä ùòùä ìà ôùò ëìåí?

1.

Question (cont.): And here too, he is an Oneis, since in building the wall and planting the tree he was not in the least negligent?

åé"ì, ëéåï ùäæäéøå ì÷åõ åìñúåø ùìà éæé÷å, åòáø äæîï, äåé ôåùò åäåé ëîô÷éø ðëñéå ìàçø ðôéìú ôùéòä.

(b)

Answer: Since he was warned to cut it down or to demolish it, so that they should not cause damage, and the time elapsed, he is considered negligent, in which case it is a case of 'Mafkir Nezakav le'Achar Nefilas Peshi'ah'.

8)

TOSFOS DH HAYNU BOR

úåñ' ã"ä äééðå áåø

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case and elaborates.)

ìëàåøä ðøàä ãîééøé ëùäæé÷å ëåúì åàéìï áùòú ðôéìä âåôä, åàô"ä îãîä ìéä ìáåø ...

(a)

Explanation #1: At first sight, this speaks where the wall and the tree damage as they are falling, in spite of which the Gemara compares it to Bor ...

îãìà ÷àîø äëà 'àé áäãé ã÷àæìé ÷îæ÷é äééðå àù?'

1.

Proof #1: ... since it does not say here 'If they damage as they are falling, this is 'Eish'?'

åòåã, ãàé áäéæ÷ ãìàçø ðôéìä îééøé, àîàé ôèåø îìùìí? äìà ëéåï ùðôìå, îéã äéä ìå ìñì÷ï?

2.

Proof #2: Moreover, if it is speaking about damage that they cause after they have fallen, why is he Patur from paying? The moment they fell, he was obligated to remove them?

åòåã, ãà"ë, ìà äåä ìéä ìîéúðé 'ì÷åõ åìñúåø', àìà 'ðúðå ìå æîï ìôðåúå åìñì÷å', ëéåï ãáäéæ÷ ãìàçø ðôéìä àééøé.

3.

Proof #3: Furthermore, it ought not to have said 'They gave him time to cut it down or to demolish it', but rather ' ... to clear it away or to remove it'.

àò"â ãáåø àéï äåìê ìäæé÷ åàìå äåìëéí åîæé÷éï?

(b)

Implied Question: Even though a Bor does not move whilst it damages, and these do?

éù ìðå ììîãí îáåø, ãòãéó äéæ÷ ãéãäå ùäåìëéí åîæé÷éï, îáåø ùàéðå äåìê åîæé÷ àìà îæé÷ áî÷åîå. (åðøàä ãáäéæ÷ ãìàçø ðôéìä)

(c)

Answer: We can still learn them from Bor, since the fact that they damage whilst moving is even stronger than Bor which only damages in its place.

(continued on Amud Beis)

6b----------------------------------------6b

9)

TOSFOS DH HAYNU BOR (cont. from Amud Alef)

úåñ' ã"ä äééðå áåø

(Summary: Tosfos now presents a second explanation of the Sugya.)

åðøàä ãáäéæ÷ ãìàçø ðôéìä ðîé îöé àééøé åôèåø îìùìí ...

(a)

Explanation #2: It is possible however, that even if the Sugya is speaking where they damaged after they fell, they are nevertheless Patur from paying ...

åëâåï ùìà ðåãò ìáòìéå ùðôìå, àå éãòå åìà éëìå ìñì÷å ëì ëê îäø.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... in a case where the owner is not aware that they fell down or where he is unable to remove them so quickly.

åäà ãìà ÷úðé 'ðúðå ìå æîï ìñì÷å åìôðåúå' ...

(b)

Implied Question: And the reason that the Tana did not say that 'they gave him time to clear it away or to remove it' ...

îùåí ãáäéæ÷ ðôéìä âåôä ðîé îééøé.

1.

Answer: ... is because it also speaks where they damaged whilst they were falling

åðúðå ìå æîï ì÷åõ åìñúåø, åìôðåúå ÷àîø.

2.

Answer (cont.): And what the Tana really means to say is that they gave him time to cut it down and to demolish it or to remove it.

åäùúà àúé ùôéø ãîãîä ìéä ìáåø èôé îìàù.

(c)

Conclusion: And this explains why the Tana compares it to Bor more than to Eish ...

åàó òì âá ãáùòú ðôéìä éù ìãîåúå ìàù ëîå ìáåø, ãîàù çìå÷ áîä ùàéï ëç àçø îòåøá áå, åîáåø çìå÷ áîä ùàéï úçéìú òùééúï ìðæ÷.

(d)

Implied Question: Even though at the time that it fell it is just as similar to Eish as it is to Bor, seeing as it is different than Eish inasmuch as it damages without the help of another force, and it is different than Bor inasmuch as it was not initially made to damage.

