(Summary: Tosfos with his own ruling earlier in which Rshus is increases the culpability of the owner, and elaborates.)

, , , ...

(a) Implied Question: Even though on the previous Amud, Rava said that, on the contrary, the fact that he entered with permission, is more reason for the owner to assume responsibility, even if the animal strangled itself, in which case the strength of the owner is weakened on account of Rshus ...

, ...

(b) Answer: The case here is difference, in that the woman requires privacy, since she reveals her arms during the kneading process, as a result of which the owner removes himself from her vicinity.


(c) Consequently: And that is why the Gemara queries this from the case of A woman who comes in to grind ...

- ...

1. Consequently (cont.): It does not want to ask from .all the cases in th Mishnah - from Pots, Fruiit and an Ox ...

, .

2. Consequently (concl.): Preferring to ask from another case of a woman, since thd Makshan thought that it is specifically from the woman that the owner keeps his distance on account of (the Isur of) Yichud.


(Summary: Tosfos explains the implied question of the Gemara, which initially seems illogical, and extends the Chidush.)

- .

(a) Clarification: And because of that, we ought to have declared Patur the owner of the Chatzer.

, , , ?

(b) Question: On the contrary, had we not precluded Shor, there would have been even more reason to exempt the owner of the Chatzer, since we would then have had to place the Chiyuv on the owner of the ox?

, - , , , , ...

(c) Answer: What the Gemara means is - even though Mar said Ish Bor, veLo Shor Bor, and it would then have been correct to declare Patur anybody from the Din of Bor that his ox dug ...

, .

(d) Answer: It is not logical to say this, only since the onus is on him to fill it in, it is considered as if he dug it.

, , , .

(e) Extension of Ruling: And one can assume that, even if a person, who is a bar Chiyuva, dug the pit, the owner of the Chatzer is ,liable for the damages of the pit, and it is up to him to fill it in, even though the one who dug the pit is obligated to pay for the damage that he did to the Chatzer.


1. Conclusion: However, this needs to be looked into.


(Summary: Tosfos reconciles this with the Gemaras ruling regarding the case of the camel on Daf 22a.)

, ( .) , ...

(a) Question: But did the Gemara earlier (on Daf 22a) not exempt the owner of the camel, assuming it did not spread the fire, accofrding to the opinion that holds Isho Mishum Mamono ...

, ?

1. Question (cont.): Even though the Torah does not write Ish Eish, veLo Shor Eish?

, 䔓, .

(b) Answer: There too, the Torah writes Shalem Yeshalem haMavir es haBeeirah, implying that the person is oblogated to pay only if he himself lights the fire.


(Summary: Tosfos discuses whether the same Ptur will apply if it is the owner of the Keilim who is hurt.)

, , [], , , ...

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this speaks Specifically where the vessels are damaged, but if it is their owner who is hurt, we do not declare the owner of the ox Patur because of Ish Bor, veLo Shor Bor.

, , , , ...

1. Reason: This is because whatever belongs to him at the time of falling, such as Gelalim (feces), or where his camel fell and he did not pick it up, where he is Chayav on account of Bor, even though it is not he who dug it but his camel ...

, , .

2. Reason (cont.): Seeing as at the time of digging it belongs to him and the onus lies on him to remove it, but he did not, it is considered as if he dug it, despite the fact that he subsequently declared it Hefker.

, . .

3. Conclusion: And it is not comparable to a persons ox which dug a pit in the street, since there, the pit does not belong to him, or to an object/bucket that somehow became tied to ones rooster, since the object/bucket does not belong to him (Until here is the quote from Rashi).

, , , .

(b) Inference: From Rashis explanation it seems that (even) according to the Gemaras conclusion that Stam Gelalim one declares Hefker, we only declare Keilim Patur, but if it is their owner who is hurt, then he is Chayav.

, , , ...

(c) Explanation #2: The Ri however, maintains that, although initially, the Gemara thought that he did not declare them (the feces) Hefker, it only declares Patur his Keilim, but according to the conclusion, where the Gemara states that he is Mafkir them, he is Patur even for damages done to the owner as well ...


(d) Precedent: Similar to Mafkir Nezakav leAchar Nefilas Oneis.

, .

1. Explanation #2 (cont.): And as for the case where his camel fell, we establish where he fell and pulled down his camel with him, or where he took the camel to where the river overlaps the path, which is Poshea.

, , .

2. Explanation #2 (concl.): Whereas here (in the case of Gelalim), where he is not Poshea, even though if he had not been Mafkir them, he would have have been Chayav, now that he did, he is Patur.

, .

(e) Opting for Explanation #1: Rashis explanation however, seems more authentic, because it does not seem that the Gemara retracts from the fact that he only exempts Keilim.

, .

1. Opting for Explanation #1 (cont.): And it considers this a case of Mafkir Nezakav leAchar Nefilas Peshiah, inasmuch as he is Poshea for bringing in his ox without permission, knowing that it is the way of an ox to drop feces.


