[a - 42 lines; b - 14 lines]
1)[line 1]דממונא הואD'MAMONA HU- in which case they owe monetary reparation [and not a fine, since they neither overpay nor pay a set penalty - rather; they must pay exactly what they wished to obligate their victim (See Insights)
2)[line 2]אין משלמין על פי עצמןEIN MESHALMIN AL PI ATZMAN- they do not pay based upon their own admission [in which case it must indeed be a Kenas (see Background to 4:38g)]
3)[line 5]חבלCHAVAL- injured
4)[line 5]משלם במותר נזק שלםMESHALEM B'MOSAR NEZEK SHALEM- [its owner] must make complete restitution (as opposed to the half damage that the owner of a Tam pays when his ox damages another animal) for that which [his ox damaged the person] above and beyond [that which the person damaged his ox]
5)[line 6]הא תבריה ר"ע לגזיזיהHA TAVREI REBBI AKIVA LI'GEZIZEI- lit. Rebbi Akiva broke the strength of his own fist; i.e., his own opinion expressed elsewhere renders this question unproblematic (see below, entry #7)
6)[line 8]"[אוֹ בֵן יִגָּח, אוֹ בַת יִגָּח; כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הַזֶּה] יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ""[O VEN YIGACH, O VAS YIGACH; KA'MISHPAT HA'ZEH] YE'ASEH LO"- [Even if it gores a young boy or a young girl,] it shall be dealt with [in accordance with this law]" (Shemos 21:31).
7)[line 9]מגופו משלם ואינו משלם מן העלייהMI'GUFO MESHALEM, V'EINO MESHALEM MIN HA'ALIYAH- [its owner] need pay only until the value of the animal that caused the damage, and need not pay the full value of the damage (see Background to 2:28). From that which Rebbi Akiva ruled that even if the Tam injures a person its owner need only pay mi'Gufo we see that a) there are times that the entire damage caused by the animal is covered by its worth, and there is therefore no need to list separate categories in the Beraisa (RASHI); b) we cannot list a Tam that injures a person as a separate Av since the Gemara later on this Amud teaches that an Av always pays with Meitav (the choicest available option; see below, entry #19) (TOSFOS DH Ha); c) Rebbi Akiva retracted his earlier opinion that a Tam pays Nezek Shalem when injuring a person (RABEINU CHANANEL).
8)[line 10]דממונא הואD'MAMONA HU- in which cases he owes monetary reparation [in addition to that which he must pay Pegam, Boshes, and Tza'ar in the case of Ones, and Pegam and Boshes in the case of Mefateh]. It is apparent from Rashi that he does not have the Girsa of Motzi Shem Ra in the Gemara. According to our Girsa that does include it, it is mentioned only because it is part of the group along with Ones and Mefateh (i.e., it is Lav Davka) (TOSFOS DH ha'Ones).
9)[line 11]דממונא הוא?MAH NAFSHACH?- which way would you like to turn? (i.e., whichever way one looks at it, there is no question)
10)[line 12]אי פגם, היינו נזקIY PEGAM, HAINU NEZEK- if [Rebbi Oshaya ought to list Ones and Mefateh] due of her loss of value on the slave market [now that she is no longer a virgin], that is synonymous with the payment of Nezek!
11)[line 15]היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק / לא שמיה היזקHEZEK SHE'EINO NIKAR SHMEI HEZEK / LO SHMEI HEZEK - Whether or Not One is Responsible for Unnoticeable Damage
(a)Hezek she'Eino Nikar refers to damage of a spiritual, and therefore unnoticeable, nature. This usually occurs when an object is rendered Halachically prohibited or invalidated for a particular use. Although Amora'im disagree as to whether one is responsible to make reparations for such damage, the Gemara proves that mid'Oraisa one is not responsible for damage that is not readily visible (Gitin 53a).