àìà ìëê ãéîä àåúå ìáåø, îùåí ãáäéæ÷ ãìàçø ðôéìä àéï ìãîåúå ëìì ìàù àìà ìáåø.

(e)

Answer: Nevertheless he compares it to Bor because as far as the damage that it does after it has fallen, it is not comparable to Eish at all, only to Bor.

10)

TOSFOS DH CHAV CHAYAV MIBA'I LEIH

úåñ' ã"ä çá çééá îéáòé ìéä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not ask the same question in other places where a similar ward is used.)

áùàø ãåëúéï ìà ãéé÷ äëé,

(a)

Implied Question: In other places the Gemara does not ask this question ...

ëâåï 'àéï çáéï ìàãí àìà áôðéå', å'úåôñ ìá"ç áî÷åí ùçá ìàçøéí' ...

1.

Examples: ... such as 'Ein Chavin le'Adam Ela be'Fanav' (Gitin, Daf 11:) and 'Tofeis le'Ba'al-Chov be'Makon she'Chav la'Acherim' (Ibid. & Bava Metzi'a 10.)

ãäúí ìà ùééê ìùåï çéåá àìà ìùåï çåáä.

(b)

Answer: Because there, the Lashon 'Chiyuv' is not applicable, only that of 'Chovah'.

11)

TOSFOS DH VE'REBBI YISHMAEL ACHAL SHEMEINAH

úåñ' ã"ä åøáé éùîòàì àëì ùîéðä

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the question, and goes on to explain why the Gemara queries Rebbi Yishmael, but not Rebbi Akiva.)

ôéøåù - áùìîà àëì ùîéðä îùìí ùîéðä, àìà àëì ëçåùä àîàé îùìí ùîéðä?

(a)

Explanation #1: If he ate Shemeinah (good-quality fruit), it is understandable that he must pay Shemeinah. But why should he pay Shemeinah, if he only ate Kechushah (poor-quality fruit)?

àé ðîé, ä"ô - ëéåï ãáùîéðä àéï îùìí àìà ùîéðä ëîå ùäæé÷ åìà ÷ðñéðï ìéä ìùìí éåúø îîä ùäæé÷, à"ë ëùàëì ëçåùä ðîé ìà ì÷ðñéä ìùìí éåúø îîä ùäæé÷ ìùìí ùîéðä.

(b)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the Gemara is asking that since, if he ate Shemeinah, he pays Shemeinah, and we do not punish him to pay more than what the animal ate, if it ate Kechushah we should also not punish him to pay Shemeinah, which is more than what it ate?

åà"ú, àîàé èòé èôé áãáøé ø' éùîòàì, ìåîø ùàí àëì ëçåùä, îùìí ùîéðä, éåúø îãáøé ø' ò÷éáà?

(c)

Question: Why does the Gemara err more in Rebbi Yishmael's words, to say that if the animal ate Kechushah, he must pay Shemeinah, more than in the words of Rebbi Akiva?

ãìîà øáé ò÷éáà ÷àîø ðîé ùàí àëì òøåâä ëçåùä, îùìí òøåâä ùîéðä ùáùãåúéå?

1.

Question (cont.): Perhaps Rebbi Akiva too, maintains that if it ate a row of Keshushah, he must pay a row of Shemeinah from his fields?

åé"ì, ìôéëê èòä áãáøé øáé éùîòàì èôé îùåí ã÷àîø øáé ò÷éáà 'ìà áà äëúåá àìà ìâáåú ìðæé÷éï îï äòéãéú', îùîò ùùîò îø' éùîòàì ùáà äëúåá ìçééá éåúø îîä ùäæé÷ - ëâåï ãàí àëì ëçåùä îùìí ùîéðä.

(d)

Answer: The reason (that it errs more in Rebbi Yishmael's words) is because of Rebbi Akiva's statement 'the Pasuk only comes to claim Nezikin from Idis', implying that he heard from Yishmael that the owner pays more than the damage (if it ate Kechushah, he pays Shemeinah).

12)

TOSFOS DH K'GON SHE'HAYSAH IDIS DE'NIZAK KE'ZIBURIS DE'MAZIK

úåñ' ã"ä ëâåï ùäéúä òéãéú ãðéæ÷ ëæéáåøéú ãîæé÷

(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara could not say the other way round, and presents a number of other scenarios.)

åàéôëà ìà îöé ìîéîø, ãë"ò îåãå ãàéï îùìí àìà òéãéú ùéù ìå, åàéï öøéê ì÷ðåú ...