(Summary: Tosfos explains why this ruling is not synonymous with a Mishnah in haMeniach.

, ( : ) - , ?

(a) Question: This is a Mishnah in Perek haMeniach (earlier, Daf 32b & 33a) in connection with Someone who is chopping wood - who is Chayav if he is chopping in one Rshus haYachid, and damages in another Rshus haYachid, but Patur if he dqamaged in the same one?

, , , .

(b) Answer: The Gemara thought that he is Patur there because there are two Sfeikos; 1. Perhaps the chip will not fly up, 2. Perhaps nobody will enter that Rshus, and get hurt



(Summary: Tosfos disagrees with Rashis interpretation of biReshus and sheLo beReshus.)

; .

(a) Explanation #1: Such as - in the Rshus haRabim; whereas sheLo biReshus refers to where both of them are running in the Rshus haRabim.

, ( .)?

(b) Question: But that is the Mishnah in Perek haMeniach (above, on Daf 32a)?


(c) Explanation #2: One therefore needs to explain that they both entered the owners Chatzer sheLo biReshus or biReshus


1. Reason: Since it should have occurred to him that just as they permitted him to enter, so too, did they give permission to somebody else to enter, or just as he entered without permission, so too, did somebody else ...


2. Reason (cont.): And that explains why they are both Chayav if they damage each other, even if they did so unintentionally.

, ...

(d) Explanation #2 (cont.): If however, one entered with Rshus and the other, sheLo biReshus, then the latter is obligated to take the former into account, but not vice-versa.

- , .

1. Explanation #2 (concl.): Consequently, if they damaged inadvertently, the former is Patur and the latter, Chayav,


(Summary: Tosfos discusses Rashis explanation, with which he disagrees.)

, , ...

(a) Clarification: Rashi establishes the case of Hayah Mischakech where the ox scratched itself against the wall three times, with the intention, not of scratching itself, but of pushing the wall down on to the person behind it, and when it says Patur, it refers to the (fourth) time, when it actually intended to scratch itself, and the first (three) times helped to turn it into a Muad.

, .

1. Clarification (cont.): And in this last occasion the Gemara considers it somewhat Meshuneh in that it killed by means of knocking down the wall, which is why it only considers it a Muad on account of the first three times.


(b) Question #1: It is a Dochek however, to consider it Meshuneh when it acted for its pleasure to eat vegetables or to scratch itself.


(c) Question #2: And it is also difficult to say that it becomes a Muad when it knocks down the wall the final time without Kavanah, via the times when it was with Kavanah.


(d) Inference: In any event, according to Rashi, we will have to say that when it says here that it is a Muad to knock down walls on top of people ion pits ...


1. Inference (cont.): It only mentions people with reference to the last time ...


2. Reason: Seeing as the first three times we are only concerned that it should become a Muad, that it should become natural for it to throw itself into the pit in order to eat vegetables.


(Summary: Tosfos queries the implication that the Halachah is like Shmuel.)


(a) Halachah: Initially it seems, we will apply the principle The Halachah is like Shumel in money-matters.

, , ...

(b) Question: This needs to be looked into however, since Rava said earlier (on Amud Alef) that If someone brings his ox into the owners Chatzer without permission and it dug in it pits, trenches or caves, the owner of the ox is Chayav for the damage to the Chatzer ...

, . , ...

1. Question (cont.): Implying that, if he brought it in with permission, he is Patur, whereas according to Rebbi even with permission, he would be Chayav.


2. Question (concl.): Because according to Rebbi, Stam the owner of the ox is Chayav.

- .

(c) Conclusion: And Rava establishes the entire Sugya earlier like the Rabbanan - (where the owner of the Chatzer accepts the responsibility of the vessels and the animals) even if the vessels broke in a regular wind, and even if the ox strangled itself.


(Summary: Tosfos explains why the entire Sugya goes according to Rava earlier.)


(a) Clarification: This entire Sugya goes like Rava above (47b) ...


(b) Proof: Because, according to Rebbi Zeira there is no contradiction between the Reisha and the Seifa ...

, ...

1. Proof (cont.): Seeing as it all goes like Rebbi, who holds that Stam they are both Patur both in the Reisha and in the Seifa ...


2. Reason: Since neither of them undertakes to guard that what belongs to the other one.


(c) Proof (concl.): Whereas according to the Rabanan, Stam, they would both be Chayav.


(Summary: Tosfos explains why the Gemara does not answer Naaseh, like it does in the first Perek of Kidushin.)

, ( :) , ; , ...

(a) Implied Question: The Gemara declines to answer Naaseh, like it does in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 5b) in the case of Nasan Hu veAmrah Hi, Mekudeshes; Nasnah Hi veAmar Hu, Ein Mekudeshes ...

- .

(b) Answer: Because here the Gemara has another answer - as it says Tavra.

, .

1. Answer (cont.): Whereas there it cannot answer Tavra, since the issue there is not subject to dispute.