12)[line 21]תנא מניינאTANA MINYANA- he specified a number [although we are perfectly able to count the categories ourselves]
13)[line 24]מוסרMOSER- an informer whose report results in the seizure of another Jew's property
14)[line 24]מפגלMEFAGEL - one who disqualifies a sacrifice through invalid thoughts (PIGUL)
(a)If one slaughters a sacrifice with intention to offer or eat it after the time within which it must be offered or eaten, it becomes disqualified and may not be eaten (Vayikra 7:18). The verse refers to such a sacrifice as "Pigul", which means "putrid" or "rejected".
(b)One who intentionally consumes at least a k'Zayis of Pigul is liable to receive Kares (see Background to Yevamos 3:27); if he eats it unintentionally then he must offer a Korban Chatas.
(c)Our Gemara refers to a Kohen who intentionally disqualified the Korban of another by slaughtering it as a Korban Shelamim (see Background to 55:4) instead of a Korban Chatas (see Background to 2:12) as its owner intended it. Such a thought requires the owner to offer another animal as a Chatas.
15)[line 28]דיבורא דאית ביה מעשה הואDIBURA D'IS BEI MA'ASEH HU- (the Gemara answers) it is speech that requires an action [as well (namely, a) relations after which he claimed to find no blood (RASHI, citing the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov in Kesuvos 46a); b) the hiring of false witnesses (additional understanding in TOSFOS DH Dibura, citing the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in Kesuvos 46a)]
16)[line 30]רחמנא קרייה מעשהRACHMANA KARYEI MA'ASEH- the Torah refers to it as a physical act
17)[line 31]"וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו...""VA'ASISEM LO KA'ASHER ZAMAM LA'ASOS L'ACHIV..."- "And you shall do unto him as he plotted to do to his fellow ..." (Devarim 19:19). This verse, written regarding Edim Zomemin, instructs Beis Din to punish the Edim for their plot as if they had actually performed the action that they accused their fellow of taking.
18)[line 34]מכללMICHLAL- which implies
19)[line 35]כולן כאבות לשלם ממיטבKULAN K'AVOS L'SHALEM MI'MEITAV- they are all considered main categories of damage in that one must pay for them with the choicest of his land (see Background to 2:9)
20)[line 36]אתיא "תחת", "נתינה", "ישלם", "כסף"ASYA "TACHAS", "NESINAH", "YESHALEM", "KESEF" (GEZEIRAH SHAVAH)
(a)In a Beraisa found in the introduction to the Sifra (the Halachic Midrash on Vayikra), Rebbi Yishmael lists the thirteen methodologies employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah. One of these is Gezeirah Shavah - a derivation equating two subjects utilizing a common word or phrase - in which two identical words (or two words that share the same root) that appear in two different sections of the Torah reveal that the Halachos applicable to one section apply to the other and vice versa.
(b)One may apply a Gezeirah Shavah only if he has received a tradition from his teachers that such a connection between the two words exists. Once the connection is established, however, then one may derive Halachos that were not specified in the tradition.
(c)A Gezeirah Shavah is unlimited; one may not pick and choose which Halachos he would like to apply. This facet of a Gezeirah Shavah is termed "Ein Gezeirah Shavah l'Mechetzah". This rule is waived in the case of an explicit teaching that precludes the application of a specific Halachah.
(d)There are three possible configurations of a Gezeirah Shavah:
1.MUFNEH MI'SHNEI TZEDADIM - If both words are seemingly unnecessary and are not used in the derivation of any other teaching, then all of the rules described above apply.
2.MUFNEH MI'TZAD ECHAD - If the word in only one of the sections is available, some maintain that Halachos may be derived from such a Gezeirah Shavah only if there is no argument against comparing the two sections. This status is known as "Lemedin u'Meshivin". Others rule that such a Gezeirah Shavah is no more limited than one that is Mufneh mi'Shnei Tzedadim.