(a)

Clarification: One cannot say the reverse, since everybody agrees that one only needs to pay with the Idis that one possesses, and does not need to purchase (what one doesn't possess) ...

ëãàîøéðï ì÷îï (ã' æ:) 'àéï ìå àìà æéáåøéú ëåìí âåáéï îï äæéáåøéú'.

1.

Proof: ... as the Gemara says later (on Daf 7:) 'If he only has Ziburis, then they all claim from Ziburis'.

åîéäå àé 'áùì òåìí äï ùîéï', äî"ì 'ëâåï ãæéáåøéú ãîæé÷ ëòéãéú ãòìîà', ãìø' ò÷éáà âåáéï îï äæéáåøéú, åìø' éùîòàì éäéá ìéä îòéãéú ãðéæ÷.

(b)

Exception #1: If however, we hold that 'One assesses the fields in general', the Gemara could have said that 'It speaks where the Ziburis of the Mazik is equivalent to the Idis in general, in which case, according to Rebbi Akiva, he can only claim from the Ziburis, whereas according to Rebbi Yishmael, he must give him according to the Idis of the Nizak.

åàôéìå ìî"ã 'áùìå äï ùîéï', äî"ì ãìéú ìéä ìîæé÷ ëòéãéú ãðéæ÷, ãìî"ã 'ëñó àå îéèá', éùìí ëñó ìøáé éùîòàì åìø' ò÷éáà ìà éùìí àìà îîéèá ùìå.

1.

Exception #2: And even according to the opinion that one assesses according to his (the Mazik's) fields, it could have established the case where the Mazik does not possess fields like the Idis of the Nizak, in which case, according to the opinion that holds 'either money or 'Meitav (Idis), he must pay money according to Rebbi Yishmael, whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, he can pay from his own Idis.

13)

TOSFOS DH SHOR RE'EIHU ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä ùåø øòäå ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos explains as to why the Gemara does not answer that it is speaking about Hekdesh.)

úéîä, åìå÷îä áùï åøâì ùäæé÷ àú ää÷ãù, ãäúí ìà ëúéá "øòäå" ...

(a)

Question: Why not establish the case where Shein ve'Regel damage Hekdesh, since there the Torah does not write "Re'eihu"?

åî÷øï ìéëà ìîéìó, ãàéðä îåòãú îúçéìúä; åáâæøä ùåä ã'úçú ðúéðä éùìí ëñó' ðîé ìà éìôéðï, ãìà ðú÷áìä àìà ìòðéï úùìåîé îéèá ...

(b)

Refuted Answer: Granted, one cannot learn it from Keren, which is not initially Mu'ad; nor can one learn it from 'Tachas, Nesinah, Yeshalem, Kesef', which were only handed down in connection with 'Meitav' ...

ãàé ìëì îéìé, ìéôèøå ëåìäå îèîåï åáøä"ø åëìéí åôñåìé äîå÷ãùéï?

1.

Refutation: Because if it was handed down regarding all matters, they should all be Patur from Tamun, in the R'shus-ha'Rabim, regarding Keilim and Pesulei-ha'Mukdashin?

åé"ì, ãëåìäå ðæ÷éï ôèåøéï áä÷ãù ...

(c)

Answer: Hekdesh is Patur from all damages ...

ëãîåëç áéøåùìîé áøéù äðéæ÷éï, ã÷àîø äúí 'áîä àðï ÷ééîéï, àé áäëùø ðæ÷éï, äà úðéðà "ùåø øòäå", 'åìà ùåø ùì ä÷ãù'.

1.

Source: ... as is evident in the Yerushalmi (at the beginning of 'ha'Nizakin', where it says 'What are we talking about? If it is about the damage performed by one's property, we already learned in the Mishnah "Shor Re'eihu", 've'Lo Shor shel Hekdesh' ...

åàé áðæ÷é âåôå, äà úðé øáé çééà ðæ÷éï ìäãéåè åàéï ðæ÷éï ìâáåä.

2.

Answer (cont.): Whereas if it is talking about the damage that one performs with one's body, Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa, states that a Hedyot is subject to Nezikin, but not Hekdesh ...

àìà áàåîø 'äøé òìé îðä ìáã÷ äáéú'.

3.

Answer (cont.): It must therefore be speaking where he declared that he will donate a Manah to Bedek ha'Bayis'.

îùîò ãìà îùëçú ðæ÷éï áä÷ãù ìà áùï åìà

(d)

Conclusion: This implies that that Hekdesh is not subject to damages, neither by Shein (The following is taken from Daf 7.) nor by Regel nor even by Adam ha'Mazik, only where one declares 'I will give a Manah (to Bedek ha'Bayis)'.