"They honored (Chizkiyahu) in his death" - they learned by his grave.

R. Nasan and Rabanan argued about whether they learned for three days or for seven, or according to another version, for 30 days.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "They honored (Chizkiyahu) in his death" - 36,000 people with bare shoulders (from having torn their garments) walked in front of him;

R. Nechemyah: They did the same for Achav (surely, the verse discusses a greater honor for Chizkiyahu)!

Rather, they put a Sefer Torah on his bed, and said that he fulfilled all that is written in it.

Question: Also we do that nowadays!

Answer #1: We take out a Sefer Torah, but we do not put it on the bed.

Answer #2: We put it on the bed, but we do not say that he fulfilled all that is written in it.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): I asked R. Yochanan about this. He needed to relieve himself. He didn't answer until he washed his hands, put his Tefilin back on and blessed on them.

Answer #3 (R. Yochanan): We even say that one fulfilled the Torah, but we do not say that he taught Torah.

Question: Learning is great because it leads to fulfilling (this shows that fulfilling is greater)!

Answer: Fulfilling is greater than learning, but teaching is greater than fulfilling.

(R. Yochanan): "Happy are you who put seeds on all water, who send oxen and donkeys (to thresh and carry the grain)" - anyone who engages in Torah and Chesed merits the inheritance of two tribes;

"Putting seeds" is Tzedakah - "sow for yourselves Tzedakah; you will reap according to the Chesed (that Hash-m will do for you)";

"Water" refers to Torah - "all who are thirsty, go to water".

Version #1: They merit a canopy (to be blessed with many children) like Yosef, "Ben Poras Yosef Banos Tza'adah Alei Shor" and wealth like Yisachar, "Yisachar Chamor Garem";

Version #2: Their enemies fall in front of them, like Yosef, "(Bechor Shoro...) ba'Hem Amim Yenagach", and they merit understanding like Yisachar, "umi'Bnei Yisachar Yod'ei Vinah..."

(Mishnah): How is Regel Mu'ad? A Behemah (animal) is Mu'ad to break things when it walks normally.

If it was kicking, or pebbles were being strewn by its feet and Kelim were broken, it pays half- damage.

If it trampled on a Kli and broke it, and (fragments) broke another Kli, it pays full damage for the first Kli, and half-damage for the second.

Chickens are Mu'ad to walk normally and break things;

If something was tied to its leg, or if it was dancing and broke Kelim, it pays half-damage.

(Gemara - Ravina) Question: Why does the Mishnah switch from 'Regel' to 'Behemah'?

Answer (Rava): Regel is the Av. Other parts of the animal are the Toldos.

Question (Ravina): The Seifa of our Mishnah (19b) switches from 'Shen' to 'Behemah'. What Toldos of Shen does it refer to?

Answer (Rav Ashi): It refers to Shen of Chayos (wild animals) and Behemos.

One might have thought that "he will send Be'iro" refers only to a Behemah. The Tana teaches that this is not so. 'Be'iro' includes Chayos.

Question: The Mishnah should teach Behemah before (Shen, which alludes to) Chayos!

Answer: The Torah did not explicitly teach Chayos. The Tana needed to expound it (we find that Devarim 14:4 says "Behemah", and includes Chayos). Therefore it is dear to him, so he taught it first.

Question: If so, also regarding Regel, the Tana should first teach other parts of the animal, which the Torah did not explicitly teach!

Answer #1: Regarding Shen, both are Avos, so he lists first the one that is not explicit;

Regarding Regel, it is improper to list the Toldah (its body) before the Av (the Regel)!

Answer #2: Since the previous Mishnah (15b) concluded with Regel, our Mishnah begins with Regel.

(Beraisa): An animal is Mu'ad to walk normally and break things;

If it entered the victim's premises, it pays full damage for damage any of the following: its body or hair as it walked; its saddle, bag, bridle in its mouth, or bell on its neck; a donkey with its load;

Sumchus says, the following pay full damage: pebbles, or a pig that was digging with its snout in the waste- heap and damaged.

Question: If a pig damaged, of course it pays full damage!

Answer: Rather, it strewed up refuse and damaged.

Question: Why does Sumchus mention pebbles? The first Tana did not discuss this!

Answer: The Beraisa is abbreviated. It means as follows: for pebbles kicked up normally, it pays half- damage. If a pig was digging and strewed up refuse and damaged, it pays half-damage;

Sumchus says, these cases pay full damage.

(Beraisa): If chickens fluttered from place to place and broke Kelim with their wings - they pay full damage;

If the wind from their wings broke the Kelim, they pay half-damage;

Sumchus says, they pay full damage.

(Beraisa): If chickens were dancing on a dough or fruits and dirtied or pecked holes in them, they pay full damage;

If they kicked up dirt or pebbles, they pay half- damage;

Sumchus says, they pay full damage.

(Beraisa): If a chicken was fluttering from place to place, and wind from its wings broke Kelim, it pays half- damage.

This anonymous Mishnah is like Chachamim.

(Rava): We understand Sumchus. He holds that impetus (the damager set something in motion, and it damaged) is like bodily damage.

Question: If Chachamim hold that it is like bodily damage, they should obligate full damage. If it is unlike bodily damage, it should be exempt!

Answer (Rava): It is like bodily damage. A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that one pays only half for damage caused by pebbles that the animal kicks ("Tzeroros").

(Rava): Any case in which a Zav is Metamei (i.e. touching), a similar case of damage pays full damage. Any case in which a Zav is not Metamei (e.g. an object hit by something he threw), a similar case of damage pays half- damage.

Question: Does Rava just teach the law of Tzeroros?!

Answer: No. He teaches about a calf pulling a wagon (it pays full damage if the wagon damages, and half-damage if it strews up pebbles and they damage).

Support (Beraisa): An animal is Mu'ad to break things as it walks. If it entered the victim's premises, it pays full damage for damage by its body... or a calf pulling a wagon.

(Beraisa): If chickens were pecking at the rope of a bucket, and the rope snapped and the bucket broke, they pay full damage.

Question (Rava): If an animal stepped on a Kli, and it rolled to another place and broke there, what is the law?

Does it depend on the beginning, and it is like bodily damage (since it stepped on the Kli)?

Or, does it depend on when it breaks, and it is like Tzeroros (since the animal was not touching it when it broke)?

Question: He should learn from Rabah's law!

(Rabah): If Reuven threw a Kli off the roof, and Shimon broke in it mid-air with a stick, Shimon is exempt, for it was already (destined to be) broken. (This shows that it depends on the beginning!)

Answer: Rava was unsure whether or not Rabah's law is true.

Answer #1 (Beraisa): Dancing (of chickens) is not Mu'ad;

Some say, it is Mu'ad.

Objection: Surely, dancing is Mu'ad!

Correction: Rather, if chickens danced and kicked a Kli (and it broke elsewhere); the two Tana'im hold like the two sides of Rava's doubt.

Rejection: No, the Beraisa discusses when it strewed up pebbles, i.e. the argument of Sumchus and Chachamim.