3.EINO MUFNEH KOL IKAR - If neither word is free, then those who maintain that a Gezeirah Shavah that is Mufneh mi'Tzad Echad is unlimited grant such a Gezeirah Shavah the status of Lemedin u'Meshivin. Those who applied the status of Lemedin u'Meshivin to a Gezeirah Shavah that is Mufneh mi'Shnei Tzedadim rule that this one may not be used to determine any Halachos whatsoever.
(e)Our Gemara teaches that a multiple-stage Gezeirah Shavah links all twenty-four Avos Nezikin listed in the Beraisa of Rav Chiya together, thereby teaching that they must all be paid with Meitav. There are four key root words involved - "Tachas", "Nesinah", "Yeshalem", and "Kesef". This works as follows:
1.SHEN and REGEL - the verse clearly mentions that they must be paid with Meitav, and also uses the word "Yeshalem" (Shemos 22:4);
2.KEREN - the verse states "Yeshalem" and "Tachas" (Shemos 21:36). RASHI maintains that it is from Keren that the Gezeirah Shavah of "Nesinah" begins as well (Shemos 21:32);
3.BOR - the verse states "Yeshalem" and "Kesef" (Shemos 21:34);
4.SHOMER CHINAM - the verse states "Yeshalem" (Shemos 22:8);
5.SHO'EL - the verse states "Yeshalem" (Shemos 22:13);
6.SHOMER SACHAR - the verse states "Yeshalem" (Shemos 22:11);
7.SOCHER - the verse does not mention a Socher specifically, but the Halachos pertaining to it are derived from either Shomer Chinam or Shomer Sachar (see Background to 29:c);
8.NEZEK - the verse states "Yinasen" (Vayikra 24:20);
9.TZA'AR - the verse states "Tachas" (Shemos 21:25);
10.RIPUY and SHEVES - the verse states "Yiten" (Shemos 21:19);
11.BOSHES - the verse states "Tachas" (Devarim 22:29); alternatively, all five payments for injuries afflicted are derived from the word "Tachas" (Shemos 21:25);
12.KEFEL - the verse states "Yeshalem" (Shemos 22:8);
13.ARBA'AH VA'CHAMISHAH - the verse states "Yeshalem" and "Tachas" (Shemos 21:37);
14.GANAV - included in the Halachos of a Shomer Chinam (see Background to 4:47);
15.GAZLAN - the verse states "v'Nasan" (Bamidbar 5:7);
16.EDIM ZOMEMIN - the verse states "Nefesh b'Nefesh", which implies the word "Tachas" (Devarim 19:21);
17.ONES - the verse states "Kesef" (Devarim 22:29), RABEINU CHANANEL maintains that it is from Ones that the Gezeirah Shavah of "Nesinah" begins as well ("v'Nasan", ibid.);
18.MEFATEH - the verse states "Kesef" (Shemos 22:16);
19.MOTZI SHEM RA - the verse states "Kesef" (Devarim 22:19);
20.METAMEI, MEDAME'A, and MENASECH - these are included in Nezek.
21)[line 39]לכתוב רחמנא חדא, ותיתי אידך מיניהLICHTOV RACHMANA CHADA, V'TEISI IDACH MINEI (BINYAN AV / MAH MATZINU)
(a)In a Beraisa found in the introduction to the Sifra (the Halachic Midrash on Vayikra), Rebbi Yishmael lists the thirteen methodologies employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah. One of them is "Binyan Av" - literally "building through a father". This method is also referred to as a "Mah Matzinu" - literally, "just as we have found". It entails establishing a certain law in one area of the Torah, and then applying it to other comparable circumstances. This method, however, is very vulnerable to "Pirchos" - questions of logical difference. If any difference can be shown between the two subjects, then the comparison is negated.
(b)Our Gemara explains that our Mishnah wished to explain why the Torah found it necessary to write that one is obligated to pay for each of the four Avos Nezikin. Why did the Torah not just write one (Chada), in which case we would have been able to bring (Teisi) another (Idach) from it through a Binyan Av?
5b----------------------------------------5b
22)[line 1]תרתיTARTEI- both [Shor and Mav'eh]
23)[line 3]כי שדית בור בינייהוKI SHADIS BOR BEINAIHU- lit. if you throw Bor between them
24)[line 4]מה הצדMAH HA'TZAD - a derivation of Halachos from a common denominator (TZAD HA'SHAVEH)
(a)When attempting to derive Halachos through a Binyan Av/Mah Matzinu, the Gemara sometimes invalidates the derivation due to a Pirchah (logical argument; see above, entry #21). In such a case, the Gemara will sometimes attempt to reestablish the Mah Matzinu through a "Yochi'ach"/"Tochi'ach (fem.)". Literally a proof, this involves showing that the Halachah that we wish to apply is in effect in a third section of the Torah -- one to which the Pirchah is not applicable.
(b)Usually, the Gemara will respond with a second Pirchah, this time one that draws a distinction between the Yochi'ach and the target of the Mah Matzinu. If this Pirchah does not apply to the first attempted source, then it itself becomes the Yochi'ach.
(c)The Gemara then forms a "Mah ha'Tzad" or "Tzad ha'Shaveh" - a common denominator. This involves finding a property shared by the two prospective sources, aside from the Halachah that we wish to derive. We may then conclude that since the target subject shares the common denominator, the Halachah in question applies to it as well.
(d)The terminology of the Gemara in such a situation is "v'Chazar ha'Din" - the ruling returns [back and forth]; "Lo Re'i Zeh k'Re'i Zeh" - the characteristics of this one are unlike the characteristics of this one, and vice versa; but the "Tzad ha'Shaveh" - the common denominator - teaches us that the derivation is valid. This process can continue, with the Gemara asking a Pirchah upon the common denominator and attempting to introduce yet a third comparison that will solidify the Tzad ha'Shaveh.
(e)Rava explains that any one of the Avos Nezikin of our Mishnah together with Bor form a Mah ha'Tzad from which we would be able to derive most of the others. A Bor does not move in order to cause damage (Ein Darko Leilech ul'Hazik), which would imply that the other Avos, which do move in order to cause damage, would certainly obligate one to pay. On the other hand, a Bor is likely to cause damage from when it is first dug in a public domain (Techilas Asiyaso l'Nezek), as opposed to Shen, Regel, Adam, and Esh. This is where the any of the other Avos comes in, since each of them, too, is not liable to cause damage when first placed in a public domain. Each of these other Avos, however, has a unique characteristic that would seem to be a reason why it and it alone would obligate one to pay: Shen damages in a way that is beneficial for the animal (Yesh Hana'ah l'Hezeiko), Regel is very common (Hezeiko Matzuy), and Esh is liable to damage even that which is not fit for fuel (such as earth and clay vessels) (Mu'edes la'Echol Bein she'Ra'uy Lah Bein she'Eino Ra'uy Lah). A Bor does not share any of these characteristics. The common denominator of Bor and any other Av is that they both cause damage, belong to their owner, and it is incumbent upon their owner to guard them. this would include all other Avos as well.
25)[line 4]לבר מקרןL'VAR MI'KEREN- with the exception of Keren [since it is unlike all of the others]
26)[line 4]למיפרךL'MIFRACH- to pose a logical difference
27)[line 8]להלכותיהןL'HILCHOSEIHEN- to [teach] those laws [that pertain to] them [individually, but not to the others]
28)[line 10]לפטור בו את הכלים... לפטור בו את האדםLI'FTOR BO ES HA'KELIM... LI'FTOR BO ES HA'ADAM- to exempt [one from paying] for vessels [which fell in a pit] ... to exempt [one from paying] for [damages sustained by] a person [who fell in a pit] (see Mishnah, 52a, and ensuing Gemara)
29)[line 13]לפטור בו את הטמוןLI'FTOR BO ES HA'TAMUN- to exempt [one from paying] for that which is hidden [inside of another item, such as a haystack, which was burned by a fire] (see 60